Sitting of 15 December 1992

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

    University Buildings
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will make a statement on the sums available in the new financial year for capital expenditure on buildings for United Kingdom universities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Provision for capital expenditure on United Kingdom university buildings forms an integral part of the respective Education Departments' higher education capital programmes.
    In the light of the Chancellor's autumn statement, figures have been made available for the resources in England and Scotland for higher education capital in 1993–94. Details of the provision for Wales are being published this afternoon and figures for Northern Ireland will be announced later.
    The autumn statement also provided for universities to increase their scope for capital funding by enabling them to borrow on the security of Exchequer-funded assets.
    Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for that reply and have pleasure in welcoming him to the Dispatch Box.
    The Government's policy is to try to increase the number of people in higher education, and certain penalties attach to an increase in numbers. I recall, many years ago, when I started my first-year university course, there were 55 in the class. A former colleague told me the other day that he is starting a lecture course next year with 215 in the class, although the lecture theatre still accommodates only about 70 people.
    It is possible to use some facilities more efficiently, but there comes a point, with the expansion of higher education, when there must be an expansion in funding, too. Will the Government now accept that need and make substantially more public resources available for that purpose?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his personal remarks. I apologise to the House for having exchanged only too recently the relative Trappism of the Whip's Office so I have not yet achieved the fluency and elegance which I hope is appropriate to my new Department.
    The answer to the hon. Gentleman's substantive point is that it is important that higher education is conducted in
    278
    adequate buildings. Much better use is now being made of buildings, as the hon. Gentleman said, and that is right. Where there is a continuing shortage of space, it is open to universities to apply for capital funding for a particular project. We are maintaining the state-funded capital project programme in the coming year, and universities now have the additional benefit of being able to borrow in the commercial market on the security of their existing assets.

    Student Incomes
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the expected cost of the study being made into student incomes.
    Mr. Boswell: The estimated cost of the student income and expenditure survey is £200,000, including VAT.
    Mr. Etherington: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new post and wish him well in these somewhat troubled times.
    Will the hon. Gentleman consider extending the investigation to part-time students? Is he aware that it is my experience, which includes representations made to me by the parents of part-time students, that many students attending colleges and the Open university are suffering severe financial hardship? Is he further aware that many of them are looking after children or members of their families and that many of them are unemployed or in poorly paid part-time jobs? The Government should look into the plight of part-time students on the basis that, if we are talking about expanding education, people other than full-time students are involved.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
    The survey is being carried out broadly on the same basis as before, in relation to full-time students, although we have slightly widened it in some respects. The issue of part-time students is separate. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must remind him that other sources of income, such as employment or even social security benefits are open on occasion to part-time students. Part-time students involve a separate consideration and should not be confused with the current study.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I also welcome the Minister to his new post and can assure him that he was always extremely fluent behind the scenes. I suggest that one way of getting funds to students as money in their pockets would be to press ahead with making the membership of the students union voluntary. I see no reason why the students at my local university should pay £16,000 for a rent strike and £45,000 for sabbaticals and various other things that they may not wish to have.
    Mr. Boswell: I know my hon. Friend of old and I am very grateful for her personal remarks. I shall take most carefully into account the suggestion she has made, but it may be for another occasion.
    Mr. Rooker: In the spirit of welcome for the Minister, may I ask him if his survey will include the case of Neil Bennett, a mature student of Witney, Oxfordshire, whose details I have already sent to the Department? Mr. Bennett faces the imminent decision between continuing to study for his degree and losing his home and furniture, for which

    279
    he has worked eight years, and abandoning his studies, returning to the dole and keeping his home. How can students be expected to work and study under pressures of that kind?
    Mr. Boswell: Certain numbers of students always suffer hardship. Indeed, I have two student daughters, one of whom graduated this morning, so I have some personal advisers on student hardship. If the hon. Gentleman has submitted a particular case to the Department, I can assure him that it will be fully and carefully considered.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Fabricant.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am very surprised, Madam Speaker.
    Several Hon. Members: We all are.
    Madam Speaker: It is Christmas.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that when I was at university, which was only a very short while ago, I and my colleagues had to take out loans from banks such as Lloyds and Barclays at very high interest rates? Does he not realise how much I would have welcomed the opportunity to take out student loans issued by the Government at low rates of interest?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His problem is different from mine; it just seems to me that it was only a short time ago that I was at university. Certainly, at that time, finance was expensive. Student loans are excellent value for money, because there is no interest other than the rate of inflation, and that is very low at the moment. Many students have used those loans when they have needed and chosen to.

    Schools (Essex)
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make an official visit to Essex in order to discuss with parents and teachers the future funding and levels of education in the county's schools.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): My right hon. Friend hopes in due course to visit all parts of the country, including Essex. I had the opportunity to talk to teachers from schools in Chelmsford and Basildon and county councillors and local education authority officers during my visit to the county earlier this year. The funding of schools and the level of service provided is primarily a matter for the Essex local education authority.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What advice will the Secretary of State give to the thousands of parents in Essex who have received letters from their children's headteachers saying that their schools are facing a funding crisis and that they do not have enough resources to fulfil the requirements of the national curriculum, particularly in respect of books, equipment and, in some cases, teachers? Who is to blame? Is it the Conservative-controlled county council or the Secretary of State, and, above all else, what does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Forth: For some reason, Madam Speaker, the good will seems to have evaporated. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it is, of course, the local education authority which, like all authorities throughout the country, is responsible for making local decisions
    280
    about how resources are allocated to schools and as between primary and secondary schools for those schools which remain within local education authority control. For grant-maintained schools, of which I am delighted to say there are a growing number in Essex, the matter is quite different and has to be treated differently. I am sure that Essex will look to its own resources, make its own decisions and he accountable to parents throughout the county. I am satisfied that the funding of education in Essex is perfectly satisfactory, as it is in the rest of the country.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he comes to Essex he will find the second highest number of grant-maintained schools in any local education authority area? Is he also aware that his own Department's school performance tables show some schools in Essex achieving some of the highest standards in the whole of the country? Will he therefore congratulate both the governors and the teachers of Essex schools on the excellent results they have achieved and on their wisdom in taking maximum advantage of the Government's education reforms?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and join him in rejoicing at the number of schools which, through free parental balloting, have decided to opt for grant-maintained status. It is a very encouraging trend which we hope will continue. The figures that he has given to the House show that it is for local education authorities, heads, governors, teachers and everyone involved to ensure that they get the best possible value for money and that the relationship between resources and results, which is often alleged by some hon. Members, does not exist and probably never will.

    Teachers' Work Load
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding the administrative work load on teachers as a result of measures to implement the national curriculum and testing.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has received about 75 letters about this matter since the beginning of the new school year in September.
    Mr. Nicholson: That figure does not surprise me. Although I and, I think, all my colleagues vigorously support the Government's objective of raising standards in schools, will my hon. Friend make a new year resolution to ensure that his Department helps the Government's drive against excessive bureaucracy, regulation, red tape and reams of white paper? Is he aware that the burden of paperwork on teachers is not a six-week wonder but has been reported to me on my school visits throughout my time in the House and is becoming a great concern? One hears of glossy brochures being introduced for the curriculum or testing, but, almost before there is time for teachers to study them, they are withdrawn and replaced by new ones. Will he work hard with his officials to deal with that matter?
    Mr. Forth: Of course I share the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed so eloquently about excessive burdens of administration, bureaucracy or paperwork in schools or anywhere else in the public sector. However, I am sure that he will understand that it is very much in

    281
    everyone's interest that we get the definition of the national curriculum correct, that we are able to review it where necessary and that the National Curriculum Council, in particular—that independent body which we have charged with the very important task of defining the national curriculum —is free to advise teachers, heads and parents on the curriculum, its content and development as it sees fit. I will ensure that the National Curriculum Council is made aware of my hon. Friend's points so that we can get a firm grip on the matters about which he expresses concern.
    Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister convey my welcome to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education on taking up his new appointment? Will he confirm that among the representations that he has received about this matter have been those from teachers of English who are worried about the rapid introduction of the key stage 3 standard assessment tasks for English? Will he advise the House whether it is likely that he will accede to their requests for a postponement of the introduction of those tests for one year?
    Mr. Forth: No. When a difficulty arises it is always tempting for some people to go for a postponement, but that will not help. We are concerned above all to establish a level of quality in education, to define the framework within which it should operate and to give teachers the maximum support to help them define the needs of pupils and to be better able to deal with those needs. We are, of course, most concerned to ensure that those developments take place properly. They are carefully piloted and monitored, and we shall undertake to work with the School Examinations and Assessment Council and others involved to ensure that the assessments and tests are introduced with the maximum effectiveness and the minimum of trouble.
    Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend recall that there was almost universal hostility from the teaching profession to the national curriculum when it was first introduced? Does he recognise that there is now tremendous support for it in all schools, but that there is also some anxiety about key stage 3, in not only English but technology? Will he at least consider a pilot scheme for a year so that teachers can get hold of the necessary paperwork for the key stage 3 exam?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's very important point. It is remarkable that when we announce radical new, measures to improve quality in education the knee-jerk reaction, certainly from members of the Opposition and often from others involved in education, is routine opposition. When they are introduced and prove to be workable, successful and helpful to parents and pupils, fortunately many people are prepared to take a different view and to support them. I hope that that will continue. I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses. We are well aware of them and I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that, wherever possible, we will ensure that such matters are dealt with properly when the new tests are introduced. That has been the case in the past, and it will continue to be so in future.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does not the Minister realise that the national curriculum is overloaded and far too prescriptive and is, therefore, not workable or successful as he implied
    282
    a minute ago? Does he also recognise that the burden on teachers is made worse by the constant chopping and changing at the instigation of Ministers?
    Will the Minister think again about the problems that have been raised by hon. Members in all parts of the House today because there are genuine concerns among those who know what is happening in the classroom that it will not be possible to go ahead with key stage 3 in English and technology? As there is so much concern throughout the House, will the Minister reconsider his statement on that matter?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady must be careful not to eliminate the possibility of review and change where appropriate. When I talk to teachers, as I do often, as do my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State, teachers do not say, "Don't change anything in the curriculum." They say, "If there is a justified need for review and for change, please will you do it?" That is the response that we are prepared to give. That is why the National Curriculum Council is currently involved in a review of the primary curriculum to assess the kind of concerns raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Its interim advice will be with us very soon.
    I will certainly not give undertakings at this stage, because of allegations of the kind that have been made today, summarily to stop the progress of testing in its tracks. We will take due account of the anxieties that have been expressed, take the advice of the NCC and then press on with proper testing.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the teaching profession has made a magnificent effort to implement the national curriculum and the testing that goes with it because it believes in the national curriculum and sees the high value of the testing'?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. It is a delight to see my hon. Friend in his usual place, full of vim and vigour as always and expressing his knowledgeable interest in matters educational. My hon. Friend is right and he knows so much about the matter. The teaching profession has responded magnificently to the challenges that we have laid down. Teachers are getting on with the national curriculum; they are enthusiastic about it and want to see it work. Our job in the Department for Education, like the job of the NCC and the School Examinations and Assessment Council is to work together with the profession to ensure that we all serve the interests of pupils.

    EC (Ministerial Meetings)
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what meetings of institutions of the European Community Education Ministers have attended during the United Kingdom presidency to date.
    Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chaired the Council of Ministers of Education on 27 November. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) represented the United Kingdom. The previous day my right hon. Friend, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary

    283
    Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, had appeared before the European Parliament's Committee for Culture, Youth, Education and the Media.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister and I, too, welcome him to the Dispatch Box. Will he give the House an assurance that at every meeting of the Council of Education Ministers a Scottish Minister will be present to represent the separate, distinct and, in my view, better Scottish education?
    Mr. Boswell: It is remarkable that, as I understand it, it has not been normal practice hitherto for Scottish Education Ministers to attend. I understand that it was most successful on this occasion and I very much hope that it will help and happen again in the future.
    Mr. Clappison: I also welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. With regard to consultations in Europe, how usual is it for the President of the European Council to meet Members of the European Parliament?
    Mr. Boswell: It is certainly not unusual for them to meet. However, it was distinctive on this occasion because the presidency and my right hon. Friend briefed the European Parliament the day before the Council meeting. I am sure that the exchange that evening was successful and fruitful and that it contributed to a very successful tone in the Council discussions the next day.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Why is it that, after 13 years of this Government, half a dozen Secretaries of State for Education and numerous reforms and Education Acts, Britain still lags a long way behind the rest of western Europe in the number of 16 to 18–year-olds who stay in full-time education or vocational training? Why do we have one of the worst trained work forces in western Europe? Will we have the same complacency from the new Minister that we have had from his predecessors over those 13 years?
    Mr. Boswell: I have to say that I agree with one of the hon. Gentleman's remarks in which he made a reasonable conjunction between education and training. That conjunction is important, but the hon. Gentleman is way off beam in every other respect. We are expanding the numbers in further education and training much faster than most of our counterparts. We attach the greatest importance to further education and training, and we shall continue to build on such programmes.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his target for the number of primary schools to obtain grant-maintained status by the end of 1993.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I hope that as many parents as possible will consider the potential benefits of self-governing status for their primary schools.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some urban primary schools, having considered grant-maintained status, have decided against it because they are concerned about the future provision of their special needs and do not believe that grouping is the answer for them? Will he embark on a new information campaign aimed at
    284
    the governors of all primary schools and secondary modern schools, telling them of the distinct advantages of grant-maintained status for their schools and the amazing results that have been achieved by those schools that have opted for grant-maintained status?
    Mr. Patten: I am grateful for the opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend that more than two thirds of grant-maintained schools have increased their provision for special educational needs above the level previously provided directly by the local education authority. About 186 primary schools have balloted on whether to become grant maintained. In eight out of 10 cases—exactly the same figure for secondary schools—the result has been a resounding yes.
    Mr. Barnes: When that petition for opting out takes place on the ballot, no restriction is placed on the lists of parents' names and the uses of those lists for commercial or other purposes. Should not that matter be examined? Should names be generally used for any purpose other than that for which they were given?
    Mr. Patten: I am much more worried about the apparently illicit way in which some local education authorities have got lists of names from schools and used them to incite others to circulate intimidatory literature to stop schools from going grant-maintained. Needless to say, Derbyshire is in the lead.

    Examination Results
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on his assessment of the relationship between spending by local education authorities and examination results.
    Mr. Patten: High spending is no guarantee of good examination results. Some authorities obtain good results at much lower cost than others. I have looked at the relationship between the percentage of pupils in each LEA achieving five or more A to C grades at GCSE, and find that some of the highest-spending authorities gain relatively poor results.
    Mr. Congdon: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that the publication of school examination results and other research confirms that the level of achievement for schools with children from similar backgrounds is widely different? Is it not time that schools improved their performance, rather than seeking excuses for failure?
    Mr. Patten: Indeed, schools in inner-city areas, such as Mulberry school in Tower Hamlets, Stockland Green school in Birmingham and Archbishop Blanche school in Toxteth, Liverpool, have shown that schools can perform well in apparently adverse circumstances. We should all look to those schools as beacons of excellence. I congratulate them, and other schools in those areas should draw lessons from them.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Secretary of State aware that about three years ago a study carried out by York and Sheffield universities concluded that when poverty and social deprivation were taken into consideration the results of most inner-city schools were as good as those of schools anywhere?
    Mr. Patten: It seems very odd to me that the Labour party, which historically has liked measuring statistics of poverty, housing need or alleged social deprivation, so much dislikes the Government's pioneering radical measurement of school performance.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: In rejecting the Opposition's apparent obsession with equating spending with standards, does my right hon. Friend agree that time and again reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate have shown that the factors that lead to higher standards are high expectations from teachers and parents and some investment from parents? Does he agree that the investment that parents make in grant-maintained schools through their participation in balloting is likely to lead to such investment and, therefore, higher standards?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I would only add to those factors the leadership qualities of the headteacher, whoever she or he might be. A correlation seems to be emerging in some areas between poor examination performance, high public expenditure and a high level of surplus school places. I shall investigate that. Those three factors linked together seem to point to poor management of public resources and hence bad education of our children.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State agree that the publication of school examination results generally reflects the social and economic make-up of England and Wales? His reference to beacon schools in inner-city areas is worth examining in great detail. In deprived areas, where examination results are generally bad, will he make efforts to ensure that proper funding and good advice are available to enable teachers in hard-pressed schools to achieve even better results than at present?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman must surely have noticed that I took the trouble a few moments ago to praise three named schools, one in a Liberal-controlled area and two in Labour-controlled areas, which have performed exceptionally well. Even at the season of good will, I find it hard to take the assumption that because a little boy or a little girl comes from a difficult background—perhaps from parents who are not well off and in an area with high unemployment—we should automatically have low expectations. That shows just how out of touch the Labour party is in the 1990s with the aspirations of ordinary working people in Britain.

    Parents (Information)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure an increase of the information available to parents about their children's education.
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to make more information available to parents following publication of the examination results tables.
    Mr. Patten: I shall shortly be publishing, LEA by LEA, the assessment results for seven-year-olds and expenditure on primary pupils. Under the parents charter, the comparative tables of school examination results issued this year will be extended next year to include national
    286
    curriculum assessment results, truancy rates and information about what happens to pupils over school leaving age when they go on to their new careers.
    School prospectuses are already more informative than ever before, and will include more information from next year. From 1993, parents will begin to receive summary reports of the inspections which will take place every four years in each maintained school.
    Lastly, and importantly, parents are now guaranteed a written report on their child at least once a year. Last Friday I made further regulations about these reports to take effect next year—requiring all school-leavers to be given the highly successful national record of achievement as a passport to working life.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in my constituency and throughout Britain the results have been greatly welcomed? I have to say that his Department's mark for accuracy has come out as "could do better", but that has not detracted from the usefulness of the exercise. For the first time eyes have been opened to the relative performance of schools. In addition to the other information that my right hon. Friend proposes to publish, will he consider including results in other public examinations such as British Amateur Gymnastics Association tests for athletics, swimming awards, music examinations, and so on, so that we can get a clear picture of the child in the round at individual schools?
    Mr. Patten: We certainly intend to do all that we can to publish more information, which enables parents to make a sound judgment about the schools to which their children go or may go. We hear a lot from the Opposition, and in a few days' time, in an effort to be helpful, I shall publish results of the tests on seven-year-olds for last summer and further information including, for example, public expenditure per head on primary school pupils.
    Mr. Hendry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his welcome announcement that more information is to be made available, including the publication of school prospectuses, shows that the claim that the publication of examination results alone may mean nothing is one which can be fairly squashed? Does he also agree that that shows that socialist claims that parents could not or would not want to understand information about their children's education is nothing more than patronising socialist waffle?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend from Derbyshire is absolutely right. It is very patronising to treat parents in that way. What amazes me is how the Opposition continue to fail to understand the aspirations of ordinary working people. In the 1970s and 1980s, they did not understand the aspirations to home ownership—[Interruption.] The chattering classes who inhabit the Labour Benches these days do not understand the aspirations of ordinary working people to good education for their children, hence the publication of the league tables:
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State not review his somewhat arbitrary limit of five O-levels on one occasion as the criterion of performance in any school? What has he to say about the slow-learning pupil for whom I was once responsible, who got one O-level in the summer, two more the next Christmas and two the following summer? That pupil could not possibly have got five O-levels at one time

    287
    at the first attempt. What does the Secretary of State have to say about the performance of that school and that pupil?
    Mr. Patten: I would not cast any aspersions on the performance of the teacher involved, and it was probably a triumph for the slow learner. In the White Paper we said that it might be easy for academically gifted children to get a number of O-levels, but that a small number of qualifications may represent a triumph for other boys or girls and for the teachers who help them to get those exam results.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there might be problems with league tables in relation to the publication of A-level results because the standards set by schools for accepting pupils in A-level classes may vary considerably? Some schools lay down minimum GCSE result requirements while others have a more open policy. Is there not a danger that schools will be discouraged from accepting pupils in A-level classes because they fear that when the results are published they may not be so good? Will the Secretary of State at least consider revising the method of publishing A-level results?
    Mr. Patten: I shall treat the hon. Gentleman's question seriously, reflect on it and write to him. It is important to bear in mind that most professional teachers who take on a child who is perhaps a slow learner—such as the pupil mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—or has special educational needs, realise that they represent a considerable professional challenge. I applaud teachers who do such excellent work and the good results produced by teachers who help pupils with special educational needs.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the broad welcome by parents for the publication of examination results, we can clearly develop the system further by including such matters as vocational qualifications in years to come, as so many Conservative Members have requested?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. I can announce to the House that next year we shall publish results of vocational qualifications. I hope that that will be greeted rather more warmly by the Labour Front Bench than the publication of tables which they condemned on the day of publication but six days later they had done a complete U-turn and were in favour of the tables.

    National Curriculum(Primary Schools)
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has received in relation to the national curriculum in primary schools.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend regularly receives representations from parents, teachers and others in relation to the national curriculum in primary schools.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that many primary school teachers, while recognising the basic objective of the national curriculum, believe that they do not have sufficient time to listen to young children read or to encourage them to read purely for pleasure? Will he ensure that the national curriculum is less rigid and allows for a slightly more flexible approach to reading?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is one reason why the National Curriculum Council is conducting its current review. In my experience, some teachers share the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman, while others seem to have been better able to accommodate the demands of the national curriculum—we must balance the one against the other. I do not want us to rush into changes, and we are keeping an open mind as to how much things may have to be changed to accommodate the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is grossly unfair to children that they are not able to obtain good results in the three Rs, which are so important for secondary education and future jobs? Surely that is the purpose of the national curriculum.
    Mr. Forth: That is, indeed, one of the important purposes of the national curriculum. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be reassured by the great emphasis that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State have placed on setting the highest possible standards for mastering the basics of education so that young people may be better suited to maximise their educational potential. All education Ministers are, and will continue to be, concerned about that.

    Cleaning(Competitive Tendering)
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding cleaning standards in schools since competitive tendering became operative.
    Mr. Forth: The Department receives representations from time to time on various compulsory competitive tendering issues. I am not aware of any recent correspondence specifically relating to school cleaning.
    Mr. Michie: Is the Secretary of State aware that the current contracts given out for the cleaning of schools are totally inadequate? The standards of one of the schools in my constituency, Herdings junior and nursery infants, are not up to scratch. That is not a criticism of the school cleaners; it reflects the fact that the local authority did not have enough money to include better specifications in the contract. Will the Minister review the position of schools and, I hope, improve it?
    Mr. Forth: Where appropriate, it is for local education authorities to set standards for themselves and put the work out to tender based on those standards. They have responsibility for monitoring whether the standards are being achieved. The hon. Gentleman should return to his local education authority and satisfy himself as to whether it is setting proper standards, tendering properly and monitoring the achievement of standards in schools.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that compulsory competitive tendering has saved local authorities a lot of money? Should not education budgets be used to educate children rather than to preserve jobs in the National Union of Public Employees?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Recent research by the Institute of Local Government Studies shows that cost savings of about 6 per cent. have resulted

    289
    from compulsory competitive tendering for local authority services while providing the same or higher standards. I trust that local education authorities will be considering the matter carefully to see whether they can redeploy into education the resources saved.

    Testing(Seven-year-olds)
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for further consultation on national curriculum tests for seven-year-olds.
    Mr. Forth: We shall consult in the spring, as usual, on the next assessment order governing tests and assessments for seven-year-olds in 1994.
    Mrs. Roche: Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Scotland, given that the Scottish Office has recently announced a system of testing which is based much more heavily on teacher assessment? If that system, which is overwhelmingly supported by parent-teacher associations, is good enough for children in Scotland, why is it not good enough or appropriate for children in England and Wales?
    Mr. Forth: I would he the last person to deny the validity of the adoption of different approaches, where appropriate, in Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish education. One of the great glories of the United Kingdom is that we can take different approaches to these matters when we think it appropriate. The timing of the tests in England is dictated by the Education Reform Act 1988. Scottish Office colleagues have taken the view that, although the principle of testing is accepted, the timing may be more appropriately judged by those involved in schools. I believe that that is right for my colleagues north of the border.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the Minister agree that most seven-year-olds very much enjoy doing their assessment tests? Will he congratulate the primary school teachers who have made the national curriculum work so effectively in particular, my constituent Anthony Wates, headteacher of Tavistock primary school, who is on the National Curriculum Council?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. We must not forget that if the tests are properly applied and if the pupils are given proper leadership and inspiration by teachers, young pupils of all ages enjoy taking the tests and find them useful and stimulating. In some of the pilot tests carried out last year, it was found that in many schools attendance on the day of the tests was higher than normal. That is ample and eloquent testimony to my hon. Friend's point.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall he having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Knight: May I tell my right hon. Friend that taxpayers in my constituency—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is finding herself in a rowdy House because we expect a question from her.
    Mrs. Knight: May I let my right hon. Friend be aware that taxpayers in my constituency of Erewash and across the country are delighted that he successfully defended the rebate for Britain at the Edinburgh summit? May I also congratulate him—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House should have a little more tolerance. I am sure that the hon. Lady has taken to heart what I have said and will try again.
    Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend also accept our congratulations on so successfully holding down the increase in the Community budget which was sought by the European Commission and some European leaders?
    The Prime Minister: I can sense that it is a Christmas House today. My hon. Friend is right: it was vital that we defended the rebate, worth £2 billion a year. It is now protected until the end of the century. It was an issue on which our European partners knew that we were not prepared to compromise. It is fortunate that we were not represented by the Labour party. The shadow Chancellor would have negotiated on the rebate, and the Leader of the Opposition would have signed up the complete Delors 2 package, costing us hundreds of millions of pounds.
    Mr. John Smith: In view of the appalling suffering being endured by the inhabitants of Sarajevo and other besieged towns and cities in Bosnia, will the Prime Minister join the French and United States Governments in urging the speedy adoption of the United Nations Security Council resolution to enforce the no-fly zone over Bosnia?
    The Prime Minister: There has been a great deal of comment about enforcing the no-fly zone. The issue is being discussed at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe meeting in Stockholm and it will be discussed further at the London conference in Geneva tomorrow and the North Atlantic Council on Thursday. The imposition of a no-fly zone by the United Nations has already had the effect of stopping combat flights by the Serbs; so far as we can see, there are still breaches by helicopters and small aircraft, but no clear evidence of their being used for combat purposes.
    We are considering our policy with our allies and partners, but we must weigh the desirability of enforcing the no-fly zone against the possible impact of that on the United Nations humanitarian effort and on the safety of our own troops. If enforcement of the no-fly zone put the United Nations operation at risk, the main losers might well be the people of Bosnia, and we need to consider that carefully before a decision is reached.
    Mr. John Smith: While appreciating the concern that the Prime Minister expresses for the humanitarian efforts, and for the safety of our own troops on the ground, does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that there is a growing feeling in this country, as there is in the international community, that there is no point in a no-fly zone which can be defied with such impunity? The time has come for effective international action. I hope that the

    291
    Prime Minister will take the message from the House that he would be widely supported if Britain supported the other countries in making the resolution effective.
    The Prime Minister: We have never ruled out the possible need to enforce the zone, but, with our allies and partners, we must consider very carefully how the zone is to be enforced and what the effect of enforcement would be on the maintenance of humanitarian effort, which none of us wishes to see end, either this side of Christmas or long after, and on the safety of our troops. Other measures may be brought to bear, and those are all being considered.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the great success of the Edinburgh summit, we have seen a further example of European co-operation—the successful agreement on the development of the European fighter aircraft? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that that aircraft is vital to Britain's defence interests, and is good news for the defence industry and for the 40,000 people throughout the country whose jobs are closely associated with the project?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The agreement reached by the four Defence Ministers on 10 December means that the development of a new fighter—to be known as Eurofighter 2000—will go ahead. I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on his part in ensuring that. The agreement is very good news for our aerospace industry and for everyone who works in it. It will also mean that the Royal Air Force will have a combat aircraft with the capabilities required in the first quarter of the next century.
    Mr. Beith: Can the Prime Minister give miners and their families an assurance that not one of the pits recently closed will be prevented from reopening by failure to maintain them while the review takes place? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, what value can we place on the review?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can place great value on the review. It is open, and we have made it perfectly clear that it is open. It is clear, too, that British Coal is perfectly aware of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to maintain the pits during the interim period, and I believe that it is doing that.

    Milton Keynes(Visit)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Milton Keynes.
    The Prime Minister: I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country, and I hope to include Buckinghamshire among them.
    Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months the private sector has invested a record £374 million in Milton Keynes, helping to create 6,500 new
    292
    jobs? Is that not an excellent example of something that we are seeing throughout the country—a fully justified growth in business confidence?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we shall see a good deal more of that in the months to come—not least because of the very good news on inflation, which on Friday fell to 3 per cent. We also had figures today to show that factory gate inflation is at its lowest level for a generation. That is the clearest possible sign that we have yet seen that we are winning the battle against inflation, which is vital to industry, commerce, investment and jobs. It is precisely because of those successes that we now have the lowest interest rates in the European Community and a very solid platform for industrial recovery next year.

    Engagements
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wardell: As Christmas approaches and we witness the crisis of despair among the homeless not only in London but in cities such as Swansea, will the Prime Minister recognise that his vision of a classless society is rapidly receding and that our failure to embrace a growing underclass is beginning to undermine the very basis of Britain's being considered a democracy?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may not know that the latest count by voluntary organisations last month found a drop of nearly 60 per cent. in the number of rough sleepers since the Government's initiative some time ago. The hon. Gentleman appears not to have heard about that initiative: with Government funding of nearly £100 million, it is providing new hostel places in central London and 3,000 more permanent places are being provided or planned. More action is being taken to help the homeless now than has been taken for many years.
    Mr. Trend: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Housing and Urban Development Bill, especially the parts that establish rent-to-mortgage schemes? Does he agree that it will create an excellent low-risk opportunity for young people to begin the process of owning their homes?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We certainly want to continue to expand home ownership for young people and others. [Interruption.] Labour Members heckle, but then they have fought all our reforms of choice and ownership, time after time. They fought the right to buy, and now they are fighting the rent-tomortgage scheme. The fact is that they do not trust people to make their own decisions about housing. They do not want people to be independent of the state, but we do: we believe in independence, home ownership and low taxation. That is why we are here and they are there.
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Enright: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher has been gallivanting through the United States of America, rubbishing Her Majesty's Government's presidency of the European Community and making huge sums of money out of it? Will he persuade her to give some of that money to the miners, who have been cruelly deprived—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hardly think that someone's travels have much to do with the Prime Minister. I think that we had better move on now.
    Mr. Deva: I welcome the agreement secured by my right hon. Friend in Edinburgh, which will lead to the immediate start of negotiations for the entry into the Community of Austria, Sweden and Finland. Does he agree that the British agenda is now an agenda for the whole of the EC?
    The Prime Minister: I agree: that is increasingly the position. We have achieved a significant turnaround in attitudes to the enlargement of the Community. At Edinburgh we won agreement for the immediate start of negotiations with Austria, Finland and Sweden, and for negotiations with Norway before too long. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we also won support for the eventual membership of the Visegrad countries. When I first proposed that in Paris less than two years ago, very few people supported it; now it is Community policy.

    Nuclear Non-proliferation
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
    The Prime Minister: The treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, of which the United Kingdom is a depository state, remains the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. Ten
    294
    states have become parties in 1992, bringing the total to 155. We continue to work for universal adherence to the treaty, and for its indefinite extension in 1995.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can the House have a clear, unambiguous statement—given the contrary views of Mr. John Gordon, who was head of the Foreign Office nuclear energy unit from 1986 to 1988—that at no time did Britain infringe either article 1 or any other article of the 1968 non-proliferation treaty in relation to the sale of arms to Iraq or other countries in the middle east?
    The Prime Minister: It is Government policy to meet all our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Allegations that the United Kingdom may not have done so will be matters for Lord Justice Scott, and I think that that had better wait for his inquiry. I am aware of Iraqi claims. They are matters for Lord Justice Scott to investigate.

    Engagements
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Lait: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's reports that 1 million more free eye tests were given in 1991 than in 1990, and that there were 7 million more private tests? Is that not a demonstration of the success of the Health Secretary's publicity policy on free tests?
    The Prime Minister: Indeed, it is. In this, as in much else to do with the national health service, the Labour party got it wrong in everything that it said at the time. It peddled stories that people would not have eyesight tests, but the reality is now clear: more people than ever before are doing so. They know that there is no purpose in listening to the Labour party on the national health service —it is always wrong.

Transport Supplementary Grant
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the financial support that the Government will give to local highway authorities in England in 1993–94 through the local roads capital provision.
Local authorities need to know now of the annual allocation of transport supplementary grant and capital approvals for their roads, and I know of the great interest which right hon. and hon. Members take in these schemes.
We are providing £1,047 million for capital expenditure on local roads in 1993–94. This is a substantial sum by any standards, and is particularly notable because it is a record despite being in a difficult year. It amply demonstrates the priority which the Government are giving to capital expenditure programmes.
This sum will enable 41 major new schemes to be started at a cost of £93 million in 1993–94–55 per cent. more than in 1992–93. The total cost of these projects will be £318 million spread over the next few years. I am arranging for a list of the schemes to be included in the Official Report and in the Vote Office.
The list strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of rural and of urban areas and provides a fair share-out between the counties. There are 24 new bypasses and relief roads. They range in value from the Blackwater valley route linking the M3 with the A31 at Farnham, costing a total of £57 million, to phase 1 of the Werrington to Glinton bypass near Peterborough at £1.3 million.
In London, six new major schemes have been approved for grant. They are Croydon, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Wimbledon, Newham and Waltham Forest.
I have accepted large new projects in the conurbations of the west midlands and Greater Manchester, and in Merseyside in support of local authorities' success in the city challenge competition. In addition to the named major schemes, there is £310 million for bridge works and structural maintenance of principal roads. Support for bridge works has increased by 24 per cent. compared with the current year.

Authority

Scheme

East Sussex

A22 Nightingale Farm to A27

Surrey

A331 Blackwater Valley route (centre portion)

Hampshire

A331 Blackwater Valley route (centre portion)

Oxfordshire

A44 Woodstock bypass

West Sussex

A24 Ashington bypass

Avon

Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road stages 4B 5C & 6

Cornwall

A388 Carkeel - Callington phases 1,2,3

Devon>

B3199 Tiverton southern relief road

Dorset

A350 Sterte Road/Hungerhill improvements

Somerset

A39 Cannington southern bypass

Coventry

A444 North-South Road phase 2

Wolverhampton

A4124 Wednesfield bypass and industrial access

Staffordshire

A527 Tunstall western bypass phases 1 & 2

Staffordshire

A520 Stone bypass

Manchester

Manchester/Salford inner relief road phase 2 - Chester Road roundabout

Liverpool

Russell Street - Berry Street link

Wirral

A5027 City challenge - Birkenhead Freeport route

296
Within the minor works programme., £50 million is being earmarked for local safety schemes. Money was first reserved for such schemes in 1991–92 to a total figure then of £31 million. So the £50 million allocated next year represents an increase of about 60 per cent. in three years. Since the average cost of a local safety scheme is about £15,000, this could mean the financing of up to a further 3,000 or so schemes. Assessment has shown that they give an excellent return for the money in terms of safety benefits, lives saved and injuries prevented.
There is also an increase in the support given by borrowing approvals. This is for work which is either outside the scope of the TSG—town centre traffic management improvements, for example—or which provides help on the early expenditure of large schemes not due to start construction for a few years.
Earlier this year, at their suggestion, we invited seven west midlands authorities to submit a joint bid for their major projects for local roads, rail and buses: I have concluded that that "package" approach has some benefits for planning local authority transport expenditure in urban areas, and that there should be greater flexibility, within the constraints of existing legislation, to switch resources between different forms of transport. We shall now consult the local authority associations in detail about that, and aim to introduce new arrangements for 1994–95.
Funding for measures to encourage use of the bus will total £15 million. Schemes will include "park and ride" schemes in Chester, Norwich, Bristol and York, experiments on innovative bus projects in Leeds and Bradford, and measures costing approximately £3 million in London. The bus priority measures represent a threefold increase on the present year and demonstrate our commitment to improving bus use in our urban areas. I intend to announce the allocation of resources for public transport schemes, other than buses, in January.
This is a very good TSG settlement in the circumstances. It clearly demonstrates the Government's priority of maintaining strong capital investment, and it will bring welcome new road and safety improvements to many areas around the country.
[Following are the schemes:

Cheshire

Chester park and ride phase 2

Lancashire

Squires Gate link road phase 2

Newcastle

A1058 Cradlewell bypass

Cumbria

A689 High and Low Crosby bypass

Durham

A6072 Bishop Auckland/Shildon link

Northumberland

A1061 South Newsham diversion

Sheffield

A61 Penistone Road/Middlewood Road junction improvement

Bradford

A650 Canal Road stage 1

Leeds

City centre loop road phase 2

Humberside

A16 Grimsby Peakes Parkway

Leicestershire

A563 Braunstone Way underpasses

Lincolnshire

A52 Grantham inner relief road

Northamptonshire

A45 Nene Valley Way " widening

Nottinghamshire

A6009 Mansfield inner ring road

Buckinghamshire

A421 Buckingham - Milton Keynes various improvements

Cambridgeshire

A15 Werrington to Clinton bypass - phase 1

Essex

A133 Little Clacron bypass and Corse Lane link stage 2

Hertfordshire

A414 Cole Green bypass

Norfolk

A143 Scole/Stuston bypass

Suffolk

A143 Scole/Stuston bypass

Croydon

A 232 Chepstow Road - Fairfield Road - Barclay Road widening

Hillingdon

A437 Bournes Bridge Hayes

Hounslow

A315 Hounslow town centre - Urban relief road

Merton

A219 Wimbledon town centre - Alexandra Road junction improvement

Newham

A11 Stratford gyratory modifications

Waltham Forest

A503 Forest Road/Blackhorse road junction.]

Mr. John Prescott: The House will be surprised to note that the annual TSG statement, which normally comes in a written reply, is now to be treated with the full authority of an oral statement by the Secretary of State. I suspect that that has much more to do with the possible replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than with transport. The statement clearly proves that the Secretary of State has that ability to create an illusion which is so essential in a Tory Chancellor, and which we have come to expect from a Secretary of State who is a distinguished member of the Magic Circle.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the extra £60 million in TSG first announced in the autumn statement represents not new money for local authorities but a transfer from the revenues in the highway standard spending assessment for structural maintenance, and that it will thus force local authorities to spend less on local and residential roads, which will lead to poorer standards?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that that policy will undermine, through poorer maintenance in our local road programmes, the welcome statement about the extra £7 million to be made available for safety schemes? Is not a more integrated approach to urban transport problems needed? It is all very well to offer resources to improve road systems—as no doubt the scheme for the Sheffield supertram will do—but the right hon. Gentleman should notice that, in the centre of Sheffield, bus deregulation has increased the number of buses per hour from 180 to 320, producing considerable congestion, environmental damage, and an unsafe city centre, where the Department's traffic commissioner has had to intervene to regulate the transport system.
298
The House will welcome the limited increase in resources for yet another Labour idea—bus priority schemes. But the red routes are not a good example of bus priorities. I welcome, too, the Secretary of State's endorsement of the Birmingham integrated balanced transport package. I note that no resources are yet available, although the right hon. Gentleman says that he now intends to conduct discussions with the authorities —perhaps it would have been better had he made a statement about the money available for the Birmingham metro, as was promised before the election. The announcements seem to reflect a U-turn in Government thinking on transport, which I welcome, because they now recognise that we need to plan and integrate urban transport policy—an idea which the Government have rejected for the past 10 years.
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, although planting trees next to roads is important, like his statement it does not constitute a transport policy or deal with the real and growing transport crisis facing many of our cities? Would it not be better to increase local authorities' powers and resources to control their urban transport expenditure, because, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged by adopting the Birmingham package, they have shown the drive and imagination which the right hon. Gentleman and his Department clearly lack?
Mr. MacGregor: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is grudging, and on many of the issues, he has got it plain wrong. The reason for making the statement is that expenditure next year of more than £1 billion is clearly a matter of great interest to the House. I know from the many representations that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic receive that there is acute

299
interest in many of the schemes among colleagues in the House and among their constituents—hence the statement.
The figure of £1,047 million is not an illusion—it is actual money—and when people see the benefits on the ground and the bypasses that have been built, they will not think that it is an illusion. It is new money—
Mr. Prescott: It is not.
Mr. MacGregor: Of course it is new money, which will produce new schemes next year.
Mr. Prescott: It is an illusion.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has an extraordinary idea of what an illusion is when we are spending over £1 billion and when we have 41 major new schemes. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, when my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and I go around the country opening bypasses, nobody thinks that they are illusions. People are extremely grateful for them, even if the hon. Gentleman is grudging.
The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong on the question of the transfer of funds from the highway maintenance account. Although some funds are being transferred across to the figure, it is money from central Government, which was meant to be spent on bridges and on principal roads anyway. All we are doing is ensuring that the money is being spent on the bridges and on the principal roads. It is very necessary to do so. In addition, local authorities will be spending about £1.7 billion on highway maintenance next year, in addition to the figures that I have given today.
I believe that, as deregulation in Sheffield settles down —we have a traffic commissioner there to enable that to happen—the benefits will come through clearly for the population of Sheffield. The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of extra buses on the streets there. He will see that there is a bus priority measure for Sheffield in the proposals.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong on red routes, which are an excellent example of improved transport measures in urban areas. The scheme has been successful so far in improving traffic flow and in a number of other ways, which is why we are bringing it in formally across London.
The hon. Gentleman has again got it wrong on the package for the west midlands. There are two schemes, totalling some £38 million for the west midlands authorities in Coventry and in Wolverhampton, which are the two top priority schemes. Those schemes are in the figures.
The whole purpose of the package is not to take the hon. Gentleman's approach. He believes that the right way in which to tackle transport matters is for them to be planned from the centre in the socialist way. The schemes are designed to enable the seven authorities to look at their area as a whole and to come up with their idea of priorities, instead of dealing with them one by one. That is the sensible way forward, and that is why we shall develop it further next year.
Mr. Robert Adley: In contradistinction to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), may I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has decided to make an oral statement in the
300
House, because it gives us the opportunity to ask him questions? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East thinks that an "illusion" is a Russian aeroplane.
May I ask my right hon. Friend a specific question about his phrase "different forms of transport"? Is he aware that there is growing concern about the effects of road transport on the creation of pollution? Would it be possible at some stage to require either his Department or local authorities to provide at least a couple of sentences on the likely effects on air pollution of any new schemes that are produced?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who talks about an important aspect of the schemes. Bypasses in themselves will substantially reduce air pollution in the towns and villages that they go round. Improved traffic flow also substantially improves pollution.
My hon. Friend will know that we are introducing compulsory catalytic converters in a fortnight's time. That will also have a major effect. Overall, I believe that it is essential to go on with a substantial road building programme as living standards improve. More and more people own more cars and wish to move around the country in them, and we have to cope with that. Nevertheless, the kind of schemes we are talking about today, and the other measures that we are taking, will undoubtedly help to deal with the roads pollution aspect.
Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the 41 new starts that will be made as a result of today's announcement, and the emphasis on safety in the Minister's statement. Is it not a fact that, although the funds for structural maintenance are real, by the time allowance has been made for them, there will be little new money over what was announced a year ago? Does the Minister agree that small projects which are ready to go represent a main way of trying to bring the country out of recession, because of their effect on the construction industry?
While I also welcome the new packaging of funding for urban transport, the Minister's comment that his statement amply demonstrates the priorities that the Government are giving to capital programmes is something of an irony, for while they are going ahead, too many public transport projects have had to be shelved as a result of the autumn statement.
Mr. MacGregor: They have not had to be shelved, because we are spending the same amount, or rather more, on public transport schemes next year than we are spending this year, and I shall be making a further statement about that. Equally, there is substantial capital investment in British Rail and in London Underground.
The hon. Gentleman is right in what he said about the effects on the construction industry. Not only the major new schemes, and many of the minor ones that I have announced today, but also the schemes that will be in the national roads programme, which is now at record levels, will be of considerable assistance to the construction industry.
I also welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about road safety schemes. I am impressed by the impact that such schemes can have on road safety, and in particular on helping people in urban areas. Their considerable expansion will be widely welcomed all over the country.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the financial arrangements for the county of Kent will enable proper regard to be had for the needs of a new and improved roads infrastructure in relation to the channel tunnel? On the other hand, will it enable many of the urgent, non-tunnel-related projects to go ahead in the county of Kent?
Mr. MacGregor: There continues to be substantial expenditure in the county of Kent. Indeed, about £75 million overall will be spent next year. In particular, in relation to the Medway tunnel, we have included ir the special supplementary credit approval nearly £8 million for the Wainscott northern bypass, the Gillingham northern link and the Si ttingbourne industrial route stage 4.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am disappointed that the Witton Gilbert bypass scheme in my constituency has not been included. That project has been a priority for about five years. If funding is not forthcoming in the near future, that scheme could fall because of the complications of compulsory purchase orders and so on. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman about the matter and am wondering whether it is still possible for that project to be included in the scheme. I urge him to re-examine the matter.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think it would be possible to include it among the major new schemes for the coming year, because we have decided those. A large number of bypass and other schemes that all counties desire are included in the TSG, but we must set priorities. That is why, as far as possible, we try to abide by the individual highway authorities' priorities. But I shall look at the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I must advise him that we have already decided on the projects for major new schemes next year.
Mr. George Walden: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the extra money that he has announced for Buckinghamshire, and I am sure that my gratitude is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who represents a congested town. My constituents in Tingewick will no doubt hope that the money will hasten the construction of their bypass, because at present in that village, when walking along the pavement, one is likely to be flicked by a lorry mirror. My constituents in Wing will greet the announcement with mixed feelings, because their bypass has resulted in a three-lane major route—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that we are not dealing with a 10–minute rule Bill. He must ask a question.
Mr. Walden: I was explaining the background. I am anxious to encourage my right hon. Friend to examine the Wing bypass, which is in danger of wrecking a village.
Mr. MacGregor: There are, as I said earlier, many bypasses that constituents of most hon. Members would wish to see carried forward, which is why we have such a substantial road-building programme. This year, we can accept the Buckingham-Milton Keynes A421 scheme, which includes various improvements, and there is also, under the special SCA, a scheme for the Aylesbury inner relief road phase 2. There are opportunities sometimes for
302
very much smaller schemes for local authorities to undertake under another part of the package that I am announcing today.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister understand that many people outside the House will be very disappointed that less than 1.5 per cent. of the sum that he has announced is to be spent on bus priority measures? Does he not understand that there has to be a limit on the use of private motor cars in our cities; that there is a limit to the amount of pollution that we can continue to tolerate from it? We need from his Department a strategy for transferring traffic on to rail and environmentally friendly forms of transport, rather than this vast expenditure on roads, the money being transferred instead as far as possible to rail and public transport?
Mr. MacGregor: We announced in the autumn statement very substantial sums indeed for public expenditure, way ahead of what I am announcing today, for British Rail and London Underground, but that came out at a different time. I am concentrating today on local authority supplementary transport grant schemes. The figure for bus priority measures is a threefold increase on the figure that has been spent so far.
Many other things are being done to assist London public transport, so the hon. Gentleman cannot say that this is 1.5 per cent. of the total figure. I believe that what he says will be rejected by a very large number of people throughout the country because of the very big improvements that they will receive as a result of the expenditure that I am announcing today. Incidentally, that includes six major schemes in London.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's comment about congestion in London, and I take that very seriously. That is why we are undertaking the most extensive research that has ever been undertaken on road pricing, to see whether that can make a contribution in London. I intend that all the research, as its various stages are completed, should be published, to encourage public debate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take part in that.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement today, including the Tiverton inner relief road in my constituency, will be very much appreciated by my constituents, not least because it will enable the town of Tiverton to become more pedestrianised, thus making it much safer for people when they are shopping? It will be warmly welcomed by the Tiverton chamber of commerce.
Mr. MacGregor: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am delighted that we have been able to include that scheme this year, at a cost of £9 million. I am sure that she is quite right about the benefits that it will bring to Tiverton.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the massive 24 per cent. increase in bridge works, from £111 to £137 million, simply because of old bridges, because of the effect of juggernauts, following the Government's policy of encouraging transfer of freight from rail to road, or is it in anticipation of the draft European Community directive to increase the maximum vehicle weight to 44 tonnes in this country when the derogation comes to an end? If it is

303
not for the latter reason, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government will resist any attempt to increase goods vehicle weights?
Mr. MacGregor: It is for all those reasons, with one exception, which I will come to. It is a fact that many old bridges in this country need substantial structural maintenance and repair. Also, in this country, as in all countries, heavy goods vehicles are getting larger. That brings considerable benefits to consumers when they visit supermarkets, and so on; there are real cost benefits to be derived from that, and we have to take it into account.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that, in 1999, we have to meet the requirements of the EC directive to which we have signed up. We need to prepare for that, and it means a pretty substantial programme of work on bridges. Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is that it is no part of the Government's policy to encourage more transfer of freight from rail to road. We are trying to achieve the reverse.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's statement, taken with the previous statement on expenditure on underground and other travel services in London, means that the capital city has an exceptionally good deal out of the Government? Will he also comment upon the state of London's bridges, some of which are very difficult to cross? Is any part of today's statement likely to lead to an improvement in the bridges, particularly in central London?
Mr. MacGregor: I would not want to comment on any particular bridge, but I agree with what my hon. Friend said and welcome his support for the considerable increase over the previous three-year period, and certainly previous decades, which is now taking place in capital investment in transport in London. As for bridges, it will be for local authorities to decide what precise use they make of the additional money, but I am sure that some of it will benefit London.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Although I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that the Newsham bypass in my constituency will go ahead, what news has he for the Al in Northumberland, which, as he is aware, is the scene of carnage and death? Has he any money for that road, will it be improved or what is going to happen to it?
Mr. MacGregor: That road is not part of today's announcement—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Oh, dear.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) once again demonstrates his ignorance by saying, "Oh dear." It is part of the national road network and the £2 billion to be spent on that, not part of today's local authority announcement. We are committed to dualling the A1, and we are proceeding with parts of it now.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that today's announcement that the Squires Gate link road phase 2 in my constituency is to go ahead will be welcomed by residents and businesses in my constituency, especially because it will enable further and
304
better access to the business park which is already being developed on otherwise surplus land at Blackpool airport and to which it will be a very important feeder?
Does he also recognise the work done over many years by my predecessor, Sir Peter Blaker, and county councillors representing this party to get the road back at the top of the priority list where it was ten years ago, when this party was last in control of Lancashire county council, only to be put back to the bottom of the pile by the Opposition, who showed a lack of concern for my constituency's interests?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, and I pay tribute to his work and that of his predecessor in drawing attention to the priority of this particular scheme. He has been successful in making it a priority for Lancashire, and I am pleased that we have been able to agree to it at a cost of nearly £9 million. All the benefits that he mentioned will certainly be brought about as a result of the scheme.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I thank the Secretary of State for providing the money for the bypass at High and Low Crosby near my constituency, but does he agree it will put more traffic off the A69 into the north of the city? Does not that strengthen the case for the north-west bypass of Carlisle as opposed to the southern bypass? I have not found anyone who agrees that we need a southern bypass, but we shall need a north-west bypass more than ever if the bypass at Crosby goes ahead.
Mr. MacGregor: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the bypass, which I know has been much demanded. Some of the other schemes he mentioned would be eligible for the national road programme rather than for this programme. I note what he said, but the important point is that we are going ahead with the bypass now.
Mr. David Sumberg: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when bus privatisation was first mooted, the Opposition told us that there would be hardly a single bus left on the road? Now, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) complains that there are too many. Is not that ridiculous criticism the final endorsement from the Opposition that our transport policies are on the right track?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and what he says applies not only to buses. I made a speech about aviation at lunch time today, drawing attention to the tremendous improvements in aviation, the huge increase in traffic and the much better services for air passengers brought about by the privatisation of British Airways and the British Airports Authority. My hon. Friend is correct to say that it is the right way to get better services for passengers.
Mr. Skinner: Will not the Secretary of State admit that he has been advised by his public relations people, who said, "Look here, Minister, you have got to improve your profile if you are going to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Make a statement in the House of Commons. Go and speak about aviation." That is what the crack is all about. Will the Secretary of State now do something for people who ride bikes? Would it not be a great opportunity in the middle of this slump to have cycle routes all round Britain? That would be labour-intensive, and it would

305
increase the Secretary of State's public profile. God knows what will happen when he is Chancellor of the Exchequer, though.
Mr. MacGregor: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. I have made the statement because there is a large number of projects which have been much requested by hon. Members and which I am sure they will be delighted to see happening. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover would also agree with that.
On cycles, I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noticed my emphasis on local road safety schemes for which there has been a considerable increase in expenditure—up by about 60 per cent. since we began the emphasis on such schemes three years ago. That money will undoubtedly help cyclists. It is also possible to encourage cycle schemes in the minor works programme.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable relief locally about the inclusion of the first three phases of the A388 Saltash-Callington road improvement? However, having raised expectations, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that on this occasion there will be no subsequent slippage as has unfortunately been the case in the past with similar schemes in my constituency?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for that scheme of nearly £8 million, which will also bring great benefits, as my hon. Friend said. I cannot give a guarantee about slippage; we will just have to see how the construction progresses. However, I very much hope that there will not be any slippage. Over recent years, we have seen not slippage but an acceleration of the completion of many such road projects, many of which are now being completed ahead of the original completion date.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State accept that the package approach will be viewed with interest in coalfield areas like north Nottinghamshire? Does he also accept that the package on offer is very limited for the Nottinghamshire coalfield? Perhaps he will give an undertaking to talk to other Ministers and colleagues about a package of investment to bring new jobs, new investment and a new future to declining coalfield areas.
Mr. MacGregor: The package approach will be of great interest to many urban areas, and we will certainly be consulting the local authority associations and representatives in the west midlands—with whom I discussed the matter when I was in the west midlands recently—before we take any final decisions.
With regard to the coalfields, the hon. Member will be aware that the coal review is still in progress, and I clearly do not know what its outcome will be. However, the Mansfield inner relief road scheme is in the current set of projects. Of course other areas would have liked projects. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will notice that we have focused on that scheme because we are well aware of the need for it in the area.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: There will be a great welcome from highway authorities and from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety for the welcome increase in funds for local casualty reduction schemes. Will my right hon. Friend find some way of
306
providing further publicity during the year for the effects of those schemes and how they can help to protect the vulnerable on foot or motorised or pedal-driven bikes and how they can integrate with priority schemes for buses? By having through roads, through traffic, other people and the majority of journeys would be better protected.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am aware of the interest that he has shown in those schemes and the pressure that he and the council have applied on us. I hope that the council and my hon. Friend will believe that the statement is a very good response to their requests.
I am very impressed with the impact of those road safety schemes. I will certainly consider how we can provide a good deal more publicity of the effect of those schemes, because we are now talking about a substantial sum of money and a large number of schemes. The point that my hon. Friend raised about integration is a matter for the local highway authorities to work out.
Mr. Terry Lewis: I welcome the inclusion of the Manchester-Salford inner relief road phase 2. However, before the Secretary of State goes off to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he consider further TSG-supported schemes within the Manchester-Salford conurbation, which would prevent the construction of the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road, which no one in the locality wants and which many of us feel is not needed? The problems of gridlock that we are experiencing now on the Worsley-Braided interchange have more to do with commuter traffic than traffic moving from Yorkshire, to Birmingham and to the south. If there were more concentration on TSG-supported schemes, I believe that £300 million could be saved on that route.
Mr. MacGregor: Clearly, one must examine the impact of schemes of the sort that the hon. Gentleman is talking about in relation to the national road network, not just in terms of the locality although there is often a big improvement for the locality in taking traffic out of their environment. We must also examine the matter from the point of view of improving traffic flows for business as well as passengers. That is an important contribution to easing congestion costs, and hence other costs for businesses.
I do not think that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman about the switch. However, I am glad that he has acknowledged the importance of the scheme which we have accepted at a cost of £14 million. Of course, there are similar schemes in the north-west.
Mr. Michael Lord: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement today. I hope that I do not sound too churlish when I say that it will receive a mixed reaction in my constituency. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome for the Scole-Stuston bypass, which he and I know well and which will do an enormous amount of good?
Sadly, there will be bitter disappointment in the villages of Rickinghall and Botesdale, which badly want a bypass. That bypass has been on the stocks for a long time, and the villagers thought that they would get it this year. Can I urge my right hon. Friend to give that bypass the most careful consideration for subsequent years?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's co-operation in helping to bring about the Scole-Stuston bypass, which affects his constituency as well as mine. It is an important bypass, which has been long awaited.
As far as the Rickinghall and Botesdale bypass is concerned, I know the problem well because I travel through Rickinghall and Botesdale on my way home to my constituency every weekend. The bypass is a high-cost scheme, and was the fourth priority for the county; hence it was not possible to accommodate the scheme this year. When my hon. Friend looks at the details of the special supplementary credit approval part of the package, he will perhaps note that phase 1 of the Haverhill bypass will receive £1.3 million.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Although I am a little disappointed that the Secretary of State could not stretch the £50 million for the local safety schemes to, say, £55 million, I welcome the considerable increase from the previous figure of £31 million. In doing so, I ask the Minister whether he could have a word with the Secretary of State for Wales to see whether a local road safety scheme can be put in place from hypothecated money. Transport supplementary grant schemes in Wales must be a minimum of £5 million before they qualify.
Mr. MacGregor: That is true for major work schemes in England as well. Road safety schemes come from our minor works allocation.
Mr. Wardell: Not in Wales.
Mr. MacGregor: In England they certainly do. I notice that the hon. Gentleman would have liked more, and I am sure that that would he the case for many other hon. Members. However, we must bear in mind the fact that the taxpayers are funding those works. I hope that the hon. Member will agree that the fact that we have moved from £31 million to £43 million, and now to £50 million, shows that we are giving the matter considerable priority. The schemes are often small in terms of costs but big in impact.
Mr. Terry Dicks: I tell my right hon. Friend that, with good news of this sort, he runs the risk of being the longest-serving Secretary of State for Transport since 1979, although that is not too difficult to do.
I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to Hayes in September and opening the Hayes bypass. Contrary to the views of Opposition Members, the bypass has led to a great reduction in congestion in Hayes. Because the Minister has included the Bournes bridge in the programme, it will be a massive improvement to have the bridge at least straightened, if not improved and widened. My constituents and businesses in my area, especially Thorn EMI, will be grateful for that.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remark. I certainly intend and hope to be the longest-serving Secretary of State for Transport since 1979. My hon. Friend is right about the Hayes scheme, which I opened in September. I am very much aware of the benefits to his constituents, as well as to the many people who can take advantage of the bypass when travelling around London. I am glad, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is delighted, that the A437 Bournes bridge/Hayes scheme has been accepted and is one of the schemes announced today.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: Is the Secretary of State aware of the acute problem of congestion in central Greenwich, a problem which the Minister for Transport in London saw at first hand during a visit earlier this year? Can the Secretary of State give a positive response to the applications of the London borough of Greenwich for transport supplementary grant to explore the feasibility of a bypass to get round the problem and, in the short term, measures to effect a ban on heavy goods vehicles in the area?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is very much aware of that issue. The Woolwich road improvement scheme would have started too late to be included in this year's announcement. I do not know what will be possible for next year, but the scheme has been given some annual capital guideline to help with the design costs, of some £400,000. I hope that he will find that helpful. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the importance of the town centre bypass feasibility scheme. He will continue his discussions with Greenwich borough council.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, which will improve access to Wimbledon town centre and at the same time improve safety at a notoriously dangerous junction. Will he welcome the fact that this expenditure will complement the efforts of local residents, who have upgraded the area by a tree-planting exercise entirely from their own efforts, in conjunction with voluntary groups and with the co-operation of British Rail but without a single penny of help from the Labour-controlled Merton council?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I too pay tribute to the work that the local residents in Wimbledon are doing. I am sure that it will be a good scheme, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has welcomed it.
Mr. Bill Etherington: Does the Secretary of State accept that Sunderland in particular and the north-eastern region in general probably have the worst road system to link it with other parts of the country that it is possible to imagine? Although the improvements on the A66 are welcome, two inferior roads go south—a two-lane motorway and the A 19 trunk road—a dangerous road goes to the west of Carlisle and a dangerous road goes north to the Al. Much more is needed to bring the region into line with what one would expect for other parts of the country with similar populations. What is going to be done to bring the region up to that level?
Mr. MacGregor: I was in and near Sunderland twice recently. I am aware of all the improvements that are currently taking place. Some parts of the country would look with envy on some of the road improvements that are taking place there. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one of the keys is to improve routes to other parts of the country. Business men in the north-east tell me that one of their biggest obstacles in transporting their goods to their customers is the M25, which they must use to transport goods to major markets elsewhere. That is why there is heavy emphasis in the national roads programme on the motorway schemes.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the A66, which I know well. It has been substantially improved recently, and is very much a changed road. Those improvements

309
will continue. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the massive investment that will take place to bring the Al up to motorway standard from London to well up into the north.
Mr. Iain Sproat: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon and thank him in particular for including the Little Clacton bypass. He will be aware that, with over 14 per cent. unemployment, Clacton has the highest unemployment in the south-east. Does he agree that the improved access via the Little Clacton bypass will he of great benefit and will generate more jobs and investment in the future? Will he also bear in mind for next year the dualling of the Al20 to Harwich?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot make promises about future schemes, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the Little Clacton bypass. That is a scheme costing some £6.7 million. I am sure that it will bring the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred. He will also be aware that the TSG for Essex as a whole this year will be some £16.6 million, compared with £13.7 million last year.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In a response to his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) the Secretary of State asserted that compulsory catalytic converters would have a great effect. We wish that that were so, but remain unconvinced. Would he be prepared to give us the evidence that he has received from his Department or to put it in the Library? Is not the truth of the matter that, with the 140 per cent. increase in cars during the past 25 years—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) assures me that those are departmental figures—the only way to combat pollution is to transfer much more traffic to rail? Is he satisfied that some catalytic converters are not merely the racket that we are told they may be?
Mr. MacGregor: The scientific advice that I have, which I am happy to put in the Library, shows that, while convertors do not deal with CO2, they deal with about 80 per cent. of the other pollutant effects of emissions, which is an important contribution.
Mr. Roger Moate: I readily acknowledge that my right hon. Friend has done outstandingly well to obtain major new investment for roads and rail. However, from the list of major new schemes it is noticeable that not a single project has been approved for the county of Kent next year. He will understand that there will be tremendous disappointment in many areas in my constituency and other parts of the county because many of them are desperately in need of bypass relief. Under the present TSG rules, there is virtually no prospect of a bypass being constructed for many environmental sensitive areas if a project is too expensive for the council but is not on a primary route.
My right hon. Friend will know that I sent him a list of 36 villages in the county which have no prospect of relief. Will he comment on that, with a view to re-examining the criteria for much-needed environmental schemes, especially for the relief of many villages in Kent and other shire counties? In Kent, the figures are totally distorted by channel tunnel-related expenditure.
Mr. MacGregor: I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks but, among the projects that I am announcing under the special supplementary credit approval list is a
310
scheme costing nearly £8 million—the Wainscott northern bypass, the Gillingham northern link and stage 4 of the Sittingbourne industrial route. I have to take into account the fact that Kent gets the highest TSG of any county—£75 million this year. That is a high TSG figure and will obviously have some effect, although I acknowledge that the channel tunnel link is a factor.
I also take note of my hon. Friend's remark about large schemes. There is a problem, and we have to get the balance right. If one simply concentrates on a comparatively small number of large schemes, which carry on from one year to another, it will pre-empt the ability to deal with smaller bypass schemes, which are often needed in many other countries for environmental reasons. I am trying to strike a balance between large schemes that flow over a number of years and new schemes, which could take place in a single year and benefit many towns and villages.
Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision to go ahead with the A 16 Peakes parkway to Grimsby will be warmly received in my constituency? Does he acknowledge that the scheme has been on the stocks for far too long and that we are delighted that he has been able to agree the application from Humberside county council? Does that not put final seal on the excellent road network that we now have in my constituency, which started with the A180 dual carriageway about 10 years ago and the Al5 Ermine street link, and will it not be the completion of an excellent road package?
Mr. MacGregor: I note my hon. Friend's considerable efforts to bring about the improvements to which he has referred, including the Grimsby Peakes parkway. He will know that in TSG terms that is a major scheme costing £13–5 million. Like him, I am glad that our efforts and his —have been able to bring it about.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that there will be additional funding to deal with traffic problems in Norwich? Having pressed, with the local councils, for "park and ride" and similar schemes, can I ask whether my right hon. Friend can give a little more detail of that help, which is so welcome in Norwich and the surrounding area?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will know, I understand the problems to which he refers, as I am frequently in Norwich. The Norwich "park and ride" scheme around the airport will come under the special supplementary credit approvals and will cost a total of £3 million. My hon. Friend will note that the scheme is in his part of Norwich, not mine, and I hope that he is pleased that we were able to bring it about.
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Is my right hon. Friend aware how warmly the people of Hounslow will welcome the new proposals on the Hounslow centre urban relief road? It is a much-needed scheme in an area that is highly congested. Will my right hon. Friend get on with it and start the scheme as soon as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, indeed.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his overall statement, and I particularly thank him for making possible the new "park and ride" scheme in Chester. That is an invaluable

311
initiative for historic cities such as ours, and will be welcomed by everyone in Chester—including, I suspect, the mother of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is a treasured constituent of mine.
Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that there is some agreement across the House on that issue. As my hon. Friend knows, I visit Chester fairly frequently, and I am sure that the scheme will being great benefits.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents in Eastbourne and Polegate will be delighted that the A22 Nightingale farm scheme is on the list? Without wishing to seem churlish, I hope that my right hon. Friend will look kindly on other transport infrastructure projects in east Sussex.
Mr. MacGregor: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I hope that he will agree that the scheme—at a cost of £4 million—will bring big benefits in the coming year.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on extracting additional money from the Treasury. He knows that I have lobbied him and his colleagues before breakfast in Whitehall and before tea in Loddon in his constituency for a bypass around Stone, which is much needed due to the traffic congestion and the desire for pedestrianisation. Are we or are we not to have a bypass around Stone?
Mr. MacGregor: I remember my hon. Friend's lobbying, and I am pleased to tell him that the bypass around Stone is included in the programme. I am well aware of the special reasons why it is desirable. Its inclusion in the list means that Staffordshire has two major schemes in the programme for this year.

BILL PRESENTED
  DECLARATION OF WAR (REQUIREMENT FOR PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL)
  Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Graham Allan, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Robert Parry and Mr. Dennis Skinner, presented a Bill to provide that war may not be declared, nor troops committed or kept abroad, by Her Majesty's Government without the approval, by a two thirds majority, of the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 January 1993; and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (WALES)
  That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  Question agreed to.

  Welfare of Animals
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Alan Milburn: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the keeping of fur-bearing animals under intensive conditions; to make new provision with regard to the treatment of animals; and for connected purposes.
  I have chosen to introduce the Bill in an attempt to eliminate the most heinous of farming practices and to modernise the law governing the treatment of animals. My Bill has two aims: first, to end fur farming in this country immediately; secondly, to make the welfare of animals the yardstick by which farming practices should be judged in future.
  Hon. Members will remember that, a fortnight ago, the House debated the Mink Keeping Order. Unfortunately, hon. Members were unable to take into account the welfare of mink and Arctic fox in reaching a decision on the future of fur farms. I believe that there is widespread support in the country and on both sides of the House for an end to animal abuse on fur farms.
  A recent survey by Lynx showed that 78 per cent. of the population wanted a ban on fur farming. British people believe that fur coats are out of fashion, and they do so for all the right reasons. The fur of animals belongs on their backs, not on ours.
  This morning, accompanied by some of my hon. Friends, I had the pleasure of presenting a petition to 10 Downing street, calling on Her Majesty's Government to end the practice of fur farming, with immediate effect. The petition was signed by 500,000 people and was organised by Lynx, Compassion in World Farming, the World Society for the Protection of Animals and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Despite the strength of public opinion on this issue, however, there are still 24 mink factory farms and two Arctic fox farms in the United Kingdom. That is 26 too many.
  The conditions in which mink and Arctic fox are kept could not be more unsuitable to the nature of the animals. Mink are semi-aquatic. They spend much of their time in the wild either in the water or patrolling their territory, which can be up to 22 acres wide. They are solitary, and they have a tendency to avoid others of their kind.
  Yet on the fur farms, mink are forced to live on top of one another in cage sizes recommended by the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom—just 24 in long by 15 in high by 12 in wide. The cages are so small that the mink cannot rear up on their hind legs, something they do continually in the wild. They are denied access to water, except through a drip, and are deprived of the opportunity to perform even the most basic of functions written deep into their genetic code.
  This leads to chronic stress, resulting in what animal behaviourists describe as stereotyped behaviour patterns. Mink and foxes kept in these conditions mutilate themselves, and cases of infanticide and cannibalism are widely reported. From birth to death, mink and Arctic foxes are incarcerated in conditions that drive them mad. Born in May, taken from their mothers and caged in groups, they are killed in November at the age of six or seven months when their first winter coats emerge.
  The fur trade likes to describe these places as farms, but that is the last thing they are. They are factories—wildlife hellholes where animals are mass produced and treated as pieces of machinery for making skins for coats that

  313
  nobody needs. Each year, 250,000 mink are killed in these factories, usually by gassing in large killing boxes linked to the exhaust of a tractor or car.
  It takes 65 mink and 24 foxes to make just one full-length fur coat. Ironically, since fur sales in this country are in rapid decline, most of the pelts are shipped to Scandinavia, where they are auctioned. This is one export trade of which I hope all hon. Members will agree this country should be ashamed.
  The conditions in which mink and Arctic fox are kept in Britain's fur factory farms have been universally condemned by animal welfarists, by vets, by animal behaviourists and by zoologists. They have all concluded that it is impossible to rear and kill these animals for fur without causing undue suffering. Indeed, the Government's Farm Animal Welfare Council will not issue a welfare code for fur farming in case that gives the factories a stamp of approval.
  Fur farming also contravenes article 3 of the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, which states:
  "animals shall be housed and provided with food, water and care which … is appropriate to their physiological and ethnological needs".
  This requirement is echoed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its list of freedoms which encompass the fulfillment of an animals basic needs: freedom from discomfort, by providing a suitable environment; freedom to express normal behaviour, by providing sufficient space and proper facilities; and freedom from fear and distress, by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.
  Unfortunately, the current law—by ignoring those freedoms—allows the Government to license people to keep a range of animals in appalling conditions. There is widespread public concern about battery cage hen production, the de-beaking of poultry, and multi-tier pig cages. There is also public abhorrence of the international trade in primates. Those naturally wild animals are kept in cages no larger than a filing cabinet.
  Right hon. and hon. Members may know of a recent case at Shamrock (GB) Ltd. where primates were kept
  314
  with no bedding and exercise, and their treatment breached Home Office guidelines—yet that place remains open for business, licensed by the Government, licensed to torture, and licensed to kill.
  All those practices should be ended. None of us needs a coat made of mink or fox, and we do not need to keep hens in battery cages to fulfil our lives. In fact, most people in this country and right hon. and hon. Members would have the quality of their lives dramatically improved by the ending of fur farming and the intensive rearing of animals in overcrowded and inappropriate factory farms.
  Thankfully, public opinion is ahead of the law when it comes to concerns about animal welfare. Wearing a fur coat is no longer seen as a status symbol: it is regarded instead as a badge of cruelty and shame. Just as the trade in elephant ivory and in baby seal skins was ended by public outrage, it is time that the law caught up with public opinion and banned the trade in fur.
  My Bill will do precisely that. It will also update the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to incorporate the FAWC freedoms, so that the conditions in which animals are kept will meet their behavioural requirements. The Bill will ensure that farming takes place without inflicting unnecessary cruelty, will give a new meaning to animal welfare, and will make society that much richer as a result. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Milburn, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Alan Meale, Ms. Tessa Jowell, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Don Dixon, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Brian Wilson, and Mr. Tony Banks.

