Sitting of 9 November 1992

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

    SELECTION
    Ordered,
    That Sir Marcus Fox and Sir Giles Shaw be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Andrew Bowden and Mr. Richard Tracey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    National Lottery
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what effect he estimates the introduction of the national lottery will have on charitable income.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): Charities will be one of the main beneficiaries of the national lottery.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that 85 per cent. of the money raised by the national lottery will go in taxes, administration and prize money and that only 15 per cent. will go not just to charities but to sports, the arts, heritage and so on? Given those figures, is it not right that charities should be alarmed that the introduction of a national lottery would mean a loss of £232 million which would not be compensated for by what they received from the lottery?
    Mr. Brooke: I am conscious that statistics on the outcome have been bandied around, but, until we publish the Bill, people will not even be able to see the original indicative figures.
    I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Representatives of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations will see me this coming week, when they can argue their case. I shall listen to them carefully.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: In welcoming the Government's intention that charities should receive a fair share of the proceeds of the national lottery, may I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that the system for distributing the funds takes careful account of the interests of charities that have been in the practice of running lotteries and whose income could be significantly hit by the advent of a national lottery?
    Mr. Brooke: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that that is one of the considerations that we will take into account.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the Secretary of State publish the GAH Group report, commissioned by the Department to inquire into aspects and effects of the national lottery?
    Mr. Brooke: If I were to do so, I should be going back on an answer that I have already given in the House. That was confidential advice to the Government, to inform our decision making on the lottery.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the national lottery is to flourish as we all want it to do, people must want to buy tickets and they must know, therefore, that a large proportion of what they are paying will go to charities, the arts or sport? Is he further aware that many of us feel that it is essential to make certain that the Treasury is not allowed to kill the goose that lays the golden egg by taxing the lottery too heavily?
    Mr. Brooke: I would not for the moment trespass on the preserves of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if my hon. Friend felt inclined to make a representation to my right hon. Friend, I do not think that it would do any harm to the cause.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that if the national lottery is a rip-roaring success, that will bring little joy to those of our constituents who work in the pools industry? What representations has he received from those who promote that industry? Will he give them a guarantee that when the national lottery is set up, those people will compete with it on equal terms when selling tickets?
    Mr. Brooke: I totally understand the hon. Gentleman's question, not least because of the part of the country that he represents. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already met some of those involved, and I expect to do so, too. We shall pay close attention to what they say, but I shall not give advance commitments about the outcome.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I welcome the introduction of the national lottery. Will my right hon. Friend pay some regard to community sporting facilities in rural areas, particularly swimming pools, which are expensive for such areas, and community youth soccer sites, many of which are supported by thousands of mums and dads who need support from something like a national lottery?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand my hon. Friend's interest, but the distribution of the funds that emerge from the lottery will be in the hands of other than the Government's and I am confident that those involved will receive many representations when their identity is known.

    Nonconformist Chapels
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions he has had about the conservation of historic nonconformist chapels.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): Several, some with the right hon. Gentleman. I warmly welcome the creation of the Historic Chapels Trust.
    Mr. Beith: I welcome the creation of the trust and hope that it will soon be able to save some very special examples of nonconformist architecture. Will the Minister look again at discussions about ecclesiastical exemption in the

    607
    light of the fact that a fine Georgian Baptist chapel had its Georgian fittings removed and destroyed and the fact that, under the Government's proposals, there is nothing that would help to discourage that sort of thing?
    Mr. Key: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to Great Giddings. That was a tragedy, but it helped to inform consideration of the public consultation which took place in February on ecclesiastical exemption. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, I hope, reach conclusions quite soon.
    Mrs. Clwyd: When the Minister next speaks to Mr. Jocelyn Stevens about conservation, will he remind him that although Mr. Stevens may consider it macho to foster his image as an asset stripper and an axe man, that image does not fit in well with being custodian of our national heritage? As English Heritage appears to be reneging on its legal purpose, is the Minister convinced that it can continue to pursue its public functions as an agency of government?
    Mr. Key: May I start by welcoming the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box and congratulating her on her appointment. I know that she is eminently qualified and has many years of experience, not least as a member of the Arts Council of Great Britain. However, I have to be less soft in response to her question, because Mr. Jocelyn Stevens has a distinguished record in the management of the arts. That is beyond doubt. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about English Heritage's long-term strategy. There is no question of its selling off anything and, of course, there would certainly be no question of its doing any such thing in the case of, for example, Crown property. I very much hope that more rational counsels will prevail in future.

