Sitting of 20 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Question
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Family Benefits
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families receive family credit; and how many received family income supplement in 1978–79.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): I am pleased to tell the House that at the end of February 1991 there were 322,000 families in receipt of family credit—a figure more than four times higher than the 79,000 families who were in receipt of family income supplement in February 1979. The figure is the latest available, but does not fully reflect the full effects of the recent advertising campaign.
    Mr. Greenway: Is not this increase in the number of families receiving special help through family credit—more than four times the number who used to receive the old family income supplement — a vindication of the Government's policy of introducing this rather better structured benefit? Will my hon. Friend undertake a review of the arrangements for claims by self-employed people on low incomes, many of whom find the process of claiming onerous and taxing? Does he agree that if the Government streamlined the application process that would show their clear commitment to helping low-income families facing genuine hardship?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his commendation of family credit. He asked specifically about the structure of the benefit. It may be worth reflecting that 65 per cent. of people on the benefit receive £20 a week or more, 30 per cent. receive £a week or more and 17 per cent. receive £a week or more. Forty-five per cent. of the self-employed get £50 a week or more. I assure my hon. Friend that work is under way at the university of York to investigate the matters to which he referred.
    Mr. Battle: Do not those figures show that more people need family credit because of an increase in poverty resulting from low pay? Will the Minister tell us the percentage uptake of family credit? That would be the key figure.
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman is something of an expert on social security and he will know that not until the publication of the 1989 family expenditure survey will an
    622
    accurate figure be available to answer his question. However, I can tell him that, as a result of our advertising campaign, claims are running at an all-time high of about 20,000 a week. I like to think that that reflects improved awareness of the excellence of the structure of family credit.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend tell the House exactly how much money the taxpayer is spending on such support? Will he confirm that the Opposition thought that the benefit should be allowed to "wither on the vine"? What will people claiming the benefit do if that happens?
    Mr. Jack: I assure my hon. Friend that, far from allowing this excellent credit to wither on the vine, we have fertilised its roots. The uptake is growing considerably and we estimate that we shall spend some £543 million on it this year.

    Dietary Requirements
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research into dietary requirements he took into account in setting income support levels.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Income support, which was introduced in April 1988, is structured to provide extra benefit to groups facing the greatest pressures. Those groups were identified by the Department's analysis of low-income groups and the findings of a research survey commissioned by the Government from the Policy Studies Institute.
    Mr. Cohen: Does the Minister acknowledge that income support levels are miserably low when set against nutritional needs? The poor get ripped off for the food that they have to buy. It may be cheap, but it is of poor quality. Families in my constituency tell me that on present income support levels they cannot afford to get take-away fish and chips once a month. Does not that tell the Minister that there is something fishy about income support levels? They are too low.
    Miss Widdecombe: Our medical advice is that there is no reason why someone on income support should not be able to follow a normal and healthy diet. Where a general practitioner decides that it is in a patient's interests to have an additional special diet, it is available on prescription. The hon. Gentleman will know that prescriptions for those on income support are free.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will my hon. Friend examine one technical problem that arises —that of people faced with bringing up a family on their own? If people in that unhappy position go back to school or take up training, they lose income support and that puts them in a dreadful Catch-22 situation. Can the problem be redressed?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be aware that responsibilities for maintaining young people in education and for supplying training to older people reside respectively with my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment. Training, employment and education are vital in enabling people to become free of state benefits and to go back to work. I assure my hon. Friend that much attention is directed to the problem that he mentions.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister confirm that people with AIDS could receive £30 a week before April 1988 for a special diet and nothing afterwards? Has the Department yet replied to Naomi Wayne, of the Terrence Higgins Trust, about the misuse of Anita MacDonald's research? Will she comment on Katie Peck's research, which showed that a high-protein, high-calorie therapeutic diet for people with symptomatic HIV in London now costs £42 a week? Why should they be left to complain that they are literally dying for want of the help that was available before April 1988?
    Miss Widdecombe: I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago —that those who need special additions which cannot be provided within a normal diet can obtain them on prescription. Our medical advice is that a high-calorie, high-protein diet can be achieved within the support that we are currently making available. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not likely to be overlooked and we have the matter under constant review.

    Low-Income Families
    Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any estimate of the number of low-income families facing marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent.(a) in 1978–79 and (b) for the latest year for which figures are available.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): As a result of the social security reforms, virtually no families have marginal deduction rates of over 100 per cent. in 1991–92. In 1985, 70,000 families had potential deduction rates of over 100 per cent. The 1985 figure is the earliest available.
    Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he confirm that the latest figures on low incomes show that families with children in the bottom fifth of income distribution received increases in income of 19 per cent. in real terms between 1981 and 1987? Does not this give the lie to much false propaganda about the poor getting poorer under the Conservative Governments?
    Mr. Newton: I can certainly confirm my right hon. Friend's figure, which is drawn directly from last week's Select Committee report on low incomes. It helps to put in perspective some of the wilder and more misleading claims by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that some people in the very low income groups are poorer as a result of increases in fixed costs, such as water rates, which have gone up by 50 per cent. in Wales in the past two years? Will he undertake to examine methods of helping low-income people suffering from high water rates to see whether, in parallel with changes on the introduction of the council tax, something analogous to community charge benefit might be introduced?
    Mr. Newton: To take the latter part of the question first, I am not sure that I would want to go down the path of adding to the complexity of our benefit structure a water rate benefit, because it would give rise to questions whether there should be an electricity or gas benefit, or benefits for other charges. The right course is to take
    624
    account of all these things when we look at the annual increase in benefits and that is something that I always keep under review.
    Mr. Meacher: What is the point of boasting about lower marginal deduction rates when, according to the Select Committee figures that the Secretary of State cited a moment ago, the incomes of the poorest 5 million people have, after three periods of Tory Government, fallen by an average of 6·2 per cent? Is not it an obscenity that the numbers of people with less than half average incomes has more than doubled since 1979, yet the salaries of Social Security Ministers, who are supposed to meet the needs of such people have risen over the same period by more than 240 per cent? As the Government believe in performance-related pay, is not it high time that the Secretary of State apologised for his failure by taking a massive cut in his pay?
    Mr. Newton: All that the hon. Gentleman has done in the past few seconds is to do what he did last week —use the figures on a basis that the Select Committee and the Institute of Fiscal Studies, both of which are independent of the Government, warned is not the most sensible and proper way to use the figures. The Select Committee report says:
    "Real disposable incomes grew by more than 30 per cent. between 1979 and 1988, with increases in real income being seen at all levels of the income scale."
    The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that.

    Invalid Care Allowance
    Mr. Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have benefited from increases in the earnings disregard in invalid care allowance in the last two years.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The number of people getting invalid care allowance and declaring earnings has more than doubled since March 1990.
    Mr. Norris: Given the eminent good sense of helping those who want to care for disabled people to do so at home, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that the number of those who can claim an allowance while caring for invalids at home rose from 5,000 when the Government came into office to over 125,000 last year. Given the evident success of enhancing the earnings disregard, which last year more than doubled the number of people who are able to claim it while working, will my right hon. Friend take on board the idea of extending the earnings disregard principle further?
    Mr. Scott: We monitor this carefully. It is worth reminding the House that expenditure has increased from £4 million in 1978–79 to £213 million in 1990–91. That shows our concern for those who care for the most severely disabled. I am equally convinced that generous earnings allowances encourage the carers to join or remain in employment.

    Lone Parents
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the lastest available figures for the proportion of lone parents who receive maintenance.
    Mr. Newton: Research undertaken in 1989 in connection with the White Paper "Children Come First" shows that only 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers receive regular maintenance.
    Mr. Greenway: Is not it time that fathers —and mothers where appropriate—took responsibility for their children after walking out on them, rather than expecting society to fund their responsibilities to the tune of billions of pounds?
    Mr. Newton: In a word, yes. I am glad that we shall, I hope, make substantial further progress in that direction with the Child Support Bill, which received its Third Reading in another place last week and which I hope will be debated here before too long.
    Mr. Frank Field: As the Government have allowed, over the past 11 years, the near-collapse of the payment of maintenance from fathers and mothers on supplementary benefit income support, I welcome their 11th-hour conversion. Will the Minister give an undertaking that any moneys that are gained by the payment of this maintenance will be ploughed back into the social security budget and not paid back to the Treasury?
    Mr. Newton: I would not wish to be taken as accepting the way in which the hon. Gentleman put the first part of his supplementary question. Substantial efforts were made over the two or three years before the Child Support Bill was put before Parliament to increase the amount of maintenance moneys being collected. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we need to consider all the relevant factors together. Large additional sums of benefit have been directed towards low-income families, including lone-parent families, for many years. We wish to ensure that there is a proper balance between what the taxpayer finds and what is found by others.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners own their own homes; and whether he has made any estimate of how this is likely to change over the next 20 years.
    Miss Widdecombe: The latest information shows that, in 1987, 49 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes compared with only 40 per cent. in 1979. As an even higher proportion of younger people now own their own homes, we have every reason to believe that that upward trend will continue into the next century.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend will agree that the figures bear testament to the Government's positive action to encourage home ownership. As increased home ownership works through into the pensioner age group over the next decade, the next two decades and onwards, will my hon. Friend do everything in her power to encourage policies that will enable the asset value of home ownership to be uesd to help pensioners in their later years when they need every penny of income that they can get?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are already schemes to help pensioners to use the capital asset of their homes where that would help them because their current income is restricted. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. As I have said, there are already such policies and they will continue to be produced.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that over the past 10 years we have taken great steps forward to improve security for pensioners in terms of their income, their homes and their persons? Will she confirm that there has been a great increase in home ownership and an increase in telephone links to those homes, from 50 to over 80 per cent? Will she consider further ways of extending that and other home security measures so that pensioners feel that they have security at home as well as in the street?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there has been an increase in all forms of pensioners' income. There was a 31 per cent. rise in pensioners' incomes during the first eight years of this Government. There has been a substantial increase in the ownership of telephones and of all consumer goods by pensioners. In general, there has been a rise in the economic position of pensioners, including their savings, income and home ownership.
    Mr. Skinner: I did not rise earlier, Mr. Speaker, because of trouble with the cruciate ligament in my left knee.
    Bearing in mind the fact that there are about 70,000 home repossessions a year, may I ask the Minister how many pensioners have had their homes repossessed? Given the consequent difficulties for local authorities, will the hon. Lady have a word with the appropriate Minister in the Department of the Environment to ensure that local authorities are able to rehouse pensioners whose homes have been repossessed? The authorities have not had the money to build houses and bungalows for those people.
    Miss Widdecombe: Only 4 per cent. of pensioners are still paying a mortgage. All other pensioners who own their homes own them outright. The problem of repossessions is not as great among pensioners as it is in the rest of the population.
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have some form of private income to top up the state pension and benefits.
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that in 1987 a total of 84 per cent. of pensioners received some form of income other than the retirement pension and associated state benefits.
    Mr. Moss: Does my hon. Friend agree that those excellent and revealing statistics underline yet again the encouragement that the Government have given to people to save for their retirement? Is she aware that that resulted in a major increase in pensioners' incomes of about 31 per cent. between 1979 and 1987?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and more than half all pensioners now enjoy the benefits of an occupational pension. As an even larger percentage of recently retired pensioners have occupational pensions, there is every prospect of increasing independence among the elderly.
    Mr. Winnick: Why should there be any room for complacency when, on the Government's own figures, two thirds of all pensioners have incomes of less than£5,000 a year? When will the Government apologise £if ever —for the way in which, 10 years ago, they broke the link between pensions and earnings? As a consequence, a married pensioner couple is now £24 a week worse off and a single pensioner £14 a week worse off. That is directly attributable to the actions of a Tory Government.
    Miss Widdecombe: I see no reason to apologise for a 31 per cent. rise in pensioners' incomes, when all that a Labour Government could manage was a 3 per cent. increase —and that despite the operation of an earnings link. That proves that it is not an earnings link that matters, but the overall state of the economy.
    Mrs. Roe: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that many people are anxious to learn the Government's views on equalisation of the state pension age and the implications that that will have for private pension schemes. Can my hon. Friend say what action has been taken by other countries in the European Community and whether we might learn a lesson from it?
    Miss Widdecombe: For some time, the Government have been committed in principle to equalisation of pension ages. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that it presents immense practical economic, demographic and social difficulties. We maintain our commitment to equalisation and the question of pensionable age is being debated throughout Europe. Many European countries are considering proposals for raising the pensionable age to achieve equalisation. We are not ready to present detailed proposals, but we are committed in principle to that very important policy.
    Mr. Allen McKay: When considering pensioners' incomes, will the Government consider not only the numbers involved but the amounts payable? Many thousands of elderly people receive a very small pension, so can the Under-Secretary confirm that it is not the Government's intention to means-test benefits or state pensions?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is precisely because we recognise the huge variety of income levels among the elderly that we target resources at the poorer pensioner. It is also why, over the past two years, we have directed £280 million in additional support at the poorer pensioner. Even those above the income support line have available to them housing benefit, community charge benefit, free NHS prescriptions and other benefits that are available in full to those who are on income support. Our policies acknowledge that there is not a homogeneous income level among the elderly and, accordingly, direct assistance towards those most in need.

    National Insurance
    Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals would be affected by the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.
    Mr. Newton: Based on 1990–91 figures, if the upper earnings limit for employees' national insurance contributions were removed, it is estimated that about 3·4 million people would pay more in contributions. If the corresponding upper profits limit for self-employed people were also removed, it is estimated that about another 0·5 million people would also pay more in contributions.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend draw attention to the fact that the vast increases in social security payments and health service expenditure that occur almost every year are funded not by any special taxes but from the wealth of the nation —which is created
    628
    only by Conservatives? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that because of the ceiling placed on national insurance contributions advanced by the Opposition, one seventh of the working population would have to pay additional taxes?
    Mr. Newton: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The more rapid economic growth achieved over the past decade under the present Government has been a crucial factor in enabling greater spending on both health and social security and in reversing some of the cuts in the hospital capital building programme that were made by the previous Labour Government. It is becoming clearer by the day that a significant part of the population —including senior nurses, managers and middle-managers, experienced teachers and many others—would be hit very hard by Labour's proposals for financing some of their promises.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Secretary of State agree that many people earning £20,000, £30,000, £100,000 or £1 million a year see the justice of paying national insurance contributions on all their income? They see the justice because they know that it will fund an increase in pensions for the single pensioner of £5 a week and for the couple of £8 a week, with index linking thereafter, as well as restoring child benefit to its 1987 level. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that national insurance payers are annoyed because they are having to fork out an extra £6 billion a year to pay for the Secretary of State's scheme to get people to opt out of state sector pensions and into private pension plans?
    Mr. Newton: Very large numbers of those who will be expected to pay sizeable imposts under the Labour party's proposals will feel that there is no reason why they should pay increased national insurance contributions to finance a non-national insurance benefit, which has never before been paid out of the national insurance fund—child benefit. For the first time, they will apparently be expected to pay large amounts in national insurance contributions, for which they will gain no benefit.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what long-term savings he expects to make as a result of the operation of the Child Support Agency.
    Mr. Jack: It is expected that the agency's operation will reduce the taxpayer's expenditure on benefit by an additional £400 million per year in the long term. That is in addition to the benefit savings presently being achieved of £180 million.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that many women, and some men, in my constituency of Basildon are valiantly bringing up families on their own, with no support from their former partners and that they are delighted with the Government's legislative proposals? I accept the impressiveness of the figures which my hon. Friend announced, but will he take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Child Support Agency is not just to do with saving money on the overall expenditure on benefits?
    Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his considerable interest in this subject. He has corresponded

    629
    with me on behalf of the women's refuge and battered wives' home in his constituency. I should like to reassure him and the House that this is not merely about benefit savings. First and foremost, it is about establishing a line of responsibility for maintenance by absent fathers for their children. It is also a pathway to the future for some of those lone parents who wish to go back to work through the changes that we are making to family credit by reducing the number of hours from 24 to 16, thus making this benefit much more accessible to them, and giving them £15 of any maintenance recovered in the form of a disregard at that time.
    Mr. Janner: Is there any hope of any of that£400 million saved being used for day nurseries or other facilities so that lone parents who wish to go back to work can afford to do so? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the problem is not merely the award of maintenance but its collection? Many women who are back at work and earning about as much as they need to pay the babysitter have no financial help, no resources, no offer from the Government and not much hope for the future.
    Mr. Jack: There is hope for the future. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned collection. The Child Support Agency will be powerful and fully equipped, both administratively and with information technology, to do the job of collecting maintenance. I have said that the women to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred would be on family credit and I have described the improvements in that benefit which will arise in parallel with this measure. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to example 10 in the White Paper, "Children Come First", where he will see well exemplified the point which he draws to my attention, showing that women will be better off in work with family credit as we propose it.
    Mr. Lester: Although I welcome the principle of the Child Support Bill, will my hon. Friend also take account of the fact that many fathers are denied access to their children because of marital difficulties and that one reason why they do not support their children is that their previous spouse may make it difficult for them to play a part in their children's upbringing? Will he bear it in mind that that factor is critical when striking a balance? Fathers should support children, but they should also have a part to play in their upbringing.
    Mr. Jack: There have been many representations to the Government on the Child Support Bill and that matter. We have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Access arrangements are entirely matters for the courts during, for example, divorce proceedings. I certainly would not like financial help for children to be used as a lever, to a child's detriment.

    Independent Living Fund
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last had discussions with voluntary bodies on the future of the independent living fund.
    Mr. Scott: I have received representations from many bodies on the future of the independent living fund. We will of course, take them into account when making decisions about the future of the fund.
    Mr. McFall: The Government set up the independent living fund as a knee-jerk response to repressive social security legislation in 1987. There will be no future for disabled people after 1992, and the Minister knows that. I have received representations from many disabled people. They know that the budget is cash limited instead of being dependent on need. When will the Minister have a decent answer for disabled people, so that they will have a future, just like able-bodied people in our society?
    Mr. Scott: I should have expected a harangue rather than a proper question about the future of the independent living fund. As the hon. Gentleman knows, between its inception and this financial year, we have increased expenditure on the fund tenfold to meet the needs of severely disabled people. We shall listen carefully to the arguments when we debate Lords amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill tomorrow, and we look forward to responding then.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of disabled people and of those who are interested in their welfare on the establishment of the fund and on the huge tenfold increase in Government funding? Does he accept that voluntary organisations are concerned about the future of special funding for the 7,000 or 8,000 severely disabled people who are helped by the fund because after 1993 responsibility is likely to pass to local authorities? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that funds will be available from local authorities when that change takes place?
    Mr. Scott: As I said to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), we shall have an extended opportunity tomorrow to consider that matter when we discuss Lords amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill. I look forward to responding more fully then. I recognise the importance of ensuring that, after 1993, proper arrangements are made to cope with the needs of severely disabled people.
    Mr. Frank Field: Can the Government name a single organisation that supports the proposal to wind up the fund in 1993?
    Mr. Scott: In making that point, the hon. Gentleman prejudges the arrangements that will be made for either existing or new cases. The vast majority —indeed, the totality —of those who represent disabled people are anxious that proper arrangements are made after 1993 to ensure that the needs of disabled people are properly taken into account.

    Low-income Families
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of low-income families which faced marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. in 1978–79 and the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of low-income families which faced marginal deduction rates in excess of 100 per cent. in 1978–79 and the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Newton: I refer my hon. Friends to the reply that I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) earlier today.
    Mr. Sumberg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. His earlier answer set out our commendable record. Is he aware that this weekend the Labour party dropped its pledge to low-income families to introduce a lower rate of tax for the poorest in our community? Is not that another example of the chaos and confusion in the Labour party on its proposals to help the lowest paid?
    Mr. Newton: It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand the Labour party's commitments on these matters, except that they would clearly cost an amount that the country could not afford.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that on taking office in 1979 we found that one of the worst effects of the previous Labour Government was that many people would have been better off on the dole although they were working long, hard hours in low-paid jobs? Does he agree that the Government's great achievement is that they tackled that problem with a combination of better family credit payments and reductions in taxation for the low paid? It would be a great shame if a future Government were to reverse that.
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. One of the worst defects of the social security system as we originally found it was that it did not pay large numbers of people to work at all. That is not satisfactory from anyone's point of view, including that of those people. I regard the fact that we have reduced that number so greatly as a major gain.
    Mr. Pike: Is not the Secretary of State concerned about low-income families who may be forced to take out an essential loan and then find that the capital for that loan is taken into account as income, thereby losing them their entitlement to benefit? Is not that wrong and does not it penalise low-income families?
    Mr. Newton: I must admit that I am not certain what point the hon. Gentleman is making. However, the availability of interest-free loans under the social security system in certain circumstances is an important advantage to many people compared with people just above the social security income support level who have to borrow at commercial rates.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister aware of a written reply that I received from his Department recently which set out a table of the marginal benefit increases for earnings between £100 and £150 a week? That table revealed the extraordinary fact that an average family with two children paying average rent and average poll tax and with entitlement to benefit would receive, if its income rose from £100 to £120, a benefit increase of £2·12 a week. Those getting what seems like a windfall increase from £100 to £150 a week would have a real increase in income of less than £7 a week out of £50. They are incredible marginal rates compared to those for top earners. What does the Minister propose to do to give a real incentive to those low-paid people who are so hard hit by the system as it stands?
    Mr. Newton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman extend his researches from the unemployment trap, which started
    632
    these exchanges, to the poverty trap, which is the result of the high marginal deduction rates to which he referred. There, too, he will find that, because of the changes that we have made, the numbers of people subject to the highest marginal deduction rate —80 per cent. and above —have been drastically reduced.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Guildford and Woolwich Bombings
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Sir John May to complete his inquiry with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Sir John May to complete his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich case extends to the Maguire convictions. He is expected to resume his inquiry into this aspect once the Maguire appeal is decided. He cannot complete his investigation of the circumstances surrounding the convictions of the Guildford and Woolwich defendants until criminal proceedings against members of the Surrey police force have been concluded.
    Mr. Banks: Is it not a fact that the Birmingham and Guildford stitch-ups have done great damage to the concept of British justice? The people want someone brought to account for those perversions of justice. We are talking not about humble coppers at the bottom, but about the people right at the top. Will the Attorney-General give a guarantee that if Sir John May's inquiries point the finger at Lords Havers, Donaldson and Roskill, he will not nobble Sir John May?
    The Attorney-General: I regret the language with which the hon. Gentleman referred to cases which are now sub judice. He said that the British people are anxious to get justice. That will be done according to the rules and not to prejudged statements, which are not helpful. Last week, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police delivered a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As I said in my earlier answer, proceedings are now in train against certain former members of the Surrey police regarding the Guildford case.
    Mr. Cohen: It is not a matter of language but of people being imprisoned falsely and of the people who did that having a cover-up in their favour. Will the Attorney-General confirm that the original convictions were based on false confessions and phoney forensic evidence? Have not the Government and other influential figures within the state been keen for Sir John May's inquiry to be half-hearted and slowed down? Is not the reason for that the fact that many senior police and legal officers, including people in the DPP, knew right from the start of the case that innocent people had been convicted?
    The Attorney-General: The Court of Appeal has allowed appeals in the Guildford and Woolwich cases, as well as in respect of the Birmingham matter. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can sensibly expect me to go beyond the words of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in each case. As for his remarks about the purpose of those

    633
    who set up Sir John May's inquiry, I can give an authoritative answer, as I was one of them. The answer is no.
    Mr. Favell: Every conviction of an innocent person is a tragedy, not only for the person concerned but for his or her family and, of course, for the British judicial system. But it is also a tragedy when a person guilty of crimes as abhorrent as these gets away scot free. People worked hard to establish the innocence of those who were convicted. How much help has my right hon. and learned Friend received from these people to identify those who were guilty of the crimes?
    The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question. Those who have had their appeals allowed in these circumstances are entitled to the presumption of innocence, as is everybody else in this country. Equally, of course, when very serious crimes go unpunished, that is a very serious matter, and very much against the interests of justice. My hon. Friend made his point in the concluding part of his question.
    Mr. Hind: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members, in their capacity as members of the British-Irish parliamentary body, have been to Dublin and had discussions with members of the Dail and senior Ministers in the Irish Government about the Birmingham, Guildford and Woolwich cases? The Irish authorities are more than happy about the result and recognise the strength of the British legal system in its ability to rectify mistakes, regrettable as they are. It is a credit to the system that that has been achieved.
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, I know, takes close interest in these matters. I have close contact with Dublin—particularly with my opposite number —and I know that there is ready appreciation there of the fact that the judicial system in this country led to the overturning of these convictions. There is also very ready understanding of the fact that all criminal justice systems depend upon the quality of the evidence that is presented.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General confirm that, despite Sir John May's membership of the royal commission, the Government expect him to move swiftly to establish the facts and to report as quickly as possible? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that Sir John's report on the facts will not be subsumed in the royal commission's inquiry into wider policy or procedural questions? Can the Attorney-General say when the trial of the three police officers will take place? Can he assure the House that those trials will not be unduly delayed and that, in respect of those aspects of Sir John's inquiry, there are no other complications and that we can expect interim reports?
    The Attorney-General: I am glad that Sir John May has agreed to serve on the royal commission. There is very widespread admiration for the quality of the work of his inquiry so far. The appointment of the royal commission will not preclude a very full inquiry by Sir John into the Guildford, Woolwich and Maguire matters. I cannot say when prosecutions, if any, will take place, but no one is the slightest hit anxious to delay any matter of this kind.

    Birmingham Pub Bombings
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received concerning the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: I have received correspondence from one member of the public about this case since the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment.
    Mr. McFall: Does the Attorney-General realise that, in 1975, the trial judge Lord Bridge, said that if the Birmingham Six were telling the truth, the police were involved in one of the greatest conspiracies in the annals of history? At the Appeal Court two months ago, it was stated that 14 police officers lied or their evidence was unreliable. One of the police officers is a superintendent in the complaints department of West Midlands police. When will the Attorney-General take action so that the criminal justice system can be seen to be upright and clean, and British justice can hold its head up high?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman must have missed what I said a few minutes ago. Last week, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police delivered a report on the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

    Industrial Espionage
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy in cases of industrial espionage.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): English law contains no specific offence of industrial espionage, but those engaging in such conduct may incur criminal liability, depending on the circumstances. The decision whether to prosecute in any particular case is taken in accordance with the code for crown prosecutors.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Attorney-General discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions the case of Mr. Gordon Layton of National Car Parks and of Jane Turpin of KAS, a security company, and the allegations made about their activities? They are alleged to have committed industrial espionage and to have stolen documents. Will there be a prosecution in that case?
    The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General and I do not make public our discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, on the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, investigations are continuing but a report has not yet been received by the director.
    Mr. David Martin: When and if my right hon. and learned Friend has an opportunity to raise with the Director of Public Prosecutions matters of industrial espionage, will he also see whether action can be taken against the perpetrators of notoriously false literature that circulated at a recent by-election? Should not the matter be investigated urgently before the perpetrators have a chance to flee the country?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that I have already heard the Opposition make a statement from the dock on "Today" this morning.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Brazil
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister for Overseas Development to Brazil.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit to Brazil by the Minister for Overseas Development.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My second visit provided an important opportunity to see the environmental projects under our bilateral programme, and to discuss further co-operation with key Brazilian Ministers, scientists and institutions. Together with the Minister for Environment, I attended the special environment seminar hosted by President Collor and HRH The Prince of Wales. This is helping to advance preparations for the United Nations conference on environment and development in Rio in 1992.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and the Environment Committee that the perception of those issues, the resources and technical expertise matter, and that it is no excuse to cut overseas aid to the third world when things go wrong?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right, but the Governments of the tropical states need to ensure that their perceptions of what is going on are up to date with the issues. Donors can help with resources and technical expertise, and we shall definitely do so.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: What help can donors give, and what help is the United Kingdom giving, to combat the growing urban problems in Brazil, such as the drift to the cities, slums and drug taking, which affect a quarter of all children in Brazil?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. That is a major issue. By the year 2000, 75 per cent. of the populations in Latin America and the Caribbean will be urban dwellers. We are giving them help in Olinda in Brazil and are exploring urban environmental management projects in Sao Paulo, and we have projects to help street children through the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Oxfam.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Lady's visit confirm her belief that before the House of Commons goes into recess, it should debate the well-researched Select Committee on the Environment report on the rain forests? I am not a member of that Committee, but I feel that our colleagues have done an excellent job and that the report should be debated. On the right hon. Lady's letter of 17 April to me, what further possibilities does she foresee for the work of Salati and Lutzenberger?
    Mrs. Chalker: I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate. As for my letter of 17 April, I have no more to report at present.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Minister say something about the problems that have beset many of the communities in Amazonia, where many of the laudable
    636
    projects presently supported by the Government are taking place and where there is open abuse of human rights, including murder and torture? Will she give an undertaking to the House that the next time she meets the Brazilian authorities she will tell them that the money that this country donates to research projects in Brazil will very much depend on Brazil's human rights record and that this country will take measures designed to wipe out those barbaric practices?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of what the hon. Gentleman says. I have already raised those issues with Brazilian Ministers, and shall do so again if necessary.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be aware that tropical rain forests contain many seeds and other products of great medicinal value, about which science is often as yet unaware. Bearing in mind that this country has Kew gardens and other institutes of worldwide renown, what assistance is it giving to the Brazilians to remove from the tropical rain forests, without damaging them, those products of great value which yield resources for the people in those districts?
    Mrs. Chalker: We have approved a host of environmental projects, including those related to aromatic plant development and flood plain ecology and managements. I can assure my hon. Friend that, in all our work, we seek to develop the whole bio-diversity of the forests, not just trees.

    Foreign Students
    37. Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of foreign postgraduate students who study in British universities helped by Her Majesty's Government grants.
    Mrs. Chalker: In 1990–91, Her Majesty's Government supported approximately 25,000 overseas students studying in the United Kingdom at a cost of £143 million. About 44 per cent.—11,000 students—were from non-Commonwealth countries. The majority of awards were at postgraduate level. We expect to maintain that level in the current year.
    Mr. Wray: When Ministers appeared before the House of Lords Select Committee in 1989, it showed some concern at the dwindling numbers. Will the Minister assure us, as she assured the Select Committee, that the Government will be giving more aid to organisations?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure to which figures the hon. Gentleman refers, but in each category of scholarship—the ODA, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British Council, Department of Education and Science and Department of Trade and Industry—the numbers have risen during the past five years, and I see no reason why that should change.
    Mr. Wells: Do my right hon. Friend's figures include the excellent Institute of Development Studies, which many postgraduate students have attended, which has established a world-renowned reputation and which the ODA supports to a considerable extent from its budget?
    Mrs. Chalker: The short answer is yes, and many other good institutions besides.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Minister acknowledge that during the past decade there has been a regrettable shift away from students from poorer overseas countries towards richer countries such as those in north America and the middle east? If that is true of the undergraduate population, is it also true of the postgraduate population?
    Mrs. Chalker: We believe that the undergraduate population should best be helped within its own countries and that more specialised training, which can rarely be afforded overseas, should be given in this country. That is why there are more postgraduate students here than there were some years ago, but fewer undergraduate students, who can benefit from the courses and technical co-operation that we give recipient countries through our aid programme.

    Disaster Relief
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision has been made for disaster relief in the ODA budget for this year.
    Mrs. Chalker: From within the existing aid budget for this financial year I have already allocated£94·5 million. On 29 April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a further £30 million addition to the aid budget.
    Today, I am pleased to announce a further £30 million addition to the aid budget to be used for humanitarian relief in Africa and Bangladesh. I now look to other donors to follow our lead.
    Mr. Campell-Savours: Perhaps I can be forgiven for asking the following question because you, Mr. Speaker, will know why I am asking it. Does the Minister have time to argue for moneys from the Treasury given that Mr. Andrew M. Smith, her former personal assistant, stated that it was impossible for the Minister to do a proper job for her own constituents?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is making a very snide point. The prospective parliamentary candidate for Cynon Valley asked questions about the time that the hon.
    638
    Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) spent in her constituency. I have made it clear that I spend every weekend that I can in my constituency, and I will continue to do so. I will not let the hon. Gentleman's remarks detract from thep £30 million extra, making £60 million extra for the aid budget in the first two months of this financial year.
    Mr. Wilshire: I have spent part of this morning at the warehouse at Heathrow airport which Heathrow Airport Ltd. has made available free of charge for storing clothes that are to go to Kurdistan. I know that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the tremendous job being done there. Is she aware that that warehouse is now full because of a lack of flights to get the donated goods to Iraq? Will she, therefore, meet me and others to see whether it is possible to make more arrangements for more mercy flights?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of what my hon. Friend says. It has been somewhat difficult with some of the clothing and other donations because they were not acceptable to the recipient Governments. We have done all that we can—and will continue to do so — to get relief supplies through as they are needed. I will, of course, meet my hon. Friend. However, the system on the whole is working well when the countries will accept the goods that have been donated.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister believe that economic circumstances now permit an increase in the overseas aid budget to 0·7 per cent. of gross national product, which is the United Nations target?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am interested to note that the shadow Treasury Minister, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), said yesterday on television:
    "0·7 per cent. is a goal and that we will do our best to meet it as resources allow."
    I find that rather at variance with what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is saying. As the shadow Treasury Minister replied that the interviewer was nitpicking, I must respond by saying that I do not think that an increase of £2,000 million, however worthy the cause, is nitpicking.

Further and Higher Education
3:31 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for education for all young people over the age of 16.
More young people than ever before are taking up education and training opportunities. Six out of 10 16-year-olds stayed on in full-time education last autumn compared with four out of 10 in 1979. Three out of four 17-year-olds are in education or training today compared with two out of four 10 years ago. One in five 18 and 19-year-olds now continue into higher education compared with one in eight 10 years ago. More adults are also taking advantage of the educational opportunities available. All 16 and 17-year-olds in this country have a guarantee of a place in full-time education or training if they choose to take advantage of it. We secure places for all those who wish to go on into higher education and who are suitably qualified.
We need to build on those achievements. That means developing more vocational qualifications of a standard that will win equal esteem with the best academic qualifications. It means giving schools, colleges and universities the institutional freedom and the necessary incentives to develop and respond to the demands of young people and of employers. The Government are setting themselves the aim of achieving mass participation in higher education, further education and training, while maintaining and enhancing present high standards.
The Government's proposals are contained in three White Papers which are being published today. The necessary legislation to implement the proposals will be brought before the House in due course.
I refer first to the White Paper entitled "Education and Training for the 21st Century" which I present to Parliament with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Wales. That sets out new policies for education and training after compulsory school age. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will describe the new training policies in a further statement to the House in a few moments, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is presenting his proposals in a separate White Paper.
The White Paper sets out in detail the Government's proposals for further education colleges and sixth-form colleges. As I announced to the House on 21 March, we intend that those colleges will become autonomous institutions outside local authority control.
The colleges will be funded by national Further Education Councils in England and in Wales. They will receive each year a core budget plus additional funds according to the actual number of students enrolled. In that way they will have a powerful incentive to recruit and retain additional students, both young people and adults. The councils will not manage the colleges. They will follow the model of the funding council that has so successfully steered the remarkable growth of the polytechnics after we freed them from the control of local government.
Vocational qualifications have for too long been misunderstood and undervalued in this country. The White Paper sets out how the introduction of a clear
640
structure of national vocational qualifications can be accelerated. The range of qualifications will meet the needs of students of all abilities. At level 3, they will be set at a high standard equivalent to A-levels.
A-levels are successful and well-respected examinations, which are being taken by steadily increasing numbers of pupils. I am determined to see them maintained and to control their development so that their high standard is preserved. I am writing today to the School Examinations and Assessment Council, setting out my views on the principles that should govern the development of A-level and AS-level examinations. Those principles are designed to ensure consistency of standards between AS-levels and A-levels and to provide a framework for increasing numbers of young people to pursue courses of academic study that can be broadened by increasing the take-up of AS-level examinations. A copy of my letter to SEAC has been placed in the Library of the House.
A-level and AS-level courses are not the only route to excellence and to higher education. We must do more to promote understanding among students, employers and higher education institutions of the value and quality of national vocational qualifications at equivalent standard. The Government have therefore decided to introduce new diplomas at advanced and ordinary levels. The advanced diploma will be awarded to students taking AS-levels and A-levels, to students gaining vocational qualifications of the same standard, and to students taking a mixture of the two. I intend to consult on the details later this summer.
The White Paper describes two further measures that are directed at schools. First, the Government intend to legislate to adjust the school leaving date. At present some 16-year-olds are able to leave school legally at Easter, before completing key stage 4 of the national curriculum and before their GCSE examinations. We shall introduce legislation to require all pupils to complete their studies at the end of the summer term. That will ensure that all pupils will have their level of attainment at the end of their compulsory education properly assessed.
Secondly, I believe that we should allow both schools and colleges of all kinds to broaden the range of courses and opportunities that they offer. The White Paper therefore announces the intention to introduce legislation that would enable school sixth forms to admit part-time students and adults. The main work of sixth forms will continue to be for young people studying full-time, but they will have greater freedom to take on other students if they wish and if there is room.
In higher education, we need to build on the successes of recent years. The academics in our universities may sometimes grumble, I know, but they are to be congratulated on their progress in expanding access to more students in recent years while maintaining the best academic standards in the developed world. The polytechnics and colleges, freed from the control of local authorities, have also demonstrated that rapid expansion and improvements in quality can go hand in hand. The Government congratulate the polytechnics and colleges on what they have achieved, particularly in widening access to higher education and in developing vocational courses. The formal distinctions between universities on the one hand and polytechnics and colleges on the other, known as the binary line, have, in my opinion, now become an

641
obstacle to further progress. The Government propose to abolish those distinctions and establish a single framework for higher education.
With my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, I am presenting to Parliament today a White Paper setting out the main features of our proposals for higher education.
First, we shall establish a single funding structure for universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education. In order to reflect particular needs in Scotland and Wales, there will be separate Higher Education Funding Councils in England, Scotland and Wales to distribute public funds for both teaching and research. New links will be established to continue the present close relationship with Northern Ireland's existing unitary structure.
Secondly, the Council for National Academic Awards has successfully brought the polytechnics and other major institutions to a position where they can offer degrees under their own quality control arrangements equal in standard to those offered by the universities. We propose therefore to extend degree-awarding powers to polytechnics and major institutions and to wind up the Council for National Academic Awards. We shall, however, look to universities, polytechnics and colleges to develop their own new quality audit arrangements on a United Kingdom-wide basis. We shall also require the Higher Education Funding Councils to establish quality assessment units to advise the councils on the relative quality of teaching and learning across institutions so that those judgments of quality can inform the distribution of public funding.
Thirdly, we shall extend the title of university to those polytechnics that wish to use it. It is our firm intention, nevertheless, that the present distinctive features of the polytechnics, with their particular emphasis on links with industry, vocational degree and sub-degree courses, and applied research, should be retained.
The Government believe that this new framework will provide for an expanding, thriving and diverse system of higher education in the United Kingdom. Our policies are designed to ensure that higher education continues to expand efficiently alongside improvements in quality. When we came into office only one in eight of the relevant age group went into higher education. Now it is one in five. By the end of this decade, we confidently expect one in three of all our young people to benefit from higher education of our traditional high quality.
I feel privileged to present these two White Papers to the House this afternoon. They will transform post-school education and training. They will enhance the esteem of vocational education. They will benefit ever-larger numbers of students, from all backgrounds and at all levels. Our policies pave the way for a better society and greater economic success. I commend them to the House.
Mr. Jack Straw: Despite all the public relations hype surrounding the publication of these White Papers, close examination of the statements will show that the Government are running out of ideas as quickly as they are running out of time.[Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a great deal of work lo do today.
Mr. Straw: We welcome the change in the school-leaving dates, for which we called in 1980, the change to allow part-time sixth formers to continue their education in sixth forms and, particularly, the establishment of a
642
single funding council for higher education, which has been Labour policy for years and which Ministers voted down three years ago.
The Secretary of State has just confirmed the removal from local control of the 557 further education, tertiary and sixth-form colleges of England and Wales and their enforced transfer to centralised control from Whitehall. Is the Secretary of State aware of the enormous opposition that those plans have aroused within his own party? What is his response to the views of many local authority Conservative leaders, including Mr. Tim MacNamara, the leader of Hampshire county council, who said on Friday that the Secretary of State was
"hell bent on destroying local education authorities without any idea of what to put in its place";
who complained of the Secretary of State's "government by denigration", and who said these changes were blighting all planning of 16 to 19 education? Was not the same Mr. MacNamara correct to accuse the Secretary of State of acting "for wholly doctrinal reasons"? Is not the Secretary of State showing the same doctrinal prejudice that so infected his stewardship of the national health service and has so damaged the Conservative party's electoral chances?
Is the Secretary of State aware that only three years ago, by section 120 of the Education Reform Act 1988, the Government imposed new duties on local education authorities in respect of further education? Ministers then expressed
"great confidence that local authorities will fulfil their duty to promote further education."—[Official Report, 24 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 55–52.]
They spoke of the need for strategic planning for further education by LEAs. What has happened since then to justify these changes? With 60 per cent. of 16-plus provision transferred to central control, leaving 40 per cent. in local authority sixth forms, who will now plan the system—or is it all to be left to some kind of bogus market?
The Secretary of State said that he was setting some aim for improvement in higher education. Where are the targets against which the seriousness of the Government's commitment can be judged? The Labour party has set clear targets for improving the system. Where are the Conservatives' targets?
The central problem of 16-plus education and training is the academic and vocational divide, with outdated A-levels on one side and a jungle of vocational qualifications on the other. By his statement the Secretary of State has conceded our argument, but produced a wholly incoherent solution to the problem. Is he not aware of the weight of opinion against unreformed A-levels, from the Confederation of British Industry, from the Institute of Physics, from the vice-chancellors and from the Government's own Advisory Council on Science and Technology, and of the overwhelming weight of opinion in favour of Labour's alternative—an integrated advanced certificate of education and training?
Does the Secretary of State understand that he is reinforcing and perpetuating a divided system? Because A-levels and the new vocational qualifications will have different content, structure and assessment, young people can continue to be trapped in either a vocational or an academic route.
How is the new diploma to work? What will it cover? Will it be instead of A-levels or will it run parallel to them?

643
As I said, we welcome the Government's belated recognition of the strength of the case that the Labour party has advocated for years: to end the binary divide, to have a joint funding council for higher education and to achieve parity of esteem between universities and polytechnics, which were a creation of the Labour Government in 1967. However, the Secretary of State ducks key issues. Will access to higher education depend, as Labour believes that it should, on the ability to benefit or will the Government make it further dependent on the ability to pay?
Will the Secretary of State scrap the discredited student loans scheme or does he expect students to go deeper and deeper into debt? Does he have any plans to review the operation of the scheme? Will he categorically rule out top-up fees as a means of financing expansion?
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the proposed quality body will be controlled neither by the Government nor by a cartel of institutions, but will be genuinely independent so as most effectively to safeguard quality and academic freedom?
The Secretary of State sought to pretend that Britain's record on education and training is far better than it is. Has he forgotten that just seven weeks ago, in this House, at that Dispatch Box, he admitted that
"we still lag behind our competitors in the participation of our school leavers in further education and training, and their achievement of useful qualifications"?—[Official Report, 21 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 432.]
Has he forgotten that the former Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), said at a Carlton club seminar that the low stay-on rate in full-time education and training showed Britain to be lagging
"dramatically behind other advanced countries"?
This failure has been built upon a lack of commitment, a lack of funding and a lack of clarity of thinking by the Government. The policies announced today are the product of a Government lacking imagination and ambition for our young people, and motivated by prejudice. In no way can the causes of Britain's failures over the past 12 years suddenly become the midwives of success.
Three years ago the Government told us that they had new policies for education. Now they have come back for another start, but the only fresh start for the nation will be a Labour Government who know what they want for our young people and who have the policies and ambitions to put Britain back into the first division of highly trained and highly educated nations.
Mr. Clarke: I am genuinely disappointed that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) could not think of better questions in response to a package of measures that will completely change the framework of vocational and academic qualifications for our 16 to 19-year-olds. We propose a whole new structure for vocational and academic education in further education and sixth-form colleges, and our proposals will change the institutional arrangements for higher education.
The hon. Member for Blackburn says that the Government have run out of ideas. His response to my statement shows that his party has no ideas at all on education or on any of the other public services. The hon. Gentleman touched on what I had already announced—
644
the establishment of autonomous further education and sixth-form colleges that will be independent of local government—and he was reduced to quoting Mr. MacNamara of Hampshire to justify his party's present position. He says that there is widespread opposition in my party to that proposal. There is not even very much opposition in his party to my proposal. When I first announced to the House our change in policy the hon. Gentleman did not know whether he was in favour or against, just as he did not know and still does not know whether he is in favour or against the pay review body settling the pay of teachers.
The hon. Member for Blackburn asked why we are determined to pursue this new autonomous status for further education colleges and sixth-form colleges. He should look to the experience of the polytechnics for which we took the same step three or four years ago. It was a deserved success. The hon. Gentleman is not against that and should not be against this proposal either. That was all that the hon. Gentleman had to say about further education colleges and sixth-form colleges.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about qualifications for people aged from 16 to 18, and again advanced Labour's proposals for an integrated alternative to what we suggest. Labour's approach to increased participation by 16 to 19-year-olds is to produce one broad pattern of qualification for every person and then to set the achievement at such a low level that most people appear to reach it. That is no basis for entering higher education or for raising the standards of eduction or the training of our young people for future employment. We are similarly aiming for much wider participation, while preserving what is best in the existing A-level structure and allowing it to evolve within the principles that I have recommended to SEAC. We are also putting alongside it vocational qualifications of the same quality that will deserve equal esteem.
We are aiming for mass participation in higher education and training, but we shall preserve the important standards that Labour would destroy. People have a clear choice and Labour's alternative should be rejected. I see that the hon. Gentleman's junior shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), nods in agreement when I say that everybody to the age of 16 should take exactly the same basic qualification within whatever they are able to attain.
I think that most people recognise that, to a minor extent from the age of 14, and certainly from the age of 16, people have different aptitudes, abilities and interests in careers. All those abilities must be harnessed. The hundreds of thousands taking A-levels at the moment are good-quality entrants to any university system. We want a wider range of opportunities for other young people so that they can aspire to the same standards and have the same career opportunities and access to higher education.
When the hon. Member for Blackburn dropped his voice he seemed to agree with all my proposals on higher education, despite the fact that it is a fairly dramatic, I dare say radical, change to the institutional arrangements for universities and polytechnics.
The hon. Gentleman then tried to bring in a red herring about ability to pay. I hope that he will not lower the debate on this public service to the level to which it has been lowered on others. My right hon. Friends and I are committed to open access to higher education for everyone who has the ability and willingness to take advantage of it.

645
We shall not put financial obstacles in their way. The new loan system, coupled with the grant, gives this year's students access to 25 per cent. more support than they had a year ago.
We are opening up access to higher education to people of all backgrounds who are willing to take advantage of it. That we have succeeded in doing so is shown by the increase from the one in eight participation of a decade ago to the one in five now. Our target is that one in three of our young people will go into higher education by the end of the decade. Their admission will be determined by their ability, and by their aptitude in applying themselves to their work, not in any way by their means. We have the ideas for making that expansion in quality. The hon. Gentleman should have the nerve whole-heartedly to support it, because he has no alternative proposals of his own.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that there is another important statement after this one, and I have to balance the right and the desire of hon. Members to participate in questions on the statements with those of the 13 hon. Members who have already shown that they wish to speak in the debate on next steps in the civil service. I shall allow questions on this statement to continue until 4.20 pm, and we shall then move on to the next statement. It would only be fair to move on to the debate by 5 pm.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Is not one of the most important and significant issues in my right hon. and learned Friend's statement the fact that we are drawing together the blue and the white-collar workers, as polytechnics will now, quite rightly, have the same status as universities so that those who go to polytechnics will be able to gain real qualifications that will allow them to have real jobs and take a real and lasting place in society? Is not this one of the best things that we can do?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and with his instinct that, in the past, the division that we have drawn between the blue-collar engineer and the white-collar lawyers was one of the great weaknesses of our education system and, to some extent, of our society as well. Our proposals put under one umbrella of the new diploma those qualifications for young people that are academic and those that are vocational. It puts under the same institutional arrangements the sixth-form colleges, which tend to be academic, and further education colleges, which tend to be vocational. It puts under the same arrangements the polytechnics, which have vocational links, and the universities, which have academic links. Our intention is not to make one homogeneous whole, ending all differences of approach and of admission, but to enable all people to choose between these various paths as they so wish. I hope that our best and brightest young people will take a mixture of vocational and academic courses and choose a combination of academic and career-oriented studies to get themselves to whatever career they wish to aspire to.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: In so far as much of what the Secretary of State announced today has long been Liberal Democrat policy, I welcome that. Much that he has announced is important and valuable. In so far as his proposals fall behind ours, we shall press for more. That
646
includes reform of A-levels and local and democratic control. Every time that we have proposed policies that are closely in line with those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has set out, the response from the Conservative Benches has been, "How do you pay for it? Where will the money come from? How much will it cost?" Let me ask the Secretary of State, "How will he pay for it? Where is the money coming from? How much will it cost? What has been put aside?" When will he be telling the House?
Mr. Clarke: I do not know what has come over the House today. Opposition parties seem not to want to oppose any more when we come forward with packages of this sort. I welcome the Liberal Democrats' endorsement of what I propose. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly be dealing with other aspects of training policy, which are also part of the package, but we already have universities and polytechnics on a funding regime that responds to growth in student numbers. So the more successful the policy is, the more expensive it becomes to the taxpayer. Over the past two years, for example, there has been an increase of over 10 per cent. in the funds going into higher education. The increase in funding is largely in response to a successful expansion of the system. We propose to have a similar arrangement for the Further Education Councils. Part of the funding—basic funding—will be part linked to student numbers. As I have said, there is direct linkage between the funding that goes into the system and growth.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: How much?
Mr. Bob Cryer: There is no Treasury approval for a blank cheque.
Mr. Clarke: Well, if we achieve the growth that we are aiming at, funding will increase roughly in line with that growth. We are set on a course considerably to increase real-terms funding in these areas. If our policies are as successful as I believe that they will be in stimulating greater access to further education and higher education, further demands on public funding will follow directly, really, from the arrangements that we are proposing.
Mr. James Pawsey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ignore the ill-founded whingeing of Opposition Members? How the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) could describe my right hon. and learned Friend's statement as unimaginative and lacking new ideas beggars the imagination. My right hon. and learned Friend has presented one of the most comprehensive education statements that we have ever listened to in this place.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that what he has said about sixth forms, training places and the maintenance of quality of A-levels will be richly applauded in the House and outside? His statement on the abolition of the binary line that separates universities and polytechnics will similarly be warmly welcomed. All in all, the statement builds on the success of the past 12 years.
Mr. Clarke: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Blackburn accused me of educational vandalism this morning before he knew what I was going to announce. He rather toned down his remarks when he heard my pronouncements; we should be grateful for small mercies.

647
I agree with my hon. Friend that the announcements that I have made on behalf of the Government will be widely welcomed by all those, whom he knows so well, in further education colleges, in the sixth-form world and in higher education. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I welcome the underlying assumption that there will be an expansion of tertiary education? My Conservative opponent fought the 1987 general election on the basis that to set up tertiary colleges in the borough in my constituency was a grave mistake and that tertiary colleges were a mistake. The part of south Leeds that I represent needs a sixth-form college, and it very much needs a tertiary college. Whom do I go to? I cannot go to Leeds city council, because it does not have tertiary institutions. It has normal sixth forms that remain under its control. I cannot go to a funding council, because it will be some time before one is established. Will I be able to press the claims of south Leeds on the Secretary of State? We need money for a sixth-form college. It is vital that we have such a college, and I ask the Secretary of State whether he is now the responsible person.
Mr. Clarke: I dare say that the controversy in Leeds in 1987 was centred on whether to close school sixth forms and go for tertiary colleges. Some local authorities did that, while others kept all their sixth forms. Other local authorities had a mixture. That follows from local authority control. At present, the right hon. Gentleman must pursue Leeds city council, which is responsible for the schools and colleges in its area. If the hon. Member for Blackburn had his way, that would continue to be so for all time. That would mean that everyone in the part of south Leeds that the right hon. Gentleman represents would have to take whatever Leeds city council thought was right for him by way of a structure. I should prefer to see an arrangement whereby individual pupils and parents had the chance of access to a further education college, a sixth-form college, a tertiary college, which combines the two, or a school sixth form. Such a system would respond much more to demands and would ensure that the widest possible range of options was open to pupils.
The existing institutions will be given autonomy. The new Further Education Councils will be responsible for responding to demand and ensuring that there is an adequate provision of places for all young people wanting access to further education throughout the country. We must legislate before we can set up the councils, and no doubt the Labour party will oppose their establishment if it follows the line taken today by the hon. Member for Blackburn. In the meantime, I can only advise the right hon. Gentleman to continue to put his views to Leeds city council.
Mr. David Madel: I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend in restating the Robbins principle that everyone who is capable of benefiting from higher education should have access to it. As to the changes affecting colleges of further education, will local education authorities have any role to play in the future development of those colleges' curriculums?
Mr. Clarke: We are restating the Robbins principle, and I am glad that my hon. Friend thinks that we are right to do so. Experience since those proposals were made all those years ago shows that access to higher education can be expanded at a considerable rate without damaging the academic standards that institutions achieve. Our policy reaffirms the Robbins principle by encouraging expansion, to provide higher education for the maximum number of young people while maintaining standards. Labour's policy is to expand but never mind the standards, because it might be too difficult to go in that direction.
Until we establish the new councils, local authorities will remain wholly responsible for further and sixth-form education in their areas. Thereafter, they can make their contribution, along with all other interested bodies, to the debate that will no doubt continue about the evolution of the contents of our new diploma and the nature of A-levels and national vocational qualifications—NVQs. However, those will largely be determined by the School Examinations and Assessment Council, in respect of examinations and assessments, and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, which will be answerable to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in respect of NVQs.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Secretary of State accept the congratulations of my hon. Friends on these Benches on the Government's decision to establish the Higher Education Funding Councils? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that some members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts advanced such a proposal in the early 1980s? It is good to see the Government at last taking their advice.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the budget for the university of Wales will in future form part of the Welsh Office budget and will be distributed by the Higher Education Funding Council in Wales?
We welcome also the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal to open up the sixth form as part of adult continuing education. Will the Secretary of State expand on those parts of the White Paper that refer specifically to adult education and comment also on the status of the Open university? Does the fact that it will in future be part of the funding mechanism for England mean that its remit will be in any way reduced in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Mr. Clarke: When I announced the teachers' pay review body, the only unqualified support that I received, without any mealy-mouthed words, came from the Welsh nationalist spokesman. I am grateful that we again appear to be in total agreement. That has made me so sympathetic towards Welsh aspirations for individualism that I can confirm that the funding of Welsh higher education and further education will in future be wholly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. As I said, there will be a separate council for funding in Wales.
I have announced that the Open university will come within the proposed funding arrangements for universities and polytechnics as a whole. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not reduce the Open university's commitment in either Wales or Scotland—and it is extremely important that it should not do so.
Mr. George Walden: Will my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accept my congratulations on grasping the nettle of post-16 education and on extending vocational opportunities in, a way that does not downgrade academic values? Is my right hon. and learned Friend struck, as I am, by the fact that while the Government have in the past few weeks been giving teachers a better pay deal and extending opportunities for those aged over 16, the Opposition have been calling for the demolition of A-levels and of grant-maintained schools, to be replaced by an anti-intellectual, egalitarian mush?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of a package of measures that has indeed been driven on by the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to educational policy. I am not surprised at Labour's attitude, because the only ideas it appears to have are to impose an egalitarian mush in respect of qualifications and to defend local government bureaucracy and control of every aspect of the education system, and the teachers' right to strike. That seems to me to be the sum total of Labour's education policies.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that his cantankerous reference to grumbling university lecturers is reminiscent of a briefing that the Department issued before Christmas, which claimed that there was no need to increase university lecturers' salaries by very much because there is no shortage of applicants for university posts? When will the Government recognise that our education system needs universities that house departments which are centres of excellence, and that that can be achieved only if they are able to recruit and retain some of the most gifted people in our society? Is it not clear that those changes in administration will fail until the Government recognise that they have to spend more money per student as well as increasing the number of students, which requires a lot more money to be spent on higher education?
Mr. Clarke: I deliberately included in my statement a sentence that congratulated university academics on what they have achieved in recent years, in expanding the number of students, maintaining quality and keeping down unit costs. Because I realised that some university academics might wince at my saying that straightforwardly, I conceded that they have some grumbles. If the hon. Gentleman reads my statement, he will realise that I was congratulating the universities on what they have achieved. This year, the finance of universities has increased by about 10 per cent. Of course they have other non-pay matters to settle, but I am satisfied that, with reasonable discussions, they can make proper provision for their staff this year. It is up to them to negotiate with the Association of University Teachers and perhaps to face up to the fact that some universities are quite well placed and will make a reasonable pay award this year, whereas others are in difficulties and might need to be more restrained. That is a matter for them and not for me. I accept that there are obviously resource implications and we have been putting in the resources as universities have expanded. I do not accept that unit costs should increase, as the hon. Gentleman said. The need for efficiency in the use of public money, to deliver the policy objectives that I have outlined, is as important in higher education as it is in every other aspect of education.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is the Secretary of State aware that this statement will be welcomed widely because we are preserving academic excellence in A-levels, which give us the shortest university degree course of a legitimate standard in the world, while expanding vocational education, where we have been behind our competitors? There is no doubt that the balance of those two will be fruitful for the future of this country.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, with all his expertise on this subject. I agree that our higher education system is one of the best in the world and that a higher proportion of our young people obtain good degrees under that system than in almost any other country in the developed world, and that we must maintain that. We must get right the balance that he has described. Our proposals get that balance right and those of our opponents' would destroy it.
Mr. Jim Sillars: May I give not a grudging but a warm welcome to the decision to set up a separate Higher Education Funding Council for Scotland and to place the Scottish universities under the responsibility of the Scottish Office, which represents a significant conversion by the Conservative party to policies that some of us have argued for more than 20 years? May I raise with him paragraph 48 of the higher education White Paper which seems to recognise the different structure of education in Scotland? Does that mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to vary or abolish the student loans system, which is having an adverse effect on the four-year honours degree course in Scotland?
Mr. Clarke: I always say to those on the nationalist Benches, whether I am disowning responsibility on questions on Welsh or Scottish schools or whatever, that we have a devolved system of government in this country. It is true that we have taken a further step, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will have separate funding arrangements for higher education, as he already has for further education. Nevertheless, the student loan scheme is a United Kingdom system. The Student Loans Company has its headquarters in Glasgow and I recently visited the city to see it. It would not be open to my right hon. Friend to depart from that system, unless he introduced separate legislation. We both believe that the student loan scheme is a big improvement on financial support for students in this country and we have no intention of going back on it.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Is it not self-evident that any large-scale expansion of higher education has to be based on plurality, and is not a degree of co-ordination needed, which has been lacking before? Is not the approach that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced today much more sensible than trying to force people down one particular path which is simply a mish-mash of everything?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that under the system that he has announced, which I applaud, there are sufficient arrangements for people who want to change courses in mid-stream?
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. As we design the components of the new advanced diploma—A-levels and AS-levels, or NVQs, or a mixture of the two—we should leave room for those

651
who, after 16, decide that they have made a mistake and want to change courses. In my letter to SEAC, and in our proposals, we have encouraged credit transfer, credit accumulation and modular approaches to courses if they can sensibly be developed without compromising the essential qualities of A-levels or a distinctive NVQ. In my letter, I have asked SEAC to do further work on that matter. We need to make room for 16 or 17-year-olds who decide to change courses because they made a mistaken choice after statutory school age.
Mr. Peter Hardy: No hon. Member would deny that the more controversial parts of the Secretary of State's statement are imaginative. However, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, although they may be imaginative, the real test will come in a few years when we ascertain whether they are intelligent? Does he think it intelligent that a common thread of criticism of the role of education authorities ran through his statement? Whether they are Labour or Conservative controlled is immaterial.
Does the Secretary of State think that his hon. Friends' echoes of derision for the role of local authorities—even those with Conservative leaders—are reasonable? Does he accept that his policies will still depend on the co-operation of local authorities, which he clearly despises?
Mr. Clarke: I was accused by the hon. Member for Blackburn of failing to introduce imaginative proposals. What matters is not attitudes but that the policies are practical and sensible and will expand opportunities for many young people.
My remarks about local authority control are not pointless criticisms of local government but build on our experience of removing polytechnics from local government control. In many areas, local government is changing to an enabling role and away from the day-to-day, detailed management of countless different services. That is a wider issue, but there is no doubt that, in further and higher education, the governing bodies of each polytechnic—most of which will become universities—further education colleges and sixth-form colleges, as autonomous bodies, can make a better job of judging priorities, managing the institutions and expanding in response to local demands than local government did in the past.
We are moving to a new system whereby we shall turn our backs on bureaucracy and rely more on local initiatives and enthusiasm in the management of individual institutions. We believe that that delivers better and more responsive public services.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the standards of A-levels will be maintained and, where necessary, strengthened? Conservative Members do not want to fall into the same trap as the Labour party, which condemns excellence, supports the erosion of the A-level system and promotes its total abolition.
Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. To those who say that the course of study at A-level should be broadened, we reaffirm that we shall continue, as we are successfully doing now, to encourage more AS-levels—subjects that are taken to the same standard as A-level, but cover half the range. Two A-levels and two AS-levels can
652
be taken by someone who might find three A-levels too narrow. In that way, we shall maintain standards and achieve the same high-quality entry to our universities, as I am sure the young men and women now sitting their A-levels will provide when they go to university next year.
It would be a disaster to approach that system in a way that damaged academic standards. Few higher education establishments in the world would not envy the intake from our sixth forms and colleges. Those students achieve good-quality A-levels after two years of rigorous study.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does not the Secretary of State understand that the biggest barriers to young people and adults attending full-time or, especially, part-time courses for A-levels or similar qualifications necessary for university entrance are the lack of funds provided to local education authorities, the disparity between different parts of the country in the payment of discretionary grants and the inability of young people to obtain income support from the Department of Social Security? They are the biggest barriers to expanding further education for academically qualified youngsters, capable though they may be. What will the proposals in the statement do about that?
Mr. Clarke: The argument that growth is being restrained by the Government's lack of funding is best answered by the figures. I have already mentioned that one in five 18 and 19-year-olds are in higher education compared with one in eight 10 years ago. Six out of 10 16-year-olds now stay on at school compared with four out of 10 when the Government came into office, and three out of four 17-year-olds receive education and training compared with two out of four when we came to office.
The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that the background is already one of sustained expansion of academic, educational and training opportunities. The evidence belies his claim that the Government are starving the system of funds so that access is restrained. By our deeds, one should judge us. We have expanded opportunities rapidly and we shall do so yet further.
Mr. Donald Thompson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my constituents will welcome the statement? Does he recall that the Labour-controlled council tried to abolish sixth forms in my constituency, which led directly to a 6 per cent. swing to the Conservatives in the most recent local elections? Will my right hon. and learned Friend find a way of short-circuiting money to those sixth forms and especially around those councils that have used their financial mismanagement to starve them of funds?
Mr. Clarke: I am delighted that my hon. Friend defends the popular sixth forms in his constituency. Already, under the arrangements that we tend to approve, sixth forms are treated attractively. We aim to ensure that good sixth forms in schools are protected and will continue to flourish provided that they respond to a real need in the local community. New ones should open when the local community so desires. I share my hon. Friend's opinion on the contrast that can be drawn between our approach of encouraging individual choice and allowing sixth forms to continue and that of those in the Labour party who sometimes wish a local bureaucracy to impose a pattern on the local community as it thinks best.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: The Secretary of State will recognise the wide agreement on the need to improve the parity of esteem between academic: and vocational subjects to break down the status divide that has bedevilled the English and Welsh education system.
Does the Secretary of State also understand that his response today will be seen as a lost opportunity, particularly on the qualification system he has proposed? All the evidence from the Government's Higginson report, the CBI, teachers' organisations and a wide range of institutions representing higher education demands changes in 18-plus education, but the Government have resisted the opportunity and missed the boat on this occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has come up not with the radical change that is needed, but with an approach that will exacerbate the divide between the academic and the vocational. When the small print of the statement is understood by Consdervative hon. Members, they will fully realise that the new diploma is spatchcocked on to the existing jungle of qualifications.
The Government have let down a generation of young people. At the next election the Government will not have the opportunity of implementing their proposals but the Labour party will implement its proposals, which are in line with the qualification system's needs and will break down the divide by giving that system the radical approach it so desperately needs.
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously argue that what we have announced today does not bridge the divide between academic qualifications and vocational qualifications. He and his hon. Friends think that that job cannot be done properly without scrapping A-levels. What we have announced certainly bridges the divide. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends believe that A-levels must be scrapped. They make the case that A-levels are elitist, that only 30 per cent. of pupils can do them. The Labour party and others suggest that there should be a much broader approach. But it is an approach that would take all pupils to a much lower standard. In the education world, there are people who say that, in those circumstances, a four-year degree course would be necessary to make up for the lack of attainment before entry to higher education. We are retaining the best of A-levels, and combining them with good-quality vocational qualifications, within one framework that will give them equal esteem. That is a very superior approach. The Labour party is driven by old shibboleths and by a continuing desire to get rid of anything that it regards as elitist, as marking out high ability in the education system.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. On the next statement, I will try to give some priority to those hon. Members who have not been called on this one.

Education and Training
4.26 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the plans for which I am responsible, which are set out in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century", announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
This White Paper will transform the prospects for Britain's 16 to 19-year-olds. The proposals will mean that, for the first time, all young people in the country up to the age of 19 will be encouraged and entitled to continue in education or training—or both—which will take them to higher levels of qualifications than ever before. And the artificial barriers between the academic and the vocational, which have bedevilled us for so long, will be swept away.
The plans in this White Paper represent a clear recognition of the importance of preparing our young people for the world of work, and the priority we attach to it.
First, we plan to attract many more young people into training by giving a training credit to every 16 and 17-year-old leaving full-time education. Training credits are a new way of promoting youth training. The credit puts buying power in the hands of young people. It encourages them to take up their entitlement to vocational education, and to take full advantage of training, and of the opportunity to qualify with a national vocational qualification at level 2 or higher.
Credits are now being offered to 10 per cent. of school leavers in pilot areas. With the experience of these pilots to build on, we will progressively extend credits from April 1993. Within the lifetime of the next Parliament, we aim to offer a training credit to every 16 and 17-year-old in the country who is leaving full-time education.
Secondly, we shall also extend across the whole country the compacts approach to bringing together young people and employers in raising attainment at school and college. At present, compacts are working highly successfully in urban programme areas and similar areas in Scotland and Wales. We shall invite training and enterprise councils, in partnership with local education authorities and others, to extend this approach to all parts of the country. We shall provide financial support to start compacts—matching the support they will attract from private sector and local authority sources.
I turn next to vocational qualifications. A great deal of progress has been made in developing and extending practical, job-related qualifications. Our proposals will create a structure of qualifications that offers the breadth and choice that young people and their employers need, and in which academic and vocational qualifications will have equal status.
National vocational qualifications will be available for all major sectors of employment by the end of next year. We are inviting the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to work with others to develop more general job-related qualifications, within the NVQ framework, suitable for young people who want a broad preparation for employment. We shall promote equality of status for academic and vocational qualifications by developing the new system of ordinary and advanced diplomas that my right hon. and learned Friend described in his statement.