  WELFARE OF ANIMALS
  Mr. Alan Milburn accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the keeping of fur-bearing animals under intensive conditions; to make new provision with regard to the treatment of animals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January and to be printed. [Bill 2.]

Education Bill (Allocation of Time)
4.32 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education Bill.

Education Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Committee
  1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill has been allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 9th February.
  (2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on that day may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 10th February.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second allotted day.
  (2) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
  (3) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of each of those allotted days as the Resolutions of the Business Committee may determine.
  (4)The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (5) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (4), and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (6) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  (3) The Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.
  (4) On the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

  Order of proceedings
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in the Standing Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Dilatory Motions
  5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time
  6.—(1) On the first allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to that period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion shall be added to that period of two hours.

  Private business
  7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill):

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Member of the Government; and

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time appointed for bringing proceedings to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  10. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  11.—(1) Reference in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  12. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Education Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
  I do not intend to detain the House long, but clearly the House will expect me both to explain the background to this timetable motion, and to say something about the arrangements for which the motion provides. The House is, of course, familiar with the purpose and content of the Bill itself, and it would in any case not be appropriate for me to describe it at length as if this were a Second Reading debate.
  I will therefore merely remind the House that the Bill provides in part I for the setting up of new funding authorities for schools in England and Wales; sets out in part II arrangements for grant-maintained schools; reforms in part III the existing provisions affecting children with special educational needs—as a matter of great importance to many parents; lays down in part IV provisions designed to help ensure pupils attend school; provides in part V for education associations to be set up to run schools that fail to provide an acceptable standard of education; and provides in part VI for the establishment of the school curriculum and assessment authority. Those purposes clearly command considerable support in the country; indeed, they follow commitments given in the election campaign earlier this year, and in the White Paper "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools", published in July, which people rightly expect to see implemented. The aim of the motion is to facilitate that, in what I believe to be an entirely sensible and responsible way.
  To explain why we have thought it right to table the motion, I need do little more than set some simple facts before the House. So far, after 65½ hours of consideration
  318
  —including this morning—the Committee has dealt with only 14 clauses, and at the end of its sitting this morning was still debating clause 15. That leaves 230 clauses still to be considered in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) noted when I announced the timetable motion in my business statement last Thursday, at this rate of progress the Committee stage could occupy around 1,500 hours.
  The same point can be put still more graphically. I am told that, if we assume that progress in the other place —given that, at this rate, it ever reached the other place —proceeded at the same pace as the Committee stage in this place until last Thursday, the Bill would not reach the statute book until the year 2001. No doubt some of my hon. Friends who have had the opportunity—I hesitate to call it a privilege—to witness these deliberations at first hand will wish to add their own observations if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I think that I have said enough to show why I have absolutely no doubt that, whatever may be said in the debate this afternoon, any Government—and certainly the previous Labour Government, with their record of five guillotines in a single day—would now be inviting the House to consider the position in a similar way. There was, perhaps, one alternative—to let the process that I have described drag on for several more weeks, come forward with some even more striking figures on the protraction of proceedings, and then provide for a very short timetable to bring it to a conclusion. I do not believe that that would have been right, not least because it would inevitably have meant—as with a number of such timetables in the past—that there might have been little or no discussion of some parts of the Bill.
  Opposition Members will no doubt argue that this is a large, important and complex Bill. There is no dispute about that: indeed, we signalled our recognition of it, and of our wish to see the Bill properly discussed, by providing—very unusually—for a two-day debate on Second Reading.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House set the record straight, and correct the impression given by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee? Will he acknowledge that the request for a two-day debate came from the Opposition? When I asked the Secretary of State to support that suggestion, he said:
  "I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to seek to influence that".
  Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who was very supportive of the idea of a two-day debate—did no more than acknowledge the accepted fact that such decisions are matters for discussion in the usual channels. Indeed, it was following discussion in the usual channels that the Government responded by providing the two-day debate that had been requested.
  It is for precisely the same reason—our acknowledgement of the Bill's importance, against the background of developments in the Standing Committee--that we decided to take a motion that does not impose some immediate, drastic curtailment, but rather provides a sensible framework for the considerable further discussion that can legitimately be sought. The motion provides for a further full month in the new year for the Committee stage alone, with Committee not being asked to report to the House until 9 February. Within that period, we have not

  319
  sought to dictate to the Committee how it should divide its discussion. It will be for the Standing Committee itself to decide how much of the considerable additional time it chooses to spend on which parts of the Bill.
  The same approach is reflected in the motion's provision for Report and Third Reading, for which two full days are allocated, with the first of them running until midnight. In the same way as we have not sought to dictate the pattern of discussion in Committee, the motion does not seek to determine, at this stage, the pattern on Report. I entirely accept as reasonable the argument that, when we do not know how the remaining discussion in Committee will go, we cannot say with the necessary certainty where we might want dividing lines—knives, as they are sometimes known in jargon—to fall. Instead, and entirely in line with the normal practices of the House, the motion provides for a Business Committee to consider how best to divide up the time allocated for Report, with its recommendations to be put for approval by the House at the commencement of the Report stage.
  In conclusion, without attempting to pre-empt the speeches that we may hear from Opposition Members, I say that any suggestion that we are acting in a draconian or dictatorial fashion or are trying to prevent adequate discussion simply will not stand up. The proposals in the motion are reasonable and sensible, and provide appropriate time for further consideration of this important Bill. As I have said, we have already provided, in a departure from precedent, two full days for Second Reading. We continue to approach the Bill in the same spirit, recognising that the House should have a proper opportunity to debate its provisions. The motion clearly provides for that, and I commend it to the House.
  4.40 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph 2(1), to leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
  The amendment proposes three days on Report. The Leader of the House said that he wanted sensible arrangements, but he did not refer to our amendment. It would have been helpful if he had said whether he intends to accept it as a contribution to more sensible arrangements for this most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  The speech of the Leader of the House, brief though it was, was a half-hearted attempt to justify what the Government are doing. He showed little awareness of the proceedings in Committee. Perhaps he was briefed by the Secretary of State, who knows very little about the Bill, not least because he has never attended the Committee.
  I almost felt sorry for the Leader of the House, who had to try to defend the indefensible. As the business manager of the House, he probably has an eye on the problems that he may encounter later in the year, which might be one of the reasons for today's motion.
  The Leader of the House acknowledged that the Bill is important. We therefore suggest that it should have proper and full scrutiny. That is one reason why we are very unhappy with the timetable motion. As the right hon. Gentleman said, two days were allowed for Second Reading as a mark of the Bill's importance—but at the request of the Opposition.
  320
  The Secretary of State—I am glad to see him this afternoon; we see him so rarely—claimed that the Bill is the most important education Bill since 1944, that it is the longest and that it will set the scene in education for the next 25 years. Indeed, he went so far as to say that it is the last piece in the jigsaw of Conservative education reforms. If so, it is obvious that the Government do not want us to see clearly the picture that will be revealed when the jigsaw is complete, because they do not want us to scrutinise the provisions of the Bill in detail.
  I accept that guillotines have a part to play in our constitution, but they should be used only when there is a good reason, and that is not true of the Bill. I remind the Leader of the House that, when in government, the Labour party has never guillotined an education Bill in Committee. The Bill went into Committee on 17 November. The guillotine was announced, with the usual lack of courtesy to the Committee, on 10 December. We have had 58 hours of work.
  Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Lady is incorrect when she says that her party has never guillotined an education Bill.
  Mrs. Taylor: I said "in Committee".
  Mr. Pawsey: That is an interesting and fine point. I recall that, when Michael Foot guillotined five Bills, one of them was an education Bill.
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not show his usual accuracy. He should re-read his brief from Conservative central office, and perhaps read the Library's figures. The only time that a Labour Government guillotined an education Bill was on remaining stages, after considerable debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee. A Labour Government have never guillotined a Bill in Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that correction.
  The Leader of the House spent some time complaining that we have debated the first chapter of the Bill at length, yet on previous occasions the Government have boasted that the first chapter contains all their key measures. I do not understand how Ministers can boast about the purpose and importance of the Bill yet complain when we spend time scrutinising it.
  Our job in Committee has been made more difficult by our not having all the information that was promised earlier, such as details on formula funding arrangements for grant-maintained schools—I suspect that an announcement will be made in the next day or two, with a barrage of other statements. When there is bad news to announce, the Government always do it in a package, and preferably in the run-up to Christmas.
  Despite those problems, the Committee has made progress. Indeed, we have raised problems that the Minister has acknowledged as legitimate. He has promised to consider several of our points and to table amendments —for example, on the need for local authorities to take the lead in the provision of nursery provision and on the need to ensure compliance with legislation on racial discrimination. Indeed, more than once he has promised to consider amendments to meet our arguments about special needs. If we had not raised those issues, there would have been gaps in the legislation. The Minister has acknowledged the positive contribution that Labour Members have made in Committee.

  321
  In Committee, we have had the kind of debate that is essential if parliamentary democracy is to work properly. Yet, here we are in December, with 10 months of the parliamentary Session remaining—ample time for the Bill to have a proper Committee stage without resort to a timetable motion.
  I should have hoped that some Conservative Members would agree with us: after all, some of them have not found time to make their maiden speech in Committee. They have come to life only when we have discussed corporal punishment, which seems to have excited the attention of several Conservative Members.
  The Opposition have taken the Committee very seriously and have attended assiduously. We were shocked when on one occasion Conservative Members and Ministers placed the Chairman of the Committee in a very difficult position, because not one Minister was present when the Committee was due to resume after a Division in the House. That shows the casual approach of Ministers to the Bill. I must pay tribute to my colleagues on the Committee, who have highlighted so many problems and drawn on their own experience as parents, governors and teachers to try to improve the Bill. There can have been few occasions when so many new Members made such a contribution to a major Bill.
  That may be one reason for the motion. The Under-Secretary, who has been carrying the Bill in the absence of the Secretary of State, obviously does not like being put on the spot. Time and again, he has not been able to answer the questions asked. Clearly, after only four weeks, he has had enough.
  However, I doubt whether the junior Minister carries enough clout to secure a guillotine, however uncomfortable life may have been for him in the past four weeks. We must look for other reasons for the guillotine. Why have the Government chosen to curtail debate now? What debates and issues might they fear?
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before my hon. Friend reaches that point, may I, as a non-member of the Committee, suggest that the Government may have their eye on other Bills in Committee, too? Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Government have no case on the Bill? If they allocated two hours for each clause—half the time that they say has been taken—that would amount to 500 hours' debate. At 10 hours a day, which is going some, that would mean as long as 50 days. But taking one hour per clause, forgetting the schedules, would give 250 hours of debate—or about 25 days. At two days a week, that would mean just over 12 weeks. Surely that is too little time, if anything—yet the Government want even less. So, as my hon. Friend says, there must be another reason why the Government want a timetable. They have specified a date, but not necessarily the hours to be spent in Committee.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. I believe that he may have a particular interest in one of the reasons why the Government are so keen to move quickly, and I shall come to that later.
  I was wondering which aspects of the debate due over the next few weeks worried or frightened Ministers. It is interesting that the guillotine has been introduced just as we reach the clauses on grant-maintained status, which is supposed to be one of the main planks of Government policy yet which is clearly one of their main failures. We
  322
  are keen to highlight that failure, and the facts that while 1.5 per cent. of schools have gone for grant-maintained status, 24,500 schools have not done so, and that in an increasing proportion of the ballots people are voting no.
  We want to highlight the anti-democratic nature of the proposals—for example, the proposal to allow a resolution for grant-maintained status to be taken at a governors meeting.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I am sure that the hon. Lady does not intend to mislead the House, but I remind her that current statistics suggest that almost 80 per cent. of ballots decide in favour of grant-maintained status. I hope that she will consider withdrawing, or at least rephrasing, the rather misleading statement that she has just made.
  Mrs. Taylor: I shall not withdraw the statement, because I said that an increasing proportion of ballots were going against grant-maintained status. That statement is true, and has been recently checked. I understand why Ministers are so touchy on the subject—
  The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten)rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: No, I shall not give way to the Secretary of State. If he wanted to participate in the debate, he should have come to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be taking an unusual interest in the Bill. We would have welcomed his interest in Committee, but obviously he was not sufficiently interested to spend 60 hours with us.
  I was saying that I was unhappy with the anti-democratic nature of the Bill, and the fact that, at a governors meeting, a resolution for grant-maintained status can he taken under any other business, with no advance notification. I was also about to mention the intimidation about which members of the Conservative party have complained. Conservatives who do not want to promote grant-maintained status have been put under pressure by other Conservatives. Apparently, Councillor Jenny Langston, the Conservative who chairs the education committee of East Sussex county council, complained recently that
  "a right-wing member of her own party should advocate local authorities, such as hers, should employ strong-arm tactics to beat off opposition in the parental and governing body lobbies."
  Councillor Langston said:
  "We prefer to let parents make the decision and I think it's important we don't push them either way".
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I hope that the hon. Lady was present when I spoke on Second Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] She probably was not. I cited letters from East Sussex county council which made it palpably clear that the education authority was distinctly unkeen on schools being able to choose grant-maintained status, and was encouraging schools, governor and parents not to consider the subject.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am interested in the hon. Lady's view of local democracy—and I am sure that many Conservative councillors will be interested in it, too. Conservative councillors are complaining about what they consider to be intimidating letters from other Conservative party

  323
  members warning them what may happen to them if they do not start promoting grant-maintained status. So much for local democracy.
  The next section of the Bill, which we were hoping to debate in detail over the next few weeks, aims to boost the chances of more schools becoming grant maintained. In the week before Second Reading we heard that parents at the Prime Minister's old school, Rutlish, had rejected grant-maintained status. But the last straw for the Government, which meant that they could not face long discussions on the Bill, may have been the ballot last week at Warberry Church of England primary school in Torquay—hardly in Labour's heartland. There was an 86 per cent. turnout, and the result was: those against grant-maintained status—399; those in favour—five. Perhaps that was the last straw for the Government.
  Other parts of the Bill, too, need time for proper scrutiny. The problems of children with special educational needs, which were mentioned by the Leader of the House, are important. As we made clear on Second Reading, we welcome some parts of the Bill, and we hope that the special need provisions can lead to an improvement in the provision for many children.
  However, we are worried, and we want to explore the likelihood that without proper resources, either the new proposals will not work, or they will work for children with statements, at the expense of most children with special needs, who do not have statements but who nevertheless have considerable needs. Such serious and essential issues should have proper consideration, and we fear that they will not be fully explored if the Bill is guillotined.
  We need time to discuss other issues, too, such as the Government proposals for specialisation. Specialisation increasingly seems to be the Government code word for selection. In Committee the Under-Secretary spoke in less coded language than is sometimes used. He talked about the "dead hand of comprehensivisation"; clearly he favours selection—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are saying, "Quite right." Obviously it would have been worth while to discuss the matter in great detail, so that we could find out exactly what the Government mean and bring it out into the open.
  We need time to discuss the issue of surplus places. I understand that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), the Under-Secretary of State for Education, had what may have been a constructive meeting on surplus places yesterday with representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. We should use our time in Committee to try to build on that.
  There are complex issues associated with clause 244, which concerns the provision of goods and services by local authorities. Everyone in local government, on both sides of the political divide, regards that as an important issue, and one which will need a great deal of clarification. I suggest that those are serious matters which require serious consideration.
  There is another reason why the Government are moving the guillotine motion, and that reason has nothing to do with education. The Government are so desperate to keep time on the Floor of the House for the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that they will sacrifice the scrutiny of any other legislation. Debate on the Education
  324
  Bill is being sacrificed because the Government cannot manage their business properly. It is being sacrificed regardless of the impact on the education system. It is remarkable that Ministers, who are only too keen to interfere in the day-to-day running of our schools, are not prepared to embark on a day-to-day defence of their education policies. We oppose the guillotine.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. I shall speak in support of the timetable motion.
  As a result of the Opposition's tactics, time for debate has already been severely curtailed. The timetable motion will ensure that there will be better scrutiny of the Education Bill than would otherwise have been the case. No amount of argument from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will convince anyone listening to our debate to the contrary. There is no doubt that the Opposition's tactic is to oppose the Bill by all means possible. As I am sure everyone will accept, that is not the same as scrutinising the Bill thoroughly and properly, which is what the Government intend. That is why Conservative Members will support the Government and vote for the timetable motion tonight.
  If the Committee continues as it has during the many hours so far, there is no way in which the Bill will have proper scrutiny.
  Mr. Spearing: Like myself, the hon. Gentleman has a past professional interest in the matter. Did he notice that Ministers did not challenge my arithmetic in an earlier intervention—[Interruption.] They did not. I said that 12 weeks would be reasonable on the basis of giving one hour to each clause. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is supporting a motion that will mean 20 minutes per clause? Can he really sustain that timetable? Can he defend it to parents and to teachers in his constituency?
  Mr. Thompson: What I cannot defend to my constituents and to my former colleagues in the teaching profession—like the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I was a teacher for many years—is that it could be right for us to spend four hours in debate on every clause of a Bill that contains 255 clauses. How could anyone defend three and a quarter hours of debate on clause 4 when the Opposition failed to table an amendment to it? That is indefensible, and that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. I do not accept his point. The point is that we shall have better scrutiny of the Bill by accepting the timetable motion.
  I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Dewsbury has been so impatient with the proceedings. There has been so much unnecessary talk that the hon. Lady—I know that she has been very busy—has not been able to spare very much time for the Committee. Not everyone in the House is aware of that. I wonder whether she has not been able to spare much time for the Committee because she has found great difficulty in coming to terms with the Labour party's U-turn on the issue of grant-maintained status. I remember well the statements made a month or so after the general election. I know that the hon. Lady has great difficulty with the topic in the light of what has preceded the Bill.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will check the record and that he will confirm that I have

  325
  missed two sittings of the Committee. The reason was that I was visiting schools, which is apparently a legitimate exercise for the Secretary of State. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that I was one of the Committee members present at 10.15 pm when the sitting resumed after a Division. Only two Conservative Members were present and the hon. Gentleman was not one of them.
  Mr. Thompson: I took a careful note of the amount of time that the hon. Lady spent in Committee this morning. I watched the Opposition Front Bench and I know that she was absent for the vast majority of the morning.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman has spoken for four minutes so far, including two minutes for interventions. Will he tell the House when he last spoke for that length of time in Committee?
  Mr. Thompson: I shall come to the way in which I believe a Bill should he properly scrutinised a little later, and I shall talk about the support that I and many hon. Members of all parties have for considering the possibility of introducing procedures to timetable Bills from the outset. The way in which Bills are conducted now is nonsense and the hon. Member for Dewsbury knows that. Hon. Members of all parties know that.
  Mr. David Jamieson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thompson: No, because I want to proceed with my speech. I realise that time is short and I want to allow time for other hon. Members to speak.
  No amendments have been tabled by Labour or by Liberal Democrat spokesmen which would improve the education system.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thompson: I shall give way when I have completed this point. If I do not make progress, there will not be enough time for everyone.
  I have listened to the debates carefully. Perhaps I should pick and choose between Opposition Members, but I should rather make the general point. I will then give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
  The Bill is about the education of our young people. Opposition Members have failed to appreciate in their lengthy speeches on the Bill that what really matters in education is the quality of the work by our teachers in the classroom. There are many highly skilled teachers whose work in the classroom should be better recognised in the House because that is what counts in education. Education is about the leadership provided by head teachers in good schools and in schools where there are difficulties where head teachers do a magnificent job. That is what education in our schools is about, along with the wisdom and good sense of our governors.
  I will give way to the hon. Member for Bath, because I think I know the point he is about to make.
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill is about education. Indeed it is. Does he agree that it is not really about the quality of education?
  Mr. Thompson rose—
  Mr. Foster: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can intervene at this stage.
  326
  Does he agree that that concerns the quality, rather than the structure, of education and that the Bill will do nothing to improve the quality of education? Further, the hon. Gentleman's claim that Opposition amendments have done nothing to improve the Bill is not borne out by the Minister, who has acceded to a number of our amendments.
  Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friends and I have listened carefully to the contributions of Opposition Members in Committee and, taken as a whole, the quality of argument concerning education in general and the provisions of the Bill in particular has been deficient. In more than 65 hours of debate, we have heard little from them about the intentions of the Bill, which are designed to increase choice and variety in schools and provide incentives for good schools.
  Mr. Don Foster rose—
  Mr. Thompson: I shall not give way again.
  I welcome the statement today by the Under-Secretary on ways to increase variety in schools by allowing in pupils who want to study particular subjects, such as the arts, music and so on. In other words, increasing choice and variety is fundamental to the Bill, which is why I support it and want it to receive proper scrutiny.
  The evidence shows that in grant-maintained schools there is a feeling of freedom. Staff turnover has gone down, especially in primary schools, and staff of high quality are applying for jobs. That is no reason to point to one type of school and set it against another, but those are the sort of points we should be raising as we discuss the Bill. Opposition Members say much about the structure of education. When discussing structure, we should examine the effect that funding, structure and mechanism have on the quality of education. I hope that we shall debate the matter in those terms once the motion has been approved.
  When I first entered the House, I served on the Standing Committee which examined what finally became the Telecommunications Act 1984. That measure was in Committee for many hours, and as a new Member, I had the impression then that that way of conducting our business had to be changed. The same procedure has occurred with the Education Bill in recent weeks, with long, time-wasting speeches. I hesitate to use the word "filibustering" to describe those speeches—[interruption.] —even though my hon. Friends think that I should describe them in that way.
  That cannot be the right way to scrutinise a measure of such importance. It is why I support the idea of timetabling Bills from the outset. That would enable measures to be properly scrutinised, for the way in which the Education Bill has been scrutinised so far has been a sham and a disgrace. The Opposition's tactics have done nothing for education. I am pleased to see the Leader of the House in his place. I hope that a reformed system will be introduced without delay.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Stephen Byers: We have been told of the importance of the Bill. The Under-Secretary described it as a landmark piece of legislation. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) called it a Christmas cake of a Bill. The Secretary of State referred to it on Second Reading as a far-reaching measure that would affect the framework of education, especially for primary

  327
  and secondary schools, into the next century. For those reasons, the Bill needs detailed consideration and scrutiny, the sort of treatment it has been receiving in Standing Committee.
  Opposition Members are anxious to scrutinise the Bill in detail, because we recognise its implications for education. There is a danger that, as drafted, it will create in Britain an educational underclass made up of disappointed and disillusioned parents, rejected and bitter children and blighted and failed schools.
  So far, we have spent nine sitting days examining the Bill, involving 55¼hours of debate. Those are the figures that matter, so it is clear that the Government want to work in the fast track for this piece of legislation. After all, the White Paper was published on 28 July, the Bill was published in October, it had its Second Reading in November, and it is now being guillotined in December. Why the haste? Is there some coincidence—is it written in the stars?—which necessitates the Bill being considered in that way, particularly given the significance attached to it by the Secretary of State and most informed commentators?
  The Government do not want the measure to be scrutinised in detail, and they have not been prepared to embark on real consultation with those in the service who will be responsible for its implementation, because they are not prepared to discuss their proposals in public. The Secretary of State in particular, and the Government in general, will not defend the Bill in public. The Secretary of State has failed in his responsibilities by not serving on the Standing Committee, even though he claims that the measure will lay the foundations for education into the next century.
  The right hon. Gentleman has refused to meet deputations from a range of organisations which want to discuss the Bill with him. He has shovelled off responsibility on to the shoulders of his Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Indeed, the Secretary of State has acquired a reputation for declining invitations to speak at important education conferences—[Interruption.]—or, when he has accepted invitations to speak, he has cancelled them, often at short notice.
  The body representing local education authorities met in Liverpool in July. The Secretary of State was to have spoken there, but cried off. The European Trade Union Committee for Education met a couple of weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman cancelled the speech that he was to have made there. A north of England education conference, to be held in January, was expecting the right hon. Gentleman to address it, but received a note recently to the effect that he would not be keeping that speaking engagement.
  Mr. Forth: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this debate is about the timetable for deliberations of the Bill here in Parliament. I fail to see the possible relevance to that discussion of the matters to which he is now referring.
  Mr. Byers: I appreciate the Minister's sensitivity. He is having to bear a heavy responsibility for the measure. The Bill needs careful scrutiny because there has been no real consultation. The Secretary of State has not discussed the detail of the measure with those who will be responsible for its implementation. Indeed, he is not even prepared to
  328
  stand on a public platform and defend the policies in this Bill in front of an audience that will know what he is talking about.
  Mr. Spearing: Of course, this is in direct contrast to the late R. A. Butler and the 1944 Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Bill was taken in a Committee of the whole House and that Mr. Butler saw it right through?
  Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I believe that one of the reasons why the Butler Act has stood the test of time is precisely because of the detailed consultations that took place before the Act appeared on the statute book and on the Floor of the House.
  The Secretary of State has a responsibility, and he has opted out of it. We have a Secretary of State who has had more cancellations than Network SouthEast in the last few months. The nine sitting days that we have had scrutinising the Bill have already been deeply embarrassing for the Government. The Under-Secretary has had to accept that the Government can no longer support parental choice; he has had to acknowledge that all the Government can now talk about is allowing parents to express a preference for a school. That is a fundamental difference between Conservative rhetoric and what happens in practice.
  The Under-Secretary got into some difficulties last week on the question of selection—whether it is on ability or aptitude, whether it should be 10 per cent., or more, or less, and what we mean by a significant change of character which would require a request under the statutory provisions to the Secretary of State. Such difficulties did the Under-Secretary get into that yesterday the Government had to publish a consultation document so that people could consider the options available to the Government. At last some consultation was to take place, but too little, too late, and consultation only because of the difficulties the Under-Secretary got himself into in Committee. It is the detailed scrutiny in the Committee that is throwing up these difficulties and problems.
  A third problem identified very clearly in Committee was the funding of grant-maintained schools. What are the Government's intentions with regard to the future when schools opt out of local education authority control? Will those schools continue to be funded on the basis of the present levels of spending by the individual local education authorities, or will the link be broken?
  Just a few weeks ago, the Under-Secretary made a very important statement, when he said that the link could not be retained. That is bad news for those schools in the 65 local education authorities that spend above their Government standard spending assessment on education. If the link is broken, those schools, if they achieve grant-maintained status, will get less money under the funding agency than they get under their local education authority.
  We also saw revealed the absurd position whereby, in some cases, the funding agency would have dual or parallel responsibility with the local education authority, even though only a handful of parents would have had the opportunity to vote on whether the school should opt out of local authority funding.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) gave an important example in Committee—that of the Jewish free school in Camden, where only 54 pupils out

  329
  of 1,000 live in Camden local authority area. If that school were to opt out—they are about to start the balloting process, I understand—the funding agency, under the Bill as it stands at present, would share the responsibility with Camden for the strategic planning of education within that area, although only 54 Camden parents would have been able to vote in that ballot. So much for democracy; so much for parental choice.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury has said, it is no accident that the guillotine is to be introduced just as the Committee begins detailed scrutiny of the provisions relating to the opting-out procedures. It is because the Government are only too aware that opting out, whether in principle or in practice, has not been the success that Ministers would like it to be. Indeed, in many cases., we have seen intimidation of parents, and schools facing very real difficulties in terms of meeting the requirements with regard to their funding budgets.
  The position is this, and I will give just a couple of examples. In Codsall school in Staffordshire, those who were supporting opting out wrote to individual parents saying that, if they did not vote—
  Mr. Rod Richards: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot for the life of me see what these examples have to do with the motion that we are debating.
  Mr. Byers: I can understand why Government Members are finding the details difficult. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, which is more than he has been able to do in the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I have taken about as much of the intimidation angle as I can. Last week:, a school in my constituency voted to go grant-maintained. Over 57 per cent of the parents voted in the ballot, and 85 per cent. of those who voted were in favour of going grant-maintained. There was no intimidation as far as that school was concerned, but there certainly was blatant intimidation from the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, which threatened all sorts of things if the school went grant-maintained. I am pleased to say that the parents ignored that intimidation: they voted to put the pupils first and go for grant-maintained status.
  Mr. Byers: That is an interesting contribution, but it is unfortunate that, in the example just given, less than half the parents entitled to vote voted in favour of opting out. Nevertheless, had the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury giving some recent examples of the way the ballots have gone against opting out in the last few days.
  I return to the position on intimidation, and I am relying on a reply I received to a question I put to the Under-Secretary. The reply was very clear and simple, and it is worth having it on the record in this debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have been very tolerant so far with the hon. Gentleman, but he is not referring very much to the motion. I should be grateful if he would get back to it.
  Mr. Byers: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to reveal the importance of the detailed scrutiny which has thrown up some of these difficulties, but I will, of course, take your guidance on that.
  The important point which the House needs to recognise is that the timetable motion before us today will restrict the detailed scrutiny that can be given to the Bill as at present before the Standing Committee. The timetable allows about 20 minutes per clause. I do not believe that that sort of time will allow the detailed scrutiny that is essential if we are to get legislation on to the statute book that will meet the challenge of the future.
  We will not have the opportunity to debate in detail the whole question of special education needs. I believe that most hon. Members recognise that the Education Act 1981, which did so much to raise the issue of special education needs, now needs to be amended. This Bill is an opportunity to do that. Many of us have reservations about whether, as at present worded, it would meet existing needs. Many of us feel that it will not.
  A matter which has been little debated is the proposed merger of the School Examinations and Assessment Council and the National Curriculum Council to bring into one body not only examinations and assessment but the decisions about what happens in our schools. Under the Bill, that body will be appointed solely by the Secretary of State, which causes many of us great concern. It smacks of the 1984 thought police of George Orwell rather than an enlightened democracy of the 1990s.
  The parliamentary procedure that we are debating will not deceive parents. They will know that no additional money is being made available under the Bill. They will also know that the Bill does nothing to reduce class size, repair leaking roofs or provide new textbooks, and that it does nothing to raise standards.
  Parliament cannot discharge its responsibilities under the timetable. It may be politically convenient for the Government, given their difficulties over the Maastricht treaty, but it puts at risk the education opportunities of future generations. It represents a triumph of dogma over reason, for which the Government will rightly stand condemned.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: However important the Bill is—and there is no doubt that it is a major plank of the Government's legislation for this Parliament—this debate is unnecessary. I say that with due modesty. It would have been unnecessary if the House had had the wisdom or foresight to adopt the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, which were made as long ago as July 1986.
  The Opposition no longer need to prove their virility by forcing the Government into timetable motions on the Floor of the House. The present system of timetabling is old-fashioned and archaic, and a major waste of prime time. In the previous Parliament, 14 half days were wasted on debates such as this which do nothing to help Bills or to create press publicity. In the early 1960s, the House was absolutely crowded for a timetable motion. It was a full day's debate and caused massive uproar. Today it is dealt with like any other minor procedural matter.
  I quickly remind the House how the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure would apply to the Bill. This is a good opportunity to show how the methods

  331
  which we suggested and which, thank goodness, were approved by the Jopling Committee, would work on such legislation.
  First, I shall rid the House of a major procedural shibboleth—the concept that the one option which the Opposition have to beat the Government is time, especially time in Committee. Since 1945, no piece of legislation introduced by a Government of either party and which has appeared in the Queen's speech has failed to reach the statute book in a full Parliament. The Telecommunications Bill did not get through and had to be introduced in a new Parliament, but that was because the election was in May—if it had gone to a full Parliament, it would have been passed.
  It is false to believe that a delay in Committee wins anything for the Opposition. It merely means that poor Back Benchers and Opposition spokesmen spend a great deal of time trailing through hours of what I regard as unnecessarily lengthy debate on major matters.
  How would the Procedure Committee's recommendations have applied in this case? Paragraph 16(a) on page vii of the Committee's report of 9 July 1986 states:
  "Proceedings in standing Committee should not continue beyond 10 pm".
  But the most important point is:
  "A Business Sub-Committee of nine Members or one third of the standing committee's membership (whichever is the greater) should be nominated by the Committee of Selection when a standing committee is nominated and should be chaired by the Chairman of the standing committee".
  If that had happened, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools and my hon. Friends the Members for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Westbury (Mr. Faber) and the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) might have been nominated as members of the business sub-committee.
  The report continues:
  "The Business Sub-Committee should meet after the sixth sitting of the standing committee and should report to the standing committee … the date by which the standing committee should report the bill".
  That describes exactly the current situation. What is more, anyone who knows anything about the workings of this place will know that from the moment the Queen's Speech is announced, the authorities have named dates by which time all legislation must pass out of Committee to go to another place. There is no secret about that. If the Opposition force a guillotine, they do not put back the date any further but reduce the time available for debate on the remainder of the Bill.
  The Select Committee's recommendations continue:
  "the number of sittings which would need to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill"
  should also be decided by that Committee
  "in order to ensure that there would be time for all parts of it to be adequately scrutinised".
  That means that it is up to the people serving on the Committee to decide in the time set for the reporting of the Bill exactly how much time they want to spend on it. It gives power to the usual channels, and the usual channels think that they are best at negotiating the length of that time.
  332
  The Opposition must realise that once the Government know that a Bill is to reported by a certain date, they are happy to hand over to the Opposition all the subjects of debate and whatever time scale the Opposition may wish. That gives considerable extra power to the Opposition who frequently do not realise it.
  The Select Committee recommended:
  "No motion to approve a report from the Business Sub-Committee should be made until … after the first appearance of the terms of its report … Such a motion would be debatable for 1½ hours".
  If, after a further six sittings, the sub-committee should meet again and if it is considered that progress is still not satisfactory, exact slots or knives could then be negotiated between members of that Committee.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member speaking to the motion?
  Sir Peter Emery: Indeed I am.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening with interest and I have been tempted two or three times to intervene to suggest that the hon. Gentleman should refer directly to the guillotine motion rather than the guillotine procedure in general.
  Sir Peter Emery: In order to allow many hon. Members to participate, I was trying not to refer to the fact that at every stage what I am suggesting is ruled out by the present motion. The weakness of the timetable motion needs correcting. If the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and the Chair wish it, I shall be delighted to continue in that vein.
  One of the Committee's recommendations which is not mentioned in the motion is that every part of the Bill should be adequately discussed. That must be what the House wants if legislation is to be fully considered. It is equally the case that the present system does not mean that there will be adequate discussion of all sections of a Bill. However, the recommendations of the Procedure Committee achieve that. They strengthen the timetable motion and improve it. They make it a more sensible procedure than that which exists at present.
  There is a definite view to move away from the present procedure. The all-party House of Commons reform group found that 72.8 per cent. of the 323 hon. Members who replied to a questionnaire were in favour of all Bills being timetabled in advance.
  Mr. Martlew: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking to the motion before the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman that it has been traditional to allow reference to past and future procedures that might benefit future guillotine motions. That is what the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is doing, and that is why I am allowing him to continue.
  Sir Peter Emery: The comments of the hon. Member for Carlilse (Mr. Martlew) are a bit hot. We have heard many references from Opposition Members to outside meetings not being right and about Ministers not doing this or that outside the Chamber. However, we have heard little about the motion or about the Bill. I do not know how the hon. Member for Carlisle has the nerve to interfere in the debate in that way.

  333
  Paragraphs 67 and 69 of the Jopling Committee report make it clear that the majority of hon. Members are interested in improving the current system of timetabling Bills. The then shadow Leader of the House, the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip and the Leader of the House were unanimous in the belief that we should find a better way to carry out the procedure.
  I hope that I have been allowed to show that the Opposition lose none of their power by adopting the recommendation of the Procedure Committee rat her than adopting the current procedure or amending it. If it is properly used, the Procedure Committee's recommendation should allow the Opposition to call the tune in respect of what they want to debate in Committee. It will also ensure that all sections of a Bill are considered in Committee.
  All that can be achieved without having to spend an exaggerated length of time in Committee as was the case before this timetable motion was tabled. No one can say that the speeches Upstairs were concise, short or to the point. We want to try to ensure that we can consider all parts of a Bill and not waste time on the early clauses. That can be achieved, and if it is achieved it will benefit the House.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has made several interesting points, and perhaps I might refer to them later in my speech. However, I want to begin by referring to the introductory comments of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). She rightly made the point that the Leader of the House has not made a strong case to justify the guillotine motion, particularly not at this stage in the Committee proceedings.
  The Secretary of State for Education told us that the Bill is intended to last for 25 years. While I do not believe that that is likely as the Government have in 13 years had to introduce 17 major Education Bills, it is likely that the Bill might last 10 months—if the Government are right, it is a pity that they have decided to guillotine the discussion on the Bill less than 25 weeks after the publication of the White Paper; after less than 25 working days since Second Reading; and after fewer than 25 Committee sittings.
  Many Opposition Members have referred to the unseemly haste of the guillotine procedure. The unseemly haste in which the Bill was cobbled together has meant that it has many flaws. It was necessary in Committee for Opposition Members to identify the various flaws in the Bill for Conservative Members. It is sad that, in addition to Opposition Members, Conservative Members are also finding flaws in the legislation. As a result, the Minister and Conservative Members have had to table a large number of amendments.
  After the guillotine motion has been passed, there will be time only to consider the Government amendments and amendments tabled by Conservative Members. As I am a new Member, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be more aware than I that "Erskine May" states in the 21st edition of "Parliamentary Practice" that guillotine motions
  "are the most drastic method of curtailing debate … it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."
  I believe that on this occasion, that balance is truly being upset.
  334
  Reference has been made to earlier guillotine motions. Many Conservative Members will be aware that the Education Reform Act 1988 was debated in Committee for 88 hours before the guillotine fell. Although that Bill was important, it had far fewer clauses than the current Bill. It had only 147 clauses, in comparison to the 255 in this Bill.
  I accept what the hon. Member for Honiton said. It is not always necessary to have a guillotine motion, even on important issues. The vital Education Act 1944 has already been referred to. That legislation was debated in Committee for 60 hours and then progressed to its subsequent stages without any need for a guillotine.
  The important point is that there is a huge difference between the 1944 Act and this Bill. There had been considerable and detailed consultation for a long period in the run-up to the preparation for the 1944 Act. As a result, there was great consensus on both sides of the House. The only area of major disagreement related to religious education.
  There has been no extensive debate of this Bill. Many of us have often levelled that criticism at the Bill. There is definitely no consensus on both sides of the House in respect of the Bill. As a result, we are in difficulty. Quite properly, we must oppose the guillotine motion.
  The hon. Member for Honiton referred to the debate in the House in the mid-1980s—long before I became a Member of this place—about guillotine and timetable motions, and the need to find a better way to address such business in the House. Speaking personally, I believe that there is great merit in the proposals in the report that was debated in 1986. In broad terms, my agreement stretches as far as major Bills which are contentious. The proposal that a timetable should be established before the Bill goes into Committee has a great deal of merit.
  We must not have some of the perhaps synthetic crocodile tears about guillotine motions. After all, Governments of all persuasions have used guillotine motions. Certainly this Government, since they came to power in 1979, have introduced about 30 major Bills on which the Committee debate has been guillotined. On those occasions, it is interesting to note that the average time for debate before the guillotine was 78 hours, which is much more than the 55¼hours of debate that we have had on this lengthy Bill. Nevertheless, I accept that in principle there can be a case for timetable motions.
  However, I do not believe that this timetable motion is justified. The outrage sometimes expressed about timetable motions is justified on this occasion. I hope that I do not repeat comments by other hon. Members, but there are several reasons why we should genuinely be outraged about the motion. One is purely selfish and personal—simply that I have enjoyed the deliberations in Committee. I have certainly learnt a great deal from them. [Laughter.] Those hon. Members who are laughing are clearly not members of the Committee.
  Who can forget the Minister's wonderful joke when he described the Bill as "a landmark cake"? Who can forget the great erudition of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who has taught us so much about grammar and pronunciation? I am sure that we have all learnt a great deal.
  I for one am sad that the debate will come to an end relatively rapidly. Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, whom we have already welcomed to his position, said that he was concerned about his inability to speak so fluently and so on as he might like. I assure him

  335
  that, after a few days in Committee listening to the hon. Member for Hemsworth and many other hon. Members, he will be rapidly up to speed with his Front-Bench colleagues.
  Mr. John Bowis: As the hon. Gentleman is referring to our good friend and entertainer, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who has entertained us at great length, he will recall the occasion when the hon. Gentleman announced that he was coming to his peroration which, because he was a supporter of Demosthenes, was likely to last two hours. That is the problem that we have had in Committee: we have not had time to discuss the amendments that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have tabled, because many hon. Members have talked ad nauseam—with great respect to the hon. Gentleman: "nausea" was another Latin tag. [Interruption.] I think that Frankie Howard was a friend of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).
  As an example, the hon. Gentleman will recall, because he was in Committee this morning, that we spent the entire sitting on one amendment to one clause, and did not even reach the end of that.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) will recall the intervention that he referred to in which the hon. Member for Hemsworth threatened to speak for two hours. Fortunately, that did not happen. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is smarting because of the interventions from the hon. Member for Hemsworth. Perhaps he will recall the interesting debate that we had on the phrases which introduced clause 1(1) of the Bill. I have no doubt that he will have an opportunity to check that point in the debate.
  As I have said, there are several reasons for feeling outraged about the guillotine motion. I have referred to that reason which is perhaps personal and somewhat selfish, although there are many others which are much more important. The basic reason is the issue of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. The motion will not give us an opportunity for the proper and detailed parliamentary scrutiny which a Bill of this size and importance rightly deserves. There is no opportunity for us to scrutinise, criticise and improve the actions of the Executive—which, after all, is what the role of the legislature is meant to be. Just as the Government have made a mockery of consultation on the Bill, so they are making a mockery of the concept of parliamentary rule.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) referred to the unwillingness of the Secretary of State to listen to almost anybody. It is clear that the Government have no desire to listen. They do not want to listen to parents, governors, teachers or any other educationists. Indeed, they do not want to listen to their own supporters. They seem to be totally deaf to many people who are traditional Conservative supporters. There were many references in Committee to the Conservative Education Association.
  The Government also seem unwilling to listen to the views of the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education. He is quoted as describing the Bill as
  "a recipe for at best confusion and at worst chaos".
  I wanted to record that phrase because of the effect that it might have on the Under-Secretary. Recently in
  336
  Committee he said that, if he heard that phrase once more, he would go even more dotty than he was, so we look forward to seeing how he behaves a little later.
  I am sad that, because of the speed with which the Government are rushing the Bill through, Conservative Members have not had an opportunity to listen to the views of the new Minister about the important issues in the Bill.
  Reference has been made to the fact that we do not appear to have made much progress on the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said that there had been slow progress. That is perfectly understandable, because the Government have placed all the important and complex issues in the early part of the Bill. I propose that we resolve the problem by changing the order in which we consider the Bill.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the main reasons for slow progress—if I may refer to one of the speeches made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth—is that he managed to introduce into a debate on the 10 per cent. and 75 per cent. trigger points topics such as the history of old school boards, the ethos of schools in West Yorkshire and Severn, how he crossed swords with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sheffield, star-gazing, "Pilgrim's Progress" and the Slough of Despond.
  Mr. Foster: All those issues are vital to education. More importantly, I am amazed that the hon. Member for Norwich, North has admitted that he is attacking the integrity of the Chair. Surely, if the points were out of order, the Chairman would have so ruled, just as I am sure you would have done, Mr. Morris.
  Mr. Derek Enright: I merely wish to make a correction. Undoubtedly, not all Conservative Members have learnt to read accurately. It was the Bishop, not the Archbishop, of Sheffield.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful for that clarification. Nevertheless, the point is important.
  To pick up part of the point raised by the hon. Member for Honiton, if there had been an opportunity to plan the debate properly in the way I proposed at the beginning of the Committee's discussions, perhaps we would not have got into the state which the hon. Member for Norwich, North and other hon. Members believe we are in at present.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Despite what the hon. Gentleman said about reorganising the order of the debate, is he aware that, along the Committee Corridor, other Bills were being discussed, some of which had no more than 15 clauses? One which had 15 clauses has just completed its Committee stage today. To reach clause 15 of a long Bill such as this is good progress. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Foster: It is clear that Conservative Members believe that the detailed consideration that has been given to the important clauses with which we have dealt merits only laughter. Opposition Members have made a serious attempt to find ways of improving a very bad Bill. That is demonstrated by the fact that we have not only debated the clauses of the Bill but tabled amendment after amendment to impove them.
  The only accusation about a particular clause was in respect of clause 4. Reference was made to the fact that the

  337
  Opposition had not tabled any amendment to clause 4. That is hardly surprising when one discovers that clause 4 says:
  "The Secretary of State may make grants to any funding authority of such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions as he may determine."
  It would be difficult to table an amendment which was acceptable to the Committee Clerk but would not be seen as a wrecking amendment and therefore rejected. That is the only way—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Decisions on amendments rest with not the Committee Clerk but with the Chairman of the Committee.
  Mr. Foster: I apologise, and I am grateful for that comment.
  Mr. Patten: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has learnt his lesson.
  Mr. Foster: I have learnt, and I am grateful to learn. I said that I would undoubtedly learn a great deal in Committee.
  Our other problem with the timetable motion is that it does not give the Government time to get their act together. Hon. Members who are not members of the Committee will not be aware that we had the somewhat unedifying sight of Ministers competing with one another to explain different parts of the Bill and coming up with contradictory views of what was going on.
  For example, we had a major debate on clause 7, about the relationship between the local education authorities and the funding authorities. Every time Ministers attempted to explain the difference we received different answers. We wanted to know whether they had a dual function, whether they would operate in parallel or whether their responsibilities would be shared. For days we waited. Finally, we received an answer. The Minister said:
  "there is a shared responsibility exercised by parallel duties." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E; c. 517.]
  We were told that that was the Government's definitive answer. I wonder whether it will be changed, because that definition is at odds with the definition given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading.
  We have many other examples of Ministers being at odds. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
  "Grant-maintained schools and local education authority schools must operate on equal terms."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 651.]
  In the second day of the same debate, the junior Minister said:
  "There can never be a level playing field between grant-maintained schools and local education authority maintained schools".—[Official Report, 10 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 836.]
  Mr. George Walden: I should be grateful to know whether the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's speech is to illustrate the farcical nature of the proceedings, as so well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery).
  Mr. Foster: The point of my speech is to show that inadequate time has been given for consideration of what the Government have said is an important Bill. It is to demonstrate that the Government have not got their act together and are still making contradictory statements
  338
  about elements of the Bill. Even if no one else needs additional time to get the Bill right, the. Government certainly do.
  I also wish to show that the Government are clearly not interested in rational debate. They are interested only in rationed debate.
  Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to the kernel of the debate. Several days were spent discussing what my hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee—that local education authorities and the funding agencies would work in parallel. I recall the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who unfortunately has now left the Chamber, spending some considerable time discussing the matter. He told us at length that he was a mathematics teacher, so he assumed, as Opposition Members do, that he must relate everything that happened in the Committee to his specialisation. He spent some time telling us how parallel lines never meet or get closer.
  I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, when my hon. Friend said that the two bodies would operate in parallel, he might no Opposition Members thought of this have been talking about an electrical circuit. Two bulbs might be connected in parallel and burn equally brightly. Socialists seem to believe that everything must be connected in series.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is performing brilliantly, but out of order, I fear.
  Mr. Foster: I am most grateful for that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. You may be interested to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that was the longest contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made on the Bill. As a former physics teacher, I was particularly interested in his analogy. He will know that two bulbs in parallel are such that, if one is taken out, the other continues to burn. Many of us would like to take out the funding authority and leave the local education authorities.
  Mr. Richards: The point that I wished to make is that socialists insist on connecting things up in series. As one adds things in series, so they get dimmer. As one adds socialists, so one gets dimmer and dimmer.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman still fails to grasp that the Government wish to add something. It is not the wish of the Opposition to add something to the system.
  The interventions from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and others show that they are not interested in the serious debate that the Bill truly deserves. There is an urgent need for more detailed consideration than the timetable motion will allow. The Secretary of State is showing unseemly haste to get his hands on the new powers which the Bill will give him. As we all know, it confers significant additional powers on the Secretary of State.
  I am well aware that the Secretary of State is a regular reader of the Catholic journal The Tablet. It is a pity that he has not taken notice of a letter in that journal of August this year, which says:
  "The Secretary of State for Education now has powers —over the opening and closing of schools, over what should be taught within them, over the information that should be published and by whom it should be published, over how the schools should be funded, over admission policies and over specialisation (a euphemism for election)—which are probably unprecedented in the Western world. All this is

  339
  proclaimed under the banner of choice. Given the distinctive role that the Church has played in the development of education in this country, Catholics should be alarmed by what is happening."
  That is the nub of the matter. We should all be alarmed by the Bill and by what it contains. The Government have been in power too long they have begun to—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the Minister's seated intervention.
  The Government have failed to remember the importance of listening to the electorate and to the views of people with knowledge of the various issues. They have not been willing to listen. I hope that we shall oppose the guillotine motion and accept the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) so that we can continue the debate on a vitally important issue.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) earlier accused me of quoting from a Conservative central office brief. I now have the information to hand. She may be pleased to know that I was referring to a letter sent to me by the home affairs section of the House of Commons Library, which reads:
  "Dear Mr. Pawsey,
  Guillotine
  You put two questions to me on the use of the guillotine. The answers are as follows:
  It is true that Michael Foot, as Leader of the House, set a record by guillotining 5 Bills in one day, 20 July 1976. They were the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the Dock Work Regulation Bill, the Health Services Bill, the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, and the Education Bill. The guillotine was applied to the report and third reading stages except in the case of the Health Services Bill where the committee stage was also guillotined after 18 sittings. The others had had, respectively, 58, 36, 12 and 35 committee sittings. All 5 Bills were subsequently guillotined for Lords amendments, again all on the same day, 8 November 1976. The decision to guillotine so many Bills in one day aroused considerable annoyance and, in particular, the groupings of the Bills into 3 rather than 5 separate motions was challenged. The Speaker, however, ruled that this was in order."
  I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I remind her that the brief came from the same source as hers—from the House of Commons Library.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming the information that I gave to the House. He obviously did not read his brief carefully. As I said, a Labour Government have never guillotined the Committee stage of an Education Bill.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady said, presumably with some form of defective second sight, that I was using a central office brief, but it came from exactly the same source as hers, from the Library.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that central office briefs are simply not worth quoting.
  Mr. Pawsey: Central office briefs are always precise, accurate and to the point, unlike those that Opposition Members receive from their sources.
  340
  If a justification for the Bill were required it could be found in the fact that, although Standing Committee E sat for about 65½hours, we have so far only reached clause 15.
  I suspect that the hon. Member for Dewsbury was in the House in 1976 when that guillotine was in motion. She is protesting about the use of a guillotine on one Bill, when five Bills were guillotined—[interruption.] As I am reminded by my hon. Friends, she voted for them. The hon. Lady is not the great democrat that she pretends to be.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Pawsey: Opposition Members are queuing to intervene. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman whose name always reminds me of the Catholic church.
  Mr. Greg Pope: As the hon. Gentleman clearly has the information, can he inform the House how many sittings there had been on the Education Bill in 1976 when it was guillotined, so that we may compare it with the number of sittings on this Bill?
  Mr. Pawsey: As it happens, I can provide the hon. Gentleman with that information. Again I am quoting from the letter to me from the House of Commons Library —in order that there be no misunderstanding about the source—which states:
  "You also asked for how many hours the Education Bill of that session had been debated before it was guillotined. As mentioned above the Bill was considered at 35 standing committee sittings and according to Burton and Drewry these were 'spun out to 86 hours'".
  The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Bill received two days consideration at Second Reading and that it will receive two days on Report. As far as I know, that is unprecedented. I have no knowledge of any Education Bill receiving that amount of time on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way and then all three Opposition Front-Bench Members will have intervened in my speech, even though I have only reached the first paragraph.
  Mr. Griffiths: That merely shows how controversial the speech is. First, may I point out that the Education Bill that the hon. Gentleman seeks to malign us with was only 10 clauses long, whereas this Bill has 255 clauses? He and I served on the Committee of the great Education Reform Act 1988, which had three-day Report and Third Reading stages. That is what our amendment seeks and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it as he did on that previous occasion.
  Mr. Pawsey: That merely shows my independence of mind.
  I must continue with my speech, as I know that Conservative Members want the opportunity to address the Chair on what we consider to be a genuinely important matter.
  In the view of my hon. Friends, the Bill will do much to enhance the quality and standard of state education. For that reason, we want it to be enacted as soon as possible. However, our enthusiasm, our sense of urgency, is not shared by Opposition Members. We want the maximum number of the nation's children to benefit as soon as possible from the measures proposed in the Bill.

  341
  As a sign of the delaying tactics employed by Opposition Members, on 1,3,and 8 December we devoted 17 hours and 43 minutes to the discussion of clause 7. There are 255 clauses in the Bill, and if each were debated for that length of time, the Committee would need to spend 4,157 hours and 45 minutes debating the Bill in Committee.
  I am certain that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker will find that figure as incredible and as intolerable as I do. Incidentally, the figure that I quoted does not include time to debate the schedules.
  Ms. Estelle Morris rose —
  Mr. Pawsey: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I have given way several times and I know that many Conservative Members wish to speak.
  We have been reminded that the Second Reading lasted about 11 hours and 51 minutes over two days.
  I have referred to the fact that timetable motions are not new to the House. I do not believe that Conservative Members need to take any lectures from Opposition Members about guillotines, democracy, or even the scrutiny of Bills.
  Some of our debates have been genuinely illuminating. For example, on 1 December we discussed the implications of the Bill for various sections of the Education Act 1944. I hope that in the timetable an opportunity will be found to re-examine those sections of the 1944 Act that gave local education authorities a senior role in the provision of education. That role will change with the growth of the grant-maintained sector, as envisaged in the Bill.
  The Bill promotes grant-maintained schools and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has come out so clearly in favour of them. He is right—such schools do much to enhance the quality and standard of state education. The Bill provides for a funding agency for grant-maintained schools and seeks to ensure that local education authorities do not stifle would-be grant-maintained schools under a mass of adverse propaganda. Conservative Members have argued for greater fairness and have long believed that some LEAs might be prejudiced against grant-maintained schools. We do not believe that the local education authority is the only vehicle able to deliver good education to the nation's children.
  In Standing Committee, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) gave the game away. He used the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of some LEAs to the idea of grant-maintained schools. It became clear in Committee that he was not alone in that view. That declared hostility is one reason why it is necessary to introduce the Bill. Where LEAs are hostile to grant-maintained schools, that hostility must be curtailed and controlled.
  I found it significant that Opposition Members could boast with pride that there were some LEAs in which no grant-maintained schools had emerged. I believe that that is due not so much to the excellence of the LEAs, as to the propaganda and intimidation waged against schools considering grant-maintained status.
  Mr. Enright rose—
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but if the hon. Member for City of Durham wants to intervene, I shall give way.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was not going to intervene, as I hope to make a speech in the next few minutes, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman how he explains the fact that many local education authorities do not even contain a school that wants to ballot to leave the authority.
  Mr. Pawsey: I can easily explain. That is because of the barrage'of black propaganda that has been waged against grant-maintained schools by people such as the hon. Gentleman and his Labour party friends.
  I appreciate that not all the Committee's deliberations are studied by parents or members of the public. The Committee's deliberations have been long and sometimes, dare I say it, boring. I hasten to add that only the contributions of Opposition Members were boring. However, debates on the Floor of the Chamber attract substantial public attention. One hour spent debating on the Floor of the Chamber is so often worth dozens of hours in Committee Room 10 listening to the thoughts on meditation, puppy training and the diary extracts of a head teacher. We even heard some teachers described as flibbertigibbets—not by a Conservative Member. I am glad that the example of the Education Reform Act 1988 will be followed when we discuss the Bill on Report, and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has found time for a two-day debate on the important Bill.
  On Second Reading I asked the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) whether, if the Labour party were to be returned to office—an unlikely event—grant-maintained schools would be taken back into LEA control. The hon. Gentleman said that he would respond the next day. I have read his speech—hard work it was, too—but I could not find an unambiguous statement on that important issue. Therefore, I repeat the challenge: if the Labour party were to be returned to office in some far distant future Parliament, would grant-maintained schools once more be part of LEAs?
  Mr. Win Griffiths: What I said in Committee was very clear. I suggest that we look at the speech together and, if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, I shall later make a statement on which we can both agree.
  Mr. Pawsey: As the hon. Gentleman has asked me a direct question, I can tell him that I am not satisfied with his reply. I read his speech, which did not contain an unambiguous statement on grant-maintained schools. I have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to answer from the Dispatch Box the question that I have once again asked him, and again he has fudged the answer—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is on the timetable motion. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will relate his comments to it, but it is not immediately clear to me how he proposes to do so.
  Mr. Pawsey: I think that I have made my point absolutely clear.
  Conservative Members want the Bill to be enacted. There have been about 72 hours debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House, during which time we have covered only a modest number of clauses. We believe that honest discussion has become deliberate obstruction. Therefore, I support the motion and urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I oppose the imposition of the guillotine on this Bill, as I believe that the Secretary of State has shown an inconsistency of purpose. He presented the White Paper and the Bill as a coping stone of 10 or so years of Conservative legislation on education—a blueprint for the 21st century. To do that and then seek to stifle debate on this important Bill reveals his inconsistency. It would surely be more consistent for him to allow debate commensurate with the importance of the matters contained in the Bill.
  The only consistency that I can see relates to the practice rather than the purpose of the Secretary of State in trying to impose the guillotine after a cursory consultation process on a White Paper that was published at the end of July, modified and presented, almost as a Bill, at the end of October.
  I shall confine my remarks to three important issues in the Bill that need more discussion than will be allowed if debate is stifled by the guillotine: first, clauses 169 to 179, which refer to school attendance; secondly, the inadequate treatment given to provision for special needs; thirdly, the many sections of the Bill relating to its main purpose—opting out.
  Clauses 169 to 179 refer to the important issue of school attendance, but will not be given adequate debate if the Bill is guillotined. School attendance is mentioned in a key passage of the White Paper, at paragraph 1.22, which states:
  "There is little point in having good, regularly inspected schools,"
  first-rate teachers, a national curriculum that is well taught and assessed, if all our children do not attend school, remain there and learn throughout the school day. Last year I had the privilege of addressing the Association of Chief Educational Social Workers, so I was interested to see in the White Paper the hearty endorsement of the work of educational social workers, who share a common concern with the Secretary of State.
  However, when I discussed that important subject with members of the association, I found them cautious about the new registration requirements imposed on schools. They felt that those requirements could lead to excessive use of unauthorised absence. They offered some interesting suggestions for the Secretary of State to consider genuinely to improve school attendance, instead of cooking the books to suit the league tables of school attendance. I feel saddened that an issue described in the White Paper as being so important should not be adequately discussed merely because of the guillotine.
  In one of the most noted passages in the White Paper the Secretary of State suggested that parents know best the needs of their children. But clauses 169 to 179 give the lie to such a fatuous suggestion; they are all about parents who do not know what is best for their children.
  As for special educational needs, I know that Ministers will boast of examples of good practice in such provision in grant-maintained schools—I have heard them do so. That does not alter the fact that the Bill provides no mechanism to protect SEN provision in schools that opt out. It is irresponsible of the Secretary of State to engineer a situation in which discussion of such an important issue cannot go on. It is bad enough under the present system of
  344
  delegated budgets—local management of schools, under which funding is devolved and there is no control over schools' spending.
  I shall draw my examples from provision for the hearing impaired, a handicap in which I take a close interest. For instance, a school with eight children who were hearing-impaired was given a slice of budget which the headmistress did not feel justified in spending on so few children—it came to several thousand pounds. It was intended to be used to buy eight radio hearing aids, quite expensive items. Instead, the headmistress chose to buy a perimeter fence and some benches.
  Another school with a hearing-impaired unit found that the relevant teacher left and was not replaced, so parents who had placed their children in the school on the understanding that they would be provided for were no longer guaranteed that provision.
  Things are even worse under the grant-maintained system, and we should of course be given time adequately to discuss them. Under the GM system, a chunk of funding earmarked for special needs by an LEA is allocated to a GM school. Hearing impairment is a low-incidence handicap which is expensive to service. Schools find it extremely difficult to pay for it, and even if they could, they would not necessarily know what resources to provide without the expertise of the LEA.
  I know that the latest missive from the Secretary of State to school governors—it is undated, but I received my copy last Friday—offers an assurance that GM schools may still purchase special provision of various kinds, including provision for hearing-impaired children, from the local education authority. But how can the LEA provide that if its resource base is chipped away, opt-out by opt-out? This issue was discussed in Committee, but we have as yet received no satisfactory answers.
  I have described the process of privatisation, fragmentation and diminution of service. A Conservative Member has referred to a system of provision connected in series in ever smaller fragments, becoming dimmer and more diluted as the series progresses. How, then, is parental choice to be guaranteed, especially if provision for children's special needs is so expensive? A child's statement may refer to such provision, but neither parent nor child will have any range of choice. It is irresponsible and reprehensible not to allow enough time adequately to examine matters of that sort.
  My main anxiety is about the new procedures in the Bill to speed up the process of opting out and to rig the system in favour of those in a school who want to trigger an opt-out ballot. It is cavalier of the Secretary of State to rush into this before he has published evidence that GM schools deliver a higher quality of education. The evidence has not yet been forthcoming, and the case needs closer examination.
  Even on the right hon. Gentleman's distorted and narrow criteria—I suppose that they equate to crooked criteria—of publishing tables of five 0–level results, graded A to C by year groups, one would not be surprised to find that GM schools score higher than the 98.5 per cent. of schools which have not opted out. Twenty-five per cent. of GM schools, after all, are selective, compared with only 5 per cent. in the system generally.
  A published list of 200 schools in the Merseyside and Cheshire area shows that selective schools cluster near the top of the league table. That is not surprising; those schools select their intake on the basis of pupils' likely

  345
  aptitude for the examinations to which the league tables are confined. It is not surprising, either, to find that the non-selective schools cluster near the bottom of the 200, because they do not select their intake according to these criteria.
  Her Majesty's inspectorate has inspected a representative sample of GM schools, so the Secretary of State has the necessary information. Why not publish it before rushing this important legislation through the House?
  My greatest anxiety is directed at what can happen if the Secretary of State rigs the opt-out process in favour of those who support opting out. I refer to recent events in my constituency and to the opt-out ballot at Thomas Becket school in Knowsley. I am pleased to say that the first two attempts to opt out of Knowsley LEA were resoundingly rebuffed: at Ruffwood school by 97 per cent. —still a record opt-out rejection—and at Prescot school—I was chairman of the board of governors for 15 years there—by 67 per cent., or more than two to one. Now it is the turn of Thomas Becket in Huyton. I am confident that the parents at that school will match the good sense shown by the parents of children at the other two.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: By 1995, more than 1 million parents will have children in grant-maintained schools—[Interruption.]—on current trends. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, come the next general election, he will tell those parents that their children will no longer be educated at grant-maintained schools because they will be taken over by the local education authority?
  Mr. O'Hara rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to answer that question. It has little to do with the guillotine.
  Mr. O'Hara: I do not, anyway, accept the assumption that the question makes—and neither, I understand, does the Secretary of State.
  What appals me, having spoken to the parents of children at Thomas Becket, is the way that the head teacher and staff at that school have drawn the children into the issue—I would not dignify the description "debate". It is hardly an overstatement to talk of indoctrination and certainly of emotional blackmail. Children have been addressed in assembly and further harassed by teachers, with tales that, unless the school opts out, specific teachers will be sacked and specific pupils will not be able to complete specific O and A-level courses. I use the word "harassed". I heard of one teacher pointing to a pupil in the corridor and saying—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That equally has nothing to do with the guillotine. The hon. Gentleman was keeping in order, but he is now drifting out of order.
  Mr. O'Hara: I could give further examples, but I shall not do so, of attempts to stifle debate on an opt-out ballot by a particular school in my constituency. Likewise, the Secretary of State is trying to stifle debate on the opting-out processes in the Bill.
  In my opening remarks, I referred to the indecent haste with which the Bill appeared, in stark contrast to the stature claimed for it. I allowed myself a wry smile when the Secretary of State, after a small number of weeks in purdah, emerged with his so-called blockbuster White Paper, which has become a Christmas cake of a Bill. I was
  346
  reminded of the poet Horace. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not in his place, because I would have addressed him as a scholar. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) will listen carefully.
  Boasting of one of his literary productions, Horace observed:
  "Exegi monumentum aere perennius"—
  that is to say,
  "I have wrought a monument more lasting than bronze."
  However, Horace also said that when one has produced something, one should put it away and suppress it for nine full years—
  "Membranis intus positis: delere licebit".
  If the Secretary of State was not prepared to allow his White Paper to mature in the wood of consultation, he ought to allow the Bill to mature in the wood of full and proper debate in the House.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Having witnessed 65 hours of self-indulgent humbug and virtual incessant verbal incontinence from Opposition Members, and having served on the Standing Committees of three major education Bills, I cannot think of a more appropriate motion than the one before the House.
  The situation was exemplified by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—sadly, he is not in his place—who, after 26 minutes speaking tonight, said that he was just coming to the nub of his argument. If any of our constituents saw the shenanigans involved in dealing with such an important Bill for the past two months, they would be appalled.
  The Committee debated 15 clauses in 65 hours. There are another 240 to go—and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) said, "I think that is good progress." At that rate, we will not complete the Committee stage for another two years, and the Bill would reach the statute book some time early in the next millennium, if we were lucky.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's definition of progress. Does he measure progress as getting through the clauses or, as my right hon. and hon. Friends do, by the number of amendments that we persuade Ministers to accept?
  Mr. Coombs: I measure progress by the proper and rational scrutiny of the Bill's important clauses. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), the Opposition, without any self-criticism but with pure cynicism, have filibustered an important educational measure. I find that quite reprehensible. The Committee took a whole morning to consider the sittings motion. Even then, the Opposition did not want to meet in the afternoons. The kind of timetable I gave would have been made twice as worse.
  Mr. Mike Hall: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that, in the sittings debate, Conservative Members said that they would like a flexible approach to be taken? There has been 65 hours of debate and now a guillotine is being imposed. Is that flexibility?
  Mr. Coombs: I suspect that the majority of my constituents would resoundingly answer, "Yes." Three and one quarter hours were spent on clause 4 without amendment. We saw Opposition Members, obviously

  347
  organised by their Whip, queuing up—in some cases, rather reluctantly—to give us the sparse edge of their views on this important measure. It has not been an exercise in discussion or democracy, but a deliberate exercise in frustration by Opposition Members.
  Clem Attlee said:
  "Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking."
  Trying to get that Duracell lot to stop talking is quite something. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) actually accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of being unwilling to defend his own Bill. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)—the Minister in charge of the Bill and I held a public meeting in my constituency, we were condemned in an Opposition early-day motion for doing so—[Interruption.] Suddenly, we hear that the hon. Member for Wallsend did not append his signature to that particular motion. I am sure that he did not.
  This is a classic example of the kind of procrastination that arises when there is no agenda or guidelines as to how discussion ought to proceed. I would not mind if it were just a question of wasting parliamentary time—albeit that parliamentary time is paid for by the taxpayer. I am concerned, however, that the longer that we debate the Bill, the less time educational institutions—whether they be grant-maintained schools or local education authorities —will have to plan for the inevitably changing relationship between schools and LEAs over the next few years.
  Some dinosaur-like Opposition Members and those in district councils in particular will say, "We do not want any change in the relationship between local education authorities and schools." On 13 November—a Friday, appropriately enough—The Times Educational Supplement reported that the so-called intelligent vice-chairman of Birmingham's educational authority said of his planned relationship between that LEA, which is the biggest in the country, and the funding agency:
  "Let the bastards sack us."
  That is his idea of the kind of co-operation that is necessary to maintain proper education standards for all our children.
  Fortunately, local education authorities—both Labour and Conservative—take a more constructive view. There is no doubt that many will want to amalgamate their education committees with leisure committees or child services committees—as some are already doing—recognising that the future role of local education authorities will be enabling rather than merely executive, as it has been over the past few years. The longer that the House debates in a futile way, the less we provide such bodies with a framework that allows them to plan for the future.
  However, my main objection to the disgraceful way in which the Bill is being discussed—or, rather, not discussed —relates to its direct impact on some of the measures that we should take to improve education standards for children in failing schools. One of the Bill's most important aspects is the way in which it deals with education associations. Such associations will go into schools that are plainly failing; we know where many of those schools are, and we know that local education authorities are not taking enough action against them to assist their improvement and, as a result, to improve the education of children.
  348
  Whenever I discuss education matters, I remember something that I have always kept in my mind: children go that way but once. They do not have a second chance. If we get things wrong in a failing school, a child's life will be blighted. Even if there is only one class in one school whose teacher is not using maximum potential and giving a child the education that he needs, that is one class too many. The House of Commons cannot procrastinate and allow that to happen.
  We have already heard of schools in the same authority, one of which is—according to one measure—far more deprived than another, but obtains significantly better results. That is because such schools have a sense of direction: teachers will have high expectations—that always comes out in HMI reports—and there will be an appropriate differentiation in the kind of education that is offered, according to the ability of individual pupils. All too often, in certain schools that are under-performing, that reveals a performance gap.
  As I pointed out in Committee, Professor Nuttall, a professor of curriculum at London university, said:
  "However, even when you take account of the value added, there are still…substantial differences between schools. We have got to close the performance gap."
  One way in which to close that gap is to allow education associations to visit schools that are failing their pupils.
  What is Labour's reaction to all that? Labour Members continue to make excuses and to talk about funding. They condescend to parents who have not much money, and who want their children to succeed; they do everything to protect the producer interests with which they have been identified too often in the past. Anyone who wants to see an example of that need only read an extract from a report produced by—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is relevant to the motion.
  Mr. Coombs: I was merely seeking to point out the urgency of passing some measures in the Bill to improve children's education.
  The Socialist Education Association said:
  "Gramski's vision is correct—if you want the revolution to succeed you must teach the peasants to read and write".
  Can hon. Members imagine any more condescending and disgraceful statement? The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), and a number of his hon. Friends, claim to be proud to be members of that association. That, I think, emphasises the Labour party's appalling attitude to consideration of the Bill, and that is why I think that we should pass the guillotine motion with alacrity.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I believe that it was always the Government's intention to table the guillotine motion at the earliest possible moment that, by their lights, was respectable. The Committee's second sitting was kept going until midnight, and the third until 2 am. Personally, I should not mind if we kept long hours every time we met, provided that that gave us an opportunity to discuss in full all the serious issues that are highlighted in the Bill.
  The so-called great Education Reform Bill 1988—I had the pleasure, if the word can be used in such a context, of sitting on the Committee with a number of Conservative Members—was debated for 88 hours before the imposition of a guillotine. Moreover, on Report and Third Reading the timetable motion allowed three days for

  349
  debate. Our amendment seeks to put the Bill on a par with the "GERBIL". We believe that, as this Bill has far more clauses and deals with many important and diverse matters in relation to schools, the Government could at the very least ameliorate the damage that is being done to its consideration by allowing a three-day debate on Report.
  Some of us recall the debates in 1987 and 1988, and the forecasts that the Education Reform Bill would set a pattern for the next generation. It is salutary to reflect that, after only four years, the Government have had to bring in "son of GERBIL" to correct all the shortcomings that they now see in the original.
  Some Conservative Members have made much of the time spent on the first 15 clauses of this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) pointed out —along with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—the first part of the Bill lays the foundations of a completely new structure for education funding. The point between the Secretary of State and the school—which at one time was filled by the democratically elected local education authority—will pass to an unelected, undemocratic, non-accountable body appointed by the Secretary of State, which will work to rules laid down by him. We thought it only right to request a detailed scrutiny of the first 15 clauses: those relating to the Funding Agency for Schools in England and the Funding Council for Schools in Wales.
  We have been labouring under a considerable difficulty, which has been identified by my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). We have debated fundamental issues relating to funding and the exclusion of pupils from schools, without the benefit of consultation papers that the Government say they will announce shortly. We have had to discuss important matters without even knowing the Government's own thoughts. These, after all, are serious problems.
  Hon. Members have referred to the length of time taken to debate amendment No. 235, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). The amendment was as important as the clauses that introduce the funding agencies. My hon. Friend sought to define the way in which the funding agency would operate and what duties would be placed on schools to make reasonable provision for books and equipment and to ensure that class sizes were reasonable. Such fundamental responsibilities were worthy of a full debate.
  One of the suggestions that have been bandied about is that, if we continue to consider the Bill at the present rate, it will require another 1,500 hours to complete its Committee stage. Everybody knows that that is a tendentious use of statistics, but if there had been a reasonable attempt to discuss the Bill, I am sure that we could have reached agreement on considering it at sufficient length and within a time scale that would have satisfied the Government.
  Mr. James Clappison: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his scrutiny of the Bill so far has been unreasonable, because it sounds like it?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am not saying that scrutiny of the Bill has been unreasonable. I am saying that to conclude from our scrutiny so far that the remaining clauses will be taken at the same speed is a spurious use of an argument for the sake of a motion that is unnecessary.
  Mr. Clappison rose—
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall continue, because the debate is subject to a guillotine, and I have dealt with the point accurately.
  The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred to the considerable time that we spent on clause 7, which the Tory-controlled Association of County Councils believes raises significant constitutional implications. We took its warning seriously and considered all aspects of the clause.
  Part II of the Bill will be controversial, and we should have wanted to spend time considering it. Given the conciliatory and helpful attitude of the Minister in accepting two important amendments about children with special needs, we could have reached agreement on the amendments that are necessary to improve part III.
  We suggested the amalgamation of the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council in the Education Reform Bill, yet the Government insisted on establishing two separate bodies. I am sure that we could have reached agreement on that. If what the Minister told the Association of Metropolitan Authorities yesterday was representative of his approach, we could have reached agreement on reasoned amendments to that part of the Bill. Again, I am sure that we could have reached agreement on amendments to improve school attendance.
  In short, there could have been a reasonable approach to the non-controversial parts of the Bill where the Minister has shown that he is willing to reach agreement, but we had no chance to reach such agreement. As a final appeal, I hope that he will accept our amendment and let us know when the exclusions consultation paper and the paper on the formula funding for GMS schools will be issued. If he does so, despite some of the acrimony in the debate, we might be able to leave the Chamber happy this evening.
  7.5 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): As hon. Members well know, these occasions, which occur from time to time, are part ritual and part humbug. We have had plenty of both tonight.
  Hon. Members who have sat for hours in Committee can characterise the flavour of the debate well because this has been a mirror image of what has taken place for the best part of about 60 hours upstairs. I characterise it best by quoting the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who took 26 minutes of our time to say, most memorably, "I quite enjoyed the proceedings of the Committee and learned a lot from it." He certain has a lot to learn, but why he should be doing it at the expense of the Committee is beyond me.
  I suppose that that sums up resonably well why we find ourselves in this position. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask—helpfully, I thought—"Why do not we plan the debate properly"? Perhaps he has not noticed, but the purpose of the motion is to plan the debate properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) summed it up better than I could—but that is often the case—when he said that honest discussion had become deliberate obstruction. That was the burden of my hon. Friend's comments this evening, which were expressed with understandable frustration.
  I can illustrate that point, if it needs illustrating, by pointing out that 70 times the Chairman of the Committee

  351
  has had to call Opposition Members to order for straying from the subject—for being out of order. That took place no fewer than eight times on the first sitting alone, when the Chairman had to say,
  "I hope that he will relate his remarks directly to the sittings motion",
  and
  "Discussions about my past are not in order this morning."
  That is the Chairman's past, not mine. He continued,
  "This is not in order."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 November 1992; c. 6–9.]
  I could quote in extenso, but I will not. In the eighth sitting —I pick it simply at random—on another five occasions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am afraid that I cannot see the hon. Gentleman's face. Will he address the Chair?
  Mr. Forth: I am sorry. Moreover, I shall smile for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I speak.
  The reality of the debate was mirrored in this morning's deliberations when, in Committee, as ever we are on a Tuesday, we spent nearly two and a half hours on one amendment to a clause but did not manage to dispose of it.
  The importance of the Bill is agreed by all hon. Members, and at least half of its clauses are essentially re-enactments of previous statutes—a fact which we should bear well in mind. The proposed timetable motion, which I hope the House will support, allows nine more Committee days—more than we have already had—and 18 more sittings—more than we have already had—and up to 70 or more hours of debate. The proposal will allow us to ensure that all parts of the Bill are properly and adequately covered. That cannot be said of our debates up until now. We have spent more than 60 hours in Committee, covering only 14 or 15 clauses, yet the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) says, "Trust us and we shall allow proper progress to be made in future." That does not wash.
  Having sat through all those hours with so little progress being made on the Bill, on what basis could we proceed? It is not good enough. Our duty is not only to the people who elected the Government, with their mandate based on the programme so clearly set out in April—and set out not only in the White Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so elegantly wrote and introduced to us in July, but in the Bill. Our duty is also to make progress on the Bill in order to provide a proper framework for the growing grant-maintained schools sector.
  If Opposition Members had shown an element of desire to make progress on the Bill earlier, we should not now be in this position. But we owe the House as a whole a rate of progress on the Bill; we owe the education world progess on it, so that people can see that each clause is being properly considered. We cannot allow the sort of frustration, obfuscation and dilatory tactics employed by Opposition Members. Those tactics have slowed the Bill down so much that my right hon. Friends have had to decide that in order to protect the business of the House and the business of the Government, in order to make proper progress with the Bill, we must put this reasonable,
  352
  realistic and positive timetable motion before the House. It allows more than adequate time and gives us the opportunity to sit down with the Opposition and discuss ways in which we may now proceed properly. I hope that we shall do that.
  That has been done with all reasonableness—but the reasonableness has come only from the Government side of the House and of the Committee. We have allowed Opposition Members the maximum latitude, and they have failed us, they have failed the education world, and they have let everybody down, by wasting the time available and making so little progress on the Bill. We shall correct that with the timetable motion. If the House supports the motion, as I now ask it to do, we shall make proper progress on the Bill and be able to scrutinise it properly. The Bill will come out of Committee in better shape and the House will be able to proceed in proper order with its business. I ask the House to support the motion.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:
  The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 290.