    Football Stadiums
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will relax the requirements for all-seater stadiums for football clubs in the first and second divisions of the Football League and clubs in the premier league.
    Mr. Brooke: I stand by the decision of my predecessor that all clubs in the Football Association premier league and those in division one of the Football League will be required to be all-seater by August 1994 in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor's final report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster. Clubs in divisions two and three of the Football League will be allowed to retain some standing accommodation provided it is safe.
    Mr. Illsley: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that some first division clubs are finding difficulties in meeting the Taylor recommendations because of the cost of converting to all-seater stadiums? Will the Secretary of State consider the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that clubs with an attendance of, say, under 10,000 should be allowed to retain some standing accommodation and that clubs should be judged on individual attendance, always bearing in mind, of course, the fact that safety is the paramount issue?
    Mr. Brooke: When consultation on that issue took place, there was reasonable agreement on the advice that the cut should be on a divisional rather than an attendance basis. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Football Licensing Authority, most notably in a recent letter to Southampton, has stated the sort of circumstances at which it would look in considering a request to go beyond the present deadline.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work of the Football Trust has been crucial in helping many soccer grounds to meet the requirements of the Taylor report? Does he recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced a 2·5 per cent. reduction in pool betting duty, which has been put to good use? Will the Secretary of State please do all that he can to support the Football Trust in getting that pool betting duty exemption extended?
    Mr. Brooke: I suspect that it is just possible that my hon. Friend's question contained some supplementary agenda. I assure him that I shall be supportive of the Football Trust.

    Countryside (Recreation)
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about access to the countryside for recreational use, with particular reference to fell running, orienteering and water sports.
    Mr. Key: The Government's policy is to promote access to the countryside for recreational use of all kinds, while respecting property rights, conservation interests and the needs of rural development and agriculture.
    Mr. Bennett: The Minister will recall that, just before the summer recess, I drew to the then Secretary of State's attention the problem that was being created by North West Water and the Forestry Commission threatening to charge orienteers and fell runners for access to their land. He said that, although he was not a runner, he would look into the matter. Is the Minister aware that, as a result of that and other questions and publicity, it looks as though North West Water and the Forestry Commission are backing off from imposing charges? Will the hon. Gentleman welcome that step and make it clear that he does not believe that sporting organisations should be charged for access, particularly to areas of outstanding natural beauty to which they go for fell running and orienteering?
    Mr. Key: Fell walking and orienteering should be encouraged in the countryside. There has been movement, which I am delighted to endorse. However, I understand that the water companies and the Forestry Commission never intended to charge individuals for access to their property. They sought only to ensure that the substantial costs involved when that activity took place were covered where there were formal programmes of training or large events taking place.

    Live Music
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on promoting live music.
    Mr. Key: The Government support the arts through the Arts Council and regional arts boards. Our common aim, for all art forms, is to encourage quality and innovation and to make the arts as widely available as possible. To that end, the Arts Council expects to spend more than £43 million this year on live music, ranging from opera and orchestras to jazz and reggae. The regional boards also fund a good deal of music making at a more local level.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister accept that the provision of small venues is particularly important as a seedbed for new musical talent? Is it not an absurd anomaly that section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964 requires a public entertainment licence where more than two live musicians gather at a venue such as a public house, but not when a discotheque is held there or, worse still, when muzak is played on the pub's loudspeakers? Will the Minister consider a change in the law, and will he meet a deputation from the all-party jazz group to discuss how the law can be changed to provide better opportunities for inspiring young musicians to get a live venue?
    Mr. Key: I am always prepared to go to great lengths to encourage jazz, which is a particular enthusiasm of mine. Changes in the law on noise are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but there are good reasons for having entertainment licences, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. If he would like to acquaint me further with the nature of his problems, I should be happy to see him.
    Sir Fergus Mongomery: Was not the first National Music Day a great success? Has my hon. Friend any plans to repeat that event?
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was indeed an outstanding success right across the country, with tens of thousands of amateur musicians and professionals taking part in a great national celebration. We are considering whether to repeat the exercise next year and are discussing the details with the organisers, although we have come to no conclusion yet.
    Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that besides himself, President-elect Clinton is with it, Nigel Kennedy is swinging towards it and, more importantly, millions of men and women are appreciating it in greater numbers? However, the Arts Council is cutting grants to the regional jazz boards. Grants have been withdrawn from Eastern Jazz and the Scottish Jazz Network. Jazz Central is under review and others could follow. That demonstrates that the Arts Council is ignorant of this kind of music. Therefore, will the Minister knock together the heads of those on the Arts Council to bring about a much more sensible jazz policy?
    Mr. Key: I stand by the long-standing tradition of arm's-length management and funding, and I would not wish to interfere in the artistic judgments of the Arts Council. However, as I have discovered, genuine problems arise from time to time—for example, where jazz is played in clubs for profit or where an entry fee is charged—and there may be some scope for discussion there. I acknowledge the basic point that the hon. Gentleman is making—that there is tremendous enthusiasm for jazz, which young people are taking up in greater numbers in
    610
    schools, including my eldest daughter, who is taking up the saxophone. I pay tribute to the teachers who seek to inculcate jazz.