655
Our plans in the White Paper—especially training credits—will increase the importance of high-quality career services, linked closely to employers. I have been consulting about ways of organising the careers service for its future tasks. There is considerable support for my proposal that training and enterprise councils should be involved as partners with local education authorities in overseeing the operation of the service locally.
We shall encourage local education authorities to work with TECs in partnership for this purpose. We shall provide financial support to start such partnerships where they are proposed. We intend also to legislate so as to open up a range of other options, including direct TEC management of the careers service and contracting out to the private sector. We shall increase investment in the training of careers service advisory staff and in careers libraries in schools.
Employer commitment is essential if young people are to be well prepared for the demands of working life. The measures that I have announced today will give employers, through TECs, extended roles in training credits, compacts, and the careers service. My right hon. and learned Friend's proposed reforms of further education will include measures to involve TECs closely in the new funding arrangements.
The range of proposals in the White Paper will provide greater opportunities for young people to unlock their potential, a much wider choice in how they develop their talents, and a strengthened support system to guide their progress. These proposals will open doors for all our young people, whatever their background and their aspirations. They will strengthen the foundation of skills that the economy will need in future. I commend them to the House.
Mr. Tony Blair: First, I shall deal with some of the matters with which we are already familiar. The Secretary of State knows that we support compacts, but we would want to see how the pilot schemes for credits progress. Will he state clearly that no young people will be prevented from pursuing the career of their choice by inadequately financed credits? Will credits be a cash-limited voucher or a genuine entitlement to train, with the credit varying to meet the cost of that training? Will he comment on the fact that there have been real-terms cuts of some £400 million in youth training in the past few years? That cannot be the best way to launch a new training credits scheme.
As for proposals on the careers service, I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that the careers service is vital to improve training. He said that he intends to legislate for an option of contracting out the careers service to the private sector. What does he mean by that? We vigorously oppose any attempt to privatise the careers service or to allow it to opt out of local education authority control. As for a halfway house of part TEC, part local education authority control, will he guarantee that independent and impartial careers advice will be open to young people?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the client of the careers service must be the young person concerned, not the employer or company? Will he therefore accept that, in involving the training and enterprise councils, he must guard against the risk of a
656
conflict between the interests of employers and companies and those of the young person? That is precisely what the independent careers service is designed to guard against.
Will the Secretary of State outline much more clearly the rules that will apply in this new partnership, and say how the new system will work? In particular, who will take ultimate responsibility for the critical decisions that affect young people?
Have not the Secretary of State and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science admitted many of the criticisms that the Labour party and others have made of the divisions between education and training in the past few years? The Secretary of State for Employment has accepted—there is now agreement—that there is a division between standards and status in vocational and academic qualifications; that that division is harmful; and that it is imperative to remove it to improve the performance of the economy and provide opportunities for our young people? That much we can agree on. Is not the difference between what the Government have proposed today and the Opposition's position that the Government believe that it is possible to retain a separate and divided system of qualifications, and still abolish the difference in status, whereas we believe that abolishing the separate and divided system of qualifications is an essential part of abolishing the divided status?
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: That is levelling down.
Mr. Blair: No, it is nothing to do with levelling down.
Will the Secretary of State confirm, because I do not think that some Conservative Members realise it, that the advanced diploma does not replace the existing divided system of qualifications, but is superimposed on it? The diploma is a layer of qualification on the existing system, not an attempt to deal with the real problem—the division of the system itself. That is why the proposal bears all the hallmarks, not of the bold and radical step that the Secretary of State presented, but of an uneasy compromise between two Ministers in two different Departments with the essential divisions remaining intact.
I say to the Secretary of State for Employment that, if all that were required to achieve parity of esteem were ministerial words, the Business and Technician Education Council or the City and Guilds would already have achieved those results. Despite their attempts, excellent though many of them are, in the real world the problem that everyone recognises is that people go for the vocational route when they fail the academic route. That system, based on failure rather than achievement, is at the heart of low staying-on rates, low participation, low opportunities for progress and low attainment.
There cannot be equivalence of esteem while there are different styles, structures, contents and modes of assessment. If we do not deal with those differences, we do not deal effectively with parity of esteem. The Labour party believes that a divided system of qualifications will never produce a unified status of achievement. That is why we have proposed an entirely different idea from that of the Government—a unified system of qualifications. That is not just the Labour party's policy, but the policy of the Royal Society, the Association of Principals of Sixth Form Colleges and many other organisations.
One of the reasons for proposing integration between vocational and academic qualifications is that it allows

657
transfer between those two systems. How will that transfer operate under the Secretary of State's advanced diploma? If that transfer will not operate—as I believe it will not —why is he simply perpetuating the irredeemable choice at 16 for either the vocational or academic route, which is at the heart of the problem?
We believe that the problem required vision and leadership, which have been lacking from today's statements. We believe that our young people have enormous ability, but that we waste it through outdated examination systems and old-fashioned structures which have no place in any country preparing itself for the 21st century. Our young people have the talent, but they are hindered by a Government that neither believe in them nor are prepared to help them. In order to have that help, young people will have to wait for this party to take office.
Mr. Howard: First of all, I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about our proposals for compacts. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman has the temerity even to mention funding, bearing in mind the facts that we are spending two and a half times as much in real terms as that being spent on training when the last Labour Government left office, that 350,000 young people are receiving training on Government schemes compared with 6,000 when the Labour Government left office, and that every time the hon. Gentleman pops up to mention funding he is promptly disowned by the shadow Chief Secretary, as happened most recently on television yesterday.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to acknowledge the importance of independence and impartiality in the careers service. I readily do that. They are important. I believe that the conflicts to which the hon. Gentleman referred as a result of the training and enterprise councils are not likely to give rise to serious problems. We had an overwhelmingly favourable response in our consultation exercise both from training and enterprise councils and from local education authorities about the proposal for partnership.
The hon. Gentleman referred to legislating for opting out. The present position is that, even if a local education authority would like to contract out the delivery of the careers service, it is unable to do so. We shall legislate to enable it to do so if it wishes and to enable the partnership between the TEC and LEA to do so if it wishes; we shall see how that develops over the fulness of time. If, as may well prove the case, that model proves successful, it would be right to have reserve powers to ensure that it becomes the normal way in which to deliver the careers service.
The hon. Gentleman referred to vocational qualification. I can only conclude from his remarks that he has completely misunderstood the effects of our proposals for a diploma. We are not dividing, or persisting in the divide between, academic and vocational qualifications. We are bringing the two together, and bringing together the best of the two without abolishing A-levels, which is the Labour party's only policy in the area. The Labour party is the enemy of excellence; it always has been and it always will be.
The hon. Gentleman was disingenuous in his remarks about training credits. He said that he would see how our pilots were developing and examine training credits. However, he knows full well that there is a complete antithesis and contradiction between our approach of credits, which is a voluntary approach that gives young people the opportunity to buy training for themselves, and his approach of taking the big stick of compulsion, and
658
forbidding young people to have jobs without training while allowing and encouraging them to go on the dole without training. That is the Labour party's policy, and it is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman was too ashamed of it to mention it this afternoon.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to remind hon. Members about the pressure on the subsequent debate. I will allow questions on the statement until 5.5 pm. Then I regret that we must move on. I ask hon. Members to put brief questions.
Sir Norman Fowler: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his proposals on training credits and on his other fundamentally important proposals? Does he agree that one of the outstanding successes of the Government has been the introduction of compacts throughout the country? Does he also agree that that signifies a real revolution in training, in that the worlds of education and of industry have now come close together, which is fundamentally important for young people?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to his work during his time in the Department, both on compacts and on training credits. He did much of the spadework on that. He is entirely right: it is one of the Government's great achievements, now recognised on all sides, to have brought together the world of work and the world of education. It was not always so. When we first proposed the technical and vocational education initiative, the Leader of the Opposition went around the country denouncing it as a scheme fit only for hewers of wood and drawers of water. I am delighted that the Labour party appears to have learnt something from the year's experience.
Mr. James Wallace: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, we substantially support the package presented today. However, I am sure that the House agrees that changing institutions and arrangements is no substitute for restoring the cuts in funding in recent years.
Will the Secretary of State answer the question put by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on training credits? He asked that the credit should not be a cash limit on the course of training sought by a young person. Although the Secretary of State makes a persuasive case for the voluntary approach, what advice would he give a young person who finds himself or herself in a job with an employer who is not amenable to that young person pursuing a course of training?
Mr. Howard: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question, I must say that one of the great advantages of the training credit is that it can be used in a number of ways, and not simply and solely with the employer. If a young person has an employer who is not amenable to providing training, he can use the credit in a number of other ways, such as to purchase open learning, which is becoming increasingly important in the acquisition of qualifications, and in which this country leads the world.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am happy to confirm that the account on the training credit will not be

659
a limit. It will be topped up by employers or by the training and enterprise councils to reflect the full value of the training concerned.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my warm congratulations on the measures that he has announced? Will he accept that Conservative Members warmly welcome the bridging and equalisation between the more vocational structure and the purely academic structure, with the raising of standards of careers qualifications? That is a great step forward for thousands of people who will be able to raise their standards.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is entirely right. Far too often in the past young people pursued vocational qualifications because they had failed, or were thought to be likely to fail, academic qualifications. That should become a thing of the past. We want to encourage true parity of esteem for vocational qualifications so that young people who are more suited by their abilities and aptitudes to pursue vocational qualifications should be able to do so to a high standard. The proposals will deliver that.
Mr. John Battle: Is the Secretary of State aware of the report on young people, benefits and training, published by the Children's Society on behalf of the Coalition of Young People on Social Security? That report points out that 45,000 young people are currently without jobs, youth training or income support because, although the Government may have promised a youth training scheme, they have cut income support, totally undermining the youth training guarantee. How will the training credits resolve that problem?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. Far from undermining the youth training guarantee, the fact that young people are encouraged to take a place on youth training if they wish to receive benefit reinforces the importance and usefulness of the guarantee. The hon. Gentleman has his facts entirely upside down.
Mr. Michael Alison: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on the generous, imaginative and skilfully purpose-designed scheme, which focuses on the most vital component in our society—the seedcorn of our national future?
May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the phenomenon that there are still some youngsters who manage to slip through into their first job—and others will do so in the future—without having any preliminary training? If they have the misfortune to be made redundant early in their working life, is it possible for the scheme to be applied retrospectively to those of a certain age group, so that they do not finally miss the bus? I speak on that with some feeling against the background of substantial redundancies, about which I have written to my right hon. and learned Friend, at Middlebrook Mushrooms in my constituency.
Mr. Howard: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern about the case that has arisen and about that group of people. Many of them would be entitled to the credit. It is to meet the needs of the first group identified by my right hon. Friend—those who have slipped through
660
into jobs without training—that the entire proposal for credits is designed. From the pilots, all the signs are that the scheme is proving extremely successful, and I intend to build on that success in the years ahead.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Can the Secretary of State ensure that there will be further consultation with careers masters on this matter? Can he also ensure that the responsibility in Wales comes cleanly under the Welsh Office and that there is no split in responsibility? Will he clarify whether the £1,000 referred to as a typical voucher may be extended to £1,000 in a second year for training courses that may go on for more than one year?
Mr. Howard: On the last point, it can certainly be extended in that way. I reiterate what I said earlier—that the face value of the voucher does not represent the whole of the entitlement of the young person. Very often, a voucher with a face value of £1,000 or £1,500 will be able to be used to buy training worth up to £4,000, and the balance will of course be found by the employer or the training and enterprise council. The voucher is merely the first part of the entitlement.
Responsibility for the careers service in Wales will continue exactly as it is at the moment. We have consulted widely about the arrangements for the careers service, and if there are any further views or representations that careers officers wish to make, of course we will wish to take those into account.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, with the announcements that are made today, the Government are committing themselves to harnessing the energy of school leavers, whatever their background and whatever their ability, whether it be vocational or educational? Will provision be made within the training credits scheme to give those children who leave and who are less able the opportunity to use that credit for further education in basic education—reading, writing and arithmetic?
Mr. Howard: Where that is necessary, arrangements can be made within the training credits scheme for provision of that kind to be made available to the young person. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the proposals. They represent a landmark in the development of opportunities for our young people. It is a pity that that cannot be recognised to a greater extent on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does not the Secretary of State acknowledge that fine phrases such as "true parity of esteem" are very much part of Opposition Members' fundamental philosophy and belief? It does not stand up to a very much detailed examination coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, any more than from the Prime Minister talking about a classless society, when we know, and all the evidence shows, that people in our society with academic qualifications on the one hand and a vocation on the other do not receive true parity of esteem throughout their working lives. The gaps between their incomes, for example, get wider and wider throughout their working lives.
One example of the Secretary of State's real commitment to true parity of esteem would be his commitment, as it is our commitment, to a national minimum wage which would at least put a little bit of beef

661
behind his words and recognise the fact that everyone in our community is esteemed and valued and that no one should fall out of the net.
Mr. Howard: I wish the hon. Gentleman could see the face of the hon. Member for Sedgefield as he asked that question. I had imposed a self-denying ordinance on myself this afternoon. I was not going to mention the national minimum wage, despite the fact that only today the Fabian Society, no less, has produced a pamphlet in which it estimates the number of jobs that it would destroy at 800,000—not quite right, not quite accurate, not the nearly 2 million that it would in fact destroy, but at least we are making progress when the Fabian Society recognises that that would be the case. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs is a way to improve opportunities, he would have great difficulty in persuading the electorate of that.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Both Secretaries of State should take no lectures from the Opposition about the quality of education or training. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is well aware that most local education authorities in this country are controlled by the Labour party, so they must take the blame for low standards. Is he aware that, where a local education authority controlled by the Conservative party seeks to tackle the question of vocational studies such as through magnet schools, the Labour party is the first to rail against the proposal?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the views of the chairmen of the TECs that perhaps, in the long term, training should come within the powers of the Department of Education and Science to bring the whole together?
Mr. Howard: On my hon. Friend's last point, the views of employers as expressed through the TECs and through the Department of Employment have made a very significant contribution to training and, indeed, to education over the past few years. My hon. Friend made an important point about the influence of local education authorities, and it is well known. League table after league table has pointed out that Labour local education authorities spend huge amounts for little attainment and Conservative local education authorities, for much less spending, get the results which the people who live in those areas expect.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Secretary of State not accept that, despite all his fine words, the fact remains that people will have no confidence in them, given that 60 per cent. of trainees now come out of his Government's training schemes with no qualifications at all? He has cut and cut training provision in west Wales, for example, by half over the past year. Compared with all our foreign competitors, we are now in the worst possible position in terms of training provision.
Mr. Tony Favell: Another lie.[Interruption.]
Hon. Members: Order. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. If I heard that word "liar", which I hope would never be mentioned in this Chamber, the hon. Member should withdraw it, please.
Mr. Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises. I am not certain who said it, but I hope that we will not hear that word in this Chamber.
Mr. Favell: I apologise for having said it. but the party opposite is trying to protect—
Mr. Speaker: No qualification, please—just the apology will suffice.
Mr. Hain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Secretary of State accept that the people of this country will see all those fine words for what they are—an attempt to cover up the reality of lack of training provision in this country—and that, like the Secretary of State for Education and Science, he is providing for a nation of morons who have forgotten how many O-levels they have?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's facts are entirely wrong. Of those who complete youth training, 67 per cent. obtain a vocational qualification. The hon. Gentleman's charge is a quite unwarranted slur both on the calibre of our young people and on the calibre of the training that they receive.
Mr. David Martin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that employers will welcome what he has said in his statement, as they have to find the wages of those who apply for jobs after having been educated and trained? They have been crying out for years for improvements. The proposals, combined with the proposals of our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, will prove most imaginative for the future. Far from showing that the Government have run out of ideas, the proposals are well beyond any of the ideas that would ever be adopted by the Opposition.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is right, and I am sure that the proposals will be warmly welcomed by employers who recognise full well the importance of having properly trained, properly equipped and properly educated young people leaving our schools and institutions of further and higher education.
Mr. Bob Cryer: What increased expenditure has been estimated to cover the improved and extended training credits? Will there be a parallel increase in the number of discretionary grants available to students in vocational education provided by local authorities?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that training credits will not be available to be spent at the nationwide network of skill centres that he inherited? Will he confirm that they have been given away to a handful of civil servants, together with suitcases full of money, in a scandalous misappropriation and misuse of taxpayers' funds, which has meant that a nationwide system of skill centres has been broken up and closed down and its teachers sacked?
Mr. Howard: The additional resources that will be made available for training credits amount to £14 million in the year 1993–94 and £35 million in the year 1994–95, and the total resources available to training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies for the new credits in 1994–95 will amount to £200 million. Discretionary grants are a matter for local education authorities, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He has asked questions about

663
skill centres many times before. They have been comprehensively answered, but I dare say that he will continue to pursue his vendetta on that point.
Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Labour party rejects excellence, rejects A-levels and rejects diplomas? Does he further agree that it has produced a new A-level and new diploma which has been passed by the Leader of the Opposition called "lying in Monmouth?"
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard over the weekend that that word was being bandied about. In this Chamber, we keep our standards. I hope that hon. Members will not make charges of that nature against other hon. Members.
Mr. Howard: There is an important point behind my hon. Friend's question. When the Labour party talks about parity of esteem, it means lowering parity of esteem. When we talk about parity of esteem, we mean maintaining high standards for both academic and vocational education.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a long-term sceptic about and opponent of taking the Scottish universities, and especially their science faculties, out of the British university system, may I ask about the financing of Scottish education? At all levels—those for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible and those for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible —the Scots have an extra number of students over and above England. Now that the responsibility is to be given to the Scottish Office, will the financing be pro rata on the basis of numbers or on the basis of population? What does one say to a lecturer in the biological sciences at the university of Edinburgh? Is his career still as safe and good in Edinburgh as it was before today's proposals were made? And what is—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Dalyell: —to be done about Edinburgh university's desperate financial position, which has forced it to sell its treasures such as the Audubon book?
Mr. Howard: I can confirm that the funding of the Scottish institutions will continue to be linked to the number of students. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts the other more specific questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, far from what the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) suggested, the announcement today about training credits is bold and imaginative and will be widely welcomed by many young people as an extension of their personal choice and opportunities? Is not the announcement a refreshing difference from the policies of the Labour party, which are old-fashioned and out of date on this as on so many other matters, and are based on compulsion and dragooning young people?
Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was disappointed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). I thought that he would allow me to pay tribute to the Welsh education system, to which I owe
664
so much, but instead he engaged in a characteristic Neath whinge. I say that because Neath was well beaten by Llanelli in the Welsh rugby cup final. My hon. Friend is right to identify the merits of the approach that we have adopted. I dare say that, in time, as in so many other matters, those merits will eventually be recognised by the Labour party.
Mr. Bowen Wells: May I congratulate both my right hon. and learned Friends on the thoughtful and imaginative proposals put before the House today? Are not the Opposition strangely out of touch with what is going on in our schools today? Do they not realise that craft design and technology courses are over-subscribed in all our best schools, and that such courses naturally lead on to a mixture of A-levels and vocational qualifications? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, by retaining A-levels as a standard of excellence and moving vocational qualifications up to that standard, we are making certain that standards are maintained? Therefore, we are seeking to create a system of excellence and to make great attainment available to our people, whereas the Labour party would like to level us all down to a lower standard.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend accept—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a long question—with not much of a question in it either.
Mr. Wells: I have waited a long time, and I should like to put my last sentence.
Mr. Speaker: Put it, please, but it is at the expense of the hon. Member's hon. Friends.
Mr. Wells: My last sentence is: will training credits be available for studying A-levels as well as for the higher grant diplomas?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify excellence as the hallmark of the Government's approach to these and other matters. The training credits are intended for training, not for pursuit of A-level courses, and they will be available for vocational qualifications.
Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the twin statements will be widely welcomed by the worlds of education and work, in which people will be extraordinarily puzzled by the reaction of the Labour party, which seems to be in favour of no jobs without training, but nevertheless has a policy of unemployment with no training? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his statement will provide great opportunities? Will he confirm that that opportunity will be extended to disabled people who need training so that they too can benefit from what should be the golden years of opportunity ahead?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to give him the assurance for which he asks. Certainly, those who have special needs will be entitled to training credits. I am sure that they will make good use of the opportunities that training credits will provide.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will both my right hon. and learned Friends accept congratulations on the concept of the advanced diploma? Will it be a pass/fail

665
document or, as I hope, will there be levels of pass, including ones which indicate excellence and ones which indicate perhaps not quite such a high attainment?
Mr. Howard: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the national record of achievement, which has escaped notice so far this afternoon. It has been issued to 1·3 million people in a short period of time. It will enable the performance and qualifications that people have achieved to be set out in full.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I will take the presentation of Bills first.

BILLS PRESENTED
  MARINE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS
  Mr. John Bowis, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Toby Jesse! and Mr. Ron Leighton, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the reporting of marine accident investigations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 June and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

  COMMONWEALTH OF BRITAIN
  Mr. Tony Benn presented a Bill to establish a democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Wales dedicated to the welfare of all its citizens; to establish fundamental human rights within that Commonwealth; to lower the voting age to 16 years and to make other provision with respect to elections, including equal representation for women; to prescribe a constitutional oath; to establish a Commonwealth Parliament consisting of the House of Commons and the House of the People and to make provision for the term of a Parliament and for legislative and other procedure; to establish the office of President, and a Council of State, and to prescribe the powers of each; to provide for the formation of governments; to amend the law relating to official information, the armed forces and the security services; to make fresh provision for the participation of Britain in the United Nations Organisation and the European Communities; to make the basing of foreign forces in Britain dependent upon the approval of the House of Commons; to make new provision with respect to the judicial system and to establish a National Legal Service; to set up national Parliaments for England, Scotland and Wales; to amend the law relating to local government, the district auditor and the accountability of police forces; to end the constitutional status of the Crown and to make certain consequential provision; to abolish the House of Lords and the Privy Council, to end the recognition in law of personal titles, and to provide for the acknowledgement of service to the community; to disestablish the Church of England, abolish the offence of blasphemy, and to provide for equality under the law for all religions and beliefs; to end British jurisdiction in Northern Ireland; to provide for a Constitution and for constitutional amendment; and to make transitional and related provision: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 June and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
  Mr. Speaker: Now, what is the point of order?
  Mr Cryer rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I called during the statement the hon. Member and all the hon. Members who now wish to raise points of order . However, I also drew attention to the fact that there was great pressure on the subsequent debate.
  Mr. Cryer: It is not about that.
  Mr. Speaker: Well, it takes time from the hon. Member's colleagues.
  Mr. Cryer: It is a very important subject, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any application for a statement about the Government either activating existing legislation for the control of dangerous dogs or introducting new legislation? There has been a serious accident in Bradford in which a little six-year-old girl has been savagely attacked by a pit bull terrier. It is a subject on which I hoped the Government would seek your permission to make a statement.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not had any intimation that the Government wish to make a statement. It seems to me that it is a matter that should be raised in the House.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This may be the point of order that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) wishes to raise. A White Paper has been issued today on further education in Scotland. The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked questions which the Secretary of State for Employment was clearly unable to answer because they were on Scottish matters. We are constantly reminded by the Conservative party, and indeed by you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a Parliament of the United Kingdom. Have you had any explanation of why there was not a separate statement about Scottish matters?
  Mr. Speaker: I have not had any intimation, but I am sure that that will have been heard by those responsible.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Speaker: On the same matter?
  Mr. Dalyell: It is the same matter. The Secretary of State for Employment correctly said that the questions that I asked had to be answered by the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is a vital matter, which particularly affects the lives of many English people as well as Scots in the Scottish universities. It especially affects the great science departments of the universities of Edinburgh and of Glasgow. In those circumstances—if the Leader of the House was present, my request would be within his hearing—can we have a statement tomorrow from the Secretary of State for Scotland?
  Mr. Speaker: The Whip is on the Bench. I gave the hon. Member an opportunity to put his question on the statement. I could not have done more than that today.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Mr. Speaker. Could you advise Back-Bench Members how we can get the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the outrageous savaging of the little girl in Bradford? Public opinion and, it would seem, the local press is way ahead of the Home Secretary. The Yorkshire Post mounted a

  667
  campaign, which I and many of my colleagues support, hours before the latest outrage. We feel that the public deserve some protection from these dangerous animals.
  Mr. Speaker: I say again that I had anticipated that there might be a bid to have this matter raised. It was not raised with me earlier today, but I am sure that the subject should be debated in the House at some time. It might be a useful subject for an Adjournment debate.

  Next Steps
  [Relevant documents: Eighth report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of session 1989–90 on "Progress in the Next Steps Initiative" (House of Commons Paper No. 481) and the Government's reply (Cm. 1263).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Mr. Speaker: A great many right hon. and hon. Members—13 of them—wish to participate in the debate. I ask the four Front-Bench spokesmen to trim their speeches, and Back Benchers to bear that restraint in mind.
  5.10 pm
  The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): If, a generation ago, a Minister had spoken from the Dispatch Box about a revolution in the civil service, there is no doubt that the next day a cartoon by Osbert Lancaster would have appeared in the Daily Express showing a series of gentlemen in bowler hats with rolled umbrellas at the ready marching from Marsham street or Victoria street towards Whitehall. No doubt, there would also have been a picture of Maudie Littlehampton on the pavement looking suitably amazed. But times have changed in the civil service. Bowler hats and rolled umbrellas are out—if they were ever in—and instead, especially in Departments and offices outside London, the order of the day tends to be jeans and tee shirts with suitably lurid stencils on them. The composition of the civil service today is more like that of Marks and Spencer. More than half the staff are women, most have not been in the civil service for long, and four out of five are located outside London and the south-east. Another key difference is that 95 per cent. of the staff are mainly involved not in taking weighty decisions but in providing service to the public.
  A quiet revolution is taking place—a revolution started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—
  Mr. John Garrett: An old idea.
  Mr. Renton: I am coming to that.
  I am delighted to see the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in his place. The Select Committee described next steps in its most recent report as the most ambitious attempt at civil service reform in the 20th century. It may also be seen as the latest stage in a process of reform dating back to the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1854—the basis of today's impartial civil service with competitive recruitment on merit—through to the Fulton report in 1968, which put the focus on management and on the job to be done. That process continued through the financial management initiative in the 1980s, which introduced the idea of delegating budget responsibility to managers, and the Ibbs next steps report in 1988, which gave its name to the policy. Now, in 1991, we have the Fraser report. I believe that Sir Robin Ibbs's contribution to civil service reform is likely to earn him the ultimate accolade—a building at one of the executive agencies for which I am responsible, at the civil service college, called after him; just as Northcote, Chaucer and other famous civil servants have had buildings named after them at the college in Sunningdale.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: What an accolade.
  Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his enthusiastic support for the suggestion.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will there be an Ingham building at Sunningdale for studying the arts of prime ministerial press secretaryship? Does the Minister approve, under the new reforms, of civil servants in the most sensitive positions publishing 400-page books about the very recent past? How does Bernard Ingham's book, "Kill the Messenger", fit in with the civil service reforms?
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has not waited long to make his obvious intervention. Reading the Crossman diaries, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar —indeed, he features in them—one is hardly struck by the Labour Government's detached, balanced and fair approach to the civil service. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, the Labour party governed by intervening in the civil service to promote those who acquiesced in their overtly political views. Joe Haines, the famous Labour press officer, might seem to make Mr. Ingham look like a St. Bernard in a Trappist convent by comparison.
  I shall return to my main subject, and leave Mr. Ingham and other former press secretaries to one side. First, I pay tribute to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I am delighted that its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), is in the Chamber today. I very much welcome the input from Committees of the House, especially from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. It is fair to say that the development of next steps has been a team effort between the Select Committee and the Government.
  The TCSC is about to embark on its fourth annual inquiry into next steps. I realise that this debate may have caused it to postpone its initial sitting. I apologise for that, but the debate flows from a recommendation in the Committee's eighth report of the 1989–90 Session. I very much welcome the recent appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) to that Committee. I welcome him not only as my predecessor as Minister for the Arts and Minister of State, Privy Council Office, but because I know that he will make a valuable contribution to the vital work of the Committee. It is a pleasure to see that Sussex Members are so well represented on the Committee.
  I also acknowledge the work of the Public Accounts Committee on next steps matters. Both sides of the House will recognise and welcome the broad parliamentary support for the aim of next steps. I fully agree with the letter on that subject from my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing in today's Financial Times. I have already welcomed the contribution made from the very start of the project by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), and I am pleased to put that on record.
  The House will be aware of the excellent progress made in implementing next steps. Hon. Members will know that from answers that I have frequently given from the Dispatch Box over the past few months and from the regular announcements by Secretaries of State in charge of the relevant Departments involved with next steps agencies that have recently been created. Today, more than 200,000 civil sevants are working along next steps lines. There are 50 established agencies, ranging from the Social Security Benefits Agency, which employs nearly
  670
  70,000 staff, to the Queen Elizabeth conference centre, which employs 70. There are a further 23 announced candidates so far, and more are to come. The Fraser report, which was published last week, is aptly entitled, "Making the Most of Next Steps". We should pay particular attention to that during the debate.
  Setting up agencies is only part of the job. The other side is to make sure that the arrangements work in practice. Sir Angus Fraser, the Prime Minister's adviser in the efficiency unit, the successor to Sir Robin Ibbs, was asked to examine the relationship between Departments and agencies, and how Departments should adapt their size, structure and methods of working in the light of next steps. The Fraser report was published on 16 May, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented on it in some detail in his written reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that day.
  The report confirms that next steps is leading to real improvements in the quality of service and better value for money. I shall describe some of those results in a minute, but the key point is perhaps somewhat more intangible —it is that both sides of the bargain between Ministers and chief executives should be strengthened. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, Ministers must be able to give agencies clear strategic direction firmly related to the Government's policy objectives.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that they must determine the financial resources that are to be made available, and that they must select and set suitably robust and meaningful targets covering quality of service, financial performance and efficiency. My right hon. Friend also said that they must be able to call chief executives to account for their performance. The role of people in the central core of Whitehall Departments is to provide well-informed and authoritative support to Ministers so that Ministers can do just that. As a result, the number of people at the centre of Departments can be reduced.
  On the other side of the bargain, we are seeking personal responsibility and authority for chief executives to run their organisations, since it is they who are responsible for achieving the progressive improvements in performance, quality of service and value for money that we seek. Agencies' delegations and flexibilities can be enlarged as their track record of performance is established, provided essential controls on public expenditure are not jeopardised. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing agrees. The principle is that the chief executive should have maximum managerial authority to run his agency as he thinks right, unless there are good reasons to the contrary. The process may vary between Departments and agencies.
  As hon. Members know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked the head of the home civil service to take forward in each Department the ideas in the report, and to do that in ways that fit each activity. The next steps project manager in my Department has been instructed to work with the Treasury and with other Departments to bring that about. The Fraser report says that Departments need to consider their role in support of Ministers in relation to agencies. The three important issues are: first, giving chief executives the authority, responsibility and incentives that they need to deliver better results and holding them to account for their performance; secondly, allowing managers in agencies and Departments to shop around for the best buy for support services; and, thirdly, reducing headquarters staff, especially in personnel and

  671
  finance divisions. The report says that a reduction of a quarter in the total of such staff in these functions should be sought.
  The Fraser report confirms an idea that is at the heart of next steps—responsibility should be firmly placed with one named individual. Personal responsibility and scope to bring about results are surely the ways to release the energies, skills and enthusiasms that are to be found in our civil service.
  All this is surely just a means to the simple end of the improved results that we are seeing. I shall give a few examples of the improved results and initiatives that have flowed from next steps and explain why the Government, with the support of the whole House, want to take it forward. Many agencies recover some or all of their costs from charges. The Meteorological Office, which is not always the most favoured organisation in the land, sells tailored weather forecasts, income from which is running at more than £500,000 a year. I shall give two examples of how that is helping the taxpayer and business. Last August, a retailer took Met Office advice that the warm weather would continue and bought stock of over £1 million worth of tee shirts. He sold them all. Ice cream manufacturers and brewers are consulting the Met Office to help improve their forecasts of demand. Many processes depend on weather factors, such as humidity, and by tailoring its forecast to what the customer needs to know, the Met Office is developing new services and new customers.
  Driving Standards Agency examiners now explain faults to failed candidates to help them understand where they were going wrong. The agency published "Your Driving Test" to help people pass the test and improve standards on our roads. That book is now in The Sunday Times list of best sellers, which says much for the standard of driving in this country. The agency's target was to reduce waiting times for tests in non-metropolitan areas to eight weeks, and it is offering tests on Saturdays.
  The Employment Service job club opened on a pilot basis in Pentonville prison. So far 24 people have passed through and nine found jobs. Similar facilities offered via the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders exist at Holloway and 24 people out of 66 have found jobs. The Employment Service has made the UB40 signing card more user friendly and has related it to getting a job rather than just drawing unemployment benefit. Customer satisfaction will be measured annually among agency customers by means of a survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Statistics.
  The recently established Passport Agency has a target to reduce the time taken to process correct applications to within 20 days in January to July and to within 10 days at other times. It is considering differential pricing to smooth out demand over the year, and is planning a new financial regime to help match resources to swings and demand.
  The Historic Royal Palaces Agency faced a problem because of the success of the crown jewels as a crowd puller. Long queues were spoiling the day for everyone, so the agency installed video screens, made a film about the crowd jewels and the Tower. It found that some people are so keen to watch it right through that they give up their place in the queue to see the real jewels. That clever idea keeps everyone happy.
  672
  The Social Security Benefits Agency, which has just been launched, is setting targets to clear applications for specific benefits within published times—on the same day for crisis loans, within five days for income support and within seven days for community care grants.
  Mr. John Garrett: Does the Social Security Benefits Agency have as one of its aims an increase in take-up rates?
  Mr. Renton: Its aim is to clear applications for benefits within the times that I have stated, and that should have the effect of increasing take-up. The hon. Gentleman should look at the framework document in detail. If the target is to provide the benefits within such short periods, the take-up is likely to increase.
  I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who said in the House last week that the establishment of this agency was simply motivated by a desire to reduce costs. Plainly, that is not so. One target relates to the level of customer satisfaction expressed, and that will be verified by an independent national survey of opinions of all groups of customers. The agency will carry out local surveys to identify customer needs, and will introduce customer service managers and a new customer satisfaction measure. All those improvements are clearly aimed at making the service more user friendly, easier to approach and easier to obtain results from.
  All the initiatives that I have mentioned, and many more, are greatly in line with the ideas about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke in the context of a citizens' charter. They are about responding to the customer, and empowering him, which must be the purpose of empowering agency chief executives.
  Next steps opens up what government does. Every agency has a framework document in which its aims and objectives and the targets set by the Minister are published. All agencies are required to report on what they have done and to produce and publish combined annual reports and accounts. Those will be signed by the chief executive and audited by the National Audit Office and will provide unparalleled information on agency activities. The annual reports for 1990–91 will be published from July onwards.
  The House will recall that the targets set for agencies last year were included in the first next steps review which was published in October. I shall certainly consider repeating that exercise. All this. means more openness, more information in the public domain for taxpayers, customers and Parliament and, in most cases, this is for the first time.
  The Government's privatisation policies continue. The Government continue to keep under review the basis on which Government services are provided. The feasibility of immediate privatisation has been considered and rejected for all agencies so far, with the exception of the National Engineering Laboratory, where it was made clear that agency status was en route to the private sector.
  It cannot be ruled out that, after a period of some years, agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation. When an agency is established with a view to privatisation, this is made clear, as in the case of the National Engineering Laboratory. Privatisation and competition are the best friends of the consumer, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear.
  Mr. Giles Radice: What did all that mean? Is the Minister saying that, once an agency has been set up and it has been confirmed that it is not a candidate for privatisation in the immediate future, its future is safe?
  Mr. Renton: I do not wish to repeat myself, as other hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I chose my words with care and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads them in the Official Report.
  I shall take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff. The next steps policy makes sense to them, and this is another reason why the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East on 9 May, when he talked about public servants being hounded and pilloried, were wrong. Quite the contrary: the next steps policy reflects a demand for change for the better that comes from the public servants as well as from the outside world—the customers who want a more responsive service and the taxpayers who want better value for money. Agency staff understand the job they have to do and they welcome being set clear targets, and being given the resources and the managerial scope to meet them. Like the people whom they serve, they can relate better to smaller units with clearer identity. The newly published Fraser report underlines the importance to staff in the centres of Departments, too, in having a clearly defined role and the satisfaction of using their abilities and energies to best effect in supporting and advising Ministers.
  I also pay tribute to the trade unions, which have already been consulted about proposals to establish agencies, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley said they would be when she announced the proposals in February 1988. They will continue to be consulted about any changes in terms and conditions that are contemplated. There is no central strategy for union derecognition or any proposal to derecognise any union as a matter of policy.
  Finally, I must say a word about accountability. Ministers set the targets and tasks and allocate the resources. Parliament and the public can see what they have done and what they have commissioned the agency to do. The chief executive is personally responsible for delivering the results. I am sure that the Fraser report is right to hint that with responsibility go both the reward for getting it right and the blame for getting it wrong.
  We are taking great care to get the right people to be chief executives. Open competition is the normal route. Having got the right person for the job, we must have the confidence to let him get on with it. Accountability includes the requirement to be as responsive as possible to the concerns of Members of Parliament. I believe that direct contact between hon. Members and chief executives and appearances by chief executives, on behalf of Ministers, before Committees of the House will improve overall accountability and give a better service to Members and their constituents.
  There is a great deal of enthusiasm and pride among civil servants for the work that they do and a strong commitment to providing the public with high-quality services, delivered in a business-like way. Through next steps, we hope to tap this enthusiasm and release the energy and skills of staff. This progressive reform has been introduced and carried forward by the Government. We shall pursue it with zest and popular support.
  5.34 pm
  Dr. John Marek: The Minister may pursue reforms with zest until the next general election, but after that there will be a somewhat different view of the reforms, and a different line will be taken by the Labour party. I am glad that the Minister mentioned privatisation at the tail end of his speech, but, with his characteristic lack of incisiveness, he failed to mention the Government's hidden agenda of wholesale privatisation of civil service departments should the Conservative party win the next election.
  I welcome the debate. If it were not for the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, little would be known about the workings of the agency system, as this is the first opportunity that the House has had to air its views on this vital aspect of the civil service and the way in which nearly half of our public services are being administered.
  Mr. Renton: I shall not intervene again in the hon. Gentleman's speech, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, but that comment is somewhat unjust. After all, my predecessor, with the then Prime Minister, published a report in October 1990. It is a detailed review of the next steps agencies after the first year in which many have been in progress. There is a great deal of detail in it and I have already said that I will consider publishing a similar report, quite apart from the annual accounts that will start to be published from July onwards.
  Dr. Marek: I will come back later to that part of what the Minister said. However, this is the first time that the House of Commons has had a debate about agencies. Responsibility for these agencies and their day-to-day running has been shifted downwards to the chief executives without the consent of the House. Questions and letters from hon. Members are answered by chief executives, and this raises questions about ministerial responsibility and the access by hon. Members and the press to the letters that are deposited in the Library, rather than being published in Hansard.
  We have had no debate on the shift in responsibility or on the dramatic changes in the way that our civil service operates. We have had no debate on the change in conditions, and its introduction, on those civil servants who contracted to work in the civil service but now work in different circumstances. Why were no pilot studies undertaken before the agency system was imposed on the civil service? When I say "imposed", I mean that. There has been little consultation with those civil servants who have to carry out the so-called reforms, despite the assurances by the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, during the Second Reading of the Government Trading Funds Bill.
  There have been no serious evaluations of the first three years of the workings of agencies—I except from this the efforts of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.
  We are faced with an increase of 26 agencies on top of the 50 or so already established, so it is time for a serious evaluation to be made.
  A report to the Prime Minister called "Improving Management and Government: The Next Steps"—the Fraser report—may be the next step along the road of trying to ensure the triumph of party political dogma, but

  675
  it is a wild leap in the dark for good government. The integrity and skills of our civil service are highly regarded throughout the world. We have a reputation second to none, yet the civil service is now being fragmented in a way that could undermine one of the great foundations of our country.
  Agencies may be the right way forward—the Labour party does not deny that. However, to deny debate, consultation and reassessment is a serious matter. In the hands of the right Government, agencies will be an asset, but in the hands of the wrong Government, whose motivation is one of profit before service, the consequences for the country could be devastating.
  I come now to what I believe has been the main motive behind the introduction of these agencies—not the quality of service but how costs can be cut so that privatisation can follow.
  Basically, the agencies were set up to cut staff and, where possible, to cut pay. The Treasury has worked on the principle of paying civil servants as little as it can get away with, and not a fair rate of pay to motivate civil servants and encourage them to do their jobs properly. That principle does not apply at the top end of the civil service, however. The head of the civil service will be paid £104,750 per annum. It will not be difficult to fill posts such as that.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am having difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's argument, which betrays a lack of understanding and knowledge of the civil service. Surely agency agreements recognise the skill of civil servants and devolve management accountability to a lower level. Surely that is what civil servants have been asking for over a long time. Will the hon. Gentleman answer a straight question: is he in favour of that devolution or is he not?
  Dr. Marek: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be under a misapprehension. The report is about enabling chief executives and not devolving powers lower down the scale. The right hon. Gentleman says that the civil service has been asking for the establishment of agencies. He should be more specific and tell the House who has been asking for that. It is not something that appears in the Fraser report.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Marek: No. Let me finish my point first.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question.
  Dr. Marek: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to sit down. I shall give way, but first I want to make my point. The right hon. Gentleman will take the time of others who wish to contribute to the debate if he insists on intervening.
  As I have said, I should like to know who within the civil service has been asking for changes to be made. The answer to that question is not to be found in the Fraser report.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not intervene again after asking whether the hon. Gentleman seriously believes that either the employment service or the benefits service is opposed to this new policy development.
  Dr. Marek: The benefits service is far more interested in having decent buildings in which its staff can provide proper services for those who are seeking support. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) intervened during the speech of the Minister of State. The right hon. Gentleman could have responded by saying that one of the quality of service conditions will be that any claimant will be told all his or her rights. If the right hon. Gentleman had made that statement, I would have been heartened, but unfortunately I heard no such statement. I do not suppose that I shall ever hear a Minister make such a statement, and that summarises the difference between the Opposition's approach to agencies and the Government's approach.
  I said before the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) intervened that, in some circumstances, agencies could lead to an advance in administration within the civil service, but I have no hope that that will ever be achieved while the Government are in office. The most important factor is the delivery of a high-quality service. There has been no serious evaluation of quality and no proper examination of the sort of structure that is best for the provision of high-quality public services. No attempt has been made to compare the advantages of a national civil service with the supposed advantages of agencies.
  In the opening of his report to the Prime Minister, Sir Angus Fraser says that there is general agreement that the next steps initiative is progressing well. I do not know who it is who is agreeing, and for what reasons. Where are improvements to be found in quality of service as a result of the changes? If there are improvements, can it be proved that they are the result of the move to agency status, or were they already in train in the pre-agency world? Could they have been achieved without establishing agencies?
  In most agencies, unions are not meaningfully consulted when it comes to establishing targets. I agree, however, that they have been consulted in the course of arriving at framework agreements. The unions are not allowed an input into the corporate planning process in most agencies. Market research hardly qualifies as real user involvement. Some agencies have made half-hearted efforts along this road, but most have not. Overall, too little attention has been paid to the development of sophisticated measures of quality, while too much attention has been given to cost cutting as a supposed answer. The arbitrary and obligatory 1·5 per cent. or 1 per cent. saving while maintaining efficiency demonstrates the emphasis that has been placed on cost cutting.
  Morale in the agencies is not high everywhere. In what remains of the rest of the civil service, there is a widespread feeling that agencies are being introduced at a rate that may destroy the impartiality and integrity of civil servants, along with their dedication to quality of work and service to the public.
  At the end of the day, civil servants are at the sharp end: it is they who deliver the service. Their views should count when it comes to determining the ways in which services should be delivered. Unfortunately, their views are not taken into account. No amount of window dressing can make the quality of service better at the point of delivery. If the window dressing consists of glossy brochures that promise the earth but fail to deliver, it is worthless.
  The framework document that relates to the Passport Office refers to an

  677
  "appropriate level of fees to recover the full costs of providing these services."
  I was not surprised when the Minister talked about differential charging, because that is the Government's theme. It means that, if someone can afford to pay, he will receive a first class service, while those who cannot afford to pay will get a second class service. That applies to the hospital service and education, and the theme is now the same for the civil service. There is the triumph of political dogma over the provision of a proper service for all our people.
  The aims, functions and objectives set out in the framework document that relate to the Passport Agency would be rewritten by a Labour Government. There is far too much secrecy in the executive agencies. In some agencies, the corporate and business plans are confidential documents. These include the Building Research Establishment, the Central Office of Information, the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Companies House, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the Land Registry, the Meteorological Office, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Warren Spring Laboratory.
  There are other agencies in which either the business plan or the corporate plan is a confidential document. There are examples where the personnel management memorandum, or its equivalent, is a confidential document. Such examples include the Central Office of Information, the Information Technology Services Agency, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the Meteorological Office. Why is there such secrecy in these agencies?
  The Minister made great play of the claim that the unions are always consulted. If they are consulted, let them have copies of I he documents to which I have referred—and let the House have copies as well.
  At the end of the day, I believe that the Government want privatisation. I do not believe that they will be content with administrative change. That ultimate goal is an immoral goal. Information must be made available to the general public, and services must be provided at a price that the public can afford, and guarantees cannot be given under privatisation. If services become a charge on democracy, we shall be treading a dangerous road.
  If anyone is in doubt about eventual privatisation, I shall reinforce my argument by the use of a few quotations. The next steps report says that ultimately some agencies may no longer be within the civil service. On 24 October 1988, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), stated:
  "I cannot rule out, however, that after a period of years, agencies, like other Government activities, may be suitable for privatisation."—[Official Report, 24 October 1988; Vol. 139, c. 14.]
  I note that some Conservative Members are nodding. I hope that that will be reported in Hansard.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he and the Labour party are utterly opposed in principle to the privatisation of all the departments in question, whatever the merits of the argument for taking that course, or is he saying that some departments, such as the Public Record Office, might merit privatisation?
  Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman must mention a few merits. Perhaps we can discuss merits when he comes to contribute to the debate. He may wish to develop the theme. I shall be interested to hear exactly what he has to say.
  678
  I shall quote Mr. Peter Middleton, the then permanent secretary to the Treasury, who gave evidence in 1988 to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. I refer to the second volume of the Committee's eighth report, in which Mr. Middleton is reported as saying:
  "becoming an agency may be a step to privatisation later; it is all part of getting a more commercial attitude."
  There we have it. Mr. Middleton added:
  "I think this is particularly true of the various trading funds".
  Last week, the Minister said:
  "We have never said that 'next steps' … is necessarily the end of the road. It is right that some parts of the civil service should be considered for contractorisation and that other parts should be considered as candidates for privatisation." —[Official Report, 13 May 1991; Vol.106, c. 17.]
  That is in line with the Fraser report and with the next steps initiative in respect of a wholesale contracting out of the support services.
  I believe that the Government have a hidden agenda, and it will be interesting to see whether they are honest enough to make it public to the civil service, and to say that, if they win the next general election, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Passport Office, Ordnance Survey, the Meteorological Office and the DVLC will be on a list of likely privatisations. Perhaps the Minister will give a straightforward answer when he winds up, because that would be welcome, one way or the other.
  The problem with commercialisation of the kind advocated in the Fraser report was cited by the chief executive—as I mentioned when the right hon. Gentleman who is a Member for a midlands constituency intervened earlier in my speech.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I represent the constituency of Sutton Coldfield.
  Dr. Marek: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me.
  Mr. Renton: What a disgraceful lack of knowledge.
  Dr. Marek: The Minister may say that, but I come from Wales, and from such areas the midlands look rather far away.
  The Fraser report provides for an enabling of the chief executive. The Minister is said to be in a "quasi-contractual relationship" with the chief executive. That phrase was first coined by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, but it is rather an unfortunate one. I should not wish for anything but that the chief executive should be completely responsible to the relevant Minister. A "quasi-contractual relationship" could be the first step in breaking that link and could lead to privatisation later. That is why agencies were first introduced.
  When Labour is elected to office, we shall make certain arguments for agencies. One is that they can provide Parliament with a better insight into their activities, as well as better services. However, agencies require fairly rewarded, properly trained and highly motivated staff. They also need boards of management with staff representation.
  Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman means union representation.
  Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman has got it in one. Agencies need a clear statement of the policies under which they operate, and clear service quality targets that can regularly be met.

  679
  The Fraser report does not argue for any of those. It is time-locked in a web of political dogma, which has surrounded agencies since they were first established. The next Labour Government will lay that aside, and the next steps project manager will be given another job.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I am somewhat astonished by the hon. Gentleman's remark that dogma has surrounded the agencies since they were first established. On the contrary, the general feeling is of all-party agreement that there is a strong case for going along the agency route. I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman is taking the line that he is.
  Dr. Marek: There is no case for going along the route of the Fraser report. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of indulging in political dogma: I accuse the Government. There is a case for changing the nature of the agencies so that they provide for fairly paid, well trained and highly motivated staff—but that is not guaranteed, and it is unlikely to come about, if the spectre of privatisation looms over the heads of many civil servants working in the agencies.
  If privatisation is on the cards—I firmly believe it is —the possibilities are endless. I suppose that someone would have to tell Sid, and then the Government could use the profits to make more tax cuts for the benefit of the rich, instead of sharing out the benefits to all. That would be another waste of resources on the scale of North sea oil.
  The Government seek to develop a leaner, fitter civil service. We all know what happened to the economy. The Government began their term in office with one recession and are leaving it with another. The Government were supposed to cultivate a leaner and fitter industrial base, but we know what confronts manufacturing industry today. We are again in a recession, and there is no fat to cut. Are further cuts and more privatisation what the nation needs? I do not think so for a moment.
  Agencies would be very different under a Labour Government. The present Government may succeed in putting a gloss on the surface of the many problems confronting the Civil Service, but if it cannot deliver, the gloss will fade, and we shall be left with the dull fragments of what was once a proud service—and that would be a tragedy. It is high time that the Government called a general election, so that Labour can start to repair the damage.
  5.54 pm
  Sir Richard Luce: When I had the privilege of being Minister of State in the Privy Council Office, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was Opposition spokesman on civil service matters. I enjoyed our exchanges, but he appeared to be in a confused state of mind as to the purpose behind the creation of executive agencies. I confess to failing to convince the hon. Gentleman of their value. Even more confusing today is that the hon. Member for Wrexham does not appear to have consulted the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) or his hon. Friends on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee—all of whom now appear strongly to support the principle of executive agencies.
  680
  The hon. Gentleman also does not seem to understand the purposes of the agencies, which are to improve the quality of service given to the public and give the taxpayer better value for money. That is what most concerns the Government. One of the side effects of providing an even better service will inevitably be greater job satisfaction within the civil service—so, of course, there are spin-off benefits. However, the Government's first concern is to improve the quality of the service.
  Having given evidence to the Select Committee over four or five years, sometimes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and sometimes to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), I am relieved to serve now as one of its members—as poacher-turned-gamekeeper—in order that I may continue to take an interest. There is no shadow of doubt about the scale and importance of the reforms.
  The public's perception of the civil service has been moulded by the long-running television series, "Yes Minister", and they still believe that the mandarins tell Ministers precisely what to do and what to say, and that they really run the Government.
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: They do.
  Sir Richard Luce: My hon. Friend says that there is some truth in that belief. However, I will tell him that, within two weeks of my becoming Minister of State in the Privy Council Office, Paul Eddington came to see me, not about civil service matters but about the arts. I grew rather confused by the case that he was making, so I asked him to pause for a moment and to clarify a particular point. I asked him, "Is this what you really mean?" There was a long pause and eventually he answered, "Yes Minister." That led me to believe that I had not quite asserted my authority in the office, but I trust that I did so after that.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister effectively explained that we have come a long way since the significant Northcott-Trevelyan reforms of the last century, which provided for fair and open competition, promotion on merit, professional standards, service loyal to the elected Government of the day, and impartial in that sense. Those principles remain. Sir Charles Trevelyan referred to
  "sickly youths whose parents and friends endeavour to obtain for them service in the employment of the Government as a soft option leading to an early public pension."
  His purpose was to change the climate and to establish those standards of fair and open competition, and of loyalty to the elected Government, that have survived to the present day.
  Recent years have seen the publication of the Plowden and Fulton reports, both of which referred to the need to improve civil service management which was badly lacking. That led in the early 1980s to the delegation of management responsibilities through the financial management initiative, and from there to the Ibbs report, which pointed out that 95 per cent. of the people who serve in the home civil service are dealing with the provision of services to customers of one kind or another, which is highly significant and interesting in itself. Ibbs advocated, as my right hon. Friend the Minister stressed, the need to delegate responsibility. The more that one delegates the more likely one is to achieve better management of resources, better value for money, better accountability and clearer targets, all of which are necessary to help us to improve the quality of the service.

  681
  The reforms are crucial and therefore we are talking not merely about the quantity of money available to public services, but about how we can more effectively improve existing services with given levels of resources. I am glad that, despite the speech by the hon. Member for Wrexham, there is bipartisan support for the principle of delegation of responsibility—or I should like to believe that that is the case.
  Our first duty is to the taxpayers and to the customers that we serve—in most cases they are one and the same. Today we have a chance to take stock of the two reports, the so-called Fraser report and the Price Waterhouse report of March this year, which reviewed the way in which the agencies are progressing. There are now 50 agencies with 210,000 civil servants, and another 23 candidates for agency status. There is growing staff enthusiasm for the existence of the agencies and, therefore, more job satisfaction. It is just under three years since the first agency was created—the Vehicles Inspectorate—and we are beginning to see the first signs of improved performance and better customer service. The fact that so many of the agencies carry out customer surveys is a sign of an attitude of mind that is changing fast and of a different cultural approach.
  I strongly support and commend the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I am sure that he would allow me to congratulate Mr. Kemp, the project manager, who has given admirable momentum to the implementation of those significant reforms.
  I refer especially to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Hansard last week, when he referred to the need to ensure that agencies
  "select and set suitably robust and meaningful targets covering quality of service, financial performance and efficiency; and call chief executives to account for the performance."
  He stressed that
  "This means strategic advice and direction"—
  from the Minister, but—
  "not day-to-day involvement."—[Official Report, 16 May 1991; Vol. 191, c.248.]
  That is an important statement of the way in which we have to continue.
  I stress the importance of delegation of authority. The key to success is to delegate authority for the management of resources to chief executives, and thereby to the team that serves under him. Of course, overall financial control must be imposed from the Treasury, the Government and the Department. We must agree on overall resources and then delegate the day-to-day operation to the chief executive.
  I noticed in the Fraser report a strong reference to the experience of the private sector and to the value and the need to delegate as much as possible, setting clear guidelines from the centre, but leaving the chief executive to get on with the job, which will be crucial to success. The Fraser report also stresses that we must untie support services to enable better value for money and that we must reduce the number of headquarters staff in the personnel and financial divisions. If one is delegating authority one cannot need so many people at the centre.
  As part of the delegation process, those executive agencies must have more freedom to decide how it is best to proceed as regards flexibility on pay and the provision of performance bonuses. The second aspect of the problem is performance targets, which are crucial. The House, on behalf of the country, must be able to judge the
  682
  performance, progress, value for money and quality of the service provided by agencies, through clearly established targets for quality, financial matters and efficiency.
  We are beginning to have evidence from the Vehicles Inspectorate, from HMSO, Companies House and others of improved services and of better value for money. The House has a singularly important part to play in that regard and I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State stressed accountability to the House and the right of Select Committees—not merely the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, but also departmental Select Committees—to summon chief executives to enable them to account to the House for their performance and to allow hon. Members to challenge them.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is a strong believer in the legislature challenging the performance of the Executive and that is the purpose of the exercise and what Select Committees should be doing. Good chief executives should welcome that opportunity to get across their achievements.
  There is no uniformity in the system of executive agencies and nor should there be. Each agency is a different size and type and they should be tailor-made for requirements. Some agencies run on gross running costs, some on net running costs and others on trading fund status. It depends on the nature of the agency and how far it can be run on commercial or semi-commercial lines.
  I am surprised that the hon. Member for Wrexham goes on about privatisation. The Government's approach is quite straightforward. If the service is better suited to privatisation and thereby a better quality of service is provided, that is the first option. If it is considered that that is not the case, the next option is for it to go to an agency. In due course, it may turn out to be more suitable for it to be run on a privatised basis and I believe that that will be the case with the National Engineering Laboratory. The key question that we must ask ourselves is what is the best means of improving the quality of service to the public and getting the best value for money? That is the first and only question that we should ask ourselves.
  I am glad that there was an open competition system for half of the first 34 agencies. It is important to establish that principle across the board, so that we have the opportunity to recruit the best chief executives to run the agencies, whether from the private sector or from the civil service, and we must move towards that, although I am glad that 14 chief executives come from outside the service. The executives appointed from inside the service are certainly of very high quality.
  Finally, I must stress the interplay between management and policy advisers, as it is crucial for there to be a constant interchange between the two. The quality of the advice given by policy advisers to Ministers will be enhanced by their having had management experience in the agencies. However complex it may be to provide that, it is absolutely essential to the success of the service, and I strongly advocate that we consider ways in which we can ensure that people move from one to the other.
  We must never lose sight of our main objectives in this exciting and major reform of the civil service this century: better service for the public and better value for money. In the process, we will achieve an even more professional and dedicated service, which will do an even better job.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: I welcome this debate but, frankly, it is long overdue. It is a pity that it should be taking place three years after the agency reforms started. Perhaps it is also a pity that it is taking place in the run-up to a general election.
  I shall begin by referring to the involvement of the Sub-Committee of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and thanking the Minister of State for his words. As we can see from this debate, bureaucracy-watching has always been a minority sport. Like the mandarins themselves, Members of Parliament are usually much more comfortable with policy issues than with questions of management; but I, and I think many hon. Members in the Select Committee, thought that the next steps changes were far too important to be left to the Executive alone, and that there should be a parliamentary input.
  The Sub-Committee, under the auspices of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee—I am glad that its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), is present—was involved from the start. We held annual hearings on the developments in the next steps programme. We have issued three reports, and we shall hold further hearings in the next month or so. We hope to give our fourth report to the House before the summer recess. The Select Committee's close involvement in a major bureaucratic change is, arguably, unique in the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
  The Select Committee has called the next steps initiative
  "the most ambitious attempt at civil service reform in the 20th century",
  which I think is right. The changes could affect not only 75 per cent. of the civil service, but also the way in which a wide variety of essential services are delivered to the public. It is very much in the nation's interest that these services are delivered with maximum efficiency. As we said,
  "a well-managed state is in the interests of all its citizens."
  Surely that can be agreed between the parties.
  The agency idea has not come out of the blue. It should have been mentioned—I do not think it was—that it is built on the Fulton idea of accountable units. It was pointed out in the Fraser committee report that there is a straight connection with the Fulton committee, which was set up by the Labour Government in the 1960s. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is present, as he played a distinguished part in drawing up that committee's report. The Fulton committee concluded that, to function effectively, members of large organisations, including Departments, should have authority, unitedly and individually. It was essential, in Fulton's view, that that authority should be clearly defined and that civil servants have responsibilities for which they can be held accountable.
  The Ibbs report used the Fulton concept as a basis for proposing the policy of devolved agencies to handle the majority of the Government's business. So far, the next steps reforms have got off to a pretty good start. Since 1988, 50 agencies will have been set up by the end of the year. The next steps programme will apply to nearly half the civil servants by the end of the year.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) that it is too early to make a considered assessment. It would be foolish for us to do so, because some agencies, especially the biggest and most controversial such as the Employment Agency or the Social Security
  684
  Benefits Agency, are only just up and running, and are still in their infancy. However, the next steps changes are beginning to prove their worth.
  I should like to pay tribute to the project manager. He and his team have done a good job on their remit. It is not right to refer to the jobs of civil servants, who are acting under the instructions of Ministers, as though they are taking an independent initiative—they are not. Those who ask for a non-partisan civil service cannot, at the same time, say that we will sack or shift individual civil servants.
  Mr. Batiste: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Radice: That also applies to Conservative Members. In the past few years, under the premiership of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), many of us feared that the civil service was becoming politicised. Journalists talked of a "Thatcherite Satrapy" when referring to the civil service. Thank goodness that has not taken place, although people such as Sir Bernard Ingham behaved in a political way and should have been political appointments, as the Select Committee implied in its report. However, the civil service is still non-partisan. Its head has made it clear that he wants it to remain so, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). It is not for us to criticise the actions of individual civil servants when they are acting under the instructions of Ministers.
  I welcome the speech that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East to the Royal Institute of Public Administration. He said that an incoming Labour Government would not seek to reverse the changes made:
  "I do not think that there would be merit in a new Government seeking to uproot all the plants in the garden, re-arrange their roots and then, having planted them again, expect them to grow well."
  He is absolutely right. He also pointed out that the framework agreement, which sets out the responsibilities and duties of an agency, can be changed by an incoming Government. The agency idea is politically neutral. It is administrative technology that can be transmitted from one Government to the next. This key idea behind the agency reform was endorsed by the head of the civil service when he told us that transmission is a simple matter that is allowed for in a review of a framework agreement. The Labour party supports the agency reforms partly because we could change the framework agreement to allow objectives to reflect the values of an incoming Labour Government.
  There is a wider message. If a Government are embarking on far-reaching changes, especially a change involving the civil service, it is essential to have consensus; otherwise the reforms are likely to be reversed by a successor Government. I hope that the Government take notice of what I am about to say: it would be extremely foolish if, having taken the trouble to set up civil service agencies, they then decided to embark on a programme of privatisation. It has been rumoured in newspapers that the Conservative party may do so if it wins the next election.
  I hope that the Government do not want to privatise sitting agencies, and that the Minister's vague words meant that they would not do so. Such a development would undermine the undoubted consensus on next steps, and could endanger the success of the reforms.
  Mr. Renton: I take the hon. Gentleman's points about the consensus. For that reason, I paid tribute to the work

  685
  of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which included the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). However, is there consensus in the Labour party on this matter?
  I read the speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) with much interest. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) gave me the strong impression that he was distancing himself from the next steps process. That shows the great divide on this matter in the Labour party.
  Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham made it clear that he was in favour of the agency reforms, but that, under a Labour Government, they would take a different shape. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the framework agreement allows that to happen, because the objectives of an agency can be changed. Different people may put their words differently. As I said, it is a pity that this debate is taking place in the run-up to a general election. That is the fault not of my hon. Friend, but of the Government, who have delayed the debate, despite our telling them many years ago not to do so.
  If the Minister is trying to maintain the consensus, it would be foolish of him to stir the party political pot. I advise him not to do so.
  Mr. Renton: The intra party political pot.
  Mr. Radice: I have not done that. The Minister should not look a gift horse in the mouth. He should accept support, wherever it comes from and not complain, because he is quite lucky.
  In supporting the next steps reforms, I am not hiding the fact that there are major problems of implementation; we must accept that. Some of the problems were covered in the three reports of the Select Committee, and some were covered in the recently published Fraser report, which the Select Committee will want to consider. It will want to take evidence from Sir Angus Fraser. He has said —we have said so, too—that clear framework agreements are required. Some of those agreements are not yet clear enough on objectives, duties and responsibilities.
  Within the agreement, management must have sufficient independence, because that is the point of the agency reform. At the same time, the management must be made accountable and the only way to do that is to have proper performance indicators. However, performance indicators are in their infancy. We do not have a fully developed sense of what they should be, and in particular, we have not established sufficient output indicators. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South is an expert on such matters, and I look forward very much to his remarks.
  It should not be a question of cost cutting. As we said in our latest report, we should like some of the benefits to be invested in improved services to the general public. I agree that the appointment of good chief executives is absolutely key, and that it should normally be done by open competition. I am glad to see that that point was endorsed by the Fraser report.
  The role and size of core Departments is another problem, epecially as it is likely that there will be job losses within them. It would be foolish to pretend that that will not create great difficulties. The role of the Treasury and whether it supports the agency idea is an issue: I hope it does, but I am not absolutely certain. There is a need for a monitoring unit over and above the project team to
  686
  consider developments, to assess whether we are fragmenting the civil service too much and whether we are creating agencies without any general co-ordinating principles.
  The nature of the civil service is also an issue. What sort of civil service will remain once all the separate agencies have been created? Will the heads of the agencies be able to become policy advisers? We do not yet know. I believe that they ought to, but I do not know what will happen. These are tricky and important issues, and we shall consider them and others in our report to the House before the summer recess.
  The next steps reforms raise in an extreme form the problem of how civil servants are to be made accountable for their actions to Parliament. The classic formula of exclusive ministerial responsibility has, for many years, proved unsatisfactory as a means of ensuring the accountability of civil servants. The range of Government business is so extensive that no single Minister will know in detail everything within his Department. Hence the growing number of appearances of civil servants before Select Committees, which I welcome. That has become such a special feature of parliamentary life that we have a rather esoteric set of Government rules governing the appearance of civil servants—I think that they are called the Osmotherley rules.
  The next steps reforms create a new dilemma. The chief executive will be given specific operational responsibility by the framework agreement, but the Minister will remain responsible for the overall terms of the agreement. For example, if an hon. Member wishes to take up an operational matter with the Minister, he or she will be referred to the head of the agency. That seems logical. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have taken up social security cases directly with the local office manager. That is the most efficient way in which to get answers, and that is the way I have always operated. However, until now I have always been able to refer the matter to the Minister if I am not satisfied with the local manager's reply. That is a weapon available to hon. Members, but they will not have it in future, because the Minister will always say that the matter is one for the agency under the framework agreement. Our questions will be referred to the agency, and we will have no recourse to the Minister even if the problem raises wider issues. The House will have to consider that matter carefully and the Select Committee will have to consider it carefully in our coming report.
  There are also different issues with the Select Committees. Originally, we recommended that chief executives should give evidence directly on their own behalf to the Select Committees. We were told that that was a matter for overall ministerial responsibility, and the Government proposed a compromise whereby Ministers remained formally responsible but, in practice, agency heads answered for their delegated responsibilities. That seems a sensible approach. It is also welcome that chief executives, such as agency accounting officers, are financially responsible to the Public Accounts Committee. But these changes put pressure on Select Committees, and I question whether they are in a good enough position to carry out their responsibilities.
  Select Committees have been slow to question chief executives. Part of the problem is that we do not yet have a generally accepted set of performance indicators, so it becomes difficult to ask meaningful questions about the work of agencies. If the performance indicators can be

  687
  developed, perhaps the Select Committees will be in a stronger position. It is important that those Committees can make chief executives responsible for their stewardship.
  We must learn as we go along. Accountability is in its infancy, but there is a strong case for arguing that parliamentary accountability of agencies will need to be supplemented by a strengthened system of administrative justice, a more powerful ombudsman and a freedom of information Act.
  Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Radice: No, because there is very little time.
  Next steps is a promising reform and hon. Members, particularly those on the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, have a responsibility to see that it succeeds.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: One of the clear lessons of the Government's successful privatisation programme in the 1980s was that people freed from the constraints of the governmental system were then often able to make dramatic transformations in the quality of services and the effectiveness of the organisations that they ran. Some executive functions of Government are not now suitable for privatisation and they may not be in the longer term. But we must consider the lessons of the privatisation programme for the structure of government and implement the reforms that will enable similar improvements to be made even if the process falls short of full privatisation.
  We should ask ourselves how the interests of customers and good management can be met within the overall and inevitable constraints of the governmental system. We must shift the focus of the managers of governmental executive responsibilities away from looking to their backs, in order to shelve responsibility, and passing on those responsibilities higher up the civil service—almost always ultimately to the Treasury. Instead, we should refocus their attention on giving a better service to their customers and better value for money.
  Until I heard the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I had understood that the next steps agencies had widespread support as the right way forward. When the hon. Gentleman reads his speech, he may find that the balance of it gave a different impression, even though some of his remarks undoubtedly suggested support for the principle of the next steps agencies. The Government have an ambitious programme—by 1992, 50 per cent. of civil servants will work in agencies and, in the longer term, the objective is for 90 per cent. of civil servants to work in agencies. Such an ambitious programme will succeed only if it has the widest support among all parties.
  My particular interest was focused on 26 April this year, when I, with a number of others, had the privilege of going to the forensic science laboratories at Wetherby on the occasion of the official launch of its next steps agency. Of course, there was trepidation—anybody facing major changes in the way in which his organisation is structured and run will inevitably look to the future with a measure of trepidation—but I found great enthusiasm for the freedom that the people felt that they now had in the running of their affairs. I was particularly heartened by the
  688
  way in which the members of the forensic science service, as well as their major customers—the police force—talked about how the service could be improved, how the police could get better value for money and how the detection of crime could be advanced. That is what this process is all about.
  How can the process be advanced more generally? Clearly, the maximum devolution of authority downwards is necessary. With that must go the maximum possible devolution of budgets. The provision of incentives for success—however one may phrase that—is an integral part of the process. If there are not rewards for success, the temptation to go for the easy life will always be great.
  It is important that support services should be fully costed and that the managers of these agencies should be free to shop around for the best value. There must be tough auditing and complaints procedures. I refer not just to accountability to the House, to which the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) referred, but to accountability to the public. The public need a strong complaints procedure, with a view to ensuring that, at their end, the objectives of the next steps agencies are properly fulfilled. Clearly, inherent in that are strong, published performance targets. These targets change from time to time; they are indeed moving targets. Clearly, the agencies, as they develop in certain directions, will find new objectives on which they must focus.
  As other hon. Members want to take part in this debate, I shall heed your strictures about brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall refrain from referring to many of the fascinating subjects that have been raised in the debate. Suffice it to say that the great political debate of the 1990s will focus on the way in which public services can be made more effective, with a view to delivering better value for money and better service for the people for whom they are intended. The core of that debate is in the citizens' charter proposals that the Prime Minister has floated. Many of the proposals at the core of the citizens' charter are now being developed, extended and experimented with in the next steps agencies. As those agencies succeed, so will the whole process of providing better services for the public.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. John Garrett: I must confess that I have mixed feelings about next steps agencies, as I had a hand in their origin. Twenty-four years ago, a group of which I was a member reported to the Fulton committee that Departments should be divided into budget centres; executive areas with measurable output, which we now call agencies; and responsibility centres handling legislative policy and ministerial support work, which are now called core departments. As a result, Fulton produced a definitive text on agencies. Paragraph 150 of the Fulton report says that the achievement of accountable management
  "depends upon identifying or establishing accountable units within government departments—units where output can be measured against costs or other criteria, and where individuals can be held personally responsible for their performance."
  Of course, because of bitter Treasury opposition those ideas came to nothing.
  The concept next surfaced in a Fabian tract written in 1973 by myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), in which we proposed the widespread establishment of departmental agencies. This tract was called—believe it or not—"Administrative

  689
  Reform: The Next Step". The present agencies go much further than we had in mind. We never believed that, on such an issue, the Treasury could be so effectively handbagged. Like Fulton, we saw departmental agencies as bodies that would develop better information and budgetary systems and would enable the development of a cadre of professional top managers in the civil service. The main aim of Fulton, in constructing accountable management, was to break the power of the mandarins —the Oxbridge public school classicists and historians who ran the civil service—and replace them with managers. Unfortunately, that aim has never been fulfilled, and top management in the civil service is as socially and educationally exclusive as ever.
  The reason agencies have made such rapid headway is that they were seen as a vehicle for cutting civil service costs by giving agency chief executives a strong incentive, through performance pay, to reduce staff numbers and by ending service-wide agreements on pay and conditions. The idea was to locate agencies in low-pay areas, and then pay their staffs at the local going-rate.
  The document that heralded agencies in 1988 was a slight and inexpert piece of work—16 pages of assertions, and no analysis. This is what it says about Parliament:
  "Presssure from Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee and the media tends to concentrate on alleged impropriety or incompetence, and making political points, rather than on demanding evidence of steadily improving efficiency and effectiveness."
  I thought at the time that that was a gratuitous and ignorant observation, given all the efforts that all of us make every day of our lives, in the House and on the Select and Standing Committees, to demand improved performance by Departments. We have certainly never been offered it, and we have never secured it except by relentless pressure. Yet, here we have this dismissive attitude to our work in Parliament.
  The first wave of these partly independent nongovernmental organisations—"PINGOs"—is now three years old. Their role, responsibilities, objectives and targets are supposed to be specified in framework documents. The early ones were all in relatively non-controversial areas: quasi-commercial work, where a framework document is not difficult to draw up. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the Meteorological Office, the royal parks, research institutions, vehicle licensing, and so on. The only one in the first wave which was in an area of social policy was the Resettlement Agency, existing to provide board and lodging for persons without a settled way of life. The framework document for that body should have been a rather subtle instrument, but it did not even mention the size of the problem with which it had to deal, or what it proposed to do for its clients. Its only target was to abolish itself.
  Now, a number of agencies are involved in social policy, having joined the Resettlement Agency. The largest of these has to do with social security benefits. They raise much more significant matters of public policy and parliamentary accountability. Decisions affecting thousands of our constituents have been handed over to a subsidiary of the Department of Social Security. Now we have the Fraser report, which raises more questions than it answers. I should like to put to the Minister a number of direct questions arising from it.
  The first question concerns the treatment of staff. I have here three letters sent last month by the Office of the
  690
  Minister for the Civil Service to the Council of Civil Service Unions. I shall leave the Minister sufficient time to reply to the questions that have been put to him, and I hope that he will answer this point. The effect of the letters from the officer to the council is to deregulate annual reporting, deregulate promotion procedures and deregulate redundancy procedures. In effect, they abandon long-established redundancy agreements. More civil servants are being made redundant than at any time since the 1950s. Is it the intention to abandon all staff agreements on conditions of service in agencies? Paragraph 2.8 of the Fraser report proposes to give chief executives freedom to manage staff and resources in all areas, with a few specified exceptions. What are the exceptions? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question.
  Secondly, we come to the framework documents, which are clearly crucial to the management of agencies and to which several hon. Members referred. Paragraph 2.4 of the Fraser report says that there should be agency targets and that they should measure financial performance, efficiency —both of which mean cost cutting—and the quality of customer service. Why does it not mention effectiveness in reaching out to those who could benefit from the services? Is it not the job of the Social Security Benefits Agency to increase benefit take-up rates? Is it not the job of the Training Agency to reach those people who need training but are not getting it? Will those targets be set?
  So far, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has had two entirely different answers from two different Ministers on that point. When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now the Chancellor, was asked whether it was legitimate for the new Social Security Benefits Agency to try to increase the take-up of benefits, he said:
  "I would not see that as a feature."
  When asked the same question, the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), then Minister for the Civil Service, said:
  "In principle 'yes' and they arc perfectly entitled to set that as a target."
  What is the truth?
  Thirdly, the Fraser report refers to cuts in headquarters staff of some 25 per cent. It quotes reductions in industry, under a similar devolutionary approach, of some 50 per cent. Those cuts will come in personnel and finance divisions, which happen to be the two places where civil service management is weakest. The report even talks about redefining the size and role of the Treasury and the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service. I never thought that I would see a Government report on "downsizing" the Treasury.
  What is the size of that group in the civil service which is to be reduced? In the 30 main departments, it can hardly involve fewer than 100,000 staff members, virtually all working in London and living in the capital and its suburbs. When will they go? Will they suffer from deregulated redundancy arrangements?
  Fourthly, it is the aim of the Fraser report to devolve personnel work from the centre and from the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service to the individual agencies. The Office of the Minister for the Civil Service will be cut, as I assume that the Minister will seek to set an example by reducing headquarters staff. When personnel work has been devolved, what will happen to central equal opportunities initiatives? There are no members of ethnic minority groups in the civil service in grades 1, 2 or 3 and

  691
  only five in grade 4. Women form 48 per cent. of civil service staff. They form 74 per cent. of the lowest clerical grade but 5 per cent. of grades 1 to 4. How will those problems be addressed when the civil service is a collection of 100 small businesses, with no power at the centre to impose equal opportunities guidelines?
  Fifthly, why is the civil service still regulated by Order in Council—the royal prerogative? Surely it is obvious that we need a civil service Act to govern the employment and conditions of civil servants. The royal prerogative was used to deny civil servants trade union rights at GCHQ. A civil service Act should define the duties of civil servants to serve the Crown rather than the Government of the day. It should also define the rights of civil servants to belong to trade unions and the duties of an accounting officer. At present, the accounting officer memorandum, which lays down the responsibilities of permanent heads of department, has no legal standing. The only statutes that apply to an accounting officer are those under the National Audit Act 1983.
  Will the terms and conditions of service of civil servants be legislated for, or will they continue to be governed by royal proclamation? Will the civil service continue to be an entity? If it ends up as 100 agencies and 20 or 30 core departments, there will have to be an active and professional department for the civil service at the centre. Surely there is no question but that the arts and the civil service should be combined in the portfolio of one Minister. That shows what the Government think of the arts and the civil service. It is a ridiculous combination.
  Which of the agencies will be privatised? I happen to have two in my constituency—Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. Having joined the civil service, my constituents should like to know how many of them will end up working for private companies. The two agencies which I mentioned are sufficiently commercial to be chosen for privatisation. If there were a list of forthcoming privatisations, as I am sure that there is, right at the top would be HMSO—so long as the Government could find a way to subsidise parliamentary documents—and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.
  The Government boast of efficiency but, when one studies the background to their recent policies, one sees extraordinary inefficiency and huge cost of administration in relation to returns. The poll tax, the social fund, student grants and chasing errant fathers for maintenance are examples of such policies. There has never been legislation with such a low benefit-to-cost ratio. Civil service policy is not the only example of retrogression. Recently, there has been a growth in quangos. I remember when the Government were a great hunter of quangos but nowadays, instead of talking quangos, we have spending ones carrying out training, regulating gas, water and electricity and controlling pollution. Few of those expensive quangos are accountable to Parliament. Will the Minister explain their accountability?
  Agencies are neutral. They can be used by a Labour Government for advancing the conditions of the people and for providing better services to the customer.
  Alternatively, they can be used to cut costs—as these agencies will be used. They may be like HMSO or the Charities Commission. Under the Government, they will
  692
  drive down the living standards of their workers and will not actively seek to improve their services. If anything, they make worse the real problem of the civil service—its divisions on grounds of social class. It is still overwhelmingly dominated by mandarins. The cadre of the permanent sector is now more socially exclusive than it was in 1900. In last year's fast-stream entry, 55 per cent. of entrants had Oxbridge arts degrees and one came from a polytechnic. The Government have made no impact on that problem.
  The tradition of the gentleman amateur in top management in British Government has done our country incalculable harm. It is a tradition that is indifferent to quantitative analysis, management and junior staff. That is the real problem in the civil service, and the Government have done nothing to broaden the formation of senior civil servants. Agencies are irrelevant to that problem and, although they could be used to improve quality, the Government will use them to cut costs. Under a Labour Government, they would be used to improve the quality of service, particularly in social policy, to outreach the service to potential customers, who now receive no service at all.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: The question that the Opposition must answer on their ambiguous approach to this issue is whether they believe in putting first the interests of staff or those of the consumer. Next steps seeks to attain a complete change in culture within the civil service. Every hon. Member knows that dealing with the civil service—whether it is a matter of trying to get a passport in time or a replacement driving licence—is like dealing with a brick wall. We are trying to achieve a dramatic change.
  A welcome change has been made in the driver vehicle licensing centre, and the results of Her Majesty's Stationery Office are gradually being improved. The Meteorological Office also shows every sign of improvement, and Ordnance Survey and Companies House have taken great initiatives.
  The Public Record Office is a prime candidate for privatisation. It is a marvellous national asset that should be exploited. I find it offensive when people come to me, having studied documents in the Public Record Office, and ask why documents from the first world war are still classified "top secret" and not available. There should be an immediate change to the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967 to allow the privatisation of the Public Record Office. We should be able to give the public far better service. They should be allowed to see all documents, unless there is a genuine national security consideration or somebody's life could be put at risk by premature disclosure.
  The Public Record Office is a national asset. A good precedent for privatisation was when the BBC decided that it was also a national asset, with tremendous software programming. At one stage, only three people were working in the New York office of BBC Enterprises. It is now a major organisation, working to the great benefit of the BBC.
  The Public Record Office is sitting on a veritable goldmine, yet it supplies absolutely free, although not entirely good, service, not just to the British public but to American academics and researchers from overseas. I should like to see the genuine exploitation of all the material. The Government and civil service should ensure

  693
  that they fully respect the 30-year rule. All material should go from Government Departments to the Public Record Office without being shredded. After 30 years, all that material should become completely available to readers of the Public Record Office. That would mean charging consumers and exploiting a priceless asset and would end the abuse and secrecy surrounding the Public Record Office.
  People do not realise that, not only are several Government Departments excluded from the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967, which means that Government Departments do not have to supply documents to the PRO; material is sent to the PRO after it has been what is euphemistically known as "weeded" by the civil service, and that material also remains closed. There are vast corridors of documents in the PRO that are entirely secret. At present, the PRO conspires with the Lord Chancellor's Office to ensure that that material is never seen by the public. That is a deplorable conspiracy. I should like to see something along the lines of a Freedom of Information Act or a change in the Public Records Acts to enable people—the taxpayers—to be able to see that material.
  There is a great principle in the United States: if material has been paid for by the taxpayer, he is entitled to see it. Unfortunately, on this side of the Atlantic, we subscribe to the culture whereby material is not made available to the taxpayer because, if it were, it would mean that, heaven forbid, the civil service would be held accountable for the views and advice it gives to Ministers. That is the key to the culture of secrecy in this country, which a simple change to the Public Record Office or an aggressive approach to next steps could change. The retention of documents in the PRO is absurd.
  This week has seen the anniversary of the arrival in this country of Rudolf Hess. How odd it is that, if one wants to read the true account of what happened to Rudolf Hess, one has to go to the national archives in America and pay 15 cents a sheet or to Dzerzhinski square in Moscow and ask the KGB for its version of the documents. They are available in both those places, but the British version of the documents is entirely secret.
  If we were to take an aggressive approach to the privatisation of the Public Record Office and impose a 50-year rule, which would satisfy people on the national security grounds of retaining particularly sensitive documents, we could now be reading the documents prepared by the security service in 1940 relating to alleged fifth columnists, pro-Nazis and people who were considered sympathetic to the Nazis in 1940 and a possible danger to the Government of this country.
  The PRO is a priceless asset which should be exploited in exactly the same way as the BBC has exploited BBC Enterprises. The BBC has made marvellous programmes over many years. That software has become available and is a source of tremendous financial advantage to the BBC. We should like to see exactly the same thing happen to the PRO. The driver and vehicle licensing centre has just begun on that path by selling some number plates. The Ordnance Survey could do much the same thing and Companies House could follow suit by supplying fast information to consumers.
  At the bottom of next steps, and what we are asking for, is not just a change of service, but a change of the culture of secrecy which has so shackled this country and worked to the disadvantage of taxpayers. I should like to see a
  694
  change, not necessarily for the benefit of the staff of such organisations—many people believe that some of those organisations existed for the benefit of their staff, notably British Rail. We should take an aggressive approach to the next steps agencies which would work to the advantage of the taxpayer.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Renton: This has been a useful debate, and I am glad that we have been able to arrange it, as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee suggested. I particularly wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) for his wise speech, in which he drew on his extremely extensive knowledge of the subject. I am conscious that when he was in the office that I now hold, he oversaw the inception of the next steps policy from its beginnings. Now, as a member of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he will be able to see how that policy develops in practice. I am sure that the Select Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), will greatly benefit from the continuing interest and experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham in this subject.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham asked about transferring staff between agencies and policy areas. I thoroughly agree that such transfers are extremely important, and I hope that staff interchange will continue, both for staff development and for management needs. I hope that freedom in pay and personnel regimes, which will be increasingly flexible, will not be allowed to obstruct the transferability of which my right hon. Friend spoke.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) for his speech. I wholly agree that a major part of the political debate of the 1990s will concentrate on better public service for the ordinary, average citizen of the United Kingdom and, I hope, a continuing interesting career structure with flexibility of pay for all those working in the public service. That fits in with the citizens' charter, on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made a number of interesting comments and on which a White Paper will come before the House before the summer recess.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was able to make a speech. I listened with interest to his not wholly unexpected remarks about the Public Record Office. I wholly agree with him about the need for better service to be the theme throughout the next steps agencies.
  I thought that the comments of the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) were disappointing—
  Mr. Radice: Come on.
  Mr. Renton: It is no good the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) saying, "Come on," because in his saner moods—when he spoke tonight, he was in a good sane mood—he will realise precisely why I say that. The hon. Members for Wrexham and for Norwich, South reminded me of the old saying that none rowed fast, but none so fast as stroke. There is support for the agencies in principle and in detail from the Government and Opposition Back Benchers, as was shown by the hon. Member for Durham, North. There is none—or there is havering—from the hon. Members for Wrexham and for