  Division No. 102]

  [7.11 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Cox, Tom

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Alton, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Alistair

  Battle, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Denham, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dewar, Donald

  Benton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Frank

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blair, Tony

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Blunkett, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Boateng, Paul

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Eastham, Ken

  Bradley, Keith

  Enright, Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Burden, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Byers, Stephen

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Galloway, George

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gapes, Mike

  Cann, Jamie

  Garrett, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  Coffey, Ann

  Graham, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Corbett, Robin

  Hain, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hall, Mike

  353

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Olner, William

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoey, Kate

  Parry, Robert

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Patchett, Terry

  Home Robertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pope, Greg

  Hoyle, Doug

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hutton, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Ingram, Adam

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Radice, Giles

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jamieson, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ruddock, Joan

  Keen, Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Short, Clare

  Leighton, Ron

  Simpson, Alan

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Snape, Peter

  McAllion, John

  Soley, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spearing, Nigel

  Macdonald, Calum

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McFall, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McKelvey, William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Stott, Roger

  McMaster, Gordon

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Alice

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marek, Dr John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Trimble, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Turner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Tyler, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Vaz, Keith

  Meacher, Michael

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Meale, Alan

  Wallace, James

  Michael, Alun

  Walley, Joan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Milburn, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wise, Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wray, Jimmy

  354

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr.Eric Illsley and

  Mr.Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dunn, Bob

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Amess, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Arbuthnot, James

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Faber, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bates, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, Eric

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butler, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Churchill, Mr

  Hendry, Charles

  Clappison, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  355

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knox, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Legg, Barry

  Shersby, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Madel, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stephen, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan

  Marlow, Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Thomason, Roy

  Moate, Roger

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waterson, Nigel

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Whitney, Ray

  Pickles, Eric

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Willetts, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Redwood, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Richards, Rod

  Wood, Timothy

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Robathan, Andrew

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Andrew MacKay.

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 258.

  Division No. 103]

  7.27 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dunn, Bob

  Alexander, Richard

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Eggar, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Elletson, Harold

  Amess, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Ancram, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Ashby, David

  Evennett, David

  Atkins, Robert

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forth, Eric

  Bates, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gallie, Phil

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowden, Andrew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorst, John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cash, William

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  357

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knox, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Madel, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Malone, Gerald

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stephen, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sumberg, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Sykes, John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Milligan, Stephen

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Thomason, Roy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Needham, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trotter, Neville

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Viggers, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Page, Richard

  Walden, George

  Paice, James

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Watts, John

  Pawsey, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Redwood, John

  Wilshire, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Richards, Rod

  Wolfson, Mark

  Riddick, Graham

  Wood, Timothy

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Robathan, Andrew

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Andrew MacKay.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Allen, Graham

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Alton, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  358

  Ashton, Joe

  Gerrard, Neil

  Barnes, Harry

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Battle, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bayley, Hugh

  Godsiff, Roger

  Beggs, Roy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Gordon, Mildred

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Graham, Thomas

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Betts, Clive

  Hain, Peter

  Blair, Tony

  Hall, Mike

  Blunkett, David

  Hanson, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Hardy, Peter

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bradley, Keith

  Harvey, Nick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Heppell, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Burden, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hoey, Kate

  Caborn, Richard

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hutton, John

  Clelland, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Coffey, Ann

  Jackson, Helen (Shef"ld, H)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jamieson, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cummings, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Keen, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Darling, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davidson, Ian

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

  Denham, John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dewar, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McFall, John

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McKelvey, William

  Eastham, Ken

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Enright, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Etherington, Bill

  McMaster, Gordon

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McWilliam, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mahon, Alice

  Fisher, Mark

  Mandelson, Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foulkes, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maxton, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Meacher, Michael

  Galloway, George

  Meale, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Garrett, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  359

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Short, Clare

  Milburn, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Soley, Clive

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mudie, George

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Murphy, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Hara, Edward

  Straw, Jack

  Olner, William

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Parry, Robert

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Patchett, Terry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pendry, Tom

  Trimble, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tyler, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Vaz, Keith

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Wallace, James

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Joan

  Prescott, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watson, Mike

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Radice, Giles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Reid, Dr John

  Wilson, Brian

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wise, Audrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Education Bill.

  Committee
  1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill has been allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 9th February.
  (2) Proceedings at a sitting of the Standing Committee on that day may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 10th February.

  Report and Third Reading
  2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration shall be completed in two allotted days and shall he brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second allotted day.
  (2) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day and shall he brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
  (3) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of each of those allotted days as the Resolutions of the Business Committee may determine.
  (4) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (5) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (4), and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (6) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken.

  Proceedings in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  (3) The Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee.
  (4) On the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

  Order of proceedings
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in the Standing Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Dilatory Motions
  5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time
  6.—(1) On the first allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to that period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion shall be added to that period of two hours.

  Private business
  7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (I) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill):

  361

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Member of the Government; and

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule he added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time appointed for bringing proceedings to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  10. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order; or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  12. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Education Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day
  Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 2

      COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND)
      'Any function delegated under this Act affecting the Northern Ireland Civil Service shall be subject to an annual report made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland to the House of Commons.".—[Mr. Davidson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.40 pm
      Mr. Ian Davidson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am moving the new clause in order to raise matters of principle and to seek assurances from the Minister. I am moving it in this form in order to avoid duplication of the amendments that were moved in Committee.
      The new clause is basically about accountability, both in principle and in process. In the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) spoke at length about the role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This is probably well enough known to all hon. Members, so I do not propose to cover that ground again.
      However, I am particularly interested in the role of that officer and his Department in providing information for use by hon. Members in holding Departments accountable for the actions they take following the passage of this legislation and the introduction of delegation. It is important that we are enabled, as Members of Parliament, to follow through the implementation of this legislation and be provided with appropriate information, so that we can genuinely scrutinise the use that is made of these powers.
      I want to press the Minister to give us assurances that he will take the next available opportunity to introduce amendments or legislation along the lines indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill. I understand that he indicated at an earlier stage that he did not see the Bill as a Christmas tree to which all possible good measures could be attached. But the giving of powers at some point in the future to introduce control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's survey would seem to be relatively easy.
      In terms of the general issues with regard to Northern Ireland, given that heads of Department are not Ministers but civil servants and that there is an enhanced role for the civil service in Northern Ireland, this new clause is truly relevant.
      In the discussion in Committee, grave concerns were expressed about the prospects for regional variations in pay and conditions being introduced as a result of devolutionary steps taken under this legislation. Similarly, the prospect of the impact of the legislation upon the dispersal policy of the Government was the subject of
      364
      considerable discussion. I very much hope that reports that come back from the Comptroller and Auditor-General will cover both those areas.
      It will be a source of considerable concern if the use of devolution becomes a mechanism by which wage rates in Northern Ireland and some other parts of the United Kingdom are brought down to a level below that prevailing in the more prosperous parts of the country. It is important to me and to many of my hon. Friends that there is some mechanism by which this issue is kept constantly under review. I can see no other mechanism by which such an overview can be achieved.
      It is important that the role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in surveying the work of the Government, by undertaking value-for-money studies, is brought into this whole area of work. I and many of my colleagues took a wider view of the impact of contracting out and market testing than did many Conservative Members. We need objective assessment of the scale of diseconomies that flow from this legislation. We need to make sure that someone—I believe that the most appropriate person is the Comptroller and Auditor-General—is continuing to survey not only the gains that are achieved by any contracting out but the diseconomies. We need to make sure that that survey is undertaken objectively.
      I will give one example of a case where concern is being caused to me and my colleagues. I have with me the annual report of National Savings.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am truly sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he is going rather wide of new clause 2, which relates entirely to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Davidson: I understand that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to illustrate the general principle, that the Comptroller and the Auditor-General would be used to examine certain circumstances. I was going to use the example of the Department for National Savings, but I will not use that. However, if there were such a Department in Northern Ireland with which a parallel could be drawn, and if it were found that it was undertaking a particular task at a lower cost than that in the comparable private sector organisation—had I been using National Savings, I would have compared it with building societies—then it would be very difficult to see what could be gained by contracting out some subsection of its work.
      The difficulty that we experience comes back to the question of whether to take an holistic view. Many Government Departments take an holistic perspective. They have targets set for them to which they work to achieve gains in efficiency. Once one starts to split up their activies it is much easier to identify the savings that might result from the contracting out of a particular service, but that does not allow one to measure, unless one makes a specific effort to do so, the diseconomies that result. In particular, it is not possible to identify, by any method that is known so far, the diseconomies that come from a loss of flexibility, team work or morale.
      It seems to me that, if we intend to go further down the road of contracting out and market testing, someone has to play that wider role to provide information to the House. That is why, in the new clause, I am proposing that, for Northern Ireland, the Comptroller and

      365
      Auditor-General should regularly produce reports on all those activities that are not contracted out, in order that we may make that assessment.
      I am convinced that the Government are concentrating on that which is easily calculable at the expense of that which it is more difficult to assess, but where the costs of this policy are far greater. So, in effect, even where we are achieving some short-term, limited gains, overall the picture is a loss. I know that Conservative Members will dispute that. The problem is that at the moment we do not have the evidence to establish which of us is correct.
      I therefore believe that the new clause should be supported as the only way in which that can be done.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the fact that this new clause has been tabled, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) for moving it. It is particularly useful to have a clause of this nature specifically relating to Northern Ireland and imposing a duty to make reports to the House with regard to any delegations under the legislation. I hope that the hon. Member will forgive the reference to the drafting of the new clause, but I assume that it would also have to cover not just a delegation under the Bill but a delegation under any Order in Council that might be made under the existing clause 3 of the Bill, because the coverage of the new clause might not be effective without it. With permission, therefore, I will address the duty to report with regard to functions delegated under any Order in Council yet to be made or foreshadowed by clause 3.
      It is particularly useful to have this obligation to account, because one of the concerns that we have had about the legislation—we went into this to some extent in Committee—is on the question of accountability. I suggested during the third sitting of the Committee that there were some special problems in accountability with regard to Northern Ireland because of the somewhat different administrative and legal structure that exists there. We made a very brief reference in Committee, where I used a form of shorthand, and it might be helpful to the House if I set out in a bit more detail what I think the situation there is and what the problems might be.
      One of the problems stems from the fact that we still have in existence the legal structures for devolution. It may be paradoxical that a Government so opposed to devolution should retain in existence the legal structures for devolution, but that is the situation.
      Originally, by which I mean under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, we had devolution establishing what were called "Ministries" and "Ministers". Clearly, Ministers ran Ministries. Under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the term "Ministry" was transmuted into "Department" and it also created the concept of "head of Department". The Head of Department to be set up under that legislation was to take the place of a Minister. It caused a little confusion in Committee when I used the term "head of Department" as the Minister did not recognise it—it was a new term invented by a previous Conservative Government to provide a different name for a Minister. Therefore, heads of Departments are Ministers, and I use the phrase as a type of shorthand.
      The point that I made in Committee was that the persons who sit on the Front Bench and who are called
      366
      Ministers with regard to Northern Ireland are not Ministers for the purpose of devolution in Northern Ireland. Of course, we have the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments, the latter being run by heads of Departments. There was provision under the 1973 Act for heads of Departments under the devolutionary structures which no longer exist. The Northern Ireland Act 1974 provides that the functions of heads of Departments are now to be discharged by Departments.
      I was slightly in error on that point in Committee because I referred to the function being discharged by permanent secretaries, but the legislation in fact states that the function of a head of Department is discharged by the Department, not by the Minister. The 1974 Act also provides that the Departments are to act under the direction and control of the Secretary of State but that does not refer to the Ministers. There are other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and they may be assigned functions by the Secretary of State but they are not heads of Department.
      I felt that that could cause some difficulty with this form of legislation. In Northern Ireland we used to have a Civil Service Department. It exercised the sort of control which in Great Britain is exercised by the Treasury over the civil service. Under the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, the functions of the Civil Service Department were transferred to the Department of Finance and Personnel.Those functions being transferred by the 1982 order were the "management and control" of the civil service.
      In this context, management and control must clearly relate to the type of functions to which this legislation refers. It will be interesting to know the exact form in which the Order in Council is drafted and by whom the delegation is to be made. Although the Northern Ireland Act 1974 states that the function of Departments when discharging the work of the head of Department is to be done under the "direction and control" of the Secretary of State, the term "control" must have a slightly different meaning to the term as it is used in the Departments Order with regard to the functions of the civil service and of the Department of Finance and Personnel with regard to the management and control of the civil service.
      Clause 1(1) states:
      "This section applies to any function delegated by Her Majesty with regard to the management of Her Majesty's
      Home Civil Service".
      The equivalent provision when it comes in the Northern Ireland Order in Council will presumably have to refer to functions presently discharged by the Department of Finance and Personnel, and presumably provision will be made for them to be delegated to other persons in the civil service hierarchy or to heads of agencies. There may still be overall political responsibility through the Secretary of State and the provision of the 1974 order for him to exercise or to give direction and control, but in that context "control" must have a slightly different meaning from that used in the Departments Order and the functions that are to be delegated.
      That raises questions about accountability. It is all very well to say that there will continue to be accountability through the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State has a general power to give directions to the Departments and the Departments have the management functions—not the Secretary of State or the Ministers—and it will be further delegated to the heads of agencies. That means that

      367
      there are two or perhaps more steps between the political accountability through the Secretary of State to the House. That raises serious questions of accountability. I therefore welcome the new clause, because it would provide for an additional or better way to ensure accountability.
      Another reason why it is desirable that this new clause be accepted and to reinforce the measure of control and accountability which the House could exercise with regard to delegation under the legislation is a special factor operating for Northern Ireland. That special factor is that the Northern Ireland Office, and the Departments which shelter under its wing, is unique among all the Departments of State of the United Kingdom in that it is the only Department for which the House has not established a Select Committee to scrutinise and monitor its functions.
      That means that there is already a tremendous gap in accountability for Northern Ireland matters. Northern Ireland matters are remote not only geographically but in terms of the involvement of the House through such a Committee. The unique gap in the accountability for Northern Ireland matters means that there is a strong argument for a provision along the lines outlined in the new clause. I hasten to add that it is very much second or perhaps even third best, because any reports that are to be made to the House by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland will merely give us information. The function of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is directed mainly to what could be called financial probity. It will not provide the proper scrutiny and control of policy, which is what we miss, especially because of the absence of a Select Committee. For those two reasons, it is desirable to have the new clause.
      I must also refer to what could be regarded as the substance behind the new clause. At Second Reading and in Committee I expressed concern about the way in which powers to delegate functions under this legislation could be used. Despite repeated use in Committee of the phrase that salary and other matters could be set with regard to "local labour markets", the Minister did not allay my concerns about the way in which the legislation may develop.
      It is not a concern which is unique to Northern Ireland. It can apply to other geographical Departments within the United Kingdom, the other Departments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dismissively referred to in the autumn statement as "the territories", meaning Wales and Scotland. The same problems can arise there and, indeed, in other parts of England. Certainly we are delegating in what the Chancellor referred to as "the territories", so local labour markets could have a significant influence on the way in which salaries and conditions are determined in future.
      The Minister sometimes felt that I was unnecessarily worried about that. I hope that he was right. I did not feel entirely reassured by what he said about the Government's policy. As hon. Members will know, throughout our debate on the Bill it has been felt—certainly by my colleagues—that the Government have a hidden agenda for the legislation, that it is not as innocent as it appears and that it may even be seen in retrospect as an important building block in a larger scheme which has yet to unfold.
      368
      That is why there are considerable reservations about the legislation, which have not been allayed by the debate so far. Our reservations lead us to believe that measures to reinforce accountability and supervision are necessary. In Committee, the Minister said that he would be prepared to make a form of annual report to the House on the operation of the legislation. Has the Minister been able to think in more detail about the form and content of that annual report? We tossed out some ideas and discussed them briefly in Committee and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Perhaps he can spell out the details of that annual report, because it is important that the House receives information about its operation.
      If new clause 2 were incorporated in the Bill, that information would be provided. It is for that reason and for the other reasons that I have mentioned that I support the new clause. I have referred to the absence of the Select Committee and to the slightly different legal and constitutional structure in Northern Ireland. Those matters should be addressed, and I do not apologise for referring to them once more.
      Because of the way in which the Bill is drafted, after tonight the legislation, so far as it affects Northern Ireland, cannot be discussed. We have not yet had the substantive Northern Ireland measure. That will come in the Order in Council provided in clause 3. We do not know the precise form that that order will take. As I said earlier, there may be slight differences between the Order in Council and the Bill, but we will be denied a debate on the Northern Ireland measure because of clause 3.
      That is why I hope that the Minister will now be able to address the different constitutional and legal structures in Northern Ireland to which I referred in Committee. I must add that I have received a letter today from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. Now that I think about it, I have covered all the points in the letter. There is no need for me to read the letter into the record.
      I hope that the Minister is now apprised of the slightly different structures in Northern Ireland because of what was said in Committee and presumably because he has taken further advice on the matter. I hope that he will understand my concern. The functions of management and control of the civil service in Northern Ireland rest not with the Secretary of State or with Ministers, but with the Departments even though they are subject to direction from the Secretary of State. The Bill will delegate from the Departments down to other persons. That raises issues which the new clause seeks to address and that is why I support it.
      8 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): We had a useful discussion in Committee on a similar amendment related to the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Great Britain. New clause 2 relates to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. I will talk principally about him, as I do not wish to be ruled out of order.
      Just as we argued in Committee that it was necessary to add to the Bill in this way, so I will argue now that it is not necessary to add to the Bill the proposed role for the CAG for Northern Ireland. As I pointed out in Committee, the Bill has no effect on the existing powers of the CAG for

      369
      Northern Ireland or for Great Britain, on the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General in general or on the Public Accounts Committee.
      The CAG for Northern Ireland has powers under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921—I give the precise reference for the benefit of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—to audit the accounts of Northern Ireland Departments. I do not believe that that position has been changed by the examples in the hon. Gentleman's graphic and interesting comments.
      Under the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, the CAG for Northern Ireland can conduct studies in economies, efficiency and effectiveness with which Northern Ireland Departments have used resources in discharging their functions. He can also report to Parliament. As I will argue in relation to the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) the CAG for Northern Ireland already has powers to deal with the considerations that he raised.
      The Bill will not affect those powers of the CAG for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Upper Bann made some interesting points about accountability and the exercise of that accountability in relation to the House. We will have an opportunity to discuss the annual report on a later amendment. I reaffirm that accountability through the Comptroller and Auditor General route is not affected by the Bill. Delegation under the Bill will be within Northern Ireland civil service structures, whether to Departments or to agencies. The Comptroller and Auditor-General in Northern Ireland will therefore be able in future, as he is now, to report the results of any examinations of delegated functions to Parliament.
      I accept what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said about the different terminology, but senior staff, whether we are talking about accounting officers or agency accounting officers, may appear before the PAC to give evidence in future as now.
      Let me reaffirm that the Government consider strong independent audit essential to ensuring the public accountability of the Northern Ireland civil service. If the diseconomies that the hon. Member for Govan fears arise, they will be picked up, as they would be now, by the Comptroller and Auditor General and brought before us.
      The hon. Member for Govan asked for an assurance about the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I reaffirm what I said in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a commitment that he will take a suitable legislative opportunity when it arises and that that matter will be dealt with then.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I did not mean to interrupt the flow of the Minister's eloquent speech, but he referred to the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am sure that our colleagues from Northern Ireland would be fascinated by the situation in the PAC yesterday.
      The Welsh Development Agency came before the Committee at the behest of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but a key witness in allegations against the management of the WDA had already been nobbled by the officials against whom he was making the allegations, as he was tied down with a £250,000 redundancy package, including a secrecy clause which precluded him from talking about his work at the WDA. When the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General went to see him,he
      370
      pointed out that he stood to lose £64,000 of his money if he were to tell them what he really would have liked to tell them.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be making a speech and not an intervention.
      Mr. Alan Williams: All I can say—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that we have had enough from the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Jackson: I have read the press accounts and I was disturbed by them. However, I do not believe that the problem arises in relation to the clause about Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that there may be difficulties under the present arrangements for the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the Bill makes no difference to the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General, whether in the United Kingdom as a whole, in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland.
      We believe that there should be a strong independent audit. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has an important role, which is not affected by the Bill. The supporters of the new clause must show why the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which I have said he already has, are insufficient. They have not tried to explain why the Comptroller and Auditor-General in Northern Ireland—and not in Great Britain—should be compelled and obliged by statute to report on all delegations made under the Bill.
      That is highly unrealistic, particularly when we consider the nature and nitty-gritty of many of the delegations which we discussed in Committee. Some of the delegations may have little or no public expenditure implications. Is the Comptroller and Auditor-General in Northern Ireland to waste his time reporting on them?
      The sensible approach must be to continue investigations under the existing powers. Insisting on investigations for each delegation could lead to a great waste of National Audit Office resources, weaken the power to investigate where there is real cause for concern, and therefore weaken the accountability that we all agree is important.
      Mr. Davidson: Given the Minister's assurance that the Chancellor will table amendments in due course, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      ANNUAL REPORT
      'An annual report of the delegation of functions under this Act shall be made to Parliament by the Minister responsible for the Office of Public Service and Science.'.—[Ms. Mowlam.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker:The hon. Member's name is not on the list of those who signed the new clause, so it will need to be moved formally by an hon. Member on the list.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the new clause be read a Second time.—[Ms. Mowlam.]
      Mr. Morgan: I should explain why a member of the Labour Welsh Front Bench rather than a member of the

      371
      Labour citizens charter Front Bench has opened the debate on a new clause on the need for an annual report by the Minister for the civil service, public service and science. It is fairly easy to explain the matter to anyone who has, like me, been a civil servant—and subsequently a Member for a Welsh constituency—for more years than I care to remember.
      If a unit within the civil service was relatively self-contained, it means that it was relatively easy to disperse to areas such as Scotland and Wales—sometimes referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the territories. If those units were relatively easy to disperse because they were self-contained, it was relatively easy to delegate their functions. Therefore, in the eye of the storm, to a degree that might not have occurred to those Conservative Members who represent more the "have" rather than the "have not" areas—although I can see some exceptions on the Government Back Benches. [Interruption.] I was about to concede the point; I had not spotted the hon. Member for Lanbaurgh (Mr. Bates). I concede that there are areas in the north-east of England which are in the same "have not" category.
      As far back as the 1960s, it was common for Governments, especially Labour Governments, to disperse the relatively self-contained, operational management aspects of the civil service to such areas. I recall the initiative taken by Lady Castle when she was the Secretary of State for Transport—if that was the title at that time —to set up, in the early days of mass computerisation when the Government tended to take those initiatives in advance of the private sector, the driver and vehicle licensing centre in Llangyfelach just outside Swansea. I was about to say that, if the Minister could pronounce Llangyfelach, I would advise the Labour party not to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, but I know that that would be too easy a win for the Labour party.
      Some of us have a particularly soft spot for Llangyfelach, partly because we have family connections in the area and partly because of the famous story told by Max Boyce about a Welsh rugby fan talking to an American fan who was standing next to him at a rugby match. The American fan asked the Welsh fan where he came from, and he said Llangyfelach. When the American turned away, the Welsh fan's friend said that he should have explained a bit more about it, because the American was probably from California. The Welsh fan then turned to the American fan and said, "I am sorry, I did not explain to you. I am from Llangyfelach, which is two miles from Morriston." For some of us, "two miles from Morriston" is all the explanation that we need.
      In the 1960s and 1970s, as a result of the initiatives taken by both Labour and Conservative Governments under the Fleming plan and the Hardman initiatives, many of the easily delegated and dispersed self-contained aspects of the civil service were dispersed. In south Wales one thinks of the Business Statistics Office, the Export Credit Guarantees Department insurance services department in Newport, Group Two and Companies House in Cardiff. Those are the classic areas of the civil service that we are talking about as the most subject and prone to delegation under the powers sought in the Bill. That is why the people in the outer areas of great Britain, the territories, including the north-east of England, although the Chancellor would
      372
      not call that area a territory, want additional protection built in to ensure that the Government are clear in their own minds about delegation before we can possibly concede the powers to them.
      Additional protection is needed, or the jobs in the relatively self-contained operational management aspects of the civil service will be put at risk and the Government will act on ideology: "Get rid of them. Delegate them. Put them into agencies. Disperse the management functions. Take away the parliamentary accountability." Obviously, the Government have pursued the strategy of politicising the upper levels of the civil service and removing parliamentary accountability from the lower and middle levels.
      8.15 pm
      Those of us who represent constituents in which large numbers of people work in specific units in the civil service, in the eye of the storm in the row about what the Government have in mind in the delegation of functions, put the matter high on our agenda. That is why we have tabled new clause 3. It is a simple but important two-line clause to ensure some protection for our constituents and the customers of the service.
      We are not against flexibility in the line between direct parliamentary accountability and the delegation to the lowest level possible of as much management freedom in the civil service to take initiatives that result in a better service, lower costs and a better job. We want to give civil service management the powers and incentive to do the job better. We are not happy with the Kafkaesque, hall of mirrors, fairyland world of pseudo-privatisation into which the Government want us to plunge without any of the necessary parliamentary protection, which we obviously cannot afford to see happen.
      In 1988 the Government set up next steps agencies. Some of them will be turned into trading funds, as happened in 1991 with Companies House, which is next door to my constituency. The trading fund is then led to a further strategy and ownership review, which is being undertaken at present. Once again, that will destabilise Companies House, which will possibly have three changes of management structure in three years. That is why we want additional protection provided in the Bill.
      We have seen the introduction of contractorisation. Naval dockyards and atomic weapons establishments—there is one next door to my constituency—have been affected by contractorisation. The training and enterprise councils carry out some of those functions. Where is the operational responsibility for the functions carried out by the TECs? Are the TECs quangos? They are not listed as quangos.
      Mr. Michael Bates: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that training and enterprise councils, especially the one in Teesside, do an excellent job in promoting business and developing opportunities for young people in some of the less prosperous areas of the country? Those training and enterprise councils are directly accountable to the Secretary of State for Employment and the Minister of State, Department of Employment.
      Mr. Morgan: I thank the hon. Member for Langbaurgh for raising that matter. He has made precisely the same point as I did. I am not commenting on the merits or demerits of individual TECs or the TEC system as a whole.

      373
      I am saying that the Government have not yet defined a TEC. Is a TEC a quango? I do not know whether the hon. Member thinks that he knows the answer. Normally, the definition of a quango is whatever the Secretary of State in the Department says is a quango. The other definition is that quangos should appear in "Public Bodies". Normally, the new addition of "Public Bodies" is published about now.
      I had hoped that we would have the benefit of a copy of "Public Bodies 1992" before this debate started to see whether some of the mess in the Government's mind about the form of some of the halfway houses between delegated functions in the civil service, quangos, and trading fund bodies. If "Public Bodies 1992" had come out, TECs might be in there. I can tell the Minister that, although the TECs were set up in 1990, they are not listed in "Public Bodies 1991". I shall look with great interest to see whether Companies House is in "Public Bodies 1992", because it was set up on a trading fund basis in 1991 and is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General as if it were a quango. However, I understand that it is not defined as such.
      All that produces uncertainty and instability. The Labour party is against that uncertainty and instability, but favours flexibility. Flexibility gives people high morale in the civil service and gives them an incentive to offer suggestions on how their jobs can be done better, at lower costs or by providing a wider or better service.
      That is the spirit that the citizens charter is supposed to embody. However, I am afraid that the Government want to destabilise the civil service simply because anything that is given the label of private sector is seen as good straight out of "Animal Farm"—and anything that is in the public service is seen as bad: "If it moves, privatise it." If it does not move, kick it until it moves. We believe that that is unhealthy. That is why we want the additional protection built in of a requirement that there must be an annual report.
      We are dealing with muddy waters. We are dealing with five or six aspects half way between privatisation and public service. We do not believe that that is fair to the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the civil service, particularly where there is high unemployment. Such people cannot walk out of jobs if their civil service job is privatised or their Department is converted into an agency or trading fund. If they lose their job, they cannot walk into another job.
      The civil service is an extremely important employer in Wales. That is why we do not believe that the muddy waters created by the Government have yet been sufficiently clarified for us to say to the Government, "Fine, you know what you are doing. Go ahead. You do not need to report back to Parliament every year." It is essential that the Government should be able to demonstrate to Parliament every year that they have clarified in their own mind which bodies should be next steps agencies, which should be trading funds and why, and which should be like the TECs—delegated companies limited by guarantee but not allowed to make a profit. They should clarify which bodies should be ready for privatisation while the Government have a majority committed to that course of action, and why.
      The Government must explain to Parliament every year why they have chosen a certain slot from all the hallway houses. I give an example from close to my constituency of where the Government have not clarified in their own
      374
      mind just how much financial and managerial autonomy they wish to give to a body. I shall omit references to the DVLC at Swansea because I see two Swansea Members in the Chamber who might try to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      In 1988 Companies House became a next steps agency and in 1991 it became a trading fund. It now has a dummy board of directors, as if it were a private company, called a steering board. What is a steering board? Has the Minister for the civil service ever explained to this House or the other place what it is and what it is supposed to do? I do not believe that he has.
      A steering board can bring in people from the private sector. The senior directors of Companies House can take directorships in other companies, so they can say that they are almost in the private sector. But Parliament was never told that. If there were a requirement to make an annual report, the Government would have to say what they were doing with Companies House and why.
      Problems can arise. For the first time ever, the directors of public sector bodies with statutory responsibilities—which can give criminal records to directors who are late in filing their accounts—can sit on the boards of private companies. How are those private companies regulated? The directors of Companies House could give a criminal record to directors of a company when they too sit on the board of that company.
      You might think that I am giving a fictitious example, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me read out a letter from the companies registrar dated 12 June 1992 to the legal department of Bovis Homes Ltd. The letter refers to some six companies including Chiswick Green Management Ltd. and Devonhurst Management (Offices) Ltd., which are subsidiaries of Bovis Homes. Bovis Homes is a large company which is a subsidiary of P and O.
      The letter says:
      "Thank you for your letter of 10 June about the problems you are facing in filing accounts for the above companies. As the accounts for these companies are already overdue, there is no provision for an extension of time to be granted. However, if I can have your assurance that the outstanding accounts will be delivered no later than 14 August 1992, I am prepared to delay prosecution action against individual directors for this period.
      You should, however, be aware that each set of accounts delivered late after 1 July will be subject to a late filing penalty which is mandatory and payable on demand."
      That implies that a criminal record could be given to the legal directors and other directors of Bovis Homes.
      The letter from David Durham, the registrar of companies, to M. J. Platt of the legal department of Bovis Homes is interesting. The number two in charge at Companies House has also been a director of Bovis Homes since last year. That is a classic conflict of interest problem which should be reported to Parliament every year. The Government should say, "These are the difficulties that we have had in attempting to make Companies House act in a more businesslike way. It sounds fine in theory, but occasionally there are problems in practice." Conflict of interest problems will arise in practice.
      One might almost have expected a postscript to Mr. Durham's letter saying, "My number two will see you at the board meeting and I hope that he will not see you somewhere else as a guest of Her Majesty after that." Such problems should be reported to Parliament every year. The Minister would do so if he took his job seriously and acted

      375
      not out of ideology but in an attempt to solve the practical problems of giving incentives to the civil service to make itself more efficient every year.
      Instead, the Minister merely utters guttural grunts that everything that has the word "private" attached to it is good and everything that has "public" attached to it is fuddy-duddy, old-fashioned and no use to anyone. That is why we are in favour of a flexible line between public sector, normal civil service management and the new forms of management, provided that they are explained to Parliament every year and we receive a report on the practical problems that arise. On behalf of the taxpayer we could then certify that the civil service did its job properly, with all its statutory duties and powers to give people criminal records or impose fines on them. Parliament gives such bodies those powers.
      It is not just about business. An annual report would preserve the morale of civil servants so that they felt part of a team and were not destabilised by the Governmenet"s ideological commitment to privatisation.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I congratulate him on his ability to catch things that fall from lorries. I thought that we were pretty good at that in Swansea, because we received the memorandum from the chief executive, but my hon. Friend scores the best total for things falling into his hands.
      I take issue with my hon. Friend on only a few points. First, he said that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was in Llangyfelach. It is not. It is in Clase, within the boundaries of the city of Swansea. I think that the reason why he said that it was in Llangyfelach was that he had a good joke about it. Secondly, he had great faith that the annual report which we hope will be published will reveal all that he wants it to reveal. He did not give credit to the Government or the civil service for the possibility of obfuscation.
      The civil service and the Government could well produce a report which gave bare details but not the detailed information that my hon. Friend seeks, which could open the way to genuine probing by Parliament. Having said that, I agree that the new clause is important. In the light of what the Minister said in Committee, I believe that my hon. Friend is probably pushing at an open door. The new clause strikes at the heart of the question whether the new bodies can be made accountable to Parliament and the public.
      Worrying things are happening in the civil service, partly, alas, because of the one-party rule that has prevailed in the past decade or so. Civil servants realise that the pathway to promotion means dancing to the tune of a Government who have been increasingly ideological, in the Orwellian sense which my hon. Friend described. Civil servants have been increasingly politicised during that time. The more powers are delegated by the Government, the less they are within the searchlight of Parliament.
      If there is a report, Parliament should be able to keep some sort of check on what is being done. No one is saying that there should not be as much efficiency as possible in the civil service or that people's comfort should be disturbed regularly by a comparison with outside sectors.
      376
      We are concerned that the Government have a hidden agenda—they think that private is good and public is bad —and they will push the civil service along that continuum.
      8.30 pm
      Discrete areas, such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea, are not at the core of the Department of Transport. Therefore, the Department has no loyalty to them. We fear that, when a highly ideological Government with a politicised civil service says—perhaps in rhetoric at a party conference—that we must privatise X number of jobs in the civil service, it is obvious that jobs that do not form part of the core will be thrown overboard because senior members of the service have no loyalty to them. Such areas have already been the objects of dispersal policy.
      By seeking to fatten various parts of the civil service for market as part of their privatisation policy, the Government are undermining the regional policy that various Governments have pursued with some success. We have some good examples in Swansea: hence the presence of my right hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We have benefited from the positive aspects of dispersal policy.
      The vehicle inspectorate in Swansea is in danger of losing jobs as a result of Government policy to go ahead with privatisation. As a result of the decision to privatise by January 1994, there is a danger that jobs will also be lost at the Driver, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology Directorate, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, and it may be sold to a foreign buyer. There is certainly a danger that it will be moved from the Swansea area, which has high unemployment. The jewel in the crown is the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is at Clase and not at Llangyfelach.
      Civil servants are wary of public scrutiny, want to go ahead on their own with a complacent Government and want to present other regional Ministers with fait accompli at the end of their deliberations. I invite the Minister to read and re-read the document by the chief executive at the DVLA, which so happily fell off the back of a lorry. Had it not done so, and had it not fallen into the hands of civil servants, it would have continued on its course within the Department of Transport and would have been presented as a fait accompli to the Secretary of State for Wales in February or March.
      The issue affects job prospects in an area of high unemployment. Can the Minister deny that, in the normal course of events, had the document not been made public by a civil servant, the regional Minister would have been brought in after decisions had already been taken? Happily, the Secretary of State for Wales is aware of the danger, thanks to a public-spirited civil servant. He knows how vital the DVLA is, as it underpins the economy of Swansea and the sub-region. He can make representations to the Government. Had that not been the case, there would not have been any serious discussion of the matter.
      The danger is that civil servants consider such issues on tramlines. The Government ask them to find ways to economise. They know that the pathway to promotion is by feeding the Government what they want in terms of privatisation, so they consider ways to privatise and will seek to ignore public opinion.

      377
      I shall quote to the Minister the words of Mr. Curtis, the chief executive at Swansea, who said at the end of his consultation document:
      "given the close links between unions at DVLC and local MPs, it would be likely to lead to Parliamentary Questions and requests to meet Ministers."
      That might disturb our quiet life or stand in the way of the juggernaut of privatisation, which would lead to the loss of jobs in Swansea and would leave a white elephant there in the form of a large building. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West has costed that and perhaps he will give us the figures.
      To return to the problem of narrow accountancy, civil servants consider how an issue will affect their department or a sector within it. It may make sense—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, he seems fairly wide of new clause 3. Could he focus his argument on the new clause?
      Mr. Anderson: I am seeking to give a significant local example of what might be avoided if the searchlight of knowledge comes to the House as a result of the annual report. I shall continue with my example and then conclude.
      I hope that the Minister will agree that essentially the Government must consider wider issues, which include job prospects. At DVLA, job prospects would have been totally ignored had the matter followed the course that the chief executive wanted. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West might be accused, like Cato, of travelling around the streets mentioning DVLA again and again and perhaps of sickening Ministers, but we shall continue to do so because we want them to know that the matter is vitally significant to jobs in our constituency and in the sub-region. We fear that they would have ignored that fact. We want the wider employment implications to be considered fully. We know that they would not have been considered and we appeal to the Minister to ensure that that happens.
      Parliamentarians will only be able to do their job, Madam Deputy Speaker, by opening such developments to public scrutiny and by giving as much notice as possible about the nature of delegations and the conditions under which they are given in an annual report. Essentially, we are meant to represent our constituents and to give Ministers some idea of where the shoe pinches and of the local effects of decisions taken at a high level, which affect people's lives.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I apologise for the length of my earlier intervention and I add only that if you thought that was a speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, you should hear me when I make a speech. However, I do not intend to prevail on your good will, because I value it too highly.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) raised a serious issue, which is at the heart of the relationship between the Executive, the Government, and Parliament. It is the essence of the concept of accountability. It is inevitable that the further down the line responsibility is passed—however sensible and logical that may be in administrative terms—the further the Minister, and thus the House of Commons, move from accountability.
      Earlier, the Minister said that he saw the Public Accounts Committee as playing a key role in maintaining accountability. I want to try to show the clash between
      378
      what the Minister claims the Bill will sustain—accountability to Parliament—and the reality of administrative devolution, which will not only take decisions away, but convolute the lines of communication.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) spoke of the DVLA. The Minister will know from debates in Committee that the DVLA is close to the heart of hon. Members from my district. We were alarmed at the civil service internal document that stated that the information should be kept from Ministers because they might use their rights to call on Ministers to be accountable. The civil servants say that they do not want us to be able to ask Ministers about their decisions and recommendations, as that could be inconvenient. It is difficult to reconcile that with what the Minister has been trying to tell us about sustaining accountability.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East also made a valid point about costing. However, the more one delegates and fragments, the more difficult it is to achieve direct financial accountability. If the decision to get rid of 3,000 jobs at the DVLA in Swansea is acted on, the DVLA would be able to say that its costs had been reduced by £40 million a year as it was no longer employing those people. Its representatives can pat themselves on the back and say that it was a good decision. They do not have to explain to anyone that the cost of those 3,000 people being out of work would, according to the latest Department of Employment figures, be about £27 million a year. The £27 million does not fall within their remit, and they are not accountable to their Ministers for it. The Treasury, the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security—through lost national insurance contributions —will bear the cost.
      One problem of the new clause is that it does not go wide enough. It refers to "the Minister responsible". In the case of DVLA, which Minister is accountable? Is it the one whose Department suffers the loss of national insurance income? Is it the one whose Department loses income tax? Is it the one whose Department pays unemployment benefit? The one Minister that it is not is the Minister to whom the DVLA is accountable, and who is accountable to the House. Therefore, costs are created and jobs lost, but the Minister responsible for those consequences is not accountable.
      In the confidential document, the head of the DVLA said that the building would become a white elephant. The building cost more than £60 million when it was new and, according to a letter sent to me by the Minister for Public Transport, its depreciated value is now about £35 million. However, there is no accounting for white elephants. That sounds flippant, but it is true. Nobody has to account for the loss of the capital value of those premises.
      Even the Minister accountable for the DVLA could come to the House and say that his Department had saved £40 million on labour costs, while ignoring the unemployment costs, for which someone else had responsibility. However, nobody has to come here to explain how £35 million worth of assets have been completely written off. Where is the accountability in that? How does the Minister explain that in terms of bringing delegated authority closer to the House? Virtually the only sector for which there would be some accountability would be the £76 million of redundancy payments that would have to be made to those declared unemployed.

      379
      8.45 pm
      The process of fragmentation and delegation inevitably makes it more difficult to monitor the position. Even Ministers find it more difficult to do so. We accept that Ministers are meant to come to the House wearing the metaphorical sackcloth, and say, "The deed was done by John Evans in the sub-office in Llanelli, but I stand here at the Box and accept full responsibility for it." We know that the Minister involved does not bear full responsibility. Very often, he or she does not even recognise responsibility for it.
      The Minister referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Recently, the Comptroller and Auditor-General identified errors in the accounts of the Development Board for Rural Wales, and qualified those accounts. The Minister—and certainly his permanent secretary as the accounting officer—will understand how serious it is for accounts to be qualified.
      The Public Accounts Committee had an acrimonious meeting with the accounting officers for both the Welsh Office and the Development Board for Rural Wales. However, within a couple of weeks of that acrimonious exchange over the shortcomings of the chairman who was responsible for the package that led to the irregularity, the Secretary of State for Wales did the very opposite of apologising to the House. The Secretary of State should have apologised, said that the incident should never have happened and that, even though it happened to someone delegated to act in his name, he accepted responsibility.
      Instead, the Secretary of State said that he did not care what the Public Accounts Committee said or whether there was a motion on the Order Paper asking for the chairman to be sacked. The Secretary of State promptly reappointed the chairman for three years. Where is the accountability there? Where is Parliament's power? It is bad enough if the organisations to which the power is delegated try to conceal information, but it is worse if they are doing so with the compliance and apparent endorsement of Ministers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Morgan) mentioned another example of how information is concealed from Ministers as well as Parliament. The matter was raised only yesterday in the Public Accounts Committee in relation to another organisation. The Minister for Public Transport is aware of yesterday's hearing in relation to the Welsh Development Agency. One of his colleagues, who has been on the Public Accounts Committee for many more years than me, said that the WDA report was the worst that he had come across in 20 years in the House. However, nothing will happen to the people responsible.
      When the permanent secretary to the Welsh Office was asked who would discipline those people, he said that it would not be him or the Secretary of State. He was asked who would exert discipline within the WDA. Obviously, it would not be the members of the board, as they had all been in on the spoils. They had all been enjoying private mileage in cars paid for by the taxpayer. They were all in the affair together. Where is the accountability there?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Where is the relationship with the new clause that we are supposed to be debating? Will the right hon. Gentleman focus his argument on it?
      Mr. Williams: I thought that I was doing precisely that, but I apologise for my lack of clarity. I was criticising the new clause, which lays down that the Minister responsible should produce an annual report. My point was that in this case the Minister responsible, the Secretary of State for Wales, far from bringing the matter to the attention of the House of Commons, condoned it and kicked the House in the teeth by saying that he would reappoint for another three years the people who had committed the misdemeanour.
      I do not want to try your patience too far, Madam Deputy Speaker—
      Mr. Morgan: Christmas spirit.
      Mr. Williams: Indeed. Many good things go with Christmas.
      Yesterday we learned that officials had mounted an operation named, appropriately enough for this season, Operation Wizard. As far as we can gather, the WDA had employed consultants at huge fees which were then concealed in the accounts. The operation has never been publicly declared. Allegedly, it involved enabling the agency to develop a management buy-out of part of its operations. That is known as taking delegation to its extreme. It is not the Minister who is opening this back door; it is the people with the delegated power who are trying to open it with a jemmy and take public assets out through it.
      They planned to use public funds to carry out consultancy work on the feasibility of the project and set themselves up with a nice little number to take over some of the profitable operations, to run them as a privatised concern—all things which the Minister has said could never happen. The process runs as follows: delegation, subordination to a quango, then the step out the back door into a private entity with no accountability.
      I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to my remarks, as he did in Committee, and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your good will.
      Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has said, we feel that we are pushing at an open door in this matter, because in Committee the Minister gave a commitment to make an annual report to Parliament on the delegations that had been made. We are interested not just in the list of such delegations but in the parameters and conditions attached to them. We are interested in scrutiny and in ethical values, and as my hon. Friends have repeatedly said, we are interested in accountability.
      When asked these questions in Committee, the Minister said:
      "the hon. Member is asking fair questions that I have not considered at this stage."
      We do hope that he has considered them by now, and that he has some answers.
      The Minister also said:
      "I see no objection to the idea that the report to Parliament should specify the person to whom delegations are made." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 November 1992; c. 56–57.]
      We should like these two points clarified, if possible.
      As the Government move towards a greater public/private mix in the civil service—a Treasury Minister has said that that is the ultimate aim—so the distinctions between the two sectors become blurred. Although both are working to serve the consumer, the lines of

      381
      accountability and the ethos of the civil service can get muddied in this process. It would be useful if the Minister could give us some information tonight about a matter affecting his Department.
      It would be useful to know, for instance, whether Sir Peter Levene's appointment was a public one. I presume that he was appointed by Francis Maude, and he now works directly to the Secretary of State and is responsible for the efficiency unit and for purchasing. If his was a public appointment, what is his salary? That information should be in the public domain. Is it calculated on a pro-rata basis along the lines of the salary of a pennanent secretary? The case of Sir Peter exhibits the sort of difficulties about the culture and ethos of the civil service that concern us. He has, after all, a direct line to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister.
      We should also like to ask some questions about Sir Peter's powers. He is chairman of the docklands light railway. One would not want to make the connection, but in his role in the civil service efficiency unit, he suggested that civil servants should move to Canary wharf. Similarly, he is a vice-chairman and managing director of a merchant bank, Wasserstein Perella, but one would not want to connect his responsibilities at the bank—for mergers, acquisitions, advisory services, restructuring, re-capitalisation, takeovers and leveraged buy-outs—with his role in the efficiency unit and in the future of the civil service. It is this sort of grey area that we find confusing.
      Mr. Robert Jackson: I do not want to enter a competition to determine the location of the DVLA as between Clase and Llangefelach— [Interruption.] I have made a reasonable approximation of that pronunciation, but we shall have to listen to the tapes. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) seemed to be a little hazy about his geography. I noticed that he was rebuked by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), so he had better not interrupt from a sedentary position to correct my pronunciation—he had better find out where the place is first.
      We have had a rerun of the debate in Committee about the Government's commitment to dispersal policies and their compatibility with delegation. I repeat now what I said in Committee: the Government remain committed to dispersal policy. It is one of a number of general central policies of Government which will continue irrespective of delegations under the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) asked about Sir Peter Levene. I shall have to write to her about the details, but I understand that he was appointed by the Prime Minister. There is a danger in the way that the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members speak; they give the impression that they do not believe that the experience of people from the private sector can be of use in the public sector. That is a great mistake. We in the public sector can learn a great deal from the experience of people from the private sector. Quite often, the people concerned voluntarily give of their time, sometimes at a low rate of remuneration, and there is an element of public service in that which should be acknowledged by all sides of the House.
      I am a little surprised at the debate. I know that it is the custom to stray wide, but we shall have an opportunity to return to many points on Third Reading. Not one of the instances mentioned by Opposition Members related to
      382
      management functions covered by the Bill. By definition, the annual report will contain nothing relevant to the points that were made.
      I take this opportunity to say a few words about leaking and falling off the back of a lorry. The hon. Member for Swansea, East spoke as though it were a matter of credit for somebody to acquire property that had fallen off the back of a lorry. Governments of both parties have for many years accepted that civil servants have a duty to serve the Government of the day. If government is to be conducted properly, it is important, in the interests of everybody, that the Government can have confidence in their ability to consider proposals and to make them public only when it is appropriate.
      It is not a question of undue secrecy. It is just important that all the options, including radical options, should be available to be considered. Many proposals are dropped as a result of consideration within Government. Opposition Members spoke about the effect on staff. I would simply say that a document was leaked, and that had an effect on the staff—and that is not a happy situation.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Clearly we could debate what is in the public interest. In my judgment, there is a strong argument for saying that when, in such a case, a document is produced by a civil servant that is of a highly political nature and which rules out all options save one—and that option would involve the destruction of 3,000 jobs in an area of high unemployment—there is a public interest in that issue being debated openly and fairly, rather than being presented to the regional Minister at the end of the day. The normal presumption against the leaking of such a document could be overriden when such considerations apply.
      9 pm
      Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is fair-minded and honourable, and I can see that he feels a bit defensive. It is right that he should feel defensive. If such a proposal were made, of course there should be an active debate. There would certainly be an active debate when right hon. and hon. Members of the calibre of those who represent the two Swansea constituencies are involved.
      The fact remains that no such proposal was made. It was simply raised for discussion within Government. I do not want to trespass on your patience and tolerance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I am instinctively with the Minister in his remarks, in that I do not favour the leaking of documents. Like the Minister, my colleagues and I have experience within Departments, and clearly certain rules must be observed. We do not want to disregard them.
      However, sometimes a different argument can be made than that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Sometimes, a situation arises involving an individual known today as a whistleblower. We had that only yesterday. The person blowing the whistle was doing so against the individual to whom he had to report if he had a complaint. What should the individual do in that situation? It is not a question of someone wilfully wanting to leak a confidential document or anything of that nature. In the case to which I refer, the individual wanted to make a complaint against the activities of senior management—but the line of complaint

      383
      was to the very senior management that was the subject of the individual's complaint. He had no other route to follow.
      Mr. Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman has extensive experience of Government; leaking was a problem when he was a member of a Government, and it remains a problem today. I emphasise that it tends to prejudice the ability of Government to give reasonable consideration to all the options if leaking occurs.
      The Opposition are seeking, through new clause 3, to formalise the promise of an annual report that I made on behalf of the Government in Committee. The Government's view, as I explained in Committee, is that promoting that promise to the face of the Bill is neither necessary nor desirable. I could say also that the amendment is inappropriately drafted, because it refers specifically to
      "the Office of Public Service and Science."
      It would cause considerable problems if that were on the face of the Bill and at some stage in the future, peradventure, that office were, as a result of changes in Government machinery, replaced by some other body. that is a good example of the inflexibility that arises from such an attempt to dot every "i" and cross every "t".
      Hon. Members are of course right to make great play of the importance of keeping the House informed of civil service management matters —although I am not sure that the House is always terribly interested. Perhaps the attendance tonight and at previous debates for which the Government have found time illustrates that. In principle, however, it is a fair point that we should keep the House informed—hence the promise that I made of a report on delegations by written answer.
      In fact, that would give the House more information about the management of the civil service than it has had before. According to the scenario constructed by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), delegation inevitably leads to the extension of the accountability chain, so that there is less and less accountability. I do not agree: I think that this occasion for delegation has led to the creation of an entirely new opportunity.
      All the next steps agencies operate within written and published frameworks of objectives and performance obligations. As the right hon. Gentleman made a point about chief executives, let me add that those frameworks include a clear statement of a chief executive's accountability to the Minister concerned. All that is spelt out much more clearly than the provisions normally found in civil service business units outside the agency framework. In short, accountability to Parliament, and the provision of information about the management of the civil service, have been extended.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West made a fair point when he identified the problem of being kept up to date with all the changes in the organisation of the civil service and public-service bodies, which are already happening and may increase in the future. I certainly undertake to examine the publication that the hon. Gentleman quoted —"Public Bodies"—and see whether it can be improved and extended to provide more information about the range of different bodies.
      384
      I recognise that, as the process of public service reform goes ahead, certain issues arise: following changes in the status of bodies, for instance, legal relationships require clarification. I shall examine that point for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that the report that the Opposition demand in new clause 3 would give him what he seeks. He cited the status of training and education councils, for instance; the legal position and accountability of TECs would have to be dealt with in a different way.
      The hon. Member for Redcar asked what we would put in the report. We would publish an annual list of delegations in the form of a written response to a parliamentary question. The list would specify the nature of delegations, and—the hon. Lady stressed this point particularly—the office of the recipients of delegations. It would include a summary of the main conditions where conditions were applicable.
      Obviously, hon. Members would have an opportunity to pursue matters in further detail. Where appropriate, they could pursue with the original recipient of a delegation, whether he was a Minister or an official—or with the central Department, which might be the Treasury or the Office of Public Service and Science—the granting of delegations and commissions. That would considerably extend the present availability of information, and I think that it would be very helpful.
      I do not think it necessary to apply such provisions to something that is on a statutory basis on the face of the Bill, referring to a specific Department whose status and name may change. After the initial rush of delegations, the torrent is likely to dry up—if there is a torrent—and many of the delegations that follow will be minor and specific.
      It will always be open to hon. Members to table parliamentary questions asking for information at shorter intervals than the annual process that I have described, or, indeed, to pursue matters of detail arising from the original answers. Those interested will have access to information when it is required, and when it will be useful to them and to the House.
      Ms. Mowlam: I welcome that answer. If the Government agreed to a freedom of information Bill, the problem of leaking and of where documents arrive would no longer be a problem. Let me put it on record that I wish to cause no offence to Sir Peter Levine—who, when I was on the Public Accounts Committee, was one of the most competent people who came before us in comparison to many of the other civil servants who were present. My point is very different: it relates to the mix of public, private and ethical accountability, which I think the Government are avoiding.
      In view of the specific points that the Minister has listed, I do not think that we shall secure the further accountability and ethical scrutiny that we want. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS
      Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I beg to move movement No. 5, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'as he thinks fit' and insert
      'as specified in Schedule consultation to this Act,'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 13, a new schedule— Consultation —
      1. Delegations made under this Act will give departments or agencies any powers to change the terms and conditions of civil servants without conforming to the normal processes of consultation with recognised trade unions and staff.
      2. The Act does not alter current arrangements for consultation or negotiation with the national unions specified in the national pay agreements with individual unions or in any other nationally agreed documents.
      3. Arrangements set out in this Schedule shall apply in other areas, ie where terms and conditions of service are not the subject of formal written national agreements, and where it has in the past been the practice to consult, including over the granting of discretions. In these areas, the recognised trade unions and, as appropriate, the staff affected by the proposed change will be:

      (a) informed of, and given the opportunity to comment on, proposals to delegate powers to departments and agencies (paras 4–5 below); and

      (b) consulted on proposals by the holders of delegated powers to introduce any changes to the terms and conditions of their staff (paras 6–7 below).

      4. The unions at national level will be informed of proposals to make delegations to departments and agencies and given the opportunity to comment both on the principles of the delegation itself and on the conditions that may be attached to it. The relevant union(s) will be informed of the functions to be delegated; the recipient(s) of the delegation; when the delegation will take place; the nature of any conditions that the central department concerned propose to attach to the delegation; and, in broad terms, the purpose of the delegation. A reasonable timescale will be given for comment.
      5. Where a function is sub-delegated within a department or agency (ie. where, consistent with the terms of a delegation, responsibility for the function is delegated by the original recipient to another Crown servant not specifically designated in the original delegation from the central departments) the department or agency concerned will consult the recognised trade unions and, as appropriate, the staff themselves about the granting of the sub-delegation.
      Ms. Hoey: On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) referred to the Bill, in his own inimitable way, as a "vague" Bill. In Committee, the Minister put a little flesh on the bones. The purpose of the amendment is to breathe some life into the corpse by filling in the missing gaps and giving it what is missing—a heart.
      We dwelt at length in Committee and on Second Reading on the formalisation of the process of consultation on proposed delegations. There has been much unanimity between the Government and Opposition Members about the positive value to an organisation of a proper consultation process. We have heard how management is strengthened when considering structural change by drawing on the valuable experience of the work force.
      The value of the contribution of the civil service unions is not, and has not been in the past, limited to helping the interests of their members. Their contribution to the effective running and development of our world-leading civil service has been considerable, as I hope the Minister will agree. On Second Reading and in Committee, the Minister graciously apologised for the appalling lack of consultation with civil service unions before the introduction of the Bill. That was, indeed, a very unfortunate oversight.
      In Committee, the Minister struggled to respond constructively to the concerns that we expressed, but to
      386
      some extent he succeeded. He produced a note prepared by the management side in the civil service on consultation with the civil service unions. He said:
      "The note that I refer to makes it clear that recognised unions will be consulted before delegations arc made and the departmental and agency trade unions will be consulted about proposals to change terms and conditions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 November 1992; c. 63.]
      On Second Reading, the Minister repeatedly called the Bill a "poor little Bill". Perhaps, therefore, I can call this a harmless wee amendment, which seeks to enshrine the terms of the note in schedule 1 and the Minister's subsequent assurances in statute. If it is good enough to be put into practice and quoted in defence of the Government's position, why is not it good enough to include in the Bill?
      I could readily understand the Government's opposition to an amendment guaranteeing rights to trade unions if we were seeking to define those rights, but all we are seeking to do is hold the Government to the assurance that they freely volunteered. I hope that the Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—I am not sure where he is, but he is not here—will feel able at this late stage to accept that the intention of the amendment is to put their words in their proper context and into practice.
      The value of this move would be considerable, and would represent a vote of confidence in the staff of the civil service. The Bill has attracted cross-party consensus on the potential benefits of delegated and decentralised management. I hope that the Government will feel able to extend this spirit of consensus and the spirit of Christmas—in which many hon. Members are indulging at the moment, which is why they are not here—by accepting the amendment to implement their plans.
      In Committee, the Minister said that he had
      "no problem in subscribing to the general arguments for consultation … put forward".
      The only argument that he used to counter the idea was that it was
      "without precedent … nor have civil service unions ever had such a role."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 November 1992; c. 65.]
      Is that really the best argument that the Minister can find? Surely it is a little weak to recognise the validity of our argument about the need for consultation, to suggest his own plans for dealing with the matter, and then not to agree to stand by that plan in law, although we welcome it, just because it has not been done before.
      9.15 pm
      We are satisfied with the text of the Minister's proposal on consultation, and we invite him to commit those very words to history by incorporating them into the Bill and accepting the amendments, and hence new schedule 1. It may break new ground for the Minister to make such a move, but if he accepts our argument, as he seems to, I hope that he will have the courage of his convictions and do so.
      If those welcome assurances are not put on a statutory footing, confidence will inevitably be undermined. Such art omission would raise questions about the Government's commitment to the concept of proper consultation—and Opposition Members may feel unable to take the Government's other commitments on the Bill at face value.
      When the Minister was pressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) on what the hon. Gentleman himself described

      387
      as a characteristically serious point, he conceded that it was not Government policy to provoke or secure derecognition. If the Government are not prepared to back up their proffered commitment on consultation, are we also to assume that they will happily go back on their statement on derecognition?
      The Government have a choice between confirming and reinforcing the answers that they gave to the real worries raised, undermining their stated assurances and laying bare a hidden agenda.
      Mr. Robert Jackson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) on what I believe is her first appearance at the Dispatch Box, although she has of course spoken in her official capacity in Committee. I congratulate her, too, on her eloquent figure of speech about putting a heart into our Bill. If I may say so, the hon. Lady could put a heart into even the most lifeless of corpses.
      I welcome what the hon. Lady said about the importance of the potential consensus on decentralisation in the public service. That is an important phrase, on which I hope we will be able to build. However, we shall not be able to accept the amendment. As the hon. Lady has explained, it refers to a schedule which consists of a copy of a note sent by management to the unions setting out the consultation arrangements when delegations are made. I agree that that is a splendid document. How could I do otherwise, as it came from us—but I cannot accept it as a schedule to the Bill.
      In the first place, amendments Nos. 5 and 13, taken together, would be defective. If they were accepted the only condition that central Departments would be able to place on delegation would relate to consultation with the unions. That is far too narrow. There are many potential conditions that we may wish to impose on delegations—conditions on value for money and the limits of delegations, and perhaps even conditions involving subjects raised in the House and in Committee, such as dispersal policy and equal opportunities policy. It would be appropriate to impose such conditions under which power should be exercised, yet they would be precluded by the amendments.
      I repeat what I said in Committee—that the Government accept that the unions and staff need to know with whom they are dealing on matters relating to the terms and conditions of the staff represented. The Bill does not detract from any legal rights of staff to be consulted on changes in terms and conditions. I repeat that the present arrangements for consulting the unions before discretions are given to Departments and agencies will also extend to delegations.
      The hon. Member for Vauxhall fairly asks why, if the Government intend to take such action anyway, they should not simply put it into the Bill. We do not believe that it would be right to make such proposals part of a statute. Although the hon. Lady was inclined to dismiss it, I repeat the important point that the amendment would give the civil service unions a totally new and unprecedented statutory right to play a part in determining the level at which staff-management decisions are made. That would be wholly unwarranted. We do not think that there is any case for giving civil servants statutory protection unlike that applying to any other employees, when they are already adequately protected as regards consultation by the general law of the land.
      388
      I remind the House that the amendment is defective for the reasons that I have explained. It would prevent the Government from imposing other essential conditions—for example, to protect expenditure controls—and it might constrain the freedom of recipients of delegations in a variety of ways. I urge the House to reject this unnecessary and inappropriate amendment.
      Mr. Davidson: I will speak briefly on the need for discussion and debate with staff, and on the issues of consultation and explanation. There is a grave danger that the staff will not be taken along with the thrust of the new moves. There is a real fear among many staff that there is a hidden agenda which is designed to privatise the civil service, and to erode wages and conditions. They believe that the measure is not designed to liberate staff.
      I give the example of the National Savings bank. The director of the bank has produced a report in which he says of the staff:
      "They have few equals in dedication and enthusiasm".
      He also said:
      "I pay particular tribute to the dedication National Savings staff have to customer service and the continuous improvement of that service."
      There are many other similar quotes too numerous to mention. The annual report shows that the National Savings bank is meeting the targets set for it. Indeed, it is doing better than comparable financial organisations in the private sector, yet it is being broken up in a way that it believes is likely to worsen its ability to undertake the tasks that it has been asked to undertake by the Government.
      In such circumstances, the staff are entitled to believe that there is a hidden agenda. They want the service that they provide to the public to improve, and they see that there are two ways in which to move forward. The first takes the holistic perspective. It looks at the department as a unity and seeks to identify ways in which to increase the output of the service with less input. It seeks co-operation, and it seeks ways in which to build team work and in which to maintain the admirable record of flexibility from staff. That is one route.
      The other route is simply to see the service fractionalised, with each individual department focused only on itself, with no regard to the functions of the organisation as a whole and with each part having its own targets and objectives. The staff believe that that is the framework into which market testing and contracting out will force them. In the circumstances, it is essential that we undertake processes of consultation which not only explain Government policy but seek to amend and justify it in the context in which staff operate.
      If we wish to have efficiency and improvement in organisations such as the National Savings bank, we must work with the staff or against them. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is far more likely that we shall achieve improvements in the service to the public if we work with the staff rather than against them. I hope that the Minister and the Government will give the strongest possible assurances that dogma will not have a role in the implementation of efficiency targets. I hope that the Government will have an open mind about the way in which such objectives are to be achieved and that they will not force through policies involving, for example, contracting out and market testing when such policies are not appropriate.
      Mr. Robert Jackson: It might be convenient if I reply now to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson). The phrase "hidden agenda" has been used on several occasions during the debate. The Government's agenda on this issue is not hidden. It has been spelled out in speeches and written about extensively in the press. Everybody knows what our agenda is, and there was some discussion of it in Committee upstairs.
      We ask of any function within government whether the state needs to be providing it—whether it should be retained or abolished. If we accept that a function should be performed, we ask whether the state needs to perform it: whether it needs to be done by public officials or whether it can be done in the private sector—in other words, whether it can be privatised. If it emerges that it cannot be privatised, we examine whether it can be put on to an agency basis—becoming an arm's-length contract with Government and remaining within Government as a next steps agency.
      We ask of all functions within Government, whether they are carried out by agencies or directly by Government, whether they can be subjected to market testing to establish a competitive basis for seeing that value for money is obtained for the services that are being provided and to enable funds to be recycled back into the provision of services, if efficiency gains can be made. That is a clear and transparent agenda. It has been publicly announced and extensively debated over the years, including in the period before the last election.
      The hon. Member for Govan should accept that the Labour party will have to consider the fundamental presumption behind the Government's policy that the public services exist for the benefit of the public. If there is an obstacle to the potential consensus to which the hon. Member for Vauxhall referred, it could be that Opposition Members are inclined to give too much weight to the question of those who provide public services as opposed to those who benefit from them.
      In a recent debate, I characterised the difference that perhaps exists between the parties. I hope that it will narrow. I said that the difference between the Government and the Opposition was that the Government believed in public service while the Opposition believed in public provision. That is not a satisfactory position for the Opposition to take. But the Government's agenda is clear, it is not in any way hidden and it is clearly apparent.
      Mr. Davidson: I appreciate the point that the Minister makes about the concept of hierarchy. We are not entitled to believe that dogma is driving the policy of the Government when they have decided that a function such as national savings shall remain linked to the public sector, although on an agency basis, and it seems reasonable for the Government to want to establish clear targets for an organisation such as that.
      But we are entitled to believe that dogma is driving Government policy when they not only set the organisation output targets and efficiency objectives but then say how its functions shall be carried out by insisting that sub-activities within the overall output of the organisation shall be achieved in a particular way. Nobody in the private sector has to operate in this way.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is making an intervention, it is too long.
      Mr. Jackson: As we said in Committee, we subject all delegations to certain central policies of Government. The hon. Gentleman has been arguing for certain such policies to remain with Government, for example, on dispersal. Alongside central policy on dispersal, it is a central policy of Government that there should be market testing. That is the explanation of what he sees as a paradox.
      Ms. Hoey: I regret that the Minister has not responded to our arguments, but has more or less repeated what was said in Committee. He has not come up with anything new. The message that he is sending civil servants will ensure that there is a reduction in morale, for it is clear that he does not want fully to consult and involve the civil service unions. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      9.30 pm
      Ms Mowlam: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
      'subject to the operations of the delegation of that function being carried out in accordance with Government policy on equality of opportunities'.
      In this amendment, we are seeking clarification from the Minister on the impact of the Bill on equality and the whole question of sex discrimination. The note on terms and conditions in the civil service released by the Cabinet Office clearly stated that the Bill would not of itself change anyone's terms and conditions of service; nor would it affect the rights of civil servants in respect of protection of their terms and conditions.
      We believe that that will not be the case. There is really a threat that the Bill, if passed, will have a serious impact on equal opportunities in the civil service. The Bill would enable the delegation of functions to both heads of Departments and agencies, one of these functions being the delegation of equal opportunities. This, we believe, could have serious consequences for women employees.
      We are also concerned about monitoring. Delegation, we believe, poses a threat to equal opportunities monitoring. Performance pay for women is monitored, but we are concerned that, after the Bill is passed, the delegated powers will mean that individual Departments will set up their own pay machines, some of which may not use pay scales and incremental progression. It will then be difficult to monitor awards or performance-related pay across a whole range of pay systems and to produce meaningful statistics. We also believe that the OPSS will be unable to monitor complaints on discrimination and harassment, presumably because of the difficulties of monitoring.
      It is these questions that concern us particularly. What worries us is that the Government will use this Bill to delegate powers and that different Departments and agencies will then opt for what are seen to be flexible working patterns. If we take standby appointments, these will not be responding to equal opportunities, such as flexible hours and job sharing, and there will be no monitoring of sexual harassment, recruitment, child care, disciplinary action taken in relation to harassment and discrimination, career breaks, training and development.
      We are seeking from the Minister with this amendment some guarantee of those equal opportunities post-delegation.
      Mr. Robert Jackson: The Government entirely agree with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) about the importance of equal opportunities in employment. It is a matter of record that Government and the public service have a very good record as equal opportunities employers; and we are committed to maintaining it. For example, there are our programmes of action on women and race and our code of practice on disability, which have been published, the annual progress reports, and the Prime Minister's recent initiative on appointments of women and ethnic minorities to public bodies. We have a very strong commitment, and we support the spirit of the hon. Lady's concern.
      Nevertheless, we cannot accept the amendment. We have had some discussion in this debate—and it was a theme which ran through our discussions in Committee—of the importance of what we have now come to call, having developed a jargon, central policies, which will run across and alongside, transcending, overriding and driving through, the whole range of policies which will be delegated under this Bill.
      There is nothing in this Bill which interferes with the power of Government to enforce such central policies—relating, for example, to equality of opportunity or, indeed, to any other matter. If the delegation of a particular function raises particular equality issues, this Bill, now that the previous amendment has been withdrawn, allows suitable conditions to be attached.
      The hon. Member for Redcar mentioned monitoring. It will be perfectly possible for monitoring of questions of sexual harassment and pay arrangements to continue, as appropriate, under the new arrangements; it will become easier—not be made possible, because it is simply a matter of facilitation—under the operation of this Bill.
      I can give the hon. Lady the assurance, if that is what she is seeking, that these delegations do not in any way undermine our central policies. To take something dear to the heart of the Government, there is nothing on the face of the Bill about value for money, but the Government will continue to use that as a criterion, alongside other central policies, for example on equal opportunities, when we are considering delegation or the exercise of delegated powers.
      The amendment is unnecessary, but it has provided a welcome opportunity for us to place on record our continuing commitment to equality of opportunity. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw it.
      Ms Mowlam: We were very keen for some terms and conditions to be included in the Bill. I do not want to sound jaundiced, but one always lives in fear that the Government might forget that they promised certain terms and conditions, especially those on sexual equality, when the delegations take place. However, in view of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Robert Jackson.]
      9.35 pm
      Ms Mowlam: We have had the pleasure of the Minister's company throughout the Committee stage but, sadly, that of the Secretary of State only for part of Second Reading and not tonight. Although it is a party night and
      392
      I know that many people are preparing for Christmas, it is sad that the Secretary of State could not be here for any part of the debate in view of its seriousness.
      I shall be succinct. I want to put on record the importance of our vote against the Bill. As we have seen in the Chamber tonight and in Committee, there is common ground between the Opposition and the Government. There are certain advantages to be obtained from decentralisation and delegation. We may or may not agree on the detail of the delegation, the specifics of pay or certain terms and conditions but it is impossible to know whether we agree—the scope of the Bill permits broad delegation but, in Committee and this evening, the Minister has emphasised that he was talking only of examples, not of specific plans.
      It is important to note that the Transfer of Functions Orders covered by the Bill include pay and conditions in addition to the organisation and conduct of the civil service. In other words, the Bill encompasses all the management functions relevant to the home civil service.
      Our main objection to the Bill is the part that it plays in the Government's overall strategy of contracting out and privatisation. The Minister said that we kept referring to a hidden agenda but we did so only because the Government have assured us throughout the debate that this is merely a technical, small Bill of minor importance. However, his responses this evening have shown clearly that the Bill is part of a jigsaw and part of the Government's overall stategy for privatisation and contracting out. We disagree with that final goal.
      The Bill will drive down wages and conditions for members of the civil service. Departments or parts of Departments faced with market testing are already cutting their major expense which is, of course, salaries, in order to compete with external bids.
      The experience of market testing and contracting out among local authorities is that competition from the private sector is often solely on the grounds of undercutting wages. Civil servants say that when part of their Department is put up for market testing, members of the work force offer to cut holidays, pensions and sick pay in the hope of preserving an in-house bid and of saving their jobs.
      That puts paid to the Minister's argument that the proposed changes are about quality, service and choice. The Government's prime consideration is cost cutting, which is achieved by contracting out and privatisation. It is clear that privatisation is the centre of the Government's policy. On Second Reading and in Committee, the Minister and the Secretary of State have tried to skirt the issue by saying that they will choose the public or the private route, whichever is the most viable.
      However, in a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies on 23 November, their colleague the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated the Conservative party's position more starkly. He said:
      "In every Department of State we are no longer simply looking for obvious candidates for privatisation. The conventional question was 'what can we sell.' The question must now be turned on its head to 'what must we keep?"
      The Government are doing all that they can to make parts of the civil service attractive to the private sector. It is clear from the internal papers issued by the Treasury that the way in which departmental managers are required to assess the relative value of in-house bids and tenders from outside the civil service will not guarantee a level playing