    BBC
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish his proposals for the future of the BBC.
    Mr. Brooke: I intend to publish a discussion paper about the future of the BBC in the next few weeks. That will set out a range of questions as a framework for public debate.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend confinn that in considering the future funding and structure of the BBC, no options will be excluded? Will he consider particularly whether the BBC should continue to enjoy a monopoly of public sector subsidy and whether it is right that the full range of output of the BBC should continue to be funded by the licence fee payer?
    Mr. Brooke: If I answered every one of my hon. Friend's questions, I should be producing an early publication of the discussion document. I can give him the assurance that all the matters that he has raised are being considered during the preparation of the document.
    Mr. Mandelson: In view of the complex and challenging future for the BBC, does the Secretary of State think that the present arrangements for the director-generalship of the BBC are sensible or satisfactory? Rather than persist with the rather unhappy situation in which two people, Sir Michael Checkland and Mr. John Birt, are effectively doing the same job, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be wise to cut through the knot and allow Mr. Birt to take over at a slightly earlier moment than presently planned?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's question, but the arrangements were set in motion by the governors and the BBC as a specific plan. That is a matter for the BBC rather than for me.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have worked for both systems of television and radio, commercial broadcasting as well as for the BBC. Does he agree that any steps that he takes to consider the future of the BBC should be structured on two important facts—that it is an institution of world renown and that it is one of the greatest patrons of the arts in this country?
    Mr. Brooke: I well remember supporting my hon. Friend when he represented another constituency during the days when he was involved in the BBC. I entirely share the view that he has expressed about the BBC.
    Mr. Corbett: May I underline the urgency of making the Green Paper public as soon as possible to assist what we all hope will be a widespread debate on the future of the BBC that involves viewers and listeners? Is the Secretary of State aware that we shall expect the document to reaffirm the Government's commitment to the independence of the BBC and its prime role in our broadcasting system? Meanwhile, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the BBC to

    611
    stop its current round of job cutting, which threatens programme-making ability, ahead of any decisions on its role into and beyond the next century?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman's impatience is a little undue, considering that we are talking about a charter that runs until 1996. It is better that it were done well than done hastily. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about jobs at the BBC, under its present charter internal appointments and day-to-day management are matters for the BBC itself.
    Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on the restructuring of the Independent Broadcasting Authority into the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, the engineering division was privatised and became National Transcommunications. Does my right hon. Friend have similar plans so to privatise BBC Engineering? Is he aware that, because the BBC produces its own programmes, the privatisation of BBC Engineering could well have an effect on its programme-making capacity?
    Mr. Brooke: Seductive though the invitations are from my hon. Friends, it would be premature for me to say what will be in the document before we arrive at it.