  695
  Norwich, South, which is disappointing. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) left the Chamber before being able to be reminded how much he is being let down by the two Opposition spokesmen.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South, despite his long-term interest in the subject, merely brought out the old sayings about mandarins and Oxbridge recruitment to the civil service. Why did he not give a single, constructive and intelligent comment about where the next steps initiative was going?
  Mr. Radice: The Minister was not listening.
  Mr. Renton: I was listening carefully, and I was extremely disappointed. I realise that the hon. Member for Wrexham does not know a great deal about the subject. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham said, the hon. Member for Wrexham has often shown confusion on the subject. But I expected more from the hon. Member for Norwich, South, who has served on the Select Committee for a long time. He merely trotted out all the old, trite phrases about next steps.
  Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Renton: I shall not give way; I have only one minute left and I want to answer some of the points made—
  Dr. Marek rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Dr. Marek rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Renton: I will not give way, because I want to answer some of the questions—
  Dr. Marek rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please resume his seat?
  Dr. Marek rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Renton: I wanted to answer some of the questions put by the hon. Member for Norwich, South as I was intending—
  Dr. Marek rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is extremely bad behaviour.
  Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: There can be no point of order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
  Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Ministers not to give way when they make personal attacks on hon. Members?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Renton: We will carry the process forward with vigour, and I am sure that it will be supported by the civil service and by the whole country.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is promoted by London Underground Ltd. It was deposited in Parliament in November 1989. It was given a Second Reading in another place on 8 March 1990 and committed to an Opposed Private Bill Committee which first sat on 5 June 1990. Some 36 petitions were deposited against the Bill in the other place. The Committee adjourned its proceedings on 11 June to enable the promoters to make certain changes to the Bill as a result of a petition from the trustees of the Borough market. The Committee reconvened on 3 December and concluded on 18 December 1990. I pay tribute to my former colleague on the Greater London council, Baroness Gardner of Parkes, who piloted the Bill through the other place.
  The Bill stemmed from the recommendations contained in the Fennell report into the fire at King's Cross. The report contained 157 recommendations. Recommendation No. 62 said:
  "London Underground shall undertake an investigation of the problems of passenger flow and congestion in stations and take remedial action".
  The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to that recommendation at three busy stations: London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road. The measures are concerned with safety and the relief of passenger congestion, and aim to provide additional capacity for future growth at each station. Both elements are of great importance to Londoners.
  Anyone who travels on the underground will have seen, as I have, the problems of congestion. The use of the underground increased rapidly during the 1980s. In 1981, there were 541 million journeys. In 1989 there were about 850 million—an increase of 57 per cent. Central London stations, already heavily used, became even busier. Usage increased by 38 per cent. during peak periods and by 53 per cent. over the day as a whole.
  The three stations were constructed at a time of far lighter passenger flow and their features incorporate thinking on station design which is no longer acceptable, such as entrances to the ends of long, dead-end platforms —that is long platforms with the entrance and exit at one end—and limited space to deal with congestion and bottlenecks at the head and foot of escalators and stairways. The three stations have only one route to the street, although two independent means of escape other than by train are now required for new stations. The design of the stations coupled with the increased number of passengers mean that congestion is a regular occurrence.
  For London Underground, congestion and safety problems go together. Congestion could, for example, lead to someone falling off the platform or could result in panic in an emergency. That is why the long title of the Bill is
  "An Act … for safety purposes and the relief of passenger congestion".
  In line with the Fennell recommendations, London Underground is carrying out a review of 30 stations and is studying the problems of safety and congestion. The three
  698
  stations were given high priority for attention. At London Bridge, the platforms and access points to them were built in 1900. Over the past 20 years, use of the station has increased by 92 per cent. Under the Bill, the main work will be the construction of a new tunnel and line of railway which will enable the present southbound platform to be turned into a circulating area. As well as the existing station entrance, there will be a new ticket hall in Borough High street with escalator connections.
  At Holborn, the present ticket hall was built in 1906 to serve the Piccadilly line. It was altered in 1933 when the Central line platforms were added. The station was used by about 35 million people in 1990, the figure having risen by about 50 per cent. since 1981. The ticket hall is small and is frequently closed for short periods on weekdays to avoid overcrowding. London Underground proposes to build an additional ticket hall beneath the junction of Southampton row and Theobalds road, and to build associated shafts and subways to the platforms below, which will provide an additional means of getting into and out of the station.
  Tottenham Court Road has what everyone would agree is a remarkably small ticket hall, especially with the new ticketing machinery and with the safety measure of taking the machines back from the end of the escalator. The present ticket hall dates from 1929, and serves the Central and Northern lines. The hall is small, but it has to serve 35 million passengers annually. It is the sixth busiest station on the system and its use has grown by 51 per cent. between 1981 and 1989, leading to periods of closure as at Holborn. The main work at Tottenham Court Road station will be a new ticket hall at the corner of Oxford street and Tottenham Court road, with escalators to serve the Northern and Central lines and associated passageways to the platforms. That will improve passenger distribution and will give better access to Oxford street.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend refers to escalators. Although I appreciate that he may need to get some information, can he tell us whether the escalators will be built to a standard pattern so that if there is a problem about repair a new escalator can be put in straight away? Or, as with so many London escalators, will they be purpose-built for each station? There is great difficulty in getting replacements made because each escalator is a one-off job.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a background knowledge of these matters. When I was a member of the London Transport committee of the Greater London council, we specifically discussed escalators for the reasons that my hon. Friend has described. From my knowledge of that time, I realise that it is a difficult problem because of the unique way in which escalators have to be constructed. They often have to be carried in piece by piece through the ticket hall and then assembled. I note my hon. Friend's point and I will seek guidance. I may seek leave of the House to try to answer his question in due course.
  The Bill is extremely important to London. Other hon. Members may want to raise important constituency matters. For my constituents and for those of other London Members, it is vital that the Bill is given a Second Reading without delay. I recommend the Bill to the House.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I emphasise at the outset that I have no quarrel with the basic purpose of the Bill. The proposed works are entirely in line with the approach that was recommended for London Underground by the Fennell report following the tragedy of the fire at King's Cross. The improvements and the works leading to them which are set out in the Bill are worthwhile objectives.
  I shall be brief in expressing my concern, which rests solely with clause 31, which effectively overrides the normal provisions of listed building protection for such buildings contained within the purview of any works relating to the Bill.
  You will doubtless recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when the King's Cross Railways Bill, which was jointly promoted by British Rail and London Underground, first came before us, it contained a similar provision. It was a rather sweeping provision, removing any listed building consent requirements for any of the buildings within the purview of the Bill. The Department of the Environment, even at that first stage of the Bill, expressed its reservations about that clause. English Heritage attempted to petition against the Bill but was refused locus standi to do so. However, the Committee that considered the King's Cross Railways Bill quite rightly drew attention to that clause and demanded that British Rail and London Underground remove it.
  That was an entirely appropriate response to an attempt, by means of a private Bill, to overturn the impact of primary legislation. Such an attempt should not be made through the private Bill procedure. The Department of the Environment, English Heritage and the Committee were entirely right to reach that judgment.
  Sadly, neither British Rail nor London Underground seem to have learnt the lesson from that experience. We already have tabled, although not yet debated, the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill which contains a similar provision. The London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill contains entirely worthy measures, but it also contains a clause that would override listed building provisions.
  I do not want to hold up the works in the Bill, but I insist that London Underground goes through the proper procedures in relation to gaining listed building consent and seeking to do works in conservation areas, rather than attempt to overturn them by means of a clause in a private Bill. I hope that we may be able to get a commitment from the promoters of the Bill on the point about listed building consent. Failing that, I hope that the Committee that may be established to consider the Bill will treat the clause in exactly the same way as another Committee treated clause 19 of the King's Cross Railways Bill.
  It is an important constitutional point that private Bills should not override the provisions of primary legislation. We have set in place listed building protection to protect our heritage. It is not the place of the private Bill procedure lightly to overturn that protection. I fear that clause 31 of this Bill is doing precisely that.
  7.12 pm
  Sir John Wheeler: I am particularly glad to follow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), because I, too, wish to refer to the great concern about clause 31 in the city of Westminster. I completely agree with what the hon.
  700
  Gentleman said about the proposal and the principles that the Bill would set aside. I, too, have considered the plea from English Heritage that there should be greater consideration of those matters, and I sympathise with its point of view.
  I particularly wish to address the House on behalf of Westminster city council and the residents of the city who, while strongly welcoming the proposal to develop the new underground facilities which my constituents and the people who live and work in the city will commonly enjoy, are concerned about setting aside the provisions of primary legislation to further the speedy passage of a private Bill.
  As a general principle, Westminster city council opposes the powers that are sought by London Transport in the Bill to demolish listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas without recourse to normal planning procedures. The city council believes that consent to demolish a listed building or unlisted building in a conservation area should be granted only when a satisfactory design for the replacement building is approved and when proper guarantees about the construction of the replacement building are provided. That, of course, is normally a condition of consent in the first instance. As a planning authority, the city council, which has responsibility for granting such consents, requires both those conditions to be met to ensure not only that a replacement building is of a satisfactory design but that no unsightly vacant sites are left following demolition. Westminster city council opposes the provisions of clause 31 because no guarantees on those important issues have been provided.
  I wish that those who promote this legislation would recognise that wider concerns within the community, and especially in the centre of London, must be addressed. Such concerns force the House to make a difficult decision. Are we to divide and oppose the Bill or can we expect a reasonable approach from the sponsor of the Bill so that the concerns of English Heritage, my council and the city of Westminster can be met? I hope that I shall receive some encouraging comments.
  Westminster city council has noted the findings of the Opposed Private Bill Committee which recently reported on a similar issue on the Jubilee line Bill with respect to the demolition of Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge street. The Opposed Private Bill Committee amended the Jubilee line Bill to require a resolution of the House to be passed, approving the design of the replacement of Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge street before the existing building can be demolished. The city council welcomes the committee's recommendation that the design of replacement buildings is important, but is concerned that it still provides no certainty that the replacement building will be built.
  My council continues to oppose the Bill on that basis. Residents of the city and the 500,000 or so people who work in the city would want these important underground facilities to be developed, but I wish that there was greater co-operation between those who promote private legislation and the statutory authorities that are responsible for planning matters. It is recognised that there is widespread public concern about our architectural heritage and the environment, and those matters must also be taken into account.
  I very much hope that the House will listen and that those with responsibility for this matter will respond helpfully.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) in expressing opposition to clause 31. I was just trying to do some quick checking to see whether the notice of motion relating to the attachment of environmental assessments to the private Bill proposals would cover the aspects of clause 31. I think that it probably would.
  Clause 31 does not specify any of the buildings that might be affected, although I assume that plans have now been lodged. Perhaps the sponsor will indicate which historic buildings and listed buildings might be imperilled. Clearly, if the promoters of a private Bill were required to attach an environmental assessment, everyone would know precise details and promoters would be forced to look at that matter before they brought Bills to the House. That was one of the proposals made by the Joint Committee on I'rivate Bill Procedure, of which I was a member. Several other proposals to change the Standing Orders have yet to be brought before the House.
  It is important that the private Bill procedure should not be used to circumvent normal planning requirements. It is being used by several large corporations, local authorities, other statutory undertakers and transport undertakings deliberately to get round public inquiries and local authority planning procedures. That is wrong. We should not allow ourselves to be complices in creating a fast track round planning requirements for organisations such as London Regional Transport and London Underground.
  Even if we accept the motion on environmental assessments, it will be too late for this Bill, because in: has already started its passage through the House. The changes will apply only to Bills lodged from November.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) reminded me and the House that he was a member of the transport committee of the Greater London council. Undoubtedly he will be able to say, "Rejoice, rejoice" because tomorrow the Labour party launches its new proposals to establish a strategic body in London to be called the Greater London authority. I am glad to be GLA, but I do not know about the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Tonight we should have unity among colleagues on the two sides of the House. As Walworth road leaks like a sieve, I have read the document. However, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm.
  Mr. Banks: Perhaps it depends on which version of the document the hon. Gentleman has read. I understand that several versions have been produced and that in the process the letters GLC have been removed. I am one of those who feel that we should stand proudly by the reputation, standing and works of the Greater London council. The hon. Member for Harrow, West reminded me that he was on the council. If he is nice to me, I might invite him to the first reception at county hall when the new Greater London authority is set up. He will have a place at the reception as an ex-member of the GLC.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West will be aware that when the GLC existed transport was under democratic control. Regrettably, that is no longer the case. One of the Labour party's undertakings in the document is that when
  702
  we have a Labour Government after the next general election, transport well return to democratic control and be controlled by the Greater London authority based in county hall.
  I do not intend to oppose the Bill tonight. However, I have expressed my reservations about clause 31. The works proposed for London Bridge, Tottenham Court Road and Holborn are desperately needed. The works at Tottenham Court Road are particularly necessary. The area is turning into one of the nastiest parts of London. The area around Centre Point, Oxford street, New Oxford street and Tottenham Court road looks filthy, tacky, nasty and run down. There are cowboys selling all sorts of things out of suitcases. As many tourists go to the area, we should feel ashamed that it reveals the picture of London that we want to remove. Again, the Labour party will address that matter in government and clean up the image of London.
  It is clear that while the works continue there will be a great deal of disturbance to road surfaces in areas where the roads are already in an appalling condition. With the mess of deregulation, any number of bodies are allowed to dig up the roads. They include British Telecom, Mercury, Thames Water, British Gas and London Electricity. That is in addition to the development and building that is taking place in the area. The result is that London's roads are becoming ever more potholed. People find it dangerous to drive and walk around London's roads and pavements because of the appalling state of the surfaces. Damage to the surfaces is often caused by work carried out by the organisations that I mentioned.
  I hope that, when the hon. Member for Harrow, West replies, he will give us some assurances that London Underground intends to take steps to avoid making our already appalling roads and pavements in London, especially in the Tottenham Court road and London bridge areas, even worse than they are now.
  The hon. Member was right to say that the works were necessary to tackle overcrowding on the London underground. One of the reasons for the overcrowding is that the system has the least public support from central Government funding of all the urban networks in Europe. It is also the most expensive transport network in Europe. We have one of the most inefficient, perhaps the most overcrowded and dirty and the most expensive system in Europe. It is a wonderful combination of failings to come under all those headings.
  I hope that when the hon. Member for Harrow, West replies about the state of the streets, he will also tell us—as he sits on the Government Benches—whether the Government intend to put more resources into London transport to give us the transportation system that a capital city such as London deserves. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to get it until we have a Labour Government in office and the Greater London authority sitting over in county hall.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: There will be a fair degree of unanimity tonight on one point and less unanimity but some support on a second, and short lists of constituency issues will be raised on a third.
  I agree with the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) that it would be invidious to oppose a measure

  703
  which will create better safety on London underground. We all start from the premise that we want a safer underground system. We all remember the horrendous tragedy of the King's Cross fire and we are all aware of the clear recommendations of the Fennell report. We all want to ensure that the most congested underground stations become much more pleasant and safe environments, and that points of access and egress become safer.
  There is no dispute about the principle of the Bill. We wish it good speed. One of the odd things about being a London Member at present is that on several occasions in the year we can be called to do our duty here, when various private Bills which affect our constituencies are introduced. This year, London Underground has promoted three Bills in the House which affect the London borough of Southwark, and especially Southwark and Bermondsey. First, the London Underground Bill was introduced to extend the Jubilee line. Then, London Underground realised that the Bill did not do all that it wanted, so we had the London Underground (No. 2) Bill, which again affected Southwark, and especially London Bridge station. Now we have the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill, which also affects London Bridge.
  If ever there was an illustration of the lack or inadequacy of strategic planning of transport and legislation for transport provision in the capital, it is the Bills introduced this year. I am fully aware that, behind the scenes, British Rail is preparing a proposal to carry out other works at London Bridge, which are likely to be the subject of a private Bill next year.
  First, we had to contend with proposals for underground line works which will affect London Bridge station. Now we are debating proposals for works on the Northern line, which already exists at London Bridge station, and next year we shall debate proposals on the railway line. By any definition, that is not a logical way to proceed. The sooner we return to strategic planning of public transport in the capital city the better. That means that underground, bus, railway, river bus, road and eventually tram provision must be co-ordinated.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is bursting to make an obvious point.
  Mr. Banks: It may be obvious, but I should like it to be put on the record that that is precisely what the new Greater London authority will do. We shall expect strong support from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman was almost bound to anticipate my next point. The Liberal party, newly named the Liberal Democrats—
  Mr. Snape: Among other things.
  Mr. Hughes: No, we have only ever had two names, thank God, in spite of many attempts to give us other names in between. The Liberal party, now called the Liberal Democrats, supports a Greater London authority. We have always said so. One of the jobs for such an authority would be to plan transport strategically. There has never been any secret about that.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows that if some of the predictions for the
  704
  general election are right and there is no overall control in the country, as there is now no overall political control in London, his party and my party, which have similar views on many issues of co-ordinated planning, hope to implement similar policies. There is no secret about that. Together, we should have the votes in the House to bring it about. We would rescue county hall from being taken over by the private sector, or even buy it back if it had already been taken over.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman goes even further than we do.
  Mr. Hughes: That is right, We are willing to put up taxes, too, which I heard the shadow Chief Secretary say yesterday in "On the Record" that the Labour party was not willing to do. Even if the Labour party goes less far than we do on the other matters, we bring it with us in relation to a co-ordinated London planning authority.
  I want to ask a couple of questions which I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) will be able to answer if he is allowed to speak at the end of the debate. I want to ask him about the conjunction of four measures—three actual and one anticipated—that will affect London Bridge station. It seems to some of my constituents that the planning for the London Bridge part of this Bill, which is concerned with the Northern line, is now effectively under the control of the Jubilee line team —planning for London Bridge has been transferred. I do not object to that so long as we can find out who is really in charge.
  Soon we shall debate again the Jubilee line and its effect on London bridge, so it is logical that the same people should plan the improvements under the Bill and those for the Jubilee line. It would also help my constituents—private residents and businesses—to know with whom they are dealing, and it would help to co-ordinate London underground developments if one body only were involved. Are the same people, the Jubilee line team, dealing with the developments at London Bridge station?
  Secondly, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I share the strong reservations of the hon. Members for Newham, North-West, for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Westminster, North about clause 31. There is no justification for getting rid of planning controls over the civic heritage of London. This objection was also made by the Committee that looked into the King's Cross development. Planning controls are built into the system to protect our buildings and they ought to do so, especially when a major development such as the building of an underground station is to take place around them.
  Will the hon. Member for Harrow, West tell the promoters that, if they persist with clause 31, they will run into substantial difficulty? I hope that they will not persist.
  When the Committee on the London Underground Bill reported, it produced what the hon. Member for Westminster, North described as a compromise on Bridge street and the Jubilee line. It did not insist that the local authority should control planning permission, but it did insist that certain aspects were under the control of Parliament, because parliamentary buildings were affected. That argument does not apply anywhere else, so the promoters cannot expect to reach a similar compromise anywhere else. I hope that the Bill will be changed.
  My two last questions relate to specific sites. The sponsor and the Minister may be aware that one of my

  705
  constituents petitioned the House of Lords, making the sensible and logical suggestion that the entrance to the underground station on the east side of Borough high street, rather than being one property south, down from St. Thomas's street, which would destroy the new Guy's restaurant, should be one property further up.
  Mr. Snape: That sounds like a free meal.
  Mr. Hughes: Even if there may be a free meal in the future, I have not had one there so far. Perhaps, as in the American legal system, one has to win the case before one gets the free meal. I shall have to try harder. Certainly I should be happy to have a free meal—[Interruption.] We have to make sure that the Official Report records our words accurately, so I must explain that once the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) had implied that there was no such thing as a free meal, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that, coming from him, that was a surprising comment. That was an unfair allegation.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): But typical.
  Mr. Hughes: Indeed, it was typical.
  The idea of moving the station entrance is logical, quite apart from the benefit to myself and other Members who might get together and vote to preserve the restaurant. The building on the corner is owned by Barclays bank, which could afford relocation more easily than could Mr. Conti for his restaurant. If the station entrance were on the street corner because of accessibility and visibility to the public, that would be a more logical site. It is more logical to put underground station entrances on the corner of two main roads rather than just round the corner, so that they cannot be seen from both directions.
  The site has become controversial because it is the local underground entrance for Guy's hospital. Perhaps it is a question of opting in or out.[Interruption.] I do not bank at Barclays, so my account is not at risk.
  My other argument is about the site, at Nos. 31 to 37, on the other side of Borough high street. Hon. Members will be aware that there is sometimes a suspicion that promoters of Bills get carried away with the idea that, if they have the powers, they can take over a much bigger site than they need. That allows them to hold on to the property and thus derive a financial benefit. Compensation is often inadequate for existing owners. There is no dispute about that in the House. Compensation has, for instance, been hotly contested in the case of the Channel tunnel.
  British Rail or London Underground, for example, acquires a site, digs its holes and makes an underground station entrance. Thereafter it has possession of the site and can build office blocks or retail sites, or sell. I do not say that the entire site is not needed in this case, but two questions arise in relation to it.
  First, there is some residential property on the site now, and I understand that an undertaking was originally given to include some in the rebuild. But now, during the negotiations, no such undertaking is forthcoming. We need to retain every residential unit we have in an area such as London Bridge. Every development there risks our losing residential property in favour of commercial property.
  It is difficult for residents to find other accommodation, and if they did so they would have to pay more, as they
  706
  have either a mortgage on a property acquired at a low cost before values rose, or a protected rent such as they would not find if they had to move somewhere else. In the case that I have in mind, a young couple bought the property some years ago. It is their home; they happen to live above commercial property. There is a strong general case for trying to preserve the mix. We should not remove residential property from our inner cities and replace it with office blocks. If nobody lives there, there is nobody around in the evening, and the environment is far less humane.
  Why is there no clear commitment to keeping this residential property? We want a much more positive approach to the negotiations, so that, if the site has to be lost to the development, we secure a decent property at the end of the exercise.
  I have asked several general and some specific questions. We are precluded from asking such questions in Committee, because we may not be on it. I hope that the message is getting through loud and clear. This may be the last time that London Underground or British Rail can, without environmental impact assessment, pursue legislation in this way. They should not assume that, because this is their last chance, there will not be a hard fight if they ignore what hon. Members seek.
  7.40 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It may be helpful to restate the Government's view of the Bill. The Government have considered its contents and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by London Underground Ltd. The Bill will enable major works to be undertaken at London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road underground stations, to relieve congestion and improve conditions for passengers. The works at London Bridge are essentially for the Jubilee line extension, so that more passengers can be carried to that station. The works at Tottenham Court Road station will have to be carried out before the planned east-west crossrail station can be opened.
  I hope that the House will support the proposals for better safety access at these stations. There are some petitions against the Bill, and the petitioners, if they pursue the matter, will have the opportunity to present their objections to a Select Committee. I am sure that the members of the Select Committee will have a much better opportunity than we have had in this debate to examine the issues in detail. They will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expressed concern about clause 31. I appreciate the firm views on this matter. As the House knows, the clause was substantially amended in the other place and now specifies only those buildings that will be affected by the works, showing whether they will be demolished or altered. The Government accept the amended clause and recognise that this is a sensitive issue.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment agree that there must be a compelling reason for making an exception to the normal statutory arrangements for protecting listed buildings.

  707
  They are agreed on that in view of the condemnation of similar provisions by a Select Committee which examined the Bill dealing with King's Cross.
  Restricted and strategically important projects are being promoted in pursuance of the Government's policy objectives. Those could be at risk if the promoters were not able to secure in one procedure all the necessary consents for their schemes. That has some force as part of the argument that, if Parliament saw fit to authorise such schemes, it would be unreasonable for the promoters to be required additionally to apply for listed building consent to demolish or alter the necessary buildings.
  In accepting that compromise solution, the Government are concerned to safeguard the position of English Heritage as an expert adviser on conservancy issues. It is able to contribute to the consideration of the works by the Select Committee, and that will assist the Select Committee to make informed decisions about the listed building aspects of particular projects. That means that English Heritage should be allowed to appear before the Select Committee on matters within its competence.
  The Bill's clauses should contain details of the buildings that will be affected and in what way. Blanket clauses disapplying the listed building controls would not be acceptable. The environmental impact assessment for a project, which we intend to make compulsory for such Bills, would contain an account of the effect on the built heritage.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister should bear two matters in mind. First, there is a precedent in the House for English Heritage being denied locus standi in presenting a petition about precisely such matters in relation to a private Bill. There is no absolute guarantee that that fate would not befall English Heritage again. Secondly, although the Minister says that the removal of listed building protection would apply only in a very specific way, it still removes the protection of primary legislation. What is the Government's position on the rightness or wrongness of an inadequate private Bill procedure overturning protection that is written into basic legislation and reiterated in several Acts of Parliament?
  Mr. McCloughlin: I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. My understanding is that English Heritage should be allowed to appear before the Select Committee. I am aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, in which English Heritage was refused a locus. I hope that what has been agreed will go some way to putting that right.
  The promoters would be obliged to consult English Heritage throughout the passage of the Bill. That would also be helpful to the promoters. It is not helpful for people to be in conflict, and a general attempt to reach agreement makes the passage of a Bill much easier.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Have the Bill's promoters given a clear undertaking that they will accept evidence from English Heritage? If they object to such evidence, it will become a matter for the Standing Orders Committee. Under Standing Orders, if there is no direct locus—and there is not under the current private Bill procedure—the Standing Orders Committee would be bound to uphold
  708
  the promoters' decision. Have the promoters given the Minister a clear undertaking that they will accept a petition or evidence from English Heritage?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I understand that that is the case. As I said earlier, there should not be a problem about that.
  The Government are against Bills whose promoters seek a blanket disapplication of listed building control, or who do not consult English Heritage on these matters. We accept that the number of cases would be few and far between but, given the arrangements that I have outlined, the Secretaries of State would be prepared to support clauses which disapplied the controls in respect of specific buildings for particular works.
  We accept the amended clause. The works at London Bridge and Tottenham Court Road stations are essential for the construction of the proposed underground line for London—notably the Jubilee line extension and the east-west crossrail route. I note that the Select Committee will examine the Bill relating to the Jubilee line. In allowing the Bill to proceed, agreement has been reached on a compromise clause, albeit with certain conditions in respect of the proposed parliamentary buildings. In these cases, the compromise clause maintains a proper regard for legislative controls designed to protect the national heritage while avoiding any duplication of effort and the potential risk of Parliament's wishes being overridden by a planning authority.
  I hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. Those hon. Members who spoke in the debate have welcomed the Bill. Congestion on our transport system is an important matter of public interest. If we delay the Bill's progress, we shall hold up, perhaps for some time, measures that are urgently needed to relieve the congestion on London underground.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: The House has given an unqualified welcome to most of the Bill's clauses, especially those which relate to the work that is necessary to relieve congestion and improve safety at London Bridge, Tottenham Court Road and Holborn stations. All those who have used any or all of those stations know how essential these works are, and the Bill shows the importance of that work to the future operation of London Underground Ltd.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who is in charge of the Bill on behalf of the promoters, spoke about escalators at those three stations and in other parts of the underground system. Those of us who have used the London underground for a number of years are aware of the recent severe deterioration in that organisation. We are all apt to look back on our younger days as a halcyon period in which the trains ran on time and the sun shone every day, but having used the London underground system regularly for about 30 years, I know that I have never seen it in the state that it is in today. Regular and continuous work on escalators is, in my view and I suspect that of the vast majority of passengers, long overdue.
  Like other hon. Members, I regularly use the underground between the terminal station at which I arrive in London and the House. For months, I have wandered around the bowels of Euston undergound station trying to get to the Victoria line to make my way to the House. The only work that I have seen on the

  709
  escalators at Euston has been the replacement, every six months or so, of the notices telling passengers that the escalators are temporarily out of order. There appears to be no sense of urgency about doing the work. As with other public sector industries since the Government's axe fell upon them, the work that needs to be done on the London underground can be done only if a budget exists. All too often, the budget does not exist, so the work does not get done.
  I am surprised that the hon. Member for Harrow, West, as a member of the Greater London council between 1980 and 1986, did not refer to these matters. Like other hon. Members, I served on the Committee considering the Bill abolishing the GLC, thereby removing from it responsibility for running the London underground. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the GLC at that time, even if I cannot honour him with the description of "distinguished member". I am sure that he was, but. I do not know.
  Mr. Tony Banks: No, he was not.
  Mr. Snape: I accept my hon. Friend's view, as he knows the hon. Gentleman better than I do.
  While the Bill was going through the House, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), continually assured us that the London underground would be far more efficient when it was freed of the ideological constraints of the GLC. In Committee, one got the distinct impression that the right hon Gentleman hated members of the Greater London council even more than he hated the Germans. I am afraid that that hatred appeared to embrace all parties represented on that authority, although I am not sure how well the right hon. Gentleman knew the hon. Member for Harrow, West.
  Over and over again, we were told that freedom from the political control of the elected strategic body would benefit the passengers. It is apparent from this Bill and from the words of Conservative Members that that has not been the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) gave us his objections to clause 31. He has made a similar point during the passage of other Bills through the House and it is no less relevant for that. He was joined in his strictures against clause 31 by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) who, as far as I am aware, was not a member of the GLC. However, according to "Dod's Parliamentary Companion", he is chairman of a body called the Conservative Greater London area Members committee. That sounds a n influential body, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would use his chairmanship to point out to the newly freed managers of London Underground Ltd. how objectionable clause 31 is not only to him but to his democratically elected and Conservative-controlled authority.
  Given the well-known antipathy of the hon. Member for Westminster, North to the GLC and all its works., I am surprised that he is criticising a body to which he had given his whole-hearted support in the past. I should tell him and the hon. Member for Harrow, West that, if one creates a body like London Underground Ltd. and tells it that its only remit is to work within the financial constraints laid down by the Department of Transport, it will not be too keen on provisions such as those in the Bill, outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and
  710
  Finsbury and Conservative Members, to preserve listed buildings and other important sites. If it has no remit to concern itself with such matters—unlike an elected strategic body—it is not surprising that it has drafted clause 31 in that way. However, it is surprising that Conservative Members have said that they are disturbed by the inclusion of that clause.
  Conservative Members have, at least implicitly, criticised the management of London Underground Ltd. because of the necessity both for the Bill and the works included therein. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is not with us tonight. I noticed in the London Evening Standard—surely one of the most appalling evening newspapers in the western world—some sage advice from the hon. Gentleman, a man known for understatement and delicacy of thought and mind, who represents the intellectual wing of the Conservative party. He had some harsh words to say about the management of London Underground Ltd. "Sack the lot" was the headline that proceeded his customary thoughtful words. If he feels like that about the management, it is understandable that there should be some criticism from others in the House. It is understandable, too, that two mild-mannered men like the hon. Members for Harrow, West and for Westminster, North should express those views.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), expressed support, to a greater and lesser degree—I am not saying which is greater and which is lesser—for an elected Greater London authority, the GLA. My hon. Friend reminded us of the need for such an authority to co-ordinate not only the matters dealt with in the Bill but transport, street works and road planning within Greater London. Labour Members endorse that, and I suspect that if they were allowed to do so, one or two Conservative Members would like to do the same.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, in between plugs for a restaurant and Barclays bank, was forward in telling us how advanced are his party's views on the need for the election of a strategic body and how it would put up taxes—in the unlikely event that it were ever in a position to do so—to pay for this and other desirable objectives. I am not sure whether it would be right and proper for me to draw those remarks to the attention of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, but no doubt whatever the demand, whether for lower or higher taxes, for a strategic authority or not, for greater or lesser planning in transport, both public and private, in Greater London, a member of the Liberal Democrats can be found either to support or reject it.
  Mr. McLoughlin: While the hon. Gentleman is drawing the attention of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to spending plans, will he tell us whether his commitment to various transport policies in London is an overriding commitment, a first commitment, an immediate commitment, a top priority or a commitment for a Labour Government many years away?
  Mr. Snape: I am always fascinated by the interest of the Conservative party in pouring scorn and abuse on any Opposition Member who dares to suggest that our public

  711
  services—our transport system, our national health service and all other services where the rest of Europe has long since left us behind—
  Mr. McLoughlin: Answer the question.
  Mr. Snape: If the Minister will contain himself for a moment or two, I shall do just that.
  Why should scorn be poured on any proposal to improve the services provided by London Underground Ltd., for example, so that they match similar services that are provided elsewhere in Europe? If he reads the document that is entitled "Moving Britain into the 90s" —if he wishes, I shall send him a copy free of charge—he will learn how the Labour party proposes to make improvements and how a Labour Government would pay for them. I shall be pleased if the Minister shows the document to the hon. Member for Westminster, North after he has read it. The hon. Member for Westminster, North can take it to a meeting of the Conservative Greater London area Members committee. It appears that it does not have a great deal to do in terms of clause 31 and other provisions. When the Minister has read my party's document and digested it, I know that he will agree with me and other Opposition Members that the works outlined in the Bill and the document are essential and agree with us on how sensible are the Labour party's proposals to pay for them.
  8 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall start by talking about clause 31. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said, but I do not trust promoters of Bills. I want to see an undertaking written into the Bill that will guarantee a locus for English Heritage. I think that that is the view of everyone who has spoken this evening and that it will be endorsed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on welcoming a compromise, but I do not believe that the compromise goes as far as it should in the interests of English Heritage.
  I shall now make the one political remark that I intend to introduce into the debate. For seven years, I had the pleasure of being chairman of the Greater London Council Conservative Members Committee. For seven years, I had the privilege also of being vice-chairman of the Conservative party for London. During that time, we won more borough council elections and more parliamentary seats than hitherto, and we also won the Greater London council. We did so because we understood what the people of London wanted. We told them that a vote for the Liberals was a vote for a Lib-Lab pact. I am glad that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has repeated this evening the support that he and his party will give to the Labour party. There is a new Lib-Lab pact afoot, but, as the Liberal Democrats will not have the chance of supporting the Labour party except in opposition, I do not mind.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: As we do not know what will happen after the next general election I invite the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg)—
  Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) be here?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall be here. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate has said that he will not be.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate knows that, at present, London is a capital city without the overall control of one council. All the authorities post-GLC are participants in some form of shared decision making. He knows also that, in those circumstances, there is no Lib-Lab or Lib-Con pact. Decisions are taken differently according to the authority and the subject on which a decision is to be taken.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I believe that London was better run when there was a Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association and a Conservative GLC, but I make that the end of the politics.
  I want to talk about the Bill, and especially about provisions that have been omitted. I hope that, by the time I have finished, which I hope will not be too short a time, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, who speaks for the promoter, will be able to give me an understanding. If he is able to do so, I shall not try to talk out the Bill this evening. If I am not given an undertaking, I ask my hon. Friend to understand that there are at least two more stages in the Bill's consideration and that there are four more London Transport Bills, all of which I shall block at every stage. I wish to make my intentions clear.
  From the time that I first entered the House, I have put my constituency interests ahead of everything else. I believe that my constituents are being given a raw deal by an insensitive and incompetent management of London Transport. In that context I refer to the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway (Extension to London, &c.) Act 1893.
  Sir John Wheeler: I know it well.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it contains only 139 pages. I do not propose on this occasion—I do not commit myself for future occasions —to read the 139 pages. I want, however, to make some references to the Act.
  First, I shall explain to the House why I am blocking the Bill. In west Hampstead, by Broadhurst gardens, there is a series of railway lines. There is the British Rail line to Marylebone, the Jubilee line and the Metropolitan line, which are spanned by a footbridge. The bridge was built well over 100 years ago, and it has an interesting history. When I was a small child, I was taken by my uncle to the bridge to watch railway engines. I was a steam railway buff, and I still am. I am a non-executive director of the Bluebell line and I still like steam trains.
  The footbridge was known as Granny Dripping's steps, a name that intrigues everybody. It seems that it received the name because an elderly lady was alleged to have sat on the steps eating bread and dripping. I never saw her, but the bridge retained its name.
  Towards the end of last year, the bridge, which London Transport prosaically calls bridge No. 26, was closed. The chairman of London Transport replied to the letter in which I inquired when the footbridge would be brought back into operation. He wrote:
  "The footbridge is jointly owned by London Underground and British Rail, with the maintenance responsibility vested in London Underground."
  Perhaps I should put British Rail on notice. As the bridge spans its lines, I shall be blocking its legislation so that it puts pressure upon London Transport to carry out its

  713
  responsibilities for the reason that the "maintenance responsibility" for the bridge is "vested in London Underground." The letter continues:
  "The footbridge is 110 years old and has been the subject of heavy repairs over the years. Recently, several of the stair treads on the BR side of the bridge collapsed and consequently the bridge was closed for safety reasons.
  My civil engineers have again inspected the bridge. It is seriously corroded and even if the steps were repaired, it would not be safe for public use. We now appear to have two options; rebuilding a little used facility"—
  how the chairman knows that I do not know, because no count has been taken. Those of my constituents who use the bridge are not too few and the chairman of London Transport has not been briefed about a major development that is in progress in the area. I shall come back to that matter in half an hour or so.
  As I said, the chairman wrote:
  "We now appear to have two options: rebuilding a little used facility at a cost of perhaps £400,000 … or to seek parliamentary powers to close the footpaths and demolish the bridge."
  I remind the House that the bridge has already been closed by London Transport in breach of parliamentary powers. The letter continues:
  "You will recall"—
  that is a reference to myself—
  "that we pursued the latter course about eight years ago."
  I blocked legislation on that occasion and, lo and behold, the bridge was reopened.
  The chairman adds:
  "I am advised"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member is an experienced parliamentarian, and I have never known him abuse the procedures of the House. He has always adhered strictly to the terms of the business before the House, but I fear that tonight he is straying far. I understand that he wants to block the Bill. I am sure that he knows, however, that he must find reasons for doing so that come within the proposed legislation. I ask him to read the Bill carefully and to relate his comments more closely to the business that is before us this evening.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a Second Reading debate. I am speaking of things that should be in the Bill—I would not be able to do so on Third Reading—and I am contending that, within the Bill, there should be a reference to the footbridge where there are powers to make works. I shall not stray beyond that.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It may be helpful if I seek to reassure my hon. Friend. As he will know, it is not possible for anyone other than the chairman of London Transport to give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks. I consulted London Transport officials both before this debate and while my hon. Friend has been making his speech. The chairman's letter from which my hon. Friend quoted dated 24 April states:
  "My statement that we would consider the position"—
  that is, in respect of the bridge—
  "was not just a platitude."
  I am asked to tell my hon. Friend that repairs to the bridge have certainly not been ruled out, but must be properly considered. I know that a meeting has been arranged between my hon. Friend and the chairman of London Transport, at which I hope progress will be made.
  714
  As my hon. Friend said, there will be other opportunities for him to pursue the matter—and to block the Bill, if he wants. I am not sure that I can go further this evening.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My problem is that the chairman stated in a subsequent letter that he had been advised that
  "it is not a practical option to repeat the sort of repair work eventually done at that time."
  Therefore, I am not at all certain as to the true position.
  I want to be clear that I am in order in referring to the issue that I have, and in seeking a specific provision in the Bill to cover it, because I do not want to abuse the procedures of the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Currently, the hon. Member is in order.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The Bill makes reference to "connected purposes"—and they include possession of land, incorporation of land provisions, and so on. Clause 46 of the 1893 Act to which I referred earlier refers to the protection of the vestry of St. John, Hampstead. It states:
  "Whenever the Company"—
  that is, the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire railway—
  "shall break up or disturb any part of the soil or surface of any road or footway in the said parish for any of the purposes of this Act, the Company shall within four months after any such road or footway shall have been broken up as aforesaid complete and finish the works of the Company, and shall make good and restore every such road or footway to the satisfaction of the surveyor to the vestry".
  I could continue to quote from that legislation and remain in order, but instead I will make the point that the Act does not say anywhere that a right of way is to be extinguished —but that is clearly the intention which has been clearly expressed in the letter to me from London Underground. That is not the way that it ought to proceed.
  In continuing, I shall seek to remain strictly within the rules of the House in respect of private legislation and Second Reading debates. A letter from the Combined Residents Association of West Hampstead states:
  "I am writing to offer you my congratulations for the stand you have taken over the closure by London Underground of the West Hampstead footbridge and your tactics in blocking their Bills until they agree to make the necessary repairs or proffer some reasonable proposal."
  I welcomed the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, and I look forward to my meeting with the chairman of London Transport. However, I am confused by the contents of his second letter, which appears to mark a change of position since his original communication.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is difficult to make a judgment without seeing the letter from which my hon. Friend quoted, but when the chairman of London Transport commented that it would be impracticable to repeat the previous repairs exercise, perhaps he was referring to work to bring the bridge back into service for five to eight years —and that, were London Transport to undertake any work, it would be more permanent. Perhaps my hon. Friend will find that interpretation encouraging.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I cannot yet say whether I am encouraged by it. Had London Underground carried out normal annual maintenance, the situation would not have arisen.

  715
  I refer again to the letter from the combined residents association:
  "First, the cost figure of £400,000 sounds excessive. It brings to mind the inflated cost estimate for the repair of the Ribble Valley viaduct on the Settle-Carlisle railway line by British Rail when they were proposing its closure. If my memory is correct, once the line was reprieved the figure became much lower! Surely there must be a reputable private sector contractor in need of work … who could do the work for less."
  On 27 April, Mr. E. Dixon, chairman of the Jubilee and Bakerloo users group committee, wrote to the chairman of London Underground as follows:
  "Some of our users in west and south Hampstead are very concerned about the closure of this bridge. I know myself that its condition has been suspect for a considerable number of years—having on occasion to use it to travel between Canfield Gardens and Crediton Hill, or on going from Broadhurst Gardens across to the relevant part of Finchley Road. Usage of the bridge may be low, but it will be appreciated that the Charterhall scheme at Finchley Road will probably have a significant effect in this regard.
  Now the bridge is a right of way. As such it is part of the trade-off under which we are unable to travel on the Jubilee line (or alternatively the Metropolitan or BR Marylebone lines). Surface railway lines in urban communities are often highly antisocial in their severance effects (as I and my neighbours know to our own heavy cost in time in Camden's nearby Kilburn ward, when the railway was 'there first'. However, its privileged position is accepted, notwithstanding the local detriment, and (though this does not apply at all to the Marylebone line and only most marginally to the Metropolitan line), there is at least some trade-off in usage of the line by the local community, and in the associated spin off benefits. However, in local terms the balance is seriously adverse; yet the operator is not compelled to address this by providing bridges where none existed and there are no rights of way.
  By precisely the same token, the privilege of the right of way falls to be accepted by you as the operator and by us as the benefiting users of the railway line. This is not a matter in which the luxury of 'priorities' can be indulged. It is basic to the operators' right to operate over the land in question and to ours as service users to travel there…and we call upon London Underground and British Rail to meet the relevant obligations."
  I acknowledge of course the importance of a Bill that includes the words "safety measures" in its title. However, that does not mean that we should give the Bill a fair wind without protecting the interests of our constituents or—as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said—those of English Heritage. Otherwise, the inclusion of the words "safety measures" in any Bill could allow it to pass happily through the House.
  What opportunities does the Bill provide for improved safety measures and for satisfying the demands of my Hampstead constituents? The closure of the bridge in question adds at least 10 to 12 minutes to the journeys of pedestrians, who are compelled to walk the entire length of Broadhurst gardens, into Finchley road and on to Finchley road or Frogmore stations, or to reach the public library in Arkwright road.
  London Transport ought not to be allowed this Bill without a clause which would guarantee the perpetuation of the right of way which stems back more than 100 years, providing a footbridge over the railway lines that I mentioned.
  It is incumbent upon a public authority that promotes legislation not to ride roughshod over a particular interest affecting local people in an area. I am wondering whether London Transport hoped that once the bridge was closed
  716
  the problem would quietly go away and no one would notice. However, that is unlikely to happen in constituencies like Hampstead, where constituents are prone to letter writing and are active in bringing matters to the notice of their Member of Parliament. On this occasion I had already written to the chairman of London Transport because I realised the problem early on.
  If someone gives an undertaking in an Act of Parliament and later seeks—it does not matter whether it is 50, 80 or 100 years later—to abolish it, it leads one to wonder whether any undertakings given in this Bill, or in any other promoted by a public authority, such as a local council or the railway authority, are worth the paper they are printed on. That is my worry. It is easy to shrug off a responsibility, but that is not what Acts of Parliament are for, and I do not believe that the House welcomes that concept. However, if we pass this Bill that is the risk that we are running.
  Footbridge No. 26, Granny Dripping's steps, had been closed and was due to be extinguished. Why is there no reference to its demolition in the section of the Bill on various works to be carried out, because that must be a safety measure? Why is there no reference to abolition of the right of way? At least that would give the House the chance to say whether that should happen. Or, as an alternative, why is it not stated that powers will be taken in this Bill to repair or renew the bridge?
  I know the chairman of London Transport, who is a highly honourable and reputable man, but I have to face the facts as they are presented to me at this stage. I emphasise the word "facts". They do not give me confidence that I can return to my constituents and tell them that Granny Dripping's steps are saved and will be replaced, and that they will be able to walk across them on their lawful business, either to go to West Hampstead north London link station, or to the library or the development which is under way to provide a vast new supermarket for the benefit of local people.
  I hope that I am an eminently reasonable man, and I am tempted not to continue for too long tonight, in view of what my hon. Friend for Harrow, West has said. I appreciate that those who are guiding him tonight—pleasant though they may be—do not have the authority. Because I am seeing the chairman and the deputy chairman of London Regional Transport later this week, I am inclined to adopt a reasonable attitude.
  I have many other matters to talk about. As you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are several schedules and 33 clauses in the Bill, and as you rightly said, keeping strictly in order, if I spoke for five minutes on each— because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West did not explain much of what was in the Bill—I could take 33 times five minutes. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend would be able to find the 100 Members necessary to bring the debate to a close this evening. However, I shall talk about one or two items, not all 33.
  Clause 25 makes certain provisions for the protection of the British Railways board. I remind the House that, in the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Extension to London, &c.) Act, 1893, clause 46 was for the protection of the vestry of St. John, Hampstead. As I said earlier, that protection is about to disappear by a back door method. How safe is the protection outlined in clause 25? The clause talks about "designated property" and "plans" which include
  "drawings and particulars and 'approved plans'".

  717
  All that sort of information appears in the 1893 Act, which talks about maintaining
  "to the satisfaction of the surveyor of the vestry all … footways, bridges works and conveniences as shall be necessary for the safe and commodious ingress and egress to and from the houses on the line of the works of the Company in the said parish and for the preservation and continuance of an uninterrupted supply of gas and water to the said houses".
  I wonder whether the chairman of British Rail is as happy today with the protection that has been given to his board as he was when the Bill was drafted. Further on, the Bill talks about the railways board giving
  "to the engineer not less than 28 days' notice of their intention to commence the construction of any of the specified works".
  It also states:
  "The specified works shall when commenced be carried out … with all reasonable dispatch … and … as little interference as may be with the conduct of traffic on any railway of the railway board and the use by passengers of designated property".
  I believe that the 1893 Act could give powers to the vestry of St. John, Hampstead, which became the metropolitan borough of Hampstead in 1899, and the London borough of Camden in 1965. Therefore, the surveyor of the London borough of Camden, who is by default the surveyor for the vestry, could demand that certain works be carried out,
  "and the Company shall also defray the expense incurred by the vestry".
  It would be interesting to know whether, if the London borough of Camden decided to carry out work to repair the bridge, London Underground would decide that it could do it better and that it would rather do so than let the descendant of the surveyor of the vestry of St. John, Hampstead carry out the work. That is one reason why I am a little uneasy.
  Clause 24 deals with the incorporation of protective provisions. It protects gas, water and electricity undertakers. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West to its reference to section 42 of the London Transport Act 1963, which applies to the protection of the gas, water and electricity undertakers, and section 13 of the London Transport Act 1976, which applies to the protection of the sewers of Thames water authority. Does that refer only to sewers and foul-weather sewers or to the pipes that provide fresh drinking water? There is a difference between the water mentioned in the 1963 Act and the sewers in the 1976 Act, but the Bill is not clear.
  Clause 24 becomes less clear further on, because subsection (2) refers not to Thames water authority but to Thames Water Utilities Ltd. Is that a reference to foul sewers and fresh water?
  It would be wiser and kinder if I began—only began —to draw my remarks to a conclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West tells me that I might have read more into the words of the chairman of London Transport than I have so far. That would allow other hon. Members to take part in the debate, but I cannot promise that I shall be as generous on later stages of the Bill.
  As I should not wish to fall foul of a future ruling from the Chair—I have carefully kept my comments in order tonight—I shall table probably a dozen amendments, which might provide me with the time to make London Transport realise, if it does not realise now, that I am serious about acting in the interests of my constituents.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West will be able to answer the point that I made about
  718
  water, but I give notice that, if necessary, I shall return to the subject, much invigorated, with a variety of amendments that I shall draft carefully with those who understand how they should be drafted so that I cannot be told by the Minister or the promoter that they are out of order. I await the next instalment.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: With the leave of the House, I shall try to answer some of the points that have been made by hon. Members and work myself up to a crescendo to answer some of the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg).
  In fact, I shall start with my hon. Friend, who asked whether the escalators would be standard or special escalators. Special escalators will be installed, because most escalators cannot take the load of several tonnes of passengers at a time for 24 hours a day in a dusty environment while remaining in place as a fixed staircase to facilitate maintenance and emergency procedures. Although they will be ordered from several suppliers, they will all be built to a standard London Regional Transport heavy-duty specification. The implication is that spares will be interchangeable.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: That is helpful, but I cannot understand—perhaps my hon. Friend will arrange for someone to write to me about this—why escalators cannot be a standard length. Escalators should be a standard length, except for the last part, which might have to be a different length. One of the reasons for the appalling delays in repairing escalators is that the length of each one is different. I know that they will be the same specification, but they are all different sizes. Can that be avoided in future?
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I remember such debates from my experience on Greater London council. His remarks have been noted and I shall ensure that the promoters write to him.
  The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who explained that he would not be able to remain for all the debate, asked about clause 31, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The clause has been substantially modified since the Bill was deposited in the light of the comments of the Opposed Private Bill Committee that considered the King's Cross Bill. It has been limited to specified buildings and to only the purposes needed for the Bill's objectives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment supported that modification, which was made on Third Reading in the other place, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport instructed the chairman of London Regional Transport to give an undertaking to consult local authorities and English Heritage. The chairman of LRT has agreed to do so.
  The Bill proposes to delist only one listed building—it is important to put that in perspective—that previously had consent for partial demolition. All other demolitions and alterations are minor—new entrances and protection against settlement—and in each case consent will be sought from the planning authority for all changes and alterations.
  Mr. Simon HughesWhat is the listed building that is proposed for demolition?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall ask the promoters to write to the hon. Gentleman about it; I should quite like to know as well.
  Clause 31 seeks to secure all necessary consents through Parliament so that Parliament's will cannot be thwarted by subsequent decisions and to avoid delay. I can give an assurance that the three local authorities concerned have been consulted and, so far, have not opposed the proposed works.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend will recall that I specifically requested that a locus for English Heritage should be included in the Bill. Is he prepared to say that that will happen?
  Mr. Hughes: I hope that the assurances I have given are sufficient for my hon. Friend. I do not know enough parliamentary draftsmanship to know whether such an inclusion is possible, but I shall ask the promoters to write to my hon. Friend to ensure that that point is explored. However, the assurances that I have given on what will happen are firm ones. London Regional Transport wants to maintain a constructive attitude towards English Heritage and it will seek to consult it at all relevant stages.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) spoke about the planning powers in the Bill and the concerns of the city of Westminister, which have principally arisen because clause 31 supplants that city's responsibilities. I have been instructed that the city of Westminister does not object to the works proposed at Tottenham Court Road. The clause simply avoids any risk of overriding Parliament. I repeat my earlier assurance that it is LRT's intention to consult on every stage of the process.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is unable to be present because of another appointment, spoke about the environmental impact of the work and road surfaces. Environmental impact studies have been carried out for all the proposed works and were exhibited to the Committee in the other place. The work requested by the hon. Gentleman has already been done. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the problems caused by digging up the roads, the disruption caused and the state of the road surfaces. An undertaking has been given to each of the highway authorities concerned that the work on the highways and footpaths will be carried out in such a way as to leave them in an acceptable condition.
  All the work will be carried out subject to a code of construction practice agreed with the local authorities. That code will cover working practices, noise, dust emissions and lorry movements. The work on London Bridge will take three years, at Holborn, three years and at Tottenham Court Road, four years. I appreciate that those works will cause disruption, but as much as possible has been done to seek co-operation with the local authorities under the code of construction.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about the co-ordination of work at London Bridge. I listened with great interest to what he said about what has happened and what might happen. I share his sympathy for his constituents who live near London Bridge—an area which is being disrupted constantly.
  The scheme at London Bridge will be constructed in conjunction with the Jubilee line works, using the same
  720
  working site. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is right to assume that the project will be under the control of the Jubilee line project team. The hon. Gentleman made two specific points about the location of two of the entrances to the station. It seems that, when it comes to the ticket hall at Borough high street, the hon. Gentleman wants a meal in the restaurant rather than a bank account at Barclays.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: That might be unwise.
  Mr. Hughes: Perhaps a cashcard would be better.
  I am advised that the Barclays bank building cannot be used as a station entrance because, given the location of the escalators, that would put it on the "paid" side of the fare gates—apparently those escalators cannot be moved. The entrance must be further south than the Barclays site would allow.
  Planning consent will be sought from the London borough of Southwark for 31 to 37 Borough high street. A planning brief is being prepared to outline the acceptable uses and developments. I am advised that no undertakings to build residential property were given, but I appreciate the emphasis that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey put on the importance of such property. Reading between the lines of the instruction that I have been given, I believe that this matter should be taken up, with vigour, with Southwark borough council. I accept that it is an important one.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: At present those properties are used for residential and commercial purposes. I understand that the implication was that that mix of use would continue and, obviously, this matter should be resolved. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) appreciates that I am keen that London Underground—it will acquire the site if the Bill goes through—should support such a mixed development. It will be responsible for the redevelopment and it should not seek to replace the small amount of residential accommodation with a non-residential development.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is important that there should be a mixed development. The promoters will have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The planning brief will be prepared shortly and it is important that those who want the mixed development to be retained should put their argument strongly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate made me think about a film that is known by a different title in the industry. "A Bridge Too Far" is often known as "A reel too long". If we have a bridge too far for LRT, will it be known as "Granny Dripping's steps"? I am sure that we are all impressed by my hon. Friend's enormous concern for his constituency. Those of us who have worked with my hon. Friend in the House and outside know that to be his customary concern, which is of prime importance to him.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a speech of reasonable length and he made his points forcefully. My hon. Friend will know that I am not trying to soft-soap him. If I wanted to do that I should have intervened and sought to curtail his speech. My hon. Friend has expressed the concerns of any hon. Member seeking to protect the rights of his constituents.

  721
  My hon. Friend raised specific questions about undertakings that were given in the past, some way back. He asked what they meant in terms of LRT and British Rail and what liabilities they may or may not have. Those issues must be explored in great detail at the meeting that my hon. Friend is to have with the chairman and other officials of LRT.
  The cost of building the bridge must also be examined. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate has had great experience of local government in London and he will be aware that the cost of anything fluctuates depending on the hoped-for result at that time. I am sure that he will pursue the matter with vigour.
  I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's question about clause 24, which relates to the London Transport Act 1963, and section 2 of the London Transport Act 1976. He asked whether section 2 refers to foul sewers and/or fresh water. I have asked the promoters to prepare an answer for my hon. Friend as it is important that the matter should be got right.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for their support for the Bill. It is important for London, for every single London constituent, for every Member who represents London and for every hon. Member whose constituents travel to London. I urge the House to give the Bill the Second Reading that it deserves.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

  Environmental Assessment
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the following Standing Order be made:
  '27A.—(1) Subject to paragraph (8) below, in the case of a Bill authorising the carrying out of works the nature and extent of which are specified in the Bill on land so specified, there shall be deposited on or before 4th December in the Private Bill Office and at the Public Departments at which copies of the Bill are required to be deposited under Standing Order 39, either

  (a) a copy or copies (as specified by paragraph (2) below) of an environmental statement containing, in relation to the works authorised by the Bill, the information set out in Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (referred to below as "Schedule 3") or such of that information as the Secretary of State may in any particular case direct, or

  (b) a copy or copies (as so specified) of a direction by the Secretary of State that no such statement is necessary in relation to the works authorised by the Bill.

  (2) The number of copies required to be deposited under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) above shall be three in the case of a deposit at the Department of the Environment and one in any other case.
  (3) Where any such works authorised by a Bill relate to two or more distinct projects each project may be treated separately for the purposes of paragraph (1) above; and the references in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of that paragraph to the works authorised by the Bill shall accordingly be construed, where the paragraph applies separately to each project, as references to the works comprised in that project.
  (4) Notwithstanding any direction given as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) above, any environmental statement of which copies are deposited under this Order shall contain the summary (referred to below as "the non-technical summary") required by paragraph (2)(e) and, where material, paragraph 4 of Schedule 3.
  722
  (5) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) above, a copy of the direction shall be deposited with every copy of the environmental statement deposited under this Order; and every copy of a direction so deposited or deposited under paragraph (1)(b) above shall be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State of his reasons for giving the direction.
  (6) Copies of every environmental statement deposited under this Order shall be made available for inspection, and for sale at a reasonable price, on and after 4th December, at the offices at which copies of the Bill are required to be made available under Standing Order 4A; and there shall also be made available separately on and after that date at those offices, for inspection and for sale at a reasonable price, copies of the non-technical summary.
  (7) The reference to Schedule 3 in this Order is a reference to that Schedule as amended from time to time and includes a reference to the corresponding provision of any regulations which re-enact the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, with or without amendment; and references to particular paragraphs of Schedule 3 shall he construed accordingly.
  (8) This Order does not require the deposit of copies of an environmental statement in relation to any works for which planning permission has been granted.'.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has selected the following amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing):

  (a), in line 7, leave out 'either (a)'.

  (b), in line 12, leave out from 'or' to end of line 13.

  (c), in line 12, leave out 'of that' and insert 'additional'.

  (d), in line 13, leave out from 'direct' to end of line 15.

  (f), in line 16, leave out '(a) or (b)'.

  (h), in line 21, leave out 'references' and insert 'reference'.

  (i), in line 21, leave out 'sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of'.

  (j), in line 25, leave out from `(4)' to end.

  (k), in line 29, leave out paragraph (5).

  I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to debate the motion and the amendments together. If the hon. Member wishes to move his amendments formally later, I shall give him the opportunity to do so.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am obliged to you for that introduction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What you have suggested is what I, given time, may do. We have reached this business a little later than we expected. It is important that, when there is a grievance, the House should discuss a single bridge over the Metropolitan line, but we have now moved to very important matters relating to environmental legislation that will affect the whole country for years—possibly 10, 20 or even 50 years. The change in Standing Orders relating to what is wrongly called private legislation can determine what Committees of the House may take in evidence and what they recommend to the House. Indeed, a Committee may even dispose of a Bill before sending it back to us. These are not small matters; they are the ball-bearings on which the wheels of democracy turn. The purpose of this debate is to determine whether the House should agree to new Standing Order No. 27A concerning private business.
  In principle, everybody agrees that there should be such a Standing Order, introducing a near-requirement for an environment assessment to accompany all Bills requiring works to be carried out. However, there are several question marks over what has happened. First, there is the question whether the procedure that the Department of

  723
  the Environment has used in respect of the proposed Standing Order, which, although it has been moved by the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, clearly has the Government's understanding. Secondly, there are questions about the extent to which this measure is good enough and about the terms in which it opts out of the requirement for an environmental assessment.
  These matters are not altogether simple, but, had there been environmental assessments for previous Bills, such legislation as the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, the Lyndhurst Bypass Bill, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, the River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill, the Avon Light Rail Transit Bill, the Midland Metro Bill, the Greater Manchester (Light Rail Transport) Bill, and hybrid Bills, such as the Severn Bridges Bill, the Channel Tunnel Bill and the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, might have gone a different way. In the future, such Bills— in so far as there will be such Bills— could be affected by this Standing Order. There is, for instance, the expected Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
  The matter has been somewhat muddied because, to date, the Secretary of State for Transport has announced the scope of the Bills that are expected to be removed from the purview of the House in a Bill which is likely to come before us in the autumn. We have learnt that that measure will include Bills relating to main railways, light railways, waterways, ports and harbours. Thus, a good deal of private legislation will not come before the House and, therefore, will not be subject to an environmental assessment, which, in principle, is accepted by everybody.
  At 2.30 pm on 13 March, the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means moved a clutch of new Standing Orders, including Nos. 204A and 208A, which removed the powers of Members to debate certain amendments tabled by Members of this House or by Members of another place. Unfortunately, we did not have an opportunity to debate those Standing Orders. Perhaps the fault was partly mine. The matters were controversial. On that day I was able to object to this Standing Order but, through inadvertence, did not object to the rest. However, we now have an opportunity to discuss this very important matter of environmental assessment.
  I wish to deal first with the procedural background to the Standing Order. Then I shall deal with Private Bill procedure and with consultations about the Standing Order. Finally, I shall discuss the amendments, which I commend to the House.
  I do not think that anybody objects to the 2.30 pm procedure. Everybody understands it. Indeed, tonight's debate on the London underground was a result of it. However, that changes in Standing Orders could be approved on the nod at 2.30 pm was a surprise to everybody.
  I understand that the proposed change is partly the result of an EC environmental directive which requires that all planning inquiries shall have before them an environmental assessment of the planning application. This Standing Order deals with that matter in the context of private Bills. On 26 February, the Department of the Environment sent to interested organisations a letter saying that this was to be done. It asked those organisations to submit their comments by 23 April. Unfortunately, for reasons which are to some extent
  724
  wrapped in mystery, before the end of that consultation period the authorities of the House, or the Department of the Environment—or perhaps both—put down the draft Standing Order on 13 March. But for chance, we might not have been able to debate it at all. It might have gone through on the nod, together with the other Standing Orders, to some of which I have referred.
  I hope that the Minister can provide some clarification. Everybody, whatever his political views, agrees that environmental matters are important. It is therefore very unfortunate that such matters should be dealt with in this way. Bodies such as the Nature Conservancy Council, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Countryside Commission were caught a little short, to say the least. One reason is that, although hon. Members who peruse the full vote of the House could have known that the Standing Order would come before us, there was some difficulty as the full vote is a rather expensive item.
  Hon. Members receive papers from the Vote Office, and are obliged to the Deliverer of the Vote and his staff for their efficiency. Perhaps we are unaware, therefore, of the degree to which official parliamentary documents are not easily available to members of the public. Yet they are public documents. If people are not aware of what Parliament proposes to do, they do not have an opportunity to alert Members to precipitate debates such as this or to inform themselves and participate in the process. That is true not only of individuals but of bodies. The many important bodies which I mentioned were not really aware of that. They told me that they did not take the full vote, despite their intense and proper statutory interests. They have statutory duties in respect of privately promoted legislation.
  I took some trouble to find out the position and I understand that, if one orders the vote as a private person or as a body, one cannot do so on a fixed sum but must pay retrospectively for each page. Hansard of 8 May sets out the current cost of that vote in various Sessions. I shall not deal with exceptionally long Sessions, but the cost of that vote in the 1988–89 Session was £4,800. That is disgusting news to many hon. Members and to many long-serving staff members. I asked for an estimate for the current Session, given the size of the order, and was told that it would be £ 3,800. From 14 April, HMSO has put up the cost of the vote from 13p to 20p, an increase of 7p per page —a 40 per cent. increase. Will the Minister draw that matter of public importance to the attention of the Minister responsible for HMSO and the Leader of the House?
  I draw the Minister's attention also to the response to the letter dated 26 February signed by Mr. C. L. L. Braun of the planning and development control division of the Department of the Environment. Paragraph 3 of that letter said:
  "The Department may wish to make responses to this letter available to Parliament and open for public inspection in the Department's library."
  That would not have been much good because the order came to the House before the responses had arrived. I made further inquiries about that and, in a parliamentary answer dated 16 May from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, it is clear that the Government received
  "35 responses to the consultation paper, most of which welcomed, and none of which object to, the principle of requiring environmental assessment for private Bills for

  725
  works projects. A list of responses has been sent to the libraries of both Houses and copies of the responses have been placed in the Department of the Environment library at Marsham Street."
  Leaving aside the fact that we would not have had the opportunity to see those responses because of the events of 13 March, I would not wish to trail to the library at Marsham street—although it is not far—to read those responses. I should have thought that responses relating to Standing Orders should be placed in the Library, as was envisaged in that helpful letter.
  When that possibility was dangled before the respondents, why were those responses not available? They have come to the attention of various Member and some of my hon. Friends have been given documents, although by the respondents and not by the Government, who placed a list in the Library.
  Private Bill procedure is highly controversial and will be the subject of a Bill in the autumn, a preview of which was given in a press release today. A joint Select Committee was set up by both Houses of Parliament. It reported in the 1987–88 Session in document HC 625. Paragraph 80 of that report recommended that an environmental assessment should be incorporated in all private Bill procedure. The Committee went on to say that there was some doubt about whether under article 1(5) of the directive.
  "the project would be subject to environmental assessment, and…if so, what information would be required to be submitted in an environmental statement. The Secretary of State's determination should be required to be deposited and advertised along with the bill, together, where he has determined that the project would otherwise be subject to environmental assessment, with an environmental statement containing the specified information. The documents submitted should be required to be produced to Examiners, and the promoter should be required to show that any environmental statement submitted by him contains the specified information".
  As it is not fully clear to me, will the Minister explain why the Government claimed in evidence to the Committee that such a step was necessary? We may need to determine whether it is required by the relevant article of the EC directive, but surely that should be a matter for the House and the Committee. Why should it be a matter for the Minister to decide? Of course, the Government will have a view, which they will make known, as they make their views known under the private Bill procedure— we had an example of that tonight. But why should the Government be the determinant and the adjudicator of what the Committee on the private Bill may or may not do?
  I should have thought that, on a matter of pure principle, the House should question whether such action came within the Standing Order. I do not know whether, within its Standing Orders, the House has ever bound itself to statute. The motion states that the Standing Order should contain
  "information set out in Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (referred to below as 'Schedule 3')"—
  the current statute. If that legislation changed, the Standing Order would also change. Is it right for the Select Committee discussing a private Bill to be tied to the terms of a statute that can be changed at will by a Minister, by a negative order?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I support what he has
  726
  said. Although he and I disagree on one aspect of the implementation of the motion, does the hon. Gentleman accept that another disadvantage of the proposition is that if, for example, on a European directive such as that relating to Government road-building policy in Twyford Down, Hampshire, the Government believe that they are acting legitimately, but the European Community decides that the Government are not, it is preferable for the House to be able to be a second, internal court of reference? That would prevent us from being hauled up and prosecuted by the European Community. We should not have to rely merely on what is increasingly shown to be a defective check mechanism on Government, the result of which is the prosecution of Britain, because the House of Commons could have protected us from both the prosecution and the bad policy.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for further underlining my point.
  Some of the respondents, including the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Ramblers Association, have said that the Minister's certification in proposed Standing Order No. 27A(1) (a) and (b) is a determination against which there is no appeal. I should imagine that the Select Committee could not appeal, unless it came back to the House and said that the Standing Order was too tight and it wanted to act outside it.
  As written, Standing Order No. 27A(1) (a) permits the Secretary of State to certify that less than the information in schedule 3 of the order can be supplied as part of the environmental assessment. It is a question not just of whether there is to be an environmental assessment but of whether it will be complete. That gives the Secretary of State even greater power. Will the Minister say why that power exists? He managed to persuade the Select Committee, which did not go into it in its report.
  Paragraph 80 of the Select Committee report states:
  "The Department of Environment, or other appropriate department, should be invited to report on the environmental statement to the committee on the bill in each House, who should take the statement and the report into account in considering the Bill."
  That is a good idea, is it not? The Minister would make a statement about the environmental statement, which is produced by the promoter on some sort of quality machinery into which we cannot go tonight. I think that it is being used for planning and it is a bit controversial in itself.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) catches your eye, Sir Paul, because he is an expert on the matter. It was discussed not long ago in the House. It is a good idea for there to be another statement from the Department of the Environment, but despite the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure in paragraph 80 of its report, which mentions the Minister's power, the suggestion is not included in the proposed Standing Order. Although we like the idea in principle— I do not think that any hon. Member would disagree— we should like the Minister to tell us why the recommendation that there should be a neutral commentary from the Department of the Environment has been excluded from the Standing Order.
  We have a not very satisfactory train of events, bearing in mind that green matters and the environment are top of the political agenda— or so we are told. In the new unified Germany, one party has changed the attitude of two or

  727
  three of the major parties in four or five years. That can happen in a democratic state. I am glad to say that all three parties have been moved in that direction too. The summation of that move in terms of private Bills is the proposed Standing Order. However, I hope that I have said enough to show that the way in which there has been half-hearted or mistimed consultation in many respects draws a number of question marks.
  I have tabled what appears to be a complicated group of amendments. I have done so because one has to have paving and consequential amendments. They amount to two or three pretty simple amendments. Amendment (a) is a paving amendment for the main amendment (d), which seeks to leave out subsection (1)(b) which deals with ministerial power. If that is agreed, amendments (f), (h), (i), (j) and (k) are consequential. They follow amendment (d) for all practical purposes and we can discount them. I want the Minister to consider the merits of the amendments or at least to tell us why he cannot accept them.
  If the Minister cannot accept the amendments, will he accept an alternative amendment? I should like to suggest that we include a provision in line 12 that there should be such additional information as the Secretary of State may require. The information should be that required by schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 and there should be additional information if the Secretary of State wishes. That seems to be common sense. It would give the Minister the discretion to give additional information if he thought that it was necessary.
  If the Minister will not accept that proposal, he should surely give at least the information required in schedule 3. I should prefer there to be more information, as proposed in amendment (c). If the Minister does not like that, the information should be nothing less than that required in schedule 3, as proposed in amendment (b). Neither amendment (b) nor amendment (c) has consequential amendments.
  The House wants a conclusion to be reached to this matter, as private Bills will come forward in the next Session. The country also wants a conclusion to be reached so that private Bills, in so far as they exist, deal properly with the environment. It would be a great pity if we proceeded too quickly. In view of the irregularities that have occurred and perhaps one or two thoughts that may occur to the Minister as a result of the debate— the purpose of debates is that angles may occur on which we may all agree— the Minister will agree to consider the matter. I hope that he will come back, if not with a perfect set of Standing Orders, at least with some improvements and allow some time for consultations to take place with outside bodies, as they are clearly interested in the matter.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Because of the way in which the package was put to the House before Easter and the fact that certain other measures have been approved, I plead with my hon. Friend to allow this environmental assessment matter to be passed on the basis that the House could always further amend it. It would be a pity not to have any environmental assessment in the Standing Orders while we wait for a perfect one. I plead
  728
  with my hon. Friend to allow the matter to proceed. We can then press for a stronger measure to replace it in future.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It highlights the dilemma that I was pointing out. Such dilemmas frequently occur in democratic assemblies. I understand what my hon. Friend means. It would be helpful for the Minister to say that a second bite at the cherry will be available.
  I have no wish to prevent environmental assessments from being applied to a private Bill. It would be wrong if they were not. However, it would also be a pity if the rules relating to environmental assessment were not those which environmental bodies that have a statutory responsibility — I have named many of them— and all of us who are concerned with environmental affairs thought were reasonably satisfactory or, still less, that had not had the consideration and discussion that they merit.
  I have said enough to show that there have been some procedural hiccups. They could have been mistakes—I am
  not by any means trying to bounce anybody. They were probably unfortunate timetable misalignments. If that undertaking could be given it would assist hon. Members.
  We now have less than three quarters of an hour left. I warn the Minister that, bearing in mind the choices that will come before the nation in the next few weeks or months, we should not have an argument about the Standing Orders. It would be a great pity if the Standing Orders or their imperfections became a matter of public debate on the hustings. Whether they do so depends on the spirit of the Minister's reply.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be relatively brief and follow the tenor of what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said. It is clearly to be welcomed that environmental assessment should be applied to private legislation. I was a member of the Committee that dealt two and a half years ago with the environmental assessment proposal in relation to legislation in general. One of the matters on which I commented was that the proposals did not apply to private legislation. Some of the most environmentally controversial proposals that have been debated in the House have been in private legislation.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South rightly referred to some such proposals. One year we had a fanatical, although not a partisan, debate about the Okehampton bypass, which intruded into Dartmoor. I dissented from the view of our late and lamented friend David Penhaligon, who had campaigned for the bypass to speed the journey of his constituents and of business travellers to and from Cornwall. I understood his view, but I took a different view, as did others who defended the integrity of that part of Dartmoor.
  As the hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned, controversial proposals were also made to develop Felixstowe dock and harbour. The proposal would have destroyed environmental wetlands, breeding and migration grounds and important ecological areas.
  Controversial proposals will continue to be made. As long as the House exempts any section of the legislative process from environmental assessment, the application of the objectives of the European Community, which should

  729
  be imposed across all legislative procedures, will be defective because there will be a way through the assessment requirements.
  The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill showed that there is often an alternative. It is often open to the Government to introduce a public Bill on a matter which could be the subject of a private Bill, to leave the matter to a private Bill or create a hybrid Bill. If the legislation were a private Bill, it would be exempt from environmental assessment, but if it were a public Bill it would not.
  The exemption from environmental assessment requirements was foolish and was not helpful environmentally. We are left with the problem, which the hon. Member for Newham, South rightly sought to highlight by tabling his amendments, that certain overriding powers are left in the hands of the Secretary of State. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his adept footwork. When the matter came before the House in March, I was unable to attend because I was committed to be somewhere else that afternoon. When the Order Paper came through my door, I noticed that the matter was due to be discussed and I hoped that someone would object to the motion. It caught me and other hon. Members unawares. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South for objecting and allowing tonight's debate to take place.
  If we are to allow a second exemption to remain, to allow the Secretary of State effectively to direct that certain matters are not to be covered, we shall again allow the application of the EC objective to suffer the fate of being defective. That would be wrong. I understand the view of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that it is better to have half an environmental assessment than none at all. None the less, I hope that the House will not leave the matter and fail to deal with it further.
  There are questions to be asked about the timetable. It is a pretty rum procedure to announce a consultation period and then to announce before the end of that period what has been decided, let alone without allowing any time to consider the results, whether by publishing them in the House of Commons Library or the Department of the Environment library. I have never believed that the Government were hot on consultation. Indeed, when they proceed with consultation they never seem to take heed of the results. But at least they could have the decency to observe the procedures and make the timetable follow the pattern of consultation, conclusion, publication of results, consideration and then proposition. That would make a courteous change.
  I have a few obvious questions which I can put collectively. In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South, I referred to the topical news from Brussels that Britain is likely to be prosecuted by the European Community for failure to apply the European directive on environmental assessment to some of the more controversial aspects— that is putting it mildly— of the Government's road programme.
  The most controversial is the proposed bypass around Winchester. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), who is present, has been involved in the matter of the bypass for the M3. I have been to see the site and it seems to be environmental vandalism of the worst order. It is entirely to be objected to.
  I hope that even hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Newham, South, who are not great supporters of the legislative ramifications of the European
  730
  Community, will concede that if the European Community is to be the salvation in this case, it is better that it comes to the rescue than that no one does so.
  Certainly, residents of Hampshire, the people of Winchester and its surroundings, are looking for any saviour, and the European Community will be a welcome saviour if it saves Twyford Down. Do we not risk the exemption of the Twyford Downs of the future if we accept such a restricted environmental assessment? Can the Minister give us examples of possible exemptions from the list cited by the hon. Member for Newham, South? There is scope for Ministers to decree that certain projects can be exempted, irrespective of their environmental impact. If we are to have an environmental assessment it must be done properly.
  Finally— this is an important procedural matter— what guarantee does the House have that sufficient expertise will be available to allow the Committees that scrutinise private Bills to have environmental assessments done properly? Almost since my first months in the House I have argued that all legislation should come here with an environmental assessment in the memorandum. Our procedures are defective in this respect, even though the royal commission on environmental pollution made a similar recommendation in one of its reports some years ago. If the information is to be available to all Members, there must be adequate personnel— a support staff so that the Committee procedures of the House are adequate for the job. We must have the results of proper research into the environmental impact of all proposed legislation, whether primary or secondary.
  My fear is that, although the Government are giving a welcome nod in the direction of environmental assessments for private legislation, that is not a sign of a wholesale commitment. The Department of the Environment is aiming more for the veneer of environmental acceptability than for a commitment to that goal. That is sad.
  I hope that the Government do not think that, having introduced this measure, they will be able to sail swimmingly into the next election and say, "We have made sure that the practices of the House are environmentally sound. We are doing everything to the highest environmental standards." In fact, the measure follows the de minimis principle: it is the least that could have been done. There are two major holes in it. I am unhappy with it, but it is just acceptable, given that the alternative would be nothing at all.
  9.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): The Chairman of Ways and Means has done the House a service by tabling new Standing Order No. 27A, requiring environmental assessment of projects which come before this House for approval in works Bills.
  A provision of this nature was proposed by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and has, I believe, the support of both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester South, and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) indicated the Government's support when he was Leader of the House in April 1989. The Standing Order has been drafted in consultation with my Department. We set out the arrangements that we propose