      393
      field. The Minister has repeatedly said that there will be a level playing field between in-house and outside bids. However, when we consider the terms and conditions, that will not be the case.
      The civil service bid is required to assess all in-house costs including accommodation and what are called hidden overheads. Bids from outside the civil service are made on a cash basis. Thus it is possible for an in-house bid that is lower in cash terms to lose out to a bid from the private sector even though it may cost the public service more, simply because the private sector did not have to take into account equipment and accommodation costs or a variety of other issues.
      There are already clear examples of how bias has been given to private sector bids. In respect of the Ministry of Defence, we need only consider Tarmac's bid for the Property Services Agency. Once the bid was made, Tarmac was allowed to come back with additional funds for possible redundancies. It was then given a guarantee of £11 million in future contracts, £8 million of which was from the MOD.
      There is a similar case of unfair bidding between in-house and external bids in respect of the Central Office of Information. Williams Lea was allowed to make a second bid to include redundancy payments and no one else was allowed to participate in the second round of bids. Those are two serious examples where in-house bids have not enjoyed a level playing field.
      The Government could have simply continued to rely on the pressures of market testing to drive down wages. However, they ran into an obstacle in Europe in the form of a directive in 1981 which gave employment protection to workers when they were transferred from one commercial undertaking to another.
      Until recently, it was unclear whether the directive applied to non-commercial undertakings such as local authorities or the civil service. A recent European Court of Justice ruling states that it does. That directive on the protection of workers' rights extends through local authorities and the civil service with the workers when they are privatised.
      That has caused confusion in the Government's market testing programme. John Hall, who chairs the Confederation of British Industry's competing for quality group and who is also secretary of the Cleaning Support Services Association, has said of the workers' rights that are to be protected:
      "This will make tendering totally unattractive. It is staggering news. It is probably the most serious challenge ever to our industry and we will fight it tooth and nail…If the clause"
      on the protection of workers' rights
      "goes on the statute book then there will be little point in our members getting involved in public sector tendering."
      Similarly, a spokesman for Onyx UK, another important contractor for local authority services, stated on Radio 4's "Face the Facts":
      "If private sector employers become liable to take on not just council services but the workers' original terms and conditions as well, it would change the face of compulsory competitive tendering and though there would be nothing to stop the private sector remaining involved, much of the rationale behind the process would have been lost.
      I think it would slightly emasculate what the Government's intention was behind the compulsory competitive tendering regulations which is to reduce the costs to local authorities by opening it up to private sector tendering which would mean that if the private sector win, the employees would effectively be employed on normal private
      394
      sector conditions. Therefore, if the regulations are changed and we would be obliged to take over the ex-council employees on the existing conditions, this of course would mean that our price would be higher and the price of all our competitors would be higher."
      So the protection undertakings for workers will be transferred to the employment legislation. As a result of that, and the difficulties which it has caused, a number of Departments have halted their market-testing programmes until further clarification is given. The Foreign Office has halted such programmes. The Welsh Office has told its health authorities to cease contracting out while it seeks legal advice, and the Health and Safety Executive has put its programme on hold because it initially received contradictory legal advice.
      With the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, the Government have been forced to accept that market testing will lower pay and conditions in the civil service, and the Bill will allow them to do that. We are opposed to the Bill because of a combination of the transfer of undertakings and the possibility that it will lower terms and conditions and facilitate market testing and contracting out.
      The Labour party has a different view of the civil service. Our view is a renewal of the public service tradition to make it more responsive to users, to decentralise it and, above all, to make it accountable. We think that the civil service should remain under a single employer which has public money—taxpayers' money—and which is accountable directly to Parliament or through Ministers. It is clear that that does not happen at present.
      Privatisation and contracting out have altered that view of the civil service. All we have to do is to examine the monopolies of gas, water and electricity which provide no additional choice, regardless of the Government's rhetoric to consumers, and are deeply inadequate in their regulation and accountability to Parliament.
      We must examine examples of the sort that the Minister gave this evening. If the Minister thinks that social security would function better in the private sector, and if he puts it out to competitive tender, what will happen to Mrs. Smith from Bootle who already has a severe difficulty with accountability and being able to complain about her disability living allowance? If social security is put out to contract and goes to a building society or NatWest, will people such as Mrs. Smith have a genuine system of complaint? Such a system would be lost under the Government's proposals.
      The civil service is already demoralised by the Damocles sword of privatisation hanging over its head. We believe that there are ethical values and a culture in the public service which have a sense of equity between individuals and offer a product, whether it is running a prison or our passport agencies. That is not to say that value for money is not important. It is more a question of emphasis.
      The Labour party believes that ethical interests, public scrutiny and accountability are crucial to the future of our civil service. As many of my hon. Friends have said, we value our civil service. We accept that there is a need for change, equity of provision, constant review and testing services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) said, by way of performance indicators or quality management. However, we want a civil service which will be run by people who are

      395
      accountable rather than business people who are accountable only to themselves. We want a civil service of that sort when we enter the next century.
      9.48 pm
      Mr. Trimble: I wish to explain briefly why my colleagues and I will oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. During earlier debates, I said that we were worried that the Bill contained a hidden agenda. In the words of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), the Bill will deteriorate the conditions of service and depress salary levels of civil servants who are in agencies which are about to he hived off, or in other parts of the civil service. That is a wholly undesirable way in which to proceed.
      That is not to say that there cannot be some advantage and flexibility and a devolution and delegation of responsibility, and so on. However, we fear that behind the legislation lies an agenda which is not in the interests of the public service. There should still be a concept of public service.
      I make no apology for referring once again to the parochial aspects which concern me, especially those relating to procedures. As I said, clause 3 authorises the making of an Order in Council by negative resolution. That means that the equivalent provision for Northern Ireland will not be debated in the House.
      The Minister said earlier that the Bill was a technical measure. He said that it had not raised a tremendous amount of interest in the House and called attention to the limited attendance in today's debate and earlier proceedings. However, the technical nature of the Bill is not a reason for saying that it should not receive detailed scrutiny. Indeed, it is an argument for even closer scrutiny. It is the function of the House closely to examine measures.
      Clause 3 authorises the making of an Order in Council for purposes corresponding to those of the Bill. But "corresponding" does not mean exactly the same. For the reasons that I gave earlier, the Northern Ireland Order in Council could not be drafted with exactly the same terminology as the Bill. It will contain differences. Those differences will not be debated because of clause 3. If clause 3 did not exist, we would have an unamendable Order in Council. But the normal procedure for Orders in Council—publishing a proposal on which there is a consultation—would allow a limited opportunity for people to make representations and have a chance of influencing the nature of the measure.
      If the Bill is passed, there will be no opportunity for any scrutiny of the Northern Ireland measure or any opportunity to amend it. That is simply not good enough for a detailed, technical and complex matter. For that reason, as well as the general issue on which I touched, we find the measure unacceptable and we shall oppose it.
      9.51 pm
      Mr. Davidson: There is a consensus in favour of delegation and better management of public services, but anxiety is often expressed by Opposition Members about the hidden agenda behind the Bill. As the debate has gone on, the agenda has become far less hidden. I find myself in the almost paradoxical position that I must vote against
      396
      the Government's proposals because they do not go far enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I know. It causes me some difficulty, I must confess.
      I am in favour of delegation to management within the civil service, but the Bill does not go far enough, because it does not allow managers freedom to manage without the fetters of Government policy on a series of matters on which we believe that these policies are driven by dogma.
      The public services should operate to agreed agendas, free from dogma. I recognise that we need consensually driven policies for the civil service. For example, I wish to see the flexibility of public service constrained by agreed policies on issues such as dispersal. But I am opposed to constraints such as the thrust to regionalisation of pay, which is designed to drive down pay levels, and contracting out.
      Are we serious about injecting private sector methods into the public sector? Let us take the example of the National Savings bank in Glasgow. I ask the Minister to give me an example of a private sector organisation which is obliged to contract out its typing services, messenger services, reprographic services, agency accounting, internal audit and training. The private sector does not operate in that way. If we want a decent public sector, it should not be fettered by dogma-driven policies. That is why I oppose the Government's proposals.
      9.53 pm
      Ms Hoey: I regret the need to oppose the Bill. Although it was initially heralded as a poor, misunderstood little Bill, the detailed debate on Second Reading and the examination in Committee, as well as the scrutiny in the House of Lords, have highlighted the importance of the measures proposed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) reiterated the central and overwhelming area of agreement between the Opposition and the Government, but we are not able to offer support for the Bill because of what it lacks. It lacks a conscience. It lacks safeguards to prevent the abuses and errors that may be side effects of the measures that it contains. It lacks a commitment to consulting the unions, even though the Minister has conceded the importance of such procedures. What is more, we shall be left to rely on the Minister's discretion over consultation, when the Bill was sprung on the staff of the civil service without a day's notice.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) has been terrier-like in his pursuit of the Government for a commitment to proper consultation. The failure of his efforts is testimony to Government intransigence.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar has pressed the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to put the Government's commitment to maintaining and developing equality of opportunity in the Bill, by allowing modest amendments to safeguard the civil service's co-ordinated practices. Our civil service has an excellent reputation in that field, and the Government's reluctance to amend slightly the Bill bodes ill for Government policies, including Opportunity 2000.
      The hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), in an earlier discussion, hit a raw nerve on the Conservative Front Bench when he pleaded in the recent debate on public services for a period of reflection so that we could

      397
      look first at ways of making our civil service more efficient in its present form before we reach too readily for the privatisation lever.
      The Bill does nothing to allay our fears that the Government's hidden agenda is the privatisation of the civil service regardless, on the dogmatic grounds that the private sector necessarily does things better than the public.
      Opposition Members have reached out to the Minister with olive branch amendments to cover our concerns, and they have spurned them. My hon. Friends have coaxed and cajoled the Government in search of guarantees to cover the famous impartiality, objectivity and discretion of the civil service. The Minister has turned a stony—[Interruption.] Madam Speaker, do we have to try to speak when people are gabbling over there beyond the Bar?
      Madam Speaker: I am sorry, but I thought that the hon. Lady was capable of making herself heard.
      Ms. Hoey: I am, but I wish that hon. Members who come in for the last two minutes of the debate might sit wherever they have been a little longer and not come in until the Division is called.
      The Minister has turned a stony face on those pleas. Sadly, his commitment and motivation must be questioned, and we shall therefore oppose the Bill.
      9.57 pm
      Mr. Robert Jackson: The House has had an unparalleled opportunity to discuss the civil service in the past few weeks—an opportunity which we have not perhaps had before. There was a statement on the citizens charter White Paper, a debate on the public service, and the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages of the Bill. It has been an interesting experience, which has shown that there is a good deal of common ground between both sides of the House, which is welcome.
      In particular, it is clear that the Government and the Opposition share a view of the importance of ensuring that the civil service can give best effect to valued commitment to serving citizens. It is easy for us to take our British system for granted. Apolitical, impartial incorruptible civil services are not altogether common throughout the world, and we are lucky to have what we have here. It is also common ground that it is equally important that the civil service should change and evolve to meet new challenges; otherwise, there will be stagnation and decline, and that is the threat that faces all large organisations.
      I am sorry to hear that the Opposition intend to vote against the Bill. No doubt it is their duty to oppose, but it seems unfortunate that they are thereby forced to oppose better management in the civil service.
      Let us remind the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) of her words in Committee:
      "We have no difficulty with decentralisation; we have no difficulty with management decisions being taken close to the place where the work force are".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 November 1992; c. 75.]
      It sounds to me as though the hon. Lady is happy to favour delegation, provided that all managers take the same decision. It is exactly the same as her attitude to market testing—she is in favour, provided that the private sector is not allowed to compete. The fact is that the hon. Lady is willing to wound but afraid to strike.
      398
      I pay tribute to the valiant support for the Bill given by Earl Howe in the House of Lords, and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that the sole aim of the Bill was to remove a legal technicality in order to help the civil service to organise itself in the best way to deliver services to the citizen in an effective and efficient manner. There is no hidden agenda behind the Bill: it is simply an attempt to remove a technical impediment to delegation and decentralisation, where there is common ground between us. The Bill will bring positive benefits, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 234.

      Division No. 104]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Conway, Derek

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alexander, Richard

      Cormack, Patrick

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Couchman, James

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Cran, James

      Amess, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Ancram, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Day, Stephen

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Ashby, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Atkins, Robert

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Dicks, Terry

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baldry, Tony

      Dover, Den

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Duncan, Alan

      Bates, Michael

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dunn, Bob

      Bellingham, Henry

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Eggar, Tim

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Elletson, Harold

      Body, Sir Richard

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Booth, Hartley

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Evennett, David

      Bowden, Andrew

      Faber, David

      Bowis, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Brazier, Julian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bright, Graham

      Forth, Eric

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Freeman, Roger

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Burt, Alistair

      Gallie, Phil

      Butcher, John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Butler, Peter

      Garnier, Edward

      Butterfill, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gorst, John

      Carttiss, Michael

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Cash, William

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Churchill, Mr

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Clappison, James

      Hague, William

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Congdon, David

      Hannam, Sir John

      399

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Harris, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Page, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Paice, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Patnick, Irvine

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hendry, Charles

      Pawsey, James

      Hicks, Robert

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Pickles, Eric

      Horam, John

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Redwood, John

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunter, Andrew

      Riddick, Graham

      Jack, Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jessel, Toby

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Sackville, Tom

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Key, Robert

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Knapman, Roger

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shersby, Michael

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Sims, Roger

      Knox, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Legg, Barry

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Leigh, Edward

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spring, Richard

      Lidington, David

      Sproat, Iain

      Lightbown, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Lord, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter

      Stephen, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Stern, Michael

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Stewart, Allan

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Streeter, Gary

      MacKay, Andrew

      Sumberg, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sweeney, Walter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sykes, John

      Madel, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Marland, Paul

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Thomason, Roy

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Merchant, Piers

      Thurnham, Peter

      Milligan, Stephen

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Trend, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Viggers, Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Walden, George

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wallace, James

      Norris, Steve

      Waller, Gary

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      400

      Waterson, Nigel

      Winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)

      Watts, John

      Winterton, Nicholas(Macc'f'ld)

      Wells, Bowen

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Whitney, Ray

      Yeo, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Willetts, David

      Mr. Robert Hughes.

      Wilshire, David

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Etherington, Bill

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Ainger, Nick

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Fisher, Mark

      Allen, Graham

      Flynn, Paul

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Ashton, Joe

      Foulkes, George

      Barnes, Harry

      Fraser, John

      Battle, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bayley, Hugh

      Galbraith, Sam

      Beggs, Roy

      Galloway, George

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      Benton, Joe

      Garrett, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Gerrard, Neil

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Betts, Clive

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Blunkett, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Boateng, Paul

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bradley, Keith

      Graham, Thomas

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Burden, Richard

      Grocott, Bruce

      Byers, Stephen

      Hain, Peter

      Caborn, Richard

      Hall, Mike

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hardy, Peter

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Henderson, Doug

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Heppell, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hoey, Kate

      Clapham, Michael

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clelland, David

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coffey, Ann

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hutton, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Illsley, Eric

      Cousins, Jim

      Ingram, Adam

      Cryer, Bob

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Janner, Greville

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Denham, John

      Keen, Alan

      Dewar, Donald

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Dixon, Don

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dobson, Frank

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Leighton, Ron

      Dowd, Jim

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Lewis, Terry

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Litherland, Robert

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Livingstone, Ken

      Eastham, Ken

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Enright, Derek

      Loyden, Eddie

      401

      McAllion, John

      Radice, Giles

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Randall, Stuart

      McFall, John

      Raynsford, Nick

      McKelvey, William

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      McLeish, Henry

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      McMaster, Gordon

      Rogers, Allan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Rooney, Terry

      McWilliam, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Madden, Max

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mahon, Alice

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mandelson, Peter

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marek, Dr John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Short, Clare

      Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Maxton, John

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

      Meacher, Michael

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meale, Alan

      Snape, Peter

      Michael, Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Milburn, Alan

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Miller, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stevenson, George

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Stott, Roger

      Morley, Elliot

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Straw, Jack

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mudie, George

      Trimble, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Turner, Dennis

      Murphy, Paul

      Vaz, Keith

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Walley, Joan

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Wareing, Robert N

      Olner, William

      Watson, Mike

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Parry, Robert

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Patchett, Terry

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Pendry, Tom

      Wilson, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Winnick, David

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wise, Audrey

      Pope, Greg

      Worthington, Tony

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Prescott, John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Purchase, Ken

      Mr. Jack Thompson and

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment—[Mr. Robin Squire.]
10.14 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I was not present on Friday when the Bill was debated, but I have read the report of the debate, and I entirely support the principle of the Bill. During the debate, the Minister made two points about expenditure. First, he said:
"the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has agreed that all significant direct costs incurred by local authorities in carrying out a project under the technical links scheme will be met from the know-how funds."
I take it that that will be covered by the money resolution, which is required, as a matter of formality, for private Members' Bills.
"Secondly,"
the Minister said,
"we have made it known that the Secretary of State is prepared to sanction under section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 local authority expenditure under the technical links scheme."—[Offieial Report, 11 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 1155.]
Does that mean that the Secretary of State would sanction local authority borrowing, or does it mean that the technical links scheme will be covered entirely by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under the resolution, and that only local authority expenditure in this country relating to the technical links scheme will be covered by that second point?
I think that the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill is well intentioned. I believe that many local authorities are keen to establish links with countries that need technical assistance and expertise. However, many local authority residents take the view that the priorities of such technical links should be financed by central Government: local authorities are very short of money, and many people take exception to what they see as lavish trips abroad at a time when, for example, schools are crumbling and roads need repairing. I feel that the emphasis on central Government expenditure is right.
The Bill provides for consent by the Secretary of State to the provision of advice and assistance by local authorities. That invokes the de minimis rule, which governs the level of expenditure below which such consent will not be required. In Friday's debate, the Minister said that an announcement would be made. In the context of this motion, can he tell us what the limit will be?
I know that it is the habit of the House not to question expenditure, but I do not happen to agree with that habit. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what gross sums are involved in annual expenditure. As he will appreciate, a number of local authorities providing technical advice and assistance could become involved in considerable expenditure under the two provisions that he mentioned on Friday. It would be interesting to have some idea of the scale of the Government's proposed expenditure.

403
It would also be useful to know how central Government will supervise expenditure. It is possible, for example, that three or four local authorities, or more, would concentrate their advice and assistance, perhaps through a technical links scheme, on a single area in a single country, because such links had been established by chance. When provision is thin on the ground, will the Government make any provision subject to the availability of financial assistance in the way that I have described? That is one of the useful things that central Government can do.
10.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): The prime reason for the money resolution is that the Local Government Bill will involve the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office in new expenditure in, for example, processing the occasional application for consent. That is the central reason for the resolution. I echo and endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), as he will know from reading the report of last Friday's debate, when we went into some detail, that the Bill has widespread support and that it is expected that money will not fall on council tax payers to any significant extent.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned the sanction under section 19 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. The purpose of that provision is essentially to ensure that, in advance of the legislation receiving Royal Assent, there is no question of a district auditor being able to take action against a local authority which is offering technical assistance to other countries. It is a rarely used provision, but it exists to ensure that, when a measure such as the Bill has overwhelming support in the House, no action is taken against a specific authority. That would be unreasonable.
The hon. Member asked about consents. I do not have the figures beside me now, although I had them for Friday's debate. We are going out to consultation to local authorities on this and on a number of aspects of the Bill. From memory, we are basing the figure on population. With a population of under 50,000, there will be a limit of £20,000, rising to a consent of no more than £60,000 for authorities with a population of more than 250,000. If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter, because I am relying on memory at the moment, and if I have the figures wrong, he will be the first to point that out.
10.21 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We are not practising for the Maastricht debate when we come back in January. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might have been when he kicked off the debate, but we realise that there is a time limit on money resolution debates.
404
The Bill received its Second Reading on Friday, and it had all-party support. A few days later, a money resolution is provided by the Government. About a fortnight ago, we had a long series of points of order on Maastricht. One of the main points in the first run at Maastricht was the fact that we were arguing for a referendum. The Government said that there was no provision for a money resolution. We wanted to argue that occasionally the Government provide a money resolution when it suited their purpose. They do so, as I pointed out then, for private Members' Bills.
This Bill is a first-class example. Within the space of a few days, the Government have provided the necessary money resolution for a Bill which has all-party support. I hope that the Minister will ensure that his colleagues understand that, when we come back to Maastricht after the recess, the Government will have to provide a money resolution for the referendum, so that people outside this place can have a vote on Maastricht. Let us have no more funny business; let the Government not say that they are not capable of providing a money resolution, because that is what they have done tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.

TRANSPORT
Ordered,
That Mr. Jack Aspinwall be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr. Nigel Evans be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

  Emergency Telephone Service
  10.23 pm
  Ms Kate Hoey: I have great pleasure in presenting tonight a petition with 250,000 signatures which was organised by the Union of Communication Workers. It was signed by people all over the country, both members of the public and workers in the emergency services. Most importantly, it was also signed by people who use the 999 service, the service that saves lives. I am pleased that I did not have to carry the petition, because it filled six boxes; I am grateful to the attendants who have brought them here tonight.
  The petition says:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House decide to maintain the current 999 emergency telephone service provided by B.T. and reject the proposal to transfer this service to a call handling agency.
  And your petitioners, as in duty hound, will ever pray, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pit Closures
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.24 pm
  Mr. John Evans: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise on the Floor of the House the question of the 10 collieries remaining on the Government hit list for closure. It is psychologically important that the issue be ventilated in the House, because the knowledge that it is before the House now, and will be continually before us when we return from the Christmas recess, gives heart to the coal miners affected.
  As you are aware, Madam Speaker, I sought an Adjournment debate because of the unsatisfactory answers given by the Minister for Energy to Trade and Industry questions a couple of weeks ago. However, the real background to the debate is the announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 19 October to the effect that he proposed to agree with the Coal Board and close 31 collieries, putting more than 30,000 miners out of work and more than 60,000 related workers out of a job as a direct result of the closure programme.
  That programme was the most savage rationalisation that a Government have ever attempted to inflict on any industry or sector of industry in this country in such a short time. It was immediately greeted with massive outrage by the British public. There was a mixture of motives behind that outrage, but it is fair to say that most people regarded the closure programme as one of the worst cases of industrial vandalism that they had ever witnessed. There was also great anger that the Tory Government sought to take vindictive revenge on the miners. The public were also aware of the massive waste of coal reserves, which do not belong to the Government, or to one generation, but to the people. Millions of tonnes of those precious reserves were to be left in the ground.
  There is no doubt that the uproar generated shook the Government to their foundations so much so that when a debate was to take place on a Labour motion 48 hours later, on 21 October, the Government caved in before the debate started. To our astonishment the President of the Board of Trade, who on Monday had not mentioned the word "review", announced a review of 21 of the 31 pits originally scheduled for closure. The right hon. Gentleman said that 10 pits would remain on the closure list, but, according to him, and according to the Secretary of State for Wales, who wound up the debate on that fateful night, even those 10 would be subject to a full review and genuine consultations.
  The Secretary of State for Wales spelled the pledge out categorically, saying:
  "Let me make matters absolutely clear about the 10 pits. British Coal is under a statutory duty to consult on those closures … It must be a genuine consultation. British Coal has given the criteria to show that those pits are currently loss making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future. If there is any serious doubt about whether those criteria apply, British Coal will have to demonstrate that the doubt is removed and that the criteria have been met, because, under the legislation, it not only has to give reasons for closure, but it must prove that the consultation is a genuine one. That is absolutely clear."—[Official Report, 21 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 526.]
  The Secretary of State for Wales used the words:
  "loss making and have no prospect of viability".
  406
  I shall concentrate on those words, and relate them to Parkside colliery, at Newton-le-Willows, in my constituency, because it provides a good example of the impact on the other nine collieries.
  The President of the Board of Trade made a statement on 19 October. In reply to my question about Parkside colliery, he said:
  "The figures that British Coal has shown me for that particular colliery indicate that it is not able to make a profit even in today's circumstances. That is the real world that I have to confront."[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c.224–25.]
  I subsequently obtained British Coal's profit and loss statement for Parkside colliery, which I quoted in the debate on 21 October. I quote it again. In 1987–88, Parkside made a profit of £5,093,000. In 1988–89 it made a profit of £3,258,000. In 1989-90, it made a profit of £1,729,000. In 1990–91, it made a profit of £5,074,000. In 1991–92, after a difficult first six months when it lost money, it recovered so well in the second half of the year that the profit for the year was £2,874,000.
  Those figures show any reasonable person that Parkside is a profitable colliery. The chairman of British Coal, at a meeting that I and eight or nine colleagues had with him and his senior officers at Hobart house on Wednesday 18 October, admitted that Parkside was profitable. At Trade and Industry questions on 2 December, I asked the Minister for Energy to publish the report by J. T. Boyd, which has lain on his desk since October 1991. I understand that the report maintains that five of the 10 pits on the closure hit list were profitable and that they should remain as part of a viable British Coal mining industry. The Minister ignored the question arid the report remains unpublished. I challenge him to publish the Boyd report, which he has had for 14 months, so that we can see what Boyd said about the pits.
  Miners at Parkside colliery have been treated quite disgracefully. Following the statement of the President of the Board of Trade on 19 October, and notwithstanding everything that was said in the debate on Wednesday 21 October, on Friday 23 October NUM officials at Parkside colliery were brusquely told that coal production would end that day. Consultation on the viability of the mine, the likelihood of its being saved and its future have been non-existent.
  In the statutory 90–day consultation period, which is required only to discuss redundancy, British Coal is insisting that every miner must report to work every day on his shift time, even though everyone knows that they will all be sent home. Some of those men must travel 30 to 35 miles to get to the colliery, and to bring men in at 5 am or 6 am is quite disgraceful. It is all part of British Coal's policy of putting psychological pressure on the men to accept redundancy payments.
  What will happen to miners when the 90-day consultation period runs out? I hope that the Minister will answer that question, because miners certainly want to know. A brand new face at Parkside, which had cost £6 million to install, was ready to go into full production. Miners inform me that that face was the finest that they had ever had and, to quote their words, "they would have been printing money by Christmas" with that face.
  Today, one face at Parkside is threatened with extinction. Despite British Coal's High Court pledge to protect the fabric of pits, the face known as W31 at Parkside is suffering serious divergence and the miners

  407
  there told me today that, unless that face is worked quickly, within a few days, it will soon become unpassable, and that would mean the end of that face. Every request that the miners and the union have made to cut coal on that face has been rejected by the management of the colliery.
  The basic facts about Parkside are clear. Its performance in the last five years has been excellent. The pit had a difficult summer, largely because of unexpected geological problems with the installation of the new face, but by September those problems were widely viewed as having been solved. The new face offered every prospect of clawing back earlier losses. That assessment was made by the NUM's mining engineer, who emphasised that the availability of good, high-quality reserves did not appear to be in dispute. There are 40 million tonnes of coal reserves at Parkside colliery.
  British Coal's claim that Parkside has no future is not based on a judgment of the pit's efficiency but on the market crisis facing British Coal. Coal reserves are to be abandoned, valuable machinery left underground and the skilled work force told that their right to work no longer has any value.
  The Government talk much about the cost of keeping pits open. That is not the point. The real issue is the cost of closing them. The principal cost is that of a sizeable and, in all probability, long-lasting increase in unemployment, which is already unacceptably high. For example, at Parkside colliery there are 724 employees classified as miners. Each is entitled to a payment under the scheme of an average of £24,000. For every 100 miners made redundant by British Coal, the corporation also sheds 33 other employees, which means that British Coal will shed a further 239 jobs. Each of those will be entitled to a redundancy payment at least as good as that offered to the miners.
  The end of mining at Parkside would mean significant job losses in firms that supply services direct to the colliery, including private contractors, suppliers of equipment and railway and road haulage workers who remove coal from the site. The effect on the economy of the north-west would be utterly destructive. There are no new jobs waiting to be taken by those made redundant. The adult unemployment rate in the St. Helens travel-to-work area is over 14 per cent. So added to the cost of the redundancy scheme are the costs of the dole. The annual cost of an unemployed worker is estimated to be £7,900 in terms of unemployment benefit and lost taxes.
  Therefore, it is now possible to measure the cost of Parkside's closure. The average redundancy payments to 724 Parkside miners and 239 other British Coal employees would be about £23 million. The cost of 963 newly unemployed people, at £7,900 each, would be another £7.5 million, making a total in excess of £30 million. That is not counting the cost incurred by all the other workers in associated industries who would also be made redundant, the cost of which would, I suspect, add another £10 million to £15 million to the cost of closing Parkside.
  The Government must put in place an energy policy that utilises the nation's coal reserves in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner. They must ensure a level playing field for British Coal to supply competitively priced coal in bulk volume to the generating companies.
  408
  The Government must restrict the dash for expensive gas and safeguard existing cheaper, coal-fired power stations. We must also press the European Community for a total ban on dumped coal within our borders. We must seek the support of the European Community to export British coal into the Community.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am very pleased that my hon. Friend is making this very powerful case in respect of a pit that is one of the newest in Britain. It was developed only a few years ago in pit terms. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, with 20 million tons of coal coming into Britain at this time, that represents nearly £1 billion loss on the balance of payments. We can ill afford that when we are about £12 billion in debt.
  Is it not crazy to be sacking those miners at Parkside in my hon. Friend's constituency and miners in other constituencies, costing all that money with the dole, when German coal at £110 a ton is coming from the Common Market into Britain and we cannot sell what is the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe?
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. He has saved me the necessity of suggesting that one of the other things that the Government could do is to give the same sort of support to our coal industry as the Germans have to theirs.
  If such things are done in the review which the Government are carrying out, I submit that Parkside and most of the other pits will survive and have a prosperous future. Eighty per cent. of Parkside's coal goes just 12 miles by an environmentally friendly merry-go-round train to be burnt at Fiddler's Ferry power station. That power station, I understand, is now looking round for alternative supplies of coal, because obviously it is not getting Parkside coal, and it is increasingly concerned about the quality and the problems associated with imported coal being brought through the port of Bootle.
  Parkside is a profitable pit. There is a market for its coal and it has an efficient work force. Perhaps the Minister will now explain why Parkside, with the record that it has, is doomed to closure if the Government's plans are carried out.
  10.41 pm
  The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on securing this debate and on arranging it for a reasonable time of the night.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of points, such as imports, the possibility of exporting to the rest of the European Community and the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about subsidies. Incidentally, I am sure it was a slip of the tongue, but of course there is no German steam coal for generation purposes imported into the United Kingdom; there is, however, some small amount of anthracite and coking coal imported and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, those imports displace other imports of anthracite and coking coal rather than United Kingdom coal. As he also knows, I am sure, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has very firm views on the future of the anthracite mines in his constituency.
  I have listened very carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North with regard to matters that are the subject of the review. I am sure that he will not

  409
  be surprised to hear me say that it would not be right for me tonight to pre-empt the results of the review. We hope to publish it in White Paper form early in the new year and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are committed to a debate on the Floor of the House about that.
  Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Trade and Industry Select Committee is completing its investigations into this matter and my right hon. Friend and I were giving evidence to that Committee this afternoon.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Is the Minister aware that the miners in the 10 pits have absolutely no confidence in this review because they feel that the fabric of the mines has been left in such a state that they cannot be resuscitated even if it comes to the stage when the Minister or the President of the Board of Trade, or even, God help us, the chairman of British Coal, decides that it shall so be?
  Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a difference between the review to which I was referring—which covers the 21 pits—and the statutory consultation period, which covers the 10 pits which are, strictly speaking, the subject of the debate. Parkside is one of the 10 for which the procedure will be the statutory consultation period. I shall take a little time to explain the background to that because some questions are often asked about the 10 pits; a number of those questions were raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North.
  It is fair to say that there has been some speculation about the basis on which the 10 pits were chosen. The answer to how and why they were chosen is straightforward and has already been explained to the House. They are the 10 pits which British Coal informed the Government were currently making losses and had no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Eggar: I shall, of course, give way to my hon. Friend, but, as I was saying, those were the criteria on which the Government took the decision that the 10 pits should go to statutory consultation.
  Mrs. Peacock: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend says. We continue to hear British Coal's view that the 10 pits were uneconomic. I understand that the Minister and the President of the Board of Trade say that they must accept British Coal's figures, but can the Minister tell me, the House and anyone else who is listening how we can get correct figures for those mines? We have been told that British Coal's official figures are not correct, that all those mines are not loss-making and do not have the bleak future that British Coal predicts.
  Mr. Eggar: I shall deal with exactly that point later.
  We are also asked why the 10 pits were not included in the moratorium and in the coal review. Again, the answer is straightforward—it relates to the economics of the pits, as we have been informed of them by British Coal.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: No, I am sorry. I have already given way. It is not fair to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, whose debate this is—
  Mr. Hoyle rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister appears not to be giving way.
  Mr. Hoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order, not a point of frustration.
  Mr. Hoyle: I do not wish to be critical, but I have as many constituents working at Parkside, as has my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), who spoke so strongly about it and I want to make a point to the Minister who has given way twice.
  Mr. Eggar rose—
  Mr. Hoyle: I have not quite finished.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. If he is not giving way, there is nothing that the Chair can do.
  Mr. Eggar: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. I shall try to make progress and if the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) later still feels that I have not answered his questions and if time permits, I shall willingly give way.
  The reason the pits are the subject of statutory consultation is that British Coal told us that the pits are currently loss-making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future. Let me explain why. British Coal expects coal prices to its main customers—the generators—to decline significantly from next April. If the 10 pits are loss making at current prices, their position will clearly worsen at lower prices.
  I stress that it is British Coal which is undertaking the current statutory consultation process, not the Government. It follows that representations—for ex-ample, where this or that pit is profitable or loss-making—must be best pursued in the context of those statutory consultations.
  Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that the miners and the National Union of Mineworkers constantly raise that point in the alleged or supposed consultations, but British Coal will not refer to the points to which the Minister has just referred?
  Mr. Eggar: I will try to make rapid progress and then reach the points that have been raised.
  It might help if I take this opportunity to spell out the nature of the statutory consultation process. The process is taking place under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which was previously section 99 of the Employment Protection Act 1975. The participants are British Coal and the relevant mining trade unions. The process began at the end of October and the consultation period must be not less than 90 days. That is relevant to the point raised earlier about the 91st day.
  Section 188 of the 1992 Act requires British Coal to provide the unions with specified information; to consider any representations made by the unions and to reply to the representations. That is clearly laid down in section 188.
  British Coal informs us that it has sent the relevant trade unions an information package on each colliery. According to British Coal, the package includes the pit's performance, its financial results and other associated key data. The unions—if not Opposition Members—will have

  411
  that financial package. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) is aware of that.
  British Coal has said that the consultation will relate to all aspects of the proposed redundancies at the 10 pits, including the reasons for the decision for them to close; the numbers of men involved; the extent to which transfers may be possible; and the terms of redundancies and assistance available. I am told that British Coal has held statutory consultation meetings on each pit at group and colliery levels. Whether there are further meetings depends on the wishes of the trade unions.
  Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister now please address the powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North about Parkside? The Minister has generalised about all the pits. My hon. Friend said that Parkside has always been profitable. A new face has just been opened and that would make it even more profitable. Will the Minister address the problems of that pit?
  Mr. Eggar: The position for Parkside, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, is that because it is involved in the statutory consultation process, that process takes place between the trade unions and British Coal. The correct procedure is for discussions to take place between British Coal and the relevant trade unions. The Government are not party to that statutory consultation process under section 188 of the 1992 Act.
  I have been informed by British Coal that it has made a package of information available to the unions. If the unions want further meetings—in addition to those that have already taken place—on the future of the pits, I am informed that British Coal will agree to those meetings. Under the provisions, the discussions must take place between—
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: I will give way, but I have only a few minutes left.
  Mr. McCartney: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), I have constituents who work at Parkside. It is a last refuge as all the collieries in my constituency have closed since 1987. The Minister is not addressing the issue that British Coal gave a guarantee to the High Court to protect the fabric of the colliery. The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Wales gave commitments in the House that they would ensure that that commitment would be upheld. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North is saying that that commitment is wilfully not being upheld and Parkside's face is collapsing. What is the Minister going to do about that? What steps is he going to take to ensure that in the next seven days that face is cut to protect the colliery? That is the real issue tonight. All the rest is a load of guff.
  Mr. Eggar: British Coal has given us quite clear assurances about the way in which it will seek to preserve the fabric of the colliery. I remind the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that, after the Scargill strike of 1984, there was widespread concern that collieries would not be able to open and start producing coal. In fact, after a long period when there was no mining when there was nothing like the degree of care and maintenance that is being carried out at Parkside—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Defence Equipment, Iran
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what way the guidelines relating to all deliveries of defence equipment to Iran set by his predecessor on 29 October 1985 cover the export of civilian equipment which could be militarily useful.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Dual use goods and technologies which require a licence to be exported to Iran under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1991, as amended, fall to be considered under the guidelines.

  Laws of War
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the additional protocols to the Geneva convention on the laws of war have been signed and ratified by Her Majesty's Government; which have been signed but not ratified; which have not been signed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom signed both additional protocols on 8 June 1977. It has not yet ratified them.

  United Nations Charter
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which parts of the charter of the United Nations have not yet been ratified by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom ratified the United Nations charter on 20 October 1945 without any reservations.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose a review of the role of the United Nations protection force to ensure, within its mandate, its maximum effectiveness in support of the relief effort in Bosnia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Nations keeps the role and effectiveness of UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina under constant review. The Secretary-General reports his findings and recommendations to the Security Council on a monthly basis.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from the Bosnian Government for assistance in establishing a diplomatic residency or office in Britain; and if he will make a statement.
  88
  Mr. Goodlad
  We have received no request from the Bosnian authorities about the establishment of a diplomatic mission in the United Kingdom.

  Sudan
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan in relation to the persecution of(a) Roman Catholics and (b) other Christians in that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made clear to the Sudanese Government both bilaterally and in international forums our abhorrence of the systematic abuses of human rights throughout Sudan, and the importance we attach to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, freedom of religion among them. We co-sponsored the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the human rights situation in Sudan, adopted in the third committee on 4 December.

  Technology Transfers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list current proscribed destinations under the COCOM rules; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 7 December, at column 463.

  There are currently 24 destinations proscribed under the Co-ordinating Committee on Multilateral Export Controls—COCOM—rules. These are:
  The Republics of the former Soviet Union (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan), the People's Republic of China, the Czech and Slovak Republic, the Mongolian People's Republic, the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea, the Republic of Poland, Romania and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

  Hungary was removed from the list of proscribed destinations in May this year. COCOM will consider removing other countries from the list as they make progress in establishing effective control procedures for the export or re-export of sensitive goods and technology.

  China
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Chinese Government over the abuse of human rights of prisoners in China's gaols; and if he will raise the matter at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have taken every opportunity this year as in past years to raise human rights issues with the Chinese authorities. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did so most recently with Vice-Premier Zhu Rongji in November. My noble Friend Lord Howe and his delegation did so in great detail during their visit to China earlier this month. The delegation's discussions included the treatment of prisoners, and the programme included visits to places of detention. We and our EC partners co-sponsored a resolution on the situation in China,
  89
  including Tibet, at this year's full session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. A "no action" motion prevented the resolution from coming to a vote.

  Overseas Staff
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to alter the number of grade of staff employed in posts overseas in support of the United Kingdom trade and commercial interests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There are at present no plans to alter the number of grades of staff employed in our commercial effort overseas.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards efforts being made at the United Nations to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of use and threat of use of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Government see no need for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legal status of nuclear weapons. There is no treaty which outlaws nuclear weapons. On the contrary, the non-proliferation treaty explicitly recognises the possession of nuclear weapons by "nuclear-weapon States". The use of nuclear weapons would have to be judged as lawful or not in the light of the particular circumstances in which they were used. Since the use of nuclear weapons might according to the circumstances be lawful, the deterrent threat of their use must also be considered lawful.

  Parking Fines, Diplomats
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish up-to-date figures recording the number of unpaid parking fines incurred by each diplomatic mission in London in the first six months of the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is given in the table. The table also includes those international organisations which incurred unpaid fines. The figures may be reduced by late payments.

  The total of 2,388 for the first six months of 1992 represents a 20 per cent. reduction from the figure of 3,000 for the same period in 1991. It compares with nearly 67,000 in the first six months of 1984 before publication of the 1985 White Paper. We welcome this further reduction in unpaid parking fines that has been achieved during 1992 and appreciate the co-operation of diplomatic missions since the introduction of the parking policy. We shall continue to monitor carefully the level of unpaid fines and bring pressure to bear on diplomatic missions to reduce this still further.

  Unpaid parking fines

  Diplomatic mission

  January-June 1992

  January-June 1991

  Turkey

  141

  73

  Saudi Arabia

  126

  89

  Russia

  124

  167

  90

  Diplomatic mission

  January-June 1992

  January-June 1991

  France

  114

  69

  Greece

  82

  80

  Nigeria

  79

  47

  China

  79

  74

  Zambia

  64

  38

  Cote D'Ivoire

  60

  41

  Cameroon

  59

  110

  Korea

  59

  71

  Oman

  48

  42

  Sudan

  45

  51

  Cyprus

  45

  30

  Thailand

  45

  77

  India

  40

  24

  Tunisia

  40

  18

  Israel

  38

  92

  Egypt

  38

  44

  Libyan Interests Sec., Saudi Arabia

  36

  105

  Poland

  36

  115

  Spain

  34

  22

  Gambia

  31

  23

  Morocco

  30

  78

  Germany

  30

  41

  Uruguay

  30

  17

  Hungary

  29

  22

  Qatar

  27

  0

  Ghana

  27

  59

  Senegal

  25

  0

  Pakistan

  25

  78

  Romania

  23

  20

  Bangladesh

  22

  18

  Algeria

  22

  15

  Bulgaria

  21

  61

  Mauritius

  19

  5

  Portugal

  17

  33

  United States

  15

  6

  Jordan

  15

  62

  Barbados

  14

  27

  Liberia

  14

  10

  Brazil

  14

  32

  Mexico

  12

  2

  Tanzania

  12

  25

  Japan

  11

  7

  Finland

  11

  13

  Italy

  11

  20

  Zaire

  11

  10

  Ethiopia

  10

  14

  Syria

  10

  3

  Venezuela

  10

  10

  Yugoslavia

  10

  27

  Iraqi Interests Sec., Jordan

  10

  32

  Lebanon

  10

  4

  Angola

  9

  0

  Brunei

  9

  25

  Malaysia

  9

  11

  Jamaica

  9

  15

  United Arab Emirates

  9

  140

  Ireland

  8

  1

  Bahrain

  8

  21

  Canada

  7

  35

  Lesotho

  7

  5

  Guyana

  7

  26

  Gabon

  6

  22

  Iran

  6

  9

  Zimbabwe

  6

  19

  Burma

  5

  5

  Malawi

  5

  10

  Nepal

  5

  1

  Philippines

  5

  2

  Kenya

  5

  0

  Honduras

  5

  12

  Afghanistan

  5

  0

  Cuba

  5

  8

  Yemen

  5

  14

  South Africa

  4

  4

  Guatemala

  4

  22

  Peru

  3

  7

  91

  Diplomatic mission

  January-June 1992

  January-June 1991

  Paraguay

  3

  4

  Czechoslovakia

  3

  7

  Belgium

  3

  4

  Malta

  3

  1

  Sweden

  3

  4

  Botswana

  3

  0

  Uganda

  3

  5

  Chile

  2

  12

  Sri Lanka

  2

  1

  Indonesia

  2

  3

  Austria

  2

  6

  Eastern Caribbean States

  2

  5

  Trinidad and Tobago

  2

  7

  Luxembourg

  2

  3

  Panama

  2

  8

  Australia

  2

  3

  Norway

  1

  3

  Iceland

  1

  2

  New Zealand

  1

  0

  Vietnam

  1

  9

  Fiji

  1

  3

  Sierra Leone

  1

  18

  Mozambique

  1

  2

  Bahamas

  1

  2

  Mongolia

  1

  5

  Colombia

  1

  0

  Tonga

  1

  0

  Seychelles

  1

  4

  Kuwait

  0

  165

  Namibia

  0

  0

  Grenada

  0

  0

  Togo

  0

  8

  Benin

  0

  0

  Belize

  0

  0

  Singapore

  0

  3

  Papua New Guinea

  0

  2

  Ecuador

  0

  1

  El Salvador

  0

  0

  Dominica

  0

  0

  Argentina

  0

  2

  Antigua

  0

  0

  Denmark

  0

  0

  Swaziland

  0

  1

  Nicaragua

  0

  0

  Switzerland

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  0

  2

  Costa Rica

  0

  1

  Bolivia

  0

  7

  International Organisations

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  21

  13

  INMARSAT

  5

  1

  EBRD

  2

  0

  WEU

  1

  1

  Coffee

  1

  0

  EC

  1

  1

  IMO

  0

  1

  Cocoa

  0

  3

  UN

  0

  0

  African Development Bank

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  2,388

  3,000

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what diplomatic initiatives he proposes, as EC president, to complement and follow on from the military action in Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The European Council on 12 December issued a declaration supporting the Security 92
  Council resolution 794 and expressing the hope that its implementation will encourage national reconciliation. The EC has supported the United Nations proposals to seek reconciliation through local and regional consultations designed to build a framework for national reconciliation.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations about its performance in Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited New York last month to discuss with the Secretary-General and senior United Nations officials the progress of the relief effort in Somalia and plans for stepping up activities including the greater involvement of United Nations agencies. We have stressed the need for the United Nations to provide strong and effective co-ordination of relief operations in Somalia. We have participated in co-ordination conferences organised by the United Nations in Geneva in October and in Addis Ababa this month.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an assessment of the extent of homelessness in Stoke-on-Trent; and how many(a) families and (b) single people will benefit from the additional funding announced in the autumn statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  An assessment is made on the basis of the local authority's own estimates contained in its housing strategy statement and statistical returns, together with the homeless indicator in the housing general needs index.

  This information is used to inform our decisions on the allocation of housing investment programme allocations to local authorities which will be announced later this month.

  The autumn statement made considerable additional resources available for the support of capital programmes which will directly benefit families and single people in housing need:
  An increase in Housing Corporation spending to £2.3 billion this year, enabling the immediate purchase of about 16,000 new, empty or repossessed homes for those in housing need. And provide sufficient funds to exceed the target of 153,000 new housing association homes in the three years 1992–93 to 1994–95;
  The release of additional local authority capital receipts, which are expected to add about £1 billion to housing spending between now and 1995–96;
  And, the creation of a new housing partnership fund where £30 million will be available in the form of supplementary credit approvals to be bid for worthwhile housing investment projects.

  Churches National Housing Coalition
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Stoke-on-Trent representatives of the Churches National Housing Coalition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Ministerial colleagues and I received a number of written and oral representations when the Churches National Housing Coalition lobbied Parliament on 1 December.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much expenditure has been incurred on mandatory home improvement grants in the Hyndburn constituency in each of the financial years since the inception of the current scheme; and what is his estimate, based on recent trends, of the demand for expenditure during the financial year 1992–93.

  Sir George Young
  The total expenditure on mandatory home improvement grants under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 reported by Hyndburn local authority—whose area is identical to the constituency—since the inception of the current renovation grants scheme is:

  £

  1990–91

  83,300

  1991–92

  1,333,500

  The Department does not prepare forecasts of expenditure on home improvement grants by local authority area, but reported expenditure on mandatory home improvement grants in Hyndburn for the first six months of financial year 1992–93 is £911,300.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the viability and cost of technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Maclean
  Improvements in the thermal efficiency of coal fired power stations will reduce the use of fuel per unit of energy produced. This also reduces carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy. Most coal-fired power stations already incorporate many efficiency improvement measures.

  The gasification of coal and the burning of the gas in a combined cycle gas turbine plant can improve the thermal efficiency to about 45 per cent. from about 35 per cent. for a conventional power station. This technology is available and may be used in the longer term.

  Building and Construction
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what progress he has made towards commencing his proposed inquiry into the construction industry; and which bodies he has invited to take part;

  (2) how much of the estimated sum required to be paid by participants taking part in the project to reduce conflict within the building industry has so far been raised; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will give a breakdown of the cost involved in setting up the group to look at ways to reduce conflict within the building industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Negotiations between the Department and the industry and client organisations are continuing. We hope to conclude these discussions shortly. The following organisations have been invited to take part in the proposed joint review: the Construction Industry Council, the Construction Industry Employers Council, the 94
  Confederation of Associations of Specialist Engineering Contractors, the Specialist Engineering Contractor's Group, the National Specialist Contractors Council and the British Property Federation. The estimated maximum budget for the review is £250,000, with half the cost to be met by the Government and half by the other sponsors.

  Conference on European Business and the Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution was made by Ministers and officials of his Department to the conference on European business and the environment held in Brussels at the end of November.

  Mr. Howard
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside and I chaired the conference, and the Minister for Trade and I addressed it. This very successful United Kingdom presidency event highlighted the important role of business in improving Europe's environment. It was arranged in partnership with the European Commission, and a number of officials from my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry were involved in organising and participating in the event.

  Environmental Damage
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment's report on financial and civil liability; when he expects to respond to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities' 1990 report on liability and environmental damage; what reports and proposals he expects to receive from the EC and the Council of Europe on liability for environmental damage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We expect to receive the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment's report on civil liability shortly. I understand that the European Commission proposes to issue a consultation document on civil liability for environmental damage in the new year. It is not clear at this stage what effect this will have on the draft directive on civil liability for damage caused by waste, which was presented by the Commission in 1991. The Council of Europe has prepared a convention on civil liability on which the negotiations have recently been completed. I am not aware of any outstanding responses to the House of Lords Select Committee on European Affairs regarding liability for environmental damage.

  Foyer Hostel Schemes
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department is giving to the development of Foyer hostel schemes in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department's assistance for the development of foyer hostel schemes is channelled through the Housing Corporation, in the same way as for other housing association schemes. The corporation is providing revenue support to five pilot projects based around existing YMCA hostels in Nottingham, Norwich, St. Helens, Romford and Wimbledon. It will also be providing capital funding for two new-build foyer schemes in Birmingham and London; and 20 bed spaces at the London scheme will attract revenue support through
  95
  special needs management allowance. Agreement in principle has been given to capital funding for a third project in Salford.

  In addition, my Department has seconded an official to the Foyer Federation for Youth—FFY—a limited company established to promote the growth of foyers in this country; and the head of the Department's homelessness policy division attends meetings of the FFY board as an observer.

  Public Analyst Service
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance he has issued to the Local Government Commission in relation to the public analyst service;

  (2) what representations he has received about the future of local authority scientific services or about the public analyst service in regard to the work of the Local Government Commission and future reorganisation of local government; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what guidance he has issued to the Local Government Commission in relation to the provision of local authority scientific services.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance he has issued to the Local Government Commission in relation to the public analyst service;

  (2) what guidance he has issued to the Local Government Commission in relation to the provision of local authority scientific services.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In response to the 1991 consultation paper on local government structure, representations were received from the Association of Public Analysts as well as from other organisations such as the Institute of Environmental Health Officers and the Society of County Trading Standards Officers.

  The policy guidance issued to the Local Government Commission emphasises the importance of regulatory and enforcement functions of local authorities. We have also issued to the commission a new comprehensive descriptive list of all local government functions, which is publicly available. This contains chapters on environmental protection, environmental health and consumer protection.

  The commission must ensure that all functions, particularly those which involve protecting all aspects of the local environment, will be satisfactorily performed by any new authority it recommends.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the implication for the appeal mechanisms in force under the public registers provisions within integrated pollution control of the incorporation into United Kingdom law of EC directive 90/3B/EEC on the freedom of access to environmental information in 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. At present information may be withheld from the integrated pollution control—IPC—public register only on grounds of commercial confidentiality or national security. The EC directive on freedom of access to information on the environment contains similar exemptions. As the existing provisions under IPC and the 96
  requirements of the directive are compatible, the appeals mechanism for the exclusion of information from public registers will not be affected by incorporation of the directive into United Kingdom law.

  Planning Policy Guidance Notes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department now proposes to publish the proposed planning policy guidance notes made arising from the revision of his Department circular 8/87.

  Mr. Baldry
  A draft for consultation will be published in the new year.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent information he has received from Her Majesty's chief inspector of pollution in respect of the application by British Nuclear Fuels for authorisation to operate the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Maclean
  The chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution informed me when he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food proposed to go out to public consultation on their proposed new draft authorisations for British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield site.

  Organic Waste Collection
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will fund a pilot project to enable Stoke-on-Trent city council to introduce organic waste collection; if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have made £15 million in supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—available for local authority recycling investment in England in 1993–94, as part of our environmental partnership scheme. The Department invited applications from Stoke-on-Trent city council and other English local authorities for these SCAs on 17 November 1992. A copy of the letter making the invitation has been placed in the Library. We will consider any application from the city council, along with applications from other authorities, against the criteria set out in that letter.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much derelict land grant was paid in each of the last five years with respect to reclamation schemes in the borough of Thamesdown; and which were the schemes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Derelict land grant expenditure in the borough of Thamesdown in the last five years is shown in the table. All the expenditure relates to a scheme to reclaim former quarry land at Queens park, Swindon for public open space.

  Expenditure £

  1987–88

  512,015

  1988–89

  401,545

  1989–90

  96,927

  97

  Expenditure (£)

  1990–91

  444,553

  1991–92

  6,659

  11992–93

  20,000

  Total

  1,481,699

  1Forecast.

  Customs House, Dundee
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the sums spent from Government funds in each of the past five years on the refurbishment of the Customs House building in Dundee, formerly occupied by Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer about the cost of restoration work given to him by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 14 December Official Report, column 62. All Customs and Excise expenditure was in the financial year 1990–91.

  Shrewsbury Castle (Bombing)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice and assistance from his Department's funds he has been able to extend to Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council, owners of Shrewsbury castle, following bomb damage in August.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Neither my Department nor the Department of National Heritage has received any request for advice or assistance from Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council in respect of the bomb damage to Shrewsbury castle in August.

  Fish (Pollutants Report)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the report "Chlorinated Organic Pollutants in Fish from the North-East Irish Sea", which his Department has partly funded.

  Mr. Maclean
  The report "Chlorinated Organic Pollutants in Fish from the North East Irish Sea" was prepared under a sub-contract by the department of the environment and evolutionary biology of the university of Liverpool, as part of a DOE research contract with WRc plc for a study of the sources and fates of synthetic organics. The main contract final report is on sale through the Foundation for Water Research, and is available in the DOE library. The sub-contract report is also available to the public in the DOE library. Copies of both reports have been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the procedure for local authorities in appealing against their standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced his proposals for standard spending assessments for 1993–94 on 26 November 1992. There is now a period of consultation until 31 December 1992 during 98
  which local authorities and Members of Parliament may make written representations about any aspects of SSAs. We will also try to satisfy as many requests for meetings as is practical during this period. All representations will be carefully considered before decisions are announced in January 1993.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the local authority associations on changes to the criteria for standard spending assessments for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer. 9 December 1992]: The proposals which were announced on 26 November as part of the provisional revenue support grant settlement followed extensive discussion with the local authority associations about the methodology for standard spending assessments. We are now in the middle of a period of formal consultation on these proposals which continues until 31 December. So far we have received a letter from the chairman of the London Boroughs Association setting out a number of areas of concern to London boroughs and requesting a meeting. We have also received a letter from the Association of County Councils expressing concern at the provision for spending on the fire service within SSAs for 1993–94. All representations from the associations and individual local authorities will be carefully considered before final decisions are reached in the new year.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the proposed increases in standard spending assessment and revenue support grant for 1993–94 over 1992–93 for Brighton, Blackpool and Southend-on-Sea; and Dorset, Sussex, Lancashire and Essex;

  (2) what is his proposed increase in standard spending assessment and revenue support grant for Bournemouth for 1993–94 over 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 10 December 1992]: The proposed increase in SSA between 1992–93 and 1993–94 for the authorities requested is shown in the table. The 1992–93 figures used in making the comparisons have been adjusted for major changes in function, mainly the transfer of further education, so that they are comparable with the 1993–94 figures.

  Under the community charge system revenue support grant—RSG—is paid into collection funds. In shire areas there is no separate grant towards county and district level services. The distribution of RSG depends, among other factors, on the amount which could be raised from relevant adults in the area and the income from non-domestic rates—NDR—which is distributed in line with relevant adults. Under the council tax, RSG will be paid to all tiers of authorities and will depend, among other factors, on the income which could be raised from the taxbase of equivalent dwellings. The income from the NDR will depend on resident population. It is thus not possible to provide the grant figures requested on a comparable basis.

  Increase in provisional 1993–94 SSA over adjusted 1992–93 SSA

  Local authority

  £ million

  Bournemouth

  0.080

  Brighton

  1.880

  Blackpool

  1.447

  Southend-on-Sea

  -0.728

  Dorset

  12.376

  99

  Local authority

  £ million

  East Sussex

  27.575

  West Sussex

  14.503

  Lancashire

  17.808

  Essex

  34.806

  Housing, Rotherham
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new homes will be provided by Rotherham borough council in 1993–94; what is the total provision from central funds which will be received by the authority in support of capital expenditure on housing; and what capital expenditure he expects the authority to incur next year.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: The level of housing capital expenditure in Rotherham in 1993–94 is a matter for the borough council to decide in the light of the available resources. The authority's proposed programme for housing capital expenditure in 1993–94, included in its housing investment programme—HIP—submission, contains no expenditure on new housebuilding by the council. Details of local authority HIP allocations for 1993–94 will be announced later this week.

  Council Tax (Students)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will make it his policy to enable local authorities to charge business rates on those properties rented exclusively to students and whose occupants are exempt from council tax;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the loss in revenue arising from the exemption of students from council tax liability in respect of (a) students residing in accommodation provided by institutions of higher education arid (b) students residing in privately rented accommodation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: Halls of residence and student-only dwellings have been exempted from the council tax because most students are not eligible to claim council tax benefit. The imposition of business rates on such properties would result in higher rents for students. The Government do not intend to take such a step.

  Local authorities will be compensated for the revenue forgone as a result of this exemption through the revenue support grant system. No local authority will therefore be financially penalised for the presence in its area of students.

  Vehicle Noise
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been undertaken to date by his Department in developing a standard method of measuring noise levels from moving vehicles.

  Mr. Carlisle
  As the matter is within the remit of the Secretary of State for Transport, I have been asked to reply. A new vehicle type-approval test was established in the 1960s, as since then the United Kingdom has applied relevant EC directives which are subject to it. More recently, the Department of Transport has been carrying out research concerning the noise generated by tyre/road 100
  interaction and supporting the work of an International Standards Organisation (ISO) working group looking at traffic noise. This group is evolving a Transport Research Laboratory system for assessing road traffic noise into an International standard. When this is completed, we anticipate that the United Kingdom system will be universally acknowledged and will provide a uniform measure for this environmental nuisance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Chipmunks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the welfare of caged chipmunks for sale in pet shops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have received no representations about the welfare of chipmunks sold as pets in pet shops. The welfare of animals sold as pets is protected by the Pet Animals Act 1951, as amended, which requires any person keeping a pet shop to be licensed by the local authority.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish tables, for 1991 and for 1990, showing the number of(a) young adults and (b) juveniles committing each category of offence and a breakdown showing the percentage under each category who were sentenced to each type of sentence or order;

  (2) if he will list for each category of offence the number of offences committed by (a) juveniles and (b) young adults in each police force area; and what percentages this was of the total number of offences in each category in each of the last five years for which figures are available.4

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: Information on convictions and cautions within police force areas by age and offence group, is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" supplementary tables volume 3.

  Figures showing the number of offenders cautioned and convicted by type of sentence given, age and offence group is also published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" supplementary tables volumes 1, 2 and 3. Copies of all the publications referred to above are available in the Libarary.

  The 1991 volumes will be published in the new year.

  Hazelton UK
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is to be taken on licensing irregularities in the animal procedure carried out in the current year at Hazelton UK in respect of its use of primates.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Two, unrelated, technical irregularities in blood sampling in rats and monkeys, discovered in March and May of 1992, were dealt with at the time by the inspector.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department's inspectors
  101
  responsible for sanctioning the conditions at Shamrock (GB) Ltd. and Hazelton United Kingdom retain responsibility for implementing improved conditions.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Yes.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 215, if he will make a statement on the quality of his Department's previous inspections at Shamrock (GB) Ltd. and Hazelton United Kingdom institutions.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Shamrock (GB) Ltd and Hazelton United Kingdom were inspected respectively four and nine times in 1991 and six and fourteen times in the period January to September 1992. It is difficult even for unannounced visits, however frequent, to detect the failures of care, handling and management which were revealed at Shamrock by the detailed investigation which was carried out following receipt of the allegations made by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. None the less, the incident shows that the system is able to respond quickly to such allegations, and to take tough and effective action where necessary.

  I consider that the inspectors responsible for the two establishments acted conscientiously to ensure the well-being of the animals concerned. With hindsight, the programmes of cage replacement agreed at Shamrock and Hazelton seem over-generous and these have now been accelerated in the light of the findings of the investigation. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the inspectors would have taken steps to require immediate improvements if it had ever become apparent that overt animal suffering was being caused by the caging in use.

  Police Supernumerary Posts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken itself or via the inspectorate of constabulary, to encourage any police force to seek to hold supernumerary posts in the coming year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many supernumerary posts the Thames Valley police asked to be allowed to hold in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and how many have been permitted by his Department in each case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I shall arrange for a written reply to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance was offered(a) by his Department and (b) by the inspectorate of constabulary on the criteria against which he would consider allowing police authorities to hold supernumerary posts in the coming year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question by him on 14 December 1992, at column 6. Police authorities were informed of these criteria in March 1991.

  HIV
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make it an offence for a person deliberately to infect another with the HIV virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have considered this matter very carefully in the light of the concern which has been expressed, and have looked at the precedents in other countries. I have concluded, however, that there are difficulties both of principle and of practice in bringing this type of behaviour within the scope of the criminal law and I am not persuaded that these difficulties have been overcome in other jurisdictions. I, therefore, have no plans to introduce legislation to make the deliberate transmission of the HIV virus a criminal offence.

  High-Risk Prisoners
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made to the role of the category A committee for high-risk prisoners in the light of the security audit undertaken by Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Lakes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the light of the security audit undertaken last year by Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Lakes, it has been decided to change the procedures for reviewing the security status of category A prisoners. Security status will continue to be reviewed on conviction and at least annually there after, but referral to the category A committee will be limited to new cases and to those cases where recommendations have been made for a change to the security category either by the holding prison or by prison service headquarters.

  The category A committee comprises senior officials of the prison service, including governors and staff of prisons normally holding category A prisoners; a senior medical officer; and a senior police adviser. Its role is:

  (i) to consider whether prisoners recently convicted of very serious offences should be retained in security category A, which is reserved for those whose escape from prison custody would be highly dangerous to the public or the police or the security of the State;

  (ii) to consider all cases of category A prisoners where recommendations have been made for a change in security status; and to review cases where no such recommendations have been made for five years; and

  (iii) to make recommendations to the director general of the prison service.

  All other cases will be considered at least annually by officials of the directorate of custody.

  The new procedures are designed to improve efficiency in the administration of category A prisoners while ensuring that changes in security status are well founded and that no prisoner remains in category A any longer than is necessary.

  Crime Statistics, Dorset
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage change since 1979 in(a) police manpower, (b) recorded crime and (c) population in Dorset; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The requested information is as follows:
  103

  per cent.

  (a) police manpower1

  14.6

  (b) recorded crime2

  121.6

  (c) population3

  12.6

  1 Actual strength for April 1979 and September 1992.

  2 Based on annual figures for notifiable offences recorded by the police in 1979 and 1991.

  3 Based on the population figure for mid-1979 and the estimated figure for mid-1991.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sums were expended by his Department on European Drug Prevention Week additional to those already expended through other programmes; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Jack
  The additional Home Office expenditure on European Drug Prevention Week amounted to £393,000. The bulk was used by the 20 local drugs prevention teams set up under the drug prevention initiative, to produce over 220 events and projects across the country during the week, with the aim of further raising awareness a drug and solvent misuse. The remainder included funds spent on publicity and promotional material as well as organisation costs.

  Royal Holloway and Bedford New College
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps the Charity Commission took in considering Royal Holloway and Bedford New college's proposal to sell pictures from its collection to(a) consider and take advice on surveys of the buildings and (b) consider the college's alternative plans for raising the money; if he will list those surveys commissioned or considered; and what information was received from the college on its financial needs;

  (2) what steps the Charity Commission took in considering Royal Holloway and Bedford New college's proposal to sell pictures from its collection to (a) seek advice on the integrity of the collection from (i) directors of national museums or art collections or (ii) independent experts and (b) consider the provisions on the we of paintings in the 1883 deed of foundation; if he will list the experts whose advice was taken into account; and what alternative educational use was considered for the pictures.