    Collections of Paintings
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures he has recently taken to preserve collections of paintings of national importance in Britain.
    Mr. Brooke: In addition to the Waverley system of export controls, there are several tax concessions to encourage the retention of pre-eminent works. The Government also provide grants, including that to the national heritage memorial fund, to assist the purchase of items under threat of export.
    Mrs. Campbell: What has the right hon. Gentleman done to prevent the sale by Royal Holloway and Bedford new college of the paintings by Gainsborough, Constable and Turner to fund building work? Does he approve of colleges raising money in that way to finance essential building work and repairs?
    Mr. Brooke: I fully appreciate the concern about the possible sale of three paintings from the college's picture collection. Although I have not seen them in my present capacity, I saw them previously. The decision whether to sell is one for the college and the Charity Commissioners and it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many owners of major collections of works of art are anxious to keep them together for the benefit of the nation? Does he accept that the national heritage memorial fund should have greater flexibility to acquire such collections for a brief period while deciding where they should ultimately reside?
    Mr. Brooke: I am conscious of cestain cases that might be in my hon. Friend's mind and I shall consider the matter. However, I am sure that those who have monitored the work of the national heritage memorial fund to date would say that it is working extremely well.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the Secretary of State aware that a number of national institutions are considering the sale of important works of art to provide funds for normal maintenance work? For example, Edinburgh university is considering the sale of some very important works of art. That widespread and serious problem has come to light recently because of the pressure on maintenance funds. Will the right hon. Gentleman think afresh on the matter, as it is becoming an urgent problem?
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me on to territory that belongs to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Scotland. However, I recognise the basic issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman and it should secure the attention of all of us.
    Mr. Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, often, when historic houses in private ownership come on to the market, that results in the breaking up of art collections? Is not the National Trust concerned that, because of recessionary pressures, there could be a large number of private sales? Is not the best way forward for those houses to remain in private hands, provided they are open to the public? Is my right hon. Friend taking any steps to ensure that that happens?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has raised two separate questions, one of which relates to the recent annual general meeting of the National Trust—that is, the sale of the contents and of privately owned historic houses. A number of the issues relating to that matter come within the competence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I shall draw my hon. Friend's questions to his attention.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State recall that about two years ago, when Lady Thatcher was in power, I raised the question of silver that had disappeared from a National Trust house in Northampton? Apparently, it was found in the possession of the then Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked a number of other questions and discovered that Lady Thatcher had paintings and all sorts of other art collections from museums and art galleries throughout the country? Have they been returned, or did she take them with her?
    Mr. Brooke: I am unfamiliar with the precise detail of the hon. Gentleman's point, but I shall inquire into it. However, I am sure that all hon. Members would wish No. 10 Downing street to be an appropriate showpiece for the heritage of our nation.
    Mr. Rowe: If, over the years, academic and other institutions have, through their own prudence or that of others, been endowed with works of art which they view as a form of capital assets, will my right hon. Friend take a balanced view of the desire of such institutions—at times when they want to continue doing what they do—to sell them?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not absolutely confident that I followed every sub-clause of my hon. Friend's question, but I will read it with great care and if I can give my hon. Friend a specific answer, I shall do so.

    Public Library Service
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the state of the public library service.
    Mr. Key: The responsibility for providing public library services rests with local library authorities. The best of them offer sound management of resources and a service which is modern, friendly and appropriate to users' needs.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that there has been a steady decline in the standard of service throughout the country in the past 10 to 15 years? That is evident in reduced book funds and opening hours, and in library closures. Will that not grow worse as financial pressures on local authorities intensify? When will the Minister act to stop the rot so that local authorities can deliver a comprehensive and efficient service, as they are required to do under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964?
    Mr. Key: Public libraries in England added 10·8 million, 11·1 million and 11 million books to their stocks in 1980–81, 1984–85 and 1990–91 respectively. Those figures include donations and free publications as well as purchases. Actual expenditure on books in those same years was £41 million, £56·8 million and £84·8 million—representing an increase in expenditure in real terms of almost 13 per cent.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: My hon. Friend is aware that, despite continuing local protest and an independent review, Derbyshire county council has reopened only three of the 11 libraries that it closed. One that remains shut is the popular library in Breaston, in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend use all the powers at his disposal to ensure that my constituents enjoy the library services for which they consider that they pay in their community charge but do not receive from Derbyshire county council?
    Mr. Key: I am well aware of the strong public feeling in Derbyshire about the county council's actions in recent years. I invited a delegation from the library authority to see me only last week. I took into consideration the independent panel's decision and recommendations and I have, as it were, put Derbyshire on probation: I shall not now hold a public inquiry because of the county council's good intentions, but it must hold to them if the council is to respond positively to the needs of the people whom it serves.
    Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to reconsider the formula used to calculate standard spending assessments so that Derbyshire and other authorities may have the resources to provide wide-ranging services—including public libraries, which need to be defended and expanded?
    Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I know a thing or two about standard spending assessments. He and I have sparred over that issue for years. Derbyshire's standard spending assessment is calculated on exactly the same basis as that of every other local authority. If Derbyshire prioritises needs in a way which upsets the hon. Gentleman, he knows to whom he must speak.
    Mr. Brandreth: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, despite the greatly increased expenditure on public
    614
    libraries that he enumerated, the number of books borrowed in the past decade has fallen some 15 per cent.? Does he have any initiatives to encourage greater use of public libraries?
    Mr. Kay: Yes, I have many ideas—but so do the professionals who run the library service. I invite my hon. Friend and right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to acknowledge that libraries are not what they were: no longer are they places where one just goes to read or borrow a book—today libraries serve as resource centres which lend many items other than books and offer on-line computer facilities. Libraries are responding positively to that new demand. They are issuing more books than they have done for some time, and the loaning of sound and video recordings is increasing rapidly.