  731
  for considering applications for a direction under paragraph (1)(b) in a consultation paper issued on 26 February.
  I am tempted to leave the Government's statement at that. We support the Standing Order; it is important to introduce it now so that it can apply to next Session's Bills. But that is a matter for the House to decide. However, the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) draws me to comment in rather more detail, as do the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  I am sorry that the discussion of this serious subject has been somewhat tarnished by ridiculous allegations about procedural issues. Some suggestion that the Department had been at fault was conveyed by the way that the hon. Member for Newham, South went through his list of dates. He made much of the fact that the House authorities tabled the proposed Standing Order on 13 March, well before the end of the consultation period on 23 April. Had he done any homework, and read the consultation paper issued on 26 February, he would have read in the first sentence of the first paragraph:
  "An amendment to the Parliamentary Standing Orders for private Bill procedures is expected to be tabled shortly".
  That might have prepared even the casual reader for the fact that an amendment was about to appear. If he had taken the trouble to go further through the consultation paper he would have found at annex A the proposed new Standing Order No. 27A. Accompanying the letter from the Department of the Environment sent out on 26 February is the full text of the Standing Order that was subsequently tabled by the House authorities on 13 M arch.
  Mr. Spearing: I was aware of what was in the appendix, but anybody reading that document would have assumed that the order would be tabled but not debated and agreed until after the end of the consultation period. In a sense, tabling is publication and the document was published. Surely that is a common sense interpretation. Even if it is not, it is the interpretation that many people, including the relevant organisations, assumed to be correct.
  Mr. Yeo: I am trying to rebut the absurd allegation that my Department has been trying to stifle debate or spring surprises on the House. The consultation paper plainly stated that the Standing Order would shortly be tabled. In addition, the full text of the proposed Standing Order was included with the consultation paper on 26 February. If hon. Members had wished to object, as the hon. Member for Newham, South objected, to this part of the matter in March, it would have been perfectly easy to ensure that a debate took place. No consultee and no hon. Member could possibly have been taken by surprise by the procedural timetable followed by the Department of the Environment in this matter.
  The comments by the hon. Member for Newham, South about where the consultation responses were being kept were also rather absurd and belittled the seriousness of the subject. I am sorry that he finds No. 2 Marsham street too far away. My Department used to deposit all responses to our consultation papers in the Libraries of both Houses. That so overburdened the Libraries that we changed the practice and in the past few years we have been depositing a list of responses and did so in this case.
  732
  Proceeding in such a way does not smack of excessive secrecy or of a desire to be obstructive. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a copy of any of the responses I shall be happy to send one to him, and by going to the Library he can find out who responded. The cost of the official paper is not a matter for me, but I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the question of costs, item 31 in the brief from the Council for the Protection of Rural England states:
  "Environmental statements should be available free to all interested parties in a Bill. As an absolute minimum, this should include all those who participated in the EA process and preparation of the ES, and petitioners against the Bill."
  Hon. Members are not criticising the Department; at least, I am not. We are appalled at the sheer cost of legitimate objection. Has the Department any constructive views about how those who want to object, not frivolously, can be helped financially? Because of the financial implications, one has to be extremely careful before embarking on an objection.
  Mr. Yeo: The issue of the cost of getting copies of papers is more a matter for the House authorities than for the Department of the Environment. An objector will have to weigh up costs, as he would do before objecting to any planning application. If professional advice is taken the cost of that must be borne in mind.
  I shall now deal with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South. He would claim that they would strengthen the Standing Order requirements by removing the opportunity for promoters to seek the Secretary of State's direction that an environmental statement is not required.
  Mr. Spearing: Or less than the order.
  Mr. Yeo: We shall come to that later. The amendments would also mean that the information to be provided might be more restricted than that set out in the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. The hon. Gentleman has also proposed that the promoters might be required to provide additional information where both Houses of Parliament so resolve.
  In the Government's view, these amendments to the Standing Order are misconceived. The scheme proposed by the Standing Order, and the arrangements on which we have consulted, is that projects approved by Private Bill require environmental assessment on the same basis as projects requiring planning permission— subject only to differences arising essentially from the different nature of the procedures involved. Under the European directive which the 1988 regulations implement, environmental assessment is required for all projects listed in annex I to the directive, and for any projects listed in annex II which are likely to have significant environmental effects. Under clause 14 of the Planning and Compensation Bill, which is before the House, the Secretary of State will be able to add to the classes of project requiring environmental assessment, but preparing an environmental statement is a costly business and should be required of the promoters of projects only where it is really necessary— that is when the project is likely to have significant environmental effects.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Standing Orders are designed to parallel what is happening on applications that occur under planning legislation. If, at some point,

  733
  planning legislation is improved, to make environmental assessment stronger, would it not be logical for the House then to amend Standing Orders to take those changes into account?
  Mr. Yeo: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, it will be for the House to decide at that time. As the procedures are starting off in parallel, it would seem to be only sensible to argue that they should continue in parallel if changes are made in the requirements of the planning law.
  The decision whether a project falls in that category requires the exercise of judgment. That is why the planning regulations provide for a procedure under which the local planning authority considers the need for environmental assessment, with the Secretary of State having the last word in case of dispute. The fact that a project requires approval through the private Bill procedure does not necessarily mean that it is likely to have significant environmental effects, so that environmental assessment would be appropriate. That is why the Standing Order — in accordance with the Joint Committee's recommendation— enables the promoter to go to the Secretary of State to seek a direction that environmental assessment is not required in particular cases.
  Basically, that is the argument for rejecting the main amendment. It is interesting that only one response to the consultation paper proposed to remove the Secretary of State's direction-making function. To do so would significantly alter the scheme of the Standing Order in a manner that has not been considered by the promoters or parliamentary agents. Therefore, I recommend that the House should reject the amendments.
  Perhaps I should take this opportunity to report to the House what the consultees have said in reply to the consultation. We received 35 replies. As has been said, a list of them has been placed in the Library of the House. The Welsh Office carried out a parallel consultation exercise, to which five responses were received. The respondents to these consultations include environmental interests— notably the Council for the Protection of Rural England— public and local authorities, professional organisations and a few promoters, notably British Rail. I shall refer briefly to four main areas of comment.
  Some respondents suggest that, because of the strict timetable to which private Bills must adhere, the arrangements for environmental assessment should also follow a formalised timetable. In particular, they contend that the annual June deadline for applications for a Secretary of State direction is too late because if he decides that environmental assessment is required there will not be enough time to enable an adequate environmental statement to be prepared and deposited by 4 December. They therefore suggest that promoters should be required to seek a direction much earlier than June.
  The Government view is that in most cases promoters of private legislation will know well in advance whether their proposals are likely to require assessment. Environmental statements take time to prepare and it is good practice for work on them to begin at an early stage in the development process. So if it is clear that environmental assessment is needed, the promoter should simply get on with it. Some respondents have contended that promoters should have to seek a direction in every case, but that would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and time consuming.
  734
  Similarly, if it is clear that a project is not likely to have significant effects, there is every reason for the promoter's seeking the Secretary of State's certificate sooner rather than later. If, however, the case is finely balanced, I would hope that the promoter would decide at an early stage that he will provide a statement. I therefore do not expect that cases will often hit the June deadline. Even where they do, and the Secretary of State directs that environmental assessment is not needed, no problem will arise. So the problem will arise only if a direction is refused in a case where the preparation of an adequate environmental statement cannot be completed by 4 December. In such a case, it seems to us that the reasonable effect of the provisions will be to require the promoter to postpone his Bill to the following Session. We shall be preparing guidance which will clarify these points.
  This does, of course, raise the question of what is an adequate environmental statement, on which a number of the consultation respondents also commented. They commented that private Bill Committees do not have the necessary expertise to interpret and assess environmental statements, and that such statements should be subject to independent review; some suggest that the Secretary of State should comment on the quality of the statement as part of his report to Parliament on the Bill.
  I acknowledge that the idea of an independent review body is attractive, but there are practical difficulties. What would its relationship to Parliament be? In the last resort it must be for the House to decide whether it can approve a project on the basis of the information in front of it. A private Bill Committee has a great ability to require additional information if it is dissatisfied with what the promoter has provided, and petitioners can also obtain information through the cross-examination process. So I am by no means as despondent as are some of the respondents about the quality control that Parliament can exercise.
  The Secretary of State's reports to Parliament will seek to be as helpful to the House as possible. He will certainly check that the statement complies with the terms of schedule 3 to the 1988 regulations, and of any direction that he has given, but I do not agree that he should undertake to say whether he considers the environmental implications of a proposal, as set out in the environmental statement, to be acceptable: that must be for Parliament to decide. The Secretary of State must also avoid taking sides on issues on which he may subsequently have to adjudicate in a quasi-judicial capacity— for instance, on a related planning appeal.
  I do not dismiss lightly the concerns that have been expressed about the quality of environmental statements. As indicated in last year's environment White Paper, my Department is commissioning research designed to lead to the issue of guidance on good practice in the preparation and evaluation of environmental statements. We are currently considering tenders for the first part of this research, and we shall certainly carefully watch the experience with statements submitted with private Bills.
  A third range of comments on the consultation paper urged that there should be wider consultation and involvement of the public in the environmental assessment process. The consultation paper made it clear that, when preparing an environmental statement, promoters should consult specified bodies similar to those that they would be advised to consult under the environmental assessment regulations if they were proceeding by way of a planning

  735
  application. That is to enable those bodies to make available any relevant, non-confidential, information that they possess. The bodies concerned would include the Countryside Commission, English Nature, English Heritage, and such other bodies as the Secretary of State may decide in any particular case.
  There is no existing provision that could be used to require promoters to consult any particular bodies, nor to require those bodies to make relevant information available to the promoters. Neither is that something which could be required by means of amendments to Standing Orders. We therefore intend to bring forward appropriate legislation at a suitable opportunity. In the meantime, the Department will expect promoters to consult appropriate bodies, including the local planning authority for the area, on a non-statutory basis. We shall also advise promoters to consider consulting relevant non-statutory bodies and the public in the locality of their projects. A number of respondents urged the need for such consultations.
  The fourth area of comment concerns the final paragraph of the consultation paper, in which it was proposed that where a private Bill concerns more than one project it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State to give a direction that environmental assessment was not required for some of those projects only. The comments that have been made reasonably argue that, where projects are related to each other, they should not be considered separately for environmental assessment purposes. I can assure the House that in such cases we would expect promoters to consider the likely environmental effects of all related projects, but where a Bill covers genuinely disparate projects the need for environmental assessment for each will be considered on its merits.
  As I said, the responses overall welcomed the proposals. I am satisfied that they will work as set out in the consultation paper. However, I undertake to keep the operation of the Department's functions under review.
  Of course, we can expect the demand for works Bills to decline. Last June, the Government put forward proposals in response to the Joint Committee's report under which the approval of railway and light rail projects, and a wider range of harbour measures, would be considered and approved outside Parliament. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced last Friday that the responses to that consultation had been broadly favourable, and that the Government intend to proceed with legislation at the earliest opportunity. The new order-making procedure would include provision for public inquiries and for environmental assessment of schemes likely to have significant environmental effects.
  If that legislation is enacted, there will be far fewer proposals which need to come before the House in works Bills and to which the new Standing Order 27A will apply. That does not diminish the importance of the proposal before the House. I strongly commend it to the House, and point out that if we do not agree to the Standing Order tonight— and I believe that this point concerns the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)— there must be a risk that the new arrangements could not be implemented until the 1992–93 Session. So although we disagree with the amendments of the hon. Member for Newham, South, I urge the House to agree to the motion.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: We welcome the introduction of environmental assessment into the private Bill procedure, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for making possible tonight's debate. He presented his case thoroughly, and if time had allowed he would have described in more detail ways in which the measure could be improved. His amendments would have improved the Standing Order, but as we want its principles adopted, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not seek to press them.
  As to the consultation procedure, the comments of the Council for the Protection of Rural England are particularly apposite. There is a strong case for some form of independent agency to undertake environmental assessments. There is bound to be an element of distrust when the developers themselves are responsible for making an assessment.
  As to the role of the Secretary of State, in the case of Teesside power station, the CPRE lodged an objection with the Commission over whether or not the works associated with the building of that power station should have formed part of the overall environmental assessment. The Secretary of State chose not to follow that course, and his decision will be challenged. Certainly it seems to me that the associated works form part of the whole scheme — and in any private Bill, priority should be given to consideration of whether the environmental assessment should cover the whole of the works in question.
  I hope that the Government will accept that there is a great deal which could be done to improve the Standing Order. I appreciate the Minister's undertaking to keep an eye on the way that the matter develops and to be prepared to give the House an opportunity to improve environmental assessments further. Therefore, taking the Minister at his word, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to reconsider this subject in the not-too-distant future.
  9.49 pm
  Mr. John Browne: I rise to speak briefly in support of the speeches by the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I also agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the Chairman of Ways and Means has done us a great service by tabling this motion, and I strongly support it.
  I understand and share the misgivings of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey about exemptions. It worries me, but we must be happy that the order is tabled at all and support it.
  It is absolutely right that the same environmental assessment provisions should apply equally to privately finance and to state financed road construction. I noted with interest the reference by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to the timing of the motion as regards a rumour— I do not know how accurate it is. I noticed an article in The Observer about a European Commission proposal to prosecute the United Kingdom Government over their plans for the M3 at Twyford Down. That prosecution would be because the Government had failed to comply with the 1985 EC directive in a specific area.
  The M3 at Winchester has been close to my heart for about 14 years. Many people in my constituency are appalled by the Government's proposals. Many more

  737
  cannot wait until the road is constructed. They want it finished as soon as possible, because they are totally frustrated for three reasons. The first is the seemingly endless delays amounting to about 20 years of which, according to my calculations on the back of an envelope, the Government rather than protestors have been responsible for 13 years, or 65 per cent. Secondly, they are frustrated by traffic delays because the Government have not constructed the flyover bridge proposed at Hockly traffic lights. Thirdly, they are frustrated by the death tally on the present road, but they note that the Government have made virtually no attempt to upgrade the present bypass to make it safer.
  I do not blame the present Secretary of State for Transport, but I believe that the frustration has had a major impact. People have been frustrated so that they will accept anything, regardless of the environmental consequences, just to get the traffic through. The story is that delays on the road are costing industry to the south and west of Winchester £1 million a day. That would pay for a tunnel in less than six months, which puts it into proportion. The cause of the frustration is dubious. I do not believe that Ministers are at fault but they have over many years been given very questionable advice.
  The Department of Transport's proposals for the M3 will smash through the most heavily protected piece of environment in our country— the most heavily protected area in the British Isles in terms of statutory protection, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and so on. Statutory bodies such as the CPRE and English Heritage were not even invited to attend one of the inquiries to give evidence. The inquiry was therefore reopened, and there was yet more delay and frustration.
  There are sound economic reasons for the 1985 EC directive. It is in Britain's interest to meet that directive.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member has a strong constituency interest, but I remind him that we are dealing with an amendment to Standing Orders. It is not appropriate to go into detail on a constituency matter.
  Mr. Browne: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are considering the application of the rules to the private construction of roads. Probably the major proposal in the country affects my constituency— the private financing of the tunnel for the M3 at Winchester. That is why I have mentioned the case.
  It is important, and it is in Britain's interest, to uphold the EC directive. Most of the other countries in Europe did not have such strict environmental requirements, so our business and commerce were losing.
  It is important that the rules are upheld regarding the Standing Order change and the Government's policy on the construction of the proposed route at Winchester. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will urge the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment to take seriously and to review the proposals of the delegation that I led to the Secretary of State for Transport a few weeks ago. Members of Twyford Down Association proposed alternative private financing for the tunnel, which would pay not only for the protection but for the enhancement of the environment in that area and would ensure that the road was built as soon as possible.
  738
  I support the speeches of hon. Members and the motion.
  9.56 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a pity that we have not had enough time to debate the motion. I hope that this will be only part of the reform of private business, and that primary legislation will be passed so that environmental issues are dealt with under the planning procedures and not by the House.
  The Government's response, issued by the Department of Transport on Friday, suggested that railway, harbour and waterway Bills will be taken out of the procedure. The Minister should consider removing estuary Bills. There are proposals to deal with the Severn, the Mersey, the Wash, and Morecambe bay. Almost any estuary in Britain is the subject of a proposal. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill created controversy, and we should ensure that such Bills are subject to planning procedures rather than the private Bill procedure, otherwise they might take up much parliamentary time in the future.
  I should have welcomed stronger environmental requirements in the Standing Order. I hope that we shall improve planning legislation to include better environmental assessments, and that the House ensures that it falls into line by amending the Standing Order.
  It is important that the primary legislation is passed. I fear that if there is an October election it will get lost and the House will be unable to reform private Bills, which it urgently needs to do.
  9.58 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall call the hon. Gentleman, but I remind the House that the procedure is a little complicated this evening. If the House wishes to come to a conclusion on the motion, I have to put the Question before 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Dalyell: The motion is one of those cases in which the best could be the enemy of the good, and I support it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about estuary Bills.
  I want to ask a question that bothers the Council for the Protection of Rural England and others. What is the position on the blank cheque given to the Secretary of State to exempt any private Bill from the environmental assessment requirements, at least without a proviso that the Secretary of State must determine that the project is unlikely to have any significant effects on the environment?
  Hon. Members have nightmares about talking out legislation, so to be safer than safe, with that question I shall sit down.
  Mr. Yeo: Paragraph 15 of the consultation paper pointed out that it is possible for the Select Committee to call for further environmental evidence, even if the Secretary of State has given a direction that no environmental assessment is necessary.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the following Standing Order be made:—
  '27A.—(l) Subject to paragraph (8) below, in the case of a Bill authorising the carrying out of works the nature and extent of which are specified in the Bill on land so specified, there shall be deposited on or before 4th December in the

  739
  Private Bill Office and at the Public Departments at which copies of the Bill are required to be deposited under Standing Order 39, either

  (a) a copy or copies (as specified by paragraph (2) below) of an environmental statement containing, in relation to the works authorised by the Bill, the information set out in Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (referred to below as "Schedule 3") or such of that information as the Secretary of State may in any particular case direct, or

  (b) a copy or copies (as so specified) of a direction by the Secretary of State that no such statement is necessary in relation to the works authorised by the Bill.

  (2) The number of copies required to be deposited under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) above shall be three in the case of a deposit at the Department of the Environment and one in any other case.
  (3) Where any such works authorised by a Bill relates to two or more distinct projects each project may be treated separately for the purposes of paragraph (1) above; and the references in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of that paragraph to the works authorised by the Bill shall accordingly be construed, where the paragraph applies separately to each project, as references to the works comprised in that project.
  (4) Notwithstanding any direction given as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) above, any environmental statement of which copies are deposited under this Order shall contain the summary (referred to below as "the non-technical summary") required by paragraph (2)(e) and, where material, paragraph 4 of Schedule 3.
  (5) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction as mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) above, a copy of the direction shall be deposited with every copy of the environmental statement deposited under this Order; and every copy of a direction so deposited or deposited under paragraph (1) (b) above shall be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State of his reasons for giving the direction.
  (6) Copies of every environmental statement deposited under this Order shall be made available for inspection, and for sale at a reasonable price, on and after 4th December, at the offices at which copies of the Bill are required to be made available under Standing Order 4A; and there shall also be made available separately on and after that date at those offices, for inspection and for sale at a reasonable price, copies of the non-technical summary.
  (7) The reference to Schedule 3 in this Order is a reference to that Schedule as amended from time to time and includes a reference to the corresponding provision of any regulations which re-enact the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, with or without amendment; and references to particular paragraphs of Schedule 3 shall be construed accordingly.
  (8) This Order does not require the deposit of copies of an environmental statement in relation to any works for which planning permission has been granted.'.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not raise it in the previous debate for fear of losing that motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) mentioned the report in The Observer, and I wonder whether it will be possible for a Minister to make a statement in the next few days on whether Britain will be prosecuted. It affects not only Twyford Down, but also the east London river crossing approach road through Oxleas woods in my constituency.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member's remarks will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.

  European Energy Charter
  10 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4936/91 on a European Energy Charter; and welcomes proposals for a Charter designed to promote an open, liberal and non-discriminatory energy market throughout Europe and to assist in restructuring the energy sectors of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union on a market basis.
  I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate the proposal for a European energy charter. The Select Committee on European Legislation regarded the communication as being politically important. It was right to do so. Scutiny debates are frequently about the impact of the European Commission proposal on the United Kingdom or on the 12 member states of the Community. This one is different. It covers the whole of Europe— east and west, north and south.
  No European energy policy can be forged in the 1990s or beyond if it does not take account of the emerging democracies of eastern Europe or of the changes taking place in the Soviet Union. They have suffered from all the vices of central planning, but none of the virtues of competition and free trade. Getting the energy industries right throughout the east, not least in the Soviet Union, which is so rich in natural resources, could be a catalyst for the transformation of their whole economies and their environments.
  I believe that a European energy charter can provide a key to that transformation. It can bring major benefits to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union while also helping the more established European democracies, inside and outside the European Community. It can go further than the internal market by liberalising the energy sector across the whole of Europe.
  The United Kingdom market and the United Kingdom have been in the forefront of the development of the internal market in energy and in other areas. The charter give us an important and welcome opportunity to go further in the energy sector, to cover more countries and to establish more liberal arrangements. The United Kingdom is one of the most competitive energy markets in the world. The Government have some of the greatest experience in supervising energy in all its forms, including the supervision of the successful development of the North sea oil and gas sector, the operation of electricity and gas networks with open access and the successful promotion of the efficient use of energy.
  British companies have the experience of making successful investments in such an energy market and in providing equipment and services to that market. The charter could give us great opportunities in assisting other countries to liberalise their energy sectors and in creating new opportunities and openings for British companies to invest and export profitably.
  Last year at the European Community summit in Dublin, the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Lubbers, imaginatively proposed an energy Community to cover energy issues throughout the continent of Europe. The United Kingdom supported that proposal. We saw it and still see it as an opportunity to assist the transition of the countries of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to market-based economies, particularly in the vital energy

  741
  sector, and as an opportunity for further liberalisation throughout Europe. It reflects our policies on free markets and competition at home in the European Community and we are grateful to the Dutch for their idea and the work that they have done in developing it.
  After some informal discussion, the European Commission was asked to produce a draft on a possible charter. In February it did so and tonight we are debating its communication to the Council. It is only a first draft of the charter and potential signatories will need to negotiate and agree a mutually acceptable text. We hope that this process might be complete by the end of the year.
  The charter would provide an agreed set of principles relating to energy and energy trade. It is envisaged that a series of protocols negotiated individually, and covering specific sectors and issues, would then be attached to the charter. These intergovernmental agreements would provide the framework and the climate of confidence that would allow and encourage the commercial investment from outside the former eastern bloc that the countries of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union now need to attract. The protocols should also contain the details necessary for freer energy markets within and between the signatories.
  We have two main objectives for the charter. First, we wish to assist the Soviet Union and eastern Europe in their transition to multi-based economies. This will help their political reform and will increase their economic efficiency. It will also bring us major benefits, both commercially and in terms of the environment. Secondly, we wish to increase energy liberalisation in the more established democracies, both inside and outside the Community. Freer trade and increased competition would improve both economic and energy efficiency. They would extend consumer choice and enhance security of supply. They would reduce discrimination against our companies when they operate overseas. The charter can provide us with new commercial opportunities by removing some of the existing barriers to trade.
  The charter and the associated protocols are likely to cover a number of areas. Oil and gas are likely to be areas of particular interest. The United Kingdom has developed substantial expertise, thanks to our experience in the North sea. We have ensured that it has been explored and developed successfully through sensible licensing and a tax regime that encourages further exploration and investment. We have considerable expertise in the implementation of the necessary safety and environmental regulations, and British companies have shown themselves to be competitive in providing equipment and services in the market that we have established here.
  Mr. John Browne: My hon. Friend has mentioned tax incentives and the environment. Does he accept that one of the greatest sources of new energy is energy conservation? Does the charter take this into account, particularly with regard to rebates for people, companies and Governments throughout the European Community, as well as in eastern and central Europe, that invest in energy conservation?
  Mr. Moynihan: The charter does not take it into account, but there are opportunities for protocols to concentrate on energy efficiency schemes. In due course, it might be necessary for this House to consider, possibly in detail, the impact of such protocols. However, at this stage we are considering the broad principles of the charter. It is
  742
  intended that it will refer to energy efficiency measures and their importance, without going into the very important detail to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  The charter gives us the opportunity to pass on our expertise to other countries, and to create new opportunities for British companies. In both gas and electricity, we have created competitive markets in production and supply. We have also shown that security of supply can be maintained, even enhanced, by such competition and by providing third-party access to networks. Such access will be necessary elsewhere if energy trade is to expand throughout Europe, and if co-operation and security are to be increased. Here again, we have been in the forefront. Our companies have the necessary expertise and the charter will give them opportunities to operate outside the United Kingdom.
  In renewable energy, too, we have managed to move beyond the theoretical and research stages. The non-fossil-fuel obligation has brought forward new and exciting projects on a commercial and competitive basis. This experience will give the companies here that have developed such projects a firm basis to do so elsewhere. The charter is one way of enhancing their opportunities.
  These are only some of the ways in which the charter and liberalised energy markets will help us. Even before we consider the serious problems created by central planning in what was the Eastern bloc, there is wide recognition of the fact that the energy sectors of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe face severe difficulties. They are suffering from inefficiency and lack of investment. In some areas, there is concern over safety. Most visible are the very high levels of pollution caused by energy production, distribution and use. Given the fundamental importance of the performance of the energy sector to those economies, their Governments and those wishing to assist them have correctly identified energy as a priority area for future action. But if investment is to come, enterprises in the west need to be reassured about the economic and legal environment in which they will operate.
  The USSR is the world's largest producer of oil and gas and possesses vast undeveloped resources. The oil sector is in as serious a decline as any in the Soviet Union. Some commentators have speculated that, unless there is a real improvement in the efficiency of energy production, refining, distribution and consumption, the Soviet Union could become a net importer of oil well before the the end of the decade. It needs to increase its hard currency export earnings. One way of doing so is to improve energy production, which is one of the few sectors where it has a real chance to earn more from a product that it possesses in great quantities and for which there is a large external market. It must also reduce the burden of inefficient, wasteful consumption.
  If we can help energy production in the Soviet Union to become more efficient, we, too, will' gain. Increased exports of Soviet oil and gas wil make world energy markets more competitive in the future and will reduce the diversity of potential sources of supply. Future energy costs should be lower and the security of energy supplies should increase so that the Soviet Union becomes less dependent on supplies from a single region.
  The decline in the Soviet economy has many causes— technical, economical and political— but the problems are unlikely to be resolved without western investment and technology. Such investment is likely to be made only when western companies have sufficient assurance that the

  743
  risks are not excessive. The proposed charter will help to provide a framework for that and create the necessary climate of confidence.
  Many eastern European countries faced severe difficulties this winter due to their dependence on imported energy supplies, especially from the Soviet Union and the Gulf. Freer trade may have helped them to diversify their sources of supply and may have given them greater security. We have played our part recently by amending our oil export guidelines, following their requests, to enable North sea oil to be sold to eastern Europe and elsewhere. Freer trade would also help producers by assuring them that they can find markets for their production without being forced to sell it too cheaply. We hope that free trade in energy would be reinforced by the proposed charter, not only in Europe but throughout the world.
  The change to market-based pricing for energy is important throughout Europe. Eastern European countries faced difficulties in obtaining Soviet oil deliveries and, from the beginning of this year they were forced to pay world prices for Soviet energy. Before that, energy prices were well below the world rate and its use was wasteful. One of the best spurs for the efficient use of energy is proper pricing so that consumers can decide how to use it most efficiently.
  The structure of energy pricing can be as important as the overall level. In parts of the Soviet Union, energy is provided to households for a fixed payment and there is often no facility for metering it. Naturally, there is little or no incentive for individuals to save energy or to use energy-saving measures such as thermostats. If a room is too hot, the easiest solution is to open a window. In the absence of individual heating controls, that may be the only solution. This may seem tangential to our debate, but it illustrates the significance of proper energy pricing, whether to individual homes or to industry.
  The inefficient use of energy in industry is probably more significant. Under a centrally planned economy, heavy users of energy in industry have had little incentive to use energy sensibly. But if energy can be improved, some of the horrific pollution in the east can be avoided. Therefore, the charter seeks greater emphasis on market-based pricing for energy.
  Improvements in the energy sector require investment. Capital and expertise are required to overhaul ailing energy economies in the east, but they cannot be found from internal sources alone. Western Governments have provided funds to help economic restructuring and development, including in the energy sector. However, that will not be sufficient. Government bureaucracies are least capable when attempting to discover or produce oil, gas or coal. Most energy is consumed by industry, commerce and individuals.
  Ultimately, it will be companies and enterprises and their investment that will provide the capital and skills for new, more efficient, safer and less-polluting energy equipment, both for production and use. That, too, will create new opportunities for British companies. The charter will need to emphasise the vital role of the commercial sector, both in providing investment and taking the necessary action to improve efficiency.
  744
  The fifth anniversary of the Chernobyl accident underlines the fact that the safety issue can cross national borders. The same is true of the environmental impact of the energy sector. All forms of energy production affect the environment in one way or another, and a large number of international initiatives have been undertaken to reduce some of the effects. The Soviet Union and the eastern European countries are parties to a number of those.
  The proposed charter should not try to replace or duplicate such arrangements, but, by stimulating investement in modern technology at all stages of the fuel cycle, the charter can assist and make a major contribution to environmental improvement. Some people in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe may be suspicious of the charter, fearing that it could be an attempt by the west to take control of their energy resources, but that is not our aim. Britain has as much interest as anyone in maintaining the principle of national sovereignty over natural resources.
  Principles should be stated in the charter. Individual countries should have the right to determine how fast, and in what manner, their own resources are developed. Once the Government have decided that, the opportunity to invest in such development should be open and non-discriminatory. Non-discrimination is another principle which we shall seek in the charter. Companies should be free to invest and provide equipment and services, regardless of which country they originally came from.
  Given the expertise and experience in the United Kingdom, the charter will create new opportunities for British companies and increase competition and efficiency wherever it is applied. There is no doubt that the details will need to be negotiated, with some countries looking for joint ventures with local enterprises, while others are prepared to accept 100 per cent. subsidiaries established under local regulations. Whatever the details, the energy sector, both east and west, cannot afford artificial barriers to international co-operation, trade and the transfer of investment and technology.
  The problems of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are an important part of the reason why we support the charter, but not the whole reason. Some of the problems that I have identified also apply, to a lesser extent, elsewhere in Europe. We, too, will benefit by showing that our energy sectors operate in a sensible, open and liberal framework. The charter proposal is an important idea, designed both to assist transition in the east in the energy sector and to liberalise energy in the rest of Europe. It will create new opportunities for those moving away from central planning and towards the market. It will also create new opportunities for British companies operating in any part of Europe.
  One of the charter's major objectives is to help regenerate the economies of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe through market principles by concentrating on a sector where there is already a substantial international market and where they have scope to make substantial foreign exchange benefits by increasing exports or reducing imports. Another objective is to provide the political security necessary to attract our companies to invest in those countries. The principles are those of an open, liberal and competitive market, and follow the principles that guide our own energy policy. The fruits of success can be enormous in terms of economic prosperity, political stability and environmental improvements.

  745
  The United Kingdom has much to offer the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, based on our success in the oil, gas, electricity, nuclear, new and renewable energy and energy efficiency spheres. The charter will create new opportunities for our companies, with their experience in all those sectors. We have been in the forefront of opening up energy markets in the European Community. If successful, the charter will enable us to extend its objectives throughout Europe and beyond. Therefore, I commend the motion and the charter to the House.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: We have listened to the Minister for 17 minutes. He will not be surprised that my reading of the charter and my welcome for it are somewhat different from his. He mentioned the words" liberal" or "liberalisation" 14 times, the same number of times as the Secretary of State for Health in his notorious broadcast about the alleged big lie used in the Monmouth by-election. I wondered whether the Minister would carry on in the same vein by coming out with a phrase about "opt-out power stations" not being connected to the national grid.
  It is fair to say that anybody reading the document objectively would ask whether it would solve the energy problems of Europe and, if so, which parts of it would make the biggest contribution. I want to return to other themes that have been hitting the headlines in the past few weeks. It is fair to say that politics, as we have learnt over the past few days, is a dirty game. I always remember Montgomery being asked on television in 1956 why he had not followed the well-trodden path of Eisenhower, who had become President of the United States, and gone into politics. He replied that war was a very dirty game, but when compared to politics— and left us to draw our own conclusions. When one compares war or politics to energy, one can say that energy is the dirtiest game of all. By that, I simply mean environmental pollution which is a side-effect of almost all forms of energy.
  The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) asked the Minister whether energy efficiency played a part in the energy charter and the Minister said that it did not really, but that such proposals would be in the protocols. I differ from the Minister in my reading of the document. Energy efficiency is underplayed a bit, but it is included extensively. Point 3 refers to
  "optimum use of energy and environmental protection, which will imply— the development of new and renewable energy sources;— greater energy savings;— measures to combat pollution."
  One cannot sum up the problems of energy, as seen by the man or woman in the street, more neatly than that.
  Mr. Moynihan: In fairness, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) intervened on a specific group of measures on energy efficiency. The charter overall pays important respects to energy efficiency. Which specific measures are implemented will be matters for negotiation in the protocol. That was the point that I made to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Morgan: The Minister must not get over-excited about the point. I agree with him to the extent that I believe that energy efficiency should play a larger part in the charter. The Minister described what he thought the charter contained: 99 per cent. opening up of, or
  746
  liberalisation of, or freeing up of— to use the Minister's buzz words— energy markets on a non-discriminatory, transparent and non-national basis compared with 1 per cent. of other problem-solving measures. That description is wide of the mark. However, I should like there to be even more reference to energy and to the environmental side effects simply because that is what the population of Europe will expect of the charter.
  If we asked the population of Europe what the No. 1 problem was, they would not say that it was the inability of Austrian investors to get shares in the Portuguese electricity industry without an assurance about being able to have their dividends remitted in hard currencies. People would say that that was rubbish and had nothing to do with the matter. They would say that they wanted to be reasonably sure that there was not a second Chernobyl, ready to pop off at any minute, hiding in eastern Europe or that brown coal or lignite production would not cause acidification and kill forests in Germany, Scotland or Wales when the east wind blew. Such environmental problems are of concern, combined with the possibility of far higher electricity prices if we introduce a carbon tax. Such a tax may prevent Bangladesh again being completely flooded as the oceans rise— if global warming is a reality rather than just a scientific theory, as it is now. Those are the big energy talking points. The European energy charter points towards them, but it should point towards them with a little more emphasis.
  The Minister's premature triumphalism about the United Kingdom recipe for the development of energy is completely misplaced. Neither in Britain nor elsewhere in Europe is there a real solution to the problem of what energy gives us in a combination of naturally competitive activities such as oil refineries and natural monopolies such as local distribution networks or long-distance transmission networks. What do we do with natural monopolies? Do we keep, say, local wire networks under public control or municipal control, or do we pass the monopolies over to the private sector— for example, the oil refining industry or electricity generating companies, which we could call naturally competitive? To achieve maximum energy efficiency gains, we could say that they should be integrated with the natural monopolies on the wires side of the business. Those are the big questions for people in the energy industry in the next 10 years.
  The charter does not examine those questions in as much detail as it should. The Minister's interpretation does not examine them at all. Those are big issues, given the natural tendency of the treaty of Rome or a Euratom-based body such as the European Commission to look at Europe simply as a device for the removal of trade barriers. The treaty of Rome also provides for the 12 countries of the European Community to come together on an ad hoc basis— this matter is outside the treaty of Rome, although we can see it colouring the treaty— with the major leap into the east, which we must welcome. As the Minister rightly said, the pollution problems of energy production recognise no national boundaries and no European Community boundaries. In that leap to the east, can the 12 countries of Europe plus the others in the east come together constructively to solve the real problems of the future of energy production?
  I am disappointed that the document does not mention global warming. China and India will need to be included. In the document there is the slightest tangential reference to third world countries. That is important. There is a brief

  747
  reference to clean coal technology. If we manage to perfect clean coal technology and if clean coal technology is one solution to the problem of global warming through, for example, the pressurised fluidised bed combustion system, the passing of that new clean coal technology to China and India may be the biggest single contribution to the solution of the global warming problem over the next 25 years. The combined technological and financial resources of the 12 countries of the Community can contribute to solving the planet's No. 1 environmental problem. That is an important item. The relationship with the third world is mentioned tangentially. It is a big issue. It is played down a little, and we want it to be played up again when the document is transformed into protocols.
  Another problem that needs a higher profile is energy efficiency. The document states that we need some organisation to disseminate technology, new techniques and new methods of promoting energy efficiency. We are on all fours on that point. If bright ideas are evolved in other countries, we want them to be transmitted here. The tone of the Minister's remark was somewhat Kiplingesque. It assumed that the flow of new ideas and technology was almost by right from this country to other countries and was not two way. That smacks of a British-centred view of the world. For instance, we would hope for an inward flow of technology from other sources in respect of more energy-efficient use of combined heat and power, coal generation and the incineration of municipal refuse. In the past months, German municipal electricity utilities, in combination with their linked parent generating companies, have approved substantial new CHP schemes in certain cities in Germany. We are terribly slow. Apart from the construction of the Slough power station, we have no projects in combined heat and power. We would welcome some inward flow of technology.
  Municipal refuse incineration for electricity generating purposes is another area where we are slow to develop. A municipal incineration plant has been approved in Munich. We would like to think that that will prove that such plants can succeed, even in an environmentally fussy country such as Germany. If so, such plants will become acceptable in Britain. That is a matter in which we expect an inward flow of technology.
  We are pleased that the new Franco-British consortium of one of the subsidiaries of GEC and its French partner Alsthom is combining all its resources to design and manufacture turbine generators. The consortium intends to invest in Grimethorpe. That is one of the sadly neglected areas of clean coal technology which came close to marketabilty but has been left to wither. Fortunately, the Anglo-French consortium has announced that it will put a couple of million pounds towards the project.
  We hope that if it is proved that the Grimethorpe project can operate at a fully marketable size the technology will flow outwards from Britain to China, India, the Soviet Union, and so on. However, the flow of technology is not all one way. The Minister made a big mistake in presenting it as such and implying that we were taking on the white man's burden and assisting the poor old Soviet Union to sort out its energy problems, vast as those problems are. There may well be things that we could learn from other countries and it pays occasionally to be
  748
  a little modest so that we draw from both sides as well as grasp the commercial opportunities that we hope will come from developments such as those at Grimethorpe.
  The charter is not all about liberalisation. It is about energy efficiency and transfer of technology both ways. It is not all about teaching the poor, state-controlled, centrally planned economies how to gain the benefits of liberalisation. There are real energy problems. Privatisation is not the sole policy or the sole aim of policy when dealing with issues such as acid rain and seeking to introduce combined heat and power to double fuel efficiency from the typical mid to high 30 per cent. to the 70 per cent. fuel efficiency conversion ratios that we should look for by the beginning of the new millennium, in nine years.
  Clean coal, more suitable uses for municipal refuse than disposal in landfill sites and other matters are also mentioned in the charter. However, the charter is biased towards liberalisation. It does not treat energy efficiency as a sufficiently high priority. We do not agree with the Minister's interpretation that the charter is 99 per cent. about liberalisation. We see it as a proper subject involving walking the tightrope of the obsession of the treaty of Rome and removing trade barriers. The treaty of Rome is all about establishing level playing fields for competition. That is fair enough in activities where competition is the natural way of allocating resources in the best possible way. In other activities there are natural monopolies and resource efficiency is paramount. Energy is inherently a dirty form of economic activity. The profile of energy efficiency and other issues must be raised in the charter. From the Minister's speech it seems that there is not much chance that that will be done.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: For many years of my life, I have made a non-self-interested case for fair votes and proportional representation. Tonight I have been persuaded to make a much more self-interested case. Under a fair system, my party would have its due 150 Members, and one person could have spoken in the London Underground debate at 7 o'clock, another person would have spoken in the environmental assessment debate, and someone else would have spoken on the European energy charter. Under the present regime, one person has to speak in all three debates. I apologise to the House. I am equally sad because it is getting near to bed time, and well past supper time, and I have not yet had a chance to eat. As a result, I shall have to miss the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), but I may say in advance that I imagine I shall support what she has to say about safety on London buses.
  The proposal by the Dutch Government some months ago for a Europe-wide energy charter begins the second phase of the development of Europe from the same starting point as that with which the post-war development of Europe began. The founding fathers of the European Community decided that the best building block on which to construct a Community was a joint energy policy.
  The mechanism used was the European Coal and Steel Community. They believed that pooling the resources of coal and steel would prevent warfare. They placed under one organisation's control the two prerequisites for arms

  749
  and defence manufacture. They saw a common coal and steel policy, for France and Germany particularly, as the way to peace. Eventually, of course, those two countries were joined by four and eventually by 10 others. Thus, it is interesting that this, the proposed first pan-European energy policy, is being used as the first building block for what might eventually be a Community stretching throughout the countries of Europe, with responsibility for many matters apart from energy.
  I am an ardent supporter of the European Community. In general, I support its economic propositions, although certain difficulties are associated with them. I welcome this debate because it allows us, in a multi-party fashion, to assist the Government's response to the proposals for an energy charter. We should support the idea of such a charter; but I, like the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), take the view that some of the ideas on which it is based go off in the wrong direction.
  Title 1 of the objectives listed on page 9— after the inevitable preamble— reads as follows:
  "With a view to improving security of supply on the most satisfactory economic basis and developing energy activities with due regard for the environment, the signatories agree to promote the construction of a large European energy market."
  I would not agree with that as a first objective. It is right to accept that there is a large European energy market, but not as a first objective. That should concern securing the best possible energy use by reducing and sharing energy, not just by developing more sources of supply.
  My three guiding principles would be somewhat different. The Foundation of a sustainable European energy charter should begin with the careful conservation of all the energy resources of the continent. We should reduce total consumption and change the balance of our primary sources of supply. Secondly, we should use the proposed market to provide the most efficient allocation mechanism as between Community countries. Thirdly, we must develop renewable resources more.
  Very recently, I learned through a parliamentary answer that Britain's energy consumption rose by 0· 7 per cent. last year over the year before, while GDP fell by 0· 5 per cent. That, I believe, is the first time that consumption has ever risen while GDP has fallen, and that statistic mirrors the steady decline of the United Kingdom's energy ratio. One of the criticisms levelled by many at the Government is that we do not have a proper national energy strategy. It is wonderful to have a European energy charter, but it would be quite a good idea to have a national energy strategy as well.
  The draft charter for Europe allows us to review our energy policy at home. I hope that one of the consequences will be a review of our energy requirements, our supply capacity and our scope for reducing energy consumption. Perhaps we can carry out such a review in the context of the continent of Europe as a whole. Energy saving requires not just targets but tax incentives, grants and penalties that will inhibit high-energy-consuming practices. We need local and national levels of energy consumption that will lead to a reduction. That can be done by setting maximum targets and trying to stay below them.
  All that must be done on the level playing field that we hear so much about, and we must make sure that there are no artificial barriers. A European initiative on cross-boundary funding of conservation projects could emerge
  750
  from the charter and a review. We could pool our cash resources and our expertise and ensure fair treatment in the search for conservation.
  Common labelling of household goods would ensure that people recognised energy-efficient white goods. The white goods consumer revolution would become a green goods revolution. People would reduce their use of energy-demanding washing machines and dishwashers, and would have a firm base on which to choose the best sort of machinery to have in the home.
  We could make sure that Britain and the continent made more use of energy-efficient light bulbs and a whole range of other consumer products. The European experience can educate Britain and the whole of Europe. I endorse the Minister's view about the potential of eastern Europe for making a contribution to saving energy. We need a common strategy to deal with the adverse environmental consequences.
  On a visit to Cracow in southern Poland, I saw the result on that beautiful mediaeval city of pollution from the nearby smelting works. Some countries in eastern Europe have used energy in an unsound way and have caused enormous pollution. A common environmental objective could benefit eastern Europe.
  Conservation strategy has enormous potential for creating jobs. The Association for the Conservation of Energy has given the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy properly calculated projections which show that 155,000 jobs could be created in Britain in energy conservation technology and activity. Parliamentary answers show that, over the next decade, we have a potential market of about £50 billion-worth of energy efficiency technology. Across Europe, about £250 billion is likely to be spent on energy abatement technology. There are massive opportunities for job creation and energy reduction. Energy conservation should be central to the charter.
  Next, let us be bold about using the market and adopt the proposal for Community levels for emission ceilings and licences. Targets could be set in Europe and pilot programmes started for international initiatives. Licences could be issued to producer countries to keep within the targets. That is one way to lessen the greenhouse effect.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West accepted, and I have heard Ministers say that they accept, that we must be realistic about energy charges. The proposal in the Community for a carbon or energy tax is gathering momentum, and I and my colleages support it. We grossly underpay for the energy that we consume. My party believes that we should pay much more for the non-renewable sources of energy that we, both in this country and across our continent, consume every day. It would be a good idea to have that strategy built into a European energy charter. By all means let us have the real market, but we should use it to make sure that the real costs of energy are paid for by the citizens of this wealthy part of the world.
  Thirdly, we must also develop renewables, and state that much more authoritatively as an objective within the charter. I am surprised that this is so much ignored in the charter, because the Dutch are good about renewable energy—windmills are the symbol of the Netherlands, and are practical ways to produce energy as well. Last year, only 0· 01 per cent. of Government expenditure went on developing renewable energy sources. Germany, Greece, Holland, Sweden and Switzerland spent double that.

  751
  The charter gives us an opportunity to rectify the oversights of recent years in terms of the fossil fuel levy. I know that the Government are thinking about it. At Energy questions last week, I heard the replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about what is happening in Scotland. We could review the lifetime of the fossil fuel levy of eight years. We could change the proposal— the Government's proposal— put it in the context of Europe, and make sure that we have a far better ratio for payback, to enhance renewable energy, both here and in Europe.
  This take-note debate is an opportunity for the Government to take advice, to go back and negotiate. I hope that they will negotiate for a tough energy charter, not just one that acknowledges that environmental policy depends on good energy policy, but one that does much more to ensure that the energy charter is a European environmental charter as well.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was right— this is an opportunity for Ministers to listen to the views put forward by hon. Members, to take note of them and to use them in discussions on the development of the charter. The hon. Member misinterpreted the emphasis that I placed on the protection of the environment, which is one of the major points that has been made this evening. I can give him the firm undertaking that environmental considerations will be given full weight in the charter. That is vital, and I touched on some of the ways that the environment will be affected by the charter. Modernisation of gas transmission and distribution networks would, for example, reduce the levels of leaks of methane, which is not only dangerous locally but is a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect. I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that point before.
  The building in eastern Europe of new power stations with modern equipment can reduce sulphur dioxide emissions, which result from the burning of lignite, or brown coal. This will reduce the impact of acid rain locally and regionally. Greater efficiency in the conversion and use of all forms of energy will help to stabilise carbon dioxide production, which affects the global environment. All these features can benefit from an effective charter and it is vital that emphasis is rightly placed, and continues to be placed by those working on the charter, on the environment, energy efficiency and safety improvements in the energy sector.
  I take the points made both by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I understand that their comments were not a criticism of the Government's position, but were reflections on what should be given greater priority in the drafting and the objectives of the title, which was read out by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. As he rightly pointed out, the first of the three major objectives is primarily concerned with the free market in energy and the expansion of trade in energy. I concentrated in some detail — I hope to the benefit of the House— on how we interpreted that.
  The second of the objectives is co-operation and co-ordination in energy. That has considerable impact on
  752
  the technical aspects and economic data. I agree that this is not all one way. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey gave that impression. We can benefit a great deal from the charter, and from the expertise of, and technological developments in, other countries, not least on renewables.
  I have been one of the greatest advocates of the non-fossil fuel obligation and have been much involved in pushing it forward. I attach the greatest importance to renewable sources of energy in terms of both diversity and security of supply. The environmental impact of renewable sources of energy is one of my major priorities.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West talked about incineration and the effect of the German projects. With my Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens)— as always, my hon. Friend is sitting quietly behind me—I shall visit Edmonton to see the incinerator projects there, which have important benefits for north London. Only recently I went to Brent to see the Chalk Hill project. The waste from the estate is used to generate heat. The entire heating system is fuelled by the waste that is generated by the residents. We must examine more projects of that sort. Exchange of information within the charter will present us with an opportunity to move forward.
  Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister envisage acceptance of a carbon tax? Does he envisage that within the United Kingdom we shall gradually extend the nuclear levy, which is in effect a carbon tax, so that there is an extension of municipal waste incineration and so forth? If so, does he agree with the policy of the Liberal Democrats, which we do not?
  Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman knows the Government's position on a carbon tax. I do not agree with the argument that it should be extended across the board. I recognise that if the United Kingdom is to meet the high standards that are required for the environment—standards are becoming increasingly high—while taking account of production, we must take the opportunities that the charter presents for setting high environmental standards, which will be reflected in the charges that are passed on to the consumer. That is an essential prerequisite to achieving higher environmental standards throughout Europe. Any country that is a signatory to the charter will not be prevented from setting higher standards. I hope that we shall achieve—this is one of the objectives set out in one of the protocols—high environmental standards. As I have said, those standards will have to be paid for, and the cost will have to be passed on to the consumer, who demands them and recognises their importance if we are to secure an enhanced environmental quality of life.
  I take on board the importance that has been attached to conservation and to renewables. We shall consider these matters carefully when presenting our case for further detailed discussion.
  Finally, I recognise the importance that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West has attached to safety improvements, clean coal technology, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, which are covered by the third part of the title. I accept that the priority is not as high as hon. Members would like, and we shall bear that

  753
  much in mind when it comes to moving forward with what I believe is a welcome and important initiative in the energy sector.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4936/91 on a European Energy Charter:, and welcomes proposals for a Charter designed to promote an open, liberal and non-discriminatory energy market throughout Europe and to assist in restructuring the energy sectors of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union on a market basis.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos. 3 to 7 on the Order Paper.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
    LICENCES AND LICENSING
    That the draft Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.

    FINANCIAL SERVICES
    That the Financial Services act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1104), dated 30th April 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
    That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) (No. 2) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.

    EMPLOYMENT CODES OF PRACTICE
    That the draft Employment Codes of Practice (Revocation) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th April be approved. —[Mr. Moynihan.]
    Question agreed to.

  European Community Documents
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos. 8 and 9 on the Order Paper.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees).

  UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8597/90 + COR 1 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 26th February on unfair terms in consumer contracts; and endorses the Government's view that the measure needs to address identified problems with consumer contracts and to strike a fair balance between the interests of consumers and those of traders.

  MILK QUOTAS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5491/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 10th May on the amendment of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84 in respect of allocation of milk quotas; and supports the Government's intention to seek an agreement which meets the requirements of the European Court's judgments on the treatment to be accorded for quota purposes to former participants in certain Community dairying cessation schemes and ensures that the effectiveness of milk quotas in limiting Community expenditure on market support in the dairy sector is maintained—[Mr. Moynihan.]
  Question agreed to.

  London Buses
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  10.53 pm
  Ms. Kate Hoey: I am pleased to have the opportunity in a short debate to raise some important issues about buses in London. It is interesting that, all over the world, in almost any country, one of the most regularly used symbols of London is the London bus. Yet in this country the bus is sometimes considered the poor relation in public transport. There is no doubt that it has suffered from a lack of status in the eyes of many prospective users.
  It is important to remind ourselves of the benefits that the bus brings to public transport in a major city such as London. Buses are extremely efficient users of road space. In peak periods, they carry in central London nearly one third of road passengers but account for only 1 per cent. of road vehicles. They carry 1 per cent. of road users in the whole of London on only 0·2 per cent. of vehicles. Nevertheless, buses receive less attention than almost any other form of transport. Certainly they have not been the subject of many debates in the House.
  Because bus services do not require major new infrastructure, they are seldom the subject of lead news items. London buses carry 4 million passengers a day—about the same as Network South East and London Underground combined. They make far more efficient use of available road space than do private cars, and consume significantly less energy per passenger mile.
  Encouraging greater use of existing capacity within the existing bus network, and enhancing it where required, would make it possible, at relatively low cost, to reduce pollution, lower the number of accidents, and make more road space available for other potential users. In the case of journeys that cannot be made by foot or by bicycle, the bus is the environmentally friendly option.
  In the short term, no other policy is likely to bring such immediate and cost-effective results in increasing the total capacity of London's public transport system. The London Regional Passenger Committee policy document, "About Turn", comments that London's bus network is "a grossly under-utilised asset"— and that is borne out by the facts.
  At present, there are 300,000 empty seats on London buses each rush-hour morning. One bus is the equivalent of 70 cars. If only we could entice those drivers off the road and on to those vacant seats, significant space would be created for the essential vehicles that are so necessary for London's economic well-being.
  There are many reasons why the public are discouraged from using buses. I will not repeat the arguments relating to reliability or to the high fares—although we are continually reminded that London's public transport system has the highest fares in Europe. Instead, I will concentrate on the safety and security of both passengers and staff.
  A few week ago, London Buses announced that there were almost 1,000 assaults on bus staff last year, and acknowledged that the figure has been climbing steadily for three years, with a 20 per cent. rise in the past two years. There were 524 attacks on driver-operators, 284 on conductors, 49 on drivers, 105 on officials, and four on other personnel.
  756
  The consequence of those attacks— apart from the obvious trauma suffered by the victims— has been a warning by some operators that they may have to withdraw evening services on certain routes. It is surely time that operators installed video cameras on all their vehicles. The effect will not be immediate, but once footage is obtained of assaults and acts of vandalism, it will be easier to achieve successful prosecutions. By co-operating with the media, the operators will be able to publicise mindless crimes and the subsequent successful convictions.
  We do not know the number of assaults on passengers, or the number of times that buses have to stop because of an incident between passengers, because no separate statistics on them are kept— they are simply merged with the other London crime figures. I ask the Minister to find a way of separating those statistics, because the information available is not good enough.
  What would help to make travellers more secure? At this stage, I pay tribute to Lambeth public transport group, and particularly to John Stewart and George Wright, who produced an extremely good document entitled "Caught Out: the Value of Video Cameras on Buses"— a copy of which the Minister, if he is well prepared, will have seen. Many of my remarks stem from the work done by John Stewart and George Wright.
  When considering the need for video cameras, it is important to show where their use has been successful. West Midlands Travel began a campaign against crime on its buses way back in 1987. The vandalism bill at the time was £2·3 million per annum. It is currently £250,000 per year and continues to decline. That has been achieved directly as a result of the installation of video cameras on almost all of its buses, and of increased co-operation with the police and local magistrates. As a result the incidence of graffiti and slashed seats has been reduced by more than three quarters. The filmed evidence of culprits allows West Midlands Travel to take steps to recover the cost of repairing the damage or to prosecute. If necessary, evidence from video cameras can also be used to secure compensation. As prosecutions have increased, so the crimes have declined.
  Video cameras cost a great deal of money. There have been varying estimates of how much it would cost per vehicle, and there is no doubt that installation throughout an entire fleet, as would be the case in London, is not cheap. However, it will save money in the longer term. As the West Midlands Travel managing director, Don Colston said:
  "We have put millions in, but much of it has been self-financing."
  More importantly, West Midlands Travel told the Lambeth public transport group:
  "There is no doubt that our staff and customers appreciate the added security that the cameras provide. They have increased passenger confidence in the travelling environment on our buses."
  Evidence shows that what has happened in the west midlands could happen in London, with the same effect. The installation of video cameras not only saves money in the long term: it also makes the buses a safer and more attractive mode of travel, which is good for everybody.
  The principal operator in London is London Buses, which has a fleet of just over 5,000 vehicles. It has estimated that it would cost £20 million to fit video cameras to all its buses. The Lambeth public transport group and other evidence shows that it could be done for

  757.
  much less. London Buses has fitted some cameras to its vehicles, but it has said that, no matter how desirable, it does not have enough money to equip the entire fleet.
  The cost-benefit analysis, even under my calculations, shows that it would actually save money in the long term. In 1989, London Buses spent £2 million repairing buses which had been vandalised or covered in graffiti. That is a very large sum of money, but the hidden cost increased that amount further. The £2 million bill does not take into account the loss of revenue when buses are taken out of service for cleaning or repair. Nor does it include the substantial loss of revenue and the way in which passengers are profoundly affected when crews take their buses off the road to express sympathy after a colleague is assaulted.
  Video cameras could also be used as effective revenue protection, ensuring that people have paid their fares and stopping fare evasion, and could assist in the sort of survey work on which. London Buses and London Transport spend enormous sums of money every now and again to try to work out travel information. The video camera could be monitoring passengers who board, gathering useful information on travel patterns— how many people pay cash and who pays cash, for example. It would end up doing a job that we pay consultants large amounts of money to do.
  There are no figures to show how many people do not use the bus because they feel that it is unsafe. However, there is no doubt— it is widely acknowledged— that a substantial number of people, especially women and the elderly, feel isolated and insecure when they are upstairs on a one-person operated bus. My Mini was recently stolen and for about five or six weeks I regularly used London buses. I felt very insecure sitting on the top of a bus going home from this place, especially at this hour of night. Passengers find graffiti and torn bus seats threatening. That is a further reason why many women choose not to use the bus.
  The deterrent effect of video cameras would reduce attacks. It would make working on buses more attractive and might help to ease the difficulties of recruiting staff. In addition, it would reduce the number of days that bus crews take off work as a result of assaults.
  Many other aspects of London buses could be improved. The Department of Transport's consultative document, "A Bus Strategy for London", accepts almost everything that bus users say about the bus. It says that buses are used most by people who do not have access to cars, by people on low incomes, more by women than by men and more by 11 to 19-year-olds and people over 60. For many of those people, there is no alternative, yet the document says that the future of buses depends on their ability to win and retain passengers in competition with other transport options.
  The only solution offered by the Government is the deregulation of buses in London. I do not want to go into the details of that argument, as I do not have time, but I hope that the Minister will realise that deregulation is not the way to improve bus services in London. It would lead to more congestion and poorer reliability, but would not lead to more people using buses.
  This year alone, London Buses has been asked by London Transport to lose £ 3 million Londonwide— not because the buses are not being used but because that is its share of the amount that London Transport must lose. That has led to fewer services in the evenings, which has
  758
  affected people who have no alternative but to use the bus, such as shift workers and people who must travel to work early in the morning. In my area, the No. 159 has been cut drastically.
  I should like the Government to take transport in London, especially buses, much more seriously. They have said what needs to be done and how essential the bus is but their only solution is deregulation. Several measures would make people feel that the bus is a better option. We must modernise its image. Many people regard buses as old-fashioned, smoky and dirty, even though smoking is not allowed. It need not be so, and London Buses has new vehicles.
  Seats must be made more comfortable, good colour coding must be introduced, and the number on the front of a bus must be the same as the number on the back, so that people are not confused. However, operators would need access to capital to provide vehicles to match that image and to entice the customer. We could lower fares, increase reliability, speed up bus-priority measures and restore some conductors. I am not saying that every bus should have a conductor, but a case can be made for the wholesale return of bus conductors on certain routes.
  Some of the organisations most interested in public transport have got together and called this the "Year of the Bus". The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has been promoting the bus. The Bus and Coach Council has launched its "Buses Mean Business" campaign. The Association of London Authorities has produced a report entitled "Room at the Top". The London Boroughs Association has produced "Scope for Bus Priorities in London" and has argued for more frequent services.
  Much more could be done, with some effort and imagination. Only a properly funded public transport service in London can get London moving. If we want to establish such a service quickly, we should get our buses moving. In order to attract people back to the buses and to make them feel safe, we should come up with a little additional money. We should put video cameras on all our buses, which would make people feel safer and would save money in the long run.
  11.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) for raising the matter of public transport safety, which is of great importance to the Government. I agree with much of the hon. Lady's speech, but we have some differences on deregulation. She is aware that the Government are consulting on that matter. We have had a number of responses and we are now considering the likely course of progress. It would be inappropriate to refer to the matter further.
  In those areas where bus deregulation has occurred, however, it has led to new customer services. In some areas buses are now serving districts that previously had no bus service. I accept, however, that London is in a different category from the other examples of deregulation, but I cannot allow the hon. Lady to dismiss the argument for deregulation.
  Public transport safety is of great importance. The hon. Lady is right about the vast numbers of people who rely on public transport as their means of getting to and from work, particularly in the capital. The hon. Lady cited

  759
  impressive figures on passengers. Whether one's journey is for work or leisure, a visit to friends or relations, or whether one is a resident or a visitor, public transport is the safe way to travel in and around London. Last week, Denis Tunnicliffe, the managing director of London Underground, said:
  "You are safer on the Tube than you are in your kitchen." It is important that we take every opportunity to convince people just how safe public transport is and how important it is to the capital.
  Safety on London Transport is a top priority. In the wake of the Fennell report into the 1987 fire at King's Cross, LT implemented a major programme of expenditure and training to enhance safety matters that affect passengers, members of the public and staff.
  London Transport has a comprehensive set of safety objectives that have been set by its board and endorsed by the Government. The board's safety audit committee monitors the safety of operations across all the subsidiary companies.
  In road safety terms, bus travel scores high. In 1989 passenger and driver casualties accounted for less than 4 per cent. of casualties to all vehicle users while accounting for about 7 per cent. of passenger kilometres. When buses are involved in an accident, passengers and drivers also fare better in comparison to the occupants of other vehicles. Perhaps that is not something which we should like to shout about, but it is a fact.
  London Buses recently demonstrated a new safety device that it intends to fit to the centre doors of nearly 3,000 buses. The new device will make the doors reopen automatically if they meet an obstruction. It is intended to prevent the small number of accidents that have occurred when passengers, mainly elderly, have been caught in the doors. I am aware that some people still prefer to use the old Routemaster buses with their open platform entry, but buses with doors are much safer. The chances of a passenger having a serious accident getting on or off a bus are roughly 11 times greater on an open-platform bus. The new safety device will mean that buses with doors will be safer still. We are all aware that, sometimes, devices that have been introduced for safety reasons are not wholly welcomed by the travelling public.
  It is important to realise that a bus passenger's fear of assault, in common with the fear of the passenger on any form of public transport, is greater than the reality. Compared to 1989, crimes of violence on the underground are down by more than 23 per cent. Assaults on passengers have been reduced by almost 19 per cent. Although the figures for assaults on bus passengers are not readily available from the Metropolitan police—I accept the hon. Lady's concern about that and I shall follow up the issue to see whether more work is required— London Buses believes that many passengers find bus travel far safer than the street environment in which they live and work.
  London Buses Ltd.—LBL—liaises closely with the Metropolitan police. Policemen and policewomen are allowed free travel on buses, both on and off duty. Where there are particular trouble spots, arrangements are made with the police to mount special surveillance exercises in order to catch the culprits.
  We cannot and will not be complacent. One assault is one too many and we must address people's fears and apprehensions just as seriously as actual dangers to their
  760
  safety. However, it is true that the vast majority of those using buses and trains do so in complete safety as the risk of attack remains very low.
  As one example of our commitment to safety and security on public transport, the Government recently published—in conjunction with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, transport operators and the transport police—a booklet entitled "Travel Safely on Public Transport", which gives practical advice to passengers on how to make their journeys safer. The production of the booklet was funded by the Department of Transport, which also took on the responsibility of distributing it.
  LBL is concerned with the safety of its bus crews, as well as its passengers. As the hon. Lady said, some attacks on crews are despicable in the extreme. Indeed, assaults on bus crews are much more prevalent than assaults on passengers. It is unacceptable that men and women should be subjected to the risk of attack simply through doing their job, and I fully support the measures that LBL is taking to reduce that risk. I know that all hon. Members would support the management in that.
  I am aware of the report produced by the Lambeth public transport group, which advocates the fitting of video cameras to vehicles operated by London Buses Ltd. The document makes some strong points, but it does not tell the whole story. It ignores some of the important steps that LBL has already taken to reduce the number of assaults. All LBL buses are now fitted with two-way radios and protective screens for the drivers. They also have an assault klaxon which starts a horn and sets the vehicle's direction indicators flashing. Those measures are of benefit for bus crews and passengers alike.
  The Department of Transport has set up a standing panel on assaults on bus staff, which brings together representatives of the bus and taxi industry, the unions, the police and other Government Departments. The panel looks at violence affecting bus crews and taxi drivers, and also studies vandalism and graffiti. It provides a valuable forum for interested parties to exchange views and information about ways of protecting staff and passengers.
  The Lambeth public transport group report argues that the installation of video cameras on buses owned by West Midlands Travel reduced vandalism by 75 per cent. That is welcome. However, the report offers no hard evidence of a reduction in assaults on passengers or staff. The scheme may well have followed from an experiment at the Mander centre in Wolverhampton, of which I know from my local experience. Indeed, you too, Madam Deputy Speaker, may well know of the experiment. When it was announced, it did not meet with universal approval, but its implementation has gone down exceptionally well. It has to be remembered that sometimes these projects are not welcomed by everyone.
  I accept that the installation of video cameras can be a deterrent to vandalism and assault. Indeed, LBL itself recognises the benefits and has started on a programme to fit video cameras progressively to all its vehicles. But video cameras are not a panacea. It is a sad irony that one of the two assaults that the Lambeth public transport group describes in its report happened on a bus that had a video camera fitted. In that case, unfortunately, the presence of a video camera was no deterrent. In the other case, video evidence may well have helped the police, but because— —
  Ms. Hoey: My point is that, because the media have not given enough attention to the fact that there are video

  761
  cameras on some buses, people are not aware that they are installed. The more publicity given to that fact, and the more buses that contain video cameras, the more likely people are to be deterred.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I wholly accept the hon. Lady's point. I hope that tonight's Adjournment debate and some of the publicity that the hon. Lady received today in the Evening Standard will go some way to highlighting the fact that there are already cameras on some buses, and that they will spread to more of them.
  The video evidence may well have helped the police, but, because of the technical limitations of the video system currently available, there is no guarantee that the videotaped evidence would secure a conviction. However, I accept that we must deliver the message about the many steps being taken by LBL to try to improve security, make a safer environment and make the passenger feel safe—an important underlying factor.
  The cost of installing video cameras on all LBL's buses would be about £20 million. I know that there is some dispute about the cost, but I have been given a figure of about £20 million. That is the approximate cost of 200 new buses.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that that is a considerable sum. LBL has many competing calls on its
  762
  resources. It is for it to decide how best to allocate those resources. LBL is committed to increasing the number of video cameras installed on its buses. The decision on the rate at which cameras are installed on the bus fleet must be a matter for the company.
  The Government grant to London Transport will be about £2·5 billion over the next three years. That is more than double the figure in real terms compared with the previous three years, so there need be no financial pressure on bus safety. As in other sectors, it is for London Transport to decide what its priorities are and to act accordingly.
  I have every confidence in London Transport and its commitment to ensuring safe working conditions for its staff and a safe, secure and pleasant travelling environment for its passengers. That is in everybody's interests—of the bus operators and the bus users. I hope that, by securing this Adjournment debate, the hon. Lady will have moved one small step along the road of highlighting both how safe our buses are and the measures taken by management, with Government co-operation and agreement, to make the buses a safer form of public transport.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  East-West Trunk Route
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the terms of reference under which Acer Consultants Ltd. has been appointed to consider the alignment of an east-west trunk route for the A5 to M 11 (Stansted) section.

  Mr. Chope
  I have placed a copy of the consultant's brief in the Library today.

  Cars (Carbon Canisters)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to require the fitting of large carbon canisters to cars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government are keen to ensure that there is a substantial reduction in evaporative emissions from petrol engined cars. From the end of next year all new cars will have to be fitted with carbon canisters as standard equipment to achieve this reduction. We are working on further measures which will probably involve minimising evaporative emissions while cars are running or being refuelled. The fitting of larger carbon canisters to cars is one technical means of achieving this. We also hope that the European Commission will soon make long-overdue proposals to minimise evaporative emissions in the petrol distribution network.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been central Government expenditure on publicising(a) the law requiring children in the back of cars to wear seat belts where fitted and (b) changes in the law about adults wearing seat belts when rear seat passengers.

  Mr. Chope
  Government expenditure to date on publicising the law requiring children in the back of cars to wear seat belts, where fitted, has been £748,000. We intend to mount a campaign to publicise the proposed changes in the law about adults wearing seat belts when rear seat passengers, subject to the outcome of debate on legislation currently before Parliament. But to date no expenditure on publicity has been incurred.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of registered bus companies for each year for 1979 to 1990.
  322
  Mr. Freeman
  The approximate numbers of bus and coach companies are as follows:

  December

  1979

  5,600

  1980

  5,600

  1981

  5,500

  1982

  5,600

  1983

  6,000

  1984

  5,800

  March

  1986

  5,800

  1987

  5,900

  1988

  5,900

  1989

  6,000

  1990

  6,200

  These figures are based on the total number of PSV operators' licences issued by the traffic area offices. There is considerable uncertainty about the number of smaller operators because of the high rate at which such operators enter and leave the industry.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the final report from W.S. Atkins on the evaluation of the schemes for the high-speed rail link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that W.S. Atkins expects to deliver its final report to British Rail shortly, and that British Rail will then send copies to us.

  Geomagnetism
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the value of the work done for his Department on(a) geomagnetism and (b) his assessment of the future importance of geomagnetism studies to his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on magnetic variation is used in the preparation of charts for marine and civil aviation use. The Hydrographer of the Navy is responsible for providing information about magnetic variation for marine navigation purposes and the Civil Aviation Authority undertakes in conjunction with Ordnance Survey the production of civil aviation charts. To this end the CAA requires only a forecast of the general trend of magnetic variation 18 months ahead. No work has been done on geomagnetism for the Department of Transport, as geomagnetic studies are not of importance to the Department other than to the extent outlined.

  Pedestrians (Fatal Injuries)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give an age breakdown of pedestrians fatally injured in road accidents for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:
  323

  Pedestrians killed in road accidents by age: Great Britain: 1980–901

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  0–4

  66

  74

  79

  71

  69

  57

  58

  57

  71

  60

  5–9

  128

  149

  110

  160

  133

  126

  99

  94

  113

  97

  10–14

  104

  95

  120

  129

  131

  122

  103

  94

  83

  80

  All (0–14)

  298

  318

  309

  360

  333

  305

  260

  245

  267

  237

  215

  15–19

  128

  125

  128

  133

  107

  116

  126

  96

  89

  95

  20–29

  117

  129

  156

  148

  157

  140

  182

  143

  160

  167

  30–39

  101

  98

  106

  111

  113

  112

  110

  110

  108

  109

  40–49

  120

  105

  126

  109

  105

  105

  112

  122

  122

  117

  50–59

  169

  148

  145

  149

  152

  140

  148

  130

  125

  126

  All (15–59)

  635

  605

  661

  650

  634

  613

  678

  601

  604

  614

  583

  60–69

  278

  246

  239

  244

  210

  239

  220

  212

  209

  200

  70+

  727

  701

  648

  652

  669

  630

  682

  641

  656

  642

  All (60+)

  1,005

  947

  887

  896

  879

  869

  902

  853

  865

  842

  822

  All ages2

  1,941

  1,874

  1,869

  1,914

  1,868

  1,789

  1,841

  1,703

  1,753

  1,706

  1,636

  1Figures for 1990 are provisional. A more detailed breakdown is not available.

  2 Including age not reported.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many pedestrians were fatally injured in road accidents for the years: 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Pedestrians killed in road accidents: Great Britain

  Year

  Number

  1970

  2,925

  1975

  2,344

  1980

  1,941

  1985

  1,789

  11990

  1,636

  1 Figures for 1990 are provisional.

  Speed Limiters
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has considered a requirement to fit speed limiters to motor cars; and whether his Department will make an assessment of the effects of fitting speed limiters to all cars in respect of(a) emissions of air pollutants and (b) road safety.

  Mr. Chope
  Our top priority has been to require coaches and HGVs to be fitted with speed limiters. There are no plans to extend this requirement to cars.

  Flight Training
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to bring in regulations to allow flight training to take place other than at United Kingdom licensed airfields; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand that the CAA has no immediate plans to propose regulatory changes which allow flight training to take place other than at United Kingdom licensed airfields. The CAA has, however, recently received a request from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association that this requirement be relaxed in the case of certain smaller aerodromes operating light aircraft training types. This request is being examined.
  324
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of implementing the Civil Aviation Authority's regulations concerning fire cover for flight training; if there are any plans to amend the regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Currently the need to provide adequate rescue and fire fighting facilities is part of the Civil Aviation Authority's requirement for the issue of an aerodrome licence. Fire cover is related to the proposed aerodrome usage and it is, therefore, not possible to isolate the cost element associated solely with flight training.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of fire have been reported at aerodromes licensed for the purpose of flight training; how many fatalities have occurred in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The issue by the Civil Aviation Authority of an aerodrome licence permits various activities including flight training. I understand that the authority has information only on incidents attended by the rescue and fire-fighting services and that these are not necessarily incidents where fire has been reported. The information is therefore not available in the format requested.

  Train Deaths
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the composition, independence and time constraints authorised for Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's inquiry into the pattern of falls from moving trains; and when they are due to report.

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  The Health and Safety Executive's investigation into falls from moving trains, which the railway inspectorate will be leading, will also involve the scientific, technological and statistical sections of the executive. The statutory functions of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive guarantees the independence of the investigation. This will be a complex and detailed investigation, but I hope very much that the report will be completed by the end of the year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the correlation in his illustrative tables on the council tax between the percentage over standard spending assessment and the average value of homes in the district giving the increase in band D property for each 10 per cent. increase in SSA depending on whether the average value home is in band A, B, C or D;

  (2) further to his answer on 29 April, Official Report, column 13, if he will assess the increase in council tax in each band for each 1 per cent. increased spending over standard spending assessment for a council most of whose properties are in (a) band A, (b) band B, (c) band C and (d) band D;

  (3) further to his answer on 29 April, Official Report, column 13, if he will give the council tax for band B property in the illustrated figures for a standard level of service and the variations in the figures for bands A, B, and G in areas in which the majority of properties in a district are in (a) band A, (b) band B, (c) bands C and D and (d) band D;

  (4) further to his answer on 29 April, Official Report, column 13, if he will list the size of increase in council tax

  Authority

  Revenue support grant 1991–92 £ million

  Revenue support grant 1991–92 £/head

  Revenue support grant 1990–91 £ million

  Revenue support grant 1990–91 £/head

  Percentage difference on total RSG

  Percentage difference on £/head

  Cleveland

  150·2

  367·2

  145·3

  353·4

  3·4

  3·9

  Bedfordshire

  98·6

  254·0

  92·8

  235·4

  6·4

  7·9

  Lancashire

  256·2

  246·3

  252·3

  240·8

  1·5

  2·3

  Leicestershire

  156·5

  242·8

  155·4

  238·4

  0·7

  1·8

  Humberside

  153·0

  235·2

  158·0

  242·1

  -3·2

  -2·9

  Buckinghamshire

  99·7

  215·2

  97·3

  207·2

  2·4

  3·9

  Berkshire

  111·2

  201·4

  115·8

  209·6

  -3·9

  -3·9

  Northamptonshire

  85·2

  198·9

  94·7

  224·1

  -10·1

  -11·2

  Nottinghamshire

  147·1

  193·7

  153·5

  201·8

  -4·2

  -4·0

  Kent

  217·9

  189·9

  220·1

  192·0

  -1·0

  -1·1

  Isle of Wight

  17·6

  180·7

  15·8

  160·5

  10·9

  12·6

  Hertfordshire

  130·8

  179·5

  131·4

  178·6

  -0·5

  0·5

  Cornwall

  61·5

  174·0

  66·4

  189·4

  -7·4

  -8·1

  Durham

  78·2

  173·4

  82·2

  180·3

  -4·9

  -3·8

  Shropshire

  51·9

  169·8

  61·7

  204·2

  -15·9

  -16·8

  Northumberland

  38·3

  166·8

  41·9

  182·7

  -8·4

  -8·7

  Lincolnshire

  72·2

  161·0

  79·0

  174·5

  -8·5

  -7·8

  Essex

  185·7

  160·0

  197·5

  169·1

  -6·0

  -5·4

  Cambridgeshire

  77·0

  159·2

  89·8

  188·1

  -14·2

  -15·4

  Cumbria

  58·9

  157·9

  60·2

  157·0

  -2·2

  0·5

  Cheshire

  110·4

  154·8

  125·9

  175·5

  -12·3

  -11·8

  Hampshire

  175·3

  150·3

  193·1

  164·7

  -9·2

  -8·7

  East Sussex

  75·3

  141·0

  72·4

  134·0

  4·0

  5·3

  Somerset

  48·9

  139·7

  53·3

  151·8

  -8·2

  -8·0

  Suffolk

  64·4

  137·4

  69·4

  147·7

  -7·2

  -7·0

  Oxfordshire

  54·1

  134·3

  57·6

  141·0

  -6·0

  -4·8

  Avon

  95·4

  133·8

  111·8

  157·1

  -14·6

  -14·8

  Devon

  102·1

  131·6

  123·3

  161·3

  -17·2

  -18·4

  Staffordshire

  100·2

  128·1

  115·7

  147·0

  -13·4

  -12·9

  Wiltshire

  54·1

  127·9

  64·3

  153·2

  -15·8

  -16·5

  Gloucestershire

  48·5

  121·6

  58·3

  146·4

  -16 8

  -16·9

  North Yorkshire

  64·6

  120·2

  72·3

  134·5

  -10·7

  -10·6

  Derbyshire

  85·0

  119·9

  100·3

  140·5

  -15·3

  -14·7

  Norfolk

  64·8

  113·0

  75·6

  131·7

  -14·4

  -14·2

  Hereford and Worcester

  56·4

  111·1

  70·7

  139·9

  -20·3

  -20·6

  Surrey

  77·9

  102·2

  83·3

  106·5

  -6·5

  -4·1

  Warwickshire

  37·0

  101·4

  48·0

  131·4

  -22·9

  -22·8

  West Sussex

  50·3

  93·6

  55·0

  100·6

  -8·6

  -6·9

  Dorset

  30·8

  61·3

  46·4

  92·3

  -33·6

  -33·6

  326
  for each percentage point of increased spending above the standard spending assessment, up to 40 per cent. above SSA, for Grimsby; and what would be the figures if the average value of households in Grimsby were in (i) band A, (ii) band B, (iii) band C or (iv) band D of the tables published to illustrate his proposals;

  (5) what is the effect on the level of the proposed council tax of the average value of properties in the district; and if he will give illustrative examples of the differences in level of tax, with all other factors held constant, where the majority of houses in a district are (a) in band A, (b) in band B, (c) in band C, (d) in band D, (e) in band E, (f) in band F and (g) in band G.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 May Official Report, column 548.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each county(a) the total revenue support grant distributed to district councils in that county plus grants distributed to the relevant county council, (b) on a per head basis, (c) those figures for the previous year and (d) the percentage difference between the figures for each year and ranked according to the levels of grant per head.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 17 May 1991]: The following information is available.
  327
  These figures exclude specific grants paid to county councils, as specific grants for 1991–92 are not yet available. Amounts per head are shown in terms of amounts per head of relevant population for the year. Differences between columns (5) and (6) therefore reflect changes in the sum of the districts' relevant populations between 1990–91 and 1991–92. The figures are ranked according to revenue support grant per head in 1991–92.