  Table A Unaccompanied 1children2 applying for asylum on their arrival in the United Kingdom, by nationality, November 1990 to December 1991

  1990

  1991

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Afghanistan

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Angola

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  4

  3

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Ghana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  India

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Iran

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  4

  —

  4

  3

  4

  Sri Lanka

  7

  1

  8

  2

  2

  6

  9

  4

  4

  4

  9

  9

  —

  9

  Turkey

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Uganda

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Zaire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  TOTAL

  16

  5

  12

  8

  3

  10

  15

  8

  8

  12

  10

  15

  8

  19

  104
  Mr. Jack
  The foundation deed of 11 October 1883 does not make provision as to any specific use for the pictures. The trusts relating to the pictures are contained in an indenture of 5 August 1881. I understand that the commissioners were asked to make a scheme to change the trusts of the 1881 deed to allow certain pictures to be sold for the purpose of providing a fund without which the main purpose of Thomas Holloway's Foundation could not be maintained.

  It was for the college to satisfy the commissioners that it had considered the options before it on the basis of proper advice. It was for the commissioners to satisfy themselves that the case was supported by appropriate evidence, not to seek independent advice.

  In reaching their decision the commissioners had before them evidence provided by the college both as to the state of the buildings, the estimated costs of repairs and the financial position of the college including evidence of efforts made to raise the necessary funds. They also had the evidence produced by the objectors to the scheme which was examined with equal care.

  The terms of the 1881 deed were considered very carefully on a number of occasions. Specifically the deed did not provide any educational use for the pictures. I understand that the commissioners' view was, therefore, that the integrity of the collection was not central to the consideration of this matter by the commissioners.

  Asylum (Children)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum applications made by unaccompanied children under 16 years were determined

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information relates to unaccompanied children applying at the ports since November 1990 and is given in tables A and B. Corresponding information for January to October 1990 is not available. The information in table A, for November 1990 to December 1991, is of children aged 16 or under: separate figures for those under 16 are not available. The information in table B, for January to November 1992, is of those under 16.

  Information on in-country application by unaccompanied children is not available in this form.

  As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for 25 November, columns 647–48, information on decisions on applications by unaccompanied children is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  105
  1Unaccompanied at the point of their arrival, and not known to be joining a close adult relative in the United Kingdom.

  2Aged 16 or under. The figures involve some estimation since in certain cases the precise date of birth is not available.

  Table B Unaccompanied1 children2 applying for asylum on their arrival in the United Kingdom, by nationality, January to November 1992

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Afghanistan

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Angola

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Ghana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lebanon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somalia

  2

  2

  1

  4

  —

  2

  5

  3

  2

  1

  4

  Sri Lanka

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Sudan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turkey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Uganda

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  5

  Zaire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  TOTAL

  4

  9

  7

  7

  8

  7

  10

  7

  5

  4

  12

  1Unaccompanied at the point of their arrival, and not known to be joining a close adult relative in the United Kingdom.

  2Under 16 years of age. The figures involve some estimation since in certain cases the precise date of birth is not available.

  Remand
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons currently held on remand in gaols in England and Wales have been held for(a) up to six months, (b) exceeding six months but less than 12 months, (c) exceeding six months but less than 18 months, (d) exceeding 18 months but less than 24 months, (e) exceeding 24 months but less than 36 months and (f) more than 36 months;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the reasons for the delay in coming to trial for persons held on remand in gaols in England and Wales for periods exceeding 18 months; and to how many cases each reason applies.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: The latest readily available information held currently is given in the table.

  Population of untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners in prison service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 19921: by length of time since first remand into a prison service establishment.

  Length of time since first remanded into a prison service establishment2

  Number of Prisoners3

  Up to 6 months

  8,160

  Over 6 up to 12 months

  1,190

  Over 12 up to 18 months

  170

  Over 18 months up to 2 years

  30

  Over 2 up to 3 years

  10

  Over 3 years

  —

  All lengths

  9,560

  1Excludes 845 prisoners held in police cells.

  2Excludes any time spent in non-prison service establishments before reception on remand into a prison service establishment; includes any subsequent time which may have been spent on bail.

  3Provisional rounded estimates.

  I regret that information on the reasons for delay in relation to individual persons who have been held for periods in excess of 18 months is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Wellbury House
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inspection has been carried out into the fire regulations at Wellbury House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 8 December 1992]: Wellbury House boarding school, Great Offley, was inspected by Hertfordshire fire and rescue service on 4 February 1992. Conditions were thought to be such that persons using the basement and upper floors would be at serious risk from a fire. A notice under section 10 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 was duly issued the following day.

  The notice prohibited the use of the basement and upper floors pending work to remedy the deficiencies identified by the inspecting officer. I understand, however, that no such work has been done. The premises are therefore inspected each month to ensure that the prohibition notice is being observed.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Travel Expenses
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure for travel by Ministers on European Community business, divided into fares and subsistence for each parliamentary Session from and including 1987–88 to 1991–92 in(a) cash and (b) 1991–92 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  The information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the arrangements for ensuring that regional planning guidance issued by the Department of the Environment and regional briefs produced by the Department of Transport are each drafted with regard to the other.

  The Prime Minister
  Regional planning guidance and regional briefs giving information on transport issues are
  107
  prepared with regard to each other. There is close consultation between the two Departments which have joint regional offices.

  Land Sales
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister what rules govern the disclosure of information concerning the sale of land owned by Government Departments with regard to the location of the land, sale price and name of purchaser; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government adopt normal commercial practice in relation to the disclosure of the details of land transactions. The terms on which land has been sold and the identity of the purchaser are treated as commercial in confidence. Information should not be disclosed without the agreement of both parties.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Talking Books
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has as to which local authorities supply a free talking book service to the visually impaired from the local library service; and if he will make a statement about such provision.

  Mr. Key
  Information about which local authorities supply a free talking book service to the visually impaired is not collected centrally.

  Library authorities generally exercise their responsibilities towards visually impaired people by providing as wide a selection as possible of large print books and cassette recordings of books. Large print books are part of the book lending service and must be provided free of charge. Many authorities also loan cassette recordings of books free of charge to the visually impaired. Some library authorities provide reading machines, and in some cases braille transcription services. The Royal National Institute for the Blind—RNIB—talking books service, as such, is not generally regarded as an indispensible element of a library service for blind people, and any charge which might be made for the talking book service does not, of itself, constitute any infringement of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.

  However, we recognise that more needs to be done to develop public library services for blind people. That is why we have been jointly funding the RNIB's "Share the Vision" project, which is examining various ways of developing the public library as the primary point of access to information services as a whole for visually impaired people.

  National Sports Museum
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will give consideration to the establishment of a national sports museum in the region, in conjunction with the north-west bid for the Olympic games;

  (2) if he will consider sponsoring the establishment of a national sports museum in Liverpool.

  Mr. Key
  I have received no proposals from the Manchester bid committee to establish a national sports museum.

  Government support for new museums is provided by the Museums and Galleries Commission through its network of area museum councils. Applications for grant assistance from the commission must demonstrate that the project is well conceived, and that the governing body is willing to work towards the standards set out for the registration of a museum by the commission.

  Art Treasures
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he will advise to secure national art treasures in view of the Windsor fire; if he will make it his policy for the public to have the right to view such treasures free of charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: I have commissioned an inquiry into fire protection at all royal palaces for which my Department has financial responsibility in the light of the Windsor castle fire and will consider carefully the recommendations of the inquiry. Responsibility for fire protection at national museums and galleries is vested in the trustees who may seek advice from whatever sources they consider to be most appropriate. It is for those responsible for the care and presentation of national art treasures to decide whether or not a charge is made to view them.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the latest information on the epidemic of BSE in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am placing in the Library of the House a note summarising the latest evidence about the epidemic. All the evidence continues to point to infected ruminant protein as the origin of the epidemic, and to justify confidence that the ban on feeding such material to ruminants will bring about its end.

WALES

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans to promote the Welsh language.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government will soon be placing before Parliament a Welsh Language Bill. The Bill will
  109
  require public bodies serving Wales to prepare schemes covering the use they will make of Welsh in providing services to the public. It will also establish a statutory Welsh Language Board and amend previous legislation in respect of Welsh.

  The Bill will be a further step in the Government's unprecedented programme of support for the Welsh language, as part of which we are making available £7.6 million in grants for Welsh language organisations and projects in the current financial year. We are also continuing to implement the introduction of Welsh as a national curriculum subject in all schools in Wales.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of Cardiff Bay development corporation; and what was discussed.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I meet the chairman of Cardiff Bay development corporation regularly to discuss a variety of issues.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the process of consultations between Cardiff Bay development corporation and the Welsh Office.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Under the terms of its financial memorandum, Cardiff Bay development corporation is required to prepare and submit to the Welsh Office a corporate plan looking three years ahead of the current financial year. There are formal consultations on this plan. In addition, there is informal discussion between officials on a day-to-day basis.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the relationship between Cardiff Bay development corporation and(a) Cardiff Bay Management Ltd. and (b) Cardiff Bay Investment Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Cardiff Bay (Management) Ltd. and Cardiff Bay (Investment) Ltd. were both incorporated in May 1989 and are wholly owned subsidiary companies of the corporation. In the published accounts of the corporation as at 31 March 1992 they were described as dormant and this status is unchanged. In each case the authorised share capital is £1,000 and the issued share capital is £2 being two shares of £1 each.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the Government funds given to Cardiff Bay development corporation each year since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is given in figure 6.01 in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1992–93 to 1994–95: A Report by the Welsh Office", Cm 1916, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) which factors in the environmentally sensitive area programme account for savings to common agriculture policy expenditure, in order of their costs;

  (2) if he will collate and tabulate the total savings in common agriculture policy expenditure arising from the
  110
  environmentally sensitive area scheme since its inception, per year and in total for each scheme and for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The main factor that could account for savings to CAP expenditure is the requirement to reduce stocking densities in order to protect specific wildlife habitats and landscape characteristics of the areas. An assessment of likely savings is contained in the interim report prepared by the University college of Wales, Aberystwyth, on the socio-economic aspects of designation. This report was issued in June 1991 as technical background to the consultation paper relating to the Cambrian mountains (original) ESA, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. The final report is expected to be published early in the new year.

  AIDS
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of reported AIDS cases for Clwyd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At the end of September 1992 the total number of AIDS cases who were known to live in Clwyd was 14, of whom 12 had died.

  Noise Nuisance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many noise nuisance complaints have been received by each local authority in Wales during each of the last three years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office does not have this information on a local authority basis. Figures for Wales in total for 1988–89 and 1989–90–1990–91 data are not yet available—can be found in table 3.29 of the "Environmental Digest for Wales No. 6 1991", copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Garden Festival Wales Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the auditing arrangements he has put in place for Garden Festival Wales Ltd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This is not a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales. The two local authority sponsors, Blaenau Gwent borough council and Gwent county council have established a limited company, Garden Festival Wales Ltd. Audit arrangements are covered under the Companies Acts.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contingency arrangements he has put in place to mitigate the impact on either(a) local authority and (b) urban programme projects in the event of Garden Festival Wales Ltd. making a loss.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have made no contingency arrangements. The two local authority sponsors Blaenau Gwent borough council and Gwent county council agreed in the 1990 revised business plan to accommodate any losses.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish(a) the management accounts and (b) final accounts of Garden Festival Wales Ltd.
  111
  Mr. David Hunt
  Garden Festival Wales Ltd. expect its final accounts, which will include management accounts, to be available at the end of this financial year.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of Garden Festival Wales Ltd. expenditure and revenue outturn on the approvals he will make regarding local government expenditure in Wales(a) in the current financial year and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The final position of Garden Festival Wales Ltd. has not yet been reported to me.

  Commercial Fishing Boats
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many commercial fishing boats are currently registered at each Welsh port; and how many people are directly employed.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are 950 commercial fishing vessels registered in Wales. Comprehensive data on port of registry are not available centrally. In 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 1,165 full-time and 511 part-time employees in the Welsh fishing industry.

  Farmers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of farmers in Wales are currently aged(a) between 55 and 65 years and (b) over 65 years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  According to the latest EC farm structure survey, carried out in 1990, some 26 per cent. of farmers in Wales were aged between 55 and 64 years and 23 per cent. were aged 65 years and over.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals for emergency planning consequent upon his proposals for local government reorganisation.

  Table 1 Sales of council dwellings (number)

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Alyn and Deeside

  76

  103

  137

  233

  306

  125

  86

  29

  Colwyn

  66

  74

  75

  118

  122

  51

  26

  14

  Delyn

  65

  96

  129

  114

  157

  81

  55

  39

  Glyndwr

  63

  67

  63

  178

  145

  51

  21

  11

  Rhuddlan

  30

  46

  85

  140

  111

  58

  24

  8

  Wrexham Maelor

  154

  199

  188

  439

  932

  309

  165

  82

  Carmarthen

  59

  74

  79

  126

  119

  100

  80

  35

  Ceredigion

  57

  79

  74

  179

  228

  114

  83

  54

  Dinefwr

  52

  74

  76

  122

  108

  84

  39

  15

  Llanelli

  159

  171

  206

  414

  316

  164

  123

  57

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  104

  100

  122

  314

  365

  152

  91

  66

  South Pembrokeshire

  45

  41

  67

  132

  133

  74

  47

  16

  Blaenau Gwent

  108

  153

  171

  356

  486

  174

  131

  46

  Islwyn

  175

  233

  263

  379

  289

  89

  99

  39

  Monmouth

  140

  129

  193

  242

  244

  92

  85

  32

  Newport

  341

  275

  277

  515

  592

  164

  110

  52

  Torfaen

  150

  334

  317

  425

  524

  282

  160

  103

  Aberconwy

  82

  87

  81

  235

  237

  76

  42

  12

  Arfon

  65

  72

  63

  191

  188

  65

  46

  24

  Dwyfor

  27

  15

  13

  31

  40

  44

  16

  7

  Meirionnydd

  57

  56

  52

  89

  91

  39

  34

  12

  Ynys Mon

  96

  75

  65

  270

  324

  131

  58

  14

  Cynon Valley

  76

  103

  124

  146

  175

  119

  82

  33

  Merthyr Tydfil

  167

  185

  216

  304

  298

  122

  66

  22

  Ogwr

  318

  325

  382

  590

  488

  244

  156

  62

  Rhondda

  55

  81

  59

  104

  111

  87

  34

  25

  112
  Mr. David Hunt
  Emergency planning is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who will announce any proposals in the light of my decisions on local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish the Bill for the reorganisation of local government of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will be announcing my decisions on local government reorganisation in due course, and will publish my Bill to implement reorganisation at an appropriate time thereafter.

  Farmers (Retirement)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received calling for the implementation of a pension scheme to assist early retirement amongst farmers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Several.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total tonnage catch of all species made by the Welsh fishing fleet for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Data on fish landings in Wales are contained in the annual publication, "Digest of Welsh Statistics", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the number and (b) the value of council house sales by district council in each year since 1985 in (i) cash terms and (ii) prices, using 1985 as a constant.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the tables.
  113

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Rhymney Valley

  196

  274

  260

  364

  392

  247

  144

  79

  Taff-Ely

  266

  293

  377

  537

  561

  234

  146

  73

  Brecknock

  90

  99

  92

  172

  150

  65

  50

  9

  Montgomeryshire

  70

  89

  57

  130

  141

  51

  251

  27

  Radnorshire

  28

  23

  45

  52

  50

  26

  19

  8

  Cardiff

  611

  775

  591

  1,038

  1,071

  281

  241

  76

  Vale of Glamorgan

  207

  223

  195

  451

  338

  111

  84

  41

  Port Talbot

  280

  281

  295

  421

  442

  185

  159

  62

  Lliw Valley

  117

  129

  145

  169

  254

  175

  79

  25

  Neath

  124

  146

  200

  299

  309

  137

  78

  36

  Swansea

  207

  254

  381

  876

  834

  337

  250

  86

  1April to September 1992 only.

  Source: Welsh Office housing statistics form WHO7, as submitted by the Welsh district authorities.

  Table 2 Value of sales of council dwellings at current prices (£000)

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Alyn and Deeside

  651

  840

  1,178

  2,236

  3,868

  2,047

  1,301

  414

  Colwyn

  544

  605

  687

  1,283

  1,491

  738

  409

  270

  Delyn

  542

  795

  1,166

  1,073

  2,124

  1,350

  907

  591

  Glyndwr

  541

  586

  589

  1,799

  1,898

  781

  336

  186

  Rhuddlan

  230

  363

  732

  1,456

  1,475

  973

  437

  151

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,133

  1,613

  1,636

  3,989

  10,906

  4,142

  2,505

  1,309

  Carmarthen

  553

  721

  818

  1,489

  1,790

  1,679

  1,260

  626

  Ceredigion

  627

  916

  821

  2,206

  3,149

  1,835

  1,444

  947

  Dinefwr

  442

  698

  676

  1,129

  1,261

  1,186

  558

  215

  Llanelli

  1,158

  1,287

  1,459

  3,120

  3,244

  2,168

  1,684

  803

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1,050

  989

  1,160

  3,378

  4,455

  2,280

  1,371

  1,068

  South Pembrokeshire

  426

  415

  718

  1,739

  2,007

  1,126

  836

  252

  Blaenau Gwent

  953

  1,390

  1,476

  3,087

  5,232

  2,165

  1,711

  598

  Islwyn

  1,501

  2,106

  2,327

  3,905

  3,944

  1,323

  1,479

  597

  Monmouth

  1,561

  1,546

  2,425

  3,633

  4,468

  1,817

  1,909

  645

  Newport

  3,005

  2,807

  3,101

  6,748

  9,413

  3,108

  1,918

  959

  Torfaen

  1,211

  3,523

  3,374

  4,127

  9,102

  4,727

  2,884

  1,481

  Aberconwy

  683

  728

  677

  2,376

  3,034

  1,078

  722

  239

  Arfon

  539

  590

  550

  1,946

  2,483

  1,035

  741

  426

  Dwyfor

  221

  111

  115

  320

  644

  560

  282

  95

  Meirionnydd

  435

  480

  463

  913

  1,174

  561

  504

  170

  Ynys Mon

  794

  626

  599

  2,744

  5,045

  1,791

  914

  226

  Cynon Valley

  632

  857

  1,018

  1,147

  1,446

  1,092

  830

  358

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,349

  1,519

  1,874

  2,623

  2,903

  1,276

  722

  252

  Ogwr

  2,602

  2,961

  3,562

  6,203

  6,170

  3,566

  2,339

  959

  Rhondda

  370

  546

  431

  736

  884

  807

  375

  286

  Rhymney Valley

  1,607

  2,421

  2,359

  3,544

  4,258

  3,285

  1,952

  836

  Taff-Ely

  2,246

  2,492

  3,279

  4,852

  6,387

  3,168

  2,095

  1,082

  Brecknock

  860

  957

  1,021

  2,003

  2,006

  1,008

  879

  169

  Montgomeryshire

  716

  948

  571

  1,639

  2,286

  904

  872

  410

  Radnorshire

  309

  248

  534

  704

  811

  459

  354

  179

  Cardiff

  6,079

  8,428

  6,338

  11,850

  17,229

  5,313

  4,406

  1,408

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2,246

  2,648

  2,381

  6,197

  5,198

  1,993

  1,533

  849

  Port Talbot

  1,931

  2,129

  2,623

  4,126

  5,124

  2,307

  2,137

  922

  Lliw Valley

  858

  1,000

  1,128

  1,345

  2,872

  2,302

  1,285

  386

  Neath

  919

  1,243

  1,748

  2,723

  3,297

  1,873

  1,096

  530

  Swansea

  1,741

  2,209

  3,616

  8,828

  9,297

  4,306

  3,113

  1,153

  1 April to September 1992 only.

  Source: Welsh Office housing statistics form WHO7, as submitted by the Welsh district authorities.

  Table 3
  Value of Sales of council house dwellings at 1985–86 prices2 (£000)

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Alyn and Deeside

  651

  814

  1,082

  1,914

  3,107

  1,523

  905

  276

  Colwyn

  544

  586

  631

  1,098

  1,198

  549

  285

  180

  Delyn

  542

  770

  1,071

  919

  1,706

  1,004

  631

  394

  Glyndwr

  541

  568

  541

  1,540

  1,525

  581

  234

  124

  Rhuddlan

  230

  352

  672

  1,246

  1,185

  724

  304

  101

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,133

  1,563

  1,502

  3,415

  8,760

  3,081

  1,743

  874

  Carmarthen

  553

  699

  751

  1,275

  1,438

  1,249

  877

  418

  Ceredigion

  627

  887

  754

  1,888

  2,529

  1,365

  1,005

  632

  Dinefwr

  442

  676

  621

  966

  1,013

  882

  388

  143

  Llanelli

  1,158

  1,247

  1,340

  2,671

  2,606

  1,613

  1,172

  536

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  1,050

  958

  1,065

  2,892

  3,578

  1,696

  954

  713

  South Pembrokeshire

  426

  402

  659

  1,489

  1,612

  838

  582

  168

  114 115

  District

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Blaenau Gwent

  953

  1,347

  1,355

  2,643

  4,202

  1,610

  1,190

  399

  Islwyn

  1,501

  2,040

  2,137

  3,343

  3,168

  984

  1,029

  398

  Monmouth

  1,561

  1,498

  2,227

  3,110

  3,589

  1,352

  1,328

  430

  Newport

  3,005

  2,719

  2,848

  5,776

  7,561

  2,312

  1,334

  640

  Torfaen

  1,211

  3,413

  3,099

  3,533

  7,311

  3,516

  2,007

  988

  Aberconwy

  683

  705

  622

  2,034

  2,437

  802

  502

  160

  Arfon

  539

  572

  505

  1,666

  1,994

  770

  516

  284

  Dwyfor

  221

  108

  106

  274

  517

  417

  196

  63

  Meirionnydd

  435

  465

  425

  782

  943

  417

  351

  113

  Ynys Mon

  794

  606

  550

  2,349

  4,052

  1,332

  636

  151

  Cynon Valley

  632

  830

  935

  982

  1,161

  812

  577

  239

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,349

  1,472

  1,721

  2,245

  2,332

  949

  502

  168

  Ogwr

  2,602

  2,869

  3,271

  5,310

  4,956

  2,653

  1,627

  640

  Rhondda

  370

  529

  396

  630

  710

  600

  261

  191

  Rhymney Valley

  1,607

  2,346

  2,166

  3,034

  3,420

  2,444

  1,358

  558

  Taff-Ely

  2,246

  2,414

  3,011

  4,153

  5,130

  2,356

  1,458

  722

  Brecknock

  860

  927

  938

  1,715

  1,611

  750

  612

  113

  Montgomeryshire

  716

  918

  524

  1,403

  1,836

  672

  607

  274

  Radnorshire

  309

  240

  490

  603

  651

  341

  246

  119

  Cardiff

  6,079

  8,165

  5,821

  10,144

  13,839

  3,952

  3,066

  940

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2,246

  2,565

  2,187

  5,305

  4,175

  1,482

  1,067

  567

  Port Talbot

  1,931

  2,063

  2,409

  3,532

  4,116

  1,716

  1,487

  615

  Lliw Valley

  858

  969

  1,036

  1,151

  2,307

  1,712

  894

  258

  Neath

  919

  1,204

  1,605

  2,331

  2,648

  1,393

  763

  354

  Swansea

  1,741

  2,140

  3,321

  7,557

  7,468

  3,203

  2,166

  770

  1April to September 1992 only.

  2Calculated using GDP deflator.

  Source: Welsh Office housing statistics form WHO7, as submitted by the Welsh district authorities.

  Hospital Closures
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the hospitals which have(a) partially and (b) wholly closed in Wales, during each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on partial closures is not available centrally. Information concerning the number of hospitals which closed wholly, and are still closed, is given in the table.

  Hospitals which closed

  Hospitals which opened

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1990–91

  7

  1

  1991–92

  18

  1

  1Includes one hospital closed for refurbishment.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to control sheep scab disease in Wales in the light of its reduction from a full notifiable status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 24 November, at column 628.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to reinstate sheep scab disease to full notifiable status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government have no plans to reintroduce controls on sheep scab.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many non-departmental public bodies had fully expensed executive car leasing schemes in the year 116
  1991–92; how many have revised them since; if he will issue updated guidelines on such schemes to all such bodies in Wales; if he will list which bodies had schemes which involve (a) free petrol and oil to executives benefiting, (b) no contribution to the leasing costs and (c) contributions of less than two sevenths of the total lease costs to the executives in the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  One non-departmental public body, the Welsh Development Agency, had an executive car leasing scheme which in 1991–92 did not require repayments for personal mileage. Repayments for petrol and oil commenced from 1 April 1992. The Development Board for Rural Wales —DBRW—had a scheme which required no contribution to leasing costs for some executives, including the chief executive, who also received full petrol and oil, and less than two sevenths from others. As stated in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the DBRW's 1991–92 accounts, this matter is being pursued by the Welsh Office. Guidance produced by the Treasury's central unit on purchasing on car contract hire or lease schemes was passed to Welsh non-departmental public bodies this year.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to issue a comprehensive statement on delegated powers to Welsh non-departmental public bodies; if he will place a copy of the statement in the Library; what proposals he has to keep it up to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Delegations to non-departmental public bodies—NDPBs—are set out in the financial memoranda, guidelines and other control documents applying to the individual bodies.

  These are kept under review and amended in the light of changing circumstances. The Welsh Office has recently taken action to remind NDPBs of the delegations currently in force.

  Training, Education and Enterprise
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about resources for training, education and enterprise in Wales in 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I attach great importance to training and education, and to the encouragement of enterprise. It is by developing people's abilities that our economy is strengthened and grows. I have established a department of training, education and enterprise to take the opportunity which we have uniquely in Wales to combine our efforts across these sectors. I am pleased to announce that a total of £559.4 million will be available for these sectors in 1993–94. This includes £248.5 million recurrent and £21.5 million capital expenditure for higher education, £129.3 million recurrent and £13.9 million capital for further education and £146.2 million for training. These resources will assist the further and higher education institutions in meeting rising demand and offer a sound basis for the work of the training and enterprise councils in delivering training and supporting enterprise.

  I am placing in the Library of the House copies of letters which are being sent today to chairmen of training and enterprise councils in Wales and to the chief executives of the higher and further education councils in Wales.

  Housing for Wales
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources will be made available to Housing for Wales to support development in the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In gross terms the resources available to Housing for Wales will amount to over £129.5 million in 1993–94. Taking account of associated private sector funding, the overall programme will be worth over £190 million next year. Compared to provision this year, my plans provide an uplift of about 5 per cent. in cash terms. Next year excluding the likely additional benefit of in-year transfers from local authorities, the allocation I have made will ensure that Housing for Wales's core annual production target can be raised from the present 3,500 to 3,650 homes. As regards current expenditure, I shall be making available almost £7.1 million in 1993–94 to cover the costs of the special needs management allowance scheme. This is of particular importance in supporting the housing component of our strategies for the vulnerable groups in Wales. It amounts to an 18 per cent. increase over provision for 1992–93.

  Noise-induced Hearing Loss
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of claimants in Wales who will not be eligible to claim for noise-induced hearing loss as a result of the decision to exclude those whose claim is for less than 20 per cent. disablement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information on which to base a separate estimate for Wales is not available. The proposed change would bring war pension rules for claims in respect of noise-induced hearing loss more into line with those for occupational deafness under the industrial injuries scheme.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax Relief and Allowances
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the yield if(a) the personal income tax allowances, (b) mortgage interest income tax reliefs and (c) employers' employees' and personal pension income tax reliefs were restricted to (a) 25 per cent. and (b) 20 per cent. income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest estimates of the direct revenue yields in a full year with the 1992–93 levels of allowances and tax rates are as follows:

  Restriction to 25 per cent. £ million

  Restriction to 20 per cent. £ million

  (i) All main income tax allowances

  1,500

  6,800

  (ii) Mortgage interest relief1

  —

  1,000

  (iii) Pension contribution reliefs2

  470

  1,100

  (iv) Combination of (i),(ii) and (iii)

  2,100

  9,000

  1 Mortgage interest relief is currently restricted to the basic rate of tax.

  2Employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and contributions to personal pensions including retirement annuity premia and free-standing additional voluntary contributions.

  The yield from restricting the rate of relief on employers' contributions to pension schemes would depend on the method by which such contributions were allocated to individual employees.

  No account has been taken of possible behavioural changes resulting from such restrictions.

  Value Added Tax
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the introduction of VAT on newspapers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have received a number of representations about this issue. The Government have no present plans or proposals to extend the scope of VAT to newspapers.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses have been wound up as a result of Customs and Excise taking action on value added tax in the last available year; and what percentage that represents of the number of businesses that ceased trading in that period.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Figures for businesses that cease trading are not collected centrally. During the year ending 31 March 1992, there were 42,676 insolvencies, in 6,775–16 per cent.—of which Customs and Excise were the petitioning creditors. In virtually all of these cases, other creditors were also involved.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the annual change in the revenue to the Exchequer if a reduced rate of value added tax at 6 per cent. were imposed on(a) the bloodstock industry, (b) funeral undertakings and cremations, (c) theatre and cinema tickets and video retail sales, (d) all snack foods, including chocolate, confectionary and chocolate coated biscuits and (e) admission to all sporting events.
  119
  Mr. Dorrell
  Precise costings are not available. The following estimates are based on consumers' expenditure data and make no allowance for the likely behavioural response to the change in the VAT rate:

  £ million (1991–92 prices)

  Bloodstock industry

  -5

  Theatre and cinema admissions and video retail sales

  -120

  All snack foods

  -930

  Admissions to all sporting events

  -40

  All snack foods include chocolate biscuits, confectionery, crisps, nut products, soft drinks and ice cream. These items are almost all standard rated at present.

  Funeral undertakings and cremations are presently exempt from VAT. The revenue effect from applying a VAT rate of 6 per cent. would need to take account of input tax which would be reclaimed at the standard rate of VAT. The revenue effect is likely to be close to zero.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will meet the editor of the Biddulph and Congleton Chronicle to discuss concerns about the removal of VAT zero-rating on newspapers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government have no present plans or proposals to extend the scope of VAT to newspapers. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a meeting at this time.

  Interest Rate Cuts
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make retail banks pass on the interest rate cuts more rapidly to their customers.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced at the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee hearing on 16 November that he intended to ask the Bank of England to have another look at the interest rates the banks charge their business customers and also to meet the bank chairmen when he has the opportunity.

  Tobacco and Alcohol Taxation
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to facilitate the convergence of tobacco and alcohol taxation in the EC by(a) reducing current United Kingdom taxes or (b) making no further increases in taxation, until such convergence is achieved.

  Sir John Cope
  A commitment to rate convergence is not necessary for the successful establishment of the single market and would unduly constrain my right hon. Friend's Budget flexibility.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects convergence of tobacco taxes to be achieved in the European Community.
  120
  Sir John Cope
  Recent directives have brought greater uniformity to the coverage and structure of EC tobacco duties, and have set minimum duty rates. For cigarettes the agreed minimum duty incidence is 57 per cent. of the retail price at the most popular price category. We accepted this reluctantly in the interests of agreement on a package of indirect tax measures, as we had been pressing for a minimum duty in cash terms. We intend to return to this issue in the first review of EC duty rates due by the end of 1994.

  We are committed to reducing smoking in the United Kingdom and have already undertaken, in the White Paper "The Health of the Nation", Cm 1986, at least to maintain the real level of the tobacco taxes. During our presidency of the EC, we have strongly advocated to finance and health colleagues the merits of using taxation to support health objectives. To avoid our own health and fiscal policy being adversely affected, we would like to see upwards convergence of EC duty rates towards United Kingdom levels.

  Crown Estate Commissioners
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of tax paid or other contributions made to the Consolidated Fund by the Crown Estate Commissioners since 1962.

  Mr. Lamont
  The Civil List Act 1952 provides that the net income from the Crown estate, after defraying costs of collection and management, is paid into the Exchequer. The costs defrayed include VAT where applicable, but the Crown estate is not subject to corporation, income or capital gains tax.

  The net income paid into the Consoidated Fund for each financial year since 1962 was published in the Official Report of 2 July at columns 659–60. The payment for 1991–92, then provisional, has since been confirmed at the same figure, £70 million.

  Taxation
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 17 December 1991, to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown),Official Report, column 121, to provide similar estimates of the burden of direct and indirect taxes for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will publish any revisions for earlier years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 November 1992, c. 569.]: Updated figures for 1991–92, including estimates of community charge payments, and the latest estimates for 1992–93 for direct taxes and indirect taxes excluding the community charge are given in the table on a similar basis as that provided to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East on 17 December 1991.

  Estimates of community charge payments in 1992–93 for specimen households are not yet available.
  121

  Income tax, National Insurance contributions and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings 1991–92

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  25.25

  45.79

  66.33

  107.42

  169.25

  300.73

  432.21

  563.69

  826.65

  1,221.09

  2,535.89

  NICs

  11.15

  18.55

  25.94

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  Total income tax and NICs

  36.40

  64.34

  92.28

  138.88

  200.71

  332.19

  463.67

  595.15

  858.11

  1,252.55

  2,567.35

  VAT

  —

  13.25

  17.73

  27.44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18.42

  22.76

  32.18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  6.86

  7.05

  7.45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  102.88

  139.82

  205.96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  15.4

  18.6

  20.2

  21.8

  25.7

  30.5

  32.9

  34.3

  35.9

  37.1

  38.6

  NICs

  6.8

  7.5

  7.9

  6.4

  4.8

  3.2

  2.4

  1.9

  1.4

  1.0

  0.5

  Total income tax and NICs

  22.1

  26.1

  28.1

  28.2

  30.5

  33.7

  35.3

  36.2

  37.3

  38.1

  39.1

  VAT

  —

  5.4

  5.4

  5.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7.5

  6.9

  6.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  2.8

  2.1

  1.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  41.7

  42.5

  41.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  16.98

  37.52

  58.06

  99.15

  156.02

  287.50

  418.98

  550.46

  813.42

  1,207.86

  2,522.66

  NICs

  11.15

  18.55

  25.94

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  Total income tax and NICs

  28.13

  56.07

  84.01

  130.61

  187.48

  318.96

  450.44

  581.92

  844.88

  1,239.32

  2,554.12

  VAT

  —

  12.23

  17.10

  27.67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  20.58

  25.04

  34.74

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  11.09

  11.22

  11.49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  99.96

  137.37

  204.51

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  10.3

  15.2

  17.7

  20.1

  23.7

  29.2

  31.9

  33.5

  35.4

  36.7

  38.4

  NICs

  6.8

  7.5

  7.9

  6.4

  4.8

  3.2

  2.4

  1.9

  1.4

  1.0

  0.5

  Total income tax and NICs

  17.1

  22.7

  25.6

  26.5

  28.5

  32.3

  34.3

  35.4

  36.7

  37.7

  38.9

  VAT

  —

  5.0

  5.2

  5.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.3

  7.6

  7.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  4.5

  3.4

  2.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  40.5

  41.8

  41.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, both working

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  1.14

  21.68

  42.22

  83.31

  124.40

  212.49

  325.27

  456.75

  719.71

  1,114.15

  2,428.95

  NICs

  7.51

  14.91

  22.30

  37.09

  51.49

  62.92

  62.92

  62.92

  62.92

  62.92

  62.92

  Total income tax and NICs

  8.65

  36.59

  64.53

  120.41

  175.88

  275.41

  388.19

  519.67

  782.63

  1,177.07

  2,491.87

  VAT

  —

  13.99

  19.27

  29.84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  23.73

  27.59

  35.30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  11.67

  11.72

  11.82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  85.98

  123.11

  197.37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0.7

  8.8

  12.8

  16.9

  18.9

  21.5

  24.7

  27.8

  31.3

  33.9

  36.9

  NICs

  4.6

  6.0

  6.8

  7.5

  7.8

  6.4

  4.8

  3.8

  2.7

  1.9

  1.0

  Total income tax and NICs

  5.3

  14.8

  19.6

  24.4

  26.8

  27.9

  29.5

  31.6

  34.0

  35.8

  37.9

  VAT

  —

  5.7

  5.9

  6.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9.6

  8.4

  7.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  4.7

  3.6

  2.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  34.9

  37.5

  40.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, two children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  0.85

  21.39

  41.93

  83.02

  139.89

  271.37

  402.85

  534.33

  797.29

  1,191.73

  2,506.53

  NICs

  11.15

  18.55

  25.94

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  31.46

  Total income tax and NICs

  12.00

  39.94

  67.88

  114.48

  171.35

  302.83

  434.31

  565.79

  828.75

  1,223.19

  2,537.99

  VAT

  —

  12.10

  17.61

  29.59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  20.33

  23.76

  31.19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  10.82

  11.43

  12.64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  83.18

  120.68

  187.91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  122 123

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0.5

  8.7

  12.8

  16.8

  21.3

  27.5

  30.6

  32.5

  34.7

  36.3

  38.1

  NICs

  6.8

  7.5

  7.9

  6.4

  4.8

  3.2

  2.4

  1.9

  1.4

  1.0

  0.5

  Total income tax and NICs

  7.3

  16.2

  20.7

  23.2

  26.1

  30.7

  33.0

  34.4

  36.0

  37.2

  38.6

  VAT

  —

  4.9

  5.4

  6.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.2

  7.2

  6.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community Charge

  —

  4.4

  3.5

  2.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  33.7

  36.7

  38.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Income tax, National Insurance contributions and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings 1992–93

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  24.76

  46.39

  68.01

  111.26

  180.01

  318.41

  456.81

  595.21

  872.01

  1,287.21

  2,671.21

  NICs

  11.79

  19.58

  27.36

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  Total income tax and NICs

  36.55

  65.96

  95.37

  143.93

  212.68

  351.08

  489.48

  627.88

  904.68

  1,319.88

  2,703.88

  VAT

  —

  14.13

  18.85

  29.13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18.55

  22.88

  32.32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  98.65

  137.11

  205.39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  14.3

  17.9

  19.7

  21.4

  26.0

  30.7

  33.0

  34.4

  36.0

  37.2

  38.6

  NICs

  6.8

  7.5

  7.9

  6.3

  4.7

  3.1

  2.4

  1.9

  1.3

  0.9

  0.5

  Total income tax and NICs

  21.1

  25.4

  27.6

  27.7

  30.7

  33.8

  35.4

  36.3

  37.4

  38.1

  39.1

  VAT

  —

  5.4

  5.4

  5.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7.1

  6.6

  6.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  38.0

  39.6

  39.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  16.50

  38.12

  59.75

  103.00

  166.78

  305.18

  443.58

  581.98

  858.78

  1,273.98

  2,657.98

  NICs

  11.79

  19.58

  27.36

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  Total income tax and NICs

  28.29

  57.70

  87.11

  135.67

  199.45

  337.85

  476.25

  614.65

  891.45

  1,306.65

  2,690.65

  VAT

  —

  13.03

  18.17

  29.36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  20.75

  25.14

  34.72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  91.50

  130.40

  199.70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  9.5

  14.7

  17.3

  19.8

  24.1

  29.4

  32.1

  33.6

  35.5

  36.8

  38.4

  NICs

  6.8

  7.5

  7.9

  6.3

  4.7

  3.1

  2.4

  1.9

  1.3

  0.9

  0.5

  Total income tax and NICs

  16.3

  22.2

  25.2

  26.1

  28.8

  32.5

  34.4

  35.5

  36.8

  37.8

  38.9

  VAT

  —

  5.0

  5.3

  5.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.0

  7.3

  6.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  35.2

  37.7

  38.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, both working

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  1.48

  19.68

  41.26

  84.51

  127.76

  224.42

  346.79

  485.19

  761.99

  1,177.19

  2,561.19

  NICs

  8.01

  15.79

  23.58

  39.15

  53.80

  65.34

  65.34

  65.34

  65.34

  65.34

  65.34

  Total income tax and NICs

  9.49

  35.48

  64.84

  123.66

  181.76

  289.76

  412.13

  550.53

  827.33

  1,242.53

  2,626.53

  VAT

  —

  15.07

  20.65

  31.80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  24.02

  27.83

  33.44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  74.57

  113.32

  190.90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0.9

  7.6

  11.9

  16.3

  18.5

  21.6

  25.1

  28.0

  31.5

  34.0

  37.0

  NICs

  4.6

  6.1

  6.8

  7.5

  7.8

  6.3

  4.7

  3.8

  2.7

  1.9

  0.9

  Total income tax and NICs

  5.5

  13.7

  18.7

  23.8

  26.2

  27.9

  29.8

  31.8

  34.2

  35.9

  38.0

  VAT

  —

  5.8

  6.0

  6.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9.3

  8.0

  6.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  28.7

  32.8

  36.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, two children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  -0.95

  20.67

  42.30

  85.55

  149.33

  287.73

  426.13

  564.53

  841.33

  1,256.53

  2,640.53

  124 125

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  NICs

  11.79

  19.58

  27.36

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  32.67

  Total income tax and NICs

  10.84

  40.25

  69.66

  118.22

  182.00

  320.40

  458.80

  597.20

  874.00

  1,289.20

  2,673.20

  VAT

  —

  12.96

  18.78

  31.46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  20.45

  23.90

  31.42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  73.66

  112.34

  181.09

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  -0.6

  8.0

  12.2

  16.5

  21.6

  27.7

  30.8

  32.6

  34.7

  36.3

  38.2

  NICs

  6.8

  7.5

  7.9

  6.3

  4.7

  3.1

  2.4

  1.9

  1.3

  0.9

  0.5

  Total income tax and NICs

  6.3

  15.5

  20.1

  22.8

  26.3

  30.9

  33.2

  34.5

  36.1

  37.3

  38.6

  VAT

  —

  5.0

  5.4

  6.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7.9

  6.9

  6.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  28.4

  32.5

  34.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. Since 1990–91, husbands and wives have been taxed independently. Previously, the tax liability of couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons with earlier years, the table therefore shows income tax and national insurance contributions paid by a married couple as a proportion of their joint income, assuming, as in the earlier years, that where both partners are earners, the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.

  3. In order to provide comparability with 1987–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowance, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couple with two children.

  4. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are £328–70 per week in 1991–92 and is estimated to be £346.00 per week in 1992–93, based on the Autumn Statement earnings growth assumption of 5¼ per cent. in 1992–93.

  5. The estimates of indirect taxes apart from the community charge are based on equations derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey, uprated to later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. They are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with the same composition and similar incomes and estimated payments of VAT and other indirect taxes are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range, the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years.

  6. Estimates of the burden of the community charge has been derived from the 1991 family expenditure survey. All respondents were assumed to pay the charge to which they were liable. The calculations include water charges in order to put the estimates on a comparable basis to the estimates for earlier years. Community charge payments are net of transitional relief and community charge benefits. Since community dharge payments vary widely between households with similar incomes, the estimated charge payments are only approximate.

  Safes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the necessity of distinguishing between the value of the production of safes and the value of the production 126
  of armoured doors for safes in the EUROPROD COM returns was required by the European Community or evolved nationally; and what value he places on this distinction.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: The text of the PRODCOM questions refers to
  "armoured or reinforced safes and strong boxes"

  and
  "armoured or reinforced doors … for strong-rooms".

  These are two entirely separate products and have been distinguished from one another for many years in both United Kingdom domestic production statistics and in external trade statistics. The distinction between a safe and the armoured door for a strong-room is a necessary and useful one. The definitions are required by the European Community.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what humanitarian aid has been given to prisoners in Serbian concentration camps by direct intervention, or through the Red Cross or the United Nations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The International Committee of the Red Cross—ICRC—takes the lead role in providing humanitarian aid to detention camps. It has committed over £18 million in humanitarian aid to all victims of the conflict throughout the former Yugoslavia so far, to which the United Kingdom has directly contributed £1.8 million. We are also channelling humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia through the EC, which has in turn made contributions to assist the Red Cross. In November the ICRC reported that it had visited a total of 20 detention camps containing 5,404 detainees. Of those, six were in Serbian-controlled areas and contained 4,103 detainees.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid is currently granted to his Department to(a) Austria, (b) Hungary and (c) Slovenia to assist displaced refugees from the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  To date we have committed over £70 million—£29.5 million bilaterally and £41 million through the EC—towards the relief programme in the former
  127
  Yugoslavia. Our aid is planned in co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who co-ordinates the international relief effort in the region. The priority is the supply of humanitarian relief to central Bosnia, where the suffering is greatest. But some of the aid through the EC, UNHCR and other international organisations has been used to assist displaced people in Slovenia. Figures detailing the amount of this aid are unavailable. No United Kingdom bilateral aid has been given to Austria or Hungary.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to offer more money to displaced refugees from the former Yugoslavia over and above the money granted to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees/ UNICEF/World Health Organisation appeal.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is already our policy to provide support to displaced people in former Yugoslavia over and above the money granted towards the UNHCR, UNICEF and WHO appeals. We are providing support to the ICRC and non-governmental organisations, as well as direct bilateral assistance in such things as the rehabilitation of existing buildings in order to provide shelter for displaced people. We have so far committed over £70 million towards the humanitarian relief effort in the former Yugoslavia. This is in addition to the cost of the 2,400 British troops we have made available to the UN protection force—UNPROFOR.

  Tropical Timber
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will detail the proposals put forward(a) directly by the Government and (b) through the EC during the United Kingdom's presidency concerning the reform of the international tropical timber agreement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have proposed focusing the objectives of the international tropical timber agreement on the achievement of the year 2000 target for all internationally traded tropical timber to come from sustainably managed sources. We have also proposed measures to improve the operational performance of the International Tropical Timber Organisation and its ability to help tropical timber producing countries meet this target. We act in close co-ordination with our EC partners who share these objectives.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms have been established by the Overseas Development Administration to monitor the performance of the International Tropical Timber Organisation in attaining its target of sustainable management of tropical timber.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We will monitor information from a range of sources including national reporting of progress towards the year 2000 target and reliable independent assessments of the sustainability of timber production as these are developed.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the British contribution to the United Nations military effort in Somalia.
  128
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We will pay our full share of United Nations operations in Somalia in accordance with assessed contributions. We have provided two RAF transport aircraft and accompanying personnel to support the US-led coalition's actions in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 794. We will also pay our share of the EC's commitment to assist with the funding of the Belgian contributions to military operations in Somalia.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he has given to British aid agencies in Somalia about their role during the military initiative in Somalia by the United Nations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has discussed the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 794 with representatives of British non-governmental organisations working in Somalia twice in the last three weeks and with senior US Government officials. She has stressed the need for regular liaison between the military commanders and NGOs in the planning and execution of Operation Restore Hope.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Britain has made in diplomatic and humanitarian terms to the area of the former British Somaliland during the period since the end of the civil war in Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We provide humanitarian assistance to northern Somalia in response to requests from United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations. Since Siad Barre's fall in January 1991, Britain has provided £2 million in emergency humanitarian relief to northern Somalia. Since the British embassy in Mogadishu was closed in early January 1991, officials have visited northern Somalia on three occasions and maintained informal contact in London, Nairobi and Addis Ababa with representatives of Somali groups. We have also pressed the United Nations, at all levels, to take account of northern Somalia's distinct needs.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice, help and support he has given to the Republic of Somaliland since September with a view to assisting the re-establishment of law and order.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have advised the authorities in north-west Somalia to co-operate with the United Nations Somalia initiative. This recognises the need for assistance with the establishment of law and order through the creation of local police forces.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sums of money he has(a) offered and (b) provided to pay administrator police and militia in northern Somalia, Republic of Somaliland, since September.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received no formal requests for assistance with the establishment of a police force or a militia in northern Somalia; nor have we made any offers to do so.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role he expects the
  129
  United Kingdom to play in the mission to provide relief aid to Somalia; and to what extent United Kingdom efforts will be directed towards aid and reconstruction in the north of Somalia, Republic of Somaliland.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Britain is already a major donor of humanitarian assistance to Somalia. On 4 December my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced a new pledge of £4.5 million. This brings our total commitment of humanitarian assistance to Somalia this year to £31.5 million, including our contribution to European Community actions. These resources are available to support the work of British and international non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies throughout Somalia.

  Crown Agents and Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the future status of the Crown Agents and Commonwealth Development Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Ministers have decided to review the status of the Crown Agents. Consultants will be appointed to advise on the feasibility of various options, including retention in the public sector. Account will be taken of the implications of any change for the Crown Agents' existing clients, which include a wide range of international aid donors, the Overseas Development Administration and many overseas Governments.

  Similarly, options for the future status of the Commonwealth Development Corporation—CDC—are being examined in the context of the current quinquennial review. The recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, contained in its recent efficiency scrutiny of the CDC, are being considered as part of this review.

  In commissioning these reviews, Ministers recognise the valuable role that both Crown Agents and the CDC play in their respective spheres of activity.

  Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Yokohama conference on forest conservation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: Two meetings relating to forest conservation were held in Yokohama recently. These were the 13th International Tropical Timber Council—ITTC—and the first preparatory committee for the renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement—ITTA. Some progress was made in the ITTC towards our objective of improving the capacity of the International Tropical Timber Organisation to help tropical timber producing countries manage their forests sustainably. The ITTA renegotiation will continue in a second preparatory committee meeting in Quito, Ecuador in January.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy at the conference at Yokohama on the conservation of northern forests.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: Two meetings relating to forest conservation held in
  130
  Yokohama recently were the 13th International Tropical Timber Council and the first preparatory committee for the renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement. The ITTC and ITTA focus on international trade in timber from tropical forests.

  We are pursuing our policies towards the conservation of non-tropical forests in other forums such as the meetings next year of European Forestry Ministers in Helsinki and of Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe members in Montreal.

  Along with other European Community and G7 Governments, we are committed to producing plans for the implementation of the forest principles agreed at the UN Conference on Environment and Development last June and for the establishment of an international review process.

DEFENCE

  Munitions Orders
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Royal Ordnance plc about future orders for munitions from his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I discussed future ammunition requirements, among other matters, with representatives from British Aerospace defence group and Royal Ordnance plc on 18 November. I also refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 8 December,Official Report, column 614, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on 24 November 1992, Official Report, column 730.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. Menzie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the items of equipment lost during Operation Granby and the cost of replacement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Full information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Work is still continuing in inspecting items returned from the Gulf and the final replacement costs will not be known for some time. The Comptroller and Auditor General stated in a note to the class I appropriation accounts 1991–1992, Cm 197–1, that he was"generally satisfied that, in the circumstances, the Department took all reasonable steps to maintain control over their stores and equipment".

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many containers of equipment were lost during Operation Granby; and what each contained.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some 7,000 containers were used in the Gulf, and 87 remained unaccounted for when action was taken in July 1992 to compensate their owners and to write them off. No record is available of what, if anything, these containers held.

  Explosives and Propellants Agreements
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the future of the explosives, propellants and related products agreements which were signed in 1987 when Royal Ordnance was privatised; and if he will make a statement.
  131
  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that 1 gave the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 8 December 1992,Official Report, column 614.

  Legal Immunity
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what public legislation is not applicable to the operations of his Department; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the application of Crown immunity to the operations of his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence is in general subject to regulatory requirements and enforcement arrangements on the same basis as others, except where there is a legitimate reason for exemption, for example on grounds of national security. Even in circumstances where the Department is not bound by legislation it is the Ministry's policy that it should comply as though requirements applied to it wherever this is appropriate and practicable. Since the repeal in 1987 of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, the position

  Bill

  Size of commitee

  Conservative

  Labour

  Other

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals

  22

  12

  9

  1

  Bankruptcy (Scotland)

  20

  11

  8

  1

  British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals)

  22

  12

  9

  1

  Cardiff Bay Barrage

  20

  11

  8

  1

  Civil Service (Management Functions)

  18

  10

  7

  1

  Community Care (Residential Functions)

  21

  11

  9

  1

  Education

  33

  17

  14

  2

  Finance

  34

  18

  14

  2

  Housing and Urban Development

  32

  17

  14

  1

  Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland)

  20

  11

  8

  1

  Sea Fish (Conservation)

  18

  10

  7

  1

  Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights

  30

  16

  13

  1

  all SI committees

  18

  10

  7

  1

  (iii) Under Standing Order No. 86 the Committee of Selection is required to nominate not fewer than 16 nor more than 50 members to serve on these Standing Committees. In nominating members, it is required to have regard to the qualifications of Members and to the composition of the House.

  (iv) Proportions for Standing Committees of between 16 and 50 Members are as follows:

  Size of commitee

  Conservative

  Labour

  Other

  16

  9

  6

  1

  17

  9

  7

  1

  18

  10

  7

  1

  19

  10

  8

  1

  20

  11

  8

  1

  21

  11

  9

  1

  22

  12

  9

  1

  23

  12

  9

  2

  24

  13

  10

  1

  25

  13

  10

  2

  26

  14

  11

  2

  27

  14

  11

  2

  28

  15

  11

  2

  29

  15

  12

  2

  30

  16

  12

  2

  31

  16

  13

  2

  32

  17

  14

  2

  33

  17

  14

  2

  132
  of service personnel injured on duty is the same in relation to the Ministry of Defence as that of any other employees and their employer.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Standing Committees
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Standing Committees have been set up so far in this Parliament; what was the ratio of Government, main Opposition and minority Opposition party members serving on each committee; and if he will show, in rising numerical order, the ratios for Standing Committees from 16 to 60.

  Mr. Newton
  (i) As of Monday 30 November, 12 Bills have been committed to Standing Committee in the current Session. The Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments have been constituted on 38 separate occasions. There are also two Standing Committees on European Documents.

  (ii) The ratios of Government, main Opposition and minority Opposition party Members on each of these committees were as follows:

  Size of commitee

  Conservative

  Labour

  Other

  34

  18

  14

  2

  35

  18

  15

  2

  36

  19

  15

  2

  37

  19

  15

  2

  38

  20

  16

  2

  39

  20

  16

  3

  40

  21

  16

  3

  41

  21

  17

  3

  42

  22

  17

  3

  43

  22

  18

  3

  44

  23

  18

  3

  45

  23

  19

  3

  46

  24

  19

  3

  47

  24

  20

  3

  48

  25

  20

  3

  49

  25

  21

  3

  50

  26

  21

  3

  Parliamentary Pensions
  Mr. Dixon
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Members for Jarrow and for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) on 7 December,Official Report, column 510, what further action he has now taken in relation to parliamentary pensions; and if he will make a statement.
  133
  Mr. Newton
  Following the debate on 25 November, I held a meeting with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. Officials are now considering, in consultation with the Fees Office, how to take matters forward.

  Divisions
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will now respond to the second report of Session 1991–92 from the Select Committee on Procedure relating to the Chair's discretion to extend the time allowed for a Division.

  Mr. Newton
  I have now considered this report and agree with the main recommendation that the existing discretion of the Chair as set out in Standing Order No. 37 should remain unchanged. The other recommendations flow from that and are matters already within the discretion of Madam Speaker and other House authorities. The separate proposal to amend Standing Order No. 37 to bring it into line with current practice and remove a confusing ambiguity will be implemented at a convenient opportunity.

  Public Petitions
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will now respond to the fourth report of Session 1991–92 from the Select Committee on Procedure relating to public petitions.

  Mr. Newton
  I have now completed my consideration of this report and agree with its recommendations for changes in the rules relating to the format and wording of petitions. I will shortly table a motion to approve the report. If passed, this will give the Journal Office the necessary authority to implement the recommendations and prepare revised rules and guidance for Members. The changes do not involve any amendment to Standing Orders.

TRANSPORT

  Fisheries Safety
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has received from the European Commission concerning a proposed directive on the occupational safety of both fishermen and fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  An amended proposal for a directive (9284/92) was received from the European Commission on 6 November. The Commons Select Committee on European Legislation has recommended that the proposed directive should be debated by European Standing Committee A.

  Bus Priority Measures
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Tansport which bus priority measures will be funded from his Department in 1993–94.

  Mr. Freeman
  We shall be making available a total of £15.475 million to local authorities in England for 134
  measures to promote bus use in 1993–94. Of this total, £6 million will be found from the Department's provision for local public transport and £9.475 million from the provision for local roads; £3.3 million of the total will be allocated to schemes in London and a separate announcement about those will be made by the Minister for Transport in London. The allocations to successful local authorities outside London are listed. In addition, the Department will be supporting a low floor bus demonstration project and research into alternative fuels.

  I am delighted that we have been able to increase substantially the level of resources available for measures to promote bus use. This is in response to increased interest from local authorities in the role of the bus in helping to alleviate road congestion. The allocations will enable authorities to continue schemes funded in 1992–93 and to introduce many new ones.

  Bus priority measures 1993–94: local authorities outside London

  £000s

  Counties

  Avon

  1,525

  Berkshire

  200

  Cambridgeshire

  120

  Cheshire

  625

  Cleveland

  600

  Devon

  250

  Durham

  50

  East Sussex

  125

  Essex

  130

  Gloucestershire

  70

  Hampshire

  170

  Kent

  500

  Lancashire

  580

  Norfolk

  3,000

  Northamptonshire

  100

  Nottinghamshire

  175

  Oxfordshire

  50

  Shropshire

  50

  Suffolk

  100

  Surrey

  240

  Wiltshire

  140

  Metropolitan Areas

  Birmingham

  400

  Bury

  40

  Coventry

  250

  Dudley

  75

  Doncaster

  50

  Gateshead

  75

  Knowsley

  250

  Leeds

  450

  Liverpool

  300

  Manchester

  750

  Newcastle

  100

  Oldham

  40

  Salford

  75

  Sheffield

  200

  Solihull

  50

  Stockport

  30

  Trafford

  10

  Wirral

  30

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which bus priority measures in London will be funded from his Department in 1993–94.

  Mr. Norris
  I am pleased to announce that we have been able to make available the sum of £3.3 million for bus priority measures in London in 1993–94.

  The allocations are listed.
  135

  Bus priority measures 1993–94: London boroughs

  £000s

  Camden

  50

  Ealing

  548

  Hammersmith

  600

  Haringey

  75

  Hillingdon

  752

  Hounslow

  250

  Kensington

  50

  Lambeth

  124

  Newham

  106

  Richmond

  45

  Tower Hamlets

  600

  Wandsworth

  100

  Dangerous Goods
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what controls his Department requires of port authorities in respect of the import and export of dangerous goods.

  Mr. Norris
  The movement of dangerous substances through ports is controlled by the Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations (SI 1987 No. 37).

  Freight
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates British Rail's objectives of 19 December 1989 for rail freight were superseded; and on what date British Rail was informed.

  Mr. Freeman
  The objectives have not been superseded.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the change in the amount of freight traffic carried by rail since May 1991.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the year ending May 1992, there was a decline of some 10 per cent. in terms of tonnes lifted. Factors affecting changes in rail freight are discussed at pages 18 to 20 of the 1991–92 annual report and accounts of the British Railways Board.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the five most used motorways for the purpose of freight haulage.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The five motorways which carry most heavy goods vehicle traffic on average per mile are the M25, Ml, M6, M62 and M56.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of British goods for the domestic market are transported by(a) rail and (b) road; and how this compares with the EC average.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information that is readily available for 1990 is published in "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1992" as tables 8.9 and 8.10. Definitions and more detailed comparisons for earlier years are published in the transport statistics report "International Comparisons of Transport Statistics Part 1: Intermodal". Both publications are in the House of Commons Library.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to extend compensation provisions for rail users outlined in the citizens charter to cover all users of public transport.
  136
  Mr. Freeman
  I welcome the fact that our citizens charter initiative has led British Rail and London Underground to introduce compensation schemes for poor performance. It is for other public transport operators to decide whether to follow their example, but I hope that many will do so.

  Road Planning
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish(a) the terms of reference and (b) the line table including completion date, of the review of the road planning process he announced in October.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The terms of reference for the review were to review the statutory and administrative procedures involved in preparing a major road scheme from programme entry to the start of construction, and to recommend possible changes, either statutory or administrative, which might speed up the process; and to report by the end of November 1992.

  We are now considering the consultants' report.

  EC Road Proposals
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the status of the European Commission's proposals for a network of major roads in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The European Commission's proposals for a trans-European road network of routes of Community interest have been laid for opinion before the European Parliament. They have yet to be discussed by the Council of Ministers.

  The route proposals are intended to encourage action by member states. A member state's positive assent is required before any project can go ahead.

  Regional Consultative Meetings
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the dates for his Department's regional annual consultative meetings for each region for 1993–94; what issues are expected to be raised at these meetings and if he will place in the Library copies of all minutes of meetings held since April 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The dates of the regional annual consultative committee meetings for 1993–94 have not yet been arranged, but they are normally held between October and December. The agenda items are generally proposed by the local highway authorities of the region concerned, and are agreed with the regional office nearer the date of the meeting. I am arranging to place the minutes of the 1991–92 round of meetings in the Library, and will do the same for the current 1992–93 round when they become available.

  Regional Brief
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his policy regarding the preparation by regional offices of regional briefs;

  (2) by what means regional briefs are available to the public; and if it is his intention to consult the public during their preparation;
  137
  (3) if he will list those regional briefs which have been prepared; when they were published; and if he will provide a timetable for their revision and preparation for each of his regional offices;

  (4) if he will set out the remit of the regional briefs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Regional briefs contain information about transport, including Government policy, in the eight Department of Transport regions outside London. The briefs were commissioned by the Secretary of State in 1990 to inform local Members of Parliament and others about planned transport improvements. Publicity was given to their publication and copies are available to the public on request. Details of publication dates are:

  Regional Brief

  Date of publication

  Eastern

  May 1991

  East Midland

  May 1991

  Northern

  November 1990

  North West

  December 1991

  South East

  December 1991

  South West

  November 1991

  West Midland

  January 1991

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  January 1991

  The briefs may be updated from time to time as considered necessary by the individual regional offices.

  Road Schemes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure the compatibility of trunk road and motorway proposals with land use planning policies in forthcoming regional planning guidance.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We shall continue our long-standing policy of consultation both with the Department of the Environment in the joint Environment/Transport regional offices, and with the local planning authorities.

  Traffic Congestion, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by his Department following the visit by the Minister of Transport in London to Greenwich on 25 June, in considering proposals for easing traffic congestion in Greenwich town centre, and in particular the feasibility study for a bypass, and the interim proposal for a ban on heavy goods vehicles in the town centre; and when he expects to announce his decision in respect of the application by Greenwich council for transport supplementary grant to pursue such options.

  Mr. Norris
  An announcement about the allocation of transport supplementary grant will be made before Christmas. The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot comment on specific bids in advance of this announcement.

  Fares
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to oppose any attempt by the European Commission to make public transport fares subject to value added tax.
  138
  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have maintained, during the single market negotiations, our right to retain the coverage of our current zero rates including domestic passenger transport. The present agreement reached by Finance Ministers covers the period until 1997 without prejudice to what happens thereafter.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many copies of the summary "Guide to the Citizen's Charter First Report: 1992" have been distributed to date.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have distributed 500,000 copies of the summary guide.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost to date of the publication and distribution of the summary "Guide to the Citizen's Charter First Report: 1992".

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The cost to date of the publication and distribution of the summary guide is in the region of £160,000.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost to date of the publication and distribution of the "Citizen's Charter First Report: 1992", Cm 2101.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The costs of printing, publishing and distributing the report were borne by HMSO, which expects to recover its costs from sales revenue. HMSO does not normally reveal details of such costs, which are treated on a commercial in confidence basis.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the overall charge to date from the Post Office for the distribution of citizens charter material.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have to date paid the Post Office £23,500 for the distribution of the summary guide to the "Citizen's Charter First Report: 1992".

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the average time taken by his Department to reply to queries from hon. Members concerning the citizens charter; what were the targets set; and what means of redress is available to hon. Members if his Department fails to meet those targets.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department aims to respond to all letters from hon. Members within 15 working days. Over the last four months we have met this target with just under half our cases. No means of redress is available, but I am happy to investigate any individual complaints about the handling of correspondence.

  Publications (Cost)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the average cost of the purchase from HMSO for a full five-day sitting week of one copy of the daily Official Report of the House of Commons and the

  139
  House of Lords, the daily Order Paper, the Vote Bundle of each House and the Weekly Information Bulletin; and what plans he has to seek to alter the cost of such publications.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  If both Houses sit for a full five days, which is not usual for the House of Lords, the following prices would apply:

  £

  The Official Report, House of Commons (daily)

  37.50

  The Official Report, House of Lords (daily)

  21.00

  House of Commons Vote Bundle (including Order Paper)

  1145.80

  House of Commons Order Paper alone

  125.45

  House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings

  123.50

  Weekly Information Bulletin

  2.30

  1Average

  HMSO prices for these items have not been increased during 1992 and HMSO intends that current prices should continue unchanged throughout 1993.

  Civil Servants (Complaints)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will bring forward proposals to create the post of inspector general of the civil service to deal with complaints on the conduct of civil servants.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  No. Standards conduct in the civil service are regulated by the "Civil Service Code", a copy of which is in the Library. The Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life 1974–1976 (Cmnd. 6524) recommended against the establishment of a new agency to oversee investigations of alleged impropriety. There are no grounds for reconsidering that recommendation.

  Patents and Licences
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assistance his Department provides for patenting or licensing of any products or processes developed from work funded by his Department.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The research councils are expected to meet the cost of protecting their intellectual property rights from within their annual grant-in-aid from the Office of Public Service and Science.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress under the programme for action to achieve equality of opportunity in the civil service for people of ethnic minority origin.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  There has been further progress this year; the proportion of ethnic minority staff in the civil service continues to rise. A report summarising progress during 1991–92 is being published today. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Textiles
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the tariff levels for United Kingdom exports of wool cloth, headings 5111 and 5112, to the following markets, and any non-tariff barriers which apply, together with the tariff level for imports of that product from the same countries into the Community(a) the United States of America, (b) South Africa, (c) Australia, (d) Turkey, including additional duties payable, (e) India, (f) Pakistan, (g) Thailand and (h) Malaysia.

  Mr. Needham
  United Kingdom exports attract the following charges:

  United States

  tariff 51.11—duties range between 7 per cent. and 38 per cent. on an ad valorem basis depending on quality and size of fabric.

  51.12—duties range between 7 per cent. and 38 per cent. by value depending on quality and size of fabric.

  South Africa

  tariff 51.11–40 per cent. duty plus a 5 per cent. import surcharge.

  51.12–40 per cent. duty plus 5 per cent. import surcharge.

  The South African system of duties on textile imports is currently under review.

  Australia

  tariff 51.11–32 per cent. duty.

  51.12–32 per cent. duty.

  Turkey

  tariff 51.11–10 per cent. duty.

  51.12–10 per cent. duty.

  Plus the following additional duties:

  1. Municipality tax: 15 per cent. of customs duty;

  2. Stamp duty: 10 per cent. of the cost/insurance/freight (CIF) value. NB The Turkish authorities have informed the GATT secretariat, that from 1 January 1993, stamp duty will cease to be applied;

  3. Price support and stability fund tax: 10 per cent. of the CIF value;

  4. Transport infrastructure duty: 3 per cent. of the cumulative total of the above duties (including Customs duty) and taxes if commodity arrives by air or land, 4 per cent. if by sea;

  5. Value added tax: usually 12 per cent. of the cumulative total of the above duties (including transport infrastructure duty) and taxes. Although 1 per cent., 2 per cent., 6 per cent. and 20 per cent. may also be applied, depending on the type of commodity.

  6. Mass housing fund tax (surcharge): only applied to certain products. This tax depends on the type of commodity—it could be a percentage of the CIF value, or based on a fixed dollar, weight, or unit rate.

  From 1 January 1993 a new Turkish import regime is to be introduced, based on a unified single customs duty system. In addition to the ending of stamp duty, the import regime is to abolish the municipality tax, the transport infrastructure duty, and the price support and stability fund tax. Details are not yet available on how the single customs duty system will be applied.

  India

  tariff 51.11—duties range between 110 per cent. and 140 per cent. by value;

  141

  51.12–110 per cent. duty;

  plus 45 per cent. auxilliary duty.

  Pakistan

  tariff 51.11–90 per cent. duty;

  51.12–90 per cent. duty;

  In addition the following taxes are payable:

  (1). Sales tax: 12.5 per cent.

  (2). General import surcharge: 10 per cent.

  (3). Iqra tax (allocated to education budget): 5 per cent.

  Thailand

  tariff 51.11–80 per cent. duty

  51.12–80 per cent. duty

  Malaysia

  tariff 51.11–2 per cent. duty

  51.12–2 per cent. duty

  United Kingdom Customs duties on import from the following sources:

  United States

  tariff 51.11–13 per cent.

  51.12–13 per cent.

  South Africa

  tariff 51.11–13 per cent.

  51.12–13 per cent.

  Australia

  tariff 51.11–13 per cent.

  51.12–13 per cent.

  Turkey

  Duty free (Mediterranean preferential country)

  India

  Duty free under the terms of the generalized system of preferences (GATT)

  Pakistan

  Duty free

  Thailand

  Duty free

  Malaysia

  Duty free

  Baghdad Pact Nuclear Training Centre
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom as a result of the financial contributions given to the Baghdad pact nuclear training centre.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No direct financial contributions were given to the centre. From the limited information available no scientific benefit accrued to the United Kingdom from the assistance provided by United Kingdom experts at the nuclear training centre on the peaceful uses of radioisotopes.

  Iraq (Arms Exports)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigation has been made by his Department's export control organisation into the sale of militarily sensitive equipment and technology to Iraq by the Astra Company since 1985.

  Mr. Needham
  Matters relating to the sale of such equipment and technology to Iraq are for Lord Justice Scott's inquiry to consider.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) to what extent Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate has relied upon the experience of other nuclear regulators in its reliability assessment of the primary computerised safety system for the Sizewell B nuclear plant;
  142
  (2) what information he has received from Her Majesty's chief nuclear installations inspector in regard to progress made by Nuclear Electric in the installation of the secondary non-computerised safety protection system at the Sizewell B nuclear plant;

  (3) what progress has been made by Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate in validating the Sizewell B computerised primary safety system against the latest international standards.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate (NII) has participated over several years in meetings with nuclear regulators from other countries—the United States of America, Canada and France—who have experience in the assessment of computer based safety systems in nuclear applications.

  Similarly, I understand the chief inspector is satisfied with progress made on the installation and commissioning of the secondary non-computerised safety protection system at Sizewell B.

  The work of validation against the NII's regulatory requirements including the latest relevant international standards is well advanced. Comparison with international standards is only one part of NII's assessment of the primary protection system safety case for Sizewell B.

  Coal Research
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the expenditure on clean coal research for the latest year for which figures are available in each G7 country.

  Mr. Eggar
  The most recent outturn expenditure figures on coal research for the G7 countries are for 1990 and were published by the International Energy Agency in "Energy policies of IEA Countries—1991 review". No figures are available specifically for clean coal research, but most of the expenditure on coal research in the G7 countries is believed to be focused on the development of clean coal technologies for power generation.

  Coal Research and Development expenditure for 1990 in G7 countries

  £ million

  Canada

  16.3

  France

  3.1

  Germany

  42.3

  Italy

  n/a

  Japan

  134.5

  United States

  472.2

  United Kingdom

  139.4

  1Total United Kingdom research and development expenditure is only available on a United Kingdom financial year basis. The United Kingdom total for coal research and development is for 1990–91 and includes expenditure by Government Departments, British Coal and, where available, United Kingdom industry. Since 1981–82 about £1,000 million of public sector funds have been invested in coal technology research and development in the United Kingdom. Around half this total has been spent on clean coal technology research.