    International Festivals (Cost)
    Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities that host international festivals have the financial burden of doing so taken into account by the Government.
    Mr. Key: It is for individual local authorities to determine the extent of their financial support for arts organisations and events, in the light of local circumstances and competing priorities. All major international arts festivals receive substantial financial support from central Government through the Arts Council and regional arts boards.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept, however, that many local authorities' spending is severely strapped at present? With the recession taking its toll on the box offices, many art providers are in serious financial difficulty, including the Everyman theatre in my constituency of Cheltenham. How does the Minister intend to protect the arts from the double whammy of local authority capping and the recession?
    Mr. Key: I shall continue to encourage the large number of festivals which take place in this country. There are currently more than 500, excluding one-day local and community festivals. One answer to the problem is mixed funding. In that connection, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the enormous success of business sponsorship for the arts, and the success of incentive schemes which have encouraged the funding which has allowed sponsorship levels to rise so dramatically in recent years.
    Mr. Hawkins: As my hon. Friend will know, my constituency contains something that is by way of being a permanent international festival—the Blackpool pleasure beach, which is the biggest visitor attraction in Europe apart from the Vatican. May I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to welcome the beach's enterprise in planning the biggest rollercoaster in the world? I have here a schematic representation, which shows that it is higher than Nelson's column.
    Mr. Key: Of course I welcome initiative of that kind. It is the sort of imaginative scheme which will no doubt appeal to the Leader of the Opposition when he considers his European policy.

    615
    I should be delighted to welcome my hon. Friend and any of his hon. Friends from Blackpool. Blackpool is the biggest holiday resort in Europe, and the best of that resort provides an example for many others in this country.

    Millennium Fund
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement about his current plans in connection with the millennium fund.
    Mr. Brooke: I shall set out the Government's policy on the millennium fund during the passage of the National Lottery Bill.
    Mr. Cohen: How will projects financed by the millennium fund differ from those financed by the national lottery? A good many grandiose projects featured in the Conservative party manifesto; why should we wait for the millennium fund to be financed by the lottery? Why do the Government not put some money into it now, and start spending it now?
    Mr. Brooke: The millennium fund is associated with either the year 2000 or the year 2001—there is a degree of academic argument about that. There is plenty of time for the National Lottery Bill to afford the resources for the millennium fund.