  Households
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the number of households nationally and regionally, the numbers in each type of household as defined in the family expenditure survey and the number he expects not to contribute to the council tax.

  Region

  Total number of households (000's)

  Percentage of households

  with one adult

  with two adults

  with three or more adults

  Northern

  1,300

  33

  53

  15

  Yorks and Humberside

  2,100

  34

  54

  12

  North-West

  2,600

  34

  52

  14

  East Midlands

  1,600

  31

  55

  13

  West Midlands

  2,200

  31

  54

  15

  East Anglia

  900

  30

  58

  12

  Greater London

  2,600

  40

  48

  12

  Rest of South-East

  4,300

  29

  58

  13

  South-West

  1,900

  30

  58

  13

  ENGLAND

  19,500

  32

  54

  13

  Architectural Competitions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table listing(a) the architectural competitions for public buildings organised by his Department since 1979, (b) the names of the winning firm of architects in each case, (c) the names of the jury panel in each case and (d) which buildings were erected.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am arranging for copies of this table to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Derelict land grant paid in Teesside in the last four years

  Grant recipient

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Cleveland County Council

  184,794

  410,148

  37,333

  35,401

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  —

  146,995

  368,388

  34,885

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  1,298,885

  1-110,000

  550,739

  50,284

  Langbaurgh Borough Council

  50,278

  165,190

  166,363

  243,505

  Non local authority applicants

  1,148,698

  438,577

  192,643

  —

  Total

  2,682,655

  1,050,910

  1,315,466

  364,075

  1 Repayment of grant

  Projects in Teesside supported by derelict land grant in the last four years
  Cleveland CC

  Malleable Site, Stockton

  Billingham Bottoms, Stockton

  Union Insulation

  Bolckow Road

  Cargo Fleet Works, Middlesborough

  Queens Park North

  Colliers Site

  Mr. Key
  Liability for the council tax will fall to the occupier of a property. It will be up to that person to decide how the bill will be shared if there are other adults in the household. It is not possible to estimate how many will contribute in this way.

  The Government propose that householders on income support or equivalent levels of income will be entitled to 100 per cent. rebates under the council tax. They will make no contribution to the council tax.

  The table shows the most recent estimates of the numbers of households in each region together with the percentage of one-adult—aged 18 or over—two-adult, and three or more adult households.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the most recent guidelines given to local authorities regarding the payment of poll tax by those serving in the Gulf.

  Mr. Key
  My Department wrote to local authorities on 16 May with further advice on this issue. A copy of the advice is in the Library.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment how much money has been spent through derelict land grant in each of the last four years in Teesside; and which projects have been supported.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is as follows:

  Stockton-on-Tees BC

  Bowesfield Riverside, Stockton

  Teesdale West (site investigation)

  Peacocks Yard

  Tees Street

  Station Street, Stockton

  Land at 133 Yarm Road

  Thorpe Thewles Garage

  Station Road, Norton

  Stillington Tip

  329

  Mill Street West

  Elton Close/Durham Road, Stockton

  Esh and Hamsteels Wagonway Site

  Middlesbrough BC

  Whinney Banks

  Former Coburn Land

  Riverside Park

  Millbrooke Avenue/College Road, Brambles Farm

  Land at Forty Foot Road

  Central Ironmasters

  St. Hildas

  Balder Street

  Langbaurgh BC

  Warrenby Mine

  Old Middlesbrough Road

  Hazelgrove Chalets

  Skinningrove Headlands

  Jones Road, South Bank

  South Skelton Mine

  Kingsway Sidings

  Cleveland House

  Meggitts Lane

  Imperial Park

  Hobson Avenue

  Meggitts Avenue

  North Skelton Mine

  Stockton Haulage, Cargo Fleet

  Liverton Mines

  Old Station Road, South Bank

  Clay Lane Community Park

  South Bank Wharf

  Station Road, Redcar

  Hollybush Depot

  Park Street, South Skelton

  Grand Hall, Brotton

  Former Housing Site, Charltons

  Prospect Place, Lingdale

  Non local authority project

  North Tees Power Station

  Rents-to-Mortgages Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inquiries from Basildon new town tenants have been received regarding the rents-to-mortgages scheme since the announcement of its introduction in autumn 1990; how many sales through rents-to-mortgages have been achieved to date; what representations he has received regarding the progress of rent-to-mortgages scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  There were more than 900 initial inquiries following the announcement of the rents-to-mortgages scheme in Basildon last autumn. Since its official launch in February there have been 180 firm applications and the first sale is expected to be completed next month. There have been no recent representations about the progress of the scheme, which is being monitored carefully.

  Community Charge
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will withdraw "Community Charge Practice Note 25" as it relates to people who change addresses within one local authority charging area.

  Mr. Key
  My Department has ceased production of all the community charge practice notes. The issue of practice notes on the community charge is now a function of the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue the planning policy guidance note on sites for wind, tidal and other alternative energy plants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) on 28 March,Official Report, columns 543–44.

  Solar Heating
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to make a condition of domestic planning consent the installation of solar panels in all new dwellings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have no plans to advise local planning authorities to impose conditions on all residential planning permissions requiring the installation of solar panels.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many social workers with specialist training in child abuse are employed by each local authority in England and Wales.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not held centrally.

  "Kill the Messenger"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will acquire for his Department's library a copy of Sir Bernard Ingham's "Kill the Messenger".

  Mr. Heseltine
  No.

  Buildings (Environmental Assessment)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental assessment method programme launched by the Building Research Establishment.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method—BREEAM—was developed by the BRE in association with private sector interests and launched in July 1990. It is a method by which the environmental impact of new office buildings can be assessed against defined criteria at design stage and, where appropriate, improved. The scheme is voluntary and its operation self-financing. I welcome this collaborative initiative by the Building Research Establishment and the firms associated with it.

  Public Sanitary Facilities
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is given to local authorities on the cleaning up of public sanitary facilities.

  Mr. Baldry
  None, but they have an obligation to ensure that public sanitary conveniences, whether provided by themselves or others, are not prejudicial to health or a nuisance.

  Brandon Estate, Southwark
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) why the Estate Action bid by Southwark council for the Brandon estate was rejected;

  (2) if he will reconsider the application of Southwark council for Estate Action funding for the Brandon estate.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department did not offer Estate Action support for 1991–92 to Southwark council towards the cost of its proposed works on the Brandon estate as the application failed to satisfy the objectives of the programme. The Department would be willing to consider a new bid for this estate in a future year, but approval would depend on the quality of the proposed scheme in competition with other bids received.

  Estate Action
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the criteria for awarding Estate Action funding.

  Mr. Yeo
  Estate Action resources are allocated on the basis of published ministerial guidelines. The detailed criteria applicable to 1992–93 will be published shortly.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 227, to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), how much discount, in cash terms, has been granted as a result of these sales under right-to-buy legislation.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information on the value of discount allowed under right to buy is not separately identified. Between October 1980, when the right-to-buy scheme was introduced, and December 1990 about £14 billion was granted as discount to all purchasers of local authority dwellings in England.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the impact of the European Commission's report about quality assurance in the management of radioactive waste in the European Community on United Kingdom policy on nuclear waste.

  Mr. Baldry
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the report by the European Commission entitled "Objectives, standards and criteria for radioactive waste disposal in the European Community"—EUR 12570. The report was produced by a working group on which my Department was represented. I fully agree with the European Council conclusions that the report was a good assessment of the current situation for radioactive waste disposal.

  Dog Registration
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he now considers it necessary to introduce a dog registration scheme by which dog ownership is linked to the animals owned; and if he will make a statement.
  332
  Mr. Baldry
  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 contains a package of measures to enforce the requirement that dogs wear a collar and identifying tag when in a public place; and to ensure that stray dogs are collected up. We remain of the view that the package provides a practical and effective solution to the problems caused by irresponsible owners and that registration would be costly, bureaucratic and ineffective.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people in the North Devon district council area would benefit from reduced payments under his council tax proposals.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 15 May 1991]: Information about the effect of the council tax on individuals is not available. The tables issued on 23 April show the effects on households of the council tax as compared with headline community charges in 1991–92.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the estimated cost of using the district valuers and their staff to undertake the valuation of properties for the proposed council tax;

  (2) how many estate agents will be employed to undertake the valuation of properties for the proposed council tax; how these estate agents will be chosen; and what is his estimate of the cost of employing them.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: Paragraph 2.29 of the consultation paper "A new tax for local government" set out the Government's proposals for the initial banding of properties. We are presently considering the best way of combining Valuation Office expertise and that of private sector valuers, with a view to enabling all domestic properties to be placed into seven bands by value, and the council tax to be in place by April 1993.

  Housing (Southwark)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long it will take under the current housing reference system for the London borough of Southwark to receive an actual management and maintenance allowance equivalent to the target management and maintenance allowance.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 17 May 1991]: Our aim is to move progressively towards a system of targeted housing revenue account subsidy allowances for management and maintenance based upon an assessment of need rather than on historic spend. This will involve a redistribution of resources between local housing authorities. The rate of progress of introducing targeted allowances will depend on annual decisions about the overall provision for allowances and will be subject to consultation with local housing authorities and their associations.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the recent proposals by the President of the European Comission for a delayed consideration of entry into European monetary union.
  333
  The Prime Minister
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House on 24 January, we cannot accept any changes to the treaty of Rome that would bind us to move to a single currency or a single monetary policy without a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. The suggestion made at the informal ECOFIN on 12 May is a step in the right direction. But there remain many issues to be discussed in the economic and monetary union intergovernmental conference before a final agreement can be reached.

  International Arms Transfers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek a debate on the United Nations on the United Nations Publication, "Topical Paper 3—Transparency in International Arms Transfers".

  The Prime Minister
  We are in favour of greater transparency in international arms transfers. On 8 April I proposed the establishment of a United Nations register of arms sales. We are discussing this with members of the Security Council, the Twelve and others. We fully expect it to be the subject of debate at the next general assembly.

  Special Forces
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister if it has now become the policy of Her Majesty's Government to reveal details of the operations of United Kingdom special forces.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 17 May 1991 at column 281.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Non-audit Fees
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what draft statutory instrument he has circulated on disclosure of non-audit fees paid by companies to their auditors; to whom it has been circulated; and with what closing date.

  Mr. Redwood
  Officials have circulated a draft of possible regulations to be made under section 390B of the Companies Act 1985, as inserted by section 121 of the Companies Act 1989. The draft was sent to the major professional accountancy bodies with an interest; to the larger accountancy firms; to the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland; to the CBI; and to a number of other persons who asked to see it. Comments were invited by 16 May, or shortly thereafter.

  Liquidators
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will propose legislation under which anyone acting as a liquidator will be required to publish financial information about his business.
  334
  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times since 1986, his Department has taken action to remove company liquidators.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State has the power to remove a liquidator only where he made the initial appointment following an application by an official receiver. Since 1986 the Secretary of State has not removed any liquidators whom he has appointed.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations he has received from shareholders expressing dissatisfaction with the work and standards of United Kingdom auditors;

  (2) what representations he has received from company directors expressing dissatisfaction with the work and standards of United Kingdom auditors.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department receives a variety of such representations.

  Official Receiver (Investigations)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to require the results of the Official Receiver's investigations into companies to be published.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State has no plans to introduce legislation to require the Official Receiver to publish the results of his investigations. Under the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, the Official Receiver has a statutory duty to investigate the affairs of companies in compulsory liquidation and report prima facie evidence of criminal misconduct to officials at Insolvency Service headquarters. He also has a duty under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to report unfitted conduct by directors of companies in compulsory liquidation to the Secretary of State. The Official Receiver is required to make a report to creditors and contributories on the proceedings in the liquidation and the state of the company's affairs and to file a copy of that report in court.

  Companies Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, further to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 580, he will indicate which of the inspectors have come from the auditing firms criticised by his Department's inspectors.

  Mr. Redwood
  Of the six cases listed, two inspectors come from accountancy firms criticised in reports of inspectors published since June 1979.
  335

  Name of Inspector

  Name of Firm

  Published Inspectors Report

  Date of Publication

  Mr. J. White FCA

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Orbit Holdings Limited

  23 December 1981

  Alexander Howden Holdings plc

  29 August 1990

  Mr. J. K. Heywood FCA

  Price Waterhouse

  Norwest Holst Limited

  23 June 1982

  Ramor Investments Limited

  22 March 1983

  Insolvency Practitioners
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many liquidators/receivers have been appointed by the insolvency service.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Secretary of State has power to appoint liquidators in compulsory liquidations and trustees in bankruptcy following application by an Official Receiver. Statistics do not differentiate between liquidators and trustees, but during the year to 31 March 1990, a total of 2,081 appointments were made, and in the year to 31 March 1991 there were 2,356.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been lodged with him or the Insolvency Service about the conduct of insolvency practitioners.

  Mr. Redwood
  Statistics relating to the number of complaints received by the Secretary of State or the Insolvency Service are not kept. However, I can confirm that, in addition to ministerial correspondence, the Insolvency Service receives correspondence from interested parties of companies in liquidation or receivership, or of bankrupts where some dissatisfaction concerning the practitioner is voiced.

  Bankruptcies
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of companies(a) in the west midlands and (b) in north Staffordshire which have gone bankrupt in each of the last nine months.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Clothing Industry
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on jobs in the knitwear and hosiery industry of state intervention in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the lifting of import controls on goods from these countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At present, in almost half the multi-fibre arrangement knitwear and hosiery categories, no quota limits are imposed on imports from the three countries and in nearly all the remaining categories the quotas are either little used or not used at all. It is not therefore anticipated that trade liberalisation is likely to have a significant effect on knitwear and hosiery in the United Kingdom.

  Geomagnetism
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what approaches he has had from the British Geological Survey on geomagnetism; and what response he has given.

  Mr. Redwood
  A number of approaches were made to officials in the early part of last year. While sympathetic to the requirement for a continued programme of regular monitoring of the earth's geomagnetic field, the response given was that the programme was of marginal relevance to the work of the Department and that support could not therefore be provided.

  "Kill the Messenger"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will acquire for his Department's library a copy of Sir Bernard Ingham's "Kill the Messenger".

  Mr. Lilley
  A copy is being acquired by the departmental library and information services.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from industry on the proposed changes to the ECGD; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A number of exporters, representatives of trade associations and representatives of the ECGD's staff have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the proposed privatisation of the short-term business of the ECGD.

  European Coal and Steel Community
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the position taken by his Department on the future of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty which was discussed at the meeting of the EC Industry Council on 29 April.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My noble Friend the Minister for Industry welcomed the initiative the European Commission had taken in looking at the future of the European Coal and Steel Community treaty. He indicated that the Government's preferred solution was an immediate termination of the treaty so that coal and steel would be governed by the EEC treaty in the same way as other industries. While the Government were disappointed that the Commission had not taken the same view, they welcomed the Commission's view that a much less interventionist interpretation and application of the treaty
  337
  was necessary pending a transition to the EC regime in 2002. To this end, my noble Friend asked the Commission to set out a timetable for the necessary work and to report regularly to the Council on the results.

ENERGY

  Iraqi Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority or the nuclear installations inspectorate was(a) asked for or (b) offered any assistance to the International Atomic Energy Agency in developing appropriate methods of taking custody and verifying inventories of Iraqi nuclear materials before 17 May, as mandated by United Nation Security Council resolution 687 of 2 April.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No formal request has been received from the IAEA or formal offer made by the UK authorities in relation to the matters raised in the question. However, there have been a number of discussions with the agency on points relating to the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 687. The agency's board of governors held a special meeting on the matter on 6 May.

  Plutonium (Transport)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 497, if he will list all the options being considered for the transportation of plutonium that has been reprocessed to its country of origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc which is currently considering the transport options for returning the plutonium arising from reprocessing spent fuel from overseas.

  Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 497, when he expects to receive agreement from the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate to restart the two reactors at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In my reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 14 March,Official Report, columns 634–35, I explained that the shutting down of the two reactors at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station was an operational matter for Nuclear Electric plc, and that the reactors would not be returned to power until the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate is satisfied with NE's safety case for such action. NE's preparation of the safety case is continuing.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment has been made(a) by his Department and (b) by the energy technology support unit of the feasibility and potential benefits of the interspacing of trees grown for bio-fuels and aero-generator wind power machines at suitable sites in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No detailed assessment of the potential benefits of interspacing trees and aero-generators has been 338
  made. Basic principles dictate that the ground around wind generators should be as smooth as possible. The extra roughness arising from trees would he detrimental to the efficiency of the wind turbines. Wind farms are therefore likely to be on land which is otherwise used for normal agricultural purposes.

  Energy Market
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what regulations and economic incentives he proposes to introduce to intervene in the energy market.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government work to promote the operation of market forces in the energy sector wherever practicable, while taking action to fulfil their responsibilities in relation to security and diversity of supply, health and safety, energy efficiency, the protection of the environment and other matters.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting in Brussels on 13 May between his Department and the European Commission's directorate-general XVII on energy conservation policy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The meeting to which the hon. Member refers was a seminar organised by the European Commission's DGXVII on improving energy efficiency in buildings, with particular reference to labelling and insulation. Member states, industry and other interested parties gave their views on work which DGXVII has commissioned prior to drawing up proposals for legislation. The Commission indicated its intention to formulate draft directives for consideration by the Council in the light of the views expressed.

  Departmental Headquarters
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to respond to the 10th report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the new headquarters building for his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A response to the Committee's report is expected to be presented to Parliament in a Treasury minute before the summer recess.

  Electricity Consumption
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many units of electricity per person are used currently in each region of England and Wales.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Sales of electricity and numbers of consumers, by type of consumer, are analysed for each of the old area electricity boards in England and Wales in table 58 of the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1990".

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to offer to the International Energy Agency and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a technical review by his Department of the report entitled "Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Energy Dimension".
  339
  Mr. Moynihan
  "Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Energy Dimension" was produced by the secretariats of the International Energy Agency—IEA—and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—OECD—with the guidance of their relevant committees. An earlier version was provided as informal input to the deliberations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—IPCC. As its explanatory note makes clear, the report reflects the perspectives of the secretariats and not necessarily those of all the IEA and OECD member countries.

  The Government regard this report as another useful contribution to the discussion on global climate change. It represents a view assembled by the IEA and OECD secretariats at a particular time, and a wide range of further work is continuing, both in international organisations and in countries. For that reason, the Department does not propose to offer a technical review of the report.

  Onshore Petroleum Exploration
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about further onshore petroleum licensing.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1991—SI 1991 No. 981—came into force on 9 May. I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses the text of a notice, which will be published as soon as possible in the official Gazette, inviting companies to apply for exploration licences in respect of unlicensed areas in Great Britain and certain near shore waters. The notice specifies that applications should be made on 19 or 20 June 1991. Application forms and guidance notes will be available from my Department.

  I shall separately be inviting holders of production licences to apply to transfer exploration acreage within their existing licences to the new style exploration licences, subject to agreement being reached on a satisfactory work programme for the area.

  Successful applicants will be offered exploration licences containing the conditions set out in the new Regulations. The licences will grant rights for a term of six years and entitle the licensee to carry out seismic surveys and deep drilling subject to the need to obtain the requisite permission from the appropriate mineral planning authorities and land owners and occupiers.

WALES

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to offer farmers in Wales new schemes for on-farm diversification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The farm diversification grant scheme already provides grant assistance to farmers wishing to diversify into non-agricultural profit-making activities on their farm.

  Ynysyplwm Hospital
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if agreement has been reached on the planned road links between existing highways and the new district general hospital to be constructed at Ynysyplwm.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Mid Glamorgan health authority is presently in negotiation with the Mid Glamorgan county council about the access road proposals for the proposed new district general hospital at Ynysyplwm.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if agreement has been reached on the sources of funding for the planned road links between existing highways and the new district general hospital to be constructed at Ynysyplwm.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The planned road links from the existing highways will form part of the overall construction cost of the new hospital.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the estimated costs of the planned road links between existing highways and the new district general hospital to be constructed at Ynysyplwm.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The planned road links for this new hospital have not yet been finalised or costed.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many new jobs have been created in Wales in the manufacturing sector since 1 January;

  (2) how many jobs have been lost in Wales in the manufacturing sector since 1 January.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Comprehensive information detailing jobs lost or created in the manufacturing sector since 1 January 1991 is not available.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of manufacturing firms recorded as working below capacity in Wales in the first quarter of 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Comprehensive information on the percentage of manufacturing firms recorded as working below capacity is not recorded centrally.

  Employment Statistics
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the level of employment in(a) the car component manufacturing sector and (b) the electronics sector in Wales in each month since 1 January.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information detailing levels of employment in the car component and electronics sectors in Wales since 1 January 1991 is not available.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who is the head of the inward investment division of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The inward investment division of the Welsh Development Agency, Welsh Development
  341
  International, is the responsibility of the agency's executive director, marketing, Mr. Ian Rooks. The appointment of a new head of Welsh Development International, reporting to Mr. Rooks, is expected to be announced shortly.

  Earnings
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a breakdown of current earnings in Wales, showing the numbers and percentages of employees earning in each £5,000 band of income per annum up to £30,000 per annum and over £30,000 per annum.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Estimates for the total earned income of residents of Wales, obtained from the 1988–89 survey of personal incomes, are given in the table. Earnings are for individuals—husbands and wives shown separately—regardless of source, with investment income excluded. The estimates are net of superannuation contributions. Coverage of earned income below £5,000 is incomplete and, as a result, the percentages requested cannot be calculated.

  Earned income per annum

  Number of individuals (thousands)

  £5,001 to £10,000

  428

  £10,001 to £15,000

  223

  £15,001 to £20,000

  72

  £20,001 to £25,000

  20

  £25,001 to £30,000

  8

  £30,001 and over

  16

  Company Stock
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the change in the level of company stock in Wales between April 1990 and April 1991.

  Mr. Hunt
  The information requested is not available.

  Groundwater Monitoring
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether underground flows of water in Wales are being monitored for signs of pollution originating in badly drained and maintained silage clamps on farms.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Yes. The National Rivers Authority monitors groundwater in Wales, principally that used for potable supplies, at points of emergence The Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) Regulations 1991—SI No. 324—which come into force on 1 September will reduce considerably risks to controlled waters by setting construction standards and strengthening the NRA's powers.

  Underground Mines
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the planning appeals relative to applications for underground coal mines currently under consideration by his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Water Pollution
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prosecutions of water polluters have been started in Wales since the formation of the National Rivers Authority; and how many have been successful.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This is a matter for the National Rivers Authority.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Taiwan
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what machinery exists to enable communication between the Taiwanese authorities and Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no governmental dealings with the authorities in Taiwan. There are established unofficial means through which British interests are promoted.

  Tristan da Cunha
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will dispatch fishery protection vessels to Tristan da Cunha to prevent illegal drift net fishing in the exclusion zone around the islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels visiting Tristan da Cunha supplement the fisheries protection work of the Tristan authorities. The most recent visit was by RFA Diligence on 15 and 16 May. She did not locate any unlicensed fishing vessels.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Taiwanese authorities concerning drift net fishing in the exclusion zone around the Tristan da Cunha group of islands.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have no governmental dealings with the authorities in Taiwan. The Taiwan authorities are, however, aware of our concern over press reports that Taiwanese vessels have been undertaking drift net fishing in the exclusion zone around the Tristan da Cunha group of islands.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take to prevent drift net fishing in the exclusion zone around Tristan da Cunha.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  At present RN and RFA vessels visiting Tristan da Cunha supplement the fisheries protection work of the Tristan authorities. We are considering what further action we might be able to take to prevent drift netting in the exclusion zone around Tristan da Cunha.

  European Conventions
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the provisions of the conventions of the council of Europe which have been enacted into United Kingdom law since 1961.
  343
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Since 1961 the United Kingdom has ratified the following Council of Europe conventions and protocols. Before ratification, where necessary, legislation was enacted or other implementing measures were introduced.

  European Convention on Establishment.

  European Convention on Extradition.

  European Agreement on the Exchange of Therapeutic Substances of Human Origin.

  European Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees.

  European Convention on the Academic Recognition of University Qualifications.

  European Agreement on the Protection of Television Broadcasts.

  European Social Charter.

  Fourth Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe.

  European Agreement on Travel by Young Persons on Collective Passports between the Member Countries of the Council of Europe.

  European Agreement on Mutual Assistance in the Matter of Special Medical Treatments and Climatic Facilities.

  European Agreement on the Exchanges of Blood-Grouping Reagents.

  Agreement between the Member States of the Council of Europe on the Issue to Military and Civilian War—Disabled of an International Book of Vouchers for the Repair of Prosthetic and Orthopaedic Appliances.

  Convention on the Liability of Hotel-Keepers Concerning the Property of Their Guests.

  Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in cases of Multiple Nationality

  Protocol No. 2 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Conferring Upon the European Court of Human Rights Competence to Give Advisory Opinions

  Protocol No. 3 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Amending Articles 29, 30 and 34 of the Convention

  Convention on the Unification of Certain Points of Substantive Law on Patents for Invention

  European Code of Social Security

  Protocol to the European Convention on the Equivalence of Diplomas Leading to Admission to Universities

  Convention on the Elaboration of a European Pharmacopoei

  European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts Transmitted from Stations Outside National Territories

  Protocol to the European Agreement on the Protection of Television Broadcasts

  Protocol No. 5 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Amending Articles 22 and 40 of the Convention

  European Convention on the Adoption of Children

  European Agreement on the Instruction and Education of Nurses

  European Convention on Information on Foreign Law

  European Convention on the Abolition of Legalisation of Documents Executed by Diplomatic Agents or Consular Officers

  European Agreement on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Detergents in Washing and Cleaning Products

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport

  European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage

  European Agreement Relating to Persons Participating in Proceedings of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights

  European Agreement on Continued Payment on Scholarships to Students Studying Abroad

  European Convention on State Immunity

  Additional Protocol to the Protocol to the European Agreement on the Protection of Television Broadcasts

  European Convention on the Social Protection of Farmers

  European Agreement on the Exchange of Tissue-Typing Reagents

  European Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born
  344
  Out of Wedlock

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept For Farming Purposes

  Additional Protocol to the European Agreement on the Exchange of Tissue-Typing Reagents

  European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism

  European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid

  Protocol Amending the Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality

  Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Information on Foreign Law

  Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport

  Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

  European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children

  European Agreement on Transfer of Responsibility for Refugees

  Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data

  Additional Protocol to the European Agreement on the Exchange of Therapeutic Substances of Human Origin

  Additional Protocol to the Agreement on the Temporary Importation Free of Duty of Medical, Surgical and Laboratory Equipment for Use on Free Loan in Hospitals and Medical Institutions for Diagnosis or Treatment

  Additional Protocol to the European Agreement on the Exchanges of Blood-Grouping Reagents

  Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons

  Additional Protocol to the Protocol to the European Agreement on the Protection of Television Broadcasts

  Protocol Amending the European Agreement on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Detergents in Washing and Cleaning Products

  European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes

  Protocol No. 8 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

  European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in Particular at Football Matches

  Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe

  European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International Non-Governmental Organisations

  European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

  Convention on Insider Trading

  Third Additional Protocol to the Protocol to the European Agreement on the Protection of Television Broadcasts

  Protocol to the Convention on Insider Trading

  Protocol to the Convention on the Elaboration of a European Pharmacopoeia

  Anti-Doping Convention

  "Kill the Messenger"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will acquire for his Department's library a copy of Sir Bernard Ingham's "Kill the Messenger".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Yes.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters concerning environmental protection and pollution control were discussed between members of the European Foreign
  345
  Affairs Council and their counterparts from the European Free Trade Association member states in their meeting on 13 to 15 May.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  EC and EFTA Ministers met on 13 May to review progress in the negotiations on a European economic area—EEA. This will extend the single market to the EFTA countries, and promote co-operation in a range of other areas, including in the environmental field. Ministers noted that there was a substantial convergence of views between the two sides on those elements which should figure in the EEA agreement.

  Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts have taken place between the Indian high commission and Ministers or officials in his Department since 1987 about Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake a further substantive review of the situation at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation with a view to making a decision on the United Kingdom renewing its membership of the organisation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. I met the Director-General of UNESCO on 5 April, and made clear that we needed to see more concrete progress before we could consider rejoining the organisation.

  Border Controls
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will place in the Library an English language translation of the Shengen agreement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 April 1991, c. 413]: We are arranging to place a copy of the document in the Library of the House.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the German proposal for an EC treaty amendment to the effect that member states should endeavour to transfer state-owned companies to private ownership.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  Although the Government support the objective of the German amendment, they do not believe that this should be a matter for Community competence or legislation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to protect the black community on Thamesmead estate in Greenwich following the recent murders there.
  346
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Operational decisions and the deployment of officers in Greenwich, as in the rest of the Metropolitan police district, are the responsibility of the Commissioner. I have every confidence in the ability of the Metropolitan police to protect the black community on the Thamesmead estate. Within days of the murders of Mr. Rolan Adams and Mr. Orville Blair, suspects were arrested and charged.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts are being made to increase the level of reporting to the police of racial attacks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  All chief officers are fully aware of the need to respond to racial attacks as a priority and to ensure that such attacks are properly recorded. Police forces have developed a range of methods to improve reporting, In co-operation with other local agencies, which are closely monitored by HM inspectorate of constabulary. These include the provision of information to ethnic minority communities, support and counselling for victims of racial attacks and an effective priority response in dealing with perpetrators. The police service's implementation of broader policies on equal opportunities and quality of service has one of its central objectives improving the confidence of ethnic minority communities in reporting crimes to the police.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racial attacks were reported to the police during 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Six thousand four hundred and fifty-nine racially motivated incidents were reported to police forces in England and Wales during 1990.

  Police, Leicestershire
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the budget allocated to policing Leicestershire for each of the years from 1979 to 1990, together with the percentage increase or decrease from year to year over this period, discounting inflation.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The budget of a police force is set by its police authority. Expenditure on the Leicestershire police force between 1979–80 and 1989–90, in cash and real terms, is set out below. During this period, the Home Office paid specific grant on the net expenditure of provincial police forces at the rate of 50 per cent. up to 1985–86 and 51 per cent. from 1986–87.

  Year

  Actual expenditure

  Expenditure in real terms1

  Percentage year on year real terms increase

  £

  £

  1979–80

  18,688,636

  37,501,025

  —

  1980–81

  22,885,914

  38,808,102

  3·49

  1981–82

  27,538,410

  42,585,609

  9·73

  1982–83

  30,829,200

  44,512,915

  4·53

  1983–84

  36,602,856

  50,513,174

  13·48

  1984–85

  48,046,872

  63,101,668

  24·92

  1985–86

  37,382,252

  46,564,838

  -26·21

  1986–87

  41,810,682

  50,336,715

  8·10

  1987–88

  45,463,839

  51,962,830

  3·23

  1988–89

  49,660,357

  52,825,109

  1·66

  1989–90

  57,279,465

  57,279,465

  8·43

  1 At 1989–90 prices using GDP deflator.

  The real terms increase in expenditure between 1979–80 and 1989–90 was 53 per cent.

  Forensic Science Service
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what system of charging the new forensic science service will introduce to cover its costs;

  (2) what was the annual average expenditure on the Crown forensic service for each of the past three years; and what will be the annual rate of expenditure of the new forensic science service.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many forensic scientists employed by the forensic science service have moved to managerial posts under the new arrangements for an executive agency; and how many years' experience as forensic scientists these individuals had accumulated before undertaking managerial posts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These have been passed to the director general of the forensic science service who will be replying shortly. A copy of her reply will be placed in the Library.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers, regarding the disclosure of criminal records; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The association wrote to my right hon. Friend about this in April. Our reply informed them that the matter would be considered in the context of the response to the scrutiny of criminal records which reported at the end of April.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on the disclosure of criminal records of the convictions of taxi licence applicants since last October and over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received 65 representations on this subject during the period 17 June 1990—16 May 1991, some 50 of them after 1 November 1990. In addition, we have had regular discussions and exchanges of correspondence with the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations, and from whom, he has received on the disclosure of criminal records of taxi licence applicants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available.

  Prisons
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales have been diagnosed as having a mental illness.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 31 March 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, 290 inmates were reported by prison medical officers to be mentally disordered as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983. Of these, 237 were reported to be mentally ill.
  348
  The Government encourage the diversion of mentally disordered offenders from the penal system whenever custody is not necessary in the public interest.

  Violence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constables of police on police policy on reconciliation in(a) domestic violence cases and (b) other criminal violence cases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Home Office guidance on domestic violence advises police not to attempt reconciliation in such cases, although they may give advice about the appropriate sources of help which are available.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which other EC countries have developed reciprocal systems for ensuring absent parents contribute towards the maintenance of their children.

  Mr. John Patten
  All EC countries are party to conventions which facilitate the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of child maintenance. In the past, not all have invested the same effort as the United Kingdom in the enforcement process, and we have played a leading part in the preparation of a new convention. We signed this last year and have already met its requirements for some time. The convention will establish common administrative arrangements to support previous international agreements.

  Miners Welfare Act 1952
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to reverse the effect of the Charity Commissioners' decision to interpret the Miners Welfare Act 1952 so as to define miners, rather than ex-miners and families, as the sole beneficiaries of the social and welfare activities within the meaning of the Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  The provisions of the 1952 Act already include ex-miners and their dependants within the social and welfare benefits of the Act. I have no information about any decision of the Charity Commissioners which would affect the provisions of the Act, but if the hon. Member has further details she may wish to write to the chief commissioner direct.

  Skateboarding
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the local authorities that have adopted his Department's model byelaw on the banning of skateboarding on carriageways and roads under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Our records indicate that 66 local authorities have adopted the model byelaw which prohibits the use of skateboards and roller skates on footways and carriageways to the danger of other persons lawfully using the footway or carriageway. The local authorities are as follows:

  Adur District Council

  Arun District Council

  Babergh District Council

  349

  Beverley Borough Council

  Birmingham City Council

  Bracknell District Council

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  Bury Borough Council

  Calderdale Borough Council

  Caradon District Council

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Chichester District Council

  Colchester Borough Council

  Congleton Borough Council

  Dover District Council

  Fareham Borough Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Great Yarmouth Borough Council

  Guildford Borough Council

  Hart District Council

  Hastings Borough Council

  Horsham District Council

  Isles of Scilly Council

  Kettering Borough Council

  Leeds City Council

  Litchfield District Council

  Luton Borough Council

  Maldon District Council

  Melton Borough Council

  Mid Sussex District Council

  Montgomeryshire District Council

  Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council

  Newport Borough Council

  North Devon District Council

  Peterborough City Council

  Poole Borough Council

  Reading Borough Council

  Reigate and Bansteacl Borough Council

  Rhymney Valley District Council

  Rother District Council

  Salisbury District Council

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Sedgemoor District Council

  Shepway District Council

  Slough Borough Council

  Southampton City Council

  Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

  South Lakeland District Council

  South Northamptonshire District Council

  South Shropshire District Council

  South Tyneside Borough Council

  South Wight Borough Council

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council

  Sutton Borough Council

  Tendring District Council

  Thanet District Council

  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

  Warrington Borough Council

  Wokingham District Council

  Woodspring District Council

  Worcester City Council

  Worthing, Borough Council

  Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

  Wychavon District Council

  Wycombe District Council

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, following the conclusion of the Crown court case in Liverpool concerning the wardship of children involved in Operation Clementine, he has any plans to review procedures used in cases concerning allegations of child abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am not aware of any complaints about police procedures in this investigation, which was carried out by the Merseyside police and Liverpool social services department. My right hon. Friend has no plans for a fundamental review of police procedures. Home Office 350
  officials are assisting in the revision of "Working Together" which is being undertaken by the Department of Health. Some additional guidance for the police to complement Home Office circular 52/1988 is likely to be issued when the revised "Working Together" is published.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are currently awaiting consideration under the criminal injuries compensation scheme in England and Wales and in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of April 1991, 59,919 applications were awaiting decision by a board member, 11,560 cases were out on offer to applicants and 10,690 cases were awaiting an oral hearing by the board. Figures for cases in progress are not available separately for England and Wales and for Scotland.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement sections 108 to 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; and what he estimates the timetable of that implementation will be.

  Mr. John Patten
  Sections 108 to 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provide a statutory basis for the present ex-gratia criminal injuries compensation scheme. No date has been set for implementation, which has been deferred for the time being at the request of the board to allow it to concentrate on dealing with the present backlog of cases, which is being reduced. The then Home Secretary set out more fully the reasons for this decision, together with certain changes in the non-statutory scheme, to bring it more closely into line with the provisions of the 1988 Act, in a written answer on 8 December 1989 at columns 409–17 to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler).

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claimants under the criminal injuries compensation scheme have their awards paid directly to a trust or sequestrator; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board does not keep totals of such cases, but I understand that they are rare.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made to implement the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee to appoint additional staff to the Glasgow office; what progress has been made in clearing the backlog of claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We agreed immediately to all the 60 extra staff recommended in the report of the Select Committee (HC 92) in February 1990 and they have been in post in the Glasgow office since last summer. As a result of this and other measures described in the Government reply to the report (Cm. 1153), the number of cases outstanding has been reduced by about 8,000 over the last year to 82,000.

  Police Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for county police authorities in England the amounts spent in the most recent year available in rank order, together with the standard spending assessment for the police service and the expenditure per head of population.

  County police authorities

  Police expenditure budget 1990–91 £000 's

  Police component1 of standard spending 1990–91 £000's

  Relevant population2

  Budget expenditure per head (£'s)

  Hampshire

  113,507

  54,289

  1,270,689

  89·33

  Kent

  111,966

  51,544

  1,146,137

  97·69

  Lancashire

  107,559

  52,506

  1,048,010

  102·63

  Essex

  105,185

  49,255

  1,112,214

  94·57

  Nottinghamshire

  77,189

  38,358

  760,662

  101·48

  Humberside

  71,838

  32,963

  652,686

  110·07

  Staffordshire

  71,162

  36,207

  786,924

  90·43

  Leicestershire

  64,058

  29,124

  651,831

  98·27

  Cheshire

  62,851

  30,911

  717,303

  87·62

  Derbyshire

  61,545

  29,670

  713,956

  86·20

  Hertfordshire

  59,996

  29,917

  626,156

  95·82

  Surrey

  56,061

  30,103

  579,252

  96·78

  North Yorkshire

  48,072

  22,886

  537,558

  89·43

  Cleveland

  47,627

  24,640

  411,180

  115·83

  Norfolk

  47,175

  22,538

  574,129

  82·17

  Dorset

  46,771

  20,801

  502,671

  93·04

  Durham

  44,554

  22,753

  456,057

  97·69

  Suffolk

  43,565

  19,626

  469,891

  92·71

  Lincolnshire

  41,871

  19,576

  452,504

  92·53

  Northamptonshire

  41,689

  18,550

  422,651

  98·64

  Cumbria

  41,485

  19,129

  383,556

  108·16

  Cambridgeshire

  40,590

  19,824

  477,192

  85·06

  Wiltshire

  39,647

  17,954

  419,830

  94·44

  Gloucestershire

  39,285

  19,262

  398,399

  98·61

  Warwickshire

  36,943

  16,415

  364,929

  101·23

  Bedfordshire

  35,782

  18,039

  394,078

  90·80

  Totals

  1,557,973

  746,840

  16,330,445

  95·40

  1 Standard level of expenditure on the police after specific grant has been deducted.

  2 Number on community charge register in force area.

  Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contacts have taken place between Ministers or officials in his Department and the Indian high commission since 1987 about Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am not aware of any contacts of this kind having taken place with the Indian high commission about Mr. Bedi before or since 1987. If the hon. Member believes that such contacts have taken place, I should be grateful if he would provide me with the details.

  Stuart Bower
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision on the case of Stuart Bower.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend hopes to reach a decision shortly. I have promised to write to the hon. Member as soon as a decision has been reached.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were transferred under the provisions of circular 3790, and its predecessor circular 1074 from dispersal prisons in England and Wales for each of the last five years.
  352
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The table shows, for 1990–91, the net revenue budget of each English county police force, as notified by the police authority; the police component of each county's standard spending assessment; the relevant population of the county; and the budget divided by the population.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for St Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 16 May at column 239.

  Derbyshire Police
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the standard spending assessment for police in Derbyshire for 1991–92 and for previous years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Standard spending assessments were introduced in 1990–91. Previously the Government's assumptions of local authorities' spending needs were expressed in grant-related expenditure assessments. The police component of GREAs contained elements for interest receipts and capital financing costs, which are now included in a separate component of local authorities' SSAs.

  The police components of Derbyshire county council's GREA or SSA since 1987–88 are shown in the table.

  Year

  £m

  1987–88

  22·315

  1988–89

  25·004

  1989–90

  27·376

  1990–91

  29·670

  1991–92

  32·276

  Foreign Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male and female prisoners in England and Wales were subsequently deported; and if he will list the countries of origin, for each of the last 10 years.

  Deportations following a custodial sentence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Nationals of:

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Algeria

  5

  2

  4

  3

  Anguilla

  1

  Australia

  2

  2

  1

  1

  4

  Austria

  1

  1

  Bahrain

  1

  Bangladesh

  3

  3

  4

  Barbados

  1

  Belgium

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Bolivia

  3

  1

  1

  1

  Brazil

  1

  3

  Burkina Faso

  2

  Canada

  2

  3

  1

  Chile

  4

  5

  1

  Colombia

  3

  2

  5

  4

  6

  1

  11

  2

  Cyprus

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Denmark

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Egypt

  1

  2

  1

  Finland

  1

  France

  4

  1

  2

  4

  1

  1

  2

  Gambia

  1

  1

  Germany

  4

  4

  3

  5

  1

  Ghana

  26

  8

  21

  6

  20

  13

  13

  4

  Greece

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Grenada

  1

  Guyana

  1

  1

  Hong Kong

  5

  1

  1

  3

  2

  Iceland

  1

  India

  10

  3

  19

  1

  15

  2

  20

  2

  Indonesia

  1

  Iran

  2

  3

  6

  Iraq

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Irish Republic

  14

  16

  11

  7

  Israel

  2

  1

  Italy

  11

  10

  1

  7

  8

  1

  Ivory Coast

  1

  Jamaica

  7

  3

  14

  14

  12

  8

  13

  7

  Jordan

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Kenya

  2

  5

  2

  3

  Kuwait

  1

  Lebanon

  1

  3

  1

  Libya

  1

  3

  Malawi

  1

  Malaysia

  4

  2

  1

  3

  1

  Malta

  1

  Mauritius

  1

  2

  Morocco

  5

  3

  3

  Netherlands

  8

  13

  8

  6

  4

  New Zealand

  1

  1

  2

  Nigeria

  94

  16

  130

  24

  151

  44

  137

  41

  Norway

  1

  1

  1

  Oman

  1

  Pakistan

  19

  1

  29

  1

  19

  1

  17

  1

  Peru

  1

  Portugal

  2

  1

  St. Lucia

  1

  1

  St. Vincent

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  1

  Sierra Leone

  1

  1

  Singapore

  2

  1

  1

  3

  2

  1

  South Africa

  3

  1

  5

  Spain

  1

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  Sri Lanka

  2

  3

  1

  Sweden

  1

  Switzerland

  3

  1

  Syria

  2

  1

  Thailand

  1

  1

  354
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: Figures in the form requested have been held centrally only for the years since 1986. The figures in the table relate to deportation under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971, where a recommendation for deportation made by a court was part of a custodial sentence, or under section 3(5)(b) of that Act where deportation on conducive grounds followed a custodial sentence.
  355

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Nationals of:

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Togo

  1

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1

  2

  1

  Tunisia

  2

  Turkey

  6

  4

  6

  4

  Uganda

  1

  3

  2

  2

  United States of America

  2

  5

  8

  2

  10

  Uruguay

  1

  Venezuela

  1

  Yugoslavia

  1

  Zambia

  1

  Zimbabwe

  1

  1

  4

  1

  Totals

  269

  40

  342

  58

  336

  75

  311

  69

THE ARTS

  Works of Art (Export Licences)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what consideration is given to their likely end use when consideration is given to whether to issue on export licence for important works of art; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Exports of works of art go to private or public collections. The likely end use of a work of art after export is not a relevant consideration for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he is deciding whether to grant an export licence.

  Edinburgh Art Galleries
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with Professor Alan Peacock, chairman of the Scottish Arts Council, about the closure of art galleries in Edinburgh; what representations he has received on this matter; if he will instruct his Department to carry out an inquiry into the work of the Scottish Arts Council and its funding of the visual arts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  My last meeting with the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council was during my visit to Scotland from 4 to 7 May. I am aware of the difficulties facing some Edinburgh art galleries, but I have received no written representations about them. I can see no need to call for an enquiry into the council's funding of the visual arts.

  Central Government Grants to Local Authorities in England

  1990–91

  1991–92

  £ million

  percentage

  £ million

  percentage

  Revenue support grant

  9,490

  44·8

  9,674

  35·2

  Area protection grant1

  88

  0·4

  485

  1·8

  Inner London education grant

  102

  0·3

  70

  0·3

  Other current grants within AEF

  3,146

  14·9

  7,760

  28·3

  Total AEF

  12,827

  60·6

  17,989

  65·5

  Housing current grants

  2,324

  11·0

  2,380

  8·7

  Other current grants outside AEF

  5,050

  23·9

  5,845

  21·3

  Housing capital grants

  337

  1·6

  456

  1·7

  Other capital grants

  632

  3·0

  789

  2·9

  Total grants

  21,170

  100·0

  27,459

  100·0

  1 Includes low rateable value areas grant.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Indirect Tax
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what stage has been reached in the European Council's deliberations concerning an indirect tax regime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on 17 May 1991,Official Report, columns 314–15.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish tables showing separately for England, Wales and Scotland grants to local authorities from central Government net of non-domestic rate income, for 1990–91 and 1991–92, and showing separately expressed in £ million and as a percentage for (i) specific grants within aggregate external finance, (ii) revenue support grant, (iii) area protection grant, (iv) Inner London education grant, (v) housing grants and (vi) other specific grants.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is set out in the tables. The figures given are consistent with those published in the "Statistical Supplement to the Autumn Statement"—Cm. 1520; the 1991–92 figures also incorporate the additional grants announced this year to reduce the levels of community charge bills.
  357

  Central Government Grants to Local Authorities in Scotland

  1990–91

  1991–92

  £ million

  Percentage

  £ million

  Percentage

  Revenue support grant

  2,496

  69·6

  2,651

  62·9

  Area protection grant1

  30

  0·8

  15

  0·4

  Other current grants within AEF

  272

  7·6

  752

  17·8

  Total AEF

  2,768

  77·2

  3,403

  80·7

  Housing current grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other current grants outside AEF

  782

  21·8

  752

  17·8

  Housing capital grants

  3

  0·1

  2

  0·1

  Other capital grants

  35

  1·0

  59

  1·4

  Total grants

  3,587

  100·0

  4,215

  100·0

  1 Area protection grant in Scotland is amalgamated with revenue support grant for distribution purposes.

  Central Government Grants to Local Authorities in Wales

  1990–91

  1991–92

  £ million

  Percentage

  £ million

  Percentage

  Revenue support grant

  1,141

  60·2

  1,236

  53·3

  Other current grants within AEF

  162

  8·5

  443

  19·1

  Total AEF

  1,303

  68·7

  1,679

  72·4

  Housing current grants

  160

  8·4

  189

  8·2

  Other current grants outside AEF

  275

  14·4

  293

  12·6

  Housing capital grants

  103

  5·4

  87

  3·8

  Other capital grants

  58

  3·0

  67

  2·9

  Total grants

  1,897

  100·0

  2,319

  100·0

  Mortgages
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total increased costs to a married couple with two children on average earnings with an average mortgage, of the interest rate rises over the past two years.

  Mr. Maude
  The monthly interest payment, net of basic rate tax relief, on an average mortgage in May 1989 was £210·94. At the May 1991 interest rate of 12·9 per cent., the payment on that mortgage would be £201·56.

  Charities (VAT)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional revenue to Her Majesty's Government in the current year from the income of registered charities, as a result of the increase in VAT.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that detailed information of this sort is not readily available.

  School Meals (VAT)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the levying of value-added tax on meals provided to pupils in schools by private firms, and the treatment of school meals provided directly by local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have received one recent letter on this matter. VAT arises only on supplies made by way of business by a VAT registered person. Where a local authority supplies school meals incidental to its provision of education, either direct or via a contractor, those 358
  supplies are not by way of business and thus fall outside the scope of VAT. If a local authority ceases to provide a school meal service, and a private firm supplies catering direct to pupils, that is by way of business and VAT falls to be charged.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions exist for the Inland Revenue to ascertain the beneficial ownership of large estates in order to levy appropriate rates of inheritance tax.

  Mr. Maude
  Inheritance tax is levied on chargeable transfers of value, mainly deemed transfers on death. The Inland Revenue has power to require personal representatives of deceased persons, the trustees of settled property, the donees of chargeable lifetime gifts and others to deliver accounts and to pay inheritance tax. It also has the power, with the consent of the Special Commissioners, to require any person to supply such information as the Board of Inland Revenue requires for inheritance tax purposes. There are no special provisions for large estates.

  Football Pools Betting Duty
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his best estimate of the amount of money that has been provided to Vauxhall Conference clubs through the pools betting duty for each of the past 10 years and as a total over the same period.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 17 May 1991]: None. Pool betting duty was reduced in 1990 on condition that the whole of the amount saved would be passed onto the Football Trust 1990 and spent on ground

  359
  improvements of clubs in the Football League and the Scottish Football League and on the three national stadiums—Wembley, Hampden Park and Windsor Park.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to render clubs in the Vauxhall Conference eligible for financial aid via the revenue provided as a result of the reduction in the football pools betting duty announced in the 1990 Budget; if he will state the proportion of revenue provided through pools betting duty for which clubs in the Vauxhall Conference are eligible to apply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 17 May 1991]: I do not intend to make clubs in the Vauxhall Conference eligible to benefit from the reduction in pool betting duty announced in the 1990 budget. They receive no such
  360
  support at present. They are, of course, eligible for support from the Football Trust 1990 provided the finance comes from other sources, such as donations resulting from the spotting-the-ball competition.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his best estimate of the total amount of money raised in football pools betting duty from matches played in the Vauxhall Conference or its predecessor league for each of the past 10 years and as a total over the same period.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 17 May 1991]: I am unable to make any estimate, as pool betting duty is charged on aggregate weekly stakes regardless of the individual events to which the stakes relate.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Meals
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing the expenditure on the school meal service in each year since 1976 in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Fallon
  The latest year for which information on actual expenditure on school meals and milk is available is 1988–89. The available information is as follows:

  Net expenditure on school meals and milk1

  Year

  Cash £ millions

  Real terms2£ millions

  1975–76

  318

  1,002

  1976–77

  382

  1,060

  1977–78

  365

  891

  1978–79

  388

  854

  1979–80

  422

  796

  1980–81

  397

  633

  1981–82

  397

  577

  1982–83

  411

  558

  1983–84

  427

  554

  1984–85

  432

  533

  1985–86

  435

  509

  1986–87

  460

  521

  1987–88

  443

  476

  1988–89

  405

  405

  1 Recurrent expenditure, less income from paid meals and from EC grants.

  2 Figures for earlier years have been converted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP (Market Prices) Deflator.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing which local authorities are providing sandwiches rather than a hot meal for children in families receiving income support.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the average price of a school meal in cash and real terms in each year since 1976 in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) special schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The readily available information for primary schools is shown in the table. Information before 1979 is not readily available. Information was not collected centrally for secondary or special schools, nor for primary schools after 1988.

  Average price for a primary school fixed charge meal

  Year (October)

  Cash pence

  1Real terms pence

  21979

  30

  57

  1980

  43

  67

  1981

  46

  67

  1982

  50

  68

  1983

  52

  67

  1984

  55

  68

  1985

  59

  69

  1986

  61

  69

  1987

  64

  69

  1988

  65

  65

  1 Figures for earlier years have been converted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP (Market Prices) Deflator.

  2 September.

  Polytechnics
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list his detailed powers with respect to the financial conduct of a polytechnic.

  Mr. Howarth
  Generally, polytechnics are responsible for their own financial conduct. The powers of my right hon. and learned Friend in respect of the polytechnics and colleges sector are set out in the relevant provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. Details of his financial relationship with the sector are in the financial memorandum between the Department and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Postgraduate Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the percentage of current postgraduate students in(a) the social sciences, (b) the arts, (c) applied sciences and (d) pure sciences who are British.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information on the nationality of students on postgraduate courses is not collected centrally.

  Geomagnetism
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on(a) the value of the work done for his Department on geomagnetism and (b) his assessment of the future research priority given to geomagnetism.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department supports work on geomagnetism through the Natural Environment Research Council at the Council's institutes—the British Geological Survey and British Antarctic Survey—and in higher education institutions, on the theory and past behaviour of the earth's geomagnetic field; on observing, monitoring and modelling activity of the contemporary geomagnetic field; and on the interactions of the earth's magnetic field with solar phenomena. The current value of NERC support for observation and monitoring of present-day geomagnetic activity is £201,000 per annum. The future priority to be given to NERC science budget support for geomagnetism research is a matter for NERC to consider against its other priorities.

  Teachers (Indecency Convictions)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to require annual disclosure to parents of all convictions of offences involving indecency recorded against teachers in schools attended by their children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend does not plan to introduce such legislation. Applicants for teaching posts are already obliged to disclose any criminal convictions they have incurred to the prospective employer, and employers are able to check applicants' declarations by reference to police records. In addition, when a serving teacher is convicted of a criminal offence the police report the conviction both to the teacher's employer and to the Department.

  Primary School Tests
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to permit parents to opt out of primary school tests for their children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Head teachers have a general duty under section 10 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to secure the implementation of the national curriculum in their schools and, consistently with that, must ensure that all pupils eligible for assessment are assessed. Pupils may be excepted only under the following exceptional circumstances.

  (a) Where they have a statement of special educational needs which, in conformity with section 18 of the Act, provides for the disapplication or modification of the statutory assessment arrangements in whole or in part.

  (b) In cases governed by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 17 of the Act.

  (c) Where a head teacher has made a direction under section 19 of the Act temporarily excepting a pupil from the assessment arrangements in whole or in part. The making of such exceptions is governed by the Education (National Curriculum) (Temporary Exceptions for Individual Pupils) Regulations 1989, and explained further in the accompanying circular 15/89. A parental request for an exception to be made based on the parent's own opposition to testing would not in itself constitute a sufficient ground for such a direction.

  The duty to assess pupils under the Education Reform Act 1988 is not overridden by LEAs' duty under section 76 of the Education Act 1944 to have regard, in the exercise of their functions, to the principle that pupils should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.

  Art Psychotherapy
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has made to the Universities Funding Council to ensure that the courses in art therapy and group therapy offered by the art psychotherapy unit at Goldsmiths college, university of London, are properly funded for the academic years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  These are issues for the college to decide within its aggregate resources. The Department has no role in such matters.

  "Kill the Messenger"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will acquire for his Department's library a copy of Sir Bernard Ingham's "Kill the Messenger".

  Mr. Eggar
  No, purchasing decisions are the responsibility of the Department's professional librarian.

  Bird Report
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to complete his consideration of the issues raised by the Bird report about the right of institutions to award degrees, quality assurance provision and related matters.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. and learned Friend is making today.

  Stirling University
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the actual cost incurred in building and equipping Stirling university; and what is the projected cost at present prices, adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: Payments of capital grant allocated by the University Grants Committee between 1966 and 1985 for building and furnishing Stirling university, excluding student residential accommodation, were as follows:

  Calendar year

  Grant £

  1990 prices1 £

  1966

  429,848

  3,592,232

  1967

  872,236

  7,081,731

  1968

  551,366

  4,295,279

  1969

  1,061,043

  7,842,162

  1970

  1,261,529

  8,683,080

  1971

  1,632,043

  10,272,796

  1972

  969,380

  5,641,655

  1973

  350,097

  1,902,842

  1974

  168,276

  796,026

  1975

  69,725

  259,295

  1976

  180,563

  583,010

  1977

  8,575

  24,305

  1978

  35,118

  89,391

  1979

  102,225

  227,494

  1980

  17,211

  32,053

  1981

  104,738

  175,078

  1982

  484,445

  752,584

  1983

  —

  —

  1984

  153,125

  216,098

  1985

  68,105

  90,894

  1 1990 prices have been calculated using the GDP deflator.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will bring forward proposals to permit local education authorities to reinvest 100 per cent. of capital receipts associated with the sale of assets used for educational purposes.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans at present to make changes in the debt redemption rules of the local authority capital finance system. Local education authorities are already permitted to reinvest up to 100 per cent. of capital receipts associated with the sale of land and buildings used for educational purposes in the acquisition of land or buildings for educational purposes in the same area.

SCOTLAND

  Written Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many written questions he or his predecessor answered in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Lang
  On a sessional basis, the number of written parliamentary questions answered from 1983–90 is set out in the table. Figures for 1980–82 are not available.

  Number

  1983–84

  3,200

  1984–85

  2,185

  1985–86

  2,316

  365

  Number

  1986–87

  3,386

  1987–88

  4,982

  1988–89

  3,339

  1989–90

  2,985

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how long on average the Scottish Office takes to reply to parliamentary written questions for(a) priority and (b) ordinary written answers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  On average, and if the information is readily to hand, my Department replies to priority written questions on the date they are due for answer and to ordinary written questions within one week.

  Renfrewshire
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the level of central Government contribution to Renfrewshire Enterprise in the current financial year; and what criteria he has applied to its expenditure.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Following consideration of the business plan submitted by Renfrewshire Enterprise, Scottish Enterprise has decided to allocate a budget in 1991–92 of £28·834 million, inclusive of training allowances. Allocations to local enterprise companies, and the criteria used to determine them, are matters for Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make additional resources available to promote tourism within Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Scottish tourist board is happy to consider any applications from the Renfrewshire area for financial assistance towards the capital development of tourism projects. The promotion of tourism in Renfrewshire also benefits from the district council's membership of the Greater Glasgow tourist board, which receives financial support from STB.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what he anticipates will be the proportion of local authority income derived from(a) the poll tax/local tax, (b) non-domestic rates and (c) Government grants in Scotland in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  For 1991–92, the expected proportions are:

  Per cent.

  Community charge

  115

  Non-domestic rates

  24

  Government grants

  261

  Department of Energy R, D and D Expenditure on Renewable Energy (£ million)1 (1990 prices)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Wind

  1·3

  1·4

  1·5

  3·8

  3·7

  6·6

  7·1

  4·8

  4·9

  4·4

  5·1

  Wave

  6·3

  5·9

  7·3

  4·8

  1·5

  0·6

  0·5

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  Geothermal Aquifers

  2·7

  3·0

  4·3

  2·3

  2·6

  1·5

  0·4

  0·1

  —

  0·1

  0·2

  Geothermal hot dry rocks

  —

  1·1

  9·2

  4·6

  4·2

  6·4

  4·6

  4·5

  4·4

  4·0

  3·5

  Solar

  2·5

  1·6

  1·2

  2·2

  1·3

  0·7

  0·9

  1·2

  1·3

  1·6

  2·0

  366
  1 Gross figure—that is, before Community Charge Benefit and Community Charge Reduction Scheme assistance.

  2 Grants concerned are—Revenue Support Grant, specific grants and Community Charge Grant.

  At this stage it is not possible to provide figures for future years.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what consultations took place with Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the distribution of the accelerated revenue support grant payments given to local authorities as compensation for loss of community charge revenue;

  (2) if he will list those local authorities which have received less compensatory income from the accelerated revenue support grants made than that lost in revenue from community charge income.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: Provided that its assumptions about community charge collection prove correct, no local authority should lose income for 1991–92 as a result of the reduction in charges made by the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. The combined income from revenue support grant, community charge grant and revised community charges should be equal to the total amount which each authority budgeted for originally in revenue support grant and community charge income.

  My right hon. Friend announced on 18 April that, through a combination of revenue support grant and community charge grant, Scottish local authorities would receive by the end of June a total of £281 million more grant than they would have done under the normal arrangements for the payment of revenue support grant. This was broadly in line with the amount requested originally by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  In accordance with the past practice, each Scottish authority is being paid the same percentage amount of revenue support grant each week. Prior to its introduction this year, this arrangement was neither the subject of consultation with nor representation from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. But following recent representations from the convention and a small number of authorities, my right hon. Friend is considering the matter further.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, columns 614–16, if he will provide the same information in real terms.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information requested is detailed in the table and is derived directly from the figures given in the answer of 26 April. These have been converted to real terms and adjusted to 1990 prices using the GDP deflator.
  367

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Biomass2

  0·2

  0·7

  0·7

  1·8

  1·0

  1·5

  1·1

  1·7

  2·7

  1·7

  1·5

  Tide

  1·3

  2·5

  0·7

  —

  —

  0·4

  0·1

  0·1

  1·7

  1·4

  1·2

  Hydro/general studies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  0·9

  0·8

  Technology Transfer and promotion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·9

  1·1

  1·7

  ETSU services

  2·9

  3·9

  3·8

  3·1

  2·8

  2·9

  2·6

  3·0

  2·8

  2·8

  2·9

  17·2

  20·1

  28·5

  22·6

  17·1

  20·6

  17·5

  15·4

  19·9

  18·1

  19·0

  External contributions

  1·5

  1·6

  3·1

  4·9

  2·9

  4·6

  2·8

  4·0

  4·8

  5·3

  5·6

  Total

  18·7

  21·7

  31·7

  27·5

  20·1

  25·2

  20·2

  19·4

  24·6

  23·5

  24·6

  1 Adjusted by implied GDP deflators based on expenditure data at factor cost.

  2 Includes expenditure on "waste as a fuel" projects under the energy efficiency office demonstration scheme.

  Notes:

  1 Where available external contributions include both private sector, generating boards and the European Commission.

  2 Up to 1986–87 total for RED also includes expenditure on low head hydro and general studies to 1986–87. These are separately identified for 1987–88 and include work carried out by the chief scientist group ETSU.

  Special Needs Training
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of training places provided under Government-funded schemes by the Scottish Association of Mental Health in the year ended 31 March 1991; and how many places are available in the current year 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Information about the number of training places provided under Government-funded schemes by the Scottish Association for Mental Health in the year ended 31 March 1991 is not available. However, the number of employment training places contracted between that organisation and the Training Agency as at 20 August 1990 was for a maximum of 591 places. Dealings with the Scottish Association for Mental Health concerning the number of places for the current year, 1991–92, are a matter for individual local enterprise companies. I understand that information on the number of places contracted with individual training providers is not held centrally by Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average increase in Scottish electricity prices in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The average tariff increases announced by the two Scottish electricity companies and their predecessors in each of the last five years are shown in the table.

  Average electricity tariff increase (per cent.)

  11987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Scottish Power

  3·30

  4·75

  8·00

  8·50

  9·00

  Scottish Hydro-Electric

  3·00

  4·70

  8·00

  8·50

  9·00

  1 In 1987, the date of implementation was 1 September; in the subsequent years the increases were implemented with effect from 1 April in the relevant year.

  Training Funds
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reinstate the funds available for training if the anticipated increase in contributions from the private sector does not materialise.

  Mr. Lang
  Decisions about the level of resources available for training through Scottish Enterprise and 368
  Highlands and Islands Enterprise were not based on assumptions about particular levels of contributions from the private sector. Responsibility for negotiating contracts with individual training providers which maximise the value obtained for public funds is a matter for local enterprise companies; and training providers will no doubt have assured themselves of the prospects of securing adequate employers' contributions before entering into the contracts. I understand that contracting between local enterprise companies and training providers for 1991–92 is largely completed.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many foreign nationals serving a sentence of imprisonment have been transferred to complete their sentence in their country of origin in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One prisoner was transferred to the United States of America in 1987 and one to Finland in 1988.

  Prisoners (Drugs Offences)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) males and (b) females convicted or charged with a drug-related offence are currently imprisoned; if he will list their countries of origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the offences of the current prison population is not collected on a day-to-day basis. Nor is information collected on the country of origin of prisoners convicted of certain categories of offence.

  Yearly breakdowns are, however, available of the offences of convicted prisoners received into prison. The number of direct receptions of prisoners convicted of drugs offences for two years 1989–90 was 613. Their average sentence length of 590 days, allowing for remission, suggests an average daily population of such prisoners of approximately 325. The inclusion of fine defaulters convicted of drugs offences might boost that figure to approximately 350. Information is not collected on the charges faced by remand prisoners.

  Of the 40 foreign nationals in Scottish prisons on 15 May 1991, 14 were serving sentences for drug offences—

  369
  four from Pakistan, two each from Colombia and the Netherlands, and one each from Cyprus, Denmark, Guyana, Malta, Nigeria and Peru.

  Prison Suicides
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners have brought about their own deaths in each of the past five years; and if he will list the prisoners and institutions, whether those who died were serving sentences or were on remand, their ages and whether inquiry reports are known.

  Prison/ Young Offenders Institution

  Sentenced

  Remand

  Age(s)

  1986

  Perth

  2

  —

  22,25

  Edinburgh

  —

  1

  18

  Barlinnie

  2

  1

  27,50,55

  Cornton Vale

  —

  1

  27

  1987

  Edinburgh

  —

  1

  26

  Barlinnie

  1

  2

  23,29,31

  Dumfries

  —

  1

  17

  Glenochil

  2

  —

  21,34

  1988

  Barlinnie

  3

  3

  24,25,26,29,30,49

  Glenochil

  1

  —

  27

  1989

  Barlinnie

  —

  1

  39

  Shotts

  2

  —

  22,31

  Aberdeen

  —

  I

  59

  Perth

  1

  —

  26

  Polmont

  1

  —

  18

  1990

  Barlinnie

  2

  1

  25,30,39

  Foreign Prisoners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements exist for visits from relatives, including children, to foreign nationals in gaols; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Arrangements for visits by family members to foreign nationals in Scottish penal establishments are no different from arrangements for visits to other prisoners, except that governors make particular efforts to accommodate the needs of foreign nationals whose visitors may have travelled a great distance to see them. Foreign nationals may speak with their visitors in their own language.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) male and (b) female foreign nationals are serving a sentence or are on remand in a prison; and if he will list their countries of origin.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 15 May 1991 there were 40 foreign nationals in Scottish penal establishments. All were male. Thirty-six were serving sentences and four were on remand. Their countries of origin are given in the table.

  Country of origin

  Sentenced

  Remand

  Australia

  2

  —

  Bangladesh

  1

  —

  Canada

  3

  —

  Colombia

  2

  —

  370
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is provided in the table except for the prisoners' or young offenders' names, which have been omitted out of consideration for their family and friends. If the hon. Member wishes these details I should be happy to write to him.

  Fatal accident inquiries have been held in each case. The sheriffs' determinations are matters of public record.

  Country of origin

  Sentenced

  Remand

  Cyprus

  1

  —

  Denmark

  2

  —

  France

  1

  —

  Guyana

  I

  —

  Hong Kong

  1

  —

  India

  2

  —

  Ireland

  4

  —

  Libya

  1

  —

  Malta

  1

  —

  Netherlands

  2

  —

  Nigeria

  2

  1

  Norway

  1

  —

  Pakistan

  6

  3

  Peru

  1

  —

  United States of America

  1

  —

  Yugoslavia

  1

  —

  Total

  36

  4

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many foreign nationals imprisoned in gaols in Scotland are accompanied by dependent children.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration the Parole Board gives in its deliberations to the difficulties experienced by foreign nationals; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is entirely a matter for the Parole Board for Scotland, which is an independent
  371
  body with responsibility for exercising the functions conferred on it by section 18 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many foreign nationals in gaols have dependants resident in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Such information is not available. Prisoners are under no obligation to divulge to the Secretary of State whether or not they have dependants or where they are resident.

  Fatal Accident Inquiries
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether legal aid will be available to the close relatives of the deceased at fatal accident inquiries; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is open to close relatives of deceased at fatal accident inquiries to make application for legal aid to the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish comments from official bodies on the consultative document on the future of the careers service in Scotland and related review documents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In accordance with usual practice, responses to the consultation document will be available to the public unless the writers of the responses request otherwise.

  Prisoners (Deportations)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by country of origin for each of the last 10 years, the numbers of(a) male and (b) female prisoners in Scotland who were subsequently deported.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Scottish Bus Group
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the pension arrangements for employees of the Scottish Bus Group prior to the beginning of the current privatisation programme; and what steps he is taking to protect these pension arrangements in the post privatisation period.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Bus Group operates two pension schemes, the transport operatives pension scheme and the staff pension fund. The arrangements for pensions following privatisation are set out in the Scottish Bus Group disposal programme published on 6 February 1990, copies of which were made available to the House.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if bidders for Scottish Bus Group subsidiaries are required to include a minimum allocation of equity shares to employees in their bids.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. A 5 per cent. price preference is, however, available to bids involving the 372
  acquisition by the employees of a controlling interest in the companies being sold, provided that at least 25 per cent. of the ordinary shares will be owned by or on behalf of non-management employees.

  Storm Damage
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what schemes are being considered to provide grants to individuals and local authorities in addition to the Bellwin scheme for the repair of severe storm damage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In May 1990, my Department issued a circular to all local authorities setting out the various sources of central Government funding available to them to offset expenditure arising out of an emergency. In addition to the Bellwin scheme, grant may be payable on emergency works carried out by authorities under the Coast Protection Act 1949 and on confirmed flood prevention schemes under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961.

  The British Red Cross Society has recently assumed responsibility for the receipt and distribution of European Commission grant aid. This may be awarded at the European Commission's discretion to member states for the relief of families worst affected by abnormally severe weather conditions.

  Inverary Bypass
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made to assess the economic viability of options for the proposed bypass at Inverary; when he expects to conclude consultations; when he expects to produce draft road orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Consultations with the principal landowner are currently being pursued. Subject to a satisfactory road alignment being agreed, it is the intention to ask the district council to safeguard this line. The scheme cannot command priority at present in the trunk road programme given the high returns available from competing projects of national importance. Further design work including detailed economic assessments will proceed only when there is a reasonable prospect of early funding being available. Present indications are that this is unlikely to be the case within the next five years.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the reasons that no advertising for the Scottish electricity privatisation has been placed in the Northern Ireland press or television; on what basis the level of advertising there was fixed; and what efforts have been made to contact investors in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The marketing activity for the flotation of the two Scottish electricity companies was planned to ensure that the target audiences were reached in a cost-effective manner. The decision not to advertise specifically in Northern Ireland was taken after consultation with our marketing and advertising advisers.

  Everyone from Northern Ireland who applied for shares in the sale of the regional electricity companies in England and Wales has been sent information about the

  373
  Scottish flotations. Information packs have also been provided at branches of the Ulster bank, where prospectuses and application forms will be available early in June.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the future funding of further education colleges.

  Mr. Lang
  I have received a number of representations since I announced on 21 March the Government's intention to introduce legislation to transfer the funding of further education colleges from local to central Government from 1 April 1993. 1 have presented to Parliament today a White Paper, "Access and Opportunity" (Cm. 1530), which sets out our proposals in more detail.

  Further education colleges are a key element in the Government's education and training policies. Our policies have achieved much over the last decade, including the reform of vocational qualifications and the creation of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies.

  The White Paper builds on these achievements with further measures to stimulate participation and to improve opportunities and access. We propose to extend the training credit scheme to permit local enterprise companies to develop solutions to suit their areas taking account of the experience gained from the pilots that are presently under way. Local enterprise companies will be invited to submit bids for local schemes to operate training credits in their locality from April 1993. The aim will be to extend the coverage of training credits to include a further 10 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds leaving full-time education in Scotland. Our further aim is to extend credits progressively year by year to ensure that by 1996, within the lifetime of the next Parliament, every young person in Scotland who leaves full-time education will be able to have a training credit.

  An important theme of the Government's education and training priorities has been the need to foster close links between employers and the education system. Local enterprise companies have already made it clear that improved links between education and business are one of their key objectives. The compact initiative, which currently operates in urban partnership areas, is a means of developing links between education and employment. It will be extended outwith the urban partnership areas.

  Raising skills levels of the work force and of those qualifying with relevant and worthwhile qualifications is necessary if we are to match the skill of our economic competitors. The SCOTVEC system of vocational qualifications is now well established and is continuing to develop with the reforms of advanced courses and the recent introduction of Scottish vocational qualifications. SVQs are an important part of the system and are based upon competence to undertake a particular job. However, there is a need for a range of more broadly based qualifications to be developed. Accordingly, I will be inviting SCOTVEC to develop such qualifications within the SVQ framework. This will open up more opportunities for people to prepare themselves for a range of occupations and for entry to higher education.

  As now, half the members of college councils will be employers, but in future councils will employ their own
  374
  staff and control and manage assets. They will be given maximum freedom to be responsive to the needs of industry and students. In funding the colleges I will seek to achieve an appropriate balance between rewarding those colleges which perform better than others and achieving the financial stability necessary during a period of structural change.

  The second White Paper, "Higher Education—a new framework", (Cm 1541), which I have also presented to Parliament today with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland will further enhance this policy. One of the Government's major achievements has been to secure sufficient places in higher education for the flow of young people who have the intellectual competence, motivation and maturity to benefit from it and who wish to do so. Our policies have helped to secure record levels of participation. Our higher education White Paper commits us to yet further expansion and increased access in higher education.

  The policies set out in the White Papers will lead to a more skilful and prosperous Scotland. Taken together, they represent a major advance for tertiary education and training. The challenges that lie ahead are great. So are the opportunities.

  A77
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much funding has been allocated to date on upgrading the A77; and if he will report on the progress of upgrading the A77.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: Since 1979 two major improvements on the A77 have been completed at a cost of some £7 million. A further major improvement costing an estimated £4 million is currently under construction. Current plans for the Ayr road route—the proposed link between the M77 and the A77—envisage a start to construction of the trunk road section in line with progress by Strathclyde regional council on the construction of the Glasgow city section of this jointly funded scheme. Strathclyde regional council was given a supplementary capital allocation of £1·4 million in 1990–91 to enable it to bring forward work which would otherwise have had to be paid for in 1991–92 and thus free resources to allow a start to be made to the advance works of the local road section in 1991–92. The regional council was given a further addition of £1–6 million to its capital allocation for 1991–92 to encourage it to proceed with the project. These additions have created the opportunity for Strathclyde to advance the main works if it chooses. After completion of the Ayr road route, dualling of the remaining four-lane single carriageway section of the A77 between Glasgow and Ayr is planned. Four further improvement schemes on the route south of Ayr are also in course of preparation.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice and guidelines have been given to the local enterprise companies in respect of their obligations to provide employment training courses to those citizens who suffer from mental and/or physical handicaps; and if he will make a statement.
  375
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 15 May 1991]: The Government aim to offer unemployed claimants with disabilities a place on employment training or in a job club, an enterprise allowance or a job interview guarantee. An offer of one of these options is guaranteed to unemployed claimants with disabilities who are aged between 18 and 24 and who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months. These priorities have been communicated to local enterprise companies and the conditions of their operating contracts require them to play their part in fulfilling the Government's aim and guarantee.

  Any more general advice and guidelines to local enterprise companies concerning the mentally or physically handicapped would be a matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise; and I have asked the chairmen of both bodies to write to the hon. Member.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

  Treason
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the law Commission is proposing to report on a codification of the law of treason.

  The Attorney-General
  The Law Commission is examining the whole of the criminal law, with a view to proposing a criminal code, and in that context will in due course examine the law of treason.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the number of successful prosecutions brought by the Serious Fraud Office since its creation.

  The Attorney-General
  Fifty-one cases have been brought to trial in which 82 out of 120 defendants have been convicted.

  Appeals
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the number of appeals he has made about sentences; and whether any further appeals are pending.

  The Attorney-General
  A total of 26 cases referred by me have been heard by the Court of Appeal, and a further two by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. In 24 of them a substantially heavier sentence has been substituted. Seven cases remain pending.

  "Kill the Messenger"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will acquire for his office's library a copy of Sir Bernard Ingham's "Kill the Messenger".

  The Attorney-General
  Many claims compete for the resources in present circumstances available for acquisitions by this library and I do not forsee the library purchasing the work to which the hon. Member refers.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Vietnam
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will establish a bilateral aid programme with Vietnam.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government have no immediate plans to establish a direct aid programme to Vietnam, but we are keeping this question under review. Meanwhile we are providing financial support to British agencies for projects in Vietnam.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total aid, additional to previously planned aid, given to Bangladesh since 1 May.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our response to the Bangladesh cyclone, bilaterally and through the European Community, now amounts to £7·85 million. All this is additional to our regular development aid to Bangladesh, which is running at about £50 million a year.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with EC counterparts on technical aid to the Baltic states.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed technical asistance to the Soviet Union, including the Baltic states, at the Foreign Affairs Council on 4 March. The European Commission continues its exploratory contacts with the Soviet authorities. The Baltic states are eligible for assistance under the know-how fund for the Soviet Union.

  Disaster Relief
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what moneys have been allocated for disaster relief for the years 1991–92.

  Mrs Chalker
  The initial provision for humanitarian aid in ODA's main supply estimates for 1991–92 is £75 million. This has been increased by the £30 million of new assistance announced on 29 April.

  Brazil
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the visit to Brazil by the Minister for Overseas Development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My second visit provided an important opportunity to see the environmental projects under our bilateral programme and to discuss further cooperation with key Brazilian Ministers, scientists and institutions. Together with the Minister for the Environment and Countryside I attended the special environment seminar hosted by President Collor and HRH the Prince of Wales. This is helping to advance preparations for the United Nations conference on environment and development in Rio in 1992.