  The figures published by the IEA were in 1991 United States dollars. These have been converted to pound sterling using the IEA average exchange rate unit of $1.764 to £1 for 1991.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance he has given to small businesses in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Leigh
  The support programmes for small businesses operated by my Department together with their annual cost in each year since 1989 are as follows:

  Expenditure

  £ million

  Programme

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Enterprise initiative consultancy scheme

  35.6

  40.2

  52.10

  Small firms loan guarantee scheme

  99.4

  85.0

  69.85

  Small firms merit award for research and technology

  8.8

  10.7

  12.70

  Support for projects under research

  —

  —

  12.40

  Regional enterprise grants (investment)

  8.5

  8.5

  6.40

  Regional enterprise grants (innovation)

  3.1

  2.5

  2.20

  Export marketing research scheme

  3.0

  3.8

  1.10

  Your business success

  —

  0.5

  1.00

  Graduate enterprise

  —

  0.4

  0.30

  My Department also provides funding for development work which aims to benefit small firms and produces a wide range of publications aimed at small businesses.

  From April 1993 my Department will take over responsibility from the Employment Department for funding training and enterprise councils (TECs), which provide a wide range of business support services to help small businesses.

  Tour Operators
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to stop tour operators from surcharging customers after a contract has been signed, in cases where the operators in fact incur no corresponding rise in their costs.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department has recently laid draft regulations to implement the EC package travel directive. These regulations permit surcharges to be made for certain specified reasons only, such as fuel price fluctuations, exchange rate changes and certain taxes. In order to apply a surcharge, the operator must first have reserved the right to so do in his contract with the consumer. The contract must describe the manner in which the price revision would be calculated. The operator is, in addition, required to absorb any price increase amounting to 2 per cent. of the price of the package and may in no circumstances make a price increase in the period 30 days before departure. An operator who attempted to make a price increase where there has been no corresponding increase in costs would be in breach of contract.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 107–8, if he will establish a separate fund for the
  144
  proceeds of the fossil fuel levy in order that the amounts applied from it to the decommissioning costs of nuclear power stations can be quantified.

  Mr. Eggar
  In addition to premium income from the levy, Nuclear Electric receives income from the sale of electricity. From this total income, the company must finance its current operations and make provision for decommissioning its stations. How precisely these funds are provided for is a matter for Nuclear Electric plc, subject to the safety requirements of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate and to the scrutiny of the company's auditors.

  Telephone Information Services
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services' code in preventing the abuse of premium rate telephone services by invitations to unemployed people to make calls about non-existent jobs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Since the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) introduced its revised code of practice in February this year, the number of complaints received by ICSTIS about employment services has halved. ICSTIS remains concerned about misleading and dishonest employment services, however, and an ICSTIS working party published a review on 3 November which contains the recommendation to ban all employment services from the premium rate network, except those where the service provider or information provider is the direct organisation offering the jobs. ICSTIS has invited comments on its recommendations by 15 December.

  Government Chemist Agency
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set for 1992–93 for the performance measures of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist agency.

  Mr. Leigh
  The primary performance target of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC) for 1992–93 continues to be the recovery of its full economic cost from income from customers. In addition, new secondary performance measures have been developed to supersede those agreed when the agency was originally established in October 1989. For 1992–93 these are:completion of reports on research into the feasibility of further analysis of samples by the date agreed with customers: to increase from an average of 80 per cent. in the first quarter to an average of 88 per cent. in the last quarter;
  to achieve more than 85 per cent. of contract research milestones within the time scale agreed with customers; to maintain accreditation from the National Measurement Accreditation Service (NAMAS) for the existing 15 categories of work and obtain NAMAS accreditation for a further category of work by April 1993;
  to acquire accreditation for LGC as a whole to BS 5750 Part 1 (ISO 9001) by April 1994.

  These targets will be subject to annual review.

  Sixth Landward Licensing Round
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sixth landward licensing round.
  145
  Mr. Eggar
  I have today announced the conditional award of 22 new exploration licences for blocks in England, Wales and Scotland. The licences allow companies to search and drill for petroleum, subject to the requirements of the planning system and the technical approval of my Department.

  Details of the awards have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I am particularly encouraged to see in this round a strong continuing interest in coal-bed methane exploration by a growing number of companies. Most are new to the United Kingdom licensing scene, and bring valuable experience from coal-bed methane operations in the United States. The methods of working are significantly different from those used for conventional oil and gas exploration. The prospects for coal-bed methane have yet to be fully tested here, but it has been successfully developed in the United States and already represents about 17 per cent. of its recoverable gas reserves. If it can be successfully exploited here, it could represent a very valuable addition to our future energy supplies. The opportunities which we are now providing for licensees to test the prospects for coal-bed methane are therefore of especial importance.

  The new licences allow companies to conduct seismic operations and test drill for oil and gas subject to all necessary planning permission and landowners' or occupiers' consent and, where operations involve the penetration of coal-seams, permission from British Coal. No seismic or drilling operations will be allowed until companies have provided me with evidence that they have received any necessary permission from the mineral planning authority.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position with respect to licensing to the private sector pits which British Coal had planned to close.

  Mr. Heseltine
  British Coal is statutorily responsible for licensing coal mining and must consider applications from responsible organisations seeking licences. Under present legislation, licensed coal mining is subject to statutory limits of 150 on the numbers employed underground in deep mines and 250,000 tonnes of coal from the areas specified in the licence for opencast sites.

  Of the 31 pits which British Coal had intended to close, 10 are the subject of statutory consultations, which the corporation has made clear will be meaningful. I understand that the corporation does not propose entering into negotiations for the licensing of any of these pits before the consultations are complete.

  The coal review is considering the prospects of the other 21 pits British Coal has proposed to close and which are not subject to the statutory consultations. I understand that British Coal does not propose to enter into commercial discussions about licensing any of these pits before that review is complete.

  Licensing any of these pits while the review is continuing would be difficult in practice against the background of uncertainty about the future prospects for the industry and the market for coal. The review is considering the opportunities for the private sector in the production of coal. Its conclusions on this aspect will be included in the White Paper to be published early in the new year.
  146
  Decisions on any applications for licences to operate pits will be taken once the review and consultations are complete.

  Iraq
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responses have been made by his Department to requests and reports received from the United Nations Special Commission of Inspection in Iraq or its executive chairman, Rolf Ekeus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The Government have made a significant contribution to the work of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq as it seeks to implement relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. In response to UNSCOM's requests we have supplied personnel for the UNSCOM inspection teams and some specialised equipment. It is not our practice to comment in detail on the information given to us by UNSCOM.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision he has made for the payment of bad debt on exports to Iraq of military and dual-use exports to Iraq in the period 1985 to 1990 covered by(a) short-term and (b) medium-term cover provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: ECGD does not make separate provisions against loss for particular categories of goods. ECGD made total provisions of £695.9 million in relation to Iraq business in its 1990–91 accounts. The 1991–92 accounts are currently being audited and will be laid before Parliament in January next year.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will specify what proportion of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover provided for military or dual-use exports in the period 1985 to 1990 was(a) short-term and (b) medium-term.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: It is not possible to provide figures on the basis requested, because of the way ECGD records have been structured to meet its business needs.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on claims made on(a) NCM as the potential successor company to the Export Credits Guarantee Department and (b) ECGD with respect to short-term cover on military and dual-use trade credit to Iraq in the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Under the terms of the December 1991 privatisation of the short-term business of ECGD, NCM assumed no responsibility for the administration and payment of claims arising from any export business conducted with Iraq. That responsibility remained with ECGD.

  ECGD does not maintain details of short-term claims paid or under examination categorised by type of goods. In the last five years, ECGD has paid a total of £23.2 million in respect of insured short-term export trade with Iraq. In addition, approximately £6 million of claims received are currently under examination. At this stage, it is difficult to forecast the extent to which claims paid will eventually be recovered.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date he signed public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill case.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: On 11 and 26 September.

  Sales Promotions
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will draw up guidelines on free-flight offers to cover(a) availability, (b) hidden costs and (c) the financial collapse of any party involved in the supply of the free flight.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 2 December 1992]: No. The British code of sales promotion practice, administered by the Advertising Standards Authority, already contains guidelines covering both availability and hidden costs.

  Trade associations, such as the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA), require that their members have protection in place for the consumer in the event of insolvency.

  Charter flight passengers are protected against financial loss by the existing air travel operators licensing (ATOL) scheme. In March 1992 the DTp announced that it would be setting up a statutory financial protection scheme to reimburse scheduled passengers in the event of an airline collapsing. The Government asked the CAA to work up details of a scheme and are currently considering its proposal.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 282, whether the uniform tariff he will maintain for Parcelforce after privatisation is inclusive of value added tax.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer II December 1992]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to him on 29 October 1992, Official Report, column 784.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the price of coal imported into the United Kingdom in(a) August, (b) September and (c) October.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: The information requested is:

  Average price of imported coal1 August to October 1992

  £

  August2

  31.93

  September

  33.91

  October

  35.12

  1 The average price is for all grades of coal and includes the cost of insurance and freight.

  2 The figure for August 1992 has been revised since my previous answer of 29 October (Official Report, column 784).

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 8 December from the Secretary of State for the Home Department,Official Report, column 558, to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, if he will be meeting the Manchester chamber of commerce and industry to discuss the problems facing owners of commercial property for whom insurance cover against terrorist attacks is becoming unavailable; if he will list the other interested parties to which his right hon. Friend referred in his reply; and if he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of the representations he has received.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 December 1992]: No. I have received a number of representations from industry, commerce and the insurance industry which are under consideration, but none as yet from the Manchester chamber of commerce.

  Government Stock
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the occasions instalment payments were allowed in sales of Government stock held under the control of his Department; and if he will list the occasions when full payment of such stock was demanded.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: For privatisation by flotation and secondary share offers held under the control of my Department or its predecessors, the occasions on which payment for shares was by instalments and those on which full payment was asked for are listed at 1 and 2 respectively of the table.

  Privatisation by flotation and secondary share offers under the control of DTI or predecessor departments.

  1—Payment by instalments

  Britoil (1982)

  British Aerospace (1985)

  British Gas

  British Steel

  British Telecom (1984)

  Eastern Electricity

  East Midlands Electricity

  Enterprise Oil

  London Electricity

  Manweb

  Midlands Electricity

  National Power

  Northern Electricity

  Norweb

  PowerGen

  Rolls-Royce

  Seeboard

  Southern Electricity

  South Wales Electricity

  South Western Electricity

  Yorkshire Electricity Group

  2—Payment in full

  Amersham International

  British Aerospace (1981)

  Cable and Wireless

  Jaguar

  Sellafield
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors not considered at the public inquiry are causing the delay in starting the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply. The thermal oxide reprocessing plant cannot start the commercial
  149
  reprocessing of oxide fuel until the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate is satisfied with the safety of the plant and the regulatory authorities have no objections on waste management grounds.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total administrative cost of social fund payments for the last 12–month period for which figures are available, for(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans; and if he will provide separate figures for each district office.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 November 1992, c. 75]: The latest information on social fund administration costs is for the year 1990–91 and is in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will change the rules to allow income support to be backdated to the date of entitlement of disability living allowance or attendance allowance for claimants and their carers in cases where a delay of more than 12 months occurs.

  Mr. Burt
  Time limits form an accepted and necessary part of the social security system. It is not envisaged that claims will take more than 52 weeks to decide.

  Income support may be backdated for up to 52 weeks in appropriate circumstances. We have no plans to change the current rules.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the total cost of uprating the level of income support received by people aged 18 to 24 years to the level enjoyed by those aged 25 and over.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 9 December at column 684.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 24 November,Official Report, column 595, if he will now show how many (a) women and (b) men were dependent upon income support in May 1991, either as claimants or as the spouses or partners of claimants; of these totals how many (a) women and (b) men were above pension age; and how many were below pension age.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Numbers

  Females dependent on income support

  Total of claimants and partners

  3,248

  of which: under age 60

  1,909

  over age 60

  1,339

  Males dependent on income support

  Total of claimants and partners

  2,001

  of which: under age 65

  1,723

  over age 65

  278

  Note: All figures are thousands, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Inquiry May 1991.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures for the latest date available showing for people above state pension ages, the number of(a) husbands, (b) wives, (c) single men and (d) single women, with weekly incomes excluding national insurance benefit, income support, family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit as appropriate, in the following income bands (a) under £5, (b) £5 to £10, (c) £10 to £15, (d) £15 to £20, (e) £20 to £30, (f) £30 to £40, (g) £40 to £50, (h) £50 to £60, (i) £60 to £70, (j) £70 to £80, (k) £80 to £90, (l) £90 to £100, (m) £100 to £150, (n) £150 to £200, (o) £200 to £300, (p) £300 to £400, (q) £400 to £500 and (r) over £500 respectively.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not available in the form requested. The requested distribution was in some cases too detailed to give a reliable number of sample cases to be taken into account. Certain ranges have therefore been merged in order to ensure estimates are based on at least 20 sample cases. In addition, the nature of the survey techniques used in the family expenditure survey means that the separate incomes of husbands and wives within a couple cannot be identified reliably. The answer therefore categorises single people (male and female) and couples only. The available information is in the table.

  Weekly non-benefit income distribution-pensioners Single female pensioners

  Income (£)

  Thousands

  0–5

  1,725

  5–10

  269

  10–15

  215

  15–20

  176

  20–30

  235

  30–40

  156

  40–50

  110

  50–60

  86

  60–70

  70

  70–80

  77

  80–100

  111

  100–200

  237

  200+

  79

  Single male pensioners

  Income (£)

  Thousands

  0–5

  356

  5–10

  63

  10–20

  101

  20–40

  114

  40–60

  58

  60–90

  73

  90–150

  61

  150+

  63

  Couples (husband over pension age)

  Income (£)

  Thousands

  0–5

  422

  5–10

  165

  10–15

  191

  15–20

  132

  20–30

  198

  30–40

  126

  40–50

  138

  50–60

  104

  60–70

  78

  70–80

  84

  151

  Income (£)

  Thousands

  80–90

  69

  90–100

  66

  100–150

  246

  150–200

  162

  200–300

  126

  300–400

  99

  400+

  105

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1988.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing those countries in which British state retirement pensioners are entitled to have their pensions uprated annually in the same way as if they were still residing in the United Kingdom together with the date upon which each country was added to the list of those so entitled and the cost to the taxpayer of pensions payable in those countries, for the most recent 12 month period.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table. The cost of these pensions is met from the national insurance fund.

  Table of overseas countries where annual pension increases are paid, the dates from which annual upratings were first applied and the total amount of pensions paid in the year ending 5 April 1992

  Country

  Date

  Amount £

  Austria

  1 October 1972

  2,647,768.71

  Barbados1

  1 April 1992

  2,126,484.85

  Belgium

  1 June 1958

  3,709,010.90

  Bermuda

  1 November 1969

  410,045.35

  Cyprus

  18 May 1957

  6,259,499.84

  Denmark

  1 January 1973

  625,728.68

  Finland

  1 February 1984

  127,592.06

  France

  5 July 1948

  9,921,921.89

  Germany

  1 August 1961

  17,321,235.12

  Gibraltar

  1 January 1973

  1,185,360.36

  Greece

  1 January 1981

  1,410,625.74

  Guernsey2

  4 April 1966

  —3

  Iceland

  1 August 1985

  32,035.23

  Irish Republic

  4 April 1966

  97,353,314.10

  Israel

  1 November 1957

  3,328,735.96

  Italy

  1 May 1953

  20,613,710.35

  Jamaica

  1 October 1972

  28,065,731.19

  Jersey

  4 April 1966

  —3

  Luxembourg

  1 April 1955

  93,973.05

  Malta

  29 October 1956

  2,367,062.26

  Mauritius

  1 November 1981

  246,001.42

  Netherlands

  1 June 1955

  3,623,387.99

  Norway

  1 April 1991

  351,415.42

  Philippines

  1 December 1989

  111,751.74

  Portugal

  1 October 1979

  2,599,342.84

  Spain

  1 April 1975

  30,553,505.04

  Sweden

  1 May 1988

  286,694.70

  Switzerland

  1 June 1954

  2,749,002.66

  Turkey

  1 June 1961

  321,214.32

  United States of America

  25 September 1969

  81,974,078.39

  Yugoslavia (including the newly independent former republics)

  1 September 1958

  1,980,710.99

  1Increases payable from April 1992—approval to negotiate an agreement with Barbados providing for payment of pension increases was given in 1974.

  2lncluding Alderney, Herm and Jethou.

  3There is no ready way of identifying the amounts paid in the Channel Islands separately from the amounts paid to pensioners in the United Kingdom.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the annual cost of reducing the housing benefit taper to 20 per cent. for all claimants.

  Mr. Burt
  We estimate that the cost of reducing the housing benefit taper to 20 per cent. for all claimants would be approximately £2 billion. Estimate based on data obtained from the 1987, 1988 and 1989 family expenditure surveys modelled at 1992–93 prices and benefit levels.

  This does not include any estimate of the behaviourial effects of a 20 per cent. taper.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consideration has been given to paying housing benefit in respect of interest on building society top—up loans for house improvements;

  (2) what is his estimate of the annual cost of allowing claims for housing benefit in respect of interest on building society top-up loans for house improvements.

  Mr. Burt
  Housing benefit is payable only to meet a commercial rent liability. In income support, assistance can be given with the interest on loans that are taken out for improvements to the home's fitness for occupation providing they are reasonable in the family's circumstances. This help is available to tenants as well as owner occupiers, provided they qualify for income support.

  The total amount included in income support for help with housing costs in 1991—(the latest year for which figures are available—was £949 million. No information is available separately on top-up loans for house improvements.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-dependant deductions for housing benefit have been made since April 1992; and of these what proportion have been at(a) £4, (b) £8, (c) £12, and (d) £18.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not yet available. Information on non-dependants since April 1992 was first collected in May 1992 and is unlikely to be available until later in 1993.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of paying housing benefit to people aged under 25 years at the full rate currently paid to people aged 25 years and over; and what proportion this figure is of total housing benefit expenditure.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated cost of paying housing benefit to people aged 18–24 at the full rate currently paid to people aged 25 years and over would be approximately £360 million1.

  This represents approximately 5 per cent. of the planned 1992–93 housing benefit expenditure of £7.05 billion announced by the Department in February 1992.

  Note:

  1 This estimate is based on data drawn from the 1987, 1988 and 1989 family expenditure surveys and the 1991 annual statistical inquiry modelled at 1992–93 prices and benefit levels.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the cost of extending the successor fund to the independent living fund to cover people over retirement age.
  153
  Mr. Scott
  The estimated cost of extending the successor fund for new cases to cover people over retirement age is £2 million in 1993–94, £6 million in 1994–95 and £9 million in 1995–96.

  Source: based upon the level of applications to the existing independent living fund.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of help there were from the independent living fund in each region in the United Kingdom in 1991–92; and how many people are expected to be helped by the successor fund to the independent living fund in each region in the United Kingdom in 1993–94.

  Mr. Scott
  The number of people, in each region of the United Kingdom, in receipt of awards from the independent living fund, as at 31 March 1992, is in the table.

  It is expected that, nationally, around 1,500 of the most severely disabled people of working age will receive cash payments to supplement services provided by local authorities. It is not possible to estimate a regional breakdown of this figures.

  Region

  Number

  Percentage of total

  England

  9,402

  68.8

  Northern Ireland

  1,321

  9.7

  Scotland

  2,288

  16.7

  Wales

  659

  4.8

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) under the proposed arrangements for replacing the independent living fund for new applicants how many people he estimates will be provided for by local authorities only and how many he estimates will be eligible for assistance from the new proposed trust fund; what funding he will make available to local authorities to meet the additional costs; and if he will ensure such funding is ring-fenced;

  (2) what proportion of severely disabled people requiring provision from the local authority he estimates will require a cash payment from the new trust fund under the proposed new arrangements for providing personal assistance to severely disabled people following the closure of the independent living fund; what average percentage of their total cost of personal assistance he estimates this will represent; and how many people will lose entitlement to cash that they would have received had the independent living fund continued.

  Mr. Scott
  From April 1993 local authorities have the primary responsibility for community care. All disabled people, including around 11,500 severely disabled people who might otherwise have looked to the independent living fund for cash help, will look to their local authority for help to live in the community. Additional funding for local authorities was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 26 November. This funding will be within the ring-fenced special transitional grant for community care.

  We expect that around 1,500 of the most severely disabled people who get help from their local authority will also be able to get a cash payment from the new fund. For these cases, the local authority will be expected to pay for services up to the cost of residential or nursing care, with
  154
  the new fund providing a cash payment in addition. The size of the cash payment will vary according to the circumstances of the individual. Payments from the current independent living fund are entirely discretionary: there is no entitlement to any payment from the fund, which is a charitable trust.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision will be made under the proposed arrangements for replacing the independent living fund for severely disabled people seeking personal assistance provision following the winding up of the independent living fund and before the start of the new scheme in April 1993.

  Mr. Scott
  Local authorities have statutory duties to help disabled people. Help from the independent living fund (ILF) has always been in the form of a discretionary top-up to local authority services and the vast majority of ILF beneficiaries—and potential beneficiaries—are already getting help from their local authorities. Severely disabled people who would have applied to the ILF between now and April 1993 will, of course, be able to apply to the new body.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the budget of the independent living fund in 1991–92 was taken up in administration costs.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration costs of the independent living fund during 1991–92 were approximately 4 per cent. of total expenditure.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over retirement age received help from the independent living fund in(a) 1991–92 and (b) from April 1992 until the fund was closed.

  Mr. Scott
  (a) the only age breakdown available for 1991–92 is for November 1991. At that time, 37 per cent. of those receiving help were over 60.

  (b) Figures for the current financial year show the position as at 30 November 1992 as being:
  1. Number of independent living fund (ILF) clients over 60 (both sexes)—7,435–this figure represents 40.6 per cent. of the total caseload.
  2. Number of ILF clients over 65 (both sexes)—6,218 —this figure represents 34 per cent. of the total caseload.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the median and mean payments from the independent living fund were in(a) 1991–92 and (b) in 1992 until the fund was closed.

  Mr. Scott
  Data on median payments are not available. The mean award for 1991–92 was £88 per week. For the period to 31 October 1992 the mean award was £104, but this figure may change because awards are still being processed.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) of 2 December,Official Report, column 233, what right of independent appeal there will be for an applicant refused help under the arrangements to replace the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  Arrangements for appeal will be a matter for the trustees of the successor body. I understand that under
  155
  the current scheme any disagreement with a decision is considered by two trustees or, exceptionally, by the whole body of trustees.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Canterbury of 2 December,Official Report, column 233, how much of the budget of £4 million for the successor fund to the independent living fund is for administration costs.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that the administration costs of the successor fund for new cases will not exceed 10 per cent. of the total provision of £4 million.

  Women's Pension Rights
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the rights of women to a pension from their husband's former employer if the husband divorces his wife before retirement age.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Under the present law, the courts have powers to take account of occupational pension rights in divorce settlements. The Pensions Management Institute currently has a working party looking at all aspects of occupational pensions and divorce with the aim of producing a report in March 1993. When that report is published we will give careful consideration to its recommendations.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, column 424, if he will list the different rank differential payments for each rank under war disablement pension arrangements.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is contained in schedule 1, parts I and II of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow social fund grants and loans to be applied for the purpose of rent bonds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund budgeting and crisis loans can be paid to provide help with rent in advance. Assistance with deposits is specifically excluded from the social fund. There are no present plans to change these arrangements.

  However, I am always ready to consider proposals for improvements and hold regular discussions with the voluntary and other organisations involved. I shall also be looking with interest at the outcome of a pilot deposit scheme in west London currently being sponsored by the Department of the Environment.

EMPLOYMENT

  Published Papers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list for the last 12 months the titles of papers published by the Employment Service.
  156
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 October 1992, c. 589]: The chief executive of the Employment Service has written further to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 14 December 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, you may recall the Secretary of State asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question in October about the papers published by the Employment Service in the last 12 months. This was because it was a matter which fell to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Unfortunately, my reply of 27 October contained an error in the attached annex of papers we had published. The "Revised Administrative Assistant Interview Plan, Guidance and Rating Form" and the "Revised Administrative Officer Interview Plan, Guidance and Rating Form" should not have been included in the annex. These documents give guidance to my managers so that they can make effective use of the structured interviews used for selecting people for positions in the Employment Service. If potential candidates were to obtain copies of this material it would provide them with an advantage over other potential candidates. I am sure that you will agree that this would not be right and as a consequence these documents are not available to the public.
  I am sorry this mistake was made and regret any inconvenience caused.
  I have attached a corrected annex and a copy of our booklet "Competent to Recruit?", which describes in general terms how our recruitment process was developed and how it operates.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  EMPLOYMENT SERVICE PUBLICATIONS

  General information about the employment service

  This is the Employment Service (CORP 1 August 1992).

  Public Employment Services: Into the 1990s (article in the

  Employment Gazette October 1992).

  Performance and accounts

  Employment Service Annual Report and Accounts 1990–91.

  Employment Service Annual Report and Accounts 1991–92.

  Employment Service Operational Plan 1992–93.

  Advisory and information booklets and leaflets

  Helping You Back to Work. Information for Claimants (UB40/UBL18 revised September 1991).

  Just the Job—New Edition (EMPL45 revised September 1991).

  Jobseeker's Charter leaflet (JSC1L December 1991).

  Jobseeker's Charter. Help us to get it right … and how to complain if you think we have got it wrong (JSC3L December 1991).

  Restart Course leaflet No. 1 (RCL1 February 1992).

  How to be Better Off in Work (BOIWL 1September 1992).

  Job search Seminar Leaflet (JSSL3).

  Guide for Managers/Executives/Professionals (EXJ1).

  Just for the Record Leaflet—Help for People with a Criminal Record (OFJ1).

  Working Abroad (OPU 1).

  Working in Holland (OPU3).

  Working in the UK (OPU4).

  Working in France (OPUS).

  Working in Germany (OPU6).

  Working in Belgium (OPU7).

  Working in Spain (OPUS8).

  Working in Portugal (OPU9).

  Working in Italy (OPU10).

  Working in Ireland (OPU11).

  Working in Denmark (OPU12).

  Working in Greece (OPU13).

  Working in Luxembourg (OPU14).

  Employing People with Disabilities—Sources of Help (PEL2).

  Employing People with Disabilities—PACT Placing,

  157

  Assessment and Counselling Team (PEL).

  PFI—Folder for A4 inserts entitled "Information on Disability and Employment".

  Information leaflet for people with severe disabilities on Sheltered Placement scheme (SPS1).

  Information leaflet for host companies about the Sheltered Placement Scheme (SPS2).

  Marketing Leaflet for Employers (EMPL46).

  Our New Computer System (NUBL1).

  Job Interview Guarantee scheme Client Wallet.

  Job Interview Guarantee scheme Employer Wallet.

  How to make the most of your Work Trial.

  Research and Evaluation
  The Employment Service Research and Evaluation branch carries out internal studies and commissions studies by external contractors. With the exception of those produced by some contractors the reports of these studies are not published as on sale documents. Copies are placed in the House of Commons Library and sent to people who ask for them. The following lists the reports which have been issued in the past year and, where appropriate, the name of the external contractor concerned. The items marked * are available on sale.

  External Contractor Reports
  Evaluation of joblink—Qualitative study report (Research Services Limited, November 1991).
  National Customer Satisfaction Survey-Report of Findings (Research International Limited, January 1992).
  New Clients: A survey of new clients to the Employment Service and their response to New Client Advisor interview (Social Community Planning Research, March 1992).
  Quality assessment and guidance in Job Review Workshops (Psychological and Statistical Services, April 1992).
  Working with a disability: Barriers and facilitators (Social Community Planning Research, May 1992*)
  Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) Evaluation—Report on a survey of JIG employers (British Market Research Bureau, May 1992).
  Attitudes to Employment Service Local Offices: Qualitative Survey (Ecotec Research and Consulting Limited, June 1992).
  An evaluation of the Pilot Employment Initiatives for Disabled People scheme (Ecotec Research and Consulting Limited, June 1992).
  Progression, Regression, Turnover, Quality and Support in Sheltered Employment (Policy Research Unit, July 1992*).
  Restart Cohort Study (Policy Studies Institute, September 1992).
  Quality of Assessment and Guidance in Job Review Workshops (Psychological and Statistical Services, October 1992).

  Internal Research Reports
  Actively Seeking Work—Evaluation (Report 68, November 1991).
  Survey of non-claimant users of ES local offices (Report 69, January 1992).
  Multifunctioning Pilots—an assessment of performance (Report 70, January 1992).
  Evaluation of ES461—the initial claim form for unemployment benefit (Report 71, March 1992).
  Private Employment Agencies (Report 72, April 1992).
  Restart Course Follow-up Survey (Report 73, July 1992).
  The Effectiveness of the NCA (New Client Advisor) Interview (Report 74, October 1992).
  NUBS2 (National Unemployment Benefit Computer System) Business Pilots Staff Views (Report 75 October 1992).

  Psychological Service Project Reports
  Critical Skills of Employment Service Advisors (Report No. 410 October 1991).
  Utility Analysis: A method of costing the impact of a training intervention (Report No. 407 November 1991).
  A Questionnaire Survey of Training Needs in Employment Department Corporate Services Branch (Report No. 402 December 1991).
  158
  A Questionnaire Survey of Training Needs in Employment Department Estates Branch (Report No. 403 December 1991).
  An Evaluation of the training which equips newly appointed
  Adjudication Officers to deal with Doubtful claims to unemployment benefit (Reports No. 411 January 1992).
  Exist Interviews with Psychologists (Report No. 404 January 1992).
  Job Interview Guarantee: An evolving Placement Programme (Report No. 408 March 1992).
  Do Prison Linked Jobclubs work and evaluation for initiatives at Pentonville and Holloway.
  PDCA in West Midlands—Evaluation Report (Report No. 409 March 1992).
  How Users assess the reception, post, messenger and typing services provided at 236 Grays Inn Road (Report No. 410 March 1992).
  Participant Observation of 3 day Occupational Assessment workshops for unemployed people in the North East Region (Report No. 412 May 1992).
  Outcomes for the first Employment Department Head Office PDPLINK programme (September 1991 to May 1992):
  A project-based approach to personal development using external placements (Report No. 413 July 1992).
  How participants and tutors rated the December 1991 SEO to Grade 7 Manager Development workshop (Report No. 141 April 1992).
  End of programme evaluation of the first "Executive Stretch": A personal development option for senior managers (Report No. 415 June 1992).
  Referrals to Sheltered Employment (Report No. 416 September 1992).
  Evaluating the Impact of the ES Stress Pack (Report No. 399 September 1992).
  Is there a gap in provision for people with special needs (Report No. 406/R September 1992).
  How People in the Employment Service view Travel and Subsistence, Development and Pay Issues (Report No. 417 October 1992).
  Training Disability Employment Advisors in assessing individual clients with the aid of psychological tests: An early evaluation of Enhanced Assessment Training (Report No. 418 October 1992).
  Improving the usability of information systems … a briefing for systems developers (Report No. 400).

  Adjudication

  Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions for Quarter ending 31 December 1991.

  Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions for Quarter ending 31 March 1992.

  Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions for Year ending 31 March 1992.

  Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions for Quarter ending 30 June 1992.

  Personnel related
  Article on "Promotion Through Vacancy Advertising" (PVA) appeared in the Spring edition of "Equality Network".

  Unfair Dismissal
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time employees in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each standard planning region are not covered by the right to appeal against unfair dismissal.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I regret that the information is not available as there is no statutory definition of what constitutes full-time employment for the purposes of unfair dismissal.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many part-time employees in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each standard planning region are not covered by the right to appeal against unfair dismissal.
  159
  Mr. McLoughlin
  I regret that the information is not available as there is no statutory definition of what constitutes part-time employment for the purposes of unfair dismissal.

  Career Development Loans
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in each region and for Great Britain as a whole are(a) currently on a course which has been supported by a career development loan, (b) have obtained jobs at the end of their period of study supported by a career development loan, (c) are repaying a career development loan and (d) have had to defer repayments on their career development loan because of hardship, what is the average amount of loan taken out; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The table sets out for each English region, Scotland and Wales, information on the number of people currently in trained supported by a career development loan (CDL) and the number of people currently repaying a loan. Information on number of trainees in work following training is obtained from a sample number of trainees, On the basis of the sample, 74 per cent. of trainees supported by a CDL find work following training. No information is held on the number of trainees who have had to defer repayment of loans due to hardship. At the end of October 1992, the average loan amount for loans taken out in the current financial year was £2,745.

  Youth opportunities programme (YOP) youth training scheme (YTS) minimum allowance levels

  (£)

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Minimum allowance (YOP/YTS)1

  20.55

  23.50

  23.50

  25.00

  25.00

  25.00

  26.25

  27.30

  27.30

  28.50

  At 1978–79 price level

  20.55

  20.14

  17.02

  16.51

  15.41

  14.73

  14.72

  14.51

  14.01

  13.92

  Minimum allowance (YOP/YTS)2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35.00

  35.00

  At 1978–79 price level

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.03

  17.09

  1Minimum level of allowance payable to first-year trainees until 29 May 1990. Payable to 16-year-old trainees thereafter.

  2Minimum level of allowance payable to second-year trainees until 29 May 1990. Payable to trainees aged 17 and above thereafter. This rate of allowance was introduced in April 1986 to coincide with the transition of YTS from a one year to a two-year training programme.

  31978–79 price levels obtained by application of appropriate GDP deflator index.

  NB: The youth opportunities programme (YOP) was replaced by the youth training scheme (YTS) in April 1983.

  Youth Training Scheme (YTS)/Youth training (YT) minimum allowance levels (£)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Minimum allowance

  YT/YTS1

  29.50

  29.50

  29.50

  29.50

  29.50

  At 1978–793 price level

  13.43

  12.60

  11.67

  10.92

  10.47

  Minimum allowance

  YT/YTS2

  35.00

  35.00

  35.00

  35.00

  35.00

  At 1978–793 price level

  15.93

  14.95

  13.85

  12.95

  12.42

  1Minimum level of allowance payable to first-year trainees until 29 May 1990. Payable to 16-year-old trainees thereafter.

  2Minimum level of allowance payable to second-year trainees until 29 May 1990. Payable to trainees aged 17 and above thereafter. This rate of allowance was introduced in April 1986 to coincide with the transition of YTS from a one year to a two-year training programme.

  31978–79 price levels obtained by application of appropriate GDP deflator index.

  Note: The youth training scheme (YTS) was replaced by youth training (YT) on 29 May 1990.

  Travel-to-interview Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will tighten up the travel-to-interview scheme in order to provide early payments to claimants; and if she will make a statement about the inception and operation of the scheme including take-up in the last 12 months;
  160

  English regions

  Number currently in training

  Number currently repaying loans

  South East

  1,258

  2,805

  Greater London

  1,111

  2,692

  East Anglia

  224

  531

  South West

  616

  1,318

  West Midlands

  403

  1,060

  East Midlands

  308

  743

  Yorkshire

  454

  1,243

  North West

  369

  1,354

  Northern

  230

  757

  Wales

  219

  460

  Scotland

  534

  1,478

  Great Britain

  5,726

  14,441

  Youth Training
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of youth training allowance, or equivalent, for 16 and 17–year-olds for every year between 1978–79 and 1993–94(a) in cash prices and (b) at 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Information about actual allowance levels is not available. The following tables show minimum allowance levels; providers of youth training can pay more.

  (2) if she will amend the travel-to-interview scheme to enable applicants to claim for losses incurred in attending a second interview; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  161
  Letter from J. Cooper to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 15 December 1992:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your questions about the Travel to Interview Scheme (TIS).
  TIS was introduced in 1986 to help with travel costs for unemployed people to attend job interviews beyond daily travelling distance of their home area, thus widening the applicant's jobsearch, improving their chances of obtaining work and encouraging labour mobility. From October 1991 to September 1992 the scheme helped 38,000 applicants. A few basic conditions must be met before assistance can be granted, to ensure that the limited funds available are concentrated on those unemployed people in most need.
  Assistance is normally given to clients in the form of a British Rail travel warrant, which they receive before attending the interview. Where clients choose to travel by car or are entitled to help with overnight subsistence costs they are reimbursed on their return from the interview. Payment is usually made in cash by our local Jobcentre or, if the amount to be reimbursed is quite large, then a girocheque will be sent to the client from our Regional Finance Offices. The Finance Office in Cardiff have a target of repayment within seven days and I am pleased to say that in almost all cases payment is made within five.
  You have asked about amending TIS to help applicants with assistance for second interviews. Whilst we realise it would be popular with jobseekers if help was available to cover the cost of repeat interviews, it could in practice be very costly. It may, for example, lead to the available funds having to be concentrated on a smaller number of people. We therefore limit the assistance to one interview per job. Where the selection process is a lengthy one we have to rely on the employer being sensitive to costs likely to fall on the applicant and offer help towards them.
  You may like to know that the scheme is currently under review and the eligibility conditions are being looked at to see whether, within the limited resources, there are ways of helping more people. The possibility of helping with second interviews is included in the review. As you will appreciate the recommendations for a change in the eligibility rules of the scheme are subject to Ministerial and Treasury approval. I hope that the decisions on this issue will be taken in the very near future.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report, I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Professional Footballers
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the application of articles 7 and 48 of the treaty of Rome, as amended, to the employment of professional footballers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that articles 7 and 48 of the treaty of Rome, as amended, apply to the employment of all nationals of the European Community working in the United Kingdom, including professional footballers.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people aged 16 and 17 years in the Liverpool travel-to-work area are not in employment, not on a youth training scheme and not in full-time education.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In October 1992 there were 297 unemployed claimants aged 16 and 17 years in the Liverpool travel-to-work area.

  Changes to the benefit regulations in September 1988 coincided with the extention of a guaranteed YTS (now YT) place to all those aged under 18 not in full-time education or employment, which meant that those who declined an offer of a YTS place were no longer entitled to benefit. However, there are still a small number of under 18–year-olds entitled to benefit due to special circumstances, such as severe hardship or by virtue of their being orphans.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) her Department's budget expressed in 1987–88 prices, (b) the average number of unemployed people and (c) a figure for(a) divided by (b) for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures requested are as follows:

  year

  (a) Department's budget (£ million)

  (b) Average number of unemployed people (Great Britain)

  (a)/(b) (£s)

  1987–88

  3,903

  2,674,858

  1,459

  1988–89

  3,592

  2,142,008

  1,677

  1989–90

  3,307

  1,702,250

  1,943

  1990–91

  3,041

  1,757,266

  1,730

  1991–92

  2,756

  2,448,791

  1,125

  (i) Figures for years to 1989–90 include a public corporation the National Dock Labour Board.

  (ii) The 1991–92 figures exclude the amounts transferred to the Scottish Office (mainly for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise) which is responsible for delivering the main training and enterprise programmes in Scotland.

  Construction Sites
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful prosecutions took place in each of the last five years as a result of investigations into deaths and serious injuries on construction sites in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths and serious injuries have occurred on construction sites in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in each of the past five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers of deaths and major injuries occurring in the construction industry in Strathclyde and Scotland in the past five years are provided in the table.
  163

  Occupational injuries occurring in the construction industry1 as reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates and local authorities, 1986–87 to 1991–926

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries3

  Year2

  Employees

  Self employed

  Members of public4

  Employees

  Self employed

  Members of public4

  (a)Strathclyde

  1987–88

  7

  —

  1

  180

  9

  4

  1988–89

  10

  1

  3

  170

  8

  8

  1989–90

  5

  1

  2

  159

  17

  4

  1990–915

  5

  1

  1

  154

  17

  7

  1991–925 6

  4

  —

  —

  162

  8

  5

  (b) Scotland

  1987–88

  13

  1

  2

  396

  16

  11

  1988–89

  19

  1

  4

  355

  17

  23

  1989–90

  15

  3

  2

  383

  37

  11

  1990–915

  12

  3

  1

  347

  40

  18

  1991–925 6

  8

  —

  1

  399

  45

  21

  1As defined by Standard Industrial Classification 1980 Division 5

  2Year commencing 1 April

  3As defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985

  4Injured as a result of someone else's work activity

  5Includes reports made to HSE's quarries inspectorate

  6provisional

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many investigations were undertaken into deaths and serious injuries on construction sites in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in each of the last five years by (i) the Health and Safety Executive and (ii) the respective police forces.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The available information is given in the following table.

  Number of accidents and dangerous occurrences on construction sites which were investigated by Health and Safety Executive inspectors in Scotland 1987–88 to 1991–921

  Year2

  Total

  1987–88

  189

  1988–89

  188

  1989–90

  223

  1990–91

  190

  11991–92

  200

  1 Provisional.

  2 Years commencing 1 April.

  Questions about the work of police forces are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Lough Shore, Greyabbey
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the adequacy of the foul sewerage system for the additional homes proposed at the Lough Shore, Greyabbey, planning application No. 0772.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has not yet concluded the assessment of the adequacy of its foul sewerage system to serve the proposed construction of 53 houses on land adjacent to Islandview road, Greyabbey.

  Non-fossil Fuels
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given to encouraging electricity generation from non-fossil fuel sources in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement regarding the future application of the non-fossil fuel obligation to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of Economic Development and NIE plc have jointly commissioned a study into the potential for renewable energy in Northern Ireland and plan to publish its findings next spring. No decisions on a non-fossil fuel obligation for Northern Ireland can be made until then.

  Community Relations Council
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed by the Community Relations Council; and how many are(a) Roman Catholics and (b) Protestants.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Community Relations Council employs 16 staff, eight of whom are Roman Catholics and eight Protestant.

  Newtownbreda Bombing
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many interim payments of £10,000 or more have been issued by the Compensation Agency to householders whose homes were damaged by the IRA bomb at Newtownbreda on 23 September.

  Mr. Mates
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. Robinson.

  I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. Robinson to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 14 December 1992:
  I refer to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the criminal damage resulting from the bombing of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Newtownbreda on 23 September. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond.
  In the case of householders a total of 111 claims are valued at £10,000 or more and 64 interim payments of various

  165
  amounts have been made. Three have been for more than £10,000. In addition four offers of settlement over £10,000 have been made.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to ensure that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive introduces an effective new build and improvements to purpose-built stock programme following the publication of the annual housing statistic report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following the announcement on 8 December of its public expenditure allocation the Housing Executive will prepare its 1993–94 budget for approval by Government. I am confident that this budget will provide for the continuation of effective new build and IPBS programmes.

  School Examinations
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he will take to ensure that secondary school students from Northern Ireland can continue to undertake examinations set by examining boards in England and Wales at both GCSE and A-level; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no change to the arrangements whereby NI schools may choose A-level syllabuses offered by examining boards in England and Wales.

  At GCSE, pupils commencing courses in key stage 4 in September 1993 in English, mathematics and science, business studies, drama and home economics must follow the statutory programmes of study in those subjects and the Department of Education will approve only those GCSE syllabuses which confirm to the programmes of study. The Department invited examining boards in England and Wales to submit syllabuses for approval, in these subjects, but none has done so for courses commencing in September 1993, although interest has been expressed in offering syllabuses for approval for 1994. Schools may offer GCSE syllabuses in all other subjects set by examining boards in England and Wales for courses commencing in September 1993.

  Home Helps
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many home helps have been employed in west Belfast during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of home helps employed in the North and West Belfast community unit of management of the Eastern health and social services board at 30 September of each of the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  Number of home helps

  Whole-lime equivalents

  1988

  1,519

  477.87

  1989

  1,392

  440.54

  1990

  1,343

  404.86

  1991

  1,142

  389.58

  1992

  1,039

  346.26

  166
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many home helps are currently employed throughout west, east, north and south Belfast.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of home helps employed in the North and West Belfast, and South and East Belfast community units of management at 30 September 1992, the latest date for which information is available, was as follows:

  Community unit of management

  Number of home helps

  Whole-time equivalents

  North and West Belfast community unit

  1,039

  346.26

  South and East Belfast community unit

  1,429

  315.68

  Single Parents
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many single parents are claiming social security benefit in(a) west Belfast and (b) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. Wylie to Dr. Joe Hendron, dated 11 December 1992:
  As I am responsible for Social Security operational matters your recent Parliamentary Question on the number of single parents claiming social security benefit has been passed to me for a reply.
  Information available on the number of single parents claiming social security benefit is as follows:

  Income support

  West Belfast Area

  Numbers of lone parents in receipts of income support

  Andersonstown Social Security Office

  2,570

  Falls Road Social Security Office

  2,398

  Shankill Social Security Office

  1,139

  Total

  6,107

  Northern Ireland Total

  33,183

  Other Benefits Information is not available for specific areas and the figures supplied are for Northern Ireland as a whole. Some single parents may be getting more than one of these benefits.

  Benefit

  Numbers of lone parents in receipt

  Family Credit

  5,500

  One Parent/Child Benefit

  28,000

  Widowed Mothers Allowance

  2,500

  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit

  400

  I hope you find this information helpful. A copy of this reply will appear in the Official Report and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Miltary Complaints Procedure
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to announce the appointment of an independent assessor of military complaints procedures.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Mr. David Hewitt as independent assessor of military complaints procedures. Mr. Hewitt is a respected legal figure in Northern Ireland and will bring considerable experience to the post. The main role of the assessor will he to provide an independent audit of the operation of procedures for handling non-criminal complaints against HM forces. His terms of reference are set out in section 60 and schedule 6 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. This appointment reaffirms the Government's commitment to maintaining public confidence in the attainment of the high standards of behaviour required from the security forces.Mr. Hewitt will take up his duties early in the new year.

  Race Relations
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about race relations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Earlier this year, the Government, in responding to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights second report on "Religious and Political Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity in Northern Ireland" (Cm 1107), indicated that they would bring forward in 1992 a consultative document to examine the scope for race legislation in Northern Ireland. This consultative document will be published later today. It will examine the need for and possible scope of legislation on race relations in Northern Ireland and the possible form and content of any such legislation. The consultative document also reviews a range of departmental policies and programmes which affect ethnic minority groups.

  The document will also seek views about legislation to make discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services and premises on the ground of religious belief or political opinion unlawful.

SCOTLAND

  Local Rail Services
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that any reorganisation of Scottish local government should provide a structure to maintain the integrity of local rail services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: Regional and islands authorities are required to secure the provision of such passenger transport services as they consider appropriate where these are not being provided by the market and to formulate general policies as to the services they propose to secure. There are no plans at present to change this. The Government's consultation paper on local government reform invites views on the most appropriate arrangements for enabling the provision of public transport services in Scotland.

  After-school Care
  Mr. Chisholme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been given to Scottish Enterprise for after-school care provision by local enterprise councils.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 10 December 1992]: It is for Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies to deploy the funds available to them, subject only to the broad budget block structure set out in the Supply Estimates and to the rules on virement between budget blocks. However, I have written to the chairman of Scottish Enterprise and to local enterprise company chairmen indicating that they will be expected in 1993–94 to support the piloting of after-school and holiday child care initiatives, in line with the Government's election manifesto commitment to introduce a new child care grant throughout Great Britain. The substantial increase in funding for the Scottish Enterprise network's enterprise activities for 1993–94 will clearly be very helpful in enabling the network to undertake this task.

  Housing
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage change in right-to-buy receipts he has assumed in setting out his planned provision for housing in 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 December 1992]: Estimates of right-to-buy receipts in 1993–94 will be included in the provisional housing revenue account capital allocations to local authorities for 1993–94 when these are issued later this month.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account he has taken of changes in housing stock between 1992–93 and 1993–94 in his planned provision for expenditure on council housing for 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 December 1992]: The local authority housing stock in Scotland is expected to change from an estimated total of 695,655 dwellings at 30 September 1992 to an estimated total of 668,537 dwellings at 30 September 1993. These estimates, which have been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, will be reflected in the calculation of housing support grant for 1993–94. The allocations to local authorities for capital investment in council housing in 1993–94 will also take account of these estimates.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the additions or reductions of each of the chemical constituents of water and their percentages to or from the existing supplies in the areas served by each of the water authorities in Scotland which are required in order to meet the new EC water standards; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) chemical constituent of water, (b) each water authority and (c) each supply point;

  (2) what changes to the chemical analysis of water are envisaged as a consequence of implementing new EC water standards compared with the existing chemical analysis employed by Scottish water authorities; and if he will make a statement.
  169
  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: There are no new EC water standards. The EC drinking water directive (80/778/EEC) of July 1980 came into force in July 1985. The Water Supply (Water Quality) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 adopted the standards set in the directive, together with a number of additional national standards on quality.

  There are over 700 water supply zones in Scotland taking water from more than 800 different surface and groundwater sources. The raw water quality varies with location and time of year. The water treatment carried out to meet the requirements of the regulations is equally varied. Water quality information is available from authorities' public registers and this is summarised in their annual reports. The Scottish Office publishes an annual overview of water quality in Scotland. The last, "Drinking Water Quality in Scotland 1990", is in the Library and a more detailed report for 1991 will be published shortly.

  Scottish Natural Heritage
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scottish Natural Heritage is paying out in the current financial year in management agreement; and whether he will list each current management agreement and its cost.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: I have asked Scottish Natural Heritage to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scottish Natural Heritage paid out in compensation payments in the current financial year under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will list each individual amount.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: I have asked Scottish Natural Heritage to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of claims for compensation under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that are currently outstanding in Scotland, their county and the amount that has been claimed.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: I have asked Scottish Natural Heritage to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list grants given by Scottish Natural Heritage for the purchase of land in Scotland for nature conservation purposes, their location and the organisations that received them in the current financial year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: So far in 1992–93 Scottish Natural Heritage has paid £500 to Kilmuir Village Woodlands Association under section 9 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. SNH estimates that a further £175,000 may be paid to voluntary bodies for land purchases in this financial year. The details remain confidential until negotiations are completed.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place a copy of the Skye bridge toll concession agreement in the Library.
  170
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: The development agreement regulates the design and construction of the scheme and the concession agreement regulates the operation and maintenance thereafter. These are commercial agreements and as such are confidential. However, certain key provisions of the agreements are required to be made public under provisions in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. These were published in an assignation statement at the time of publication of draft orders for the scheme. My right hon. Friend has arranged for a copy of the published assignation statement to be placed in the Library.

  Transport Users Consultative Committee
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken on each of the recommendations of the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland contained in its 1991 annual report.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 December 1992]: The committee's recommendations on railway issues are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The committee's recommendations on shipping issues relate directly to the operational responsibilities of Caledonian MacBrayne. I understand that the company's existing arrangements for consultation on the design of new vessels, and changes in the pattern of services or timetables are fully in accord with the committee's recommendations.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foreign-owned Trawlers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the numbers and types of United Kingdom-Spanish trawlers or Spanish-owned trawlers and United Kingdom-Dutch-owned trawlers fishing within the United Kingdom quota system and the number and type of licences each of these vessels have; if he will express this as a percentage of the United Kingdom fleet; and if he will list the aggregate tonnage and aggregate horsepower in kilowatts of each of these vessels.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 19 October 1992 at column 200. All the vessels listed in this reply hold United Kingdom fishing licences. I also refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 24 November 1992 at column 576 on the subject of beam trawl licences held by Anglo-Dutch vessels. I regret that it is not possible to provide the other information requested except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels of other European community member states are operating inside the United Kingdom quota system.

  Mr. Curry
  Only vessels which are registered in the United Kingdom are entitled to fish against United Kingdom quotas.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of policing and administering fisheries in the United Kingdom for the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; and what are the expected costs for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Curry
  The cost of policing and administering sea fisheries in the United Kingdom was as follows:

  £ million

  1988–89

  20.5

  1989–90

  21.7

  1990–91

  23.4

  1991–92

  23.8

  11992–93

  25.4

  1Forecast outturn.

  Fishermen (Effort Limitation)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the conservation measures and effort limitation measures which have been applied by him and which affect British fishermen only.

  Mr. Curry
  After consultation with the fishing industry the United Kingdom introduced on 1 June 1992 a package of conservation measures which complemented EC measures brought into force on the same day. The United Kingdom measures included a one-net rule, the use of square mesh panels in all nephrops fisheries and for whitefish in the area west of Scotland south of 56oN southwards to the southern edge of the Irish sea, and an anti-ballooning provision for all whitefish fisheries. We also, along with the Irish Republic, retained the 27 cm minimum landing size for whiting. A ban on the use of twin and multi-rig trawls in certain nephrops fisheries as requested by the industry will come into operation early next year. Also, while the EC limit in relation to cod and haddock fisheries of 135 days at sea, set for 1992, applied mainly to United Kingdom vessels, we were able to negotiate a gear option for vessels prepared to use 110 mm and 120 mm mesh nets.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department has about prevailing limitation of fishing effort by curtailment of days at sea operated by each member country of the European Community.

  Mr. Curry
  EC regulation 3882/91 requires certain vessels of over 10 m length, fishing for cod and haddock in the North sea and to the west of Scotland, to be tied up for 135 days during the period 1 February 1992 to 31 December 1992. Member states affected by this have been able to obtain full or partial exemptions from this requirement on the basis that they would not catch quotas, or the use of alternative arrangements.

  The available information for each member state is summarised as follows:
  The United Kingdom is operating limited tie-up regime under EC Reg. 3882/91, such that vessels may opt to use certain technical measures instead of tying up for the full 135 days (partial exemption from Reg 3882/91).
  Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Ireland have also obtained exemptions from Reg. 3882/91.
  172
  France, Spain and Portugal have no regime of days at sea limitation as far as we are aware.
  Greece and Italy have national regimes.
  Netherlands—most Dutch vessels are limited to 150.165 days at sea under national legislation.

  Common Agricultural Policy Subsidies
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of common agricultural policy subsidies(a) in total and (b) for each agricultural product paid to United Kingdom farmers in the last financial year; and what was (a) the average and (b) the median value of subsidy paid to each farm.

  Mr. Curry
  Details of public expenditure under the common agricultural policy, including expenditure on national grants and subsidies, are published in table 9.1 in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom", an annual publication produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Copies are placed in the Library. Statistical information is not retained recording the average and median values of subsidy received by individual farms.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what division within his Department is currently dealing with the application by British Nuclear Fuels plc for the authorisation of radioactive discharges for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Curry
  The divisions dealing with these applications are: emergencies and food protection division, for the disposal of radioactive gaseous waste and waste oil; and marine environmental protection division, for disposal of radioactive liquid waste. Appropriate scientific support is provided by the Ministry's food science division and directorate of fisheries research.

  Surplus Butter
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December,Official Report, columns 384–85, what records it is compulsory for organisations distributing EC butter to keep.

  Mr. Curry
  Designated organisations must ensure that records are kept of the produce received and distributed. Details of records that are required to be kept are set out in annex B of leaflet LP46 entitled "Surplus Food Scheme".

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December,Official Report, columns 384–85, what methods his Department uses to contact recipients of EC surplus butter in order to carry out checks.

  Mr. Curry
  It is a requirement that all designated organisations receiving produce for distribution must notify the local office of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at least one week in advance of a distribution to eligible recipients. This enables official visits to be made on a random basis.
  173
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December,Official Report, columns 384–85, whether he will consider the production by his Department of standard advertisements, posters or leaflets which could be used or adapted by voluntary organisations participating in the scheme for the distribution of EC surplus butter.

  Mr. Curry
  The Intervention Board executive agency produces and distributes a standard poster listing the eligible groups under this scheme. Detailed publicity of the timing and location of individual distributions is best left to designated orgnisations.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December,Official Report, columns 384–85, what checks are carried out by his Department on organisations which apply to take part in the scheme for the distribution of EC surplus butter, prior to their acceptance as distributors.

  Mr. Curry
  Organisations are required to certify that they are charitable or non-profit making; preferably already involved in the provision of goods and services to the most needy; and not concerned in the production, wholesaling, storage or retailing of butter and/or beef. Applications must also be supported by an independent referee such as a justice of the peace, minister of religion or a prominent citizen of the local community.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December,Official Report, columns 384–85, how many organisations which have participated in the scheme for the distribution of EC surplus butter have been barred from participation in a following year by his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  Applications from six organisations which had participated in the 1991 scheme were refused for the 1992–93 distribution.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December,Official Report, columns 384–85, how many of the voluntary organisations distributing EC surplus butter are visited by staff from his Department to observe distribution.

  Mr. Curry
  It is planned that 30 per cent. of the 1,300 designated organisations will be subject to official inspection on a random basis.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 December,Official Report, columns 384–85, what instructions are issued to voluntary organisations distributing butter as to the details of recipients of butter which they are required to record.

  Mr. Curry
  Designated organisations are required to keep records of the number of recipients, the quantity of butter and beef each received, and how eligibility was established. Documents that organisations may accept as proof of eligibility are listed in annex C of leaflet LP46, entitled "EC Surplus Food Scheme", copies which are available in the Library of the House.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date his Department received applications from British Nuclear Fuels plc for 174
  authorisation of discharge from the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, of (a) low-level liquid waste from the marine pipeline, (b) gaseous waste, (c) radioactively contaminated waste oil and (d) low-level liquid waste from the facility sewer.

  Mr. Curry
  The dates these applications were received are as follows:

  1992

  (a) low-level liquid waste from the factory sewer

  21 January

  (b) low-level liquid waste from the marine pipeline

  5 May

  (c) gaseous waste

  5 May

  (d) radioactively contaminated waste oil

  5 May

  Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received calling for the implementation of a pension scheme to assist early retirement among farmers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  Since the EC scheme for early retirement was agreed in May, my department has received 29 representations from Members of Parliament and members of the public about its possible application in the United Kingdom.

  Wool Prices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of the discontinuance of the guaranteed price for wool; and what plans he has to reconsider his decision.

  Mr. Curry
  Termination of the wool guarantee will give the industry financial responsibility for its own affairs, allowing it to respond more directly to market forces. Although there will be some short-term impact on producers' returns, their total returns from wool amount to only approximately 5 per cent. of the total return from sheep production. The Government have no plans to reconsider this decision, which will be implemented by means of the Agriculture Bill.

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect on the industry of the refusal of top-up payments for the suckler cow premium scheme; and what plans he has to reconsider his decision.

  Mr. Curry
  Substantial increases in the EC-funded element of the suckler cow premium from 1993 onwards mean that rates of premium will be higher in 1993 than this year, despite the removal of the national top-up. I have no plans to reconsider this decision.

HEALTH

  Homoeopathic Medicines
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions for homoeopathic medicines have been made(a) in the out-patient clinic of

  175
  hospitals, (b) in in-patient clinics, (c) from general practitioners' surgeries and (d) in total in the last calendar year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of preparations dispensed by community pharmacists, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England in 1991 was 161,000. The remaining information is not available centrally.

  Community Health Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding is allocated to community health councils for training purposes in each regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  We have asked regions to ensure that adequate arrangements are made for t he development of community health council staff.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sums were expended by her Department in respect of European Drug Prevention Week, additional to those in existing annual programmes; and for what specific purposes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since 1985 the Department of Health has run a series of campaigns against drug misuse, using mass media advertising and other media. As the main thrust of the 1992–93 campaign, European Drug Prevention Week was financed using existing allocations. The purpose of the week, consistent with previous campaigns, was to raise awareness of the dangers of drug and solvent misuse, especially among young people, their parents and other concerned adults.

  Warner Report
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to implement the recommendations of the Warner report; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) on 7 December at column 526. Local authorities have been asked to report progress by 8 April 1993 on the implementation of recommendations for improving employers' personnel practices. We are consulting widely on other important recommendations, for comment by 26 February 1993.

  Newchurch Hospital, Warrington
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on resettling the residents and patients of Newchurch hospital, Culcheth in Warrington; on what was the money spent; and what was the average cost per patient.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. Hannah, the chairman of Warrington health authority, for details.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health is she will publish the number of patients in each standard age group who received kidney dialysis in the most recent available year; and what information she has on the proportion these numbers represent of kidney patients in each age group.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to information provided by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association, there were 9,087 patients in the United Kingdom receiving dialysis as at the end of 1991, the latest date for which information is available. The table shows the estimated numbers by age group and the proportion they represent of all patients receiving renal replacement therapy at that time.

  Age

  Dialysis numbers + percentage of total

  Proportion of all renal replacement therapy per cent.

  Under 15

  109 (1.2)

  0.5

  15–34

  1,263 (13.9)

  6.5

  35–44

  1,145 (12.6)

  5.9

  45–54

  1,636 (18.0)

  8.5

  55–64

  2,108 (23.2)

  10.9

  Over 65

  2,808 (30.9)

  14.5

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will review the system for making deprivation factor payments to general practitioners to give a greater role to family health service authorities; and if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of the present system in targeting resources where they are most needed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The deprivation payments system recognises the higher workload faced by doctors in deprived areas. As up-to-date data become available from the 1991 census, there will be opportunities to improve the targeting of the payments: we shall need to consider this with the profession and with national health service management, taking account of experience to date.

  Health Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to encourage health providers to manage their contacts, and treatments provided, more evenly over the financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the responsibility of local managers to schedule their contracted work evenly over the financial year. The vast majority are doing this successfully. Where there are isolated problems, these are being resolved by local managers with help, where appropriate, from their regional health authority.

  Sefton General Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the future of Sefton general hospital, Liverpool.

  Mr. Yeo
  On 27 October 1992, Liverpool health authority commenced public consultation on proposals to
  177
  replace outdated in-patient services for the rehabilitation of the elderly and people with acute mental illness, currently at Sefton general hospital, with a wide range of modern, purpose built facilities at Broadgreen and Mossley Hill hospitals. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. H. Tod, the authority chairman, for more details.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on compulsory redundancies within the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Employing authorities in the NHS decide their own policies on matters such as redundancy, taking into account the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service code of practice, employment legislation and the procedures governing the eligibility to benefits outlined in sections 45 and 46 of the General Whitley Council handbook.

  Regional Hospital Authorities
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will indicate for each regional hospital authority(a) the cash allocation for hospital and community health services spending in 1993–94 and (b) the region's resident population in 1993–94 in each age band in the national capitation funding formula, and to subdivide the cash allocation for each region by the population in each age band in proportion to the age-related weightings in the capitation formula in such a way as to show the amount of money allocated per person in each age band in each region for HCHS in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Table 1 shows for each region the main revenue allocation for resident population in 1993–94. These were based on an across the board increase of 0.4 per cent. above inflation with a similar sum distributed to bring regions closer to their population shares. They do not therefore equate to weighted capitation shares.

  1989 based population projections for mid-1993

  Table 2

  Births

  00–04

  05–14

  15–44

  45–64

  65–74

  75–84

  85+

  Total

  Age bands

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  1–7

  RHA

  Northern

  41,344

  204,195

  399,985

  1,275,568

  705,088

  295,696

  152,444

  46,627

  3,079,603

  Yorkshire

  52,050

  254,276

  476,588

  1,541,858

  818,873

  330,915

  191,539

  62,098

  3,676,147

  Trent

  64,254

  317,311

  591,339

  1,985,123

  1,078,310

  441,979

  242,529

  74,835

  4,731,426

  East Anglia

  27,650

  136,894

  265,732

  891,126

  472,771

  200,464

  120,663

  39,338

  2,126,988

  North West Thames

  52,989

  247,168

  441,479

  1,627,217

  772,747

  267,956

  164,541

  53,568

  3,574,676

  North East Thames

  57,910

  273,155

  480,696

  1,672,102

  796,067

  307,148

  182,977

  59,538

  3,771,683

  South East Thames

  52,713

  255,375

  454,418

  1,585,462

  797,947

  335,075

  211,945

  73,463

  3,713,685

  South West Thames

  40,925

  197,699

  357,403

  1,312,490

  672,707

  259,969

  172,071

  62,410

  3,034,749

  Wessex

  39,805

  194,501

  366,830

  1,257,977

  676,441

  293,996

  177,740

  61,184

  3,028,669

  Oxford

  37,872

  182,471

  346,655

  1,165,918

  568,251

  193,304

  112,555

  36,874

  2,606,028

  South western

  43,138

  211,470

  404,171

  1,341,429

  768,209

  338,856

  207,413

  71,695

  3,343,243

  West Midlands

  75,089

  370,102

  688,779

  2,181,941

  1,206,701

  474,349

  256,622

  77,936

  5,256,430

  Mersey

  33,995

  166,143

  317,455

  989,317

  550,883

  216,341

  121,115

  37,888

  2,399,142

  178
  Table 2 shows the projected births and resident population in each age band used in the weighted capitation formula.

  The formula does not make allocations in respect of specific age groups. It weights the crude population for:

  Age, using the expenditure weightings in table 3;

  Standardised mortality ratio, all causes under 75;

  London weighting and market forces factor;

  Thames regions addition.

  Table 4 shows the successive effects of each of these weighting factors on each region's population shares.

  The age weightings reflect past estimated national spending on these age bands and cannot be used in isolation to produce meaningful information in the form requested.

  Table 1 Regional health authority allocations: 1993–94 Revenue allocations for resident populations

  Allocation for resident populations £000s

  1Percentage increase over inflation

  Northern

  1,159,723

  1.03

  Yorkshire

  1,334,886

  0.67

  Trent

  1,672,751

  1.16

  East Anglia

  704,794

  1.18

  North West Thames

  1,320,749

  0.40

  North East Thames

  1,490,187

  0.40

  South East Thames

  1,439,276

  0.40

  South West Thames

  1,116,107

  0.40

  Wessex

  1,033,656

  1.48

  Oxford

  794,779

  0.86

  South West

  1,185,708

  1.16

  West Midlands

  1,855,142

  1.00

  Mersey

  890,032

  0.58

  North West

  1,505,427

  0.70

  England

  17,503,217

  0.80

  1Above forecast inflation for the hospital and community health services of 1.9 per cent.

  179

  Births

  00–04

  05–14

  15–44

  45–64

  65–74

  75–84

  85+

  Total

  Age bands

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  1–7

  Northwestern

  58,654

  287,137

  531,113

  1,680,715

  888,688

  354,077

  205,456

  64,527

  4,011,713

  England

  678,388

  3,297,897

  6,122,643

  20,508,243

  10,773,683

  4,310,125

  2,519,610

  821,981

  48,354,182

  RHA cash limits 1993–94: Age weighting1

  Table 3

  2Births

  Band 1

  Band 2

  Band 3

  Band 4

  Band 5

  Band 6

  Band 7

  1988–89

  1,382.67

  186.33

  108.31

  103.04

  230.20

  519.60

  939.42

  1,799.10

  Reflated

  1,597.65

  215.30

  125.15

  119.06

  265.99

  600.39

  1,085.48

  2,078.82

  1989–90 Cash

  1,361.72

  204.60

  103.99

  115.87

  256.63

  545.86

  1,015.50

  1,877.05

  Reflated

  1,480.19

  222.40

  113.04

  125.95

  278.96

  593.35

  1,103.85

  2,040.35

  1990–91 Cash

  1,438.21

  221.31

  110.02

  139.84

  274.27

  590.25

  1,057.45

  1,961.32

  Average

  1,505.35

  219.67

  116.07

  128.28

  273.07

  594.66

  1,082.26

  2,026.83

  1Estimates are quoted here to 2 decimal places for use in calculation of sub-regional allocations but should not be regarded as so precise and are normally rounded.

  2Bands 2 and 3 are estimated average cost per head for age groups 5–15 and 16–44 respectively. These are used as proxies when weighting resident populations aged 5–14 and 15–44.

  Table 4 1993 Resident populations weighted for age, standardised mortality ratios, London weighting/market forces and Thames factors

  £000s

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Northern

  3,048.91

  3,328.67

  3,249.16

  3,221.23

  Yorkshire

  3,681.55

  3,819.52

  3,728.29

  3,696.24

  Trent

  4,714.81

  4,806.27

  4,691.47

  4,651.14

  East Anglia

  2,179.86

  2,025.40

  1,977.02

  1,960.02

  North West Thames

  3,391.76

  3,254.29

  3,472.10

  3,576.27

  North East Thames

  3,666.10

  3,642.04

  3,951.61

  4,070.16

  South East Thames

  3,830.33

  3,752.51

  3,924.84

  3,964.09

  South West Thames

  3,116.76

  2,890.84

  3,017.93

  3,048.11

  Wessex

  3,170.32

  2,978.07

  2,906.93

  2,881.94

  Oxford

  2,432.17

  2,272.94

  2,223.46

  2,204.35

  South Western

  3,586.37

  3,407.04

  3,325.66

  3,297.07

  West Midlands

  5,167.32

  5,323.30

  5,196.14

  5,151.48

  Mersey

  2,382.59

  2,544.67

  2,483.89

  2,462.54

  North Western

  3,985.34

  4,308.63

  4,205.71

  4,169.56

  ENGLAND

  48,354.20

  48,354.20

  48,354.20

  48,354.20

  Resident populations (including births) weighted for:

  A = Age

  B = Standardised mortality ratios

  C = London weighting and market forces

  D = Thames factors

  Camberwell Health Authority
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the appointment of the chairman of Camberwell district health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Medicine Expenditure
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 810, what assessment she has made as part of her Department's review of the measures being taken throughout Europe to limit medicine bills of the current spend per head on medicines in European countries; and if she will give the figure for the United Kingdom and the corresponding figures for Germany, Italy, France, Belgium and Holland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department monitors the range of measures being taken in all countries to limit spending on 180
  medicines and notes the different factors in each country which influence levels of spending. These include countries' different policies on the range of drugs for which reimbursement of cost is available, making simple per capita comparisons potentially misleading.

  The latest year for which figures are available for all the countries mentioned is 1989.

  In that year, spending on drugs per capita was converted into sterling on the basis of purchasing power parity:

  £

  United Kingdom

  47

  Germany

  99

  Italy

  79

  France

  83

  Belgium

  59

  Netherlands

  42

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 November,Official Report, column 810, what assessment she has made as part of her Department's review of the measures being taken throughout Europe to limit medicine bills of the proportion of the growth in national health service spending on medicines in 1991, which was due to the cost of new medicines introduced in the past five years; and what comparable figures are available for Germany, France, Holland and Belgium.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  "New medicines" include both those based on active substances being introduced to the market for the first time and new presentations of medicines based on active substances which may have been introduced earlier. Under this definition, figures for England only, show that the net ingredient cost of national health service drugs dispensed by chemists grew by £207 million in 1991. Of that growth, £150 million, or 72 per cent. was spent on new medicines introduced in the previous five years.

  No comparable figures are available for the other countries.

  High Blood Pressure (Treatment)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to extend the proposed new limited list regulation to cover national health service medicines for the treatment of high blood pressure.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money her Department has given to support the publication and distribution of the "Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin" in each of the last 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is readily available only from 1987–88.

  Expenditure £

  1987–88

  608,625

  1988–89

  660,642

  1989–90

  723,482

  1990–91

  750,863

  1991–92

  827,305

  Note: —Figures for the years to 1990–91 include expenditure for the Adverse Drugs Reactions Bulletin which was issued quarterly with the Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin. This was discontinued in June 1990.

  Medicines (Prescription-Pharmacy Classification)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if(a) the Medicines Commission or (b) the Committee on Safety of Medicines advises her on the change of legal status of medicines from a prescription-only medicine to a pharmacy-only classification;

  (2) if she will make it her policy to consult with the appropriate advisory body on any proposed changes of legal status of medicines from prescription-only to pharmacy-only in the 10 new therapeutic categories to be covered by the limited list regulations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Medicines Act 1968 requires Ministers to consult, and take account of, the advice of the appropriate advisory committee or the Medicines Commission before making any changes to the Medicines (Products Other Than Veterinary Drugs) (Prescription Only) Order 1983 (SI 1983 No. 1212) as amended, restricting medicines to supply on prescription only. It is normal practice for Ministers to consult both the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Commission on proposed changes of legal status of medicines from prescription-only to pharmacy classification.

  NHS Spending
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total level of hospital and community health services net capital expenditure in 1990–91 and 1991–92 in(a) cash, (d) constant prices adjusted by the gross domestic product deflator and (c) constant prices adjusted by the changes in input unit costs.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 20 November 1992 at column 436.