    Highcliffe Castle, Dorset
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on progress on the works on Highcliffe castle, Dorset.
    Mr. Key: The Buildings at Risk Trust has been commissioned by Christchurch borough council to prepare a business plan for the restoration of Highcliffe castle. Holding works have been carried out, with English Heritage grant aid, to protect the damaged structure while its future is being considered.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, of which I was, of course, aware. [Interruption.] I meant that I was aware of the information, not the answer.
    Is my hon. Friend aware that Christchurch borough council is a very small authority, and that the financial burden of the work for which it is having to pay is substantial? Lord Montagu was very helpful when he was chairman of English Heritage, but for various reasons Christchurch did not adopt his proposals. What we need is a catalyst. Will my hon. Friend act as that catalyst and allow me to take a deputation to see him, consisting of members of the council and those whom he mentioned in his original answer? Perhaps we can then try to do something to save this grade 1 listed building in my constituency.
    Mr. Key: I should be delighted to see my hon. Friend and a deputation from Christchurch. The problem has existed ever since the castle was destroyed by fire in the 1960s, and I think that 30 years is quite long enough to wait for a resolution of it. I understand that the business plan is likely to be available before the end of the month, and I look forward to seeing it. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I had better wait until we have examined the plan before discussing it; by all means let us do so after that.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has not the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) shown the significance of a problem which could well face many local authorities if English Heritage's proposals to transfer ancient monuments to those authorities were to proceed? Will the Minister not only bear in mind the point made by his hon. Friend but ensure that if any monuments are transferred to local authorities, sufficient funds will go with them?
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make it clear that English Heritage will not be handing over anything to local authorities, or others. Anything that it proposes to do will be by agreement and carefully planned. Resources would, of course, be ensured before any such transfer were made. The object of the operation is to ensure that many of the monuments, which are a long way from London, are better managed either by the local authority or by a trust, of which the local authority might be a part. Some local authorities are pursuing this policy because they wish to have more control over the day-to-day management of properties which will remain under the ownership or guardianship of English Heritage.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on the recruitment of information technology specialists by the NAO.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The recruitment of staff to meet the needs of the National Audit Office is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Comptroller and Auditor General has, however, told me that he does not normally consider it the most efficient way of organising its resources to recruit information technology specialists for permanent retention on his staff.
    Mr. Denham: Does the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission share my concern at the apparently endless string of computer purchase scandals in the national health service, including the £43 million recently wasted by the Wessex regional health authority, the Healthtrac computer system in the west midlands, and now the London ambulance service computer breakdown? Does he accept that all those computer scandals first came to light not by means of national health service internal audits or Government Department audits but by means of media attention? Will he therefore discuss with the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General the desirability of establishing a specialist team to examine national health service computer services until we can all be satisfied that the money is being used effectively and efficiently and not wasted, as it appears to be at the moment?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am not sure about the origin of the reports, but I know that in 1990 the National Audit Office carried out an examination of managing computer projects in the national health service and that the matter was followed up by the Public Accounts Committee. Furthermore, I know that the National Audit Office will examine the matter again if the PAC thinks it right. The

    617
    National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General recruit specialist information technology experts as and when necessary.
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will review the number of value-for-money audits undertaken annually by the National Audit Office.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Public Accounts Commission reviews annually the corporate plan of the National Audit Office, which shows the balance of activities and expenditure expected over the future five-year period. After considering the latest corporate plan in July, the commission endorsed the National Audit Office's proposal to undertake 50 value-for-money audits in 1993–94.
    Dr. Wright: Why does the chairman of the Public Accounts Commission think that approximately 50 value-for-money audits per year by the National Audit Office is considered, in the NAO's words, "an appropriate level" when there are volumes and varieties of work available to be done which is not at present undertaken? The National Audit Office has no access to the Civil List or to the security services. It has done no work on opted-out schools or on NHS trusts. It has done very little work on the proliferation of executive agencies, and increasing volumes of its work are being privatised and contracted out. Given the volume of work that there is to be done, why are a mere 50 value-for-money audits per year thought to be sufficient?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The number has increased from 33 five years ago to 50 now. The Public Accounts Commission, on the advice of the Public Accounts Committee, believes that that is the appropriate number. It is partly a question of staff and resources. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of matters that the Comptroller and Auditor General would not in any event investigate. It is a matter of balance, but the commission believes that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office have it about right. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there are particular areas which the Comptroller and Auditor General should investigate, I have no doubt that he will let them know and I shall see to it that the Comptroller and Auditor General hears about the hon. Gentleman's request.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend's Committee dealt with Ministry of Defence relocation projects? It appears that much public money—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I regret that the hon. Gentleman's question is not in order. If he can relate it more directly to Question 25, of course I shall hear him.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your help. I was specifically asking my hon. Friend about value-for-money audits, because if a Department tries to make savings by relocating staff such audits must ensure that savings proposed in studies are achieved.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Comptroller and Auditor General frequently makes findings about the Ministry of Defence, especially on housing and relocation matters, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are brought to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Refreshment Department
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on (a) the expenditure and (b) the staffing levels of the Refreshment Department for 1992–93.
    Mr. A. J. Beith(on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The expenditure figures for the current financial year are not yet available. I am advised that the total number of staff employed in the Refreshment Department is 311, of whom 25 are in non-industrial grades.
    Mr. Flynn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why, three years ago, I was given the political affiliations of Members booking the House of Commons Dining Rooms but now that information has become a state secret? As one would expect, the political affiliation of Members booking the Rooms is overwhelmingly Conservative. Is the reason for the new secrecy a sense of guilt because so many commercial companies are being royally entertained in our subsidised facilities while pensioners and disabled people who come to the House cannot enjoy the simple hospitality of a place to shelter or a cup of tea?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I understand the passionate feelings of the hon. Member, but his question does not relate to the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Beith: These are primarily matters for the Catering Committee, which I understand is reviewing banqueting arrangements. Responsibility rests with the Member who makes the booking.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in thanking the staff of the Refreshment Department for the jolly long hours of work that they put in and for the fact that they are always cheerful at whatever time of night they are asked to serve food?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, with pleasure.