  African Countries (Aid)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what long-term aid and advice on growing food is being given to the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia and other African countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  British aid is currently supporting the following projects related to food production in sub-Saharan Africa: this includes the livestock sector but excludes our involvement in cash crops for export.

  Ethiopia

  Teff Research: To produce improved strain of this indigenous cereal crop.

  Sidamo Rangelands: improved food security on sustainable basis for 10 communities in Sidamo Province.

  Koisha Rural Development: to increase food production and strengthen local economy.

  Western Haraghe: introduction of sustainable system of land use.

  Dairy Goat Project: to encourage ownership and improve productivity in the Highlands.

  Farmers Research Project: assistance to NGOs working with communities in North Omo region.

  Under Joint Funding Scheme co-financing 4 agricultural projects being run or supported by British NGOs

  Sudan and Somalia

  For political, economic and security reasons, long-term, bilateral development assistance to Somalia and Sudan has been suspended, although in Sudan we are co-financing under the joint funding scheme three agriculture projects run or supported by British NGOs. We are also continuing to provide humanitarian aid, and to honour commitments to Sudanese and Somalis in this country on technical co-operation training awards

  Botswana

  Technical Assistance: Eight Veterinary Officers concerned with Beef production, one Agricultural Economist, three Research Officers.

  Cameroon

  Technical assistance to agricultural research in cooperation with the World bank.

  Gambia

  Agricultural development project: research into effects of trypanosomiasis on different breeds of cattle.

  Technical Assistance to develop seed multiplication unit (recently completed).

  Ivory Coast

  Seed multiplication project in conjunction with the Commonwealth Development Corporation (recently completed).

  Kenya

  Rehabilitation of South Nyanza Sugar Company (Sony).

  Agricultural Information Centre: to reinforce work of Extension Services, training and dissemination of information to farmers.

  Kenya Trypanosomasis Research Institute (KETRI) research into tsetse fly and improve livestock production.

  To increase control of rinderpest like diseases in Kenya, through improved diagnosis surveillance, immunisation and understanding of their epidemiology.

  Crop Protection Research strengthening within the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI).

  Agricultural Development Corporation: to improve the efficiency of the ADC.

  Lesotho

  Provision of Livestock Adviser and Agricultural Adviser.

  Malawi

  Likoma/Chizirmlu Artisanal Fisheries Development Project.

  Livestock Disease Evaluation Project.
  378
  Lake Malawi Fisheries Project: provision of expertise, equipment and a vessel to assess the potential for expansion of fisheries development activities on the lake.

  Mauritius

  Farmers Service Centre Project: to provide expert technical advice for small sugar planters including advice on crop diversification.

  Mozambique

  Rehabilitation of Namarroi district: support of agricultural extension training, rehabilitation of roads, small industry and construction of grinding mills, wells and springs.

  Agriculture and Soil Conservation Programme, Nampula City: Gully stabilisation and plot protection, and supply of trees for fuelwood and cultivation.

  Support for small farmers and co-operatives, Zona Verdes, Maputo: Provision of pesticides, equipment, seeds etc, and advice on marketing, finance and planning.

  Nigeria

  Agricultural training for technicians and farm managers.

  Sierra Leone

  Agricultural Extension Training Project at certificate training centres (CTC), Njala University College: Support to construction and staffing of the centre.

  Swaziland

  Provision of three Veterinary Officers concerned with livestock.

  Tanzania

  Goats Extension Project: improving goat husbandry.

  Fisheries Development Project at Lindi/Mtwara.

  National Agriculture and Livestock Research Project: to improve efficiency and productivity of RNR sector.

  West Kilimanjaro Dairy Farm Project; to raise milk output and improve quality of dairy cattle.

  Tengeru Agricultural and Livestock Tutors Training Centre Project: to improve training skills of staff responsible for training extension workers and farmers.

  University Support Programme in training for agricultural engineers.

  Livestock adviser to Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development.

  Zambia

  Adaptive Research in support of the development of Tsetse control Technology in Africa.

  Zimbabwe

  DDT Monitoring: effects of DDT on land.

  Assistance to Meteorological Department for agricultural planning.

  Communal Land Soil Surveying (Provision of expert).

  Insect Pest Management Initiative: Tsetse control.

  Africa General

  Migrant Pest: research to reduce crop losses caused by migrant pests. (Various locations).

  Assistance to International Red Locust Control Organisation for Central and Southern Africa (IRLCOSA): provision of flight maintenance equipment and funding of pilot training.

  Assistance to Desert Locust Control Organisation for Eastern Africa: provision of Operations Adviser and a Pilot.

  Technical Assistance to Pan-Africa Rinderpest Campaign.

  Additionally, under the joint funding scheme, we are co-financing almost 80 long-term agricultural development projects being run or supported by British non-governmental organisations in sub-Saharan Africa other than Sudan and Ethiopia.

  We are also strengthening Africa capacity via numerous training awards tenable in this country: a total of 59 such awards in the fields of agricultural development and food production are currently held by nationals from Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan.

EMPLOYMENT

  Geomagnetism
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he has taken in relation to the geomagnetic survey since the answer of his predecessor as Secretary of State for Energy of 15 May 1989,Official Report, column 3.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 14 May 1991,Official Report, column 124.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Security Bodies
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has anything to add to his reply of 1 May in respect of the original nominating person or body of those appointed to serve on health and social security boards and health and social security area councils.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 1 May, column 199, except that it should be noted that I am still waiting for names from certain of the bodies that might be expected to nominate candidates for the health and social service councils.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the primary schools in Southern education and library board area which inherited a financial deficit on entering LMS, indicating the amount of such deficit for each school.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The schools which overspent under the Southern education and library board's 1990–91 consolidated school allowance scheme and the amounts are as follows:

  Primary School Controlled

  Amount overspent at 31 March 1991 £

  Abercorn

  726·97

  Aghavilly

  1,068·94

  Annaghmore (Portadown)

  11·10

  Armstrong

  3,304·35

  Augher Central

  14·73

  Ballydown

  392·58

  Ballygawley

  260·57

  Ballynenagh

  118·94

  Ballyroney

  212·89

  Benburb

  41·98

  Bessbrook

  351·09

  Cabra (Tandragee)

  142·68

  Carntall

  105·40

  Carrick (Lurgan)

  565·84

  Churchtown

  148·43

  Clare

  56·21

  Clogher Regional

  486·88

  Closkelt

  29·01

  Coagh

  357·97

  Coalisland

  221·45

  Craigavon

  13·87

  Croreagh

  76·55

  Dickson (Lurgan)

  860·19

  Donaghmore (Dungannon)

  362·41

  Donaghmore (Newry)

  12·58

  Dromore Central

  1,642·08

  Drumgor

  391·48

  380

  Primary School Controlled

  Amount overspent at 31 March 1991 £

  Drumsallen

  299·81

  Dungannon

  631·96

  Edendale

  162·84

  Edenderry (Banbridge)

  917·52

  Foley

  136·01

  Glaskermore

  392·82

  Gransha

  246·42

  Hart Memorial

  1,260 36

  Innishmagh

  212·72

  Killylea

  418·85

  Killyman

  931·60

  Kinallen

  666·14

  Kinnego

  147·59

  Lisdrumchor

  26·22

  Lisfearty

  705·99

  Lisnadill

  412·60

  Lisnagleer

  205·02

  Loughbrickland (No. 2)

  981·54

  Lurgan Model

  147·31

  Maralin Village

  857·28

  Markethill

  167·15

  Millington

  187·94

  Milltown

  269·84

  Minterburn

  244·45

  Mountnorris

  182·43

  Moyallon

  247·49

  Moy Regional

  142·41

  Newmills

  332·63

  Newry Model

  96·79

  Orritor

  143·45

  Salter's Grange

  508·36

  Shinn

  148·27

  Stewartstown

  170·63

  Tandragee

  564·18

  The Cope

  145·81

  Tullaghoge

  662·92

  Tullygally

  2,932·56

  Walker Memorial

  185·15

  Waringstown

  2,040·98

  Windsor Hill

  659·88

  Maintained

  All Saints (Ballela)

  385·10

  Anamar

  168·85

  Armagh Christian Brothers

  306·66

  Aughadarragh

  811·38

  Ballylifford

  532·17

  Carrick (Warrenpoint)

  1,199·53

  Carrickrovaddy

  35·90

  Castlecaulfield

  90·60

  Clay

  510·97

  Clintyclay

  27·56

  Clonalig

  178·12

  Clontifleece

  194·04

  Crowhill

  112·19

  Derrychrin

  852·66

  Derrylatinee

  840·72

  Drelincourt

  222·54

  Drumintee

  50·76

  Edendork

  2,934·05

  Eglish (Portadown)

  486·04

  Grange (Kilkeel)

  781·46

  Holy Cross (Attical)

  371·34

  Jonesborough

  822·64

  Killean

  239·27

  Laghey

  998·54

  Lissummon

  256·04

  Loughgall

  627·91

  Loup

  892·39

  Lurgancahone

  127·95

  Middletown Boys'

  325·57

  Mount St. Catherine's

  2,083·37

  Our Lady's (Carrickaduff)

  697·19

  Presentation Convent (Portadown)

  90·39

  Primate Dixon Memorial Boys'

  2,792·92

  Primate Dixon Memorial Girls'

  500·27

  381

  Primary School Controlled

  Amount overspent at 31 March 1991 £

  Roan

  933·09

  Rock

  1,083·91

  Rostrevor Convent of Mercy

  280·69

  Star of the Sea (Lisnacree)

  520·90

  Star of the Sea (Warrenpoint)

  1,385·40

  St. Anthony's

  273·13

  St. Brendan's

  7,407·22

  St. Brigid's (Augher)

  167·43

  St. Brigid's (Drumilly)

  4,467·57

  St. Brigid's (Glassdrummond)

  134·66

  St. Brigid's (Mountjoy)

  65·64

  St. Clare's (Keady)

  450·17

  St. Clare's Convent (Newry)

  4,072·82

  St. Colman's Abbey (Newry)

  2,559·86

  St. Colman's (Annaclone)

  1,333·12

  St. Colman's (Dromore)

  113·03

  St. Colman's Boys' (Kilheel)

  401·68

  St. Colmcille's (Armagh)

  293·86

  St. James' (Tandragee)

  53·49

  St. Jarlath's

  419·24

  St. John's (Kingsisland)

  418·10

  St. John's (Moy)

  33·40

  St. Joseph's Junior (Lurgan)

  1,581·75

  St. Joseph's (Ballymartin)

  411·73

  St. Joseph's (Bessbrook)

  1,277·38

  St. Joseph's (Galbally)

  229·83

  St. Joseph's (Killeenan)

  922·08

  St. Joseph's (Meigh)

  1,016·98

  St. Joseph's (Poyntzpass)

  1,134·96

  St. Lawrence's (Belleeks)

  373·17

  St. Louis' (Middletown)

  395·10

  St. Malachy's (Balymoyer)

  148·2

  St. Malachy's (Carnagat)

  4,517·71

  St. Malachy's (Drummullan)

  672·38

  St. Malachy's (Glencull)

  169·88

  St. Mary's Boys' (Cookstown)

  1,217·34

  St. Mary's (Aughnacloy)

  1,506·53

  St. Mary's (Ballygawley)

  324·18

  St. Mary's (Banbridge)

  1,132·42

  St. Mary's (Barr)

  33·86

  St. Mary's (Cabra)

  879·56

  St. Mary's (Dunamore)

  2,009·81

  St. Mary's (Fivemiletown)

  77·69

  St. Mary's (Granemore)

  522·04

  St. Mary's (Lisbuoy)

  798·49

  St. Mary's (Maghery)

  419·24

  St. Mary's (Mullabawn)

  1,007·93

  St. Mary's (Pomeroy)

  219·01

  St. Mary's (Rathfriland)

  1,015·51

  St. Mary's (Stewartstown)

  2,416·00

  St. Michael's (Clady)

  741·42

  St. Michael's (Finnis)

  598·41

  St. Michael's (Newtownhamilton)

  420·20

  St. Oliver Plunkett's (Forkhill)

  316·90

  St. Patrick's Monastry (Dungannon)

  2,388·17

  St. Patrick's (Annaghmore)

  655·38

  St. Patrick's (Armagh)

  2,309·08

  St. Patrick's (Ballymaghery)

  885·56

  St. Patrick's (Crossmaglen)

  1,730·30

  St. Patrick's (Cullyhanna)

  915·27

  St. Patrick's (Donaghmore)

  10·89

  St. Patrick's (Maralin)

  58·03

  St. Patrick's (Mayobridge)

  1,696·31

  St. Patrick's (Moneymore)

  428·09

  St. Patrick's (Mullinahoe)

  1,118·66

  St. Patrick's (Newry)

  2,929·81

  St. Peter's Boys (Warrenpoint)

  343·96

  St. Peter's (Cloughreagh)

  783·30

  St. Peter's (Lurgan)

  1,498·86

  St. Peter's (Moortown)

  822·71

  St. Teresa's (Lurgan)

  908·57

  Tannaghmore

  386·32

  Tullyherron

  1·78

  Tullymore

  651·38

  Northern Ireland Electricity
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what provisions have been made to ensure that accumulated funds from pension schemes in Northern Ireland Electricity will not be lost to Northern Ireland Electricity employees;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy to require a guarantee that, as a condition of sale, pension terms currently operative in Northern Ireland Electricity will be honoured subsequent to privatisation.

  Mr. Needham
  In line with provisions which were contained in the Electricity Act 1989, the proposed Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order will allow regulations to be made which will ensure that privatisation does not adversely affect the benefits payable to members and pensioners in the NIE pension scheme at the point of transfer.

  Millisle Tourist Project
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Royal Ulster Constabulary will provide any foot patrols in Millisle during the forthcoming summer holiday season.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand that foot patrols operate all year round in Millisle.

  Race Relations Act
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about extending the Race Relations Act to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Foyle on 27 February,Official Report, Vol.186, columns 515–16. Only the Northern Ireland standing advisory commission on human rights has made representations to me on this matter.

  Prison Rule 25
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 475, for what reason Gerald Clarke was removed from association with other prisoners at Crumlin Road gaol under prison rule 25 (Northern Ireland) 1982; what type of confinement and association he is now receiving; whether he is still on hunger strike; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Gerald Clarke was removed from association with other prisoners under prison rule 25 (Northern Ireland) 1982 as there was concern for his personal safety. He resumed eating prison food on 25 April and after being declared fit by prison medical staff the prisoner was returned to ordinary location on a wing with other untried prisoners.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts,
  383
  by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Staff in post on 1 April

  Grade

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Statistical Posts

  Assistant Secretary Economist

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Chief Agricultural Economist

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Director of Research and Information

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Chief Agricultural Economist

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Senior Principal Scientific Officer

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Senior Principal Economist

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Principal Agricultural Economist

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Principal Scientific Officer

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  3

  Principal Economist

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  3

  3

  9

  7

  10

  12

  Principal Research Officer

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Senior Agricultural Economist

  3

  3

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  4

  5

  5

  5

  4

  5

  Deputy Economist

  1

  1

  2

  1

  4

  2

  3

  2

  3

  9

  13–5

  15–5

  15–5

  Senior Scientific Officer

  3

  3

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Senior Research Officer

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scientific Officer

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  8

  7

  7

  8

  9

  9

  7

  9

  Senior Assistant Economist

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  18

  20

  19

  16

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  3

  3

  3

  2

  3

  Agricultural Economist

  4

  4

  6

  6

  3

  5

  5

  5

  4

  5

  4

  5

  5

  Assistant Economist

  3

  3

  2

  2

  3

  6

  5

  7

  8

  3

  2

  3

  6

  Agricultural Inspector Grade III/IV

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agricultural Inspector Group 4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  Inspector Group 3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agricultural Inspector Group 2

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  Assistant Agricultural Economist

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  5

  4

  5

  5

  3

  4

  4

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Sandwich Course Student

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Administrative Posts

  Principal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Deputy Principal

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  4

  Staff Officer

  5

  5

  4

  3

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Executive Officer I

  9

  10

  11

  11

  12

  12

  11

  13

  11

  13

  12

  13

  12

  Executive Officer II

  15

  16

  15

  14

  24

  23

  22

  21

  22

  23

  27

  26

  28

  Administrative Officer

  47

  47

  43

  43

  54

  41

  42

  46

  54

  61

  59

  65

  66

  Administrative Assistant

  26

  26

  28

  25

  22

  35

  34

  31

  32

  32

  31

  33

  34

  Personal Secretary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  School Transport
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many drivers are employed on early afternoon transport in each education board area; and what is the total number of hours early afternoon driving for each board area;

  (2) how many schools received early afternoon transport for primary 1 and primary 2 students, in each education board area in each year since 1985.

  Number of schools receiving early afternoon transport

  Education and Library Board

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  North-Eastern

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  South-Eastern

  24

  24

  24

  24

  25

  25

  Southern

  49

  49

  49

  50

  52

  52

  The Belfast and Western education and library boards do not provide early afternoon transport.
  384
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: The information could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. However, the available data in respect of the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office are as follows:

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Education and Library Board

  Number of drivers

  Hours per day

  North-Eastern

  20

  20

  South-Eastern

  25

  25

  Southern

  56

  56

  Lay Visitors
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the 41 lay visitors who are permitted to visit non-paramilitary suspects detained in Royal Ulster Constabulary holding centres in Northern Ireland.
  385
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 May 1991]:. No. Lay visitors are appointed by the police authority and I understand that it does not propose to disclose their names.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to meet Age Concern to discuss problems which arise for persons in residential homes who have difficulty in meeting the difference between income support and the actual cost of places.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Age Concern last Monday.

  Young Persons (Income Support)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his Department's policy on 16 and 17-year-olds' entitlement to income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's policy is to offer 16 and 17-year-olds the positive options of education, entering employment, or taking up the Government's guarantee of quality training through youth training. But income support is still available to those vulnerable groups of young people who are unable to participate in YT or those seeking a YT place who would otherwise suffer severe hardship.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what long-term savings he expects to make as a result of the operation of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

  Poor Families
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the latest measures to improve the living standards of families living in poverty in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  Our reformed social security system enables us to concentrate help, over and above maintaining the real value of benefits, wherever it will do most good. That is why, for example, from this October, families with children will have seen the real value of their income-related benefits increase by £0·5 billion a year compared with the position before the reforms.

  Arcola Street Office
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next plans to visit Arcola street social security office to discuss the operations of the office.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Social Fund
  Sir William Shelton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of converting all social fund loans to grants.

  Mr. Scott
  As at 31 March 1991 the accumulated net cost of outstanding loans over the lifetime of the fund stands at £142 million. This is the difference between gross loans expenditure up to 31 March and recoveries repaid at that date. This represents the cost to the taxpayer of writing off all current loan debt.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the social fund budgets for Finsbury Park and Highgate offices for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr Scott
  Information concerning the social fund budgets of particular offices is in the Library.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the net Treasury input to the social fund has been each year since its inception and in the current year.

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund net expenditure is as follows:

  Year

  £m

  1988–89

  152

  1989–90

  131

  1990–91

  1156

  1991–92

  1161

  1 The figure quoted for 1990–91 is provisional.

  2 The figure quoted for 1991–92 is the estimated net provision.

  National Insurance
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the revenue which would arise from the removal of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Scott
  If the ceiling for employees and self-employed national insurance contributions were abolished, it is currently estimated that contribution yield would increase in a full year by £2·5 billion and £0·5 billion respectively. Based on 1990–91 figures it is estimated that some 3–4 million employees and 0–5 million self-employed people would pay more in contributions.

  Refugees
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if any additional resources are being made available to London offices to deal with the number of refugees arriving in London.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Yes. The staffing position is always kept under review. Additional staff are added to offices with high numbers of refugee claims. Area reserve staff are also available to assist district offices. In Newham district, the office has eight staff more than their calculated staff resources based on workload data and has received extensive help from the area reserve staff.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of the change in single-parent benefit on child benefit.
  387
  Mr. Jack
  One-parent benefit is paid as an addition to child benefit for anyone bringing up a child alone. Its structure has not changed since the introduction of child benefit.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners own their own homes; and what assessment he has made of how this is likely to change over the next 20 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice).

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have some form of private income to top up the state pension and benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss).

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the latest available figures showing the proportion of lone parents who receive maintenance.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Sir Marcus Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have benefited from increases in the earnings disregard in invalid care allowance in the last two years.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) earlier today.

  Young Persons (Benefits)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the MORI research commissioned by his Department into benefit provision for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Mr. Jack
  The cost of the MORI research was £120,000.

  Long-stay Hospital Patients
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the treatment of long-stay hospital patients in receipt of income support with respect to mortgage interest payments.

  Mr. Scott
  Income support help with mortgage interest could continue for up to 52 weeks in such circumstances. This is in line with the rules for others on housing benefit or income support who are temporarily absent from their homes. It would not be right to use public funds to subsidise empty housing indefinitely.

  Claimants, Blyth Valley
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of appeals heard in his Department's Blyth Valley areas decided by tribunals concerning(a) income support, (b) mobility allowance, (c) attendance allowance, (d) injury and disablement benefit, (e) invalidity benefit and (f) non income related benefits in 1989 and 1990.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available statistics relating to social security appeal tribunals are for the period ending 30 June 1990. National administrative statistics for appeal tribunals are not available for areas smaller than a former social security region. The relevant information for the former north-eastern region is in the table.

  Total Number of Social Security Appeals heard and decided

  North Eastern Region

  Year ending 31 December 1989

  Half year ending 30 June 1990

  Income Support

  4,182

  2,176

  Mobility Allowance

  214

  117

  Attendance Allowance

  23

  15

  Disablement Benefit

  459

  274

  Invalidity Benefit

  1,418

  735

  Child Benefit

  233

  147

  Invalid Care Allowance

  73

  37

  Maternity Allowance

  16

  12

  Retirement Pension

  167

  102

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  26

  15

  Unemployment Benefit

  2,787

  1,112

  Widows Benefit

  115

  48

  Next Steps
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those bodies currently with agency status within his Department under the next steps initiative; and whether he has identified any further candidates for agency status under the initiative within his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The agencies currently established within the Department are:

  The Benefits Agency, established in April 1991;

  The Contributions Agency, established in April 1991;

  The Information Technology Services Agency, established in April 1990;

  The Resettlement Agency, established in May 1989.

  We plan to establish the Child Support Agency in early 1993.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated numbers of severely disabled people who will meet the present criteria set out by the independent living fund for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not possible to estimate the numbers of people who will all meet the criteria set by the trustees for receiving help from the ILF.

  The number of people receiving help from the ILF at the end of March 1989 was 890. The number at the end of March 1990 was 4,262; and 7,724 at the end of March 1991.

  Pensioners
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham of 29 January,Official Report, column 486, whether the weekly incomes on which the figures are based include or exclude (a) SERPS and (b) means-tested benefits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The table in the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham on 29 January at column 486 shows the number of married couple pensioners and the number of single pensioners with incomes in excess of basic state retirement pensions, net additional (SERPS) pension and graduated pension plus supplementary pensions, but not housing benefit.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the answer given to the then hon. Member for Kensington on 14 July 1987,Official Report, column 451, showing the number of pensioners with gross weekly incomes other than the state basic pension of up to £5, £5 to £10, £10 to £15, £15 to £20, £20 to £30, £30 to £40, £40 to £50, £50 to £60, £60 to £70, £70 to £80, £80 to £90, £90 to £100, £100 to £110, £110 to £120, £120 to £ 130, £130 to £140. £140 to £150, £150 to £200, £250 to £300, £300 to £400, £400 to £500 and over £500, distinguishing between single and married pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Numbers (thousands)

  Married

  Single

  Up to £5

  130

  610

  £5 to £10

  110

  360

  £10 to £15

  120

  450

  £15 to £20

  150

  480

  £20 to £30

  330

  990

  £30 to £40

  230

  450

  £40 to £50

  180

  220

  £50 to £60

  130

  160

  £60 to £70

  120

  110

  £70 to £80

  110

  80

  £80 to £90

  120

  100

  £90 to £100

  70

  80

  £100 to £110

  50

  60

  £110 to £130

  110

  70

  £130 to £150

  100

  50

  £150 to £200

  120

  70

  £200 and over

  280

  120

  Note: The figures show respectively thousands of pensioner married couples and single pensioners. The income bands have been aggregated in some cases to provide a statistically adequate sample.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1987.

DEFENCE

  RAF Caerwent
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether projectile ammunition is stored at RAF Caerwent;

  (2) if he will list the movements by road or rail of ammunition and weapons to and from RAF Caerwent in each of the last 12 months;

  (3) if he will list the types of ammunition and weapons and their tonnages currently stored at RAF Caerwent.
  390
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 9 May 1988 at column 1.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of the safeguarded areas around the perimeter of RAF Caerwent in which his Department has in the past sought restrictions on planning applications for new developments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Copies of the Ministry of Defence (Caerwent) Explosives Storage Area Direction 1988 are held by those local planning authorities whose areas are affected by it. The direction is freely accessible to the public via those authorities. I have, however, placed copies in the Library of the House.

  The Gulf
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the approximate number of battle casualty reinforcements attached to the 1 Armoured Division during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our policy to give details of operational contingency plans.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the operational ability of those forces deployed with RAF Germany which were not deployed to the Gulf declined or increased during the course of Operation Granby;

  (2) whether the supply of spare parts for Tornado and Jaguar aircraft and Puma and Chinook helicopters deployed with the RAF in Germany altered as a result of the deployment of RAF forces to the Gulf as part of Operation Granby;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 28 November 1990 to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), what was the approximate degree of the adverse effect on BAOR forces that remained in Germany during Operation Granby resulting from the decision to deploy the 1 Armoured Division to the Gulf;

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 28 November 1990 to the hon. Member for Rhondda, what was the approximate degree of the consequential effects on the spares position in BAOR resulting from the deployment of 1 Armoured Division to the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Army and RAF units which deployed on Operation Granby were given priority in terms of equipment, including spares, and personnel. This had some effect on the operational availablility or readiness of forces which remained in Germany and on certain spares holdings, but it is not our practice to comment in detail on such matters.

  Defence Equipment Exports
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the financial effect on his equipment procurement budget of the export of British defence equipment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Where the export of British defence equipment enables United Kingdom companies to spread the cost of their overheads, it reduces the cost of equipment to my Department. However, it is not possible accurately to quantify this effect. In addition, the
  391
  Department benefits from receipts from commercial exploitation levies paid on exports of defence equipment whose development the Department funded.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now change his policy regarding the release of information on the export of non-lethal British defence equipment to(a) Iraq and (b) the rest of the world.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I see no reason to do so.

  Defence Budget
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 292, whether in the last 12 months he has provided any non-governmental organisation or individual with details of the contents of the long-term costing.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on 2 May, at column 292.

  United Nations Military Staff Committee
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, columns 570–1, what is the service rank of the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations military staff committee and the amount and type of administrative support provided to the United Kingdom representative; and whether he has submitted any documents for consideration by the committee in the last four years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The head of the British defence staff, which is a major general level appointment, acts as the head of the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations military staff committee. Administrative support for the United Kingdom delegation is provided by members of the British defence staff, Washington. No papers have been submitted to the military staff committee by the United Kingdom delegation in the last four years.

  HMS Fearless and Intrepid (Replacement)
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in defining and designing replacement assault ships for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed on 25 July 1990 that we intend to retain an amphibious capability. We are considering how best to maintain in the longer term the capability currently provided by the assault ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

  "Kill the Messenger"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will acquire for his Department's library a copy of Sir Bernard Ingham's "Kill the Messenger".

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Ministry of Defence library has one copy of Sir Bernard Ingham's "Kill the Messenger" on order.

HEALTH

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of funds provided to help drug misusers is being given to those addicted to benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions during the last 12 years the recommendations of the review board have not been implemented in respect of the salaries of doctors and dentists; and what is his estimate of the cumulative shortfall resulting from variation of, or delays in, implementation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have implemented in full the recommendations of the review body on doctors' and dentists' remuneration except in 1981, when the award was abated, and in 1989 and 1990 when two recommendations were rejected in each year. The 1981 abatement was restored at the start of 1984. Implementation of the award has been staged or deferred in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990 and 1991, but in all cases the awards were or will be in full payment by the end of the financial year to which they related.

  By the time this year's awards are in full payment from 1 December, doctors' and dentists' pay will have increased by 37–4 per cent. in real terms since 1978, a rate of increase well above that of most other groups in the public and private sectors.

  Health Authority Reports
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the cost of producing annual reports of the local health authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Braille Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for the reductions in the Braille grant last year to the Royal National Institute for the Blind; and when he expects to make a statement concerning the future level of grant.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have funded the Royal National Institute for the Blind's braille service for many years. In the light of RNIB's comparatively strong financial position, the scope for it to generate alternative sources of income for the braille service and the very pressing demands on the limited available funds, we decided that we could no longer justify the generous level of grant which RNIB had previously received. Accordingly we advised it that its grant of £250,000 would be reduced by £50,000 in 1990–91 and that the situation would be reviewed in 1991–92. We have now awarded a grant of £200,000 a year for three years starting on 1 April 1991 and will review the situation again when the grant expires.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions have taken place between his department and office bearers of the Royal National Institute for the Blind in connection with the funding of Braille publications; and if he will make a statement.
  393
  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Royal National Institute for the Blind on 26 March following two earlier meetings with my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. As well as a very full discussion about the Braille grant we discussed other funding possibilities and have subsequently invited RNIB to submit a funding proposal for a community care project.

  HIV Virus and AIDS
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total planned expenditure into research by Her Majesty's Government relating to the HIV virus and AIDS; and what is the planned total for the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 19 March 1991 at columns 85–86.

  The Government make available earmarked funds to regional health authorities as a contribution towards the costs incurred in helping prevent the spread of HIV infection and providing treatment, counselling and support for those affected by HIV and AIDS. Since 1985 over £500 million has been made available in this way. Regional and district health authorities have discretion to use these funds for research purposes, but there is no central record kept of the amounts spent or planned to be spent.

  Northumberland Area Services
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average general practitioner list size for the Northumberland family health services authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 1 October 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, the average general practitioner list size in the Northumberland family health services authority's area was 1,773.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the average unit cost of bed spaces in Northumberland in(a) Northumberland local authority, (b) private care homes, (c) private nursing homes and (d) voluntary homes for elderly persons.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 1990–91 estimates published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy give the gross cost per place filled in Northumberland's own homes for elderly people, excluding capital charges, as £163 per resident per week. Information on the costs of private and voluntary homes is not held centrally.

  Hospital Waste
  Mr Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much funding has been given to health authorities to update their existing waste incinerators since 1987; and how much of that has been given to Leicestershire health authority;

  (2) how many waste incinerators, for disposing of contaminated waste from hospitals, are currently in use in England and Wales; and what information he has on how much it costs to run them each year;
  394
  (3) how many hospital waste incinerators are classified as out of date in England and Wales; and what estimate has been made of how much it will cost to upgrade them to new Environmental Protection Act 1990 standards;

  (4) what information he has on how many health authorities in England and Wales are preparing to send hospital waste to Germany to be changed to safe fuel before returning it to Britain to be disposed of.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Financial provision for the disposal of clinical waste is subsumed within overall annual allocations to health authorities. There are approximately 600 NHS-owned incinerators in England. Their running costs, maintenance, upgrading and any plans for replacement are a matter for individual health authorities.

  A "Strategic Guide for Waste Management" was issued to health authorities/NHS trusts in March 1991 (ELM(a1)M/1), a copy of which is available in the Library. It included guidance on meeting incinerator standards required by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and arising from relinquishment of NHS Crown immunity on 1 April 1991. It recommended that health authorities/NHS trusts examine a wide range of options for future clinical waste disposal of which wholly NHS owned and operated incinerators is only one. Decisions remain the province of individual health authorities/NHS Trusts.

  We are not aware of any proposals to send clinical waste to Germany for reprocessing.

  South Yorkshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received during the last six months from residents in South Yorkshire expressing support for the transfer of the South Yorkshire ambulance service to trust status.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  The application from the South Yorkshire ambulance service will be subject to a statutory period of public consultation conducted by Yorkshire regional health authority for a three-month period commencing 13 May 1991.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what salaries are currently paid to those officials within the national health service who are in charge of the ambulance service and their respective areas, including the chief ambulance officer of the South Yorkshire ambulance service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally and details of payments awarded to individual NHS employees are a confidential matter between employer and employee. I understand that most officers in charge of ambulance services are employed on NHS senior manager terms. Senior managers are on performance-linked contracts and paid a fiat rate salary on a 30-point pay spine. The spine ranges from £13,560 to £42,290 per annum.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department is proposing to take action to respond to the European Parliament resolution B-1537/90 which calls on member state Governments to realise the needs of elderly people and make proper provision for them.
  395
  Mr. Dorrell
  We have noted the terms of the motion for a resolution. It is for the Parliament to decide whether it wishes to refer the issue to the Commission.

  The Government are promoting a wide range of measures to develop services for older people. In doing so, we encourage the involvement of the voluntary sector and of older people themselves wherever possible.

  Following agreement on the decision of the Council of the European Communities on actions for the elderly, the United Kingdom intends to play a full part both in the programme of activities and in the European Year of the Elderly in 1993.

  Ambulance Service Trusts
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to national health service trusts on the salaries and fringe benefits to be paid to those who are the principal directors of the ambulance services which have become trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Non-executive directors of NHS trusts are remunerated at a rate of £5,000 per annum. Remuneration for executive directors of NHS trusts is a matter for the trust board.

  Disposable Needles
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has completed his discussions about supplying, on prescription, disposable needles to diabetics using pen type insulin injectors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The discussions with suppliers referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend on 18 December 1990, at column 155, are continuing.

  Cot Deaths
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the report of the independent experts set up in March 1990 to investigate whether the emission of toxic gases from fungal growth on cot mattresses could be a cause of cot deaths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The report of the working group of independent experts set up by the chief medical officer will be published shortly.

  Hornsey Centre for Children Learning
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his medical advisers visited the Hornsey centre for children learning; and what his policy is in publishing advice from medical advisers in relation to such centres.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The most recent visit was on 9 April. Reports on such visits are confidential to the institution visited and the Departments concerned.

  Midwives
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives were working in the national health service in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available; and what has been the trend in perinatal and maternal mortality rates since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There were 19,2000 whole-time equivalent qualified midwives working in the hospital 396
  and community health service in England at 30 September 1989. The equivalent figure for 1979 was nearly 4,000 lower at 15,500.

  The perinatal and maternal mortality rates have both fallen further since 1979.

  The perinatal mortality rate has fallen from 14·6 to 8·1 per 1,000 total births and the maternal mortality rate has fallen from 0·11 to 0·09 per 1,000 total births.

  Women GPs
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women general medical practitioners there were in 1970, 1979, 1989 and 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The figures are provided in the table.

  Last year the number of women GPs increased by a further 4·5 per cent. continuing the encouraging trend of previous years. Now nearly one in four GPs are women.

  Number of women GPs (England)

  Percentage of females to the total

  1970

  2,082

  11

  1979

  3,261

  15

  1989

  5,830

  23

  1990

  6,093

  24

  Rehabilitation (Brain Injuries)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government are doing to improve national health service rehabilitation services for people with brain injury.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are pleased to announce a central Government initiative to improve rehabilitation services for people with brain injury. We will support the development of a number of centres around the country which can act as a model for the rest of the national health service. We shall be inviting bids for funds. We shall also be funding a research study to evaluate the services provided.

  We recognise the vital contribution which skilled rehabilitation can make to recovery from the traumatic effects of brain injury. The aim is to restore normal functioning as far as possible and to return the patient to independent living in the community.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Commercial Whaling
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with whom he has had consultations on commercial whaling.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have recently discussed our policy on this matter with the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare and wildlife link, the umbrella group for the major United Kingdom environmental organisations. In addition, the House itself debated this subject on 30 April. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary discussed the issue with the Norwegian Government on his recent visit to Norway and my officials have had a number of meetings with representatives of Governments of some members of the International Whaling Commission.

  Animal Cruelty, Spain
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the representations he has received to date concerning cruelty to animals in Spain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received representations from Compassion in World Farming and the RSPCA, which have both provided video-taped material alleging breaches in Spanish slaughterhouses of the EC provisions on pre-slaughter stunning. We are asking the Commission what action it intends to take and in the meantime we continue to refuse to license exports of food animals to Spain.

  Farm Incinerators
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what consideration his Department is giving to exempting, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, rules monitoring small farm incinerators, provided they are lined and fitted with flame-wash after-burners;

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress on discussions he is having with the farming industry on exemptions on waste incineration under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provisions; and when he expects to conclude discussions.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following discussions with farming and hunting interests it has been agreed that there should be an exemption from the inspection and authorisation requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for incinerators designed to incinerate certain farm wastes, including animal carcases, at a rate of no more than 50 kg per hour.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations 'which obtained contracts to carry out toxicological evaluations of pesticide active ingredients in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Organisations with contracts to evaluate pesticide active ingredients in 1990–91 were:

  Inveresk Research International

  Life Science Research

  British Industrial Biological Research

  Dr. Brian Hunter (Independent Consultant)

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations 'which will be consulted over the review of pesticides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following organisations are on the consultation list for the review of older pesticides, in addition to the approval holders concerned.

  Association of Consultants to the Bioscience Industries

  Association of County Public Health Officers

  Association of Independent Crop Consultants

  Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Brewers Society

  British Agricultural Export Council

  British Agrochemicals Association

  398

  British Agrochemicals Supply Industry Scheme

  British Association for Chemical Specialists

  British Association of Landscape Industries

  British Association of Plant Breeders

  British Bee Farmers Association

  British Bee Keepers Association

  British Chemical Distributors and Traders Association

  British Crop Protection Council

  British Pest Control Association

  British Pot Plant Growers Association

  British Railways Board

  British Society of Plant Breeders

  British Wood Preserving Association

  Campaign for Freedom of Information

  Campden Food Preservation Research Association

  Chemical Industries Association

  Consumer Association

  Consumers in the European Community Group

  Council for Environmental Conservation

  Countryside Commission

  Countryside Commission for Scotland

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Information Bureau

  Friends of the Earth Ltd.

  Friends of the Earth (Scotland)

  Fruit and Vegetable Canners Association

  National Consumer Council

  National Farmers Union

  National Farmers Union of Scotland

  National Farmers Union (Wales)

  National Federation of Consumer Groups

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  Pesticides Trust

  Public Health and Industrial Pesticides Council

  Royal Horticultural Society

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Trade Union Congress

  Transport and General Workers Union

  Water Authorities Association

  Welsh Consumer Council

  Wickham Laboratories Ltd.

  United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association

  Commission of the European Communities and regulatory authorities in other countries, where appropriate.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of BSE confirmed cases in the United Kingdom for each month from October 1990 until April 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of confirmed cases of BSE in the United Kingdom listed by month of onset of clinical signs, from October 1990 to December 1990, the latest month for which figures are available, is as follows:

  Month (1990)

  Number

  October

  1,230

  November

  1,315

  December

  1,540

  Milk Quotas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to phase out milk quotas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Milk quotas are decided upon by the whole European Community and for that reason I expect them to continue for some years to come.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of. Manchester.

CFCs: Use in Government Premises
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to reprocess or harmlessly dispose of CFC refrigerants used in government air conditioning and refrigeration installations when this is necessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, a speedy recovery and return to his place in the House.
Existing refrigeration equipment in government premises is kept in use only while operationally necessary. CFC refrigerants recovered from equipment during maintenance or dismantling are returned to the manufacturers for reprocessing or for safe disposal if the CFCs cannot be recycled.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her good wishes to my noble friend, which I shall pass on. The Government are the largest single users of CFCs; indeed, it has been estimated that they account for one-third of the total use. Does the Minister agree therefore that the Government have a particular responsibility in setting an example — for instance, by including in new contracts clauses relating to safe disposal; by encouraging research and development; hut, above all, by pioneering safe
2
disposal? Might there not be a commercial opportunity for the Government in taking a lead in that area?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree that the Government, being large users of CFCs, have a responsibility to set an example. A detailed manual specifically sets out handling and disposal arrangements together with contract requirements for contractors working with CFCs and/or consultants who are consulting about them. Everyone who carries out work for any government department is subjected to the requirements of the manual.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that there is at least one commercial company in this country which has devised a scheme for the disposal of CFCs from refrigerators? Is it correct that the company has stated publicly that because the costs are substantial, legislation is required which will enable local authorities to finance the disposal of CFCs using the new process?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that not only one but many companies are working on finding a substitution for CFCs and developing their safer handling. There is no doubt that companies approach the Government for assistance as regards a change in legislation or for funding. I believe that the alternative method of disposal to which the noble Lord refers is very expensive. At this stage the Government have a good record in phasing out CFCs well ahead of all the requirements of the original Montreal Protocol and the updated agreement. Where disposal of CFCs takes place, it is safe; and, where possible, re-use is resorted to.

Young People: Social Security Benefits
2.39 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a review will be undertaken of the benefits for young people aged 16 to 18 who have

3
been in care and in need, particularly in view of the report to be published on 20th May by a consortium of national children's organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government are closely monitoring policy in this area. We shall study carefully the report of the national children's organisations alongside the independent research that the Government commissioned last year from MORI, a copy of which I expect to receive shortly.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that young people aged between 16 and 18 who have been in care for many years and who therefore have no home background or parental support are vulnerable to vagrancy, prostitution, begging and juvenile crime? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that while his ministry is important in helping such children a co-ordinated, overall policy is required? It should be directed at all the ministries involved; that is, those dealing with housing, work, youth employment, education and health. Will my noble friend make representations to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to set up a review which can report to Parliament on an overall, co-ordinated policy for these young people as recommended in the excellent report Fit For Nothing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the Government's policies are co-ordinated but I take note of the points made by my noble friend. Young people who have been in care are given special treatment for benefit purposes. A young person who is in care immediately before his or her 16th birthday and who is living away from home may receive income support for up to 16 weeks in order to find a job or youth training. Discretionary payments made by local authorities to young people leaving care are ignored for income support purposes. Those leaving care and receiving income support are a priority group for community care grants from the social fund.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister have any information about the effectiveness of the youth training schemes for such youngsters? The case for not giving them benefit has rested on the Government's argument that a place on a youth training scheme is available for each young person. Have the Government any information to show whether that is true on a local basis rather than on a nationwide basis? Furthermore, do they have information about the effectiveness of the schemes? Most of the information that one receives shows that while some are extremely good, others are inadequate and would justify refusal on the part of the youngsters concerned.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that many of the schemes are effective and that many provide valuable training. The guarantee of a place can be met in most parts of the country. We believe that young people between the ages of 16 and 17 should stay in full-time education, seek work or undertake youth training. We
4
do not believe that the option of claiming benefit should be available to them without seeking work or training.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord says "most". What about those not covered by "most"? The word "most" implies that for some, matters are not satisfactory.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we hope that most young people will be found a youth training place and that the TECs will make sure that those having difficulties will eventually find a place. If they are unable to find such a place and if they are suffering severe hardship, then benefit will be available.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the excellent report to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred, almost 30 per cent. of young people who applied for severe hardship allowance last year were denied it? Will he not look again at the operation of the benefit rules which seem to be operated in a very subjective way by a number of DSS officials to ensure that young people receive suitable support where it is required?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously, not every claim of severe hardship will be met. The noble Baroness mentioned that 30 per cent. had had their applications refused. But 70 per cent. were successful in their applications. Claims are looked at sympathetically by expert officers in the severe hardship unit of my department.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that 30 per cent. is a high figure and that a number of that 30 per cent. may well be sleeping on the streets?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, those suffering from severe hardship will receive income support. Those matters are looked at sympathetically by officers from my department.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government not give a firmer assurance as regards the Question asked by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and referred to in the other supplementary questions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as we have said on many occasions, we shall continue to monitor policy on this issue. We are awaiting independent research carried out by MORI; we shall consider that when it is received.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, a great many 16 and 17 year-olds are denied income support. Given that income support is meant to provide for basic subsistence needs, will the Minister inform us of the objective research upon which the Government based their decision that the needs of a young person aged 17 who is living independently are smaller than those of a person aged 20 or 25 who is living independently? What research has been carried out which demonstrates the need for that discrimination?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no evidence that people cannot survive on income support levels. A

5
young person who has to live away from home on income support will receive income support at the 18 to 24 year-old rate.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is the review conducted by MORI concerned only with supplementary benefit or is it also concerned with housing, education and training? Will it be an overall co-ordinated report or merely a report for one department?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend will know that my honourable friend Mrs. Shephard announced last year that research will be conducted by MORI into the position of 16 and 17 year-olds. The research will have two main elements. First, it will look at a representative sample of some 500 successful and unsuccessful applications 'for income support under the severe hardship provisions. Secondly, it will collect detailed qualitative data on young people's experience of the benefit system.

Prisons: Industrial Disputes
2.46 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
In how many prisons there are now industrial disputes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there were industrial disputes at 40 prisons in England and Wales as at 14th May 1991.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Earl not find that a very disquieting figure? What are the Government intending to do about these never-ending disputes in our prisons? Last October the noble Earl told me in a Written Answer that there had been 70 such disputes in different prison department establishments. We are now told that 40 are still in existence. What do the Government propose to do to bring peace to our prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, these are not matters of industrial action; they are disputes. There is a formal agreement for resolving differences of opinion. I cannot tell the noble Lord when the Prison Officers' Association or others will stop bringing about disputes. The prison service has been going through a great change since 1987 and the introduction of Fresh Start. Obviously that produces problems periodically which are there to be resolved. Industrial disputes are different from industrial action.
Lard Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, what percentage of the total number of prisons is represented by the 40 prisons in which my noble friend tells us there are disputes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are 125 prisons in all and that represents a proportion of them.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his mathematics. They are obviously as good as mine. Does he agree that one problem is the recent directive issued by the Home Office stating that
6
there will be no increase in manning levels this year to compensate for a further reduction in working hours? If there are 40 disputes now, does the Minister agree that after the directive and the response which it has provoked he can expect a few more in the not too distant future?
Has the Minister seen the blistering letter written by the Prison Governors Association to the Home Secretary? If so, will he answer the question it poses. It asks whether the Home Secretary will give:
"a clear undertaking that if additional staffing requirements are identified by a staffing assessment, you will take the necessary steps to obtain that additional staff".
Does he agree that if that assurance were given, it may go a considerable way towards bringing peace to our prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is a complicated issue and I do not wish to go into too much detail. However, the total number of Prison Officers' Association staff is 24,000. It has increased by 4,000 over the three years since 1987; it is increasing by another 2,500 this financial year. At the same time the prison population has gone down from 51,000 in 1987 to 45,000 now. That is a substantial increase in the ratio of prison officers to the prison population.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister is right. If the letter had come from the Prison Officers' Association that might be an answer; but it is the governors who are writing in these terms to the Home Secretary.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that does not alter the facts or the figures.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is resort had to ACAS or any other independent organisation to resolve these long-standing disputes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the principle is that if the local Prison Officers' Association has a dispute it makes representations to the governor and he tries to resolve the problem. If there is no agreement, it is registered as a dispute and the governor informs the head of the industrial relations branch of the Home Office and the area manager. There is then an area dispute meeting with the governor, the area manager, the Prison Officers' Association local committee and the national executive member. If there is no agreement the matter goes to national level, where the same people, including the head of the industrial relations branch of the Home Office, take part, and they decide what to do. Either the employers impose their view or the Prison Officers' Association takes industrial action. A great deal of effort is made to resolve disputes before they reach that level.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, these disputes have gone on for years. The situation that the noble Earl reported to the House today is still profoundly unsatisfactory. Can he indicate whether, given that most of the disputes concern manning levels, thought is being given by the Home Office to obtain some form of independent analysis of staffing levels in individual prisons with the object of bringing these disputes to an end?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the introduction of Fresh Start produced a lot of problems. The Government agreed to increase staffing levels nationally. However, only 25 disputes over staffing levels occurred— though of course that is 25 too many. It is our intention and desire that there should be fewer disputes in the prison service. I agree that the position is unsatisfactory.

Iraq: Arms Embargo
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
In light of a report in the Financial Times on 3rd May of an Iraqi arms procurement network operating in Europe and the United States of America, what steps they propose to take in conjunction with the European Community and the United States Government to deal with the situation.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, Britain has had strict controls on arms sales to Iraq since 1980. United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 established a world-wide trade embargo against Iraq, reaffirmed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. We are in close touch with the United States and our EC partners on its enforcement. We have no evidence that arms are reaching Iraq.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, an article in a responsible journal indicated that the desires of this Government and the American Government have been thwarted. Perhaps the noble Earl can say what knowledge the Government possess through intelligence and DTI services of what is known as the "Iraqi procurement network" detailed in the Financial Times article. At any time before the Gulf war, were the Government aware of the British company, Matrix Churchill Limited, supplying Iraq with what it required and of its participation in what has been described as money-laundering activities? Those are extremely serious issues which, in view of the magnificent efforts made by British and American troops, need to be thoroughly answered and examined by the British Parliament.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, to the best of the Government's knowledge the network in the UK to which the noble Lord alludes has not functioned since the imposition of sanctions. I cannot comment on the Matrix Churchill case because, as he is aware, it is sub judice.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that there is no truth in the allegation in the detailed report in the Financial Times that Saddam Hussein is attempting to resurrect the arms network which according to the evidence was operating up until the Gulf war? Mr. Tom King and General de la Billiere are currently visiting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Is this a matter that they are investigating?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should not be surprised if Saddam Hussein were seeking every
8
means possible to re-equip what is left of his army. However, I assure the House that the British Government are taking seriously their duties under the embargo, which they imposed in 1980 and which was subsequently reinforced through the Security Council resolution, to take action to prevent arms sales.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that neither the British Government nor the United States have evidence of any arms entering Iraq, is he sure also that war materials are not entering Iraq through Jordan? Is he sure that it is not planned that war materials should enter that way?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have no evidence that the Jordanian Government have supplied arms or military assistance to Iraq since 2nd August last year.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with all due respect, that was not the question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question was whether arms were going through Jordan. We have no evidence to that effect, as I said in my original Answer and confirmed in my supplementary answer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Foreign Office be prepared to seek information from our ally, the United States, about the activities of the Banco Nacional de Lavoro referred to in the article? It would appear that from its Atlanta, Georgia branch lots of money for grain and armaments was being supplied to the Iraqi Government almost up to the day of the invasion of Kuwait. Could that be investigated?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we shall discuss most diligently with the United States and our European Community partners any items brought to our attention.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl told the House that the Matrix Churchill case is sub judice. Could he say who is being charged with what?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in spite of the answers from the noble Earl, which I entirely accept, could I ask whether he will look into the possibility that certain types of steel— I called them "war materials" — are either entering Iraq or are intended to be pushed into Iraq through Jordan? Will he inquire into that possibility?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord will furnish me with evidence I shall take up the point.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the report in today's press is correct or incorrect that, despite the United Nations embargo during the 1980s, over the past four years Iraq has received over 150,000 dollars' worth of arms from the permanent members of the Security Council?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is true that Iraq received arms from a number of countries.

Business
2.57 p m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Blatch will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on further and higher education. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Ullswater, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the education and training of 16 to 19 year-olds.

Motor Vehicles (Safety Equipment for Children) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Local Government Finance (Publicity for Auditors' Reports) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Justice Bill
2.59 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 24 [Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment]:
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 57.
Page 18. line 13, leave out from ("life") to end of line 15.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I moved this amendment at the previous stage of the Bill. I put it down again on the ground that the clause as it stands is unintelligible. The House may be happy with that. have asked a good many noble Lords whether any of them can make any sense of it. No one has been able to explain to me what the clause means. For most purposes it can be treated as unintelligible. However, we have more important matters than issues of semantics to deal with today. I do not wish to waste time on the matter if the House wants an unintelligible clause to go into the Bill. I shall therefore not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Alteration of certain penalties]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 57A:
Page 19, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) The power saved by subsection (I) of section 70 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (vagrancy offences) shall not include, in the case of an offence mentioned in paragraph (b) (i) of I hat subsection (sleeping rough), power to impose a fine which exceeds level 1 on the standard scale.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 57A proposes a reduction in the maximum penalty that ,:an be imposed for an offence of sleeping rough under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 from the existing level 3 fine to level 1. This means that the
10
maximum fine that can be imposed for this offence under the Bill's provisions will be two units; that is a maximum of just £8 for the poorest offender up to a maximum of £200 for the wealthiest offender. With this amendment it is correct to consider at the same time Amendment No. 60.
Your Lordships will remember that we had a very full discussion of the vagrancy offences during Committee. Several noble Lords questioned whether it was right for the criminal law to provide for any punishment for those who beg or sleep on the streets. There is no dispute that the problems of homelessness go beyond the scope of the criminal law or indeed the criminal justice system. The Government recognise this and a great deal is being done on the practical side to help the homeless.
Last year a special programme of resources was enhanced to provide subsidised accommodation for single homeless projects in London. Some £96 million has been made available over three years to finance emergency direct access shelters and more longer term accommodation. Voluntary organisations are receiving a further £6.5 million to enable them to offer advice and help to the homeless and potentially homeless. That brings to over £100 million the extra resources being made available over three years, not taking into account the substantial allocations to local authorities and housing associations to enable them to help house the homeless. Taking practical steps of this kind is, I believe, the right way to tackle this problem. But, as I said in Committee, the Government do not agree that changes to the nature of offences under the Vagrancy Act, as was proposed in that debate and as is proposed in Amendment No. 60, which is before us again today, should also be part of the solution.
I do understand the anxieties that have been expressed and we have given some further thought to this matter. What we have done, in view of the worries expressed by noble Lords at earlier stages of the Bill, is to look again at the penalties that are available for vagrancy offences. In general, we think that these are about right. However, there is, I think, an argument for looking again at the maximum penalty for the particular offence of sleeping rough.
As I explained in Committee, it is extremely rare for anyone to come before the courts for sleeping rough. No doubt this reflects the fact that no offence is committed where the person had no alternative but to sleep rough. Recent sentencing practice also shows that, where such offences are brought to court, the courts do not use the full scope of their present sentencing powers, which allow for a fine of up to £400 for this offence. In 1989, there were in fact only 16 convictions for sleeping rough throughout the country. The average fine was less than £50. I do not think it would be right to take away from the courts altogether the option of fining for this offence, as Amendment No. 60 proposes. It is for the courts to decide, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, what the right penalty is for the particular offence before them. I do, however, think that in the light of sentencing practice a lower maximum fine is appropriate.
The new amendment in my name suggests a maximum penalty of a level 1 fine. That fine is more in line with the sentencing practices of the courts. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that reducing the penalty for sleeping rough to level 1 is both helpful and sensible. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not know what to make of this amendment. It was tabled only last Thursday and it was supplementary to the Marshalled List. That was the first time that I saw it. It has the effect of pre-empting half of the amendment which is in my name, that of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and others. It would be more effective if the noble Earl reserved this amendment for Third Reading because otherwise it will spoil and cramp the debate on Amendment No. 60, which has been tabled for a considerable time. I should not like that to happen. I wonder whether the noble Earl will consider withdrawing the amendment at this stage so that Amendment No. 60, which has been tabled for a great many days, can be debated without the prejudice of this amendment. Will the noble Earl consider doing that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would not consider that this amendment was prejudicial to his own. The two amendments are on the same subject. We consider it convenient to have the debate on the subject taken together and, if it is required, a vote can be taken separately on each amendment. It will be a pity to have two separate debates on what is principally the same subject.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords. I do not wish to have two separate debates. I wish to have one debate on Amendment No. 60, which omits a fine altogether for both categories of offence. Amendment No. 57A pre-empts Amendment No. 60 by retaining a fine for sleeping rough. If the noble Earl is not disposed to do that then I have no alternative but to agree to continue to debate this amendment, but to ask the House to reject it so that my amendment can be considered as a whole.
This subject has been before the House for a considerable period of time. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, introduced, and saw through the House without amendment, a Private Member's Bill to repeal the Vagrancy Act altogether. That has the approval of the House. However, the Bill has made no progress in the House of Commons. This amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill is to take into account the objections which the noble Earl raised to the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. That objective is embodied in Amendment No. 60.
There are two limbs to the proposal. The first is concerned with begging and the second with sleeping rough. The second limb and its consideration is prejudiced by Amendment No. 57A. Everyone who spoke at Committee stage except the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, agreed that it is inappropriate to fine those who sleep rough. It is inappropriate to fine beggars except the professional beggar. It is that provision
12
which is embodied in Amendment No. 60. However, the Government have an amendment which does not get rid of the fine for sleeping rough. It reduces it from level 2 to level 1 of the scale. That is not enough. We have in this country something that has been the liberty the subject for anyone to do who cannot find anywhere to sleep: to sleep out in the open; to sleep under a hedge in the country; to sleep in the car on the street. It is inappropriate for anyone who does not have enough money to be harried by the police and asked to move on; or, if he will not move on, to be taken inside and brought up before the magistrates and subjected to a fine. The Vagrancy Acts are really very old indeed and are out of date. They should have been abolished long ago. The more offensive provisions were repealed long ago, and all that remains is a residue. However, the residue is not necessary. I am told that the reason why the use of these Acts has been suddenly revived is because the police require the powers in order to move on both beggars and those who are sleeping rough.
It is not necessary for the police to resort to the Vagrancy Acts for that purpose. I have been provided with an extensive schedule of other powers which can and should be used by the police. It is not necessary to resort to the Vagrancy Acts. The fact is that powers that are both at common law and in statutes are enough in themselves for keeping the highway clear of obstruction just to name one power, without resort to the Vagrancy Acts.
It is not merely a matter of powers; it is a matter of attitude: attitude to beggars and attitude to those who are sleeping rough. These are people who need help rather than harassment. It is totally inappropriate to impose fines except regarding those beggars who are a real nuisance, who persistently beg and who do so for gain and not for the support of themselves, their wives or their children. It is preferable that these people who are reduced so low as to beg or to sleep rough should be helped and given assistance rather than punished. That is an attitude which has been endorsed, I would say, by the Prime Minister. Before Christmas the Prime Minister made arrangements— or sought to make arrangements— for those in this unfortunate condition to be helped to find homes and food rather than to be swept off the street by the Vagrancy Acts.
Many of these people are young. Perhaps they have come from broken homes or one-parent homes, and they have nowhere to go. They may be so poor that they cannot afford to pay the rents in London, or other capital cities to which they have come; or they are psychiatrically disordered. It is appalling to think that psychiatrically disordered people are gaoled and subjected to fines and other such things when what they need is care in a hospital. It is a change of attitude that is needed, so that these people are helped and not harassed. They should not be fined or threatened with a fine.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, who spoke in Committee on this matter, is unfortunately not able to be here today because he is out of the country. He described his Government as being "humane, just and decent". That is why he confidently expected the Government to agree at that stage to

13
what is now Amendment No. 60. He much regrets that he is not able to be here to ask the Government to do the same at this stage today. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on the Government Benches, hopes to speak in his place. We have support from the Labour Party and certainly from the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who initiated this matter in this House, and we also have support from the Cross-Benches.
As I have said before, we have made an exception for the aggressive beggar. There need be no fear that the beggar who is begging for money will not be the subject of the rigour of the law as it now applies. However, the other categories of beggar should be subjected to help; and help will perhaps come in the form of a probation order or a conditional discharge.
Last Tuesday at Question Time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said,
"there are already too many criminal offences on the statute book.— [Official Report. 14/5/91; col. 1472.]
I agree with him. Let us give effect to the expression of the opinion of the noble and learned Lord by agreeing to Amendment No. 60, when we reach it, with a convincing majority. However, in order to be able to vote in its entirety on Amendment No. 60, I ask whether the noble Earl will withdraw this amendment; other wise I shall ask the House to reject it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I accept— and I suppose all your Lordships would accept— that people who sleep rough, or who are disordered, need help and not harassment. However, surely there ought to be, nonetheless, some power of request to move on, and some sanction. For my part, I reject the suggestion that I am not humane, just or decent, to prefer Amendment No. 57A, which reduces the fine and seems to be reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
Amendment No. 60 is open to the objection that it forecloses on the discretion of the magistrates— a discretion which is sensibly exercised. It is also open to the objection that it is designed to keep professional beggars off the streets. Good heavens! What is a professional beggar? It is better left to the discretion of the magistrates, who are used to dealing with these situations, and who deal with them very well. I suggest reducing the fine; and, on balance, I support the government amendment.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I endorse everything he said. I hope that I shall not have to repeat what we have said on the Vagrancy Acts on three or four occasions in recent months.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that there must be some powers available for the police. There are ample powers for the police to use for that purpose. The police only have to prove that a person is obstructing the highway or creating a nuisance. There are ample statutes available for that purpose. However, the 1824 Act, which does not even give them the powers to move on for that purpose, is being used to threaten and intimidate people that if they do not
14
move on, then under the Act of 1824, they will be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned for non-payment of fines. The Act is being used to tidy up tourist areas at certain times of the year. It is totally inadequate for that purpose.
If the purpose is to stop people from obstructing the highway, there are about 18 different statutes covering the offences of professional begging, causing annoyance on the pavement, of deception and so on, and resisting arrest. I could quote from them if there were time. All those offences are covered by other statutes.
Those who are involved with the problem at street level are puzzled. They do not understand why the Government insist on retaining the provisions of the Vagrancy Act 1824 to hound very many people who would far rather be in proper accommodation. They are not all professional beggars who can be dealt with anyway under existing statutes. A number of people find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances. They do not want to be on the streets for any longer than they have to be. They do not want to be there in the first place. They are being harried. In some cases they get a criminal record for non-payment of fines. They do not have the money to pay the fine. That makes their situation much worse. They then cannot be interviewed for a job. Who wants to interview someone with a criminal record? Who will give someone with a criminal record a room, digs or lodgings?
This only exacerbates the situation. In addition, all kinds of other things can happen on the streets as a result of such a tidying up process. It is counter-productive. There are already provisions on the statute book to deal with the other offences. This ancient law should have been shifted long ago. If necessary some of the other laws could have been tightened up.
On Friday I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords arguing for the removal of a whole number of statutes, most of them affecting the Isle of Man but some affecting this country, which have been on the statute book for a shorter period than this Act. Why are we so keen to keep this power? The police say to people that if they do not move on they can be arrested and charged under the Vagrancy Act 1824. That is not true. The Act does not give the police that power but they can threaten the use of it in that way, and they do. It is easier to do so. The police do not then have to arrest such people for causing a nuisance, take them to court and prove that they were causing a nuisance. It is not always the case that sitting or sleeping on the pavement can be proved to be a nuisance. That is more trouble for the police.
The Vagrancy Act seems to make things easier. In England we always look for the easy solution. But that is not a solution. We are dealing with real people— young people, elderly people and people who have been discharged from psychiatric hospital, who are in between moves and who have nowhere to go in the meantime. They are begging or sleeping rough for their own subsistence. These are not professional beggars. We agree with everything that has been said

15
about professional beggars: they can be dealt with in other ways. We are dealing here with a different population. We do not need this Act. What we need is help. We should repeal the Act as it affects these people and then provide help to fight the problems of homelessness and of cardboard city by insisting on alternative proposals.
I am glad to say that the Secretary of State for the Environment is moving in the direction of trying to provide permanent assistance. We welcome that, and we shall support and co-operate with every move he makes. However, we should not make matters worse for him and for us. We need a free hand in trying to carry on with the proper task, which is to ensure that no one need sleep rough. If people do, then something is wrong and they can be dealt with under other provisions.
I hope that it will not be necessary to go into all the arguments although I am happy to do so. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will withdraw the amendment. It is an unnecessary complication. I have not had a chance to discuss and consider all the implications of the amendment but it seems to suggest, "Let us deal with that one. That will shut them up. If necessary we shall vote and knock them down on that one. Then we can always say that we moved a little". We do not deal properly with legislation— piecemeal legislation is another English problem— when the answer is staring us in the face. The 1824 Act is outdated. It is obsolete and counter-productive. Other Acts can be used to cover any offence which noble Lords care to mention. Such offences will be covered by other statutes. We should clear out this obscene and obsolete Act. Let us get on with the job of helping to cure the problems that exist on the streets. We shall then be doing a good job for everyone involved.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. There is a strong mental illness factor in this whole affair. My concern is that Amendment No. 60, although I sympathise greatly with the reasons that led to it being drafted, is of little help to the hundreds of mentally ill people who are wandering abroad on the streets of London and other cities and lodging in buildings or in the open air. The responsible Minister has recently said that 25 to 30 per cent. of single homeless men are mentally ill. Although most are not vagrants, many who are suffer from serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia. A psychiatrist running one of the London court assessment schemes, about which we heard much during discussion of Clause 3, said that in a sample of 80 consecutive cases referred to him, nearly half were living on the streets.
The only provision in the new clause— Amendment No. 60— which would do anything for such people, apart from keeping them out of prison, is to make them the subject of a probation order which could include a requirement as to residence and as to treatment for a mental condition. A probation order, however, must be accepted by the person concerned. In the case of the mentally ill, it may not be accepted, however sensible such a course may appear to other people. I suggest that the courts should have the
16
powers proposed in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill which comes before your Lordships for Second Reading tomorrow.
I do not see that Amendment No. 57A helps the mentally ill but I do not believe that it harms them. I would not object to it as such, although I would object to Amendment No. 60 for the reasons I have given. It would be helpful to me if my noble friend the Minister can say whether he is sympathetic to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill. That is where the solution to the problem of mentally ill vagrants lies. I hope therefore that Amendment No. 60 will not be pressed and that we shall concentrate instead on the Bill when it comes before the House tomorrow.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I thought I heard him say that Amendment No. 60, apart from perhaps keeping people out of prison, does nothing. But is that not what we are about? That is what I am about. I do not want to hide them in prison. I want to know that they are there and then help them. We should be directing them to properly assisted hostels where they can be looked after with care and counselling. We cannot do that if we put them in prison. We want to keep them out of prison. We want to offer them an alternative to prison. We can do that only if we get rid of this Act and stop people using it. We can direct our attention to constructive suggestions.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, this is another complicated problem. Some schizophrenics have been known to want to go to prison. They are thrown out of hospital; they do not like the digs they are put into; and they want to go to prison. I know of a case in the Isle of Wight of a schizophrenic who threw a brick through an old lady's window specifically so that he could spend Christmas in prison where he knew he would be looked after. The matter is more complicated for the mentally ill than I think Amendment No. 60 faces up to. That is the problem. If the amendment had done so, that would be a different matter. It is not the principle of Amendment No. 60 that I do not like; it is the actual wording in terms of its inadequacy for the mentally ill.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, when we talk of people who are sleeping rough— skippering— on the streets, we are talking of people who do not want to be there. The overwhelming majority of the people who are sleeping rough are totally inadequate. The great majority come out of institutions where they have been cared for. They come out of care— the youngsters— out of the army, out of prison and out of mental institutions. They do not have the faintest idea how to cope. They finish up on the streets. They are there because the hostels have been closed down. Thirty years ago there were four times as many hostel places in London as there are now. They have been closed. That is why people are spending their days in day centres and their nights skippering.
Those are the people about whom we are talking. They are people who need help. Many of them are alcoholics; indeed sometimes that is the cause, and

17
sometimes it is the effect. But I find it astonishing that we should be considering punishing such people for sleeping rough. Moreover, as regards the tiny minority who are not inadequates— the ones who are work shy and those who could not care less— it is pointless to talk in term of punishing them. They may certainly need a push from behind. They may need advice or need to be tackled for doing things, apart from sleeping rough, which they should not be doing. However, to punish people just for sleeping rough, "skippering, seems to me to be utterly nonsensical and unacceptable.
Frankly, sleeping rough is a punishment in itself, for the reasons which I have already given. Moreover, if there people are fined and cannot pay, they will then go to prison. The noble Lord who has just spoken reminded us that many of these people, historically, have sought the refuge of prison, especially in the cold weather. But they cannot even get into Brixton these days because the prison will not take them.
Begging is a different matter. In this connection one has sheep and one has goats. I put it to your Lordships that both these issues, different as they are— that is, sleeping rough on the one hand and begging on the other— are better dealt with by Amendment No. 60. The noble Earl has consistently, and rightly, argued that,
"it is not true to infer ... that those who beg are necessarily genuinely needy or homeless".— [Official Report, 11/12/90; col. 490.]
I accept that fact. However, I am sure that the noble Earl will also accept that some of these people are in that category and in genuine need and homeless. I share his lack of sympathy for those people who beg as a preferable alternative to taking up work. Those people should be dealt with and sorted out— that is, so far as they can be dealt with and identified. I do not dissent from that view. That is what Amendment No. 60 seeks to do.
Begging in itself is not heinous or distasteful, but it can be accompanied by activities which make it unacceptable and therefore something which ought to be dealt with either by way of advice or, if it is accompanied by threats, by more stringent means. That is what the amendment would do.
I believe, first, that to punish people simply because they are found at the back of warehouse or sleeping over a grille in the road cannot be right; and, secondly, that there are means of sorting out the beggars of different categories. That could be done better by way of Amendment No. 60 than by the way suggested in the Government's amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like shortly to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as regards Amendment No. 60. It is exceedingly disappointing that on this occasion the noble Earl has not returned with a better amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and others like myself who as young men practised in the courts referred to the unpleasantness of having to appear to prosecute people under an Act dating back to 1824. That Act was passed in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars to deal with people who were called
18
"rogues and vagabonds". Its aim was to clear the streets. It is unbelievable that, in this era of civilisation, one should still use the criminal law to deal with social problems.
When the matter was last raised, the noble Earl said that we cannot,
"give those who beg in the streets the special privilege of immunity from a fine".— [Official Report, 18/4/91; col. 1635.]
He told the Chamber that there had only been 16 such convictions in the whole of England and Wales in 1989. Yet, despite this fact, the Government fight on to maintain this particular criminal offence. It is almost unbelievable.
After a great deal of pressure, the Government gave prostitutes the special privilege of not being imprisoned. It took a long time to get them to agree to that provision. Those of us who supported that legislation received the same opposition: what of the persistent offender? The police must have the final power to threaten imprisonment so as to stop what is becoming an increasing social nuisance. Why should decent people suffer from being accosted in the streets? We are now considering the question of beggars, who are in exactly the same situation. The proposals before us are not offering privileges; they suggest that we do not use parts of the criminal law to deal with social problems.
Surely the time has come to remove the criminal law from this sphere. The amendment does not go as far as that; it simply says that there should not be a power in the courts to fine these people. By the evidence of 16 cases in one year, it is perfectly clear that the magistrates agree. It will be nice to hear from the noble Earl whether the Magistrates' Association and the police want such powers at this time in history.
On the last occasion, the noble Earl created two new classes of rogues and vagabonds to join the unlicensed pedlars, the riotous prostitutes, the dishonest fortune tellers, the incorrigible rogues and all the other vagabonds covered in this legislation. He referred to what he described as the "recalcitrant rough sleeper" and the "determined beggar". He told us that one such person even had the temerity to work in an abattoir and yet sleep every night— one would have thought rather appropriately— in the Bull Ring. As I said, surely the time has come to reconsider the matter. Can the noble Earl drag himself out of the 19th century and into the 20th century? This is really not the time to introduce further categories.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the amendment. However, I would not support it if there was adequate accommodation in the country for such people. When I look back I have to think of the number of Rowton houses and Salvation Army hostels which have closed. That means that there is not enough accommodation for those who need it. Therefore, many people are forced to sleep rough.
I wonder what we would have done with W. H. Davies, who wrote The Autobiography of a Super-Tramp. Would we really have brought him before the court? I shall not speak further because all the arguments have been well rehearsed. I am speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who apologises for his absence.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I support these amendments, especially Amendment No. 60. I should like to begin by saying a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It is true that the amendment does not help schizophrenics. But, with the greatest respect, it is not an amendment which deals with the treatment of those people. The object of the exercise is to remove certain penalties which schizophrenics and other people might be subject to at present; the amendment does not attempt to deal with the problem of how one treats these people in what the Government somewhat laughably call "care in the community". The amendment deals with an entirely different category. It is possible that the noble Lord is expecting too much from an amendment which is designed to remove penalties rather than produce solutions. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, many of those people are schizophrenic or suffering from other forms of mental illness. I believe that many people will agree that Amendment No. 60 would do them more harm than good.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I find that difficult to accept. Amendment No. 57A does nothing for schizophrenics. I do not see how leaving on the statute book criminal offences, which may have an ancient lineage but which seem irrelevant to a modern society, helps schizophrenics or anyone else.
Secondly, perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. He said that we still need the offence. Perhaps I can read the offences already covered by other statutes: causing, permitting or encouraging a child to beg under Section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933; blocking the highway (a common law nuisance); obtaining donations under false pretences (Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968); being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose (contrary to common law)— the owner is entitled to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser— and failure to leave residential premises after being asked (Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act); using violence to secure entry into any premises (Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977); being on premises for an unlawful purpose, such as theft, assault, unlawful damage or burglary (Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968); aggravated burglary (Section 10 of the Theft Act 1968); and resisting arrest by a constable under Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, quite apart from Section 51 of the Police Act 1964 or the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
There are also the public order offences such as using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour under Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. And so it goes on. It is an offence wrongfully, without lawful authority, to act with a view to compelling any person to do that which he has a legal right to abstain from doing— that is, giving money — and to use violence or to intimidate any person; to persistently follow such person about; to watch or beset such person's house or place of work or place where such person happens to be, or the approaches thereto under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875; to willfully
20
obstruct the free passage of the highway (the Highways Act 1980); or to make an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to personal gain or loss to another (Section 14 of the Theft Act 1968). And so it goes on. It is an offence to obtain property by deception, which will encompass feigning poverty to obtain money, under Section 14 of the Theft Act 1968. Finally, it is an offence for a person not at his place of abode to have in his possession any article for use in the course or in connection with cheat that— will include dressing in shabby clothes to feign poverty to obtain money by begging— under Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968.
I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, whose acquaintance with Archbold is longer than mine and as great as mine. With all those offences already on the statute book, do we need these minor irritations of the Vagrancy Act? We suggest that we do not. They do not seem to be used or to have much effect or purpose. I hope that the House will accept Amendment No. 60.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has put his finger on the point. At one moment, he asks whether we need the offences because they are not used and are not of any use, while other noble Lords complain that the measures are draconian. The two arguments do not add up. I find it usually depressing when dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. He said that it was disappointing not to have a better amendment from the Government. I have listened at Second Reading, in Committee and on other occasions to the anxieties your Lordships have expressed on these matters. I believed that we had gone some modest way towards helping noble Lords. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, pockets the amendment I have offered and then says like a child, "More, please".
I explained in Committee why I could not accept the new clause which was then proposed. I understand and share your Lordships' concerns about the homeless, but I believe the right way to tackle the problem is by taking practical steps to ensure that the homeless have access to help and advice and that steps are taken to provide more and better accommodation. That is what we are doing.
We have heard today a good deal about why we do not need offences such as begging or sleeping rough. We cannot avoid the fact that at present there is no option but the Vagrancy Act where the mischief is merely begging. The Government believe that it would be wrong to remove the Vagrancy Act power from the police. It allows them to act against beggars in response to genuine and well-founded complaints from members of the public. The police view, which has been publicly given, is that if begging goes unchecked it could lead to no-go areas for the public and to more serious crime. Beggars can commit the offences mentioned by noble Lords, but begging as such is not an ingredient of any of them. For example, a beggar may cause alarm and distress sufficient to warrant a charge under the Public Order Act, but it is the alarm and distress which must be proved and not the begging.