  NHS Estate
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list for each regional health authority in England the amount needed to bring the estate to an overall condition which exhibits only minor deterioration for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92;

  (2) if she will list for each regional health authority the amount spent on repairs and maintenance in 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  For the estimate of the cost to bring the estate to a condition which exhibits only minor deterioration for 1989–90, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 12 July 1991 at columns 500–504; and for 1990–91 to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 17 November 1992 at column 179. Information in the same form is not held centrally for 1988–89, and the figures for 1991–92 are not yet available.

  Rationalisation schemes and the replacement of old and unsuitable stock with modern buildings are the principle means of reducing the backlog, and also provide better and more efficient facilities for health care. Some 670 building schemes, each costing over £1 million, have been completed since 1979, and around £1.5 billion will be invested in new buildings this year.

  The amount spent on repairs and maintenance is shown in the following table; data for 1991–92 are not yet available.

  Expenditure on building and engineering maintenance

  £000

  Region

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  30,697

  31,901

  33,403

  Yorkshire

  29,686

  30,873

  31,495

  Trent

  36,757

  39,582

  39,720

  East Anglian

  13,978

  15,670

  15,792

  North West Thames

  32,303

  32,109

  34,652

  North East Thames

  39,603

  41,274

  40,896

  South East Thames

  35,208

  34,601

  35,538

  South West Thames

  30,014

  31,585

  31,076

  Wessex

  21,062

  20,879

  21,502

  Oxford

  18,020

  18,856

  20,725

  South Western

  25,370

  25,780

  26,555

  West Midlands

  47,564

  51,823

  50,602

  Mersey

  21,754

  23,010

  23,437

  North Western

  34,298

  32,745

  37,389

  SHAs

  7,773

  8,719

  9,015

  Total

  424,087

  439,407

  451,797

  Source: Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities (SHAs) for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Notes:

  1. The figures included for engineering maintenance are limited to expenditure incurred on the maintenance of general engineering services and plant. Total expenditure incurred on the maintenance of medical and surgical, X-ray and laboratory equipment or incurred within specific departments such as laundries, boilerhouses, etc is not fully identifiable in health authority accounts.

  2. Information for 1991–92—derivable from financial returns rather than annual accounts—is not yet available.

  Severely Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has held with the Association of Directors of Social Services on the motion passed by its conference urging the Government to empower local
  183
  authorities to make direct payments to severely disabled people to make their own personal assistance arrangements; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The association discussed its views with officials recently. We have no current plans to amend legislation in this way. Our policy guidance to local authorities makes it clear that disabled people should be fully involved in the decisions about the services to be provided. Where a disabled person wants to take on the day-to-day management of his or her carers, this can be written into contracts with the providers of the service.

  Hospital Closures
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by district health authority, hospitals which have(a) partially and (b) wholly closed during 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Health Charges
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will bring forward consultative proposals to simplify forms AG1, AG2 and AG3 in order to make it easier for the public to claim assistance with health charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are carefully considering the recommendations made following the review of the administration of the national health service low income scheme. In reaching final decisions on the measures necessary to further improve a service which already provides help to a large number of people on low incomes, we shall need to take account of current public expenditure constraints. Changes to forms AG1, AG2 and AG3 which may be required in the light of those decisions will be discussed with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the other interested groups who contributed to the review.

  Human Growth Hormone
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the standards with respect to the strength, purity and quality of pituitary-derived human growth hormone used in clinical trials and Medical Research Council-funded research.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) working party on human growth hormone issued batches of human growth hormone for use in the trial after deciding that they were of an acceptable quality for clinical use. The MRC steering committee for the human pituitary collection issued stringent criteria for the collection and inclusion of pituitary glands that were used for the production of growth hormone preparations.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what licences or certificates were granted in respect of clinical trials for pituitary-derived human growth hormone; and if she will list in each case(a) the date of issue, (b) the holder, (c) dates of renewal applications
  184
  made and granted, (d) action taken by the licensing authority and (e) recommendations made by the Medicines Commission or Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand from the Medical Research Council that no clinical trial certificates were issued for pituitary-derived growth hormone, according to the available records.

  Medical Negligence
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to regional health authorities in 1991–92 of legal claims against(a) doctors and (b) dentists in the NHS for medical negligence.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for 1991–92 are not yet available. In 1990–91 medical negligence claims cost the national health service an estimated,£53 million, including legal costs and damages. Figures are not collected separately on claims against doctors and dentists.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to provide members of the Health Select Committee with confidential advance copies of her Department's reports a few days before publication.

  Mr. Sackville
  We supply as a courtesy to Members of the Select Committee on Health confidential advance copies of command papers responding to reports of the Committee a day or two before publication, depending on the printing timetable.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Alan Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing(a) asbestos-related deaths and (b) asbestos-related disorders, by region for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 9 December 1992]: The available information is given in the tables. The figures for discharges and deaths in hospital from 1979 to 1985 are based on very small sample numbers and may not be completely accurate.

  Deaths mentioning of asbestos by regional health authority England

  Regional health authority

  1985

  1987

  1989

  1991

  Northern

  28

  25

  29

  43

  Yorkshire

  13

  12

  23

  17

  Trent

  3

  9

  14

  9

  East Anglia

  5

  4

  11

  2

  North West Thames

  8

  6

  6

  5

  North East Thames

  52

  57

  70

  76

  South East Thames

  11

  10

  10

  6

  South West Thames

  6

  3

  3

  4

  Wessex

  11

  10

  5

  6

  Oxford

  1

  3

  3

  1

  South Western

  17

  21

  11

  16

  West Midlands

  11

  8

  12

  12

  Mersey

  11

  14

  14

  13

  North Western

  12

  10

  16

  12

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.
  185

  Discharges and deaths/finished consultant episodes with a diagnosis of asbestosis: 1979–1985;1989–90

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1989–90

  Northern

  30

  —

  10

  20

  10

  40

  10

  24

  Yorkshire

  20

  30

  20

  20

  20

  20

  30

  5

  Trent

  10

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  0

  East Anglia

  —

  10

  10

  —

  20

  10

  —

  5

  North West Thames

  10

  —

  —

  10

  20

  10

  10

  6

  North East Thames

  20

  20

  30

  —

  20

  50

  20

  20

  South East Thames

  —

  10

  —

  10

  —

  —

  10

  0

  South West Thames

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  10

  Wessex

  10

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  18

  Oxford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  South western

  30

  10

  10

  —

  —

  10

  —

  6

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  10

  —

  5

  Mersey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  0

  North western

  —

  10

  20

  10

  10

  —

  10

  8

  SHAs

  20

  10

  20

  10

  10

  20

  20

  14

  Totals

  160

  100

  120

  100

  150

  180

  120

  127

  Source: 1979–85 Hospital In-Patient Enquiry 10 per cent. sample file.

  1989–90 Hospital Episode System 100 per cent. file.

EDUCATION

  Cumbria
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from educationalists in Cumbria on the quality of education provision.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend receives such representations from time to time.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the role of the Further Education Funding Council.

  Mr. Boswell
  The establishment of the Further Education Funding Council has been widely welcomed. Further education institutions in particular are looking forward to meeting the challenges of institutional independence and diversity which will characterise the further education sector from 1 April 1993.

  School Transport
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for putting all school transport out to private contractors.

  Mr. Forth
  We have no such plans, although the decision to apply compulsory competitive tendering to school transport may lead to private contractors winning more work in this field.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will take steps to arrange for the publication in school tables of earlier year GCSE candidates' passes, at the same time as their main results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The comparative tables of GCSE and A/AS level results recently published by the Department included the results achieved over a two-year period by all candidates of the appropriate age as defined by the regulations.

  Higher Education
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will estimate the number of young people entering higher education in each of the next 10 years.

  Mr. Boswell
  The public expenditure proposals announced by my right hon. Friend on 12 November assumed that the proportion of young people entering higher education—which is now well over one in four—would remain broadly constant over the next three years. Beyond that, the Government have made no detailed assumptions about the number of entrants each year.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what priority he is giving to the provision of nursery education.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for local authorities to determine the scale and form of provision for the under-fives in collaboration with other providers. A total of 604,000 under-fives attended maintained nursery and primary schools in England in 1991, an increase of 175,000 over the figure for 1979.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children were in nursery education in Lancashire in the last two years.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1990 and 1991 the age participation rate for the maintained sector was 48 per cent. The rates for nursery schools and classes specifically were 17 per cent. in 1990 and 18 per cent. in 1991.

  Further Education
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage more 16–year-olds to attend colleges of further education.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's expenditure plans for further education allow for a 25 per cent. increase in student numbers between 1993–94 and 1995–96. The participation of 16–year-olds in education and training is expected to rise to over 90 per cent. by 1995–96.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received in respect of access funds.

  Mr. Boswell
  Few. The access funds are a valuable addition to an already generous system of student support from grants and loans.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to review the Education Act 1981's definition of learning difficulties.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill currently under consideration in Standing Committee embodies the results of a review of legislative provision for children with special educational needs. The definition of a "learning difficulty" contained in section 1(2) of the Education Act 1981 has been carried forward into clause 139(2) of the present Bill. Clause 140 of that Bill provides for a code of practice. Subject to the passage of the Bill and secondary legislation, that code will contain criteria for the making of assessments and statements to which authorities will need to have regard in deciding whether children have learning difficulties.

  Ministerial Powers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the extent of increase in the powers which can be exercised by the holder of his office since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government's policy on education is not to increase the powers of my right hon. Friend. It is to devolve the maximum possible power to the individual institutions with responsibility for providing education: schools, colleges of further education and universities.

  The contents of the Education Bill now in Standing Committee reflects this aim, as the most appropriate way to secure higher standards of education.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on progress in implementing key stage 3 of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  Children are now studying the national curriculum in all 10 subjects at key stage 3. Fourteen-yearolds will be tested for the first time in 1993 in English, mathematics, science and technology.

  Student Incomes
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry into student incomes.

  Mr. Boswell
  I expect the findings of the student income and expenditure survey to be available late in 1993.

  Open University
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the funding for the Open university from 1 January 1993, following the visiting committee's recommendations.
  188
  Mr. Boswell
  My Department will pay grant to the Open university from January to March 1993 as part of the estimates which Parliament has already approved for 1992–93. From April 1993, the Higher Education Funding Council for England will be responsible for determining the university's grants.

  Special Needs
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are his plans regarding integration of children with special needs into mainstream schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill currently before the House provides that authorities should secure the education of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools so long as such education meets specified conditions and is compatible with the wishes of parents.

  Hearing Impaired Children
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduction if he will take steps to enhance the position of hearing impaired children in respect of(a) the planning of services, (b) the responsibility for providing support services and (c) the exercise of choice for parents of hearing impaired children.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill will enhance the position of all children with special educational needs, including the hearing impaired. Local education authorities will remain responsible for making assessments and statements and will do so in the light of the new code of practice embodied in the Bill. To that end, LEAs will retain the necessary support services for the hearing impaired and other children.

  The Bill also extends parental choice by enabling parents of children with statements to express a preference for the maintained school at which their child should be educated and to make representations as to the non-maintained special school or independent school of their choice. Parents will be able to appeal to the new SEN tribunal if dissatisfied with the LEA's placement.

  Courses (Student Awards)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those courses which previously attracted a discretionary student award but are now deemed to attract a mandatory award as a result of the change in status of polytechnics to universities.

  Mr. Boswell
  Full-time and sandwich courses of at least three academic years' duration provided by universities and leading to a certificate, diploma, or other award comparable to a first degree are automatically designated, as a class, for mandatory awards by the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1992. Similar degree-comparable courses at institutions other than universities may be specifically designated on an individual basis by my right hon. Friend under the regulations. Where such courses have not been designated, local education authorities may make discretionary awards in respect of attendance on them. There is no central list of individual courses in the former polytechnics which became automatically designated when those institutions took the title of university.

  Vocational Education
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to encourage the further growth of courses of continuing vocational education in colleges and universities in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Since its launch in 1982, the Department's professional, industrial and commercial updating (PICKUP) programme has successfully stimulated our colleges and universities to increase the quality and quantity of courses of continuing vocational education (or PICKUP) for the adult work force, usually provided at full cost and paid for by employers or individual employee. We estimate that enrolments grew by an average of 20 per cent. a year between 1984–85 and 1989–90, and were held at their record high level of nearly 1 million in 1990–91. Providing courses tailor-made to the needs of employers is now an accepted part of the mission of the great majority of colleges and universities.

  We have reviewed the PICKUP programme in the light of this success and of developments such as the establishment of the Further Education Funding Council and the training and enterprise councils (TECs). We have concluded that—after more than 10 years and over £100 million of programme expenditure—the level of expertise within institutions, and the support they increasingly receive from the TECs, is such that the advisory and promotional work of the programme, including the Department's 10 PICKUP regional offices and its adult training promotions unit (ATPU), is now no longer necessary. The PICKUP regional development agents and the ATPU have been successful in putting continuing vocational education more firmly on the educational map but we judge that it would now be better to concentrate future support even more on the direct funding of institutions to enable them to continue to develop new courses and undertake the necessary related work such as marketing. The Department's regional offices and the ATPU will therefore close on 31 March 1993.

  As a consequence, the resources available for the direct funding of further education colleges for the further development of PICKUP courses will nearly double, from £.1.7 million in 1992–93 (currently available from within the Department's £3.5 million PICKUP programme) to EH million in 1993–94. Of this £3.1 million, £2.8 million has been included in the planned funding for the Further Education Funding Council, with £0.3 million available from the Department (within a total of £0.8 million retained by the Department to complete existing PICKUP programme commitments in 1993–94). For both 1994–95 and 1995–96 the planned funding for the FEFC includes £3.7 million for PICKUP. It will be for the council itself to consider how best to deploy these resources. The Department is considering with the council the scope for it to use the expertise of the Department's regional development agents after 31 March 1993.

  Funding for the development of continuing vocational education within higher education will be unaffected by our decision on the PICKUP programme. Funding is currently the responsibility of the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (with respectively £10 million and £5 million made available for England in 1992–93). The Higher Education Funding Council for England will assume responsibility
  190
  for funding higher education in England from 1 April 1993 and is at present consulting institutions on the future funding of continuing education as a whole.

  It is clear—not least from recent HMI reports on PICKUP in polytechnics and PICKUP in further education—that a large amount of high-quality continuing vocational education, highly valued by employers, is already being provided. But this work will need to grow significantly, particularly to help employers meet the national education and training targets for lifetime learning, launched by the Confederation of British Industry in July 1991 and endorsed by the Government. The Department's PICKUP programme—and in particular the work of its regional development agents over the years—has laid the foundation: it is now for colleges and universities themselves, working with their business customers and with the TECs, and supported by their funding councils, to ensure that this work continues to grow. In so doing they will be helping to build the world class work force which our economy needs.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children aged under five years in the United Kingdom currently receive education in school.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1991 the age participation rate for these children in the United Kingdom was 53 per cent. At the start of the 1980s it was 43 per cent. This percentage increase is all the more noteworthy when we observe that the size of the three and four-year population increased over the period by 170,000.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils attend grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Patten
  It is estimated that almost 192,000 full-time pupils are currently being taught in grant-maintained schools in England.

  School Classes
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of children are in primary school classes of more than 30 and in secondary school classes of more than 25(a) nationally and (b) in the London borough of Redbridge.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1992 in maintained schools in England, 25 per cent. of primary pupils were in classes of over 30 pupils taught by one teacher whilst 40 per cent. of secondary pupils were in one-teacher classes of over 35. The equivalent figures for Redbridge local education authority were 57 per cent. and 47 per cent. respectively.

  Classrooms
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will estimate the percentage of schools using temporary or prefabricated classrooms; and what measures he is taking to enable local education authorities to provide permanent classrooms.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, the 1986 survey of school buildings
  191
  showed that of the 392 primary and 403 secondary schools sampled, 7 per cent. of the primary and 6 per cent. of secondary teaching accommodation were in temporary accommodation.

  We have provided significant capital resources for school buildings in recent years. Capital expenditure per pupil in maintained schools increased by 19 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1990–91.

  It is for local education authorities to ensure that the school buildings within their responsibility are in a satisfactory condition. It is also for LEAs to determine their priorities for capital expenditure from the resources available to them. They have complete flexibility to give a high priority to the replacement of temporary accommodation if they wish.

  Schools (Decoration)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will estimate the number of schools which have had no internal or external decoration for(a) five years, (b) 10 years and (c) more than 10 years.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not held centrally.
  192
  Local education authorities and school governors are responsible for the state of maintained school buildings, and for deciding expenditure levels and priorities from the recurrent and capital resources available to them. Under local management of schools, governors have the flexibility to give a higher priority to repairs and maintenance work delegated to them if they wish.

  Discretionary Grants
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the number of people unable to pursue higher education because discretionary grants have not been awarded.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the Education Act 1962, most students on courses at first degree or comparable level—which constitute the greater part of higher education—are eligible for mandatory awards. Discretionary awards are accordingly confined to students on further and higher education courses who are not eligible for mandatory or postgraduate awards. Higher education student numbers continue to grow, and I have seen no evidence of significant numbers failing to enter because they have not obtained discretionary awards.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Trade Deficit
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the Answer given to Viscount Caldecote on 18th November concerning the prospective trade deficit in 1993 (Official Report, col. 613.) and whether they have any proposals for the reduction of the deficit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the prospective trade deficit forecast for 1993 remains at £19.5 billion. The Government are committed to a sound macroeconomic policy which provides sustainable, non-inflationary growth. It means ensuring open competition in our domestic markets and in international markets, through a conclusion to the GATT round, reducing the burden of government through the deregulation initiative and low taxes in order to ensure that enterprise is not stifled.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that her reply will be welcome for its contrast with the earlier reply which seemed to be almost incredibly detached from such an important matter? Does she realise that it will be even more welcome if it heralds a departure from the wooden and neutral attitudes which have characterised the Government's approach to industry and its problems for too many years?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must point out to my noble friend that my noble friend Lord Henley was asked about figures and replied about figures. I am delighted to confirm to my noble friend Lord Peyton that, as my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade said, he will intervene on behalf of industry but not in industry.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, what is the car industry doing as regards our balance of payments?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to tell my noble friend that the automotive industry is one of our leading success stories. Exports of cars in September were at their highest level since records began and in 1994 we should see a surplus in that area.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that the figure of £19.5 billion is enormous? Will she say how it is to be financed? Does she not agree that we can reduce that enormous deficit
490
only by promoting our manufacturing industry as it has never been promoted before because that is the key to our economy, to success, and to prosperity?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We shall indeed promote the international competitiveness of our manufacturing industry which will mean that our products are also attractive to the purchaser in the home country. We shall tackle the problem from both ends. We shall be able to finance that deficit.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the prophecy of a £19.5 billion deficit for next year is a cause for shame rather than for triumph? Does she not agree that the reduction in Britain's manufacturing base and the consequent shortage of UK manufactured goods mean that any economic recovery in the near future will increase rather than diminish the trade deficit? Finally, since the Treasury's forecast for the balance of payments deficit for the whole of this year was £6.5 billion whereas the actual deficit for the first nine months was £8.8 billion, what faith can we have in her figures?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I should draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that my noble friend changed the wording of the Question so that we are looking forward at what can be done. The success of manufacturing industry and productivity in the UK compared with the record of our European partners means that those figures can be achieved.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the success of industry depends on industry itself? It has to make itself competitive and, in price terms, capable of producing the quality and the right price. Does my noble friend agree that the only point at which the Government come into it is to make certain that they give full and proper attention to a correct settlement of the GATT negotiations instead of being too preoccupied with what might develop in Europe?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I believe that it is the Government's role to create a climate in which industry can carry out growth. We have got interest rates down by eight points; we have inflation under control; and we have also fought hard and retained the European fighter project.
Lord Benson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the sensible course would be to publish a White Paper defining the Government's strategy for industrial production? That would answer questions for Parliament and the public. The penetrating questions that have been asked could be dealt with efficiently in that way.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I recognise the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Benson.

491
I shall certainly convey his remarks to my right honourable friend. We believe that our industrial strategy is defined. If communication of the message is less than good, we shall look at areas for improving it. Perhaps I may take the opportunity of saying that on an earlier occasion the noble Lord said that the DTI should act as a football manager. I assure him that we aim to win the world cup.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that there is a £3,000 million deficit in our temperate food balance with abroad and that we are taking out 2 million acres of arable land at the same time? Does that sound like sense?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that if the noble Lord were to ask that question of my noble friend at the Ministry of Agriculture he would get a very good answer.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our success in modern industry is very pleasing indeed set against the problems that we undoubtedly have with the left-overs of the Victorian age? In particular, does she realise how successful the UK pharmaceutical industry has been? Is she aware that some of the world leaders in that industry are based in the UK and that it is an area in which we have a very considerable balance of payments surplus?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for drawing attention to the changes that have taken place in British industry. Not only do we have a successful story in the pharmaceutical industry, but we also have a substantial net export of TV sets. The records and tapes industry should be congratulated. It moved from a £139 million deficit in 1989 to a surplus of £42 million in 1991. There are industries which are doing very well.
Lord Jay: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way not to reduce the deficit is to destroy the British coal industry?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, one way not to help British industry would be not to have a competitive energy policy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, for a White Paper? Will she also have in mind the real need for unity in this country? There is nothing disreputable in seeking unity. For too long we have been divided on problems which threaten the existence of all.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe that noble Lords have heard me say in the past that one of the great benefits of inward investment has been to prove the skills of the British workforce. We recognise those and that there is a need for communication with unions. It gives me great pleasure to say that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade recently met with Mr. Scargill.

Bosnian Refugees: Educational Courses
2.47 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees Lord Merlyn-Rees asked Her Majesty's Government:
How universities have responded to the need to make student places available to Bosnian refugees, and what is the position as regards fees.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, about 60 universities in the United Kingdom have indicated their willingness to help students displaced by the war in former Yugoslavia by providing places on courses and waiving tuition fees. The institutions individually have the discretion to determine fee levels for their courses; this extends to abating or waiving fees in the light of individual circumstances.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, what an excellent answer to a first Question! I could ask for nothing better. All I hope is that the department will co-ordinate the scheme. I am glad to hear what has been said about fees because that is a difficult factor. I thank the noble Viscount very much for the Answer. I look forward to seeing the results in the terms ahead.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Minister is so satisfied with my noble friend's remarks, perhaps I may extend it a little wider. Is it not the case that Clause 6 of the Asylum Bill now before another place provides that, if a student studying here is an applicant for asylum but fails to achieve it, he or she may be sent back immediately without finishing the university or college course? Does the Minister feel that that is in accord with the helpful Answer that he gave to my noble friend earlier?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, asylum seekers have their applications screened. They are issued with an acknowledgment letter which allows them to apply for social security and housing benefit. They are assessed for benefit according to criteria which take into account individual circumstances. After six months those who have applied for asylum may seek leave to vary their leave to remain to allow them to seek employment. That is normally granted. It is the Government's policy that people will not be returned to an active war zone.

VAT: Transitional Arrangements
2.49 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect that orders will be laid implementing the transitional arrangements for the collection of VAT after 1st January 1993; and whether all aspects of the new system will come into force at the same time.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the majority of the orders implementing the transitional arrangements for the collection of VAT from 1st January 1993 were laid on Monday 14th December. Six orders which are subject to affirmative resolution are to be laid this

493
Thursday. Two further orders which are necessary as a result of a directive agreed at ECOFIN yesterday will also be laid on Thursday. It is therefore intended that all aspects of the new system will come into force on 1st January 1993.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that that is very late in the day? It is extremely difficult for people to comply with what I believe is a complicated new system—even more complicated than its predecessor. Will he also confirm that the only document giving evidence that the transaction has taken place is that which will be carried by the lorry driver? Is he happy that lorry drivers will be encouraged to return these documents quickly?
May we also be assured that, where a purchaser in one country from a supplier in a second country requires delivery to a third country, there will not be double taxation? Finally, can my noble friend assure me that simplification of rules for triangular transactions will be included in the documents which he said were being laid before Parliament at the moment?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I lost count of the number of questions my noble friend asked, but I will answer the first two. Yes, the orders are late in the day. The reason is that the base directive was only agreed in December 1991. We had to have primary legislation—that was the Finance (No. 2) Act, all 70 pages of it, as your Lordships will remember. We then drafted the secondary legislation, exposed it for consultation, made the amendments and have now laid it before Parliament. Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend, it is complicated.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the anxieties which have been expressed by the Periodical Publishers Association on the imposition of VAT on subscriptions to British magazines sold in other EC countries? Will the Government consider exempting items sent through the post and weighing less than five kilograms, including magazines? That would be in order to reduce the bureaucratic burdens on the magazine publishing industry. I believe that that is the case in Germany.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me quite a difficult question, I have about 1½ inches of paper on it. Perhaps I may write to him with a specific answer.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, with the full 1½ inches!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend explain how orders requiring an affirmative resolution laid on Thursday can possibly come into effect before 1st January?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the orders are deliberately designed to give the maximum time for debate in Parliament. That is why they were laid on Thursday rather than earlier. If we had laid them earlier, there would have been less time for debate. They will apply from 1st January, although we shall not have a chance to debate them until next year.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, are these transitional arrangements likely to impose additional costs on industry and commerce? If so, can the noble Earl give an estimate of those additional costs?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, there will he some additional costs. At the moment, under what is known as the temporary provisions, someone has, for example, been able to buy a yacht, motor car or plane in this country, take it to another EC country and avoid paying VAT on it. From 1st January, VAT will be payable, but I cannot give the noble Lord an estimate of the costs.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the directives adopted yesterday to modify the transitional system simplify it? Is that not a matter for congratulations rather than criticism?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. He knows the dossier, or dossiers, better than anyone else in your Lordships' House having been the originator of them, although we have ended up with a slightly different system. He is absolutely right to say that a simplification directive was agreed which will be to the benefit of all traders.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that for the next six months after 1st January we shall be without reliable statistics concerning our imports and exports from the remaining countries of the EC, due to the new regulations. Will he confirm that the arrangements for the satisfactory collection of interim trade statistics for the remainder of the EC, in so far as these can be reliably ascertained, are now in place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. Now that there will be an abolition of frontier controls on 1st January, the point which he raised is one of the difficulties resulting from that abolition. Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord that every effort is being made to obtain the best statistics available.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there is a problem? From 1st January companies will have to operate a new system with which they are basically still unfamiliar. Does he also agree that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are not perhaps noted for their flexibility when it comes to the collection and coding of VAT? Can he assure the House and the companies which will have to operate the system that Customs officers will be understanding of genuine lapses by companies in the early days of implementing these new and complex charges?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it will not only apply to this country; all member states will be in the same difficulty with the new directives coming into force on 1st January. What I can say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is that the Customs and Excise have gone to immense trouble to keep in touch with traders by holding seminars, printing leaflets and sending out newsletters. They are setting up a special office in Dover to try to help in the first three months.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that in the present difficult circumstances the problems of small companies are taken fully into account in the arrangements for collecting VAT?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the Customs are aware of the problems of small businesses, but I shall certainly draw this matter to their attention.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will my noble friend give consideration to writing to me with the answers to the questions I asked him? I quite understand that he found them too difficult to answer off the cuff, but it would be helpful if he would write to me. Many people are worried about the points that I raised.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the questions were not too difficult to answer off the cuff; they were too numerous to answer off the cuff. But of course I shall write to my noble friend.

Royal Ordnance: Orders
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Howell and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for further orders for the Royal Ordnance after March 1993.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the Ministry of Defence is reviewing its procurement strategy for ammunition following the expiry of the Explosives and Propellants and Related End Products agreement in March 1993. So far as possible, open competition will be used to ensure value for money and Royal Ordnance will be invited to bid for new orders. There can be no repeat of the EPREP arrangements.
We are looking at the possibility of longer term contracts of up to five years for some key items. This will give security of supply for the armed forces as well as providing industry with a better basis for forward planning and investment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed Answer. However, he must be aware that there have already been substantial redundancies in factories followed by more commercial awareness of living in the real world and not having guarantees. Along with increased performance, there is also in the pipeline, I understand, the development of new projects. Given time, those projects could be world-beaters in a commercial sense. Many people involved in them need to be encouraged that there will not be further redundancies and that the workforce will be kept intact. Is the Minister aware that if there are massive further redundancies, we shall literally go out of business on the international scene which, I am sure, is the last thing that the Government or anyone else want?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this Question. I wish to point out that the Ministry of Defence has a clear obligation to the taxpayer to make sure that it obtains maximum value for money in the procurement of ammunition, as with the procurement of everything else.
As a result of the new arrangements over the past five years, the price of heavy ammunition has decreased by about 50 per cent. and of small arms by 25 to 30 per cent. The redundancies are a matter for the parent company of Royal Ordnance, although, as I said in my earlier reply, we are aware that there are certain central matters which are of importance to procurement and which will themselves guarantee employment.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Royal Ordnance has this week in the MoD contracts bulletin been invited to tender for a large quantity of 5.56 millimetre blank cartridges? Those are rifle cartridges. Can he say why three other foreign firms have been invited to tender for the same product? How can he ensure fair competition here and the avoidance of any risk of dumping taking place?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend will be well aware from his own experience that we are committed to what I am told is called a "level playing field" in this respect. In fact, the IEPG, the Independent European Programme Group, the last meeting of which I attended in Bonn last week, is committed to an agreement in this area. We are not yet satisfied that our European and NATO partners are operating as satisfactorily as they might, and we are committed to trying to improve their performance.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware of the deficiencies of the infantry small arms system known as the SA80? What plans does the Ministry of Defence have for commissioning a replacement? What assurances can the Government give that such a replacement will be manufactured in the United Kingdom?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I suspect that this matter is slightly outside the scope of the Question. If, however, your Lordships will allow me to do so, I should like to take advantage of the noble Lord's intervention to assure him that, in spite of initial difficulties with the procurement of the SA80, I know from personal experience that all ranks, from the Chief of the Defence Staff down to the lowliest private, are now happy with the SA80—with its accuracy, its revised design and the quality of its assembly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind that this is a serious situation for the Royal Ordnance factories and that, when the agreement runs out at the end of March 1993, there are liable to be up to 7,000 redundancies? That will put us out of business in terms of the provision of ammunition for the armed forces. Are the Government really satisfied that they can rely on foreign sources selling us ammunition, as the noble Viscount implied, possibly at marginal cost—not

497
at full cost and not on a level playing field? Are the Government really satisfied that that is in the interests of the defence of the United Kingdom?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that, as he rightly observed during the course of my perhaps over-lengthy initial Answer, we have been careful to look at the possibility of longer-term contracts for up to five years covering some absolutely key items for the same reason that he gave. Meanwhile, as he is well aware, there is a massive over-supply of various kinds of ammunition in certain areas which it is convenient for us to consider in terms of value for money. I sincerely hope that the Royal Ordnance factories will be able to compete, particularly as a result of the improvements in their management during the past few years.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Viscount referred to the SA80. Has it been issued to our forces in Bosnia and, if so, are they satisfied with it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, knows as well as I do that the SA80 is now the standard infantry weapon and, as such, has been issued to the Cheshire Regiment. As far as I am aware, that regiment is as satisfied as anyone else with the performance of the SA80 as now issued rather than as originally issued.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that with the growing world disorder there are, unhappily, likely to be an increasing number of occasions when the United Nations will seek well-trained and well-equipped forces to undertake peace-making or peace-enforcing roles throughout the world? Will the Government ensure that Britain's forces, which are so well suited to this task, are properly equipped and maintained? That, of course, has considerable implications for the British armaments industry in general and for the Royal Ordnance factories in particular?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I hope that he will accept—and not only from me —that our troops in Bosnia are doing a remarkably professional job, as I was told at a reception last night for the defence correspondents, a number of whom had visited them. They were unanimous in saying that never before—even by the high standards of British forces—had they seen such a professional job being done. And they are, after all, supposed to be dispassionate observers. Equally, I can advise my noble friend that we have been extremely careful to ensure that, in view of the extreme conditions under which they are operating there, our troops have the best possible equipment, notably cold weather equipment. We have taken considerable care to ensure that they are properly equipped in that respect.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister able to assure us that in asking for competitive tenders the Ministry of Defence has protected itself by saying that it is not bound to accept the lowest offer?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord knows as well as I do that the lowest offer is not always the best offer, and we certainly take that into account.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, given the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, which is very relevant in the circumstances, can the noble Viscount now give an undertaking that British troops who go into any sort of engagement under whatever standard—United Nations or British—will be properly supplied with ammunition made in Britain by British people?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to answer the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in this way. The spin which, as a distinguished cricketer, he puts on an apparently simple-minded question is always one of which any Minister has to be careful when replying. I have already made it clear that we should like to make sure that certain key areas are supplied from here. At the same time, we are perfectly satisfied that there are other areas which are properly open to competition, particularly from companies operating from within the national membership of the IEPG. Obviously, we shall keep the situation under review. But a level playing field and competition of the kind I have described are beneficial not only to the performance of the kind of ammunition that we procure, but also in terms of value for money for the taxpayer, which is something that I know the noble Lord keeps well in mind when asking questions.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that it would make a very pleasant change to have a flat floor instead of a level playing field?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. I am well aware that I have been using an over-used cliché; it will be my firm endeavour to change.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, since the level playing field has come up again, I wonder whether my noble friend agrees that that is something worse than a cliche; it is a fairy story.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have already said to my noble friend Lord Ironside—and I repeat this to my noble friend Lord Peyton —that we are not yet satisfied that our partners in the IEPG are playing as clearly on whatever expression I dare to use now. We are doing our best to make sure that we improve it. Whether it is a level playing field or anything else, it is clear that our new procurement policy has greatly improved the value for money that the British taxpayer is getting. I have given as an instance the 50 per cent. saving in costs for heavy ammunition.

British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Power to act in relation to proposals for transfer of functions, property etc.]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("transferee"),") insert ("provided the conditions specified in subsection (1A) below have been satisfied,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which stands also in the name of my noble friend Lord Underhill, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House to consider also Amendment No. 3. I suppose that it is all about level playing fields.
The strict effect of these amendments is to prevent the British Railways Board from using its powers under the Bill until the information which has been set out in Amendment No. 3 has been published. That information relates to the Government's timetable for privatising British Rail. It relates also, among other matters, to the costs incurred in pursuing those proposals. That is in paragraph (c).
I justify this requirement on a number of grounds. First, there is considerable uncertainty about the timetable adopted by the Government and that is creating a substantial number of major problems for the board of British Railways. The amendment addresses that point but it also addresses a wider issue. The uncertainty is also causing problems for others; for rail travellers. They are very unclear about what is happening. It is causing problems also for local authorities, which have to face decisions about whether new rail investment should be supported. They are very unsure about which way to turn. At a time when both central and local government are trying to encourage greater use of public transport, this uncertainty is less than helpful.
The amendment is also designed to enable the Minister to shed rather more light than he has done previously on what is at present a very murky area. If the Minister were to argue—I hope he will not—that there is no need for him to engage in that task, I would say that a look at Hansard for the Committee stage of the Bill would destroy any such illusion. In referring to the 50 or so expressions of interest that the Government have received from the private sector in running franchised services, the Minister said:
"A useful response has been received from a wide range of interested parties, including nearly 50 expressions of interest in running franchised services and about 10 in leasing rolling stock. My right honourable friend is now considering the responses received to that document and hopes to be in a position to announce early in the new year the first services to be franchised".—[Official Report, 30/11/92; col. 1218.]
At col. 1240 the Minister had this to say:
"Turning to rail privatisation, while the Government have received a number of expressions of interest in response to their franchising consultation document, it is far too early to know whether that interest will develop. Nor can it develop properly until the details of the transfer powers and other provisions in the main legislation have been considered".
In my submission, that second contribution introduced some doubt about the nature of the response to the franchising document and to the Government's intentions in consequence. It would be helpful if the Minister were to update the House on the nature of the response to the consultation document and also explain when the Secretary of State will in fact be making his announcement. There is some little
500
doubt about that. The original date was for the end of the year. Then it was to be announced early in the new year. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position.
There is also a measure of uncertainty about the Government's proposals for access and charging. This is an area with potentially major ramifications for the viability and costs of the rail services. We know that Coopers & Lybrand was commissioned by the Government to undertake a report into this matter. Indeed it is referred to in the White Paper specifically and referred to further in the franchising consultation document which stated that the Government planned to make their decision on the principles known by the end of 1992. That looks as though it has slipped a little. I would argue that because of the fundamental importance of this issue the Government should consult on the outcome of the consultants' report before publishing any conclusions.
I referred to the next matter briefly during the Committee stage. It was reported in the Independent on Sunday sometime last month that the Government had decided not to publish the consultants' report and they planned instead to publish their own report setting out a financial regime for sharing track costs. I pressed the Minister on these issues at the Committee stage. I asked him to comment on the accuracy of that report, to indicate whether there was any reason why the Government should not publish the consultants' advice and to confirm that there would be full consultation on this aspect of the Government's proposals. That was set out at col. 1297 of the Official Report of the second day of the Committee stage. This is what the Minister said in response:
"Coopers & Lybrand have been providing advice to the department as part of the work on the charging regime. That work is still under consideration. The results will be published shortly".—[Official Report, 1/12/92; col. 1299.]
Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm precisely what is going to be published. Is it to be the Coopers & Lybrand report after all, or is it to be a government report? Will the publication be a consultative document or a statement of government policy? Will the document deal with access and charging principles? When precisely will it be published?
These are two examples only of the uncertainties surrounding the programme and intentions of the Government. They both arise from the Committee stage on 30th November and 1st December. There is also a good deal of media speculation about the Government's timetable in relation to the main legislation and the introduction of franchising. A good deal of this uncertainty, which is not helpful, could be overcome if in response to the amendments the Minister could give a statement of the Government's intentions. I would hope that the statement could cover the likely timetable for the main legislation, the publication of further consultation documents and reports and the implementation programme, particularly in relation to franchising and the establishment of Railtrack.
Finally, perhaps I may deal with the question of costs, which is picked up in paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 3. It is important that Parliament should ensure that the Government get value for

501
money from their expenditure. At some date in the future the Government's work on privatisation will be scrutinised by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. But meanwhile we have a right to know what expenditure has been incurred and what is planned. Not only are we entitled to that, but the country is entitled to it, because the costs are likely to be very substantial. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the amendment. It will be well known to the House that there is a considerable amount of concern about the way in which the railways are to be privatised under the Government's announced intentions. A large proportion of the population are affected by the efficiency with which our system operates. Doubts have been expressed about whether the proposals announced in the White Paper will lead to an improvement and whether the additional investment which most agree is necessary will be forthcoming. I should have thought that this is one area of privatisation where the Government ought to proceed with a certain amount of caution and step by step. The further step proposed in the amendment seems to be one which would help to alleviate growing public concern.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies perhaps I may add two brief points. Does he remember that the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which is a statutory body, issued a report in which it stated that the White Paper is a statement of intent rather than a document giving clear detail as to how proposals will work out in practice? That is what the amendment is seeking. Has the noble Earl seen today's piece in the Guardian about a report issued by the Confederation of British Industry? I have not seen the report. I can only refer to the statement in the Guardian. It says:
"The Government's proposals for rail privatisation lack clarity and detail".
It goes on to say:
"Far from encouraging private sector interest, there is a danger that privatisation will be a blueprint for bureaucracy". Those statements add to what my noble friend said when he so comprehensively moved the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, reminded the House, we covered a great deal of this ground in Committee. The amendments have to a large extent been met by what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said; nevertheless, I am happy to take this opportunity to give the House the information for which the noble Lord asked. First, the amendment requires my right honourable friend to publish his proposals for the future of British Rail. He has done so in the White Paper, New Opportunities for the Railways, which sets out the Government's proposals for the privatisation of British Rail. In paragraph 99 the White Paper makes it clear that legislation will be introduced to implement the proposals. That answers the second element of the amendment.
The next part of the amendment asks for timetables. As your Lordships' will be aware, the White Paper was published in July. The main
502
privatisation legislation will be introduced as soon as we are in a position to do so. The Government are of course anxious to make progress in improving the quality of services to rail customers and therefore to have the necessary legislation in place as soon as possible.
The next element of the amendment asks for timetables for the publication of any consultation documents and reports commissioned from consultants. We published the consultation document on the franchising of British Rail services in October. In November we published a consultation document on the future status of the British Transport Police. We shall be publishing tomorrow a document setting out our views on representation. We intend to publish our proposals on access and charging early in the new year.
My right honourable friend has just received advice from the Health and Safety Commission, following a study of the safety implications of our rail privatisation proposals. My right honourable friend will want to consider carefully the recommendations put forward. We expect to publish the advice in January. We intend to publish a policy paper on pensions early in the new year. We shall issue a paper early in the new year setting out our proposals for investment in passenger rolling stock. We aim to announce our preferred options for freight in the first part of next year, following Mercer's study into the restructuring of British Rail's freight businesses.
As your Lordships will realise from what I have just said, an immense amount of information has been made public, and there is still more to come. The next part of the amendment is about franchising. As we have previously made clear, we hope to make an announcement early in the new year about the first services to be franchised. We hope to let the first franchises from April 1994. The separation of BR's track and operational responsibilities will take place when we establish Railtrack which we are planning should take place on 1st April 1994.
Finally, I turn to the last part of the amendment which refers to expenditure on privatisation. So far as concerns BR's expenditure, we believe that there is appropriate provision in the settlement for BR announced at the time of the Autumn Statement, but it is for BR to decide within its EFL. Details of the department's expenditure in connection with the privatisation of British Rail are included in the Supply Estimates approved by Parliament. For the current financial year (1992–93) that sum amounts to £3.35 million.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. He gave a number of important details which had not been given previously, and the House will appreciate that. We shall be referring to pensions in another amendment, but we shall wait with considerable interest to see what he says about that in the policy paper. To leave BR to decide how much will be spent on that does not carry us very much further. Do the Government have no idea from discussions that they have had with BR what the likely amount involved in the privatisation

503
expenditure will be? Is the Minister unable to tell us? I am happy to give way to enable him to respond to that point.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House as this is Report stage, on this occasion I hope that the House will permit me to say that it is entirely for BR to decide. Much of its expenditure will depend upon the timing of this Bill and the next.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the public will want to know. Whether we will obtain that information from BR is open to doubt, but we shall return to that issue later. While the Minister has been helpful, I am bound to say that I do not believe the process towards privatisation is as easy as he suggests. We have a number of policy papers, consultation documents and so on coming. That indicates that the Government have not yet made up their mind about a number of critical issues, particularly in relation to franchising and the role of freight. However, as the Minister has said, we shall be able to examine that issue later. I thank him once again for his response. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("transferee"),") insert ("(and the transferee has agreed to fulfil the conditions specified in subsection (1B) below)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss also Amendment No. 4. This is very much a probing amendment. It arises because of the deep anxiety that has been expressed about the possibilities of redundancy in relation to or in anticipation of privatisation. In recent weeks BR has declared 5,000 redundancies, and there are reports of a further 20,000. I hope that they will not come about, but nonetheless there are widespread reports published in the respectable press.
Against that background considerable uncertainties remain. They affect most of all the workforce and those who depend upon it. As one goes into this area of privatisation, there is no doubt that it is a very uncertain world indeed. We know that there has already been a setback in relation to Charterail. It was an unhappy episode. I shall not comment upon it further as the firm for which I consult represented Charterail. So I had better not say too much about that, but the fact is clear. It was a setback suffered not just by Charterail but by the Government because of their intentions to transfer more freight from road to rail. We shall no doubt return to that point in further debates.
One has only to see some of the comments made in yesterday's "Panorama" programme which spelled out those uncertainties. The noble Lord, Lord Ridley, expressed his deep anxiety about the private sector and the subsidies that it would require. He said that loss-making lines were not an industry but a service. One has a problem with a continually loss-making
504
industry because at the end of the day one does not know how much public subsidy to give a private concern.
My noble friend Lord Underhill has already intervened in relation to the CBI report. I have not seen it, but it has been quoted widely. Against that background, doubts and uncertainties prevail. I cannot help feeling that in this area franchisees—if there are any who take up the franchises, and I suppose there will be—will be placed in a somewhat precarious position, at least for some considerable time. Uncertainties as to the amount of subsidies to be provided, whether or not they are to be monopolies and so on will add to those uncertainties.
I raise that issue in the light of a recent case far removed from the railways affecting Clark's ice cream company. It was the second largest ice cream manufacturer in the country having taken over part of the business from Lyons. The company recently collapsed. Some 128 of its employees discovered that the company could not meet the redundancy payments to which they were entitled. If that can happen in such a company, it can happen anywhere. It is therefore important that the Government spell out the assurances that they can give in order that the anxieties of many railway workers can be allayed.
The amendment is a probing amendment. We spell out in general terms one of the lines which might be taken. That might not be wholly appropriate but we wish to hear the Government comment not necessarily upon the amendment but on the spirit underlying it. I do not pose as an expert on redundancy issues, but I wish to know from the Government whether the ideas that I have expressed have any basis. If so, what do the Government propose to do in order to assuage the deep anxieties expressed across the industry? I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the effect of the amendment, if it were directed at the substantive privatisation legislation, would be to require successor bodies to British Coal and British Rail to establish a fund of sufficient size to finance the redundancy payments which would have been available to employees of British Coal and British Rail had they not been transferred to successor bodies under that substantive privatisation legislation.
I have no objection to our discussing the subject today in general terms because even though it is not relevant to the Bill, I recognise that it is of genuine concern to all those who currently work for British Coal and British Rail. In the context of those privatisations, the Government attach great importance to the maintenance of employees' rights for those employed in the two industries. I can assure the House that all employees transferred under a transfer scheme in the course of the privatisation of British Rail and British Coal will receive the benefit of the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke of an industry which is far removed from either of those under discussion today. Again, I point out that the

505
assurances on entitlements will be properly safeguarded. That relates to the post-privatisation period as with the privatisations of Telecom, water and gas. The Government will ensure that suitable measures are put in place at privatisation to safeguard future entitlements.
If this House felt that it wished to provide in legislation for the measure in the amendment the time to do so would be when the main privatisation legislation was presented. It is an important subject and I hope that my assurances will be of value to the noble Lord. I also hope that he will accept that the provision is not appropriate for the Bill before us today and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly about the British Coal part of the Bill. Anxiety about redundancies is central to the discussions about the industry even more so than about British Rail. There is much consideration about the future of the rail industry but the worry is that the coal industry may not have a future. We welcome the total commitment behind the Minister's assurances.
Although we understand that general assurances are all that the Minister can give at the moment, and while on the whole they are received properly in this House, they do not provide individual miners looking to their future with a contented night's sleep every night. Miners need to see the detailed assurances and guarantees and the detail that will operate after privatisation and subsequent transferences. I hope that the Minister, her colleagues and officials, will bear in mind that the sooner the detailed assurances can be provided the better that will be for the miners whose jobs are threatened. We must bear in mind that according to the Rothschild scenario redundancies lie ahead for at least 20,000 miners. Even since the report was announced, 10 per cent. of the mineworkers' force in this country have taken redundancy. The issue is central and although we are grateful for the general assurances, individual miners need to see the specific guarantees.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments on the coal industry. Sadly, both industries are affected by substantial redundancies. I echo his point that those who work in the industries should know precisely where they stand. However, the Minister has given a helpful reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("(1C) In the exercise of his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall require transferees to guarantee the continuation of pension rights and concessionary arrangements for both existing and retired employees; and such guarantees shall apply in the event of subsequent transfer of the function of the relevant corporation to successive transferees.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with pensions. In a previous reply the Minister indicated that the Government will soon be publishing a document dealing with the situation. Although similar amendments were debated in Committee we
506
thought it appropriate to table these amendments because the Minister's replies on that occasion were in some respects unsatisfactory and vague. We thought that we should give the Minister the opportunity to clarify the position. Perhaps she can do so notwithstanding the document which is to be produced on the rail industry. We have heard nothing about the coal industry in that regard and my noble friend may wish to intervene later.
In Committee the Minister was good enough to say that although she did not consider the Bill to be the right vehicle for discussing the issue, it was a matter of moment. Hundreds of thousands of people are likely to be affected by the pensions situation, and she did not consider it an unreasonable subject to be addressed in Committee. Indeed, nor could that be the case on Report.
The matter is important as regards potential franchisees. They must know where they stand in relation to the pension rights of others and their obligations in that regard. In preparing for privatisation, it is part of the job of both British Rail and British Coal to address the issues to the satisfaction of their employees past and present.
The noble Baroness said on 30th November at col. 1226 of the Official Report:
"As was the situation with previous government privatisations, we will ensure that the pension entitlements of existing contributors and of past employees of both industries are properly safeguarded".
Ministers have, of course, said that before. The noble Baroness then continued:
"There would be no circumstances in which a potential purchaser of the coal industry could be attracted by the potential of any predatory gains from the pension funds. Such an option could not be countenanced by the Government".
I hope that she can give chapter and verse as to what the Government will do when the situation is not only well on the road towards privatisation but when the industries have been privatised and the original franchisees or purchasers are no longer holding their purchase but have transferred it to some other entity. How can the Minister give the assurance she gave on 30th November? But I hope she will be able to reassure us.
Obviously no purchaser is going to say, "My motive in purchasing part of the coal industry or the rail industry is so that I can make a rich picking". A purchaser is not going to say that. But if the opportunities are there and if there are no satisfactory constraints, I believe that that will not be far from the minds of some. Not all people are honourable. Previous assurances have been given in relation to other privatisation measures. When British Rail hotels and Sealink were sold off I pointed out that the pension arrangements were far from satisfactory following those privatisations. The Minister said, again on 30th November, at col. 1227:
"The noble Lord earlier raised the subject of pension rights of employees of British Rail hotels and Sealink. We are aware of the arrangements that have been made and they are being taken into account in the arrangements that are currently under consideration for the future of the pension rights at privatisation under the present proposals. Those arrangements have been noted".
Implicit in that is a concession that the arrangements that had been made previously in relation to those two

507
areas of privatisation, British Rail hotels and Sealink, were less than satisfactory. Otherwise the Minister could not have said that. That being the case, how can we be assured that the Minister is capable of giving the kind of assurances that she has given, and that they will be translated into practice? That is a matter of considerable moment.
The Minister then referred to the matter of advice. She stated at col. 1227 of the Official Report:
"British Coal and British Rail will wish to be well advised on the crucial issue of pensions".
I entirely agree with her on that point. But presumably the best possible advice was available when schemes did not work out as well as they should in previous instances. Can we be assured that the advice will be sought elsewhere than from those particular precedents? The Minister said later in reference to another point I made about converting the British Rail pension scheme into an industry-wide scheme that that was one of the options that the Government were currently considering. Presumably that will be dealt with in the document promised by her colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Can we be told something about the other options that are under consideration? How many are there and what in general terms do they amount to?
There is another issue which we have raised previously that is not covered in this amendment. I shall press this point again because it is a matter of considerable importance. We firmly take the view, in the light of circumstances that have arisen in the fairly recent past, that pensioners or potential pensioners should be entitled to a proper share in the administration of their pension funds. I hope the Minister can elaborate a little more on this matter than she was able to do last time, particularly as regards the coal industry because, as I have said before, there appears to be no document on this issue as regards the coal industry—perhaps I am anticipating something—although we have heard that a document will be issued shortly as regards the rail industry. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I apologise if my throat and voice finally give way before I finish speaking. As regards the coal industry, it is the widely accepted view that pensions must have statutory protection in the light of much recent experience. This will, of course, be subject to the Government's own general decisions in the pension field and we await the findings of the Goode Committee. However, it will be some time before that committee reports. I believe it has taken evidence today. Coalminers will wish to receive assurances well before the committee reports. We need guarantees on existing benefits for existing retired members of the industry and we need guarantees that present working contributors will continue to accrue rights even if they are, as miners, transferred elsewhere within the industry.
508
I referred to an issue in Committee to which the Minister did not respond—a statutory guarantee as regards actuarial surpluses. We need such a guarantee. The House is probably aware that the surpluses in this area are quite huge but a pension holiday has been given to British Coal. It would be helpful if it was made clear that that pension holiday will not carry over to transferees. We all understand the problems the Minister faces in being specific at this stage and she has been very helpful, but it would be even more helpful if she could assure us that future arrangements will take account of this matter.
I wish to stress again what I said in connection with a previous amendment. The assurances are general but these are issues of great concern that can be resolved only when the detailed arrangements are available. We need detailed guarantees on pension benefits and on the provisions for change in pension arrangements. We need guarantees on surpluses, which I have just mentioned, and on the governance of pension schemes to ensure that the governance of pension schemes cannot be altered later to the detriment of schemes' members. I trust that the Minister and her colleagues will ensure that these areas of concern will be addressed and that the suggestions and remedies we have proposed—we proposed a number in Committee —will be positively considered.
I wish to pick up the important point raised by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis about subsequent transferees. It is no good having guarantees which operate only at the first stage because after selling on there would be no guarantees. It would be helpful if the Minister could assure us that all guarantees will apply to all subsequent transferees down the line.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, told us that a number of announcements were to be made about rail. He said that the Government will publish a statement on rail pensions in January. Will it apply just to rail pensions or will it also cover coal pensions? If it does not cover coal pensions, will the Minister give us some idea when there will be a statement on coal pensions?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. Although we raised the issue at Committee stage it is of such importance that I believe that we are justified in raising it again at this stage. In recent times there has been considerable debate about the validity of pension schemes, and the schemes which we are considering are very large indeed, affecting several hundreds of thousands of people.
My experience is related to the coal pension schemes. I can say that during the whole of the life of the schemes, from their inception in 1947 right up to the present, both contributors and pensioners have had complete faith in both the staff and the mineworkers' schemes. We are entitled to ask the Government that, in their privatisation measures for the coal industry, they ensure that that confidence can be maintained, bearing in mind in particular that, in the case of the coal pension schemes, a vast number of people are already pensioners and depend on regular receipts from that very well managed scheme for their livelihood. We are not talking about 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 people; over half a million people are involved.

509
Therefore, I should like to press the Minister to give us an assurance that when the legislation comes forward it will include some statutory provision to support the interests of both contributors and pensioners in the schemes.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before the Minister responds perhaps I may detain the House a little longer. I apologise to your Lordships, because I come late to these debates. However, for many years I have had a strong interest in public sector pension schemes. In my days as an employee in posts and telecommunications, when that industry was part of the Civil Service, the pensions were non-contributory. When it became a public corporation pensions became contributory. When British Telecom was privatised during my service in another place the division of the pension fund caused deep concern. It still causes concern because British Telecom has taken a pension contributions holiday over the last two years while employees have continued to contribute.
The point that I wish to make, and which I am sure the Minister will take on board before she replies, is that in British Coal, which is being franchised, and British Rail, which is being privatised, we are dealing with industries which are in desperate need of massive investment for modernisation. That was not true in the case of other privatisations which have taken place, whether British Gas, British Telecom or British Airways. The need for massive investment was not as apparent as it is in the case of British Coal and British Rail. Against that background of the need for massive investment there will be a temptation for those taking over British Coal on the one hand and British Rail on the other to try to gain access to the resources of the pension funds in order to fund the modernisation that is so desperately needed. If any two industries ever needed their pension funds protected they are most certainly British Coal and British Rail. I hope that the Minister will take that on board in her reply.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their input on this subject. The matter of pension rights is not directly relevant to the Bill, but I recognise the real anxiety, both among those whose pensions and concessions will potentially be affected and among Members of this House, that those should be safeguarded. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue—and I hope that his voice lasts until the end of this Report stage, for the benefit of all—that no one recognises more the need for reassurance and for individuals to know what the future holds for them as soon as possible. However, I do not believe that we help those individuals by indulging in speculation in advance. I believe that in this situation it is important to bring the coal review to the House as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked for assurances. I am sure that he appreciates that on this occasion I can give only a general assurance and that specific matters will have to wait until the detailed arrangements on these matters are brought forward with the main legislation. The noble Lords have given
510
us a full picture of the matters which are of concern and to which they will draw our attention when the main legislation comes forward.
Perhaps I may also assure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the Government take note of the experience of previous privatisations and use that knowledge to the benefit of restructuring. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, concerning the respect for the British Coal pension fund and the unique relationship between the number of pensioners and the number of working miners, which is very special. Those factors are well known and are borne in mind.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that we shall take account of the experience of the past. In the case of the privatisation of water there was a need for modernisation, and therefore some similarity with the present case.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that my honourable friend the Minister for Energy and my honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport have on several occasions given assurances that great attention will be paid to safeguards—assurances which my noble friend Lord Caithness and I have repeated here. The pensions of present contributors and former employees will be safeguarded at privatisation. In due course it will be for noble Lords to examine the strength of those safeguards when they come before the House.
If the findings of Professor Goode's pensions law review committee are available when the matter is brought before the House, then obviously they will be taken into account. Perhaps I may mention for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that the paper mentioned relates to rail only and not to coal, as he would expect. We have ahead of us, first of all, the coal review and then the issues which follow behind.
I hope that those assurances and the fact that we recognise the matters which are of concern to noble Lords will make it possible for them to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, once again I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I also welcome the intervention in these debates for the first time of my noble friend Lord Ewing whom I am delighted to see, as a very good friend of mine, on these Benches.
The Minister may rest assured that when the main Bill comes before the House we shall examine the strength of the safeguards to which she referred. On this occasion the Minister will have a great deal of time before we debate that Bill in this place and we shall wish to see the clearest possible assurances and details so that there can be no room for doubt on the part of pensioners, future and current.
In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert:
("(4A) Notwithstanding subsection (4) above it shall be the duty of the British Railways Board to write to the Secretary of State and to any authority calling for bids for franchises of functions currently run by the British Railways Board, detailing proposals—

(a) for the organisation of its functions, property, rights or liabilities to enable it to bid for the award of any franchise under privatisation proposals; and

(b) for the running of any service being offered for franchising.

(4B) Any proposals made under subsection (4A) above shall be considered by the franchising authority as bids for the franchises unless the Secretary of State makes an order that they shall not be so considered.
(4C) The power to make an order under subsection (4B) above shall be exercised by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the duty of the British Railways Board to respond to the bids for franchises that are called for by the Minister. We have discussed this matter in some depth, but I found the replies of the Minister less than satisfactory.
There seems to be a colossal inconsistency between the Government's position in relation to the right of a public authority to be able to tender for agreements in this respect and its rights in other respects. Let us take the case of London Underground. London Underground has been operating competitive tendering in engineering and support activities for many years. Until last year, there was a joint working party between management and unions to review the position. The public sector won two out of four contracts outright in, I think, 199I—certainly it was around that time.
Some three-quarters of contracts put out to tender in local government and in the health service have stayed in-house. The Government have not objected to that. They have said that they want value for money. But somehow in this case the Government have refused—I shall come in a moment to whether or not they are entitled to do so—or have purported to refuse British Rail the right to make a tender bid.
Research was undertaken recently at the London Business School which showed that for local authorities which took on private contractors for refuse collection ahead of compulsory competitive tendering, after an initial saving the costs rose considerably. The argument that is adduced is that without an in-house service to sustain competitiveness, contractors are free to take advantage of the authorities and there is a case therefore for maintaining an in-house service so as to keep sufficient technical expertise to be able to monitor and evaluate contractors. So how would British Rail be able to go about that in the future? After all, even on the Government's showing, it will continue to be a powerful entity.
In my judgment the Minister has failed to address three essential points in the response that he made to the amendment when we discussed it at Committee stage. He confirmed that British Rail would continue
512
to operate services either where franchising is not being introduced or where the franchising authority rejects bids from the private sector. He said that on 30th November (Hansard, col. 1232).
So there is a danger in that scenario that British Rail will become—I used this phrase last time—an operator of last resort. It is likely that the last areas to be franchised will be those with least commercial opportunities. That is very clearly the view of the Minister's noble friend Lord Ridley, who said last night in the "Panorama" programme that the Government had picked all the plums out of the privatisation pudding and British Rail would continue as a loss maker. He said that he did not know the extent of the subsidies that would be required. I have not quoted him exactly, but that was the purport of it. The Confederation of British Industry added in the programme that the rail proposals lacked clarity and detail. There can be no greater example of that than in this instance.
So private sector bids are less likely to be acceptable in the circumstances I have described in relation to those areas with least commercial opportunities. It looks as though in those circumstances British Rail will be left with the prospect of operating difficult services but with no incentive to develop and improve them.
The Minister went on to say (at col. 1232):
"Of course, it will be open to the franchising authority to reject all bids from the private sector should none represent value for money, in which case BR would continue to operate the service".
So he rather corroborates the point that I have just been making.
What the Minister failed to explain is how the franchising authority would reach such a decision if British Rail were not in a position to bid. There is no single value-for-money factor which can possibly be used. If BR were in a position to bid it would automatically provide a benchmark against which private sector bids could be considered. It would provide British Rail with an incentive to prevent it becoming an operator of last resort.
It seems that the Minister is objecting to BR bidding for franchises because it would limit the opportunities for private sector involvement. How does he reasonably sustain that posture? BR's monopoly, about which the Government are so concerned, would no longer exist. If the private sector bidders are as innovative and imaginative as the Minister considers, the franchise authority would accept their bids rather than those of British Rail. If the private sector's bids are not as attractive as those of British Rail, why should not British Rail continue to operate the service? I think that the Minister has to reply to those points.
My final point relates to European Community law. Is it in fact consistent with Community law that British Rail can be excluded from this process? Is it consistent with the law relating to public procurement, or indeed with competition law? Perhaps the Minister would let us have his views on that point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was very surprised to see this amendment on the Marshalled List. As your Lordships are aware, an exactly similar amendment has already been discussed at some length. The purport of this amendment is exactly the same as Amendment No. 5 moved at Committee stage. We spent a lot of time on it in Committee. The noble Lord has spent nearly eight minutes on it now. It was negatived at Committee stage and it rather goes against the Standing Orders of the House that we have to discuss the matter again. The noble Lord has brought no new issue before us.
I have explained that our policy for the railways is genuinely one of privatisation. We see very real benefits to passengers from the transfer of responsibility for running services from the public to the private sector in terms of new management, new approaches, fresh thinking, greater responsiveness to passengers and greater efficiency. It is our policy that BR should not be allowed to bid for franchises. It amuses me that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, now calls in aid his old enemy, the noble Lord, Lord Ridley. For years I suffered in the Department of the Environment when he was a commissioner. My noble friend Lord Ridley could do absolutely no right in this world. It now appears that he can do no wrong.
Through franchising we intend to seek the greatest possible involvement of the private sector in the provision of services while retaining a necessary and clearly defined role for the public sector in the form of the new franchising authority, in specifying the services that are needed, on setting minimum quality standards and in paying subsidy. I have made it clear before and do so again that we will continue to have subsidy available for franchises where necessary. There is no reason to suppose that franchising will be restricted to profitable or to commercially attractive services.
I believe that it is misconceived to think of BR submitting a bid for a franchise as a public sector body. Of course the franchising authority will be able to look at the cost of BR continuing to provide a service, and we have made clear that it will not be obliged to grant a franchise should it not deem any of the bids it receives to offer good value for money. If no franchise is granted, BR will continue to run the services until a successful competition has been held.
The nub of the question comes down to one of whether BR should be allowed to bid for franchises. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, says that it should. We wish to involve the private sector as much as possible. That is for the benefit of the consumer. That will be for the benefit of the railways. And that is why—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—
The Earl of Caithness: I have not sat down.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry, I thought that the noble Earl was about to do so. He looked as though he was gathering his papers in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, used to gather her handbag,
514
and I was a little worried. Will he deal with the point about European Community law, to which I addressed some comments?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, so far as I am aware none of our proposals contravenes European Community law, but I will look into the specific point.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I was right. The noble Earl was about to sit down; I therefore seized my opportunity. The noble Earl has neither addressed the issues any better today than previously nor has he begun to confront them. He just ignores the evidence and the inconsistencies. The inconsistencies are apparent to all because they have arisen right across the local authority sector, right across a number of public authorities, including London Underground and many others, and he has given no compelling or convincing answer why British Rail should be excluded.
The only thing one can say is that the Government are wracked with dogma, and not for the first time. I am surprised that the Minister can say nothing more about the issue of European Community law. He says he believes—he may even be convinced himself—that there is nothing in the point that I have raised. But again he has not argued the point. It is pure assertion that he is satisfied that European Community law is met. The House is entitled to more information from the Minister than we have received.
One cannot satisfactorily resolve these issues in oral questions because the Minister cannot be sufficiently probed on such occasions. Perhaps the Minister would care to write to me on the issue. It is of considerable importance in relation to public procurement law and in relation to competition law. I am not satisfied with what the Minister said. I hope that he can indicate with a nod of the head—because without the leave of the House I think that is all he can do—or perhaps with the leave of the House answer the point I have made and say whether he will correspond with me about that issue. May I give way to the Minister on that point before I sit down?
I am disappointed. I get letters like confetti from the Minister. Why I cannot get one on this little occasion I have no idea. Why is he so unforthcoming? The law can be stated for him. He has the legal services available. I hope that he will reflect further on the matter. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992
4.14 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations amend the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act in order to implement a Council directive on the legal protection of computer programs (91/250/EEC), which is due to be implemented in

515
member states before 1st January 1993. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that the 1988 Act already complies with the main thrust of the directive, which is to afford copyright protection to computer programs and to grant copyright owners the same rights as for other literary works. Indeed, computer programs have been protected by copyright in the United Kingdom for some time, and the directive may be seen as an upward harmonisation to United Kingdom levels, which will increase protection for software products across the Community. An increase in legal protection in other member states will provide greater opportunities and greater confidence for industry to exploit markets elsewhere in the Community.
The regulations implement those provisions of the directive which do not precisely correspond to our current law. There are some changes to the scope of the rights enjoyed by owners of copyright in computer programs, some changed definitions, and some restriction on contractual freedom. The provisions all reflect the special nature of computer programs and will render the Act more relevant to the needs of both creators and users of programs.
Perhaps the most important of the changes is the exception to copyright which allows a user to convert a program from the form in which it will run on a computer into a form in which it can be read by a human programmer. That is to "decompile" the program. Because decompiling a program entails adapting and reproducing it, both of which are rights belonging to the copyright owner, this problem was the subject of intense debate during negotiations leading to the adoption of the directive. A balance was reached which allows users to decompile programs, but only in order to create programs which are able to work together. The rights of copyright owners are not eroded while greater opportunity for competition will be achieved.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount St. Davids.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, for introducing the material before us. Essentially what we are discussing is copyright protection for computer programs. I have certain views on the subject, but I do not intend to air them today because the regulations are introduced to implement a Community directive. There is no point in arguing about it if such a directive exists, because that is what we are obliged to do.
I have only one question for the Minister, which I hope that he can answer. Can he assure me that the regulations are in conformity with the directive both precisely and entirely? That is my simple question. I hope that he can answer yes to both parts.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, takes a particular interest in the law concerning copyright and patent and is well advised. I can give him the assurances that he seeks.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a couple of questions which arise from my
516
interest in programs as a humble user and as the occasional writer of elementary pieces of software? The noble Viscount will be aware that there are many pieces of software that reside in the public domain and which can be accessed via bulletin boards, such as C routines, which can be incorporated in other programs. If somebody purports to copyright a program that contains these routines, does the copyright exclude those parts of the whole program which were formerly in the public domain and which are now incorporated in his application?
Secondly, as a result of this instrument do we have anything comparable in our law to the American "look and feel" legislation where if somebody writes a piece of software that emulates another program he may well have violated their copyright law? The noble Viscount will probably be aware of the expensive court cases that have occurred in the United States.
For example, if one buys a program which achieves a particular objective and it happens to be written in Pascal, and one achieves exactly the same objective so far as the user is concerned with exactly the same kind of interfaces to the user but one has written it in C, is that a violation of the copyright of the person who wrote the original program in Pascal? If the noble Viscount does not have the answer to those questions immediately, I should be grateful if he could write to me on some future occasion.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I think that I can answer the first part of the noble Lord's question. I understand that copyright exists in the part of the program which is the intellectual input of the person who compiled the program. If, in putting together a long program, he takes pieces which are already in the public domain, they remain in the public domain and the copyright property belongs only to the person's own intellectual input. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, I will write to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards recent developments in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for this opportunity to raise in your Lordships' House the grave situation in Armenia and in Nagorno-Karabakh. I thank very warmly all noble Lords who will taking part in this debate. I know that their contributions will be greatly appreciated by the people who are suffering in that part of the world, afflicted by both natural and man-made catastrophes.
I have linked Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh because their tragedies are inter-related. Although the small enclave of Karabakh, which used to be part of historic Armenia, was cruelly relocated by Stalin in Azerbaijan in the 1920s, its largely Armenian population have continued to live in their ancient homelands. But as Azerbaijan has escalated its military offensives against Nagorno-Karabakh, many thousands have had to flee to Armenia, where the

517
situation is also desperate, with acute shortages of essential supplies caused by the blockades imposed by Azerbaijan and also by the hindrance to the free passage of supplies by Turkey.
These blockades are grave violations of human rights, causing immense suffering and economic harm to Armenia and to Karabakh. Moreover, Armenia is still suffering from the effects of the massive earthquake in 1988, with thousands of its own homeless people. With the onset of winter, the plight of Armenia is perilous. There are desperate shortages of food, fuel and energy, and many thousands of displaced people and refugees.
As my noble friend Lord Shannon is chairman of the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group, he will be speaking primarily about Armenia; and as I have had the privilege of visiting the brave citizens of the beleaguered, blockaded and bombarded enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh seven times this year, I shall focus on their predicament.
I have been to Nagorno-Karabakh under the auspices of two organisations, the Andrei Sakharov Foundation and Christian Solidarity International, or CSI for short. Both are concerned with violations of human rights and the humanitarian needs of victims of repression, regardless of creed, colour or race. For example, we have sent aid to Moslem victims of the Gulf War and to the Azeri victims of the Karabakh conflict. However, our main endeavours in this region have been directed to the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh because it was Sakharov's principle to be on the side of the victim, and the evidence shows that it is the Armenians who are the primary victims in this cruel conflict.
I must stress that this is not a religious war, as such. Previously, Christians and Moslems in Nagorno-Karabakh lived peaceably together, attending each other's weddings and funerals. But last year Azeri forces combined with the Soviet Fourth Army to carry out brutal deportations of entire Armenian villages from Shaumyan and Karabakh itself. These operations involved murder, rape, torture and pillage. Some survivors now live as refugees in appalling conditions in Armenia or in the rest of Karabakh. I visited some of these families in October, who were living in water tanks which will now be unbearably cold in the bitter winter. Food shortages were so acute that one family of 10 had only three potatoes to share between them for a whole day.
In spite of the deportations, the Armenians of Karabakh agreed last summer to forego their wish to be reunited with Armenia. They agreed to accept their longstanding status under the former Soviet empire as an autonomous enclave within Azerbaijan. In other words, at that stage they were not in any way violating territorial integrity. But in the autumn Azerbaijan responded unfortunately by announcing that it would annul Karabakh's autonomous status, and it threatened to rename its capital city, Stepanakert, with a Turkish name. Faced with those threats, the people of Karabakh resorted to what they perceived as desperate measures to protect their rights, including a referendum on their future, which resulted in an overwhelming majority in favour of a declaration of
518
independence. Since then, the Azeris have escalated their aggressive policies into all-out military offensives.
The people of Karabakh have fought back, but the forces have been massively asymmetrical. The 160,000 Armenians of Karabakh faced 7 million Azeris, armed to the teeth with weapons taken from three major Soviet Fourth Army arsenals. The Azeris have also been aided by 40 senior Turkish army officers, who took early retirement, as well as Russian and Ukranian pilots flying fighter bombers. It is truly a David and Goliath situation.
The suffering in Karabakh is almost indescribable, with the twin effects of blockade and bombardment. In January I saw civilian casualties, with burns, amputations, glass in eyes and bullets in spines. The doctors and nurses had no anaesthetics or analgesics: only vodka, to try to alleviate the suffering. I could not sleep on my return to Britain, thinking of their suffering. CSI then authorised funds for the purchase of necessary drugs. The Home Office was very helpful and gave an export licence: within 12 days we were back in Karabakh with morphine and other necessities. I must report that the International Committee of the Red Cross did not enter Karabakh until four months later and other major aid organisations, with the notable exception of Médecins sans Frontières, have not been able to work in Karabakh because of the blockade and because of Azerbaijan's hindrances.
When we returned in January, the Azeris had begun to use what anyone who knows them must recognise as fearsome weapons—GRAD multiple missile rocket launchers—on civilians. When we went back in March we saw the results of those terrible weapons. The city of Stepanakert and the surrounding villages were being reduced to rubble. The level of bombardment was horrific: on one typical day in March I counted 400 GRAD rockets fired from the hilltop town of Shushi by the Azeris on to the civilians of Stepanakert and surrounding villages. I emphasise that that was a typical day.
Due to this constant bombing, the civilians of Stepanakert and the surrounding villages were having to live in basements and cellars with no light, heat, running water or sanitation, as the Azeris had cut off essential supplies of fuel, electricity and water. The only lifeline was provided by courageous pilots, who flew small twin-engined jet aircraft or two-tonne helicopters, bringing in meagre supplies of medicines, food and fuel and carrying out the most serious casualties. Those pilots flew incredible manoeuvres against the sun, to try to deflect the heat-seeking missiles. Sadly, on a flight out last summer, I saw the wreckage of a plane, flying out casualties, that had been hit by such a missile.
In May, Armenian self-defence forces captured the hilltop town of Shushi, which the Azeris were using as a GRAD launching base, in order to stop the complete annihilation of Stepanakert and its people. They also forced open a land corridor between Karabakh and Armenia, taking some Azeri territory and the town of Lachin in the process. They were criticised by the international community for violating the principle of