    Day Nursery
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress is being made towards the establishment of a day nursery in the House.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission has asked the Accommodation and Works Select Committee to establish whether accommodation can be found for a creche within the parliamentary estate. The Committee has passed a resolution to instruct the relevant officers of the House to continue their attempts to identify suitable accommodation. There is the further possibility that arrangements could be made in conjunction with Whitehall Departments which are also seeking accommodation in the Westminster area for the same purpose. I understand that some progress has been made in identifying suitable accommodation for such a creche. Their decisions are still at a preliminary stage. Should suitable proposals result from either initiative, they will be put to the relevant Committees and to the Commission.
    Ms. Hoey: I thank the right hon. Member for that sympathetic response, but sympathy and scant progress are not enough. This has been going on for a long time. Does the hon. Member agree that the best solution might be for members of the all-party nursery sub-committee to walk around with some of the gentlemen who chair those Committees and look at the proposed accommodation? It does not seem plausible that we cannot find suitable accommodation in the Palace of Westminster to be adapted for this necessary purpose. Is the right hon. Member aware of the rumour that a betting shop would have higher priority than a nursery? If that rumour is true, will he confirm that he would not support that view?
    Mr. Beith: There is no basis for that rumour. The one thing that is taking priority in accommodation in the parliamentary estate is accommodation for hon. Members and staff who do not have adequate accommodation at present. The hon. Lady's suggestion that hon. Members who have involved themselves in the issue might make suggestions and proposals to the Accommodation and Works Select Committee would be useful to follow up.

    Buying British
    Mr. Steen: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is his policy towards buying British products for use in the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Beith: British products are extensively used in all Departments of the House. It is the practice to purchase British products when they offer good value for money, taking into account quality, delivery and price.
    Mr. Steen: Although the right hon. Gentleman makes that reply, he must be aware that there is an EC directive that is applied completely unfairly and results in the House tending to buy foreign goods even though there are English goods—[HON. MEMBERS: "British".]—British goods which are as good if not better? Although the price may be a little higher, the quality is as good. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that until all the other European countries stop buying their own goods, as France and Germany always do, we should continue to buy British goods? We should set an example in Parliament until the enforcement procedures in Europe ensure that all European countries play by the rules.
    Mr. Beith: I am not aware of any examples of British products that have been turned down on those grounds. Large contracts are subject to EC and GATT rules, which affect the placing of large contracts in a nationally discriminatory way, and the Commission must obey the law. If there are any particular cases, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring them to the attention of the appropriate Department.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Sittings of the House
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to introduce proposals to terminate House of Commons business not later than 10 pm on each sitting day; and if he will make a statement.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I imagine that my hon. Friend has in mind one of the proposals in the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House. As I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who chaired the Committee, at last Thursday's business questions, I hope to identify a basis of agreement for discussion through the usual channels, with the aim of being in a position to bring forward substantive motions at an early stage.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that of all the proposals in the report by the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, the proposal on sittings is perhaps one of the most important? Does he agree, from his long years in the House, that the House tends to diminish rather than increase in efficiency as the hour passes 10 pm and the sitting goes on into the small hours? That cannot be good for the nation or for anybody else.
    Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I can assent to a proposition about the diminishing efficiency of the House at particular times of the day, although I am aware of the widespread public sharing of my hon. Friend's view. It is worth noting, as a matter of practice, that since the House resumed on 19 October there have been only two occasions on which the House has not adjourned before 11.5 pm, which is a significant improvement on some previous experiences. On Thursday evenings, which I know are one of the points of concern to many hon. Members, the House has adjourned at 10.30 pm—standard time—on each occasion so far.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Leader of the House agree that the best way to ensure that the House rises by 10 pm on most evenings would be to reduce the business carried out in the House? Does he agree that the quickest and easiest way to do that would be to establish legislative assemblies in Scotland and in Wales to take on the business presently carried out in the House for those nations?
    Mr. Newton: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is in one sense unanswerable. It must be emphasised that our constituents not only express the wish that we should sit reasonable hours, but want to see a reasonable amount of business carried through the House. It is always a question of striking the right balance. I am afraid that I cannot agree—I see from the pleased expression on the hon. Gentleman's face that he would not expect me to agree—to the second part of this proposition as to how we might seek to achieve that.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although many of us would like the House normally to stop at 10 pm, there are certain matters on which there is wide bipartisan agreement? If it is necessary for a Committee of the Whole House to sit beyond 10 pm on certain matters for which most of our people—Labour and Tory—worked at the previous election, would that not be acceptable?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, with that characteristically mischievous expression on his face, is tempting me to make some very inflammatory remarks. I do not intend to be drawn on to that ground.