21
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, suggests that beggars are always poor and in need of help. I came up against one such the other day who asked me for money. I said that I would not give him any, whereupon I was pushed in the back. He called me an "adjectival judge". The adjective began with a letter in the forepart of the alphabet. He was wrong as to the adjective and to the noun. He had requested something from someone who emerged from the same premises about a minute before me and obtained some money. Having attacked me, he went off and attacked two other sets of people and obtained money from them When a police car fortuitously came round the corner, he got out of the light and ducked towards the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, may say that he was a poor chap who was begging only to support himself. There would be real difficulties in requiring the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was not begging for money to support himself, as the clause puts it, before the court would have the power to impose a fine.
The effect would be to kill off the offence. We do not believe that we should do that. While I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and others, that if there is a case of genuine begging, that case should be met, that is to disregard the fact that there are people who are persecuted— for want of a better word— by beggars, and that is unacceptable.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. We intend to prevent that happening by subsection (1) (b). He must have been a brave beggar who attacked the Minister who is such a formidable person and who seems to attract beggars and intruders into his house. We have sought to deal with such an offence. If the Minister does not believe that the subsection is sufficient, perhaps he will beef it up a bit at the next stage of the Bill. What he has said does not invalidate our amendment one whit.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course it does. First, the beggar was not especially brave, because he pushed me in the back, and that was not difficult to do. Secondly, the new clause provides:
"before imposing a fine on such an offender&the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was not begging for money on which to support himself'.
A court would find it difficult to prove that that was the case. The noble Lord then says that young people need help and that it is terrible that people should beg and sleep rough when they need help. I agree with him.
I wonder whether the noble Lord has ever looked at the figures. In 1988 there were only eight prosecutions for begging, and in 1989 only two. That is not a considerable drain on the resources. The figures are for young people under the age of 17. There were no prosecutions in 1988 for people sleeping rough. In 1989, only one person under the age of 17 was prosecuted for sleeping rough.
The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, becomes rather thin when he says, "We don't want this kind of prosecution of people who need help". Prosecutions for sleeping rough are extremely rare,
22
but there is a last resort power to direct to nearby shelters those who persist in sleeping on the pavement, without necessarily prosecuting them.
It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, said, an offence on its own. It is an oversimplification to say that the 1824 Act punishes people for sleeping rough. Since 1935, when the Act was amended, the offence of sleeping rough is not committed unless the person spurns an alternative. That is very important. According to the Act, the alternative must be free and accessible.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not understand the noble Earl's statistics. I have in my hand figures which are not officially available for 1989 but which were obtained from four of the 14 inner London magistrates' courts. They show that in 1989 a total of 1,396 people were prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act 1824. The number of people prosecuted is considerable and is not just two or three as the noble Earl suggested.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know how many more times the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, wishes to interrupt me. We normally speak only once at Report stage, and he has interrupted me three times. I shall try to deal with the problem. He gave the figure of 1,396 people prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act but that figure refers to indecent exposure. The total number of prosecutions in 1989 under the Vagrancy Act was 3,482, most of which were for indecent exposure.
We then come to the point of whether the criminal law should be employed for the purpose of moving people. We could debate that matter at length. It is not unprecedented and not necessarily against the public interest to ensure that those who sleep on the streets, and who have spurned alternative accommodation, should be asked to move on because it distresses many people.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that these people need help and that there should be an alternative to prosecution. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, in his usual dramatic way, said that he wanted to drag me out of the 19th century and the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars. His remarks are always spicy. It is of great concern to many people and, some would say, a reflection on our society that people sleep on the streets. They also sleep in shop entrances and in parks. Some may have nowhere else to go. Some do so because they have insufficient funds, and others because that is how they wish to live. We must address those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, says that there is a need for alternative assistance so perhaps I may tell your Lordships what the Government are doing. Last year we announced a special programme of resources to provide additional hostel, long-term, move-on accommodation for single homeless people in London. An increase of £81 million over the next two years is being provided to help the single homeless; f6i million is provided to voluntary organisations who offer the homeless, and potentially homeless,

23
advice and practical help. That brings to over £100 million the amount which is made available over three years to deal with the problem.
Over 1,000 new spaces in hostels and long-term accommodation are being provided for the people of London sleeping rough under the single homeless initiative. All are of a good standard so that people will want to use them. Housing associations provide 900 places in shared and self-contained flats and houses to which people in hostels may move in the next few months, with substantially more to follow. That should help to ease the blockage in the existing hostel accommodation.
The Departments of the Environment and of Health have arranged to open up a number of buildings on an emergency basis. At the height of the cold weather spell in February, 700 extra places were made available in London for people who would otherwise have slept rough in the middle of the winter. A substantial number are still available. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that more assistance is necessary, and that is exactly what the Government are giving.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I also said that I welcomed all the assistance that had been made available. I happily applauded the Minister now responsible— Sir George Young— who is doing a good job in this respect. However, we know that London and the big cities continually attract a moving population and that there is a constant difficulty. While I am on my feet—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, we are at Report stage and it is right for any noble Lord to ask a question. However, to make a little speech seems to me contrary to the rules of the House. I rather think that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is making an extra speech.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I accept the stricture from the noble Lord. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave the example of the beggar who pushed him in the back, but is he aware that that man commits other offences and one ought not to use the 1824 Vagrancy Act? I would not use that Act if somebody belted me in the back and asked me for money. There are obviously other statutes that can be used to deal with a man who constantly pursues and hits someone, asking for money.
Is the noble Earl aware that the central point remains that, apart from everything else, it is a waste of public funds to prosecute someone under this Act? He said that there were so few that it hardly mattered. Is he aware that, having said that there are so few, it is hardly worth using the Act to deal with them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I return to the point I made at the beginning. One moment the noble Lord says that this is a terrible Act and that we should dispense with it; the next moment he says that as it is such a stupid little Act what is the point of keeping it. I have tried to explain to your Lordships that there are occasions when it is necessary. The 1824 Act does not
24
give a power to the police to move people on but it provides a power under which the police can direct those sleeping rough to alternative accommodation.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that in the case I mentioned, the person could have been prosecuted under some other Act than the Vagrancy Act. I dare say he could have been but he was not prosecuted under any Act. I was trying to point out at the beginning that begging can be an offence to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, shakes his head but all I can say is that he should live in the real world. It can be an offence when people beg. If the offence is committed because people are impecunious, then resources are available for them. If the offence becomes persistent inconvenience then the police require a power to deal with it.
I have tried to accommodate your Lordships in what was said at Second Reading, at the Committee stage and thereafter by producing an amendment which makes the offence of sleeping rough less serious. I hope that your Lordships will agree with that and not with Amendment No. 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because the requirements of the 1824 Act are still necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4 p.m.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 19, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) Notwithstanding section 2(3) above the court shall not pass a custodial sentence solely for an offence under section 5(2) or section 19 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1991 as it applies in the case of proceedings for an offence under section 5(2) in relation to substances and products named and defined in Schedule 2, Parts II and III of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the original purpose of this amendment at Committee stage was to fulfil the wishes of the Government as outlined in their White Paper and in the Bill. Those people who are prosecuted and convicted of misusing drugs should not go to prison. Under the Bill they still can go to prison. The amendment which I brought forward in Committee was to ensure that that should no longer happen since we decided that in a civilised society people with this affliction should not be punished for it but helped. A Department of Health survey showed that 70 per cent. of injecting drug addicts had already been in prison. That proves pretty conclusively that it does not do them much good to go to prison. The problem is that only 10 per cent. of misusers at any one time are in contact with authorities which may be able to help them. The courts are useful in that they can direct these people— as the Government intend — to the agencies which can help them.
Only 1,821 out of the 32,033 people who were prosecuted or cautioned in 1989 were sent to prison. One of the reasons for that is the enormous inconsistency that exists in the way the police deal with these people. Many of them are cautioned and some of them are prosecuted for one offence or another. However, very few of those who are prosecuted and convicted are sent to prison. There is an enormous inconsistency in the way the police behave in different areas. In Liverpool, for instance, misusers are cautioned but are never prosecuted. It seems that

25
people are not sent to prison for the severity of the offence they have committed, but according to where they live. In Wiltshire and Surrey 2 per cent. of these people are sent to prison, whereas in the metropolitan area of London it is 4 per cent. In Manchester it is 17 per cent. and, as I have said, in Liverpool none of them is sent to prison.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Ferrers gave two reasons for opposing my amendment. I felt that the first was rather a strange reason. He maintained that many of those who are convicted of possessing drugs have been supplying drugs or conspiring to supply drugs or have intended to supply them. He said that because it was difficult for the police to obtain a conviction, many of those who had not been convicted of supplying drugs but had been convicted of possession would still go to prison. If they were not found guilty of supplying drugs, we must assume they did not do that.
It seems to me wholly unsatisfactory that these people should be sent to prison for possessing drugs when the real reason why such a sentence is being imposed is that the court thinks they were supplying drugs but cannot prove that. That seems to me wholly illogical and most unsatisfactory. If people supply drugs, or in tend or conspire to supply drugs, they should be convicted and sent to prison. However, if they have only been convicted of possession, they are guilty only of possession. As such, they must be given the appropriate sentence for people convicted of possession. As my noble friend implied, it is not appropriate for those people to go to prison.
The second reason which my noble friend gave was that the courts would need the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. In Committee, at col. 1612 of the Official Report on 18th April, he stated:
"I accept the fact that in many cases such offences are not serious and that the offender has possession of the drugs simply for his own use or that of his friends. In such circumstances, a custodial sentence may well be inappropriate ... If my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, a person might be in possession of a quantity of heroin or cocaine, or both, but could not be sent to prison unless it were possible to prove an intent to supply".
In a later intervention at col. 1612 he stated:
"If the offence was not very great, or if the person actually needed some kind of restorative treatment, the courts might decide to order such treatment. However, if my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, it would mean that those who had drugs of a very strong nature could, nevertheless, not receive a custodial sentence&In my view it is also appropriate that those in possession of strong drugs should on occasion be sentenced to terms of imprisonment".
I accepted, although I did not necessarily agree with, my noble friend's view. Therefore I changed my amendment. The amendment before us today excludes those in' possession of Class A drugs— what used to be referred to as hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine — but includes those drugs which are regarded as less serious and which used to be called soft drugs; namely, those in Classes B and C of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I have gone as far as is possible to meet the requirements that my noble friend set in Committee. I have met the reasons that my noble friend gave for not being able to accept my amendment at that stage. The amendment before us today corrects the current differentials in sentencing, which at present are
26
extremely unfair and therefore not used in many courts up and down the country. Currently whether or not one is sent to prison depends on where one lives.
My amendment leaves stronger penalties— as my noble friend demanded— for those in possession of stronger and more dangerous drugs. It makes statutory the Government's intention not to send drug addicts to prison. It clears the air and it allows magistrates and judges in the higher courts to make decisions knowing the Government's intention. My amendment fulfils my noble friend's conditions and I hope the House will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, a principal argument against this amendment would probably be that in the public perception it would be seen as being soft on drugs. The public perception is a faint and fickle abstraction. It is here today and gone tomorrow. We must balance that danger against the very real benefit that the amendment would bring in reducing the prison population and in targeting the appropriate penalty for those who commit offences solely under Sections 5(2) and 19.
The whole spirit of this Bill, and certainly the spirit of this part of the Bill, is to divert people from custody and, where appropriate, to treatment in the community. This new subsection would enable those people found to be in possession of small amounts of what used to be called soft drugs to receive help and treatment for their drug problem in the community. It has been abundantly proved that prison does not constitute treatment in itself for such people. In some cases quite the contrary is true. Some offenders find that their problems are exacerbated in custody. While a period of imprisonment is a forced cessation of drug taking, someone with a drug problem will probably be unable while in prison to receive the kind of help and guidance that he needs. There will be no one to consider why such a person has a drug problem.
This modest amendment is in no way an attempt at legislation, or decriminalisation by the back door, nor should it be seen as the thin end of any wedge. It is an attempt to ensure that an opportunity is afforded to offer treatment in the community for those people who repeatedly find themselves before the courts on a charge of unlawful possession of a controlled drug, and who are in danger of imprisonment. The provisions of the amendment would allow for a far more appropriate treatment and would ensure that those drug users who are unaware of specialist help agencies can avail themselves of help. We know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of the cure and of the help that is available is as innocent as it is widespread.
Problem drug users are not vicious villains for the most part nor violent people who are as dangerous as a pit bull terrier. Usually they are weak, inadequate people. Such a person will almost inevitably carry illegal drugs to sustain a drug habit. He or she will not usually be someone who carries an illegal drug for personal or financial gain. We are not talking about pushers but people who have a problem with their own drug use. It is that kind of person whom we wish to see receive a non-custodial sentence. We would rather such a person received a sentence in the

27
community which gives him an opportunity to get to grips with his drug problem. Although we must not overlook the necessity of punishment for an offence, we must also remember that the possibility of cure is better than no possibility of cure.
I offer the House a figure which noble Lords may have heard before but would do well to consider again. The Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs estimates that probably only 10 per cent. of problem drug users are in touch with specialist help agencies in the United Kingdom. In the Netherlands that figure is estimated at 70 per cent. Surely anything that we can do during the passage of this Bill, without danger to society, to raise that dismal figure of one in ten is an opportunity that we should not miss.
This modest amendment would ensure that those who are arrested but who show interest in and enthusiasm for doing something themselves to stop their misuse of drugs can be diverted to the specialist help agencies.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we debated an earlier version of my noble friend's amendment in Committee. He was kind enough to say that he has amended it in the way suggested in the amendment he has put down today. He has met one of my objections to the earlier version by restricting it to Class B and C drugs. This amendment would not prevent the courts imposing a custodial sentence for possession of a Class A drug such as heroin.
However, the Government remain strongly opposed to the amendment. We must put it in the context of the threat which the traffic and misuse of drugs pose to the welfare of this country as a whole. Home Office figures published earlier this month show that drug misuse led to almost 1,200 deaths in 1989; and while the most dangerous drugs are in Class A, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the harm done by the drugs in Class B and C with which this amendment deals. These drugs can cause physical and mental damage; they can also draw users into circles where the more dangerous drugs are available. Therefore, they are thoroughly undesirable. We need the sanctions of the criminal law, together with the resources of preventive education and treatment, if we are to make progress against this problem. We need to ensure that even if those at risk know or care little of the health dangers of drug misuse they will at least bear in mind the possible legal penalties. The kind of creeping decriminalisation which the amendment represents can only— in its effect, though not its intention— encourage more people to experiment with drugs.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft referred to regional discrepancies in the use of imprisonment for drug offences. One of the main purposes of the restrictions on the use of custody in Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill is to ensure that courts in all parts of the country will apply the same criteria. That should produce greater consistency in the use of custody both for drug offences and for other types of offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that drug users should have the opportunity for
28
treatment. I quite agree. For most of those who are convicted of possession, a community penalty with a requirement for treatment will often be correct. However, for a minority of cases I do not believe that we can rule out the possibility that the offence is serious enough to require a custodial sentence.
Perhaps I can persuade my noble friend that the Bill as it stands takes a fair and balanced approach to this matter. The Bill makes it clear that an offence must be serious if it is to attract a custodial sentence. Plainly, many offences of possession of Class B and C drugs will not be considered serious by the courts. Indeed, increasing numbers of such cases are being dealt with by cautions, and the Government welcome that trend. But we cannot say with confidence that there will be no cases of possession so serious as to deserve a prison sentence. Imagine the case of a schoolteacher who uses cannabis in the company of his pupils, or a pilot or a driver of a coach who is responsible for the safety of dozens of people who stows drugs away in the cabin for his personal use. I should be most unwilling to see the courts deprived of the power to imprison such people in those circumstances, and I hope very much that my noble friend will consider that his amendment is best withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, before my noble friend made his last few comments I was going to ask him whether he could outline the terribly serious offence of possession that would lead to possible imprisonment. In fact in his last comments he outlined two: one was the schoolteacher who had drugs in school and the second was the bus driver. The bus driver would be charged with driving under the influence of drugs, which is rightly a criminal offence. But I see that there may be a problem in the case of the schoolteacher. I do not know what she would be charged, with, apart from possession of drugs. She might he charged with trying to influence a minor or something of that nature. I am sure that in their contracts schoolteachers are not encouraged to bring drugs into school.
In all of my noble friend's remarks I did not hear anything with which I did not agree or any point that I did not make. Yes, of course, the sanction of the law should be available. Of course the intervention of the courts plays an important role. I do not suggest for one single solitary moment that the drugs should be either legalised or decriminalised. I said as much at Committee stage. I do not believe that that would be at all a good idea. The sole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those people do not go to prison.
In his winding-up remarks on behalf of the Government my noble friend agreed with me. He said that the only people who should go to prison were those who were guilty of the more serious offences. Apart from the case of his schoolteacher I cannot think of any more serious offence. Anyone who possesses a large quantity of drugs is automatically charged with supply, intent to supply or conspiracy to supply. Anyone who has any quantity whatever of the more dangerous Class A drugs falls outside my

29
amendment. As such, my amendment covers every point which my noble friend made. I cannot see why he cannot accept it.
I am not sure whether it is out of order at this stage, but perhaps I may ask him a question before I finally decide what to do with the amendment. What offences would be so serious that a person could not be charged with a more serious offence but would need to go to prison if found guilty? If my noble friend can help me with that point that would assist me to make up my mind.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord who has just spoken—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am a little apprehensive about interrupting because the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on this Bill are always peculiarly helpful. However, there is a convention which says that noble Lords do not normally participate after the Minister, albeit one of my lowly calibre, has intervened.
Oh, dear, this is peculiarly embarrassing. My noble friend asked me to make an intervention. I can do so only with the approval of your Lordships. I should be quite happy if you would forgo the approval in this case.
I cannot give my noble friend chapter and verse of every conceivable occasion on which a person would go to prison. I rest on the observation that I made upon his amendment. I do not believe that we can say with confidence that there will be no cases of possession so serious as to require a prison sentence. My noble friend's amendment would remove that option. I believe that that would be a bad thing.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not want to bring everyone— including myself— to order from all sides of the House. However, my noble friend has responded on his amendment; he invited me to comment and I did so. I believe that it would be in order if he were to leave it at that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with great respect to the Minister— who is of very high calibre— perhaps I may say that it must be right that where a question is asked of a Minister and the Minister, by leave of the House, has intervened and replied, the person who asked the question can continue with his speech.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is entirely right. I stand corrected and I apologise both to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my noble friend if I inadvertently truncated his remarks. I thought that they had come to an end.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, the only remark that my noble friend truncated is, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
30
("Amendment of Criminal Justice Act 1961 to facilitate the transfer of prisoners
.In section 26(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 for the words "his sentence shall be treated" there shall he substituted the words "his sentence may be treated".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is clearly stated in the marginal note. I explained it at some length in Committee. I shall not go over the same ground again save to say that we are talking about some 50 to 60 prisoners from Northern Ireland now in English prisons. Some are serving life sentences. In this case the rules for release are discretionary in both jurisdictions. Others are serving fixed sentences and it is with them that the amendment is principally concerned.
In both categories the families suffer exceptional hardship because of the long distances and the high cost of travelling and lodging when visiting. I emphasise again the humane purpose of the English Prison Rule 31 (1) which is in my view being disregarded.
The matter has a long history. I first took a delegation from your Lordships' House to see the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who was then responsible for prisons, in 1982. On 6th November 1990 the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wrote to me saying that, between June 1989 and November 1990, five requests for transfer to Northern Ireland had been refused on the grounds that it would be inappropriate for the applicants to benefit from the more generous terms of remission available in Northern Ireland. Since then, there has been the High Court case concerning Mr. John McComb's transfer and there may well be other cases.
On 16th January this year I saw Mrs. Rumbold, the present Minister responsible for prisons. She wrote to me on 28th March. Her letter said:
"I shall be considering with my colleagues in Northern Ireland and Scotland what steps we might take to alleviate the very real problems faced by inmates and their families in maintaining their links".
That was mentioned again by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his reply to me on 18th April. I must therefore ask today: what is the result of that consideration? Is it completed and, if not, when will it be?
There are so many things that could be done to help this small group of people and, in so doing, help to break the continuity of violence and terrorism from one generation to the next. The Home Office could abandon its purely political opposition and allow transfers to go ahead. Failing that, the full costs of travel and lodging could be repaid to the families, not only to those on income support but also to those in employment. Another approach would be to allow each prisoner, say, three or four temporary transfers per year to Northern Ireland to receive accumulated visits. Of course, the costs of either method would be high, but we are talking only of a few dozen people.
As things stand, Her Majesty's Government are in breach of United Nations principles on imprisonment and of the spirit of the European Convention on the Repatriation of Prisoners which we have ratified. The Government are being taken to the European Court of Human Rights on this matter. They are disregarding the intention of the prison rules and of Lord Justice

31
Woolf's recommendations in his report. That is a wholly unsatisfactory position. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us today what improvements the Government have in mind. There have been some 15 or more years in which to consider the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I put my name down to the amendment partly because of my earlier connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland and partly because of my experience when I was chairman of the Parole Board and witnessed the hardship inflicted on families fathers, mothers, wives, children and dependants— of Northern Ireland prisoners convicted in English courts and confined in prisons on the mainland. It need hardly be said that it is no part of our system of justice that the dependants of criminals, no matter how heinous their offences, should be made to suffer as a result of the crimes committed by those persons, particularly when the innocence of the dependants is not in question. In the case of small children, how could that be?
As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, confinement in English prisons amounts to punishment of the dependants. As he said, the journeys are long and arduous. I have seen families arriving at prisons— for instance, on the Isle of Wight— in a state of exhaustion and nervous tension, as if arriving in a strange land. It is no answer to the problem to suggest that young mothers who wish to be accompanied by their small children should leave them behind. That is merely another form of punishment as it deprives the children of seeing their father and vice-versa.
That is why it is important whenever the public interest does not point to the contrary that is the significance of the word "may" in the amendment— to transfer Northern Ireland prisoners to prisons in their own country and to give statutory authority to the difference in jurisdiction as between serving in prisons in Northern Ireland and serving in prisons in England and Wales. As your Lordships know, the differences between the practice in Northern Ireland of releasing the prisoner half way through his sentence with no parole system in place, and the practice elsewhere in Britain of hitherto releasing at two-thirds of the sentence served in prison, with eligibility for parole at any time after one third of the sentence has been served, will be altered by the conditions embodied in the Bill. Prisoners serving long sentences of seven years and more will have to serve half their sentences in prison and may then be considered for parole. I feel sure that prisoners domiciled in the Province but serving sentences in England would gladly give up their eligibility for parole— the prospects for which are in any case likely to be minimal in the case of IRA prisoners— in return for regular, frequent and more relaxed contacts with their families.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment and make three points. First, those of us who have worked in, and had a great deal to do with, prisons know that prisoners who are in touch with their families and who receive regular visits are far easier to handle because they are far happier people.
32
The prison staff are therefore affected as well as their fellow prisoners. Even if the families of prisoners from Ireland can visit, they do so very rarely and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, they are usually in a state of collapse. If the men were in Ireland, they could be visited frequently.
Secondly, with regard to the relationship between prisoners and their children to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, it is important that the children see their fathers even if they are in prison in order to maintain a relationship. Thirdly, from the point of view of rehabilitation, when the man comes out of prison, it is far easier for him to be rehabilitated if he has maintained contact with his family.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. A humane prison system should certainly include provision for the visiting of prisoners by families coming from a distance. If transfer will make that easier, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we debated a similar amendment in Committee. Perhaps I may say straightaway that I fully understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and of your Lordships about the transfer of prisoners from England and Wales to Northern Ireland. However, I still have some serious difficulties with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. That arises from the prospect of mixing two distinct systems and sets of powers. The early release arrangements in Northern Ireland are different from those that apply in England and Wales. There would be difficulties if, for example. a life sentence prisoner whose tariff had been imposed in this country was transferred to Northern Ireland and his detention was in all other respects a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
I have considerable sympathy with your Lordships' concerns about this matter. I accept that the current arrangements sometimes create difficulties for the families of prisoners who have to travel a long way to visit. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, knows that we are considering further what can be done. He asked me whether that consideration had been completed. All I can say at the moment is that we hope to conclude our consultations very shortly. As soon as they are concluded, I will write to the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, with the results of that consultation. I hope your Lordships will understand that this is a problem to which we are addressing ourselves as best we can because we realise the difficulties which the present situation causes.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all speakers who have supported the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Earl expressed anxieties on the technical aspects. I hope very much that the Government's consideration will be completed before we reach Third Reading of this Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment now and reserve the right to return to it at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
("Alteration of certain penalties under the Vagrancy Act 1824
.— (1) (a) Where a person has been convicted by a court of placing himself or herself in any public place, street, highway, court or passage to beg or gather alms under section 3 or 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended, then he or she shall be liable only to:

(i) a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale, or

(ii) a conditional discharge, or

(iii) an absolute discharge, or

(iv) a probation order.

(b) before imposing a fine on such an offender as is mentioned in paragraph (a) the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was not begging for money on which to support himself or herself.
(2) Where a person has been convicted by a court of wandering abroad, or lodging in any barn or outhouse or in any deserted or unoccupied building or in the open air or under a tent, or in any cart or waggon and not giving a good account of himself or herself contrary to sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended, he or she shall be liable only to—
(aa) a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale, or

(a) a conditional discharge, or

(b) an absolute discharge, or

(c) be made the subject of a probation order.

(3) Section 5 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended is repealed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I formally move Amendment No. 60. It is necessary to move the amendment in an amended form so that it does not conflict with the decision which the House has already taken on Amendment No. 57. A new paragraph to be inserted in subsection (2), before paragraph (a), states:
"(aa) a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale, or".
As we have debated this subject on Amendment No. 57, it must be for the convenience of the House that I move the amendment formally. I hope noble Lords will agree to that procedure. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for putting down his manuscript amendment. It permits consideration of a proposal which otherwise would not have been possible. We had a fairly full debate on Amendment No. 57A. I do not think there is anything more of substance I can say other than to hope that your Lordships will not agree to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 60) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington,L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Airedale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Craigavon, V.

Annan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ardwick, L.

David, B.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bancroft, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ennals, L.

Blake, L.

Faithfull, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bridges, L.

Foot, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carter, L.

Gladwyn, L.

34

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Morris of Castle Morris. L.

Grey, E.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Hampton, L.

Nicol. B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Phillips, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hughes, L.

Richard, L.

Hunt, L.

Rochester, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kearton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn. L.

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Listowel, E.

Tenby, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Underhill, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Walston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

White, B.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Aldington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allerton, L.

Havers, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Astor, V.

Hood, V.

Auckland, L.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Howe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bellwin, L.

Ironside, L.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bessborough, E.

Joseph, L.

Birdwood, L.

Killearn, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blyth, L.

Kitchener, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Knollys, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnock, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cawley, L.

Manton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Margadale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marsh, L.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mersey, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Middleton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Milverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Donegall, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dudley, E.

Nathan, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norrie, L.

Erne, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gridley, L.

Porritt, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

35

Pym, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathspey, L.

Reay, L.

Terrington, L.

Renton, L.

Teviot, L.

Renwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trumpington, B.

Rodney, L.

Ullswater, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Slim, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strange, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Wise, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Further and Higher Education
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's proposals for education for all young people over the age of 16.
"More young people than ever before are taking up education and training opportunities. Six out of ten 16 year-olds stayed on in full-time education last autumn compared with four out of 10 in 1979. Three out of four 17 year-olds are in education or training today compared with two out of four 10 years ago. One in five 18 and 19 year-olds now continue into higher education, compared with one in eight 10 years ago. More adults are also taking advantage of the educational opportunities available. All 16 and 17 year-olds in this country have a guarantee of a place in full-time education or training if they choose to take advantage of it. We secure places for all those people who wish to go on into higher education and are suitably qualified.
"We need to build on these achievements. That means developing more vocational qualifications of a standard that will win equal esteem with the best academic qualifications. It means giving schools, colleges and universities the institutional freedom and the necessary incentives to develop and respond to the demands of young people and of employers. The Government are setting themselves the aim of achieving mass participation in higher education, further education and training while maintaining and enhancing present high standards.
"The Government's proposals are contained in three White Papers which are being published today. The necessary legislation to implement the proposals will be brought before the House in due course.
"I turn first to the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century which I present to Parliament with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Wales. This sets out new policies for education and training after compulsory school age. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for
36
Employment will describe the new training policies in a further Statement to the House and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is presenting his proposals in a separate White Paper.
"The White Paper sets out in detail the Government's proposals for further education colleges and sixth form colleges. As I announced to the House on 21st March we intend that these colleges will become autonomous institutions outside local authority control.
"The colleges will be funded by national further education councils in England and in Wales. They will receive each year a core budget plus additional funds according to the actual number of students enrolled. In this way they will have a powerful incentive to recruit and retain additional students, both young people and adults. The councils will not manage the colleges. They will follow the model of the funding council that has so successfully steered the remarkable growth of the polytechnics after we freed them from the control of local government.
"Vocational qualifications have for too long been misunderstood and undervalued in this country. The White Paper sets out how the introduction of a clear structure of national vocational qualifications can be accelerated. The range of qualifications will meet the needs of students of all abilities. At level 3, they will be set at a high standard equivalent to A-levels.
"A-levels are successful and well respected examinations which are being taken by steadily increasing numbers of pupils. I am determined to see them maintained and to control their development so that their high standard is preserved. I am writing today to the School Examinations and Assessment Council setting out my views on the principles which should govern the development of A-level and AS examinations. These principles are designed to ensure consistency of standards between AS and A-levels and to provide a framework for increasing numbers of young people to pursue courses of academic study which can be broadened by increasing the take-up of AS examinations. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
"A and AS courses are not the only route to excellence and to higher education. We must do more to promote understanding among students, employers and higher education institutions of the value and quality of national vocational qualifications at equivalent standard. The Government have therefore decided to introduce new diplomas at advanced and ordinary levels. The advanced diploma will be awarded to students taking AS and A-levels, to students gaining vocational qualifications of the same standard, and to students taking a mixture of the two. I intend to consult on the details later this summer.
"The White Paper describes two further measures which are directed at schools. First, the Government intend to legislate to adjust the school leaving date. At present some 16 year-olds are able to leave school legally at Easter before completing

37
key stage 4 of the national curriculum and before their GCSE examinations. We shall introduce legislation to require all pupils to complete their studies at the end of the summer term. This will ensure that all pupils will have their level of attainment. at the end of their compulsory education properly assessed.
"Secondly, I believe that we should allow both schools and colleges of all kinds to broaden the range of courses and opportunities which they offer. The White Paper therefore announces the intention to introduce legislation which would enable school sixth forms to admit part-time students and adults. The main work of sixth forms will continue to be for young people studying full time. They will have greater freedom to take on other students if they wish and if there is room.
"In higher education, we need to build on the successes of recent years. The academics in our universities may sometimes grumble but they are to be congratulated on their progress in expanding access to more students in recent years while maintaining the best academic standards in the developed world. The polytechnics and colleges, freed from the the control of local authorities, have also demonstrated that rapid expansion and improvements in quality can go hand in hand. The Government congratulate the polytechnics and colleges on what they have achieved, particularly in widening access to higher education and in developing vocational courses. The formal distinctions between universities on the one hand and polytechnics and colleges on the other, known as the binary line, have in my opinion now become an obstacle to further progress. The Government propose to abolish these distinctions and establish a single framework for higher education.
"With my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am presenting to Parliament today a White Paper setting out the main features of our proposals.
"First, we shall establish a single funding structure for universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education. In order to reflect particular needs in Scotland and Wales, there will be separate higher education funding councils in England, Scotland and Wales to distribute public funds for both teaching and research. New links will be established to continue the present close relationship with Northern Ireland's exiting unitary structure.
"Secondly, the Council for National Academic Awards has successfully brought the polytechnics and other major institutions to a position where they can offer degrees under their own quality control arrangements equal in standard to those offered by the universities. We propose therefore to extend degree awarding powers to polytechnics and major institutions and to wind up the Council for National Academic Awards. We shall, however, look to universities, polytechnics and colleges to develop their own quality audit arrangements on a UK-wide basis. We shall also require the higher
38
education funding councils to establish quality assessment units to advise the councils on the relative quality of teaching and learning across institutions so that those judgments of quality can inform the distribution of public funding.
"Thirdly, we shall extend the title of university to those polytechnics which wish to use it. It is our firm intention nevertheless that the present distinctive features of the polytechnics, with their particular emphasis on links with industry, vocational degree and sub-degree courses, and applied research, should be retained.
"The Government believe that this new framework will provide for an expanding, thriving and diverse system of higher education in the United Kingdom. Our policies are designed to ensure that higher education continues to expand efficiently alongside improvements in quality. When we came into office only one in eight of the relevant age group went into higher education. Now it is one in five. By the end of this decade we expect one in three of all young people to benefit from higher education of our traditional high quality.
"Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to present these two White Papers to the House this afternoon. They will transform post-school education and training. They will enhance the esteem of vocational education. They will benefit ever larger numbers of students, from all backgrounds and at all levels. Our policies pave the way for a better society and greater economic success. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. When, a few weeks ago, without warning or consultation the Government announced that further education was to be taken out of local authority control I made clear in my response to the Statement then made in this House that no educational arguments had been produced in support of the change now elaborated on by the Government. It has been introduced for ideological reasons as part of the Government's long-standing and doctrinaire hostility to local government. It has been introduced to reduce educational spending at the local level by £2 billion in order to help the Government out of their poll tax quagmire. The change has been roundly condemned by many Conservative councillors working in local government and responsible for education.
For 12 years the Government have failed to address the crucial question of how to improve the provision of further education. They have sat back and ignored low participation rates. Recently, on their own admission, they have recognised that we have fallen further behind our neighbours and competitors in relation to those staying-on rates.
Only three years ago the Government produced the biggest piece of educational legislation since the war. They told us that it would provide all the solutions to raising educational standards and would establish the

39
necessary structures. Now we are faced with yet another set of changes which will disrupt the education service at local level.
Only three years ago the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science in another place said:
"We believe that there is a need for strategic planning in further education".
How are we to plan further education strategically with sixth forms left in the schools under LEAs and sixth-form colleges and FE colleges under a new funding council? How can a single, centralised council sensibly plan for local provision— FE colleges are local, unlike polytechnics and universities— with as many as 600 separate institutions? There is also a built-in division between the LEAs and the schools on the one hand and the new funding council and the colleges on the other.
Only three years ago the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science said:
"We have great confidence that local authorities will fulfil their duty to promote further education".
Why the change?
I now turn to the subject of A-levels and qualifications for 18 or 19 year-olds. The Government have yet again failed to concede the argument that A-levels are over-specialised, in some respects over academic, and also that far too many young people fail them or even take them. It appears that the Government have failed to concede the argument about the jungle of vocational qualifications, although we must hear a little more about that matter. Yet again the Government appear to have done nothing to resolve the problem. The solution that they have put forward looks nothing more than a messy and poor compromise. It appears to leave A-levels and AS-levels under the umbrella of an advanced diploma.
The Government are wholly isolated in believing that A-levels should be retained. The Royal Society, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Institute of Physics, the CBI and ACOST have recently said that it is time that A-levels went. I simply cannot understand why the Government will not listen to expert advice on the matter.
The Statement that we have heard is totally unclear about the Government's intentions in respect of the new diplomas at advanced and ordinary level. For example, what relation will they have to NVQ level 3? Will the diplomas clear away the existing jungle? How will they relate to the A-level and AS-level which are to be retained? The key issue is that by retaining A-levels the Government appear to be perpetuating and reinforcing the divide that so many people wish to see abolished.
All young people need to benefit from some academic study of the fundamentals and some vocational study about their application. The Statement appears to be another lost opportunity to bring that about because it clings to a structure which will not overcome the fact that 90 per cent. of young people in this country do not study mathematics after the age of 16 whereas 90 per cent. of young people in Japan study mathematics until the age of 18.
40
The Royal Society represents Britain's greatest scientists. It recently stated that high standards are not achieved by the in-depth study of three subjects, pumping young people with knowledge. They are achieved by encouraging young people to make links across the curriculum and by developing analytical capacity and creativity. In so doing the society has endorsed the Labour Party's proposals for a genuine advanced diploma, not an umbrella which will begin to leak in no time and will turn inside out as soon as the wind blows.
I wish to welcome some of the long overdue measures being proposed to adjust the school leaving date. All young people should complete five years of secondary education. I also welcome the decision to allow some students to study part time in the sixth form. That is a helpful move to increase flexibility and to keep young people participating in education who otherwise might not do so.
I now turn to the proposals for higher education. We welcome the Government's belated recognition of the strength of the case that the Labour Party has put forward for years to extend opportunities for higher education, to end the binary divide and to establish a joint funding council. For a long time we have advocated the amalgamation of the PCFC and UFC. Only three years ago when the issue was discussed during the passage through Parliament of the Education Reform Bill, Ministers rejected the proposal.
We also welcome the fact that the Government will enable the polytechnics to award their own degrees and change their status. However, I regret that the Government are unconvincing about the way in which they will carry through such changes and what they will do to safeguard standards and the quality of teaching and research already under great pressure as a result of chronic underfunding. The vital issue of quality assurance is left hanging. The institutions are being asked to develop their own quality audit. I am unconvinced that all 600 FE colleges will be capable of achieving that. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government will maintain quality?
I wish to ask the Minister several further questions. First, is access to higher education to depend on the ability to benefit, as the Labour Party believes it should, or will the Government make access dependent on the ability to pay? For example, will the Minister categorically rule out top-up fees as a means of financing expansion?
Will the Minister say what resources the Government will now commit to make good the desperate backlog of polytechnic and university maintenance, given that the £650 million of expenditure on polytechnic buildings identified as long ago as 1989 in the Hunter Report and the more than £180 million identified by the CVCP for the universities has yet to be found? How can expansion take place and quality be maintained, as the Statement implies, unless the resources are provided?
The Statement does not mention research. What commitments are the Government making to research? Finally, does the Minister acknowledge that the polytechnics, which were set up by the Labour

41
Party, have made a distinctive contribution to higher education, combining the vocational and academic and pioneering broader access and other innovations? How will the Government ensure that under a single funding council those excellent characteristics will be maintained?
What do the Government intend to do about adult education? We have received more than one assurance in this House that the White Paper will deal with that. Yet again, this Statement totally ignores it. Fortunately. the Labour Party has a much more coherent set of solutions as regards FE and HE than those which we have heard today. Those solutions have wide backing. It will not be too long before, in government. we are able to implement them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches we thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The subject is of great importance. The White Paper, which we have not yet been able to read, is comprehensive and a glimpse at it shows that we shall no doubt be debating it at some length. Therefore, I shall he brief. I had hoped that on a subject of this kind, on which on all sides of the House we are determined that there should be great improvement, we could have had a non-party approach to the discussion.
I welcome the main point of the White Paper; namely, the commitment by the Government to a large-scale expansion of higher education in various forms. We have all known for a long time that that is one of the greatest needs in this country today. We hope that the Government will get on with it as quickly as possible.
I welcome also the abolition at last of the binary divide. It has been nonsense for a long time. There were historical and understandable reasons for it but we must catch up with history. Perhaps some parties are slower to join the race than others. However, at least that has now happened.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that it is a pity that the approach to A-levels has been something of a compromise, to put it mildly. I welcome the strong support for the NVQs. I am glad that they will be incorporated into what will, in effect, be a combined A-level.
I have not had time to study what is in the White Paper but on the face of it there seems to be something of a muddle. The old A-level and S-level are to be retained but incorporated into the system under the umbrella of a diploma will be national vocational qualifications. One hopes that this is an interim stage and that we can move on without too much delay to achieve a comprehensive A-level which embraces all options and gives variety and depth at the same time. I accept that that is not easy to achieve. However, it is important that the depth should remain.
I find interesting the part-time sixth form approach and allowing adults into sixth forms. The suggestion may be contained in the White Paper but in the Statement there is no reference to tertiary colleges. It seems to me that they present the best opportunity for 16 to 18 year-olds to mix in an easy way with adult society and to learn from other students coming from industry for part-time study what is going on in the
42
world of work. Those people will actually be there. It will not merely be their superiors telling them about it. I believe that the development of tertiary colleges is the best way ahead for 16 to 18 year-olds.
I do not wish to undermine the sixth forms, which will remain. I understand that teachers in schools wish to retain them, as I should if I were a teacher in a school. However, I believe that the tertiary college direction is better than trying to reinforce sixth forms in schools.
I am concerned about standards and quality. The Government say that they are determined to maintain quality. Quality will be maintained only if there is sufficient money and if there are methods of testing that quality exists in the large number of polytechnics across the country. Those who have worked in those colleges in one way or another over the years will know that standards vary considerably. Some have done outstandingly good work, while others, to put it bluntly, have not. We wish to be assured that quality will be maintained. What will be put in place of the CNAA safeguard which is to be abolished?
Finally, it will not surprise the Minister that I ask her about adult education. Adult education has been the Cinderella and there is no statutory obligation; and yet it has never before been as important to strengthen adult education. I know that there is provision for adult education in many further education colleges, but there are colleges which are adults colleges and technically not further education colleges. Many of those colleges have been a matter for pride in our education system. Will they be adequately maintained under the new system?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses because I appreciate how short is the notice. I am amazed at the number of specific and rather detailed questions which have, nevertheless, been raised.
I welcome particularly the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who appealed to the House to take an apolitical approach to the subject, which was not the impression from the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. If there is a criticism as regards ideology, I hope that it will apply to us all. We should all be idealistic about our worries over young people and their education and training.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, had listened to what I said when I repeated the Statement, she would realise that far from falling further behind our competitors on participation rates, the evidence shows that participation rates have gradually increased. They are not good enough and we know that there is more to do. However, we believe that these proposals will help to increase participation rates and that we shall reach the target of one in three participating in higher education. There is a vast improvement on 1979 figures.
Much has been said about the retention of A-levels. We remain wholly unapologetic about their retention. We believe that there is room in the education system for in-depth academic study and we should not deny schools the opportunity to pursue it. We have introduced considerable flexibility for education for

43
post-14 year-olds by modifying the national curriculum, by introducing vocational courses and also by introducing BTEC foundation courses into schools.
Vocational courses are now given the same parity of esteem as academic courses. The application and introduction of diplomas, which will be awarded for achievements both in vocational and academic courses—and it will be one or the other, or a mixture of both—will go a very long way towards improving the education and training of our young people.
The noble Baroness referred also to the percentage of students not studying maths after the age of 16. When the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. first said that there was something wrong with the education system it was precisely that kind of comment and criticism that persuaded this Government to do something in regard to improving it. That is the reason the national curriculum insists that all children throughout their school life study maths, English and science core subjects; that is, from the age of 5 to 16. That ensures that there will not be young people in school dropping subjects at a whim. They will have to see the subject through. I was pleased that the noble Baroness accepted that they should not see them through only to the age of 16, but through to the end of the academic year in which they reach 16. That is important.
We have a framework of the national curriculum, the core subjects, vocational qualifications, reformed examination system and the introduction of diplomas recognising excellence in both vocational and academic subjects. Far from there not being a strategy and there existing a "ragbag"—I believe that was the phrase used—there is a coherence, a continuum and a strategy that will serve our young people well.
On the specific point concerning top-up fees, the setting of fees is properly for an individual higher education institution. There are no plans that tuition fees will be required of award-holding students beyond the sums met on their behalf under the award arrangements. In regard to funding, our commitment to awarding higher education its fair share of public expenditure is clear. For the second year running public funds have increased by 10 per cent. They are renewed annually. I wonder whether I could persuade the noble Baroness to say whether the Labour Party will fund the state fees of all people going into further education and training. Open access, fully-funded, would cost in the region of £ 7 billion to meet in full. I am not sure that the noble Baroness will say that.
In regard to research we decided that the new mechanism needed to replace general research funds distributed through the UFC should be a single channel along the lines of the present UFC alongside research council specific funding. That allows co-ordination of the handling of research and teaching within and between institutions as well as providing a better overview of the financial position of individual institutions. It will now be open to polytechnics and colleges to receive general research funding from the new funding councils.
44
The noble Baroness asked whether there was anything in the papers regarding tertiary colleges. I am happy to say that they are properly recognised as being an important part of the educational structure. We have always been cautious about being overprescriptive in regard to the specific structure for education and training post-16. Nevertheless, they are properly recognised and no doubt the noble Baroness will return to the subject at another time. The same applies for adult education colleges. Without taking up too much of the House's time it is difficult to go into more detail.
On the last important point in regard to quality assurance, the Secretary of State will be in consultation with all interested parties concerned with the criteria for awarding degrees; in other words, the criteria against which colleges which are given powers to award their own degrees will be judged, and also status and title. Again, that will be a matter of concern.
The principle of inspection and of quality assurance will apply right across the higher education sector. We know that there will be a vacuum when CNAA goes. It is our view that the quality audit unit which will be responsible for degree-awarding powers will ensure that validation arrangements are in place and, more importantly, that they are working properly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in view of the immense importance of the Statement which she has just made many noble Lords hope that an early opportunity will be given to the House to debate this issue, which is of such enormous and long standing importance to the whole country? As my noble friend the Leader of the House is present I hope that he will take note of this view and arrange for an early full day's debate to take place.
In regard to the merits of the matter, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the clear-cut decision to separate higher education as a whole from that part which is administered by the local authorities. The distinction was blurred under the previous situation. From the point of view of financing it was a little confused. Is my noble friend aware that I and many other people greatly welcome putting the whole of higher education under the funding council and in a separate category? Is she aware also that those of us who take that view undoubtedly find it supported by the great progress which the polytechnics made once they were separated from local authority control and put under their own separate categorisation?
I welcome enormously the decision to grant to the polytechnics the right to award degrees. A number of young people who could perhaps have profited most from attending a polytechnic struggled to obtain a university place so that, at the end of the day, they could obtain a degree which they felt would be a qualification to assist them in obtaining various employments. The new decision deals with that situation and is an admirable measure.
I thank my noble friend for reading the Statement. It is one that any of us could comment upon at great length, but I shall restrain myself. I ask her to accept

45
that many of us feel that it is one of the most important steps that this Government have taken in the 12 years of their existence.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, before we come to the major debate, which I hope will take place, I should like to ask the Minister a question on one specific point. Will the Minister take back to the Secretary of State the idea that he should consider one specific point.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The convention is for the questions to be taken one at a time and be answered individually.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be brief. I welcome the comments of my noble friend. I shall ensure that the usual channels are aware of the request for this important subject to be debated without delay. I welcome also the comments on separation—one need only look at the success and the way in which the polytechnic and college sector flourished when it broke away from education authorities. The education authorities will come to realise that it makes sense. I agree with my noble friend in all that he said in regard to the status of polytechnics and their ability to award degrees.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she inform her noble friend that polytechnics have been issuing degrees for many years.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, absolutely!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are not speaking of issuing degrees. Self-validation is the key point. I know what my noble friend meant. The significance is that in future they will be their own degrees as opposed to university degrees.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is still not the point.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is important that the House should be clear. Polytechnics have not been issuing university degrees. Universities have had nothing to do with that for many years. The polytechnics have been issuing degrees of the Council for National Academic Awards.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. I am saying that the difference will be that polytechnics will be able to validate their own degrees, and that is significant.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps I could now ask my question. I should like to ask that one particular point be looked at again before legislation comes before us. It relates to sixth form colleges. I concede all the arguments dealing with higher and further education. However, sixth form colleges are not part of the higher and further education system. They are an extension of schooling. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, pointed out in our debate on education, it is difficult to see how they can be separated from local schools in any effective way.
I did some homework on the matter. I went to my local sixth form college to speak to their politics
46
society about the proceedings of the House, in which they were interested. I discovered that there we have a collection of youngsters drawn from the five secondary schools in the vicinity and a few a little further away, from Brighton. The students at that college are studying A-levels and also working for vocational qualifications. The GCSE examinations are being taken again either because the students have not done well enough or new subjects are being studied to be added to the total. It is an avenue into further and higher education, but it is not part of it. Therefore, it is extraordinary that this provision should be made national unless the whole schooling system is to be changed. If it is to be changed then the simplest measure would be to return to all secondary schools their sixth forms. If they are to feed into the sixth form colleges then the present local arrangements should be looked at. If they are not satisfactory perhaps we can find out why they are not.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the sixth form colleges take 16 year-olds quite separately from the school institutions. In other words, the schools with sixth forms keep their sixth formers in house. Sixth form colleges are separate and are increasingly like FE colleges. Much of what my noble friend has described happens in many of our further education colleges. Many of our further education colleges provide for GCSEs to be resat and offer a mixture of academic and vocational courses. The Government took the view that separate 16-plus institutions deserved the same freedom as all the other separate post-16 educational institutions.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the moment sixth form colleges are treated as coming under the school regulations? Is there now to be an end of school regulations and abolition of the difference between those and further education regulations? That is an interesting point. Will the LEAs have compensation for not only the buildings but the land which will be handed over to the new funding council? That is a very important matter, particularly if new buildings are being thought of. As the noble Baroness will know, at the moment that is a question in our own county of Cambridgeshire. It is a question of whether the county will make available land for a new college of further education when it is not quite sure whether it will have control of it later.
I have one further question concerning the diploma at ordinary level. The diploma at advanced level is mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Statement and it is explained, but nothing is said about the diploma at ordinary level. Am I to understand that that diploma is instead of the GCSE or in addition, or what?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will not be instead of the GCSE. When the noble Baroness has more time and is able to read further, she will see that there are to be discussions about the scope of the application of the diplomas and what will constitute measures towards gaining a diploma both at ordinary level and advanced level. As regards the sixth forms, all institutions in the new sector will operate under a common regulatory framework. I am fishing around

47
very quickly to find a specific answer on pay and conditions. I do not have detailed information. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The further and higher education system operates with very different pay and conditions. The sixth form colleges operate under school conditions. I shall write to the noble Baroness and I shall be more specific on that point.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not replied to the question of compensation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry. There will be a transfer of land. That will operate under the very same conditions as those which apply to the polytechnic sector. That which constitutes the institutional land and property will be transferred.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as I understand the position, under the latest version of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No.2) Bill the pay of sixth form college teachers is to be determined by a review body. Following the enactment of the Bill, if legislation is to be introduced which means that the pay of sixth form college teachers is to be determined on a completely different basis, does that not place sixth form teachers in an invidious position?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to say the same thing to the noble Lord as I said to the noble Baroness. It will be quite wrong of me to indulge in any kind of guesswork on this matter. I do not have specific answers to those questions on pay and conditions. I shall ensure that I inform both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in writing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that students at sixth forms studying part-time for A-levels will be eligible for income support? That would certainly be welcome. In the Statement the Minister has insisted that the Government are retaining the AS and A-levels. About 15 months ago I surveyed eight or 10 secondary schools in my area. I found that almost none of them could afford or had the resources to run both A-level and AS-level courses in the same subject where the syllabus was different: an example was history. As a result a school might offer 17 or 20 A-levels but barely a handful of AS-levels. The schools did not have the resources even though the universities would have welcomed the qualifications and their breadth. Does that not suggest to the Minister that the time has come to scrap that divide which schools find too expensive to bridge and instead to go along the lines of the Professor Higginson A-levels or the baccalaureate style suggested by my noble friend Lady Blackstone.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on a number of occasions I believe that I have answered similar questions across the Dispatch Box about what one local authority can do as opposed to another. Many schools throughout the land are managing on a similar funding basis to provide both A and AS-levels. When the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was speaking she said that A-levels were over-specialised and
48
over-academic. It is an insult to our young people if we say that they should not specialise and that they should not pursue academic subjects.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as Pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales, perhaps I may declare an interest. As the noble Baroness is aware, the University of Wales is a federal university with six constituent colleges. Can she say whether the Welsh polytechnic is to have university status? In that case can I assume that it will become a seventh constituent college of the University of Wales? In view of the fact that a separate Welsh funding council is to be set up, with a funding council for England and Scotland, will the Welsh funding council be answerable to the Department of Education and Science or will the Welsh Office come into the procedure in some way or other? In a similar way, will that procedure apply to Scotland as well?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I understand it, as in most departments, including the Welsh departments for Wales and the Scottish departments for Scotland, the departments will be responsible to their national offices. If I am wrong about that I shall notify the noble Lord and put the matter right. As regards status, it will be a matter for the particular institution to determine whether it is interested in being called a university or operating as a university. That will be acceptable depending on whether the body measures up to the criteria for the self-validation of degree courses. At the end of the day it will be a decision for the particular institution which applies to be called a university and to award its own degrees.
Baroness White: My Lords, I suggest that before the Minister discusses Wales she learns a little more about the peculiarities of the Welsh university system.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I shall not try to add to the searching criticism of some aspects of the proposals which have been made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I was the first person to introduce in this House a debate about the polytechnics. As a result, I must be allowed a certain amount of satisfaction. I opened that debate about two years ago and at that time there was no question of these wonderful reforms. It would be nice to say post hoc propter hoc. However, I am not.presumptuous enough to say that. It is a great day for the polytechnics and I leave it at that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the whole House knows how passionately the noble Earl has campaigned for the polytechnics. I believe that that part of my speech today was accepted in all parts of the House. I thought that the noble Earl would be pleased about that particular proposal.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness could explain a little further about the control of universities, polytechnics and colleges. I understand—and it is a solution devoutly to be wished for—that the Universities Funding Council is to be wound up and put under a higher educational funding council. We hope that the personnel will be slightly different.

49
The second point I wish to make is this: what happens if a polytechnic or a college begins to go down a path which is neither academic nor vocational? It is perfectly possible that studies of this kind can emerge in autonomous institutions. How autonomous will be universities, polytechnics and colleges? Is there to be any control over their development; their academic or their vocational development? Is there to be any guidance from government as to what to do when institutions find themselves incapable, owing to their funding, of carrying on as they are now doing?
The universities, so I understand—though I have been in Germany for 10 days—have had to ask for a meeting with the Prime Minister because the Secretary of State refuses to meet them. They cannot see how they can continue to operate in their present state of funding; at any rate on the same lines. So far as concerns medical schools, for example, it has long been known and understood—though not very often stated publicly—that there are at least two too many medical schools and teaching hospitals in London. In other words, that they should be reduced by two. How is that going to be brought about? The Government take the line that it is not possible at the moment to determine the matter. I see that the Chief Whip is looking very anxious.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it was remiss of me not to answer an earlier specific question about any change in support for students. There is no plan in this Statement to change that. We are not interfering with the present system.
In terms of quality and control the UFC will be replaced by the national funding councils: one for each of the three countries. The relationship between those funding councils and their respective institutions will be very much as it is between the UFC and the universities and the PFC and its polytechnics. Matters of funding and levels of funding split between research and other grants will be a matter for that. I see nothing to change in terms of what was two sectors being a single sector making its usual vigorous representations to government on the forthcoming PES rounds regarding the funding of higher education.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we are getting very near to the end of the time allowed. If the noble Lord were to ask a further question my noble friend would not be able to answer because we are so near to the end of questions after the Statement, which should not last more than 20 minutes. I think it is probably time for the next Statement.

Education and Training: 16–19 Year-Olds
5.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
50
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the plans for which I am responsible which are set out in the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century announced by my right honourable friend.
"This White Paper will transform the prospects for Britain's 16 to 19 year-olds. We have already laid the foundations; now we are moving ahead. The proposals we are announcing today will mean that, for the first time, all young people in the country up to the age of 19 will be encouraged and entitled to continue in education or training or both—which will take them to higher levels of qualifications than ever before. And the artificial barriers between the academic and the vocational, which have bedevilled us for so long, will be swept away.
"The plans in this White Paper represent a clear recognition of the importance of preparing our young people for the world of work, and the priority we attach to it.
"I turn now to the specific proposals which I am putting forward. First, we plan to attract many more young people into training by giving a training credit to every 16 and 17 year-old leaving full-time education. Training credits are a new way of promoting youth training. The credit puts buying power in the hands of young people. It encourages them to take up their entitlement to vocational education and to take full advantage of training, and the opportunity to qualify with a national vocational qualification at level 2 or higher.
"Credits are now being offered to 10 per cent. of school leavers in pilot areas. With the experience of these pilots to build on, we will progressively extend credits from April 1993. Within the life time of the next Parliament we aim to offer a training credit to every 16 and 17 year-old in the country who is leaving full-time education.
"Secondly, we shall also extend across the whole country the Compacts approach to bringing together young people and employers in raising attainment at school and college. At present Compacts are working highly successfully in urban programme areas and similar areas in Scotland and Wales. We shall invite Training and Enterprise Councils in partnership with local education authorities and others to extend this approach to all parts of the country. We shall provide financial support to start up Compacts, matching the support that they will attract from private sector and local authority sources.
"I turn next to vocational qualifications. A great deal of progress has been made in developing and extending practical job-related qualifications. Our proposals will create a structure of qualifications which offers the breadth and choice that young people and their employers need, and in which academic and vocational qualifications will have equal status.
"National vocational qualifications will be available for all major sectors of employment by the end of next year. We are inviting the National

51
Council for Vocational Qualifications to work with others to develop more general job-related qualifications within the NVQ framework suitable for young people who want a broad preparation for employment. We shall promote equality of status for academic and vocational qualifications by developing the new system of ordinary and advanced diplomas which my right honourable friend described in his Statement.
"Our plans in the White Paper, especially training credits, will increase the importance of having high quality career services, linked closely to employers. I have been consulting about ways of organising the careers service for its future tasks. There is considerable support for my proposal that Training and Enterprise Councils should be involved as partners with local education authorities in overseeing the operation of the service locally. We shall encourage local education authorities to work with TECs in partnership for this purpose. We shall provide financial support to start such partnerships where they are proposed. We intend also to legislate so as to open up a range of other options, including direct TEC management of the careers service and contracting out to the private sector. We shall increase investment in the training of careers service advisory staff and in careers libraries in schools.
"Employer commitment is essential if young people are to be well prepared for the demands of working life. The measures I have announced today will give employers through TECs extended roles in training credits, Compacts, and the careers service. Moreover, my right honourable and learned friend's proposed reform of further education will include measures to involve TECs closely in the new funding arrangements.
"The range of proposals in the White Paper will provide greater opportunities for young people to unlock their potential, a much wider choice in how they develop their talents, and a strengthened support system to guide their progress. These proposals will open doors for all our young people, whatever their background and their aspirations. They will strengthen the foundation of skills that the economy will need in future. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I welcome, as I am sure we all do, any initiative to improve arrangements for training for young people between the ages of 16 and 19. I was a member of your Lordships' Select Committee that reported recently on vocational training. We carried out a good deal of research and took evidence from a number of organisations. We looked at what was happening in other countries, particularly countries where there was a tradition of providing good training. In Germany, for example, we noted that all young people between the ages of 16 and 18 were
52
expected either to remain in full-time education or go on to an approved training course. I emphasise the fact that it was compulsory that they should do so.
I notice that the Statement refers to "encouragement" and to the training credit system. On this side of the House we welcome training credits although we question whether relying on encouragement will be sufficient in the circumstances that now exist. The Government guaranteed places on YTS in 1988. Despite that, as we know, not all young people secured a place. Moreover YTS itself had a lack of credibility among many young people. It was not perceived as providing a quality programme. A great deal depends on the quality of the training on offer. If this new initiative is to be successful, it must be seen as providing education and training of quality.
TECs are already complaining about the lack of resources available to them. If the initiative is to succeed, the appropriate organisations will need the resources to carry it through. I commend the NCVQ for the work that it is doing. It was an excellent idea to establish the NCVQ and the system of levels of qualification. I welcome the statement that it is intended to do away with the differences—the artificial barriers—between the academic and the vocational. That is a progressive development. On the other hand, I wonder whether some additional confusion may be created. My noble friend Lady Blackstone referred to that point in some detail. I should not want to see further confusion added to what has been described as the jungle of vocational qualifications.
Furthermore, it seems to me that young people in training will need support. I refer to the question of my noble friend Lady Hollis about income support. That issue has to be addressed. There is not much point in providing opportunities for young people if the resources are not there to assist them during their period in training.
We have to regard training not as a cost but as an investment for the future. The only way in which we in this country will bring up our training levels to those existing in some of our competitor countries, particularly in some EC countries, is by investing more money in it and by ensuring that opportunities are broadly available and that young people have the necessary background to take advantage of them. For that reason I agree that the education side and the training side are both important. There is not much point in allowing resources for training if the basic education has not previously been available.
Having made those comments, perhaps I may say that on this side of the House we welcome the initiative and we hope that it succeeds. I should like to know more about resources. I should like to see the recommendations made by the Select Committee of which I was a member put into operation. I wonder whether we can rely on encouragement. I should like to see young people between 16 and 19—certainly, 18 —either remain in full time education or undertake an approved training course. The only way in which we shall succeed in improving our training is if that is brought about.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I thank the Minister for repeating the

53
Statement and give it a qualified welcome. It is a step in the right direction but I fear that the Government have not grasped the nettle as to what needs to be done.
I can never quite understand what is meant by "16 to 18". I take it to mean the two years after the compulsory school leaving age, which takes one up to the 19th birthday. I am talking about the two years after the compulsory school leaving age. In those years, people should be either in full-time education or in work which is training and not production work. They should stay on at school or go to college—the sixth form colleges or the tertiary colleges to which reference was made a few moments ago—or they should be in employment. Their employment should provide a properly planned training programme, with at least two days a week of off-the-job training of some kind or another, possibly inside the place of work if it is properly organised, as some of the best places of work are, or in a college. Those should definitely be years pf training and education.
I am a little sceptical about relying on encouragement. Not all youngsters at the age of 16 are vested with the desire to do training. A good many of those I meet are vested with the desire to get away from school I and to earn as much money as they possibly can. I do not know how large the training vouchers are to be but they will have to be fairly large to induce some youngsters to spend them on training, in particular those youngsters one wants to get involved in training. They are the very people who will not use them. I cannot say that this takes us all the way we want to go.
I should like to ask a question which may have been covered in an answer to a question on the previous Statement. If so, I did not fully understand it. If youngsters opt to stay on full time at school, what precisely is the financial position? The initiative will not be successful until there is no financial disadvantage in staying on at school. I am not clear on the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may have explained the point; if so, I obviously did not take it on board. I am not clear whether people will be worse off if they stay on at school than if they leave.
These training vouchers are to buy the training but they do nothing about maintenance. If a youngster goes into work and uses the training voucher to pay for part-time courses or something of that kind, he is earning and has money. But if he stays on at school, will there be anything like the same amount of money going into the household or into the pocket of the young person himself? We need to be clear about that.
A sentence in the Statement could be very interesting. 1 should like to know what is really meant by,
"We are inviting the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to work with others to develop more general job-related qualifications"—
I take it that the emphasis is on the word "general—"
"within the NVQ framework suitable for young people who want a broad preparation for employment".
That could imply something very interesting but it does not really tell us what is intended. Perhaps we should not expect that in answers on a Statement.
54
My only other point arises in relation to the careers service. A strong well-informed careers service is absolutely essential if the whole training scheme is to work properly. Youngsters leaving school, all types of school—my experience was with university students —simply do not know what opportunities are available. I believe that a really good careers service is an integral part of getting training in this country right.
The theme running through what is said about the careers service suggests that it will be strongly oriented towards local labour market needs by putting the TECs in the position where they will have a considerable say in the working of the service. It is right that in giving advice to youngsters about careers the careers service should be well informed about local employment possibilities. But, on the other hand, it has been maintained for years by many people that its primary responsibility is to the school-leaver or the young persons whom it is advising on what is best for them and their career in the long run; in other words, it should not be too labour market oriented. Can the Minister say whether that factor is being borne in mind when it is suggested that the TECs should have a prominent part to play in the development of the careers service?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Baronesses for welcoming the Statement, even though the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave it only a qualified welcome. The Select Committee report which was published a short while ago indicated a number of proposals which, if the White Paper is studied, will be found to be wrapped up in that document. However, one point does not accord with the Select Committee report. I refer to the compulsory as opposed to the voluntary approach which both noble Baronesses mentioned.
The Government feel that the commitment of young people and their employers to training should be secured by voluntary means. Compulsion is unnecessary. Other major industrial countries achieve high levels of skill without compulsion. The effects of compulsion would be damaging in that young people would be forced to follow routes that they did not choose and employers would be burdened with bureaucratic requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, commented on the quality of youth training. She wondered whether it was serving the young people who were undertaking the training. I can inform the noble Baroness and the House that 89 per cent. of all youth training leavers who complete their training go into jobs or into further training and education. Moreover, of that figure, 67 per cent. gain a vocational qualification. Those are very high percentages. I believe they indicate that youth training is a quality product and that young people are gaining not only qualifications but jobs through undertaking such training.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that young people are gaining a national vocational qualification. However, if it is only a qualification at level I, we must not boost this as being a great achievement.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, when I mentioned vocational qualifications I was referring to all sorts of qualifications. I was not necessarily referring only to those attained at level 1.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also paid tribute to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and commended the work that it has done. The council has indeed now put its mark on 250 qualifications.
In answer to the claim that these new qualifications may bring about confusion among young people, I should point out that at present there is a jungle of some 4,000 different qualifications set by 300 different bodies. The idea of the national council is to bring these qualifications into a single nationally recognised structure—that is most important—which is clear and which young people can recognise. It will also assist them in identifying where they fit in with academic standards. They can use all this as building blocks for further training, improvements and qualifications.
Both noble Baronesses asked whether the training allowance currently paid to trainees on youth training will continue to be paid. It will indeed continue to be paid while training credits are being used. It will be the same as youth training; that is, so long as the young people are not undertaking their training while in employment, in which case, their employer would be paying their wages. However, the minimum amount which would be paid to them if they were not in employment will be maintained. Therefore, young people in training will certainly receive the level of payment which they receive at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that we had not grasped the nettle and that we were talking about the two years after the completion of full-time education. The whole point of youth training, and of course now the extension of training credits to young people, is as follows. Ten per cent. of those young people are now in pilot schemes and receiving their credits. By 1993 a further 10 per cent. will be in receipt of them. Thereafter, an increasing percentage of young people will have the opportunity of receiving these credits. That is the guarantee which the Government are giving of a place on a training scheme if young people decide to leave school.
The two Statements today have indicated that this is an exciting moment in the lives of young people regarding their qualifications. I say that because here for the first time we are balancing academic achievement with vocational achievement. With the level of NVQs, young people will be able to read across and assess how they would be getting on with GCSE and A-level standards, which is most important for them. If they are following a vocational path, they will also be able to assess where they are as regards the academic side. Therefore, I hope that the Government's guarantee will attract fewer people and that many more people will be going on into further education. As I said, it is an important time for young people.
The introduction of training credits is important. It will allow young people to plan much more carefully what they will receive from the training provider. For
56
example, some TECs have already provided passports, cheque books or smart cards. Students will be able to use them to identify not only how much they have spent but to assess how far they have progressed. Moreover, if they achieve a level 2 qualification in a short time, they can use their credit for further training. It is a flexible way of helping young people to progress in training and get them qualified for jobs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked exactly what the general NVQs mentioned in the White Paper were. The general NVQs will help young people to keep their options open. They will offer preparation for a range of related occupations and keep open the possibility of moving on to higher education. They will help develop general skills as well as specific working skills. They will be part of the NVQ framework and have equal standing with academic qualifications at the same level. They will also be clearly related to occupationally specific NVQs so that young people can progress quickly and effectively from one to the other. They will also form part of the element that can be put towards a diploma at the ordinary or advanced level. The academic and vocational qualifications together will form a diploma at the ordinary or advanced level, depending upon the level of the NVQs. The general NVQs are non-specific in terms of vocational qualifications and will help to prepare young people for the world of work.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I shall press the Minister a little further on what he said about general skills. I am not convinced that he answered adequately the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the fundamental purpose of education. I am sure that we are all glad to hear that education will to a considerable extent be related to future occupations, and yet education is surely more than that. There is such a thing as education for life. There are matters of citizenship, personal relationships and personal development. Some of us become nervous when we hear that education at this level is being thought of too narrowly, in terms of matching people to jobs, without consideration of the much deeper qualities which will make all the difference to the way our country develops in the years ahead. Perhaps the Minister will say a word or two about that point.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate identified what the general NVQs will be. I said that they would prepare young people for the world of work, but that is only part of what they will do. What is most important is that they are, to some extent, non-academic. They will increase the awareness of young people, as he said, of personal skills—skills for life—to a level where they will equate with other academic qualifications. Young people will then be able to understand what level they have achieved vis à vis the academic side, so that they can, as I said. put them towards the award of a diploma.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the careers service, to which I do not believe she

57
had an answer. The Statement says that the Government wish to increase the importance of a high quality careers service, linked closely to employers and that there has been consultation about ways of organising the careers service. I support what the noble Baroness said about the careers service being important to young people at school, because it is then that they need advice about what they are going to do. The advice should not just be about employment. Is it intended to remove the careers service from the local education authorities and hand it over to employment? If so, the link with the schools will be much more difficult to maintain.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness reminded me that I have not replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the development of the careers service. We see the careers service as being one of the most important links in the chain of development of young people. Because there is closer working now between the LEAs and the TECs, which are the providers of youth training, we propose that a partnership arrangement could be considered or developed. That will not be forced on careers services or LEAs; it is a consideration that is going forward. Consultations are taking place to see whether such a careers service development is possible. No decisions have been taken as to the future of the careers service. There are a number of options which will take account of the local needs of the careers service either in partnership with the TECs or as a contracted-out service, but that will require legislation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend two short questions— one general and one specific, the latter largely for information. I do not know whether my noble; friend was as disconcerted as I was to hear the right reverend Prelate imply that there was no necessary ethical content in specifically matching men to jobs. My first question is: is it not a fact that all jobs have an ethical and spiritual content? My specific question, which is based on my ignorance is: legal education spans the academic and the vocational to a peculiar degree, although the law is not the only profession of which that is true. Where does legal education occur as between the two Statements?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have to agree with what my noble and learned friend said about the matching of young people with jobs. Young people should be encouraged to develop according to their vocational wishes, although the general and academic side of their lives must not be ignored. The diplomas are being developed so that young people can gain a diploma with a match of the academic and vocational qualifications. I do not have the answer to the question my noble and learned friend asked about legal education. I shall of course ask and write to him about it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Seear also asked whether the Government had any proposals which would encourage more 16 year-olds to stay at school by ensuring that they were not at a financial disadvantage compared to people entering
58
employment at that age. I do not believe that the Minister answered that question. In the same context, does he agree that the wage earned by school leavers entering employment is often too high in relation to the adult wage, and that therefore employers and trade unions should be urged to widen the gap between the school leaver wage and the adult wage as new pay agreements are made?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe I went some way towards answering the question asked by the noble Baroness when I said that the training allowance would continue to be paid to young people receiving youth training. There will be no change in that respect. It will continue as it is whether they receive youth training under the present scheme or training under the credit scheme. There is no difference in the money paid.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister must think that I am being stupid about this, but what I was trying to get at was this: if a young person stays on in the sixth form and does such an old-fashioned thing as A-levels in—shall we say, English, French and History, which could not be regarded as vocational —I suppose French might be—will that young person receive any financial help for maintenance? If not, that young person will be discouraged from staying at school to do the traditional A-level work and encouraged to take up training when he will receive money through a training grant.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that there is no change in the present position. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, commented on the fact that the wages paid to young people are too high. I shall not be drawn on that point. It is for employers to decide what to pay young people.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister deal with two points which I concede may be rather detailed for the Statement he has given to us today? I feel some answers are necessary for the smooth working of the scheme. First, what is being done about training the trainers? We tend to talk in broad terms about the trainers and there is no doubt, as we all know from our visits to training establishments, that the quality is very good indeed, with enthusiastic and dedicated trainers. However, it does not necessarily mean that someone who is good at his specific trade, or whatever it happens to be, is a good teacher. We are talking about training, so this can be crucial. I hope that the Government are examining the point and setting up some kind of in-service training to ensure that the standard of training is given importance.
Secondly, an unrelated matter is that I had the pleasure some weeks ago of visiting an organisation called TAP—Training Access Points. I am not sure whether it is a national organisation. What impressed me was that all the courses available in the area were on the computer. The centre was based in Middlesbrough and on the computer there was information on all the types of courses which could be obtained simply by pressing buttons. The aim of the Government and those on this side of the House is, so

59
far as is possible, to expand training. That is what the Statement is about. It seems to me that unless youngsters are in a position to find out where specific types of courses are available much effort will be wasted. Has the Minister any information on TAP, particularly considering the necessity for financial aid to such bodies, to keep them going and to expand them? There is no doubt that they are doing a useful job.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, is quite right to inquire about the standard of trainers and the training that young people will receive. That is an aspect which, by their contract with the Department of Employment, the TECs will maintain. They will supervise the approval of trainers and the quality of training they give.
The noble Lord also asked about Training Access Points. They are usually found in the careers service. Through the computer links I have seen what is available for young people in training provision in their locality. I understand that this is a national provision which is constantly updated. The noble Lord will see from the White Paper that the Government intend to provide further finance for the development of the careers service and also to upgrade its facilities.