519
territorial integrity. But if Azerbaijan had not been imposing that vicious blockade—itself a violation of human rights—it would not have been necessary to open a corridor; and if the Azeris had not been using Shushi as a base for GRAD missiles to rain down death and destruction on Stepanakert, the Armenians would not have had to risk everything in the seemingly impossible task of capturing a mountain fortress.
After the Azeri elections in June, the new government in Azerbaijan mounted a huge offensive against Karabakh in an attempt to impose a "military solution". They succeeded in overrunning 40 per cent. of Karabakh, as well as the Armenian-populated region of Shaumyan, forcing over 50,000 refugees to flee to the devastated and starving city of Stepanakert or into Armenia. The Azeris have since continued to escalate their military attacks. In August I witnessed SU25 bombers dropping massive 500 kilogramme bombs on civilians in Stepanakert and the villages. By October the Azeris had added cluster bombs to their repertoire of brutality. The civilian casualty rate doubled. Now, new long-range artillery is being used to pound Stepanakert and other parts of Karabakh, causing civilian deaths to be reported up until the last few days.
There is one other disturbing aspect which I must highlight before I begin to draw to a conclusion. As the debate is taking place so early this afternoon, I hope that I may be allowed to put this matter on the record because it is so important and we are not under a great pressure of time. I refer to the brutality with which Armenian hostages are treated by Azeris. In April my colleagues and I visited a village in the north of Karabakh which had just been overrun by Azeri forces which had since withdrawn. Homes, still burning, had been pillaged and set on fire. Forty-five villagers had been massacred and many had their heads sawn off. Vertebrae were still on the ground and blood still on the walls. The people reluctantly showed us the charred decapitated corpses of their families.
Also, earlier this year we met three hostages who had just been released from Azeri custody. One woman with her four year-old son had been passed from military unit to military unit. She was appallingly mutilated and still bleeding from wounds inflicted that morning. Her little boy had fractures. A man released at the same time had been in Azeri custody for three years. He was aged 41 but he looked 70. He had old and recent fractures and scars. He was a physical and psychological wreck.
More recently in October, five more women were released, still bleeding from fresh beatings. They said that the Azeris told them that they could not wait to get into Karabakh to kill every Armenian, especially the women and children. By contrast, my colleagues from the Sakharov Foundation and I have interviewed Azeri prisoners held by Armenians. With the exception of one soldier who in our view was not receiving adequate medical treatment, we were entirely satisfied that the conditions of those whom we saw met international criteria.
Azeris and Turks often refer to the alleged massacre by Armenians at Khodaly earlier this year. Your
520
Lordships may remember the headlines across the Western press that thousands of Azeris had been massacred by Armenians. Western press gave massive coverage to the tragedy as portrayed by the Azeris, who have given open access to their evidence and to their version of events. Undoubtedly it was a tragedy and many Azeris died. However, the Armenian account has never been published, access to Karabakh being extremely difficult because of the blockade. The Armenian version has since been corroborated by the former President of Azerbaijan, President Mutalibov.
The Armenian version of that so-called massacre was that they undertook an attack on the town of Khodaly. They had to do so because the Azeris were using it as a base for launching GRAD missiles against Stepanakert. That is true; I can vouch for it. The Armenians also knew that civilians were there and they gave advance warning of the attack. It was not in their self-interest to warn a base that it was about to be attacked, but that has been independently confirmed by Russians and others to whom I have spoken. They wanted the civilians to evacuate safely. When they arrived, they were dismayed to see that civilians were still there. They tried to arrange a safe exit but the Azeri soldiers refused and fled, intermingling among the civilians. The Azeris fired at close range so that the civilians were caught in the cross-fire with horrible injuries. The Armenians subsequently allowed the Azeris to return to the area to collect their dead and the bodies were used as a basis for the dramatic allegations of an Armenian massacre which swept across the world's headlines.
I have been to the front lines and have seen the men who are defending Karabakh. They are not mercenaries. They are doctors, lawyers, grandfathers, students, priests and 16 year-old boys. They all say that they do not want to fight; but they have to defend their homes, their families and their homelands. Seeing the condition of the women and children taken hostage by the Azeris, one can understand why the Armenians fight against such terrible odds with such desperate courage.
How long will the international community desist from prevailing upon Azerbaijan to cease its military offensive, which is another example of ethnic cleansing? The people of Karabakh have asked the international community for help. I know that the Government have made £250,000 available for humanitarian aid and I know that this will be a great comfort for the people of Karabakh. But there are reports that aid for Karabakh from international bodies has been stymied by Azerbaijan. May I therefore ask my noble friend what assurances she can give that this aid will definitely get through to the people of Karabakh?
However, the fundamental problem lies in the continuation of the conflict. The overriding priority must be a cessation of military aggression before there is another genocide. That that is a real possibility is reflected in Médecins Sans Frontières' inclusion of Karabakh in its list of threatened peoples. I would therefore like to ask my noble friend three questions on attempts to find a political solution to the tragedy.
First, I understand that the US Government's legislation concerning economic aid to the republics of the former USSR has excluded assistance to Azerbaijan until it lifts its blockades of Armenia and Karabakh, and agrees to an unconditional ceasefire. Will my noble friend indicate what similar initiatives the Government are taking to put pressure on Azerbaijan to desist from its brutal and aggressive policies?
Secondly, there was a disturbing report in the Independent on Sunday on 6th December of a visit by a senior delegation from the Azeri Government to Britain earlier this year to buy Russian arms for hard currency. They wanted arms compatible with those they already had, but could not obtain directly from Russia, as the Russians, reluctant to stoke the Azeris' war with Armenia, had imposed a ban on exports of arms to Azerbaijan. The British arms dealer, it was reported, asked the Foreign Office for permission to export those arms, expecting this to be denied. However, the Foreign Office apparently had no policy on this matter. May I therefore ask my noble friend if Britain might follow Russia's example—and there can be no country in greater need of hard currency than Russia—of refusing to stoke Azerbaijan's arsenal of weapons for its policy of military genocide?
Thirdly and finally, there is the vexed area of trade. A report in The Times a few months ago indicated that Western investment in Azerbaijan, such as that by BP. was providing resources to enable the Azeris to win the war against Karabakh. The Azeris have been delighted by recent visits of leading British politicians who have been seen to be endorsing and supporting the very government which are perpetrating this brutal war against the Armenian minority in Karabakh and against Armenia itself. Instead, surely, every opportunity should be taken to persuade the Azeris to turn from war to peace. It is Azerbaijan which has steadily escalated the war: from the imposition of the blockades to the deportations; from snipers and hunting rifles, to tanks and armoured personnel carriers, alazan rockets and GRAD missiles; and now to aerial bombardment and cluster bombs. How long can Britain accept such behaviour as a matter of internal affairs and implicitly condone this attempted genocide?
The Azeris are also suffering from the war, with thousands of casualties and refugees. But the war is of their making. The people of Karabakh are fighting for survival and for the right to continue to live in the land of their ancestors. Ancient Christian monuments go back to the fourth and fifth centuries, testifying to the continuity of these people living in those lands. They fight with a desperate courage, which has enabled them to withstand the mighty onslaught of massive Azeri ground and air attacks. They will not surrender lightly.
Therefore, perhaps I may finish with a final plea to my noble friend. The suffering of the people of Karabakh is in some ways worse than that in former Yugoslavia. At least the world knows about Yugoslavia and the big organisations are there, trying to find a solution. Similar political initiatives must be sought to try to bring about an end to the conflict
522
between the Armenians and the Azeris; for there is a real danger that it could escalate into a war extending beyond the Trans-Caucasus. When I met Russian Defence Minister Shaposhnikov earlier this year, he suggested that this conflict could even contain within itself the seeds of a third world war. In the past few weeks, Azerbaijan has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Armenia. Whether or not it has the capacity to do so, that kind of threat is hardly conducive to a peaceful and rational resolution to the crisis.
I appreciate the good news that the Government are giving humanitarian aid to the people of Karabakh and I know that they will appreciate it too. But I hope that my noble friend will also reassure us that the Government are undertaking comparable political initiatives to prevail upon all those concerned in this tragic conflict to achieve a peaceful solution as a matter of great urgency.
As Azerbaijan is demonstrably the primary aggressor, I hope that every effort will be made to require the Azeris to lift their blockades, to agree to an unconditional ceasefire and to allow independent witnesses to monitor human rights throughout the region. If such measures could be implemented, they would be the greatest contribution the Government could make to the alleviation of the sufferings of both the Armenian and the Azeri peoples. The Armenians have asked the international community for help. I hope that we shall not fail them.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the House can seldom have listened to a more moving appeal than that which we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She has been actively involved in the plight of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia and, as she told us, has been there numerous times this year. I have had the privilege of reading her reports. One admires her immense courage in placing herself in the front line of this desperate conflict when her anxiety is solely for the alleviation of the sufferings of the victims, whether they be Armenians or Azeris. It would be a great shame if the words that she has spoken today were not heard by a wider audience than your Lordships alone. I wish that the British people as a whole could understand the horrendous plight which the people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh suffer. I wish they could see the images, which she has presented to your Lordships from her recent trips, of the suffering of small children, the elderly, and the women. There are, too, the deaths of so many in the villages that have been overrun by hostile action.
The noble Baroness spoke about the relentless bombardment to which the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh has been subjected and the use of 500 kilogram bombs which can only be designed to kill and injure civilians. They have no particular military purpose. There has been the use of cluster bombs, again particularly designed to kill and injure civilians, and GRAD missiles, those horrible weapons which kill indiscriminately and damage people's properties so that they cannot live in them any more. And remember—we are talking about a territory where the

523
temperature in the middle of winter is well below zero, minus 20 to minus 25 degrees centigrade. It is impossible to survive in the open.
The noble Baroness described how the Azeris have tried to blockade the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh completely so that only a trickle of humanitarian supplies gets through. On numerous occasions, it has been thanks to the noble Baroness and her colleagues, who passed through the lines and brought medicines and other equipment, with humanitarian relief, to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh regardless of their own safety.
Armenia is also blockaded and under intermittent attack all along the border with Azerbaijan and cannot therefore do a great deal to help its compatriots in Nagorno-Karabakh. I was talking to one observer who returned last week and who said that, if anything, the conditions in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, are even worse than those in Stepanakert. That is graphically confirmed by the article of Hugh Pope in today's Independent which many of your Lordships will have seen. He quotes Mr Ter Petrosian, the President of Armenia, as warning that,
"most of the 3.5 million people were below the poverty line, that 40 per cent. were at risk and that without help [from the outside world] 30,000 would die".
That is a statement of fact, I believe, and not an exaggeration.
Hugh Pope also refers to the,
"92,500 refugees from the war in Nagorny Karabakh".
He adds that people are still homeless after the Leninakan earthquake. So the position is desperate.
At the moment, only a limited flow of humanitarian aid is coming in via Turkey from the EC, but that cannot be a secure route, bearing in mind that, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the Turks are unofficially helping the Azeris militarily. I read in the noble Baroness's report, as she reiterated today, that Armenian military commanders say that there are Turkish officers serving with the Azeri forces. That has not been denied by the Turkish authorities, who make the excuse that the officers retired early from their service in the armed forces of their own country.
I wish to ask the noble Baroness whether any representations have been made to the authorities in Turkey about the matter. Surely, it is contrary to international law for personnel from the armed forces of one country to go and fight in another. On occasions in the past legal action has been taken against mercenaries of this country who, for example, went to fight in the war in Mozambique. Surely, it is an offence against international law which cannot be palliated or excused by saying that those officers were retired prematurely.
The international community as a whole should take up the matter with Turkey and get the officers recalled. It means that the Turkish Government are not neutral: they are—whether or not overtly—on the side of the Azeris in this desperate conflict. It means that we cannot rely on the Turkish route for goods to enter Armenia, but at the same time we should be
524
pressing the Turks to allow further supplies of EC humanitarian aid to get in through that route. It is the easiest way to Armenia.
There are also some goods entering Armenia via Georgia, but, again, the route is insecure because the Georgians have their own internal problems. The supplies that get through have to meet the needs not only of the inhabitants of Armenia but also of an estimated 313,000 people displaced from Azerbaijan, following the pogroms of Sumgait and Baku in 1988, and the people who have fled from the conflict since then.
For the time being, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have been able to repel the Azeri attacks and, as the noble Baroness described, to maintain the Latchin corridor which joins them. But for how long will that survive? I believe that Nagorno-Karabakh is militarily impossible to defend against a well-armed enemy with a much larger population surrounding it on all sides. The noble Baroness gave the figures of the relative populations.
The former Soviet forces on Azeri soil, who might have been a restraining force, finally left at the end of September, bequeathing their base facilities, some heavy weapons and probably many of their troops to the Azeri armed forces. According to the Georgian newspaper Gurandi, an agreement was signed on 25th May 1992 assigning equal shares of the former Soviet military equipment in the region to the three Trans-Caucasus republics. That would have given each of them 100 fighter bombers, 50 assault helicopters, 220 tanks, 220 armoured vehicles and 285 artillery pieces. But Georgia and Armenia received less than half that allocation, while Azerbaijan received the lion's share, including the 53 fearsome GRAD missile launchers which the noble Baroness mentioned.
How many troops the Azeris also incorporated into their armed forces is not known exactly, but the soldiers may have had some incentive to remain in a secure job rather than to go back home and join the dole queues. The Karabakh Minister of Defence, General Sarkissian, said recently that the Azeris have received additional massive deliveries of arms from Russia, including 130 SU24 fighter bombers, T82 tanks and BMP3 light tanks, and that Russian personnel are said to be training the Azeris in the use of these weapons systems. I am not sure how that squares with the charitable remarks which the noble Baroness made about the Russian wish not to do anything which would exacerbate the conflict that forced the Azeris into trying to acquire weapons in this country.
I believe that it is generally true to say that Russia has not played a very constructive role in stopping the many conflicts which have arisen in the former Soviet Union, and not just the one under discussion, but in Moldova, Tajikistan, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Armenians invited Russia to send in peacekeeping forces, but the Commander in Chief of the CIS, Marshall Yevgeny Shaposhnikov, said scathingly that it was not their job to separate warring tribes. That is not very good as an indication of the Russian attitude to the conflict.

525
The Russians of course still have a massive arsenal of weapons. They are interested in earning hard currency by selling those weapons to countries which do not immediately threaten Russia's interests. That trade is a dangerous, destabilising force in the world. I believe that the international community should take steps to halt the flow of arms which were bequeathed to the CIS by the Soviet Union. I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government will consider asking the United Nations to set up a fund to buy and then destroy arms belonging to the CIS which would otherwise be sold to countries engaged in military conflict or which are likely to be so engaged.
The CIS forces should themselves become involved in peace-keeping operations if and only if the UN Security Council authorises their intervention. If that rule were applied, as of course it is for all peace-keeping operations outside the former Soviet Union, then the aggression of Azerbaijan against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh would have to be more actively considered by the Security Council than it is now because it would no longer have the excuse that Moscow had some residual responsibility. I do not understand the theory of that in international law. I ask the noble Baroness to consider why Russia or the CIS have an apparent right to intervene or not in conflicts which occur in any of the former Soviet territories without reference to the Security Council.
The only other possible means of settling this problem might have been through the initiatives of the CSCE, which the noble Baroness has mentioned. Representatives of 10 CSCE states have been working to broker a ceasefire in the area in December, as they have done many times before. But, as in Bosnia, it is very much easier to get the parties to agree to an armistice than to persuade the aggressors to observe it. The rule of international law has broken down in the former Soviet Union and mere persuasion has not worked. The Azeris must believe that time is on their side and that by a combination of sustained military pressure and the blockade they will achieve a final solution to the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh, killing or driving out every one of the Armenian inhabitants. Why should they pay attention to the CSCE busybodies, as they no doubt see them, whose ceasefires can only delay the inevitable end of the process?
As with all other conflicts in the Soviet Union, it seems that the insistence that all the borders inherited from the communist era be left untouched will make a solution very difficult. Stalin's population engineering, to which the noble Baroness referred, made ethnic conflict inevitable once the heavy lid of Moscow's control was taken off the cauldron. The existence of an Armenian enclave in the middle of Azeri territory makes the inhabitants into hostages, who would always be dependent on the forbearance of neighbours who see them as dangerous enemies. But the immediate task is to end the military terrorism against the Armenian people so that negotiations can begin.
It has to be said here that Britain's policy on Armenia has not been either consistent or moral. We condemn the attacks by terrorists against innocent civilians elsewhere in the world, but we reward the
526
Azeris, who engage in the killing of civilians on a far greater scale than any of the non-governmental terrorists, by sending the President of the Board of Trade to the seat of terrorism, where he says that he would like to do far more business with them. By that encouragement of aggression, which violates Chapter IV of the United Nations Charter, we are actively undermining the rule of international law and encouraging other armed predators to attack their neighbours.
The United Nations Secretary General's special representative, Mr Omar Halim, is reported to have been in Armenia and Azerbaijan at the end of November to see whether the UN has a possible role in ending the conflict. I ask the noble Baroness whether there is any report by Mr Halim and, if so, what he has suggested to the international community. According to Helsinki Watch in a report published quite recently, the United Nations has not so far proposed the deployment of peace-keeping forces to Nagorno-Karabakh for active involvement in negotiations. The United Nations' Secretary General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, has explained that the United Nations position on intervention in Nagorno-Karabakh is to encourage decentralisation in peace-keeping operations. We want to encourage the different regional organisations to play a role. In the case of the regional framework not being able to solve the dispute, then we could move it to the Security Council.
I suggest that we have already reached that position. In fact, we have gone beyond it and now is the time for the United Nations to take a hand in solving this conflict. If we fail to do that the consequences are dire. We might have to apply to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh the epitaph which was pronounced on the inhabitants of Turkish Armenia, in the words of W.H. Auden quoted by Christopher Walker in his book Armenia:
"The mass and majesty of this world, all
That carries weight and always weighs the same,
Lay in the hands of others; they were small
And could not hope for help and no help came".
4.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I cannot pretend to the personal knowledge and first hand experience of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh which the noble Baroness has acquired through her vision, courage and determination which we all so greatly admire. I am sure that there are many, not only in this House, who would like to place on record how much we profoundly respect and admire the courage which she has shown in her daring visits to that troubled country.
I dare to speak not from personal knowledge but because the House may like to know of a recent visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan by a delegation from the World Council of Churches. That body has on occasions had a reputation for supporting turbulence. Whatever the truth of that, on this occasion the delegation from the World Council of Churches was searching for reconciliation. The delegation returned to Geneva only last week and it seems right therefore

527
that, as we give further consideration to Nagorno-Karabakh, we should have in mind what that delegation was able to report.
First, perhaps I may make a point of clarification and underline a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, made; namely, that this is not primarily a religious conflict. It is more accurate to see it as a racial and cultural clash with religious overtones. As one of the World Council of Churches delegation put it:
"This is not a religious war, but it does have religious dimensions, and if the conflict is not resolved soon, religions could be misused and play a decisive negative role".
Azerbaijan can be unfairly linked with pan-Islamic fundamentalism but I believe that it would be more accurate to say that, following Soviet persecution of all religions, Azerbaijan has become a secularised society. Nonetheless, there is near the surface the lurking force of religious conviction which could very easily be exploited.
Secondly, there is a sign of hope. The World Council of Churches delegation met Sheikh-ul-Islam, Pascha-Zadeh, of Baku in Azerbaijan, the leader of the Trans-Caucasian Moslems, and CatholicosPatriarch Vasken I, of Etchmiadzin in Armenia, the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Both religious leaders received the World Council of Churches delegation with courtesy and respect, and both leaders agreed to meet together under WCC auspices and in collaboration with the Conference of European Churches. So, both Moslem and Christian leaders want to reach out across the abyss of blood, tears and hunger in the hope of bringing separated communities together.
"If a solution is to be found to this conflict",
the World Council of Churches delegation has said,
"authentic voices from Azerbaijan and Armenia must be heard by the international community."
The willingness of the leaders of Islam and Christianity in the area to meet is a sign that all is not lost in the flood of hatred and warfare: a glimmer of hope shines in the gloom.
Thirdly, I want to make a plea. There is no doubt about the suffering. That has been graphically and poignantly portrayed to us by the noble Baroness. There is suffering on both sides of this fruitless, destructive conflict—and there are wounded, homeless, hungry and terrified in both nations. The United Nations estimates that there are 216,000 refugees on the Azerbaijani side and only marginally fewer on the Armenian side.
The humanitarian aid from Britain of £0.25 million for Nagorno-Karabakh, with the further £200,000 just announced, is an undoubted help. But is it possible for the Government —here I underline what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—to press for UN observers and monitoring—and even for armed forces to ensure that the aid reaches those who need it most? United Nations observers would ensure we had reliable facts about the situation. They might encourage more responsible and considerate behaviour for the defenceless victims of this appalling conflict. We are beginning to learn from Bosnia and Somalia that humanitarian aid often has to be
528
"forced" through. I recognise that it is easy to make the plea and far from easy to deliver what is requested; nonetheless, the plea must be that the United Nations should be urged to take much greater and more effective action in this area of conflict.
Finally, a reflexion: in Nagorno-Karabakh—as in Bosnia —we see a conflict undergirded by religious differences. If we do not with determination ensure that these conflicts are resolved, we leave it open to unscrupulous people to exploit the differences between Christianity and Islam and so expose ourselves to finding tension between these two cultures and faiths opening up in places where at present there is mutual understanding and toleration. How the international community handles the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh may have repercussions in many parts of the world far removed from the Caucasus. It is for such reasons that I am deeply indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her persistent and courageous work not only in her visits to that part of the world, but in always ensuring that this matter is kept before your Lordships' House.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, like many others, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for bringing the long-drawn-out suffering of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and the evil acts of the Azeris to the attention of your Lordships' House, as she has already done in the United Nations and in the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe after her courageous journeys to that troubled area. She has not told us that her head is forfeit in Baku. Like her, I hope to hear from my noble friend the Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the situation there, but we have to recognise that under the present rules of international conduct we have no standing to intervene as peace-makers on the ground, even if we had the resources to do so. The only country which has that status is Russia—or rather the states of the Commonwealth of Independent States, but they too have problems.
The first of these is that Russia is already committed to using its forces for peace-making in the North Osetia-Ingush conflict, the war between Abkhazia and Georgia and the serious conflict that is going on within Tajikistan, where many Russians are at risk and the Afghans are contributing to the unrest on the border. Russia has had to receive 470,000 refugees from internal civil wars in the CIS states and 800,000 forced migrants, most of whom came from Azerbaijan, Abkhazia, the Baltic States and Moldova. Another 2 million are expected by next year, and there will still be 24 million Russians according to Russian estimates living outside Russia itself in the CIS states. Nagorno-Karabakh, where the Russians were originally involved, is only one of many such trouble spots. It has to be said also that the CIS military command wishes for no commitment in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The next difficulty is that Russia evidently welcomes the deepening involvement, both political and economic, of Turkey in the former Central Asian republics, both as a moderate counterbalance to Iran and no doubt because Russia is selling Turkey

529
helicopters, armoured personnel carriers and other defence equipment. The Bosphorus Declaration was followed at the end of November by the accession of Azerbaijan, with four other Central Asian republics, to the Economic Co-operation Organisation (ECO) which was formed in 1964 by Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. One of its objects is to strengthen multilateral ties between countries sharing the Islamic faith, but it will also enable them to replace India as one of the strongest former trade partners with Central Asia. Moscow will not feel too happy about this but will probably hope to see Turkey act as a stabilising factor.
Earlier this month the Russians and the Turks met to discuss foreign and economic affairs, and the Russian Deputy Foreign Minster, interviewed beforehand, said:
"We are concerned about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, where Turkey can have its own peacemaking say, and we are ready to co-operate with Turkey in settling conflict situations in ways that meet Russia's interests".
Turkey is evidently, indeed, willing to mediate, but it seems only too probable that Armenian doubts about Turkey's even-handedness may be justified. The Turkish Embassy in Baku stated in early December that Turkey was prepared to offer aid to Armenia provided that it ceased fire and withdrew its forces from Azerbaijan—that is, from Nagorno-Karabakh. The spokesman went on to say that as for emergency humanitarian aid, Turkey will give the United Nations an opportunity to deliver food and essentials to Armenia during the winter months, while other Turkish direct aid would depend on the cessation of combat operations in Azerbaijan by Armenia.
That statement followed a "summit" in Ankara at the end of October of the five Central Asian republics, at which Azerbaijan stayed behind afterwards. At that meeting President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan said that the CIS countries, with President Yeltsin, were trying to solve the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh. "We are", he said,
"pursuing a policy within the framework of the United Nations and the CSCE. Third parties should not interfere in the problem. There is no need for the Turkish republics to unite to support one of the sides. We believe a dialogue between Azerbaijan and Armenia will be beneficial".
Turkey and Azerbaijan took no notice.
It must be clear that, first, Azerbaijan has powerful friends (and even Russia has recently granted it some industrial credits), and, given its oil, it can expect investment from the West as well as from ECO. Texaco is looking at the onshore oilfields and may help the Azerbaijani oil industry, which is in trouble. BP is also active.
Secondly, Russia and the CIS countries do not intend at present, despite the fact that Armenia is a loyal member of the CIS and Azerbaijan is not, to intervene in a peacemaking role, despite a final, formal appeal from Armenia. Armenia (let alone Nagorno-Karabakh) is geographically isolated and now, fearing a cut in its own gas supplies from Baku, Georgia is reported to be bowing to the demands of the Azerbaijani authorities and sharply reducing the supply of Turkeman gas, which is normally routed to Armenia through Georgia. The only contiguous
530
countries, Iran and Turkey, will help Armenia only on terms which are unacceptable, if indeed they intend to help at all.
Meanwhile, Armenia will come to a standstill industrially. There is no heat, bread is rationed and Azerbaijan, not content with the use of GRAD missiles and military aircraft, with the blocking of all humanitarian aid and the threatening of nuclear attack, is spending, as indeed Armenia is obliged to do, 70 per cent. of its budget on arms to pursue the fight.
What can be done to help, not only the brave people of Nagorno-Karabakh, but Armenia itself, an ancient Christian country, to survive? The UN Secretary General sent a representative there. A UN representative went also to Tajikistan and much humanitarian aid followed. Has it gone too to Armenia, and not via Baku? The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development is, I believe, considering help to Armenia. That should be encouraged. The EBRD has refused credits to Azerbaijan and I believe also to Armenia. The latter decision should be reconsidered.
Until yesterday I would have advocated bringing pressure to bear simultaneously on Turkey to use real pressure on Azerbaijan for an immediate and permanent ceasefire without conditions and on President Yeltsin to provide a CIS peace-keeping force to enforce the truce and report to the UN. But Yeltsin has much to do just now, perhaps even to survive, and I share the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the pressure should be on Turkey.
On 8th December in Baku the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Inonu, said that,
"unless Armenia resolves the Nagorno-Karabakh problem peacefully, Turkey will not develop its relations with that country".
He stressed that Nagorno-Karabakh is and will remain Azerbaijani territory. He said that the bloody conflict could be resolved in the form of Armenia withdrawing her troops from Azerbaijani territory. He went on to say:
"This is of vital importance for the establishment of stability in the sensitive Caucasus region";
and added:
"Yerevan must realise that all wars are solved at the negotiating stage".
That is surely an ironic statement. Azerbaijan had a priority position in Turkish foreign policy. Turkey would give no electrical energy and no aid to Armenia while that country attacked Azerbaijan. There would be no political relations until Armenia reverted to a peaceful attitude, peacefully resolving the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh. She would do nothing to harm Azerbaijan's interests.
In the light of such an unequivocal commitment to Azerbaijan on Turkey's part, it might seem hopeless to seek Turkey's help. However, we must surely have cards in our NATO hand to play. We should play them strongly as well as demonstrate to the UN that we passionately believe that the world should be acting now to exert whatever pressure it can to save Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. I hope that my

531
noble friend the Minister will tell us what the United Nations Secretary General is doing in the light of his representative's report and what that report was.
5.13 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I cannot speak with the authority of the noble Baroness who is asking this Question because, as you have heard, she has made many visits to the most dangerous areas of the Karabakh bringing humanitarian aid, and has rightly earned the undying gratitude of all the people of Armenia and the admiration and respect of us all. As the House has heard, I am the chairman of the British Armenian All-Party Group. Although I have never visited Armenia, I hope to do so shortly.
Perhaps we may consider for a moment what and where is Armenia. It is a very ancient kingdom which at one time stretched almost from the shores of the Mediterranean to the Caspian. Over the many centuries it has been reduced in size by its rapacious neighbours, by deportation and by the massacre of its inhabitants. It suffered from the callous misrule of the Persian, Roman and Ottoman empires, the last being quite the worst when in 1915 the Turks "ethnically cleansed" the eastern part of Armenia, which was known as Turkish Armenia, by slaughtering the inhabitants, leaving little or no trace beyond a few ruined churches and monasteries of what was once a thriving community. These churches are now officially declared "earthquake damaged" in a peculiar and somewhat selective manner because the walls always seem to fall outwards, similar to the use of explosives, and neighbouring mosques are totally undamaged.
Now all that is left of that ancient and cultured country is what was known as Soviet Armenia, some 29,000 square kilometres—about the size of Albania —with a population of around 3 million. It is bordered by Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, with a small frontier in the south with Iran. The Turkish genocide of 1915 killed some one and a half million Armenians and after the First World War there was a short lived independent republic of Armenia from 1918 to 1920, when it was swallowed up into the Soviet Union rather than submit to Turkey. The western part, the Karabakh, was donated as a semiautonomous state to Azerbaijan, although it was 75 per cent. populated by Armenians. This was part of the ancient strategy of the Romans in keeping vassal states at loggerheads with each other so that they could not cause trouble to the central authority.
The Armenians have for centuries been noted for their culture and high level of civilisation and recently for their poets, musicians, scientists and mathematicians, many of whom are world class by any standards. They have maintained their culture, language, alphabet—with too many letters for our comprehension—art and traditions in the face of these centuries of adversity. Their Church, one of the oldest in Christendom, is still a central force among all Armenians, wherever scattered over the globe, as many now are, but still considering themselves Armenians.
532
This is a thumbnail sketch which in no way does justice to an ancient civilisation and people dogged by misrule, invasion, imperial rivalry and deliberate massacre, which latter still continues.
Let us look at today's situation. Azerbaijan looks at the mountainous area of the Karabakh with its largely Armenian population and says, "This was given to us by Stalin, so out you get of our country". The Armenians retort, "This has always been our land, where we have lived since ancient times, and here we want to stay". Although the Armenians originally voted to become an independent republic of the Karabakh, they withdrew this and agreed to remain, as they were originally, a semi-autonomous state within Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan declared their previous semi-autonomy to be invalid and invaded the area in order to produce a military solution. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, a previous CIS directive had allocated a fair proportion of all the old Soviet military hardware between all the states, Armenia and Georgia have received only a small portion of their allocation, the bulk having been appropriated by Azerbaijan which used it against the Armenians in the Karabakh. How the Armenians there, armed mainly with sporting weapons and those captured from the invaders, have held out for so long is a miracle, but fighting for one's life, family and property gives one a greater spur than those whose only objects are pillage, murder and rape.
Azerbaijan has publicly offered ½ million US dollars for every hijacked SU-27 fighter delivered to it, and has twice threatened to use nuclear weapons against Armenia, not only the Karabakh but against Armenia proper. That statement was made by Azerbaijan interior Minister, Mr. Gamidov. It has since withdrawn that statement in the face of international horror, but then spread a story that Armenia was trying to build its own nuclear weapons from the remains of its closed-down reactors of Russian design and doubtful safety.
Not a day goes by without reports of the shelling of civilian targets in Karabakh and Armenia by Azerbaijan, so much so that the Armenians in Karabakh are now designated by Médecins sans Frontières as a people now threatened with extinction at the hands of Azerbaijan. That is not a very nice situation.
Of course, the Armenians have taken such small retaliatory action as they are able to neutralise artillery and rocket sites which are shelling them and to open a humanitarian corridor in the short distance which separates Armenia from the Karabakh in the Lachin area. That was done to break the blockade which is strangling them. Your Lordships would do exactly the same in the position in which they are placed.
So what price the high political rubbish preached by Western politicians—or some Western politicians —that the Armenians must learn to make peace? All they can do is to give in, be slaughtered and let the Azeris walk all over them. Is that the solution advocated for the Bosnians as well? It is no use pleading the Helsinki agreement either. It is the

533
Armenians who want to keep the status quo, not Azerbaijan which seeks a military solution by invasion.
I have mentioned the blockade, and that applies to Armenia proper as well. For years that landlocked country has been under blockade by its neighbours. Extortionate demands are made by those neighbours to allow relief supplies to pass through their territory, or else passage is refused arbitrarily. Much humanitarian aid provided internationally just "disappears" in neighbouring countries.
Armenia, with the approach of a severe winter, is in a desperate situation. It is almost totally blockaded in both food and energy which are rapidly becoming almost non-existent. Energy receipts are now some 10 per cent. of previous consumption. Let us imagine what would happen in this country if our energy was cut by 10 per cent. There would be riots. They have 90 per cent. less energy. That lack of energy means that industry in Armenia is at a standstill. People are starting to die of cold and starvation—the classic way of conducting a siege to make the defenders give in.
Turkey did agree to supply some electricity but has recently reneged on that contract under pressure from Azerbaijan. Turkey may have originally agreed because there is an Armenian reactor near its border, and it was frightened that, in desperation, the Armenians might recommission that reactor with its possible nuclear peril rather than suffer certain death from hypothermia. Azerbaijan has also issued an ultimatum to Georgia, itself in turmoil, not to permit fuel supplies to be transported to Armenia through that republic.
We may ask: why are we discussing this subject? What interest does it hold for us? There is no oil in Armenia, but there is in Baku. We are therefore, as has been said, aiming to trade with the aggressors. What price now the Western nations' high moral stand over Kuwait—one member of the United Nations must not invade another nation—or was it really, "Get your dirty hands off our oil"? There has also been an information blockade. One can understand that the media are there to sell their programmes or their newspapers. What interest can there be for them? People have been to the old Yugoslavia on package holidays, but how many people have been on package holidays to Armenia? It is not a very interesting subject. What do we want? What is wanted now is freedom from blockade. That is clearly against international law. We want respect for the Helsinki agreement and existing boundaries. The Azerbaijanis should not try to alter them by military solutions. Respect for that agreement and its boundaries and a semi-autonomous state for Karabakh is what the Armenians want.
There is surely a lack of information coming out of Armenia. What is needed, as has been said, is United Nations observers to report accurately on the situation. The world should not be left with a dearth of information and the highly subjective press releases issued in Baku.
Within the past half an hour I have received a sheaf of faxes from Yerevan giving the latest information. Unfortunately it was too late for me to include it in my
534
speech. However there is one paper at the back which is a fax that has come direct from Yerevan. Perhaps I might have your Lordships' leave to put it on the record. It reads as follows:
"I, the President of Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrossian, on behalf of the people of Armenia, declare the Republic of Armenia in a state of national disaster. Due to the devastating effects the Azeri blockade has had on the country, creating a severe energy crisis, the government appeals to all nations of the world, all international humanitarian organisations and government agencies to provide assistance to the people of Armenia for the next 12 months in order to secure the survival of the people through the harsh winter months.
According to the UNHCR assessment survey of October 14, 1992, the economic collapse of Armenia is attributed to the 'blockade of Armenia [which] has been de facto in force from Azerbaijan/Nakhiohevan, Turkey (according to the inter-governmental agreement, Turkey is supply only grain via its rail road) and, lately, Georgia. Should attempts aimed at opening one or two relief corridors through Turkey, and, if possible, Georgia, fail, we are convinced that a catastrophe will take place this winter'. Other assessments by UN teams, the United States, the International Federation of Red Cross, the American Red Cross, the International Council of Voluntary Agencies corroborate these findings.
The Government and people of Armenia urgently require sustained, effective humanitarian assistance in order to prevent deaths in the tens of thousands from exposure, hunger and inadequate medical attention.
Unless immediate action is taken to transport fuel, grain, food items and winterisation items as well as medical supplies into the Republic, the dismal projections made by various assessment teams will become a reality. Thus, on behalf of the people of Armenia, I, the President of the country urge all governments and humanitarian agencies to respond immediately by putting pressure on different nations to allow the transportation of fuel and aid into the country".
It bears the signature of Levon Ter-Petrossian, President of the Republic of Armenia. That letter is addressed to the Right Honourable John Major, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 10 Downing Street, London.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I find it difficult to make a worthwhile contribution to the debate on the tragic situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia when one is following my noble friend Lady Cox, who has spoken with the authority and compassion which only she can bring to bear on the subject. Furthermore, others have spoken and are to speak who know far more than I about the wider geo-political dangers which flow from the escalation of hostilities in the Trans-Caucasus.
But I believe that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House to have been with my noble friend to the area, even though it was in much less dangerous times in July 1991. I met the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia and I went by helicopter to both Armenian and Azeri villages in Nagorno-Karabakh and spoke to their leaders. President Gorbachev was in London at the time asking for western aid at the G7 talks in order to save his regime, and so our delegation was given unprecedented access to the region.
I hope that that experience allows me to confirm that the Azerbaijanis started off the more brutal phase of their present aggression with vastly superior forces. At the time of our visit they were supported by the Soviet Fourth Army, and by every branch of the Soviet special forces, in their policy of clearing

535
Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh of the Armenians who had been living there for centuries and replacing them with Azerbaijanis.
In the simple peasant villages I found a shared dismay on both sides of the conflict as to how the hostilities had started. An Azerbaijani village leader told me that he could not understand what had happened. Only two years before he and the leader of the nearby Armenian village had been such good friends that they had both been to each other's daughters' weddings. He could not understand why his friends had started shooting at his village; it simply did not make sense. On the other hand, the Armenian village leader was equally nonplussed; but of course he believed that his Azerbaijani friends had started the shooting.
Those simple village folk did not seem to appreciate that Armenia had in the meantime committed the crime of wishing to secede from the Soviet Union whereas Azerbaijan had remained loyal to Gorbachev. Nor, I imagine, did they appreciate the importance of Azerbaijan's oil to the Kremlin. It seems at least possible therefore that the Soviet special forces were influential in starting the present conflict and that the Kremlin then threw the weight of its Fourth Army behind Azerbaijan. That view is shared by a number of Soviet experts who know better than I how Spetznaz and other special troops used to be deployed.
Be that as it may, in July 1991 there was no hint of embarrassment from either Mr. Mutalibov, then President of Azerbaijan, or from Mr. Victor Polianitchku, his henchman who had perfected Soviet village clearance tactics in Afghanistan, that the Soviet Union was on their side against the wretched Armenian villages of Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, when my noble friend Lady Cox and I were received in Moscow on our way back to London by Chairman Lukianov, who was acting head of the Soviet Union while Mr. Gorbachev was in London, he did not make any attempt to deny our view of Soviet involvement either. In fact, he was interested only in one thing; he was very anxious that what was happening in Nagorno-Karabakh should not be "internationalised". By that he meant that it should not be put on the international political agenda. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that my noble friend Lady Cox has defeated him in that object.
I hope your Lordships will not consider that that account of why and how the present conflict may have started is irrelevant to the problem today. Of course, the Soviet Union has disintegrated; but when it did, Azerbaijan took control of the arms left behind by the Fourth Army and other troops. Therefore, I am sure it is true that the Azeris, with a population of some 7 million, are now infinitely better armed than the 100,000 Armenians who are left in Karabakh and against whom they continued to wage war.
In a way it is hard to see why the conflict continues. The Armenians certainly want peace. All they want is to be allowed to live normally in their ancient homelands. I understand that they have said they will be happy to see the 20,000 or so Azeris, who have now
536
left Nagorno-Karabakh and who are refugees in Azerbaijan, return to their villages and pick up the pieces of their broken livelihoods. Of course, any such initiative would require massive confidence-building measures from the international community and one wonders whether it has the stomach for that.
So why does Azerbaijan continue the conflict? Obviously, it wants back the villages and land in Nagorno-Karabakh for its refugees who are now living very uncomfortably around Baku, Agdam and elsewhere. To an unbiased observer it must also occur that Azerbaijan may have continued its aggression against the Armenians of Karabakh after the Soviet Union broke up partly for the well-known motive of drawing its people's attention away from problems at home. Then of course once the killing starts it is very hard to stop a conflict until one side wins. Azerbaijan is determined to remove every Armenian from Nagorno-Karabakh; the Armenians are prepared to die to defend their homelands, and so the killing goes on.
It is important to emphasise, as my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned and as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said, that we are not looking at a religious war as such, even though the Azerbaijanis happen to be Moslems and the Armenians Christians. We are looking at a conflict which may have its roots in former Soviet strategy and interests, encouraged now by the factors that I have mentioned and no doubt by others. But if Nagorno-Karabakh were to fall to Azerbaijan, and if the conflict were to escalate to involve Armenia itself and perhaps Russia and Turkey, I suppose that the religious dimension would become very much more worrying indeed. Other noble Lords have commented on that issue and so I shall say no more about it now.
That brings me back to the role of the international community. Is it acceptable that small, private charitable organisations, such as those patronised by my noble friend Lady Cox, are the only ones to provide a lifeline of medical supplies and food to a people suffering what is now often referred to in the Yugoslavian context as "ethnic cleansing"? Is ethnic cleansing not much the same thing as genocide? Does not the word "holocaust" begin to lurk in the back of our minds?
In the wake of the break-up of the Soviet empire a huge question now poses itself, and it is this: to what extent are the civilised nations of the world prepared to tolerate these evils without committing their own troops to alleviate the suffering in question? The answer is not yet clear and I certainly do not pretend to be able to start to provide the answer.
But we now have the recent landmark decision of the United Nations to sanction military action in Somalia. International opinion seems to be moving towards more rather than less military involvement to relieve massive human suffering which does not affect our strategic interests directly. Of course, the UN decision would be of little avail if the United States in particular did not have the military capability actually to put enough men on the ground in the time required. I should go further and say somewhat in parenthesis that in what may be the changing climate of public

537
opinion one begins to wonder whether the Government's decision to cut especially our Army, under their policy known as Options for Change, may not turn out to be even more misguided than most of us believed it to be in the first place. Our commitment of troops to Bosnia seems to underline that fear. But I am afraid I do not expect that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be allowed to agree with me.
Be that as it may, is my noble friend the Minister absolutely confident that our Government are at least putting all the diplomatic and commercial pressure that they possibly can on Azerbaijan to cease hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh? Could we not, for example, join with our allies to insist that free passage be given by Azerbaijan to international observers and to the major relief agencies? If that could be achieved, it would prevent this tragic and dangerous conflict from continuing to be forgotten by the world at large, and it might therefore contain the seeds of eventual peace.
Can I end by joining others of your Lordships in paying tribute to the remarkable courage, determination and skill shown by my noble friend Lady Cox in all this? I am afraid there are a few people—although I trust there is none in your Lordships' House—who feel that my noble friend has mounted a crusade to help the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh; that somehow she is not entirely balanced in her support for them. The Azeris and their friends go further of course and accuse my noble friend of pro-Christian bias. Well, we must not fall for this obvious propaganda. I am sorry to say that I am not a particularly good Christian myself. Indeed I have many good Moslem friends; and I have even pleaded in your Lordships' House that Moslem schools in this country should be allowed to opt into our state system of education. So I hope your Lordships will accept my assurance that my noble friend's version of events in Nagorno-Karabakh is entirely objective and unbiased. I believe it is true to say that without the huge personal effort made by my noble friend, first Chairman Lukianov and then his Azerbaijani friends might have succeeded in burying their genocide of the Armenians of Karabakh from international view.
I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend's missions are no crusades, and they are no picnics either. Towards the end of the mission upon which I was privileged to accompany her, the delegation told her lightheartedly that it was thinking of going on strike if its members could not be guaranteed at least three and a half hours sleep each night. Compromise was reached on a formula which guaranteed us not more than four hours sleep in future. On her later missions, she has been in much physical danger. Her jeep has been under sustained anti-tank gun fire, with one rocket lifting its back off the ground. If that rocket had pitched three feet further forward, she would not be with us now. One of the lorries carrying her medical supplies over the newly opened land route from Armenia into Karabakh was mined, killing the drivers. The aircraft in which she has been travelling have avoided heat seeking missiles thanks only to the skill of their Armenian pilots.
538
These are the sort of dangers she has faced to bring us this debate today. When the Armenian Orthodox Christmas comes on what is our Epiphany, 6th January, it will find my noble friend Lady Cox in Stepanakert, probably in a cellar underground, sheltering with her local civilian friends from Azerbaijani bombardment.
So I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure us as to what more the Government may feel they can do to make that prospect less likely.
5.42 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I, too, share the deep concern that has been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others in this debate. I wish to quote from a letter from the Bishop of Nagorno-Karabakh—his correct title is the Bishop of Artsakh—written on 5th January 1992. The letter was addressed to the hierarchs of all churches, the UN Secretary General, the heads of all states, all charitable organisations and societies and all people of good will. I wish to quote briefly from the letter:
"Artillery shelling has destroyed hundreds of homes in [the capital] Stepanakert [including the residence of the Diocese of Artsakh (28 December 1991, 7.05 am)]. It is only thanks to the mercy of God that I was saved".
The Bishop got out of bed to pray when his house suffered a direct hit and a concrete block landed where he would have been on his bed. He continues:
"It is not only the perpetrators of crime and evil who commit sin, but also those who stand by—seeing and knowing —and who do not condemn it or try to avert it".
Why is the United Nations not acting? If it intervenes to help the Moslems in Bosnia, why does it not intervene to help the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh? Why is there not a trade embargo? I must ask the Government whether we are still supplying arms and aid to the Azerbaijanis. Is there not a ban on that? Surely those supplies should stop until the Azerbaijanis stop the fighting? Can we not follow the American lead in this matter? Finally, are we in touch with Mr. Shevardnadze and Mr. James Baker, who I have reason to believe would be very sympathetic to the Armenians' plight?
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing this debate not only because it gives publicity to the needs of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh but also because it enables us to discuss whether additional national and international help on both the humanitarian and political scene can be given.
First, I wish to make a couple of preliminary points. We are dealing here with a question of human rights. My noble friend Lady Cox has clearly demonstrated the way the Azeris beat up, maltreat, rape and massacre the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. We are dealing with a severe case of human rights abuse which requires the world's attention.
We are all well aware that the press is not in the area and therefore it is not possible to see pictures on the television or in newspapers. Therefore no one pays attention to the situation. This is a matter that your

539
Lordships' House can address. Noble Lords can publicise the situation and encourage action to be taken to mitigate the human rights abuses. A great deal is said and written about human rights today, and this is one instance which requires the world's attention.
My second point has already been made by several speakers. It concerns the religious issue. Last week we discussed the Sudan, where Christians are being severely persecuted. As we know, over 100 have been crucified. The problem we are discussing is primarily an ethnic one and one of cultural background. I wish to echo what has been said. We do not want to see religious differences being exploited. I believe that the Devil exists and that he is keen to exploit religious differences as that dishonours religion. We need to recognise that problem and help all those who are suffering from persecution. We need to treat them even-handedly.
I believe that there are four different spheres in which action can be taken to relieve the situation in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. First, my noble friend the Minister has been asked about the Security Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked, is this not the time to raise the matter in the Security Council? What is the result of the representatives' report? It could be important if it provides any signposts to the way ahead. I hope that my noble friend will say what the action of the Security Council should be.
Secondly, I refer to the Council of Europe. As we have heard, Turkey is lending help, and indeed is lending 40 prematurely retired army officers to the Azeri troops. Turkey is applying for membership of the Council of Europe. Therefore it seems to me that the Government have leverage to bring to bear on Turkey. The Turks' action in supporting the Azeris is not commensurate with a nation that is applying for membership of the Council of Europe. I hope that the Government will bring pressure to bear on the Turkish Government, both individually and through the Council of Europe, to desist from their support for the Azeris.
Thirdly, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe has already been referred to. I understand that only last week my right honourable friend Mr. Garel-Jones spoke about this question of Nagorno-Karabakh and the CSCE. He said that the Government are not approving licences for the export to Azerbaijan of military equipment or anything that could be used for military purposes and that we supported the CSCE resolution on the supply of weapons to the dispute. He also said that we are pressing for a widening of the embargo to cover all military assistance. Can my noble friend tell us what action has been taken since then to arrange for the embargo to cover all military assistance?
Finally, I hope that the Government themselves will bring pressure to bear and use their great experience and initiative to ensure stronger mediation, through Europe or through the UN, even, if necessary, including the use of peace-keeping troops in that area. It does not appear to be an issue which
540
Russia will handle. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, this should now perhaps be a matter for the Security Council.
I very much hope that we shall not sit idly on the sidelines but will take action to try to ease the appalling suffering and stop the murder which is taking place in that region.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, not for the first time the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for affording us an opportunity to debate this unhappy situation. Her concern for the area and its people, her courage in visiting Azerbaijan and Armenia more than once and going to the areas of devastation and suffering, her conversations with the victims of violence and starvation among people of both cultural traditions and her representations on their behalf to all the authorities concerned will one day, I hope, deserve a place in the history books. Certainly she brings to the debate a knowledge which I cannot hope to equal.
The debate comes at a time, as a number of your Lordships have observed, when it is difficult even to obtain up-to-date information about the situation and yet when it is so vitally important that we should contribute, if we can, to a solution of the many problems which press upon the people of the area. As the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate reminded us, I understand that this is not primarily a religious conflict but certainly it is a tribal conflict arising from the history of the interaction between two faiths. It is an area destined by history to be a meeting ground of two of the great monotheistic faiths. One of the ironies of history is that those faiths enjoin on their followers the virtues of peace, yet the very fact of their interface, at least since the 16th century, has denied its people any prospect of a lasting peace.
It is even more ironical that the tragedy should emanate only partly from external factors. It is one of those areas of the world where two peoples suffer a repressed sense of nationhood which has seared into their souls two rival tribalisms; so each generation has passed on to the next a consciousness of past insults and a commitment to continue the feud; so each successive generation bequeaths to the next the heritage which it has received together with its own contribution of wrongs waiting to be avenged. Of course it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, reminded us, that many people in adjoining villages, sometimes even in the same village, have found it possible to live together in friendship. But when ill-intentioned people apply a match, I suspect that the tinder of in-built prejudice is very much present. We have witnessed such tragic cycles in many regions of the world, sometimes within these islands, but rarely with more tragic consequences.
Perhaps most ironical of all is that the new freedom which has emerged in the lands of the former Soviet Union, the new opportunity for people to choose their own destiny, has enabled them to pursue old quarrels with greater intransigence and to practise old cruelties with fewer inhibitions. So it was at the break-up of the Roman Empire and the subsequent succession of

541
empires Imposed by force, especially when external authorities have reasons of their own for wishing to foment problems.
It is encouraging to learn from the right reverend Prelate that the leaders of the two faiths are seeking a reconciliation. We hope that something may emerge from that.
Perhaps there are two lessons that we can learn before we begin to consider the details of this tragic conflict. The first is that, if there is to be any break in the cycle of wrong, retribution and revenge for the retribution, it is that someone must address the teaching of history in the schools in the hope that there will come a generation which will try to understand and forgive and break the deadly circle.
The second lesson—which I mention with a due sense of the feeling which your Lordships have for the people in the area who are afflicted—is that we should be wary not to say or do more than is necessary, which could inflame the sense of bitterness and frustration on either side. If we cannot close the breach we should be reluctant to take any steps which could widen it. If we cannot heal the wounds we should be careful not to infect them further. Of course I appreciate the concern of many of your Lordships that, where there is an imbalance in responsibility for the situation, it may sometimes be necessary to say so in the most forthright of terms, but that may not always be the way in which we can best help the people of Karabakh. It is very much a matter of judgment for those who are closest to the attempts which are being made to resolve the situation.
The whole House will applaud the efforts of the Rome group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, to bring about if not a reconciliation at least a ceasefire within the framework of the CSCE. It was a tragic disappointment that the efforts of the advance monitoring group to arrange the peace talks collapsed in September in the face of what must be said to be the intransigence on the Azeri side. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reminded us, they believe, with justification, that might is on their side and that there are no specific pressures to bring them to the conference table. I hope that when she replies the Minister can tell the House whether any progress has resulted from further efforts of the Rome group. Perhaps she can also tell us whether any other efforts are being made outside the CSCE process. That is a question which has been asked by so many of your Lordships.
We wonder whether the Commonwealth of Independent States has taken any initiative. I appreciate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, that they have other things on their minds. But if there have been any other initiatives, can the Minister tell us what has emerged from them? In relation to the position of Turkey, can NATO persuade Turkey to play a more constructive role? As the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, reminded us, there is some leverage in the fact that Turkey has applied to join the Council of Europe. I hope that the noble Baroness can tell us what has arisen from that situation.
The House has been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that in September it was announced that Mr. Boutros Ghali was sending his special
542
representative to the area, Mr. Omar Halim. I confess that I have not seen, although some noble Lords appear to have seen, reports that he arrived in the area. Certainly no one seems to have heard anything further. Did Mr. Halim report? Did he have talks with the authorities there? If so, with what result? Is it proposed to raise the results of his report in the Security Council? Again perhaps the noble Baroness can enlighten us on some of those matters.
Turning to the plight of the refugees from both cultural traditions, the latest figures seem to indicate that Armenia is coping with some 300,000 who have fled from Azerbaijan or from Karabakh at a time when that country, as the noble Baroness reminded us, is still suffering from the after-effects of the earthquake. Azerbaijan has received, we are told, more than 400,000 refugees, partly from Armenia but partly from other parts of Central Asia—a total of displaced persons approaching some three-quarters of a million. It is true that the deliberate blockading of Karabakh by Azerbaijan is creating some of the problems which afflict those unhappy people.
The announcement from the High Commissioner on 1st December was that an aircraft had been chartered to carry to the area two teams of relief specialists, each of five members, and that this marked the launch of an emergency operation amounting to some 6.37 million dollars. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us anything further in the way of news about that. One aspect which certainly occasioned me some anxiety was that it was said that the operation would concentrate initially on 145,000 of the displaced persons. I understand the reasons for that and I make no criticism. They are bringing relief to those who face a harsh winter in public buildings which are most vulnerable to hardship, particularly when, as we have been reminded in this debate, there is no energy for heating.
But what of the other refugees? Is it known whether and when they can expect help? Perhaps when she replies the noble Baroness can tell us what is the news in respect of that mission and possibly give us some idea of the contribution to the operation made by the EC and by the British Government. I noticed that on 12th November the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, announced that the United Kingdom had contributed £¼ million to the Red Cross for work in the area. Have the Government contributed further to the work of the mission? Any help which the noble Baroness can give us will be greatly appreciated.
In a war of this kind it is inevitable that there will be many casualties among the civilian population. But when your Lordships last debated this situation on 21st November last year there was grave concern, not simply about the incidental casualties, but about the deliberate atrocities by the military, a matter to which the noble Baroness returned this afternoon.
As so often in conflicts of this kind, there is some evidence that atrocity has led to counter-atrocity, and that in turn to further retaliation. But I think most of your Lordships accept, as I certainly do, that the principal concern is about the conduct of the Azeri armed forces. I hope that the noble Baroness can tell us what representations have been made to the

543
authorities on both sides to ensure that human rights and humanitarian standards which are now accepted by the whole international community are observed in the course of this conflict.
Finally, I turn to a matter which falls directly within the controls of countries outside the area. There is evidence—it has been referred to in the course of this debate—that a substantial contribution to the suffering has arisen from the supply of arms from outside regions, possibly to both sides in the conflict, but particularly, I accept, from Russia to Azerbaijan. I hope that the noble Baroness can tell us what steps have been taken with our EC partners, through NATO and through the United Nations, to stop that traffic in death and misery. Is it true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, intimated, that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no policy on this matter in relation to the supply of arms from this country?
It is frustrating for all of us to know that there is so little which we can do to stop the suffering. It is doubtful whether there has ever been a time in history when the world has been so well aware, and so quickly aware, of tragedies in numerous regions and so powerless to avert them. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is a need for a permanent unit, hopefully under the control of the United Nations, to respond to various kinds of emergency. Too often we seem to wait until there is a major fire before we begin to plan and assemble a fire brigade.
At this stage in the human story we are discussing conflict resolution, peace-keeping and relief for the victims. I appreciate that we are very far from an international police force which is capable of stopping a civil war. But I believe that one day our descendants will be as amazed to read that the world could not maintain law and order in a specific place as we are when we read of wars between Mercia and Wessex or as Americans would be if they heard of a war between Maryland and Connecticut. Until that day we have to do what we can to alleviate the suffering. We are grateful for those who, like the noble Baroness, remind us so vividly where that suffering exists.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, first, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for bringing this important issue before the House. She has described the appalling situation in Nagorno-Karabakh clearly and poignantly. I always feel at a disadvantage when I follow my noble friend because, so bravely, she has been there and I have not. I know from my own limited experience how people who are suffering value their plight being drawn to the attention of the wider world, in this case your Lordships' House. We are all grateful to my noble friend for once again focusing our attention on yet another part of our world where, as she said, people are in a state of crisis.
As the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, said, this dispute is complex and centuries old. The Armenians today
544
fear a re-run of the appalling injustices suffered by their people earlier this century. The Azeris insist that they are merely trying to control their own territory.
We are impartial but have limited influence. To use that influence we must take the situation as it is—not as one side or the other thinks it ought to be.
We have no vested interest in this dispute. All we want is to see it resolved peacefully, in a way which does justice to the legitimate hopes of all concerned.
The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is only one of many other real and potential disputes across the former Soviet Union. In Tadjikstan, Georgia, Moldova and even in different areas of Russia rival groups aspire to greater autonomy or full independence. When the Soviet Empire broke apart, we and all our Western partners agreed that the very abruptness of events ruled out any attempt to redraw boundaries to do justice to all the rival clans.
The same considerations apply across the former Soviet Union as in Africa. There all the states have accepted, for better or worse, the fact of colonial borders. To do otherwise would open a Pandora's box of rival tribal claims with potentially terrible consequences.
That is why the international community recognised as independent states only the former Soviet Republics. Hence under international law the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh now is part of Azerbaijan. No country, not even Armenia itself, recognises it as an independent state.
International principles do not rule out changes to the status of areas such as Nagorno-Karabakh. But any changes must be made peacefully, with the agreement of all concerned. Azerbaijan will not cede independence to Nagorno-Karabakh. So a realistic solution must start from the fact of Azerbaijani sovereignty. But the Armenian community there cannot be expected to accept this unless they know that their rights will be respected, and their voices heard. This points to some form of autonomy, self-government, devolution of powers—call it what you will—for Nagorno-Karabakh. This basis for a solution—some sort of autonomy, under Azerbaijani sovereignty—is accepted by nearly the whole international community.
My Lords, I can assure my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that the world is not simply standing by while this dispute rages. For some months—originally at British initiative—the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe has endeavoured to mediate. The CSCE enjoys UN backing, and has the promise of NATO observers when a ceasefire is arranged. The CSCE talks in Rome under the able chairmanship of Mario Raffaelli have concentrated on achieving such a ceasefire. Progress has been slow, but planning for an observer mission is now at an advanced stage. It must be said that both the Armenians and Azeris in turn have obstructed the talks when winning on the ground.
In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, the advance monitoring mission of the CSCE hopes to visit the region, including Nagorno-Karabakh, early next month on a reconnaissance mission. Now, at last, agreement on a ceasefire may be

545
closer. We have been urging the parties to accept it and move forward. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade did so during a visit to Baku in September. He handed over a letter from the Prime Minister making the same point. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has asked his Turkish colleague to use Turkey's influence with Azerbaijan to the same end. This is where matters now stand.
I want to try to answer as many points as I can, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for giving me advance notice of her questions. My noble friend did not do it in the form of a question but she mentioned ethnic cleansing, as did my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I must make clear that ethnic cleansing of any sort anywhere is completely deplorable, but the picture in Nagorno-Karabakh is not clear cut. Not only tens of thousands of Armenians but also almost the whole Azeri civilian population have been forced to flee Nagorno-Karabakh.
As the noble Lord, Lord Archer, said, this dispute has produced over 400,000 refugees from both communities. Any solution must uphold the right of all the people in and around Nagorno-Karabakh—Armenian and Azeri speakers alike —to live peacefully in their homes. I was particularly glad to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford speak about the work of the World Council of Churches in the area.
I turn to a specific point raised not only by my noble friend Lady Cox but also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. They asked for assurances that ICRC aid for Nagorno-Karabakh will get through. The ICRC's reputation for humanitarian work in difficult situations is second to none. It is accepted by the Armenians and Azerbaijanis alike. It does not at present have a delegate in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh; it hopes to post one there soon. The ICRC has four delegates in Armenia and intends to increase them to six. Two travel to Nagorno-Karabakh each month. Last month they delivered the first winter food parcels, and our diplomats in Geneva keep in close touch with the ICRC head office to monitor their progress.
My noble friend asked what the Government were doing to bring pressure to bear on Azerbaijan. British aid to Azerbaijan is limited, consisting mostly of small know-how fund projects which support the transition to a market economy. This sort of carefully targeted support has intrinsic merit and should continue. We do not attach political conditions to humanitarian aid in Azerbaijan or anywhere else. More generally we will continue to press the government of Azerbaijan to accept a full ceasefire and start negotiating a settlement.
When he visited Baku in September my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade handed over a letter from the Prime Minister to President Elchibei making this point. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friends Lady Park of Monmouth and Lord Pearson of
546
Rannoch that we also continue to urge Turkey, publicly and privately, to use its considerable influence with Azerbaijan to bring about an early ceasefire.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, could the Minister arrange for a copy of the letter from the Prime Minister to be placed in the Library of the House?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I imagine so. The Government have no evidence of Turkish arms supplies to Azerbaijan, and Turkey has undertaken to respect the existing CSCE embargo on arms to the region. It is common knowledge that Turkish military advisers are helping the Azeris. In the CSCE the Government have raised the possibility of widening the existing arms embargo to cover all kinds of military assistance. The Government have pursued this proposal at this week's CSCE ministerial council meeting in Stockholm.
My noble friend Lady Cox quoted a newspaper report that claimed that the FCO had no policy on arms sales in Azerbaijan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, asked a question on the same subject. That report was quite incorrect. The Government have not approved licences for the export of any military equipment to Azerbaijan, nor will they do so. We adhere to the embargo on the supply of weapons to the region called by the CSCE on 28th February. Indeed, during the CSCE ministerial council in Stockholm this week we called for an extension of this embargo to cover military assistance to the region generally.
My noble friend drew our attention to British trade with Azerbaijan, and not least the major investment by BP. She implied that this amounted to British endorsement of Azeri policies. The new countries of the former Soviet Union face unique problems in overcoming the ruinous legacy of communism. Trade is the most important way of helping these countries to establish themselves in the international community. The Government intend to boost British trade with all these states, including Armenia and Azerbaijan. I do not see why we should be ashamed of trading with BP in that country.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth may be aware that we also have one large British project in Armenia put together by Simon Carves Limited. This project is nearing completion and should provide useful employment in Armenia. In short, commercial links are needed to help these countries establish themselves. Economic progress is the key to the transition from Soviet communism, but this should also extend to trade between the countries of the Trans-Caucasus. That is why we welcome Turkey's improving relations with Armenia and why we want to see all blockades lifted as rapidly as possible.
My noble friend Lady Cox spoke about the £250,000 the Government have contributed to the International Committee of the Red Cross for its work there. Most of this money will provide for 1,000 food parcels a month to be distributed in Nagorno-Karabakh this winter, and the remainder will be distributed between Armenian and Azeri refugees. I am delighted also to confirm today that the Government intend to make £200,000 available to the

547
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The UNHCR has just announced a six-month programme of emergency aid to over 140,000 Armenian and Azeri refugees from this conflict.
There is just one other point to which I should like to draw particular attention for the benefit of my noble friend Lady Cox. Hitherto we have asked the ICRC to deliver British assistance, but we certainly do not rule out using other organisations who are doing effective humanitarian work in Nagorno-Karabakh. I am pleased to tell my noble friend that the Government have decided to channel some assistance through Christian Solidarity International by providing the spare parts for ambulances which my noble friend Lady Cox delivered on an earlier mission.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about air attacks on civilians. Military attacks against civilian targets are of course unacceptable. The Government have made this point directly to the Azerbaijani authorities and not least during the visit to Baku in September of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. The CSCE hopes to mediate a complete cessation of hostilities, including air attacks. We look to both Armenia and Azerbaijan to accept this.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether the United Nations had considered setting up a fund to collect and destroy weapons in the former Soviet Union. The United Nations has not discussed this. The states of the former Soviet Union are independent, and it is for them to settle their defence arrangements. We look to the states of the former Soviet Union to adhere to the provisions of the CFE treaty, covering conventional force reductions in Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth asked what role the Government envisage for Russia and the CIS in this dispute. It is not Russian government policy to take sides in this dispute. Russian troops remain in Azerbaijan and in Armenia. Some are reliably reported to have offered their services to one side or the other. The Government welcome any positive role the Russian government can play in mediating a solution, but such an effort must be part of the CSCE process.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked what the Government are doing in response to the appeal addressed to leaders of the G7. At this week's meeting in Stockholm of the foreign ministers of the CSCE, we are urging Armenia's neighbours to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to Armenia. The Government have urged the Armenian government to contact the European Commission to arrange the rapid disbursement of over 20 million ecus of food and medical projects from the EC's loan to Armenia.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lady Park asked whether the Government accepted that United Nations peacekeepers had a role to play in Nagorno-Karabakh. The United Nations' Secretary General has sent two fact-finding missions to the region. He believes the CSCE is the right forum for negotiations. There is nothing to be gained by
548
switching the negotiations to the United Nations, which is already heavily stretched. The CSCE can succeed if sufficient political will is demonstrated by the parties to this dispute. Without that political will, neither the United Nations nor any other forum or group of countries will bring about a solution. I tell the noble Lord, Lord Archer, that there are no immediate plans for either Azerbaijan or Armenia to join the Council of Europe. The European Commission has provided 1 million ecus of humanitarian aid, primarily to relieve the suffering of refugees in this dispute—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I fear I must have been more than usually unintelligible. I did not intend to suggest that there were any plans for either Armenia or Azerbaijan to join the Council of Europe. I was asking whether the fact that Turkey had applied to join the Council of Europe might be used as a lever in encouraging Turkey to take a more constructive view.
Baroness Trumpington: I am sorry, my Lords; my carrier pigeon brought me the wrong information. I shall now turn to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and other noble Lords who reported the Azerbaijan threat to use nuclear weapons against Armenia. Azerbaijan is a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state. The Russian Government has confirmed that there are no nuclear weapons stationed on Azerbaijan territory. However, the question of the nuclear power station is a very dangerous one. There are considerable difficulties involved in recommissioning the Medzamor nuclear power station. It lies on a geological faultline and has fallen into disrepair following the earthquake. Armenia does not have the expertise to maintain or operate the plant, and the European Community is funding a safety study of this power station which will be completed in the Spring. We hope that the Armenian Government will await the outcome of this and other studies before taking any decision.
Reference to Turkey has occurred a lot in the debate, and relations between Armenia and Turkey are fraught with historical animosity and tragedy. However, both sides now seem to accept the need to build on normal bases. Turkey has agreed to deliver 100,000 tonnes of grain to Armenia and to allow other such deliveries to transit its territory. They have agreed to supply electricity to cover 20 per cent. of Armenia's energy deficit this winter at prices below those made to Turkey's domestic consumers. These are welcome developments, and we are urging the Turkish Government to go ahead with these undertakings.
In the snug and cosy atmosphere of the House of Lords, it seems almost an impertinence for me to stand here and make this statement, but it is a sad irony that Armenia and Azerbaijan—so new to the international community—should immediately find themselves locked into this costly and destructive dispute. Unlike most of the other former Soviet republics, these two states have made serious progress towards democracy.

549
Both have held free presidential elections. Both have presidents previously imprisoned for their opposition to Soviet rule. Armenia's parliament consists of numerous parties. Azerbaijan plans fresh parliamentary elections next year. Both countries have ample resources and skills to draw on for their future prosperity if they can proceed in peace.
We hope that the CSCE talks will soon resume. They are the only realistic way forward. It is vital that the two sides play their parts in negotiating a settlement: their future is at stake. Armenians and
550
Azerbaijanis alike will have to make historic compromises for peace and now is the time for them to do so.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill, and read a first time.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past six o'clock.

  PARLIAMENT HILL SCHOOL
  PARLIAMENT HILL SCHOOL
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: ARTICLE 3a
  MAASTRICHT TREATY: ARTICLE 3a
  BANK OF ENGLAND: STATUS
  BANK OF ENGLAND: STATUS
  MEPs: EXPENDITURE
  MEPs: EXPENDITURE
  ROAD TRANSPORT: CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
  ROAD TRANSPORT: CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
  HAULIERS AND ROAD USE COSTS
  HAULIERS AND ROAD USE COSTS
  CHILDREN ACT IMPLEMENTATION: RESOURCES
  CHILDREN ACT IMPLEMENTATION: RESOURCES
  WOODBRIDGE AND BENTWATERS RAF BASES
  WOODBRIDGE AND BENTWATERS RAF BASES
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES: SPENDING
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES: SPENDING
  TRIDENT MISSILES: TESTING
  TRIDENT MISSILES: TESTING
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION: INFORMATION BULLETIN
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION: INFORMATION BULLETIN
  CROWN AGENTS AND COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  CROWN AGENTS AND COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  LICENSED TRADE: MONITORING
  LICENSED TRADE: MONITORING
  CREDIT CARD LEGISLATION: LAW SOCIETY'S REPRESENTATIONS
  CREDIT CARD LEGISLATION: LAW SOCIETY'S REPRESENTATIONS
  RESPIRATORY SENSITISERS CONTROL
  RESPIRATORY SENSITISERS CONTROL