Criminal Justice Bill
6.13 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 26 [Savings for mitigation and mentally disordered offenders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 19, line 18, at end insert:
("(2A) Any mitigation of a fine the amount of which falls to be fixed under section 16 above shall be effected by determining under subsection (2) (a) of that section a smaller number of units than would otherwise have been determined.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 19, line 20, leave out ("a custodial sentence for any particular term") and insert ("any particular custodial sentence").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Effect of previous convictions]:
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 20, line 33, leave out ("the Children and Young Persons Act 1969").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential drafting amendment which we discussed with Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause: ("The Life Sentences Review Tribunal
.—(1) There shall be a tribunal, to be known as the Life Sentences Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), for the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it by this Part of this Act.
(2) Schedule (Life Sentences Review Tribunal) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Tribunal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 65 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 66, 68, 71, 72 and 73. While this series of amendments is not directly consequential upon the amendments carried in Committee, they complete a detailed plan: the introduction of reforms in sentencing for murder and release decisions as recommended by your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment in 1989.
The key proposal was that the sentence for murder should be at the discretion of the court, not fixed in advance as now, so that all the circumstances of the offence might be taken into account before deciding upon the proper penalty. That was the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, which was carried in Committee on 18th April by a large majority. The amendment did not abolish life imprisonment for murder; indeed, the Select Committee specifically recommended its retention, but aimed to remedy the inflexibility of its application.
A second amendment carried in Committee on the same date required the judge, when sentencing a person to life imprisonment, to state in open court the reasons for passing that sentence and to specify a penal term currently known as the "tariff', that is, the irreducible minimum period to be served in custody in the interests of retribution and general deterrence before questions of risk come into play in reaching a decision on release. The penal term would be appealable to the Court of Appeal in the same way as the sentence itself.
Those amendments now form Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill. The remaining amendments again stand in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Nathan, chairman of the Select Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, Lord Chief Justice of England, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, leading for the Opposition, and myself, speaking from the Government Benches. I make clear at the outset the context of which these amendments form part in the hope that the Government may regard them as contributing to a uniform scheme, the main features of which have already obtained the consent of the House in Committee.
These amendments deal with the remaining, but contentious and difficult, matters of how decisions on the release of life sentence prisoners who have been convicted of murder or other serious offences should be reached. The proposal before the House this evening in Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 is modelled closely on the precedent of the mental health review tribunals which, since 1983, have had the responsibility of deciding when it is safe to release restricted patients. I remind your Lordships that some of those who are confined in the special hospitals at Broadmoor, Rampton and elsewhere have been

61
convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and made subject to a hospital order with restrictions. Since the Mental Health Act 1983, the tribunal system has worked satisfactorily without any lessening of confidence in the way in which the decisions on discharge have been taken.
In this series of amendments, notably Amendments Nos. 65 and 66, the proposal is to establish a Life Sentences Review Tribunal to which cases of all life sentence prisoners would be referred towards the end of their penal term. In the case of any lifer who has been convicted for murder, the tribunal would only have power to release on licence and subject to recall. In non-murder cases, release would be either on licence or unconditional. When reaching its decisions, the review tribunal, which would be headed by a High Court judge assisted by a registered medical practitioner specialising in psychiatry and a chief probation officer, would have a statutory obligation to,
"have regard to the risk of the life prisoner's committing further serious offences and the need to protect the public against that risk".
Your Lordships will find those words in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause which is printed as Amendment No. 66.
From this short outline it will seen that the crucially important decision on the release of a life sentence prisoner will be transferred from Ministers (and from the civil servants who advise them) to an independent tribunal with the characteristics of a court. So why is this provision necessary? As the Select Committee probed the administrative procedures which have grown up around this category of prisoner, we found that the proper functions of the executive on the one hand and the judiciary on the other hand had become confused. It was no one's fault, for no one had ever designed the complex procedures in the first place. They had simply evolved piecemeal over many years and in response to a number of unrelated pressures. Because of the rigidity imposed by the mandatory life sentence a measure of fairness was sought by asking the trial judge to recommend how long should be spent in custody in the interests of retribution and deterrence— the basis of the so-called tariff— and a measure of consistency was sought by asking the Lord Chief Justice to add his own recommendation on what that tariff should be. Yet in the Select Committee we found that these judicial recommendations could be, and in a majority of cases over a sample period were, adjusted by a junior Minister. In almost every case they were adjusted in an upward direction.
On what grounds were such decisions bearing on the quantum of punishment taken? They were not taken on the grounds of risk, prevention or protection of the public, because those factors do not arise until shortly before the expiry of the tariff, when consideration is given to release. In practice the decision on how long a life sentence prisoner must serve in prison— the tariff period— which is not the same as how long he may serve before he is released, is decided in private and for reasons that are never disclosed. The unavoidable conclusion is that in the past few years a habit has formed of Ministers
62
frequently increasing the judicially recommended tariffs whenever it was felt necessary to do so to reflect their own view of the gravity of the crime. Unlike the trial judge, who had seen the offender in court, the Minister lacked any first hand knowledge of the offender or what he had done. Thus the process depended on written reports from prison officers, doctors, the probation service or the police. For the most part the reports were written in good faith, but they were not open to challenge by the prisoner and they were not made known to him or his legal representative. If error crept in, it would go uncorrected. If facts open to more than one interpretation were before Ministers, contrary views would not be reflected.
If the prisoner wished to make representations before the tariff period was set, there was no facility for him to do so. Even the length of the tariff, once fixed by Ministers, was not communicated to the prisoner. It is true that he could in most cases, although not in all, work it out by making a mathematical calculation. But why not tell the prisoner what it was? The same criticisms apply to the decision taken shortly before the expiry of the tariff; that is, whether to release on licence or to continue to detain the prisoner because of the risk of further serious offending. That review is carried out first by the Parole Board and then by the Home Secretary. These procedures— the release mechanisms— have already been found to be unlawful for discretionary life sentence prisoners by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell last year. We shall probably hear more about that case in the course of this debate.
It is the greatest mistake— indeed it is a caricature — to shrug off Strasbourg judgments as emanating from some form of alien court interpreting a non-British body of law. It was to check the terrible abuses of power by national governments which preceded the Second World War that the European Convention on Human Rights was signed in 1949. The principles which it enshrined were largely the principles of the common law. Foremost among them was that a person charged with a criminal offence was entitled to be tried and punished by a court of law, and not by the executive. If found guilty and sentenced to punishment, he was entitled to know what was said about him and by whom. He must be given an opportunity to challenge what was said about him, and he was entitled to legal representation. None of those features is present in the current procedures for administering life sentences, or arriving at release decisions.
I assure the House that it is not the intention of the movers of the amendments— nor would it be the effect of those amendments— to release potentially dangerous offenders any earlier than at present. Any suggestion to the contrary is unworthy. That has not been the experience with restricted patients convicted of manslaughter and discharged by mental health review tribunals. There is no reason why it should be so with the life sentences review tribunal. Nor is it justifiable to represent the Select Committee's carefully judged proposals as in some way going soft

63
on crime. On the contrary, if the Government are prepared to present these changes in the way indicated, the proposals are capable of commanding greater public confidence than the present system, because of the arbitrary and flawed nature of the mechanisms currently in place.
The practice that has grown up in this piecemeal way is as offensive to the traditions of the common law as it is inconsistent with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. It cannot be allowed to continue. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I was not expecting to get to my feet quite so soon, but on reflection it will probably be helpful to the House if I do so.
As my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Nathan, Lord Harris, and others to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder and to require the judge passing a life sentence to state in court the penal term now appear in the Bill as Clauses 23 and 24. On the same day we debated those matters we considered amendments in the same terms as those now before the House and I invited the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, not to press them because obviously I would have to consider the consequences of the earlier decisions of the Committee and what should be the Government's attitude to the amendments as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was kind enough to agree to that course.
In the debate which took place on that day your Lordships gave extensive consideration to the whole package of recommendations in the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. The Government accept that the provisions now before the House for reviewing life sentences are part of one comprehensive scheme, or, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham put it, they complete a detailed plan.
It would be wrong for me to pretend that I was convinced by the arguments so far as concerns life sentences for murder. However, that does not imply any disrespect for the view which the House took. It is just that the Government still think that it is necessary to mark a unique crime with a unique penalty, and we believe that the public expect nothing else.
We also still consider that the procedures now applying to the release of offenders convicted of murder properly reflect the public's right to be assured that the state will protect them from offenders of this kind. That responsibility falls upon the Home Secretary of the day as an intrinsic part of his responsibility for the maintenance of the Queen's peace and the protection of the public. He is accountable to Parliament for the way in which he exercises that responsibility and must be answerable to Parliament if he gets it wrong.
It is against that background, and with apologies for dwelling on past discussions, that I believe it will be helpful if I now tell the House how the Government
64
are minded to proceed in dealing with the specific amendments before us. As I understand it, the amendments set out two alternative proposals. The first proposal, which is reflected in Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 68, is to establish a tribunal whose jurisdiction would include life sentence prisoners convicted of murder. The second proposal, which is reflected in Amendments Nos. 67, 69 and 70, would establish a tribunal whose jurisdiction did not include prisoners convicted of murder.
Your Lordships will appreciate from what I have said that so far as the amendments relate to the procedures for determining the release of prisoners serving what are now mandatory life sentences, namely, those convicted of murder, I have difficulty with them in principle and would prefer it if they were not included in the Bill. However, if they are insisted upon I shall not seek to put the matter to a Division, simply because they form part of the whole package of proposals put forward by the Select Committee and there are obvious attractions in all of them now being considered as a package in another place.
Rather different considerations arise, however, in relation to the discretionary life sentence for offences other than murder. As my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, the European Court of Human Rights has held that in those cases it is appropriate for the prisoner's release to be considered by a body having the status of a court once the period set by the trial judge to punish the offence has been served. Our law will therefore have to be amended on that point. I can assure my noble friend Lord Windlesham that there never was any doubt about that; there never was any intention of shrugging off the effect of that judgment.
While, as I indicated in Committee, we should have preferred to take more time to consider the full implications of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, we have decided that it would be right to respond to the views expressed in your Lordships' House by introducing amendments to the Bill during its later stages to deal with that point.
It follows that I agree in principle with much of the alternative set of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and others. Clearly, the European Court of Human Rights judgment requires cases involving discretionary life sentence prisoners to be considered by a body having the status of a court. That body should have the power, once the initial term set by the trial judge has passed, to order the prisoner's release if it is safe to do so. Clearly, the body should operate in a judicial manner, giving the prisoner the opportunity to appear before it and to be legally represented.
However, the Government wish to offer alternative proposals on some of the more detailed points. We believe, for instance, that it may be preferable for the tribunal function to be carried out by the Parole Board, operating under a special procedure in the cases concerned rather than that a completely new tribunal should be set up. The relevant panel of the Parole Board would, however, be constituted under

65
the chairmanship of a judicial member of the board, which reflects the proposal in the amendments we are considering.
The present amendments also envisage that a life sentence prisoner might be released unconditionally rather than on licence and that where a prisoner is released on licence the licence might at some future point be lifted. I find it difficult to see, if that approach were accepted, in what sense the sentence would still be a life sentence. It would mean that at some point, perhaps even immediately after release, the prisoner was freed of any restriction or obligation as a result of the life sentence which had been passed on him. I must therefore give your Lordships notice that that particular provision will almost certainly not be reflected in the Government's proposals.
We would also wish to include transitional provisions to enable discretionary life sentence prisoners who have already been sentenced to benefit from the new arrangements.
That is for the future. This afternoon your Lordships will wish to reach a decision on the amendments actually before the House. Therefore, the course the Government propose is this. If the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, wishes to press Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 68 I shall not ask the House to divide against them, recognising that they are part of a comprehensive package which will send the Bill to another place in proper form. However, I must state that that is without prejudice to the Government's attitude to that package.
If the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, presses Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 68, Amendments Nos. 67, 69 and 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will not he put. If they were put as a result of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, not pressing his amendments I should not object to their inclusion in the Bill either. However, your Lordships will not be surprised if at a later stage we seek to substitute government amendments which will achieve similar ends, but perhaps by rather different means.
I hope that your Lordships find that approach helpful. I hope equally that noble Lords will agree with me that in view of the important principles which are at stake it would be right for the other place to have an opportunity to express its view on the matter. We shall be inviting the Members of another place to do so when the Bill returns there.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I was inspired by what I saw in the press last week by way of prophecy to consider what would happen if those journalists were right. The proposals that have now been put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench prove that, at any rate in part, they were and a role is now proposed for the Parole Board in the resolution of this difficult matter.
I wish to say one or two things, although I must make it plain that I say them entirely for myself, because I have not been able to consult about them. As my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, there will have to he a proper tribunal because, otherwise, the procedure will not comply with Article 5 of the European Convention. If it is a proper tribunal, it is likely that the mental health review tribunals will be a
66
good model. They involve a substantial body of statutory procedure and hearings with witnesses and representation. There is therefore a considerable commitment of time and personnel in any such procedure.
What follows from that, although it would be particular to the Parole Board, is not a matter on which I shall find any difficulty in persuading the Government to do what I hoped they would do, because they would be committed to it in any event by setting up any form of tribunal to deal with the judgments that have come from Strasbourg.
The first point that I should like to make is that, with all due modesty, there probably are among the membership of the Parole Board people of the background, experience, calibre and right disciplines to form exactly the kind of tribunal that is required for those cases. I would not envisage only three people being chosen, but perhaps a panel from which a selection could be made for a particular case.
However, if my noble friend intends to pursue that course, I should tell him that I do not know the amount of time that will be involved in dealing with those cases— that is no doubt one of the reasons why a little more time for preparation might have been a good thing— but it will be not inconsiderable. In persuading people of the necessary seniority and calibre to undertake the task of sitting on the tribunal, Her Majesty's Government will have to consult fairly widely those who otherwise direct the duties of those senior people in order that they may be spared not only for the period of time during which they will be needed to sit on the tribunal, but also for the period of time in which they will enable themselves to acquire the necessary experience of this kind of case by sitting on Parole Board panels and dealing with parallel problems. Unless they have that experience, they will not be uniquely qualified, as they would otherwise be, to deal with the cases that it is now proposed to put before them. My noble friend may like to reflect upon that point because it will be an important ingredient in acquiring people of the required standard.
Secondly, I must tell my noble friend that, on the resources that the Parole Board at present possesses both in terms of money and of staff, that could not be done. As I said, there will have to be a tribunal anyway in order to deal with the cases from Strasbourg— the Gunnell and Wilson cases. It will simply be a matter of putting the funding into the right coffers within the Civil Service machinery. Although we could do it in terms of personnel, we could not do it in terms of resources at the moment. On behalf of my colleagues, I look forward to this as a fairly notable challenge and I think that they will probably share my view.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may comment briefly, and I hope within the rules of order, upon the very proper reply at an earlier stage in the debate made on behalf of the Government by my noble friend. I should first like to thank him for obviously having made a serious attempt to cope with

67
the situation with which we are now faced without knowing the Government's final determination upon the matter that we discussed last week.
I was one of those who felt it impossible not to support the Nathan amendments last week and I want to make it quite clear that I have not changed my opinion. However, I should like to put one thought into my noble friend's mind which would arise only if he takes the course, which I hope he will not take, of sticking to the view that murder is a unique offence demanding a unique penalty, which I believe to be contrary to the position in law. He could mitigate some of the evils if he would realise that the substantive law of murder as it presently stands is nonsense because of the mental element that it involves following a series of decisions, for some of which I was responsible in a judicial capacity and on some of which I should have liked to come to a different conclusion had I not been bound by what I regarded as a long series of authoritative decisions which had preceded my own.
Ultimately, the horrible grey area that exists at the moment between murder and manslaughter is not tolerable. It had its ridiculous origin in a by-product of the Reformation which I explained in one of my judgments. I shall not elaborate on that in order to save the House time, but it went on in the insertion into the law of murder of the doctrine of diminished responsibility. As a matter of sheer history, that was put into the law, imported from Scotland, only as a kind of sugaring of the pill when Parliament and the Government of the day made their unsuccessful attempt in 1957 to reintroduce the death penalty for a limited number of kinds of murder.
There is also the horrible grey area of provocation, which makes it impossible to define murder in its substantive sense as a unique offence. On the contrary; the jury has it in its power to make decisions which are quite rightly unpredictable, as the law at present stands. If they intend to stick to their decision, which I hope that they will not, I hope that they will look at the awfulness into which the substantive law of murder has got itself. I hope that they will perhaps look at the decision of the House of Lords when it was split three to two in its judicial capacity in the case of Hyams, which illustrates what I said about the motivation. If it had not been for the long set of what I thought were binding precedents subject to what is called the practice direction in the jargon of the trade, I should have joined with Lord Diplock in saying that murder should be confined to cases in which there is an intention to kill. I thought that in that case Lord Kilbrandon was of the same opinion as myself when he joined Lord Diplock, but I regarded myself as bound not to legislate and I joined the other two. That is how the case came to be decided. The substantive law of murder is part of the difficulty with which we are faced and I hope that my noble friend will take that point on board.
We must now decide what we do next. I was grateful to my noble friend for making it clear that if, as I understood it, it is intended to put the first set of proposals to the opinion of the House, he would not
68
seek to divide on this occasion. The matter will have to be decided because the Government have to refer it to another debate in the Commons.
I was also glad that in certain other events my noble friend was good enough to say that he would accept the "Harris of Greenwich" line of country on non-judicial life sentences, because something of the kind has to be done in order to satisfy the European convention and the decisions of the European Court. I do not pretend for a moment that with two large pages of print these amendments are necessarily the last word. But I hope that, at any rate in principle, my noble friend and the Government will find it possible to accept the view that, whether one keeps the mandatory life sentence for murder or not, it is not possible to leave the period of time which that actually means very often to a junior Minister, or sometimes the Home Secretary himself, when it is part of the judicial function and part of our constitution that the period that is required— whether one calls it the tariff, the penal term or whatever— should be decided in public, communicated to the accused and decided for reasons which are given and which do not depend entirely on the whim of the Executive clothed in impenetrable mystery.
Lord Richard: May I say how much I agree with a large part of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had to say. I am bound to say that, in talking to members of the public about this issue, the proposition that unintentional killing can nevertheless in law be murder and therefore the subject of a mandatory life sentence is one which many people outside the law, and perhaps outside these two Houses, would find very difficult indeed to accept. As we all know, an intent to commit serious bodily harm which results in death, even if there is no intent to kill, is in law murder and attracts a mandatory life sentence.
I do not think there is any necessity to go into the arguments rehearsed at Committee stage on this issue. I simply make two points. First, I thank the noble Lord, the Leader of the House for, so to speak, taking us into the Government's confidence, at least to a certain extent, as far as these amendments are concerned. Secondly, I hope that my noble friend Lord Nathan will not be induced, seduced, or whatever verb one likes to use, into merely moving the fall-back amendments so far as discretionary life sentences are concerned. For the structure to be presented to the other place as a whole, it must clearly include both discretionary and mandatory life sentences.
Finally, perhaps I may leave this thought with the Leader of the House. Are we really going to end up in a situation, which seemed to be the implication if not the express statement of the Leader of the House, in which two people sentenced to life imprisonment, one a mandatory life sentence for murder and the other a discretionary life sentence for another crime, are treated differently under the British system depending on whether it is a murder or a non-murder conviction? The most absurd anomalies may arise from that.
I merely give one example. The mercy killing carried out by a loving spouse would be murder. There

69
would be an intent to kill. There would be very little that a jury could do other than return a verdict of guilty of murder in those circumstances. He or she in those circumstances would not have the advantage of the tribunal system proposed in these amendments. On the other hand, somebody convicted of 27 rapes and therefore sentenced to imprisonment for life would have the advantage of the tribunal system referred to in the amendments. That makes no sense. I merely serve notice on the noble Lord the Leader of the House that if the proposals come back to this House in that state he should not expect to have the suppport of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on a point of clarification, my name is to the alternative amendments, Amendments Nos. 67, 69 and 70. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, those amendments are of limited application and exclude life sentences for murder. The issue is not whether it is mandatory or discretionary. Therefore those alternative amendments are in effect subsumed by the first set of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Windlesham and may not, with respect to the noble Lord, be moved during the passage of this Bill in your Lordships' House in view of the most helpful attitude taken by my noble friend the Leader of the House. But in this somewhat delicate situation it would be seriously unwise to anticipate the attitude of another place. Much depends upon the manner in which the Government intend to propose implementation of the essential reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights and set up some appropriate judicial machinery not only as regards release of those serving mandatory life sentences and discretionary life sentences but also long-term prisoners. That may well become involved in this concept. It will serve no useful purpose to restate the arguments today, and I would only thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for his conciliatory attitude taken on behalf of the Government.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I begin by agreeing with the course of action proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I think we should accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with whose speech I very much agreed. That being so, we should not proceed with the amendment in my name, Amendment No. 67, dealing with the position of discretionary life sentence prisoners.
The only comment I make in relation to what the Leader of the House said is one which takes up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Apparently, we are going to have a position in which a man who kills his wife, she having begged him to kill her because she has a terminal illness, will have his case examined exclusively by Ministers in exactly the same way as is now the position. Obviously in such a case there is an intent to kill. On the other hand, a man who is convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and on the grounds that he is a dangerous and unpredictable man will have his case heard by the tribunal, with the right of legal representation and the right to give evidence on his
70
own behalf and to call witnesses before that tribunal. I am bound to say I can think of nothing stranger than for the Government to recommend a policy of that kind to the House of Commons. But that is apparently their intention.
We shall have a further opportunity to discuss this matter if Commons amendments come down to us. Therefore one reserves some of the arguments for that occasion. All I say to the Leader of the House in terms of the position of discretionary cases is this. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who is chairman of the Parole Board, raised one or two quite substantial issues. Let us suppose that the tribunal which the Government will accept in this category of cases is to be established within the Parole Board, as apparently is the Government's view. I am sure that, having held the office of Home Secretary, the noble Lord will recognise that this will change the character of the Parole Board to a very substantial extent. The Parole Board does not and never in its lifetime has had oral hearings. It has not given people the right of legal representation.
I do not argue that that is a bad idea. Manifestly it is highly desirable, given the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. But although I agree with the noble Viscount in terms of the constitution of the tribunal, I hope that the Government will persist in their intention to have a High Court judge as the chairman, a consultant psychiatrist (who in my view will be absolutely essential) and a chief probation officer, and I emphasise the word "chief-. In my view those three must be members of the tribunal. I do not have a view as to whether or not there should be other members.
Finally, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House heard the noble Viscount's powerful arguments to the effect that these changes will require additional resources for the Parole Board. It will be quite impossible to establish a tribunal of this sort without reviewing the resources currently available to the Parole Board.
I have made only the essential points that I wanted to make in the course of this brief debate. I had the opportunity to speak in Committee stage on the two amendments carried against the Government. I have not the slightest intention of repeating those arguments tonight. For the moment we reserve our position on this matter until the Commons amendments return to this House.
7 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the manner in which he has dealt tonight with these difficult matters. But I am bound to say that I wish to press the amendments which stand in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham and other noble Lords. I want to refer to one or two matters that strike me as being of particular importance which have not been mentioned this evening. However, I do not intend to go over the ground covered in the previous debate on 18th April. I shall refer only briefly to some of the issues with which I dealt then.

71
As noble Lords said, it is quite right that the proposals that we put forward in the report of the Select Committee constituted a set of measures of reform and those were embodied in the amendments put forward, two of which have already been passed overwhelmingly by your Lordships' House and one falls for consideration this evening. However, I point out that the present group of amendments relating to the release procedures has merit and could and should be adopted even if your Lordships had not agreed by an overwhelming majority to the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder.
It does not seem to me that there is any contradiction between the question of whether or not a mandatory life sentence should be abolished and the procedures relating to release. When they were last debated on 18th April, I spoke of the provisions in the amendments relating to the rights of the prisoner and particularly the right to make representations to the tribunal, the right of legal representation, the right to receive copies of documents and relevant information relating to the case, subject to the very limited restriction on those rights, to enable him to exercise those rights effectively. As noble Lords are aware, under the release procedures presently in force the prisoner has none of those rights.
When I first looked at this matter it seemed to me remarkable that prisoners are not at present entitled, as of right, to be given reasons when not recommended for release on life licence. I found it significant that the Prison Officers' Association told the Committee that it felt particularly strongly on this issue and said that when a prisoner received a "knock-back" it was the prison officer who was on the receiving end of the prisoner's wrath. We received much evidence on the question of whether there should be open reporting— that is, allowing the prisoner access to all reports on the basis of which decisions on whether or not to release would be made. Both the Carlisle Committee and the Kincraig Committee in Scotland came down firmly in favour, subject to a reservation in Carlisle in the following terms:
"There will be highly exceptional cases where disclosure will need to be denied to prevent specific harm, particularly to a third party or even&to the inmate himself."
The Select Committee agreed with both open reporting and the limited reservations to which I referred.
So far as the prisoner is concerned, the sense of injustice arising from a "knock-back" without reasons and the fantasising as to the reasons that often results would be avoided. Resentment against prison officers which they presently suffer, based on the false assumption that they have maliciously submitted an adverse report, would also be avoided. So the introduction of the recommended procedures relating to the tribunal would be entirely consistent with the evidence that we received on these matters, and with the recommendations of Carlisle on reporting.
I believe that the House should go forward with these amendments— namely, the main amendments, Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 68— omitting the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris,
72
both limited to the discretionary life sentences as they have hitherto been, because those matters are subsumed in the larger one which we put forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill
7.6 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Badgers (Further Protection) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
7.8 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend 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 Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exercise of powers in relation to Crown land in private occupation]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved the amendment:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert ("(whether it is an interest in land or arises under a licence).").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I hope to explain this amendment quite briefly. The background is that where Crown land is occupied by the Crown— for example, by a government department— there is no need for an authorisation enabling inspectors to exercise rights of access, entry and unobstructed inspection in accordance with the inspection protocol of the CFE treaty to be given under Clause 2 of the Bill as the Government themselves can give permission to the inspection team to enter the land. When, however, Crown land is in private occupation an authorisation will be needed to ensure that the private occupier cannot refuse entry. Clause 4(1) makes it clear that when Crown land is privately occupied an authorisation may be issued.
Upon further consideration of the provision, the Government have decided that account needs to be taken of the fact that a person occupying Crown land may do so in two ways: first, by way of a lease (that is an interest in land; for example, a property right); and secondly, by way of a licence (that is a right granted by a contract). The words "private interest" might be construed to refer only to the first of those

73
possibilities; that is to say, an occupation as a result of a lease. To make clear beyond doubt that an authorisation may he issued and that rights of access and entry are guaranteed in respect of Crown land occupied as a result of a licence, this small, detailed amendment is required. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the matter so clearly. He read his brief with aplomb, but I still do not understand. Without going into great detail, it appears that if one occupies land by virtue of a private interest one does not need then to define that private interest, whether it is an interest in the land or arises under a licence. However, if the Government wish to define the issue, who am I to disagree?
Can the Minister confirm that if the amendment is passed it will have no tangible effects on the lease of a tenant holding Crown land which may become the subject of an inspection under the framework of the Act? In other words, can the Minister confirm that the provision will not affect the lease in the sense of there being a continuing legal interest but that it will merely give the authorisation powers in respect of inspection which the Bill sets out.
I understand that the United States should learn today whether the compromise formula that .it has proposed for solving the dispute about the reclassification of Russian tank divisions as coastal defence units which are outside the scope of the treaty is to be accepted by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union's chief of staff is in Washington today. It would be helpful to know whether the compromise has been accepted because to a large extent that problem has held up further progress on this Bill. It has prevented further progress on other arms control provisions. What is the latest situation as regards that matter?
Lord Reay: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising; no objections of substance to the amendment. He asked whether it was necessary. I merely repeat that it is required in order to make clear beyond doubt that an authorisation applies in respect of both types of private occupation. I understand that the provision will have no effect on the particular lease about which he inquired.
With regard to the broader and political issue that he raised, contacts have been made between the allies and the Soviet Union. The United States has taken the lead for the allies and some progress has been made. However, the key problem of ground equipment in naval infantry units in particular remains unresolved.
We hope that the visit to Washington today of the Soviet Union's chief of staff will yield satisfactory results. However, we do not yet have any information about the result of the discussions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a much needed piece of legislation. It has been clear for some time that complete exemption from registration for all small residential care homes is no longer defensible. The opportunity now exists to act on behalf of a significant number of vulnerable people in small homes who at present have no protection. The Bill deals solely with homes accommodating three people or less. There are many thousands of such homes throughout the country and at present all are outside regulatory control.
As a former chairman of a local authority social services committee, I have a personal interest in the subject. The simple course is to have an amendment Bill rooted in the established regulatory scheme. That will achieve the objectives and effects which most people believe to be essential. The aims are, first, protection for highly vulnerable residents from the risk of unsuitable and unscrupulous people setting up and running small care homes; secondly, control arrangements that recognise the special nature of the very small homes; thirdly, a regulatory system that gives the authorities enough clout but not too much and creates a good balance; and fourthly, a regulatory system that will be relatively cheap to operate with fees kept to modest and, being self-financing, involving no cost to the charge payer.
The Registered Homes Act 1984 is the right vehicle for this change. It is widely agreed that simply to extend the scope of the present law would be too onerous on people running small homes. However, the 1984 Act contains the most essential elements— the building blocks— that are needed for the regulation of small homes. Clause 1 pulls out some of these, adds one or two that are new and re-assembles them.
Most people now running such homes are admirable and provide an excellent service for their clients. However, we hear harrowing stories of different situations. The Bill is necessary in order to sort out the small number of cowboys. The fundamental requirement is to register with the local authority. An exception is made of people caring only for relatives; an important point to make. There is also the power to widen the exemptions in reserve if that were thought to be suitable. Registration is dependent on the fitness of the applicant to be involved in running a home. It tackles the source of concern and criticism which has been voiced during the past two years. Indeed, a campaign was run in one of our more popular Sunday newspapers. There is some evidence of people who have been found unsuitable to run larger homes and declared unfit to do so continuing in business by reducing the number of residents to three per home and spreading them over a larger number of homes. Of course, that was never the intention.
The Bill constitutes no threat to the vast majority of proprietors. There will be no heavy additional burdens on local authorities. A single criterion avoids the risk

75
of destroying the special attributes which small homes often have. There is a special homely environment in small homes with three or fewer people. We do not wish to run the risk of driving people out of business because there are so many regulations to contend with that they consider it not worthwhile. We do not wish to create a situation in which a genuine and honest proprietor is so anxious about meeting regulations that anxiety and upheaval are created for the residents. I am convinced that the single criterion strikes the right balance.
That is backed up in two ways. First, there is a requirement on a proprietor to complete a simple annual return. It is not enough for local authorities to register people and then have no further contact. The authorities need to know that the same person is still running the home and that there has been no dramatic change in the home. An annual return will keep both sides in contact with each other and will ensure that there is a simple check that things are as they were when the original application was made.
Secondly, by drawing on the power of entry provided in the 1984 Act, the authority is given the means to act where there is a real cause for anxiety. However, it is not intended to require authorities routinely to inspect all homes. That would set up quite a bureaucracy and greatly increase costs. However, there must be power to act in response to special and, let us hope, exceptional circumstances where serious complaints mean that full inspection is necessary.
Sanctions similar to those which the authorities already have in relation to larger homes are another feature of the Bill. In the last resort registration can be refused or the home closed.
Returning to the first clause, I wish to emphasise one other important new provision. I have already mentioned fees. The central feature of the scheme for larger homes is that effectively it is self-financing. That principle is extended here to cover the present proposals for small homes with one essential difference; that is, the Bill gives authorities the power to waive all or, perhaps even more importantly, part of the registration fee and the annual fee where they believe that to be appropriate. The level of the fee will be set by the Secretary of State by regulations following consultation. We hope that it will not be too great. Even so, some people running small homes will already be known to the registering local authority and may have been approved under control arrangements for, perhaps, an adult placement scheme. The registration of that person as fit would be only a formality. For that reason, scope to waive fees would be very valuable.
A transitional period is needed before the Bill is brought fully into effect. That will give the Department of Health time to make regulations, to consult about them and to issue guidance. It will also give time for proprietors to lodge their applications. The first half of Clause 2 deals with that by providing that the commencement date should be set by order. There are also special provisions covering the period
76
immediately after commencement when all applications should have been lodged but processing may not have been completed.
The second half of Clause 2 is made up of a group of necessary consequential amendments to the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
7.24 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and also her honourable friend in another place, Mr. John Butterfill, who promoted the Bill in another place. It may seem strange that an important issue like this is not presented in a government Bill. However, it has not been so presented and I am glad that the Government are supporting the initiative taken by the noble Baroness.
The exclusion from the provisions of the Registered Homes Act 1984 of small homes caring for four or fewer frail people was raised in another place during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act and was raised in this House by my noble friend Lord Carter.
During the passage of the Bill my honourable friend Ms. Harriet Harman said that one of the problems was that the Government seemed not to know how many small homes would be covered by this sort of legislation. That is understandable. Without registration, they could not know. They may know of some but not of all of them. She carried out a survey by means of contact with directors of social services. They estimated that one in five of all homes in their areas are unregistered because they are small, having fewer than four residents. That meant that the safeguards provided by the 1984 Act as regards the quality of standards, staffing and premises and the character of the proprietors of homes do not extend to residents in one in five of such homes in Britain. That proves the importance of the legislation which the noble Baroness is now introducing.
When the Bill was dealt with in another place on 14th March Ms. Harman went on to propose in another place that a way forward would be to give registration authorities the power to enter, inspect and take action against small homes. They are given the power when a problem is identified but there is no duty on local authorities to require them to register small homes which they know to be in their area. Therefore, when they know there is a problem they have the power to act but are not weighed down with extra registration duties when they already have inadequate resources to carry out their present registration functions— a point made by the noble Baroness.
The issue is important, first, because of the nature of the people concerned. They are frail, not necessarily because of age but because of handicap of one form or another. Therefore, they are vulnerable. Vulnerable people must have special protection. Secondly, as the noble Baroness said, there is a small minority of unscrupulous people. However, even if it is a minority

77
this matter is one which we must take action against. If that were not so, the noble Baroness would not have thought it necessary to bring forward this Bill. I agree with her about that.
As we know, some proprietors have convictions against them for offences such as assault or financial improprieties. If a proprietor has in his home two or three frail old people who are not in position to take decisions for themselves, he can easily guide them into signing a piece of paper which may sign away what limited funds they have.
Another encouraging point about the Bill is that it is supported by Age Concern, the Association of Directors of Social Services, which strongly supports the Bill, the National Care Homes Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Association of Residential Care and the Independent Health Care Association. Therefore, the noble Baroness is in good company.
I am a member of the council of Counsel and Care, which provides advice and help for elderly people. During the course of its work there has been a good deal of contact with a number of private residential care homes with three or fewer residents. While many of those small homes, as we have said, provide excellent care for elderly people in a family atmosphere, the organisation is anxious because currently there is no regulation or monitoring of those establishments.
In a number of isolated cases the organisation has been asked to give advice to people who are worried about vulnerable relatives in such small homes. Complaints have been received about neglect of frail elderly people. Relatives have voiced anxiety about the suitability of the home owner, which at present is unchecked. In some cases it has emerged that the person in charge was the former proprietor of a home deregistered by a local authority after serious problems in the home had been investigated. Obviously it can happen that someone who has been deregistered decides to run a string of small homes with three or four residents because then there will be no registration. There are some such cases and that is why it is necessary to have a system of registration.
Counsel and Care warmly welcomes the Bill but there are a number of points that I wish to draw to the attention of the noble Baroness. One is that the Wagner Report, A Positive Choice, highlighted the fact that in some areas a proprietor may set up a number of private homes with three residents, none of which is registered in any way. The result is that one person, however unsuitable, may be responsible for providing personal care for any number of elderly people in need of personal care. The Wagner committee recommended that in such cases small homes should meet the full registration requirements of the Registered Homes Act 1984. Counsel and Care certainly shares that view and I shall be interested to hear from the Minister, and indeed the noble Baroness, whether they believe that some special provision should be made for those who run a chain of small homes.
Counsel and Care welcomes the Bill's requirement that registration of small homes will include some test
78
of the fitness of the proprietor to run a home, and was further pleased at the suggestion for an annual return of the registration in which the staff of the home are noted by the registering authority. However, they were disappointed that no fuller definition was given of what "fitness" means. That is an important point. What does "fitness" mean? In the experience of Counsel and Care, registration officers pay more attention to a person's financial capability in running a home and less to his or her qualifications and personal suitability in providing the personal care for prospective residents. That is a point that we should look at, to see how we can better define the term "fitness".
The third point is that the Bill does not impose a duty to inspect small homes; it merely allows for the right of random inspection. Counsel and Care feels that it would be more suitable if small homes were inspected to ensure the maintenance of high standards of care rather than randomly visited after a problem has been reported.
Those are questions to which the Minister may be able to respond in her reply. I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced, and so too is my party. In our policy statement, which we discussed in your Lordships' House on another occasion, we said,
"Labour will close the loophole which permits many homes to escape regulation by limiting the number of their residents to fewer than four, but will ensure that the building regulations are appropriate to their size."
This clearly is an all-party measure and we warmly welcome the initiative taken by the noble Baroness.
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, on the last occasion on which I spoke in your Lordships' House, on Wednesday last, I was justly chastised for running over time. Tonight, shaken but not stirred, I shall he brief.
I should like first to welcome the extension of the regulation system to small homes. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the problem of local prejudice, which the case of C&G Homes last year so graphically illustrated, and which can prevent the setting up or force the closure of residential care homes. In that case the Court of Appeal declared that Bath Health Authority's arrangements for housing eight former residents of psychiatric hospitals in two houses in the community were contrary to a restrictive covenant limiting the use of the property to that,
"incidental to the enjoyment of a private dwelling house".
Those two houses were being used as part of the policy for rehousing former patients into the community. There had been no complaints from neighbours as to the conduct of the occupiers of those houses. C&G Homes had a restrictive covenant placed on the houses in anticipation of a problem based on the status of the occupants alone; simply because they were mentally handicapped people.
If appropriate, I should like at Committee stage to introduce amendments which will deal with the use of restrictive covenants. I do not think it is acceptable in our society that four students can live together in a house without restriction yet four people with a

79
mental handicap are forced out due to local prejudice. If there are problems, the criminal and civil law protect neighbours from disruption.
The key to community care is satisfactory housing arrangements, and residents must be protected from unjustifiable prejudice. Few opportunities arise in your Lordships' House to help towards the legal protection of the most vulnerable members of our community, whose chances of living a fulfilling and independent life depend on the availability of residential care. I hope that the Bill will afford us the opportunity to do that.
7.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I am happy to confirm the full support of the Government for this Bill. It was just over a year ago in another place that an amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Act sought to remove the exemption given to small care homes in the Registered Homes Act 1984. At that time the Government gave an undertaking to consider whether there was a way in which those issues which understandably cause anxiety could be tackled. I am therefore most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for the opportunity to mark the first anniversary of that undertaking by debating the considered and necessary proposals contained in the Bill.
It is entirely right and quite consistent with the evolutionary process that the Bill should not be a mirror image of the 1984 Act. My noble friend Lady Gardner gave the reasons for the adaptation of the provisions of that Act to suit the special nature of small homes. I am happy to endorse what she said. The Department of Health took the opportunity last summer to sound out opinion on what form the regulation of small homes should take. The result of the consultation supported an approach broadly similar to that adopted in this Bill.
The Wagner Report and local authority and care home interests recognise the need to keep the elements of the regulatory system for small homes to an essential minimum. That is not disputed even by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. We are fully aware of the range of views people have about the possible need to impose requirements on the physical condition and structure of those homes or on the nature of the services and facilities they offer. It is my strong belief that we should do nothing to detract from the atmosphere and quality of life of a domestic home that those very small homes are uniquely able to provide. It is right that we should guard against putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of people running small homes. For those reasons I am sure that the relatively light regulatory touch envisaged in this Bill is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to a proprietor who possibly had a chain of small homes. That point could be met by the procedures envisaged
80
by the Bill. I do not see that there is any necessity, particularly if the homes are in different parts of the country, to provide specifically for that situation.
Registration will be dependent on the fitness of the applicant. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked what "fitness" meant. In this case we can take the same line as the 1984 Act. After all, local authorities have had considerable experience in registering homes and have therefore evolved a measure of what fitness means in these situations. Regulation on that basis therefore tackles the principal concern and criticism surrounding small care homes and their proprietors.
There is no threat to the vast majority of proprietors; no heavy additional burdens on local authorities, but there is protection for highly vulnerable residents from risk of unsuitable and unscrupulous people setting up and running small care homes. Registration of small homes will bring them with in the scope of the arrangements introduced last month for registration authorities to be able to obtain from the police details of convictions recorded against a potential owner or manager of a residential care home. That is an important point on which considerable anxiety was expressed in this House when the subject was discussed during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
I am attracted also to the notion of an annual return accompanied by what I hope will be a nominal fee. Our consultation paper last year made no proposal for a review of the initial registration. At that stage we felt that a one-off event was appropriate. We were quite reasonably criticised. The registration authority would be in an uncertain position if its only contact with a person running a small home was when it handed out the certificate of registration. Something more is needed. For large homes the answer is to inspect, but that is justified in any case by the registration criteria imposed by the 1984 Act.
The modification of those criteria of the 1984 Act in this Bill removes that justification. Regular inspection is not the answer, nor would it be even if it could somehow be achieved without adding hugely to the resource implications and to the burden of compliance on home owners. An annual return, which can be a simple document but which has to be completed as a condition of continuing registration, is pitched at just the right level. Powers of entry and inspection would nevertheless be available if and when needed.
I also recognise the benefits that judicious use of power to waive fees will bring. My noble friend referred to that in particular. People running small homes may already be known to and have been approved by the local authority so that little additional action would be required on registration, giving the local authority room to waive the fee to an appropriate extent. That should help allay fears that the requirement for registration would deter those providing care on a small scale, including those already providing such care; for example, under adult placement schemes.
As my noble friend has said, the Bill gives powers for the date of coming into force to be appointed by order. Immediate implementation would not be

81
practicable. Before registration of small homes can get under way my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will need to make regulations detailing the requirements applicable to these homes, including the maximum fee levels. We would expect to consult on this. Secondly, operators of small homes will need some time to become aware of the registration requirement and apply for registration before Section 2 of the 1984 Act bites and it becomes an offence to run an unregistered small home. This is a welcome and necessary measure. It has widespread support. I commend it to the House.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank those who have taken part in this debate. I wish to reply very briefly to a number of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I understand and sympathise with the feelings of people who say that they would like to have full registration requirements and a full duty to inspect. That misses the point of the intimate nature of the small homes with such a small number of people in them. These provisions were specifically excluded from the original Act for those reasons. The mention made by the noble Lord of one in five homes in this country being of that type shows what an important part they play. We would not wish on any account to put at risk people who are legitimately and honestly running homes now and who suddenly found themselves so overburdened with elements of bureaucracy that they felt that they could not carry on. That would be a great loss to us.
I can understand the concern of the noble Lord's group. but that concern is not merited on the whole. I believe that the powers of entry and inspection which exist mean that the cases that are described as doubtful, or cases which people wonder about, will be drawn to the attention of the local authority either by the relatives or by local people through their councillors. Instead of placing a great additional burden on the local authority, which has its hands fairly full already, there will be a process whereby those who need extra inspection will be picked out and drawn to the attention of the appropriate concern. I believe that the provision will work quite well.
The old story about the sledge hammer is a good one. We do not want to go over the top with these regulations. It is important to insist on registration for all homes. The noble Lord raised the point of putting three people into each of five homes which adjoin one another. There have been legal arguments about whether that arrangement should be considered as one establishment and that it should have been registered. People were doing that and now that loophole is closed.
The definition of "fitness" is much more difficult. I thank the Minister for her comments on that. Like most questions of this kind, once one begins to make a definition where does one stop? One goes on and on trying to arrive at a definition, but one does not finish up with a definition which is really accurate or precise. The local authorities will get to know their people very
82
well. The general public and the relatives will get to know people. Therefore, very quickly anyone who is unfit will be shown to be so.
I have every sympathy with the points raised by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. However, I do not think they are relevant to this Bill. I do not think that an appropriate amendment would be relevant. I am sure that we all share her concern that people should not be allowed to live in these properties simply because they are mentally handicapped. That was a covenant attaching to the property. We are doing exactly the reverse: far from releasing covenants and removing restrictions, in this Bill we are imposing restrictions on the homes. That provides almost the reverse of the coin and that would help her. I cannot see that the Bill is the appropriate means for dealing with her suggestion. I thank the Minister for her very helpful summing up. I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Property Misdescriptions Bill
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Private Member's Bill was originally promoted in another place by my honourable friend Mr. John Butcher, the Member of Parliament for Coventry South West. Unfortunately he became ill shortly after First Reading. I am happy to say that he is now well on the way to recovery. The Bill was then taken through all its stages in the other place by my honourable friend Mr. Anthony Coombs, the Member of Parliament for Wyre Forest.
So far the Bill's passage has been smooth. It has had all-Party support. The Government have not only backed the Bill but have made help available with drafting and advice. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that estate agents and others who market property take great care to avoid making false or misleading statements in the particulars supplied to potential purchasers. It makes such misdescriptions a criminal offence, with a fine on summary conviction of up to £2,000, and on conviction on indictment an unlimited fine. The penalties do not include imprisonment.
The Bill does not apply to vendors; that is to say, clients who engage estate agents to sell their property. It puts the onus on the estate agents to do their best to check that the facts given to them by vendors are correct. It is a Bill to protect consumers—that is to say, individuals buying a house or a small business such as a corner shop. It is also a Bill to encourage estate agents and others in the property market to set the high standards to which most aspire and which the public have a right to expect.
The Consumers' Association not only supports the Bill but has done a great deal of most useful work developing its content and in assisting my honourable friend and me during its passage so far. We are very grateful to them. It is significant that among others supporting the Bill are the National Association of

83
Estate Agents, the Institute of Valuers, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Law Society, the Law Society of Scotland, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and the National Consumer Council. This widespread acceptance of the Bill so far is I believe due to the fair balance which it strikes without placing too heavy a burden on the professionals, the majority of whose members already act responsibly and will find the Bill no problem. It will do a great service to people contemplating buying a property and give confidence in future that wilful and irresponsible misdescribing of property is a risk no agent is likely to take.
In effect, the Bill will close an important loophole in existing trade description legislation. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 applies to goods and services, but not to sales of property. This means that at present a person has less protection against a false or misleading description when buying a house than when buying, say, a tin opener or a tube of toothpaste. Strangely, an estate agent can claim incorrectly that the central heating system in a particular house has been approved by British Gas and get away with it. Yet the same claim can be made by a salesman selling the same system in a do-it-yourself shop and that could lead to prosecution.
The Bill also fits in well with the government's own package of reforms to improve the property market arising from its review instigated in 1989. That has resulted in several new orders and regulations under the Estate Agents Act 1979, which extend the range of circumstances in which the Director of Fair Trading can ban an estate agent from trading. Those orders are due to come into effect this summer. The Government have also encouraged estate agents to improve their own self-regulation and they have begun to set up an industry-wide voluntary code of practice and an ombudsman to enforce it. The Government are, I understand, waiting to see what happens to this Bill before taking any further action on misdescription.
Members of Parliament in another place quoted many examples of the need for this Bill. There were reports of exaggerated room dimensions; leasehold properties described as freehold; a motorway described as a quiet road; a covered alley as a conservatory. There was a photograph in which a block of flats had been blocked out giving the impression that the house beside it stood alone in the countryside. Mr. Austin Mitchell made graphic reference to the "peculiar lyricism" of the language of some estate agents in describing property. Your Lordships could doubtless tell of examples from your own experience.
Although it can be said that no-one is likely to, or should, purchase a property without having it surveyed professionally, or at least checking thoroughly whether the agent's description is accurate, much time and trouble can be wasted and cost incurred in following-up a property which, had it been accurately described, would have been recognised as unsuitable in the first place.
When originally introduced the Bill applied only to residential property and that being sold by estate
84
agents. As a result of the House of Commons Second Reading debate the Bill was amended in Committee and its scope extended. It now includes commercial property and applies to solicitors acting as estate agents and builders marketing houses that they have built or renovated, thus providing a level playing field for those engaged in marketing property. Wider protection is also provided for consumers. If noble Lords want to know more of the reasons for these changes I can elucidate in my reply to the debate. The Title and the Long Title of the Bill were amended accordingly. None of these changes was a source of controversy, the Committee stage taking only seven minutes.
I turn to the Bill as it now stands. Clause 1 contains the core provisions. The first subsection creates the principal offence of making in the course of an estate agency or property development business a false or misleading statement about certain prescribed matters. Subsection (2) provides for proceedings to be taken against an employee if he is responsible for the commission of an offence by his employer. Subsection (3) sets out the maximum penalties for an offence under this clause. Subsection (4) excludes certain civil law consequences of the offences.
Turning to subsection (5), noble Lords will see that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) establish definitions and clarification of terms used in the clause. "False" is defined as "false to a material degree". This is the same as the definition in the Trade Descriptions Act and rules out prosecution for trivial errors. A statement is "misleading" if a reasonable person may be expected to infer from it that the statement is false. It should be noted that an omission can be an ingredient in an offence. That does not mean that an agent is bound to tell everything he knows about a property. This paragraph only applies if the information omitted renders a statement misleading. For example, a house may be described as being in a quiet cul-de-sac, but no mention is made of a motorway a few yards away on the other side; or, as happened near my own home recently, a cottage offered for sale was described as having a septic tank, but no mention was made that it was a septic tank shared by another cottage. If no road had been mentioned in the first instance, or no reference made to the septic tank in the second instance, the clause would not apply. The Bill does not require a description of everything about a property, but it does require that any statement that is made must be accurate. It aims, as one might say, to catch the half truths.
Paragraph (d) of subsection (5) empowers the Secretary of State to specify by order the prescribed matters mentioned in subsection (1). The kind of misdescriptions specified might, for example, include the proximity of a property to places, amenities or services; the nature of the title of a property; structural characteristics; the length of a lease; the existence and nature of any planning permission and such like. Assurances have been given that such an order would not be made without consulting interested organisations.
Paragraph (e) defines the term "an estate agency business". This definition is taken from the Estate

85
Agents Act 1979. Solicitors are exempted in Section 1(2) (a) of that Act. This paragraph disapplies the exemption so that solicitors acting as estate agents are now covered by the Bill. Paragraph (f) defines the term "property development business". Subsection (6) defines an "interest in land" and that is the same as in the Estate Agents Act 1979.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides a defence of due diligence for a person charged with misdescription under Clause 1. This defence is identical to that in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and similar to that in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
Clause 3 and the schedule to the Bill deal with enforcement, making it the responsibility of trading standards authorities, London borough councils, county councils, metropolitan boroughs, Scottish regional and island councils and the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the schedule, enforcement officers are given powers of entry, inspection and seizure, and in certain circumstances search warrants may be issued. These provisions differ from those in the Consumer Protection Act in only one respect, albeit a very important respect. Under paragraph 4(9) this Bill does not empower enforcement officers to enter private dwellings.
The schedule also creates offences of obstructing or refusing to co-operate with enforcement officers, of giving false information, of impersonating an enforcement officer, and of improperly disclosing information disclosed under the schedule.
Clause 4 is concerned with offences by bodies corporate and Scottish partnerships, establishing that directors, officers and partners are liable to conviction. Clause 5 sets a time limit for the prosecution of offences under the Bill. Clause 6 is about financial provision. The estimate based on complaints made in 1989 is that there might be some 900 complaints each year, and the cost is estimated in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill at £80,000 per annum at 1990–91 prices. Clause 7 extends the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I do not apologise for taking some little time in describing the Bill. I believe that, though strictly limited in scope, it is an important measure and should be of benefit to many people. I look forward to hearing what your Lordships have to say. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
8.2 p.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for explaining in such detail the Bill and the background to it. As she rightly said, it deals with what one might call the flowery language and exaggeration used in selling property. We know that some estate agents have been notorious for their descriptions of houses and other properties. In making such descriptions they commit a general offence of making misleading statements in the course of their business.
The trading standards officers in the city of Birmingham recently conducted a survey into the
86
prices of houses being advertised for sale by estate agents in the inner city. The survey revealed practices that were not covered by the noble Baroness in her introduction of the Bill and which have not been highlighted before. I refer to what estate agents call price reductions. The survey was conducted during February, March and April of this year. The advertisements monitored related to 2,050 properties. Of those 2,050 properties monitored, it was claimed that 208 had had their selling prices reduced at some point during the survey. Of those 208, 42 claimed reductions of almost a quarter of the selling price. The claims were false, in that the selling price had not been reduced, and in the case of 10 properties the price had actually been increased. The advertisements appeared in local newspapers. In total 11 separate estate agents were being monitored. They ranged from the national chains to locally based outlets.
An additional problem was discovered during the survey. It was found that many of the properties—in fact a large proportion of them—were advertised as new or that it was said that new instructions applied to the properties even though in some cases they had been advertised for more than three months. I am seeking information. I ask the noble Baroness whether her Bill will extend to cover such misdescriptions, which are obviously misleading and contrary to the consumer's interest, or whether the Bill seeks only to regulate what one might call the flowery descriptions of properties which estate agents on occasion use.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 creates an offence of giving a misleading price indication for goods. Trading standards officers can institute proceedings, and do so in many instances, when the retail trade is advertising during sales a reduction in price when an item has not been sold at that price for the previous three months. Trading standards officers diligently ensure that the consumer is not misled about what we call retail sales in stores. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 extend only to new properties and do not take into account what we call the second buyer. If trading standards officers find that estate agents are misleading people on the prices of new properties, they can do something about it. They cannot do anything in the case of second buyers.
I am sure the noble Baroness will agree with me that these practices are intended to make a property appear more attractive to an intending purchaser. I am concerned about this matter. I hope that it is the case that the provisions of the Bill will be sufficiently broad to encompass such misdescriptions. We are all well aware that for most people the purchase of a house is the largest single expenditure in their lives. As a result of the survey carried out by the trading standards officers in Birmingham, the local Evening Mail published a story on its front page under the banner headline "Houses for sale fiddle". If the noble Baroness could encompass in her Bill some of the points I have raised we could do away with such fiddles. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's comments. Perhaps an amendment will have to be put down at a later stage.
8.8 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, on these Benches we unreservedly welcome the Bill and we are grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing it. We feel, however, that it is long overdue. I have never been able to understand the reluctance of estate agents to adopt honesty of description. One flourishing estate agency, Roy Brooks, has built its reputation on two factors. I should like to quote briefly from a booklet compiled by Desmond Wilcox of some of its most famous advertisements for property in the London area.
Roy Brooks built his whole reputation on telling the truth, the whole truth and, often, the unwholesome truth. Perhaps the most famous of all his advertisements appeared in The Times for a property in Pimlico. It said:
"WANTED: Someone with taste, means and a stomach strong enough to buy this erstwhile house of ill-repute in Pimlico. It is untouched by the 20th Century as far as convenience for even the basic human decencies is concerned. Although it reeks of damp or worse, the plaster is coming off the walls and daylight peeps through a hole in the roof, it is still habitable judging by the bed of rags, fag ends and empty bottles in one corner. Plenty of scope for the socially aspiring to express their decorative taste and get their abode in 'The Glossy' and nothing to stop them putting Westminster on their notepaper. Ten rather unpleasant rooms with slimy back yard. £4,650 Freehold. Tarted up these houses make £15,000".
Apart from giving us a nostalgic look at house prices in the early 1960s in Central London, I think that the policy is quite clear. Roy Brooks has built up an extremely successful business out of such blatant honesty. I applaud that, and I welcome the Bill without reservation.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for introducing the Bill. As is customary, I should say that I speak from this Dispatch Box in my personal capacity and not in the name of my party, as this is a Private Member's Bill. Like my noble friend Lady Fisher, I welcome the Bill. It seems to me, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said, to close a serious loophole in trade description legislation. As such it is to be welcomed.
The majority of estate agents are undoubtedly good and honourable people and firms. However, one has to accept the fact that there is a minority which seem to pose as rip-off merchants and which are wholly determined, as the noble Earl said, to defraud their customers. It is essential to enforce honesty in the business. If—I emphasise the word "if"—it is necessary to make it a criminal offence (I am always doubtful about the criminalisation of offences) in order to ensure honesty in the profession, then I support that aim.
I have but three comments to make on the Bill as it stands. The Minister is perhaps the best person to answer the first point which concerns advice. I wonder whether anything in the Bill affects the ability of an estate agent's client to have recourse to civil remedies if the estate agent in question is convicted under the criminal principles of the Bill. In other words, if an
88
estate agent is shown by the court to be quite clearly guilty of an offence under this legislation, does the client then have further recourse to the civil courts for damages? I hope that the Minister will reflect on that point when he replies.
The other thoughts that I have, which are by no means meant to be critical of the Bill, might be helpful if the Bill were to receive a Second Reading this evening and proceed to the Committee stage. The role of solicitors as either estate agents or conveyancers is very complicated. It is complicated in England and Wales and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, pointed out, it is even more complicated in Scotland. Indeed, my understanding is that in Scotland the bulk of estate agency business is conducted by solicitors. However, that is not so in England and Wales. Therefore, I must pose the question: is it right that a solicitor, when acting as an estate agent, should be liable for penalties under the Bill whereas, when acting as a conveyancer, he may be excluded from the provisions? Indeed, he may even be the same person; but he could perhaps claim that he was only making misrepresentations as a conveyancer rather than as an estate agent. That seems to me to be a grey area which should be clarified.
My next point, which follows on from one made by my noble friend Lady Fisher, concerns prices. My noble friend quite rightly pointed out that the prices of new houses can be controlled, or at least monitored, under the Consumer Protection Act whereby action can be taken in the case of false representation. But, on resale, the house or property in question is excluded from that Act. I should therefore be interested to know whether there is any mechanism for remedying the mischief to which my noble friend quite rightly referred.
However, there is also a further mischief which may arise which does not appear to me to be covered under the Bill. I believe that many noble Lords know that some estate agents —I recognise that it is a minority —will try to talk up the price of a house by referring to the selling price of a neighbouring property. For example, if someone wants to buy a house in an estate and is told by the estate agent that the neighbouring house was sold the previous week for £150,000 and that therefore the house in question is certainly worth the same, that person would be inclined to believe such a claim. However, if it is then demonstrated that such a representation was wholly false and that the neighbouring house was in fact sold for £50,000, what remedy would there be for such a client under this Bill? In other words, is such a situation covered by the Bill? If it is not, perhaps it should be.
My final point relates to the difficulty of defining, "false to a material degree".
In the process of dealing with many Bills in the House we have discussed the meaning of the word "material". The answer has always come back—I suppose it is the only answer—that it is for the courts to decide what the word means. When we are dealing with what is probably the major investment of a lifetime for a family or a private individual it is extremely difficult to play around with words and to rely upon the courts. I say that because with present

89
day litigation costs if a client wished to take an estate agent to court or to report an estate agent for a criminal prosecution under the Bill the expense might be considerable. It is most important to bear that factor in mind when trying to frame legislation, though I recognise that it is difficult to frame legislation which meets a particular problem.
Having said that, from my point of view I believe that the Bill closes what has hitherto been a loophole in the legislation. I very much hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
8.19 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour on the way she has presented the Bill this evening. In deciding to sponsor the Property Misdescriptions Bill, I believe that she has taken on an extremely useful and responsible task for which we all have cause to be grateful. As my noble friend pointed out, the Government have supported the Bill from the beginning. Moreover, as the Minister revealed during the debate on Third Reading in another place, the Government have provided full drafting services throughout the Bill's passage.
I shall be brief, but I should like to mention one other matter which the Bill leaves loose and untied. Clause 1, and therefore the whole Bill, applies only to statements about prescribed matters, and the prescription of those matters is left to the Secretary of State. When the Bill was being considered in another place, the Minister responsible gave an undertaking that interested organisations would be consulted before the necessary order was made to prescribe the relevant characteristics of property on which the Bill will bite. On behalf of the Government, I am happy to give the same undertaking to your Lordships' House. If the Bill receives your Lordships' approval and becomes law, it will not have practical effect until that order has been made. I can assure your Lordships, therefore, that no one will be affected by it until the Government have consulted interested organisations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. Is he implying that, provided your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, the Government will introduce a draft text of the ,order before we go into Committee?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot say on what date we shall introduce the draft order. I shall find out and write to the noble Lord. I can only repeat my assurance that no one will be affected by the Bill until the Government have consulted interested organisations on the list of property characteristics which are to be prescribed. I believe that this is a very worthwhile and welcome Bill. It will considerably improve the position of the property purchaser in both the residential and commercial markets. On the other hand, it will not place any significant burden on those who already conduct their businesses in an honourable and prudent way. Nor should it impose significant extra burdens on the enforcement
90
authorities. I believe that it will improve public confidence in the business of buying and selling property, and that can only be good for the industry.
I shall deal now with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about solicitors. Solicitors will be treated in the same way as others when acting in the course of an estate agency or property development business. However, they will not be affected when providing conveyancing services. The 1979 Act relates to estate agents, their practice and conduct. Solicitors do not need to be covered because they are separately regulated in those respects by their own statutory regime. However, the Bill creates a new criminal offence which it is right should apply equally to those who are competing with one another in the business of selling property. I hope that that explanation clears up the point.
The Bill does nothing to affect consumers' civil law position. It clearly defines what is meant by "conveyancing services". When doing that work, as I have said, solicitors and licensed conveyancers are subject to their professional and statutory regime. The Secretary of State will consider prices when consulting on the draft order. I have just received advice that the order will be drafted after the Bill has passed. My noble friend Lady Carnegy will answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that the order will be drafted after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Does he mean that the Bill is merely an enabling Bill no doubt an enabling Bill with a worthy purpose but that the Government will decide what powers and properties they will designate after the Bill has received Royal Assent? Are we asked to approve that procedure?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot add to what my honourable friend said in another place. The order will be drafted after the Bill is passed. We are consulting, and that is an important point. The Bill will have no practical effect until after the order has been made.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate for the welcome they have given the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, for the research she has done and the questions she asked about misdescriptions of the price of property. I believe that I am right when I say from my reading of the long Second and Third Reading debates that that point has not hitherto been raised. It is characteristic of the noble Baroness that she has foraged about and found that point. She is right that the public has protection when buying a new house for residential purposes. As she said, there have been cases where enforcement authorities have gone to court when it has been found that the procedure was incorrect. The problem which she has unearthed is that other property is not covered by existing legislation. It is likely that the Secretary of State will include that point when he drafts the prescribed matters. By bringing the matter to light the noble

91
Baroness will encourage the Secretary of State to include it. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, amplified that point.
As to when the order will be drafted, the noble Lord is perhaps unduly impatient. The consultation has not been completed. The Bill has only just left another place. It has come here fairly rapidly. It will take time to get the consultation going and draw up the list. The point made by the noble Baroness is a good example of an issue that has come to light in this House which can be included in the draft. We cannot expect to have the draft order before the Bill leaves the House.
The noble Baroness asked about a house being described as new when it was not new. My understanding is that that point will be caught by the Bill. If I am informed otherwise after the debate, I shall let her know.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, queried solicitors and the exclusion of conveyancing. He quizzed my noble friend the Minister on that point. When drawing up the Bill, the line had to be drawn somewhere. When the Bill was extended to solicitors undertaking estate agency work, there was a good deal of discussion with the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland. They rightly claimed that their own internal professional regulations would deal with such matters. It is important that people engaged in estate agency work should operate on a level playing field. Builders selling houses they have built or renovated will not be engaged in conveyancing.
Conveyancing has been omitted from the Bill deliberately so as to draw the line somewhere. I accept what the noble Lord said. It seems to be a grey area. Wherever the line is drawn may result in a grey area. The more one examines the Bill, the more one sees the wisdom of the Bill stopping where it does. No doubt the Bill could be extended in due course if there proved to be a problem. I hope at this stage that noble Lords will not wish to extend the Bill to conveyancing.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is unhappy about the phrase:
"false to a material degree".
There is only one answer which he himself gave. The point has to be defined by the judges. Case law is developing. At the moment the judges and the parliamentary draftsman feel that the definition is adequate. I hope that I have covered all the noble Lord's queries. Does he have another?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening. She has been courteous in covering all my points, as did the Minister. Before the noble Baroness asks us to decide on the Question, I wonder whether it is right to give a Bill a Second Reading with the implication that it will go through its Committee stage and leave your Lordships' House without any of us knowing the substance of what it will apply to. The noble Baroness may well feel that we could give the Bill a Second Reading. When she has to decide on the timing through the usual channels she may feel that it would be sensible for noble Lords to have a draft of the order before the House prior to the Bill being given its Third Reading.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. My own view is that many times when we legislate orders have to be drafted after the Bill leaves the House. This is not the first time by any means. There are many reasons for doing so, and many good reasons in this case. I am personally not too hopeful. I know that the noble Lord always raises the point when Bills go through, as do many of his colleagues. They are right to do so and to point out the problems.
Proper consultation is important. I want the Bill to become law and not to be lost because there is no time left for it. Many Private Members' Bills are going through and perhaps this one will be lost if we delay too long. Therefore, I am not too hopeful about the order. I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to say more on that aspect.
I have not mentioned the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, who kindly welcomed the Bill. He said that it was overdue. I agree. It is amazing that it has taken so long for this gap in consumer protection legislation to be filled. He gave examples of a firm which advertised its great honesty. It seemed to me that that was an example of lyricism of a different kind from that referred to by Mr. Austin Mitchell in another place. The noble Earl is quite right. Most firms do not need the Bill; they will find it no problem at all. However, there are firms as well as individuals who do need it and we all know of examples. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and a smooth passage and that it will become law before long.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Mobile Telephones
8.32 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards the development of mobile telephones in the United Kingdom.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for allowing me a slot in which to pose my Unstarred Question this evening. I should declare an interest as I possess a mobile telephone.
I shall detain your Lordships for as brief a time as possible. However, I feel the matter to be of great significance to the business community. I wrote to the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on it on 25th March and to date I have only received an acknowledgment of receipt of that letter from his private secretary. This is a matter of considerable import and I feel quite justified in bringing the subject to your Lordships' attention without further delay.
It is an accepted fact that the cellular telephone is an essential business tool in the United Kingdom. Since 1983, when the Government awarded licences to operate cellular radio communications networks to two companies, the systems designed and operating in this country have become the envy of the world. Great Britain is acknowledged as the world leader in the

93
field. The network is improving and expanding daily and vast sums of money have been invested by British companies in the development of the systems.
Indeed, in the year 1990–91 the Cellnet Company alone invested over £200 million in order to triple the size of its network. The total cellular market now exceeds 11 million customers, who enjoy the use of a far more efficient and high quality service than was the case it the early years of the system.
I am advised by both the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association that vast numbers of their members' vehicles are now equipped with cellular telephones. In the commercial world, banks, insurance companies, building societies —I could go on for ever but will not at this late hour —provide such communications facilities to their employees.
The UK now has the highest number of cellular customers in the world outside the United States. The range of choice and price of user equipment is wide and the facilities provided are available to both the large and small business user. For example, mobile phones are used by jockeys, who have little time in their heavy schedule to sit at a conventional phone to book rides. They are used by one-man businesses which Are almost totally reliant on, as BT says in its advertisements, "being in when you're out".
As I mentioned, the systems are used by freight transport operators to track their drivers and vehicles, to enable drivers to communicate when vehicles break down and to alter schedules in bad weather. In addition, the possible availability and procurement of a return load for these hauliers can often make the difference between profit and loss. The margins are very tight indeed in this industry—about 3.5 per cent. to 4 per cent. With so many manufacturers using the "Just in Time" system of deliveries, which is vitally important to their cashflow, often a delay of 24 hours can cause massive production problems arising from lack of parts and raw materials. The road transport haulier needs to be available at a moment's notice and to act with efficiency and speed when the opportunity arises. The mobile phone is thus a vital facility for the smooth running of business operations. It helps to prevent the needless waste of resources and promotes the efficient use of vehicles. Dare I say that the system is used by many of your Lordships?
In his recent Budget speech, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that it was his intention to levy tax on the benefit in kind enjoyed by the mobile telephone user when using the system For private calls. These proposals are included in the Finance Bill at present in the other place.
I am completely unclear as to how the Inland Revenue intends to define "private use". I shall be grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench can help me. For example, how will telephone calls be treated if they have an element of private use but are mainly business? I have in mind a lorry driver who telephones his wife late at night while a long way from home, having probably been away for a number of days. He may ask what instructions for the morning pick-up of freight have been left with her by his employer. This is surely a business use. But then the
94
poor chap spends the last 30 seconds of his call asking how his children are—presumably a private use. Can my noble friend say how it is intended to treat this type of case?
It also seems grossly unfair to me that it would appear in my reading of the clause in the Finance Bill that the use of a mobile phone for just one call of a private nature in a tax year would make the user liable to a tax charge on the benefit in kind. This cannot be right. I ask my noble friend whether he would agree that there should be a minimum threshold at least of a number of private calls below which there would be no tax charge unless the threshold were exceeded in the relevant tax year—that is, should there be any sensible need whatsoever to impose this punitive tax in the first instance.
I find it quite impossible to see the difference between the mobile telephone and all the other equipment used to facilitate the efficient and competitive working of a business. In short, it is as essential a facility as is a typewriter, calculator, telephone, telex or fax machine. In every office from time to time an employee uses these facilities for a private purpose. It is well known and accepted. There is no tax charge for benefit in kind on such use, therefore why should mobile telephone users he singled out as the whipping-boy?
It is of course sad that there is no code of conduct when it comes to the use of mobile phones. Inevitably, a small minority insist on posing in restaurants with these items of equipment, probably to the great discomfort of other diners, doubtless including the right honourable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The use of such equipment has become a thoroughly normal part of everyday life which we have to accept.
Since I put down this Question, I have received a considerable amount of mail from many companies and organisations, including trade unions, which use or whose members use cellular telephones. To a person, they all oppose the Chancellor's intentions in this area. For example, I am advised by Dixons, the high street retailer, in its letter to me, that:
"As a major user of cellular telephones, we support the view so clearly expressed by Sir William Clark during the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in the Commons, that mobile phones are an essential business tool. To tax them, therefore, would be detrimental to those who rely on mobile communications to increase the efficiency of their business throughout the country&We are disappointed at the Government's decision to impose an additional burden on the telecommunications industry when the Government has given so much support to the [United Kingdom's] position as world leader in this rapidly expanding market".
The Transport and General Workers' Union has advised me that the basic weekly wage of a heavy goods vehicle driver is £150.67 per week before stoppages. There is no way in which these employees can afford to pay any levy whatsoever imposed on the private use of a cellular phone. These phones are in their cabs. They are there to help their business. Neither can their employers afford to pay this when the margins in their industry are so tight. The employees of most businesses already repay their employers for the cost of any private calls. They should not have a further charge imposed on them

95
when they already pay substantial amounts of income tax, national insurance and now even higher rates of VAT.
It is my view that such a tax on mobile telephones would be detrimental to the future growth of a highly successful area of the telecommunications industry. It would be detrimental to all types of business which use cellular facilities. It would be an unfair and selective tax which would not be beneficial to the Government's reputation, and it would be a tax fraught with difficulties in terms of collection, open to abuse, and not a substantial earner of revenue. It would be a tax that would smack of the bad old days of central government interference. These are not simply my own views; these are also the views I have received from many branches of trade, commerce and industry and indeed the trade unions. They are very widespread views.
I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister one final question. In view of the very substantial and widespread opposition to the Government's line of thought with regard to mobile telephones and their taxation, would it not be in the best interests of all concerned if the Government were to lay this particular measure in the Finance Bill on one side for the time being while establishing a consultative process involving all the representative bodies such as the CBI, the Chambers of Commerce, the various trade bodies and the trade unions to seek the views of the user before legislation is finally passed which will be widely damaging and thoroughly unpopular?
As I know that I do not have the right of reply, perhaps I may express my gratitude to noble Lords who are to speak to this Question this evening. I look forward to listening to their views and I look forward to my noble friend's reply. Commerce and industry are under very great pressure at the present, and need help not hindrance. I am most grateful.
8.42 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. Like many other small businessmen, I was astonished at the tone of the Chancellor's Budget when he dismissed the mobile telephone as a scourge of modern society, especially as those remarks appeared in a Budget that he described as encouraging to small businesses.
My noble friend has already described the wide variety of benefits that accumulate to small businesses as a result of better communications. My own small business, which comprises a landscape practice, is an example of that. Mobility is essential. I started the business in 1982, but it was 1986 before we purchased a mobile telephone. The subsequent improvement in efficiency and management has been significant. No longer do I leave decisions unmade and problems unsolved for the best part of a day or longer simply because I am unaware of them. No longer am I desk bound at the start of each day making and receiving calls that should have been made the previous day. The ability of a mobile telephone to keep one in touch with clients and colleagues wherever one is has contributed to a growing business and to a growing
96
payroll. At every stage of this expansion the Government are a beneficiary, as are those in the dole queue.
No small business would consider it unfair if the Inland Revenue targeted private usage that was simply and quickly defined. Small businesses would consider it unfair, however, if the tone adopted by the Inland Revenue was similar to that of the Chancellor's personal irritation. The mobile telephone may well be a symptom of a certain lifestyle which causes annoyance to those eating in London restaurants. However, as a percentage of the usage of mobile telephones, such irritating occurrences must be infinitesimal. I warn the Government and my noble friend that there is a danger of the Government throwing out a business baby with the yuppy bathwater.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for raising the matter this evening. I believe it is some 10 years since mobile telephones appeared in the form of car telephones. As the noble Earl quite rightly pointed out, the technology has grown explosively ever since. Like all new technologies, we should certainly encourage it if it is of use to business and industry. We cannot ignore such technology.
As both noble Earls have pointed out, the Chancellor made a rather silly and cheap joke in his Budget Statement. I believe businesses will consider that that joke will rebound on the Chancellor. Mobile telephones are necessary for efficient business across the whole range. They are also necessary for efficient services such as the delivery of goods. They are necessary to enable lorries to be in the right place at the right time and for vans to deliver goods at the right time. They are necessary for home services such as painters and plumbers so they can be contacted and sent to the right place at the right time. As the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said, mobile telephones are necessary for long-distance work. It is therefore absurd to sneer at their use. I believe that the Chancellor did that in his Budget Statement.
I join with both noble Earls in the belief that it is a travesty to tax the private use of mobile telephones as a form of perk without taxing the same use of telephones by businessmen who may be in Tokyo, for example, and wish to ring their wives. Why should a businessman in Tokyo, New York, Chicago or San Francisco telephone his wife to inquire how she and the family are, and not be taxed for such a phone call, as is the case at present, while a lorry driver who telephones his wife at the end of a day's stint to find out what messages have been left for him and then adds on 30 seconds to ask how the kids are is to be taxed on that? That situation does not make sense to me. There is also the problem of collection.
I join with both noble Earls in thinking that this is an ill-advised measure by the Chancellor. I believe he will come to regret it. Nevertheless we have to accept that, as with all new technologies, certain uses can be a nuisance to the public in general. It is on that point that the Government should concentrate. I believe it is

97
illegal for drivers to use their car telephones while they are d riving. However, one can drive along the motorway any day of the week and see many people using Their car telephones while they are driving. My noble friend Lord Underhill tried to introduce an amendment into the Road Traffic Bill which would have prohibited the practice. However, the Government resisted it. The Government should crack down on the practice.
There is then the matter of the use of mobile telephones in public places. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has drawn attention to the problem. It can be a nuisance to hear someone forever ringing different people when one is sitting in a restaurant or on a train and expecting a little peace and quiet. That is another point the Government should concentrate on. Possibly the only serious use of a mobile telephone, apart from business use, was described in Mr. Jeffrey Bernard's column in The Spectator this week. The noble Viscount may have read the article. A man was described as entering a pub which Mr. Bernard regularly frequents. I believe the pub is called The Coach and Horses. The man had a mobile telephone and he decided its only proper use was to stand at the bar, ring the number of the pub and ask the owner, who had not served him with a drink for the past five minutes, whether it was possible to get a drink. That sparked off instant action from the pub owner, who was known to be a somewhat bad tempered gentleman.
That may appear to be a somewhat frivolous account but I am making the serious point that a balance should be struck. Like all new technologies these telephones are useful, increase productivity, are at the forefront of technology and should be encouraged. On the other hand, there are times when they can be a public nuisance. There must be some regulation, whether a code of conduct, code of practice or some other form, which would ensure that they were properly used to enhance business, industrial and service productivity and not be a nuisance to the public in general.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for giving me this opportunity to put on the record once again the Government's strong support for the mobile telephone industry in this country. To answer my noble friend's Question directly, the Government have fully supported the development of mobile telephones in the UK. We continue to support that development and look forward to it continuing in the future. The growth of the mobile telephone industry in this country has been a major success story, and one which owes much to the policies of this Government.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I reminded noble Lords of a little of the industry's history. Until 1985, the only two-way mobile telephone system generally available was the radio telephone system run by British Telecom. The technology in use at that time resulted in bulky equipment and limited network capacity. In 1985 the Government issued licences to two new competing networks, run by Cellnet and Racal-vodafone. The services they provided were sold to users through a tier of retailers or service providers.
98
That structure resulted in a highly competitive market and one which has expanded rapidly. There are now well over 1 million mobile telephone subscribers in this country, giving the UK the two largest cellular radio networks in the world. This has generated an estimated 20,000 jobs in the UK, directly in the operators as well as in service providers, dealers, and among manufacturers of telecommunications equipment.
There is, therefore, already a very significant mobile telephone industry in this country, and one which the Government have actively supported. The Government do not want to see the development of the mobile telephone market stop there. In 1989 the Government announced that they would issue licences to three new operators of personal communications networks. Those operators will provide the next generation of mobile telephones which are expected to bring the benefits of mobile telephony to a wider section of the population than is currently served by them. At the same time, the existing cellular operators will take part in the pan-European mobile network with all the benefits of mobility throughout Europe which that will bring.
The Government's consistent policy has, therefore, been one of encouraging competition in the provision of mobile telephone services. That approach was continued in the Government's recent White Paper on telecommunications policy which, most notably, abolished the duopoly previously enjoyed by British Telecom and Mercury in the provision of telecommunication services over fixed links. It also significantly extended the range of services which mobile operators will be able to provide to their customers. In particular, mobile operators will in future be able to come forward for extensions to their licences in order to provide a range of fixed services. That will increase the opportunities available to mobile telephone operators and the benefits which they will be able to provide to customers.
The Government, therefore, have a clear and consistent record of encouraging the growth and development of mobile telecommunications in the UK and supporting the excellent efforts of the companies involved. That approach has helped the country to lead the world in new developments in mobile telephony.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the specific concerns raised by noble Lords, and in particular by my two noble friends behind me. The first is the proposed tax on mobile telephones provided by employers. It has been suggested that the changes announced in the Budget relating to the taxation of mobile telephones provided by employers indicates a reduction of the Government's commitment to mobile telephones. I can assure noble Lords that that is not the case. The intention of the changes is simply to bring mobile telephones in employer-provided cars, which were previously not separately charged to tax, properly within the tax system and to simplify the arrangements for taxing other mobile telephones provided by employers and available for employees' private use. The proposal will not introduce a new levy on telephones bought by individuals for their own use.

99
Nor will telephones used purely for business be taxed. Where an employee is required to reimburse his or her employer in full for the cost of private calls made, and does so, no tax will be payable. Noble Lords will appreciate the importance of ensuring that all benefits in kind are properly and equitably taxed. The Budget proposals are intended to ensure that that happens in the case of mobile telephones provided to employees.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury asked how private use will be defined. The answer is that private use is defined in the Finance Bill as the use of the telephone to make calls other than calls which are wholly and exclusively necessary for the purpose of the employer's business. If there is private use the standard charge will apply unless the employee is required to pay his employer for the cost of private use.
My noble friend also asked me how the element of private use will be treated. The important factor is the purpose of the call. In general, the Inland Revenue will not seek to treat as a private call a call made for the purpose of the employer's business which contained an incidental, non-business element. For example, if a lorry driver phoned home to find out what his tasks were for the next day that would be regarded as a business call. If there was a brief enquiry as to the wellbeing or health of his wife or children that would not disqualify the call as a business call. However, it might be a different matter if, after a brief inquiry about his tasks for the day, he then spent the next 20 minutes telling his children bedtime stories. There must be a balance. In those circumstances the Inland Revenue is likely to argue that the purpose of the call was a private one.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury referred to a person making one call and asked whether that would be taxed. The answer is simple. If he makes one call and he pays his employer—it might be only 40p—then he has paid for the private call and the tax does not apply. That would apply to someone who does not spend much time on the telephone.
In his Budget speech my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that taxation of mobile phones would be simplified and a modest charge introduced. We must get the matter into perspective. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was wrong. My right honourable friend the Chancellor in no way sneered at mobile telephones or their users. That is not the case. To put the matter in
100
perspective, the maximum tax bill that anyone will receive as a result of the measure is £80. Basic rate taxpayers will pay only £50. I cannot believe that that is a major threat to the British telecommunications industry.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked why mobile telephones should be differentiated from other modern business equipment. Mobile telephones are increasingly provided by employers as a benefit for their employees in the same way as company cars and private medical insurance. Unlike office equipment, mobile phones are often available outside the office and outside office hours —in the evening and at weekends. Their use is unlikely to be subject to immediate supervision whereas the use of telephones within an office tends to be supervised. More and more companies now have systems which are able to produce itemised bills and it is easy for them to identify private use of telephones.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, talked about a code of practice for the use of mobile telephones. There is not much room for the Government to act to stop people causing a nuisance with their telephones in public places. We leave that to the good sense of the individual. Someone can cause a nuisance with or without a telephone.
The other point related to cars. We dealt with that matter in the recent Bill. It is now possible to obtain car phones which are activated by voice rather than by pushing buttons. Cars may also have speakers, which makes it unnecessary for people to clutch something to their ear while driving— a practice, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, which one often sees and which is not to be encouraged.
This country has one of the world's most successful mobile telephone industries. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will do all they can to ensure that that success continues.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can be explain exactly what he meant by his reference to a brief family discussion after a business call?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is quite simple. Brief is brief. If the call is very brief but the individual thinks that he may pay tax on the benefit he can reimburse his employer for the modest amount of money that that call cost.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.

  INDO-CHINESE REFUGEES: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
  INDO-CHINESE REFUGEES: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
  POLITICAL UNION: INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE MEETING, 13th/14th MAY
  POLITICAL UNION: INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE MEETING, 13th/14th MAY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 13th/14th MAY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 13th/14th MAY
  NHS TRUSTS: BUSINESS PLANS
  NHS TRUSTS: BUSINESS PLANS
  BRAIN INJURED: REHABILITATION SERVICES
  BRAIN INJURED: REHABILITATION SERVICES
  SOCIAL SECURITY: REPORT ON 16 AND 17 YEAR-OLDS
  SOCIAL SECURITY: REPORT ON 16 AND 17 YEAR-OLDS
  GLOBAL PROTECTION AGAINST LIMITED STRIKES PROGRAMME
  GLOBAL PROTECTION AGAINST LIMITED STRIKES PROGRAMME
  THEATRE MISSILE DEFENCE R & D
  THEATRE MISSILE DEFENCE R & D
  DYSLEXIA: TEACHER TRAINING
  DYSLEXIA: TEACHER TRAINING