    EC Legislation Committee (Visits)
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to extend the ability of individual members of the European Legislation Committee to visit Brussels.
    Mr. Newton: Individual members of the European Legislation Committee can benefit from the arrangements agreed in the resolution of the House of 6 December 1991 on travel by members to European Community institutions providing for one trip per member each year to visit one of the Community institutions. As those arrangements were introduced only last December, it would be premature to consider extending them.
    Mr. Enright: Does the Lord President agree that that puts Members of this House at a considerable disadvantage, for example, in relation to our German counterparts? If we are to be enabled to fulfil subsidiarity properly, we should be able to travel appropriately in relation to the amount of legislation being considered by the Community at any particular time.
    Mr. Newton: As I have said, it is still less than a year since, on a motion moved by my predecessor, the House agreed to the improved arrangements that I have just outlined in my reply. The European Legislation Committee collectively is free to apply, under the usual arrangements, for funding of overseas travel by Select Committees.

    EC Legislation
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to modify the methods of parliamentary scrutiny of European Community legislation and of the Council's minutes of proceedings; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: The Government have recently announced that they will expand their explanatory memoranda on EC documents to cover the question of subsidiarity. I have no present plans for any further changes, though I keep the procedures under review.
    Dr. Godman: In the interests of greater openness of the deliberations of Council meetings, which the Prime Minister supported at the Birmingham Council, will the Lord President arrange for copies of the minutes of proceedings of Council meetings to be placed in the Library? Will he also impress on his colleagues the fact that the rules of the Council allow for such meetings to be public? In terms of more openness, would it not make good sense to have at least part of Council meetings conducted in public, as article 3 of the Council's rules allows for that decision to be made?
    Mr. Newton: From his involvement in a Standing Committee and his known interest in these matters, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the Council's rules of procedure Council minutes are confidential and do not fall within the definition of depositable documents. That is clearly not something which I or any other member of the British Government can change at will. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of what was said at Birmingham about greater openness and the fact that that is to be discussed further at Edinburgh. The right course
    622
    for me is to take delivery of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions as suggestions which clearly should be considered in that context.

    Finance and Service Committee
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the work of the Finance and Services Committee.
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects the Finance and Services Committee to make progress on implementation of the Ibbs report.
    Mr. Newton: The Finance and Services Committee h as not yet been nominated.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the constitution and operation of that Committee was sorted out? Everyone outside the House has been expected to tighten their belts and operate more efficiently. Surely that should also apply to us in this place.
    Mr. Newton: I certainly hope that it will be possible to complete the discussions associated with that matter in a way which will enable progress to be made before too long. However, I would not want my hon. Friend to think that the fact that the Committee has not yet been nominated in any way diminishes the drive by the House of Commons Commission and by the Select Committees on Accommodation and Works, on Administration and on Catering in pursuing vigorously their endeavours to improve the efficiency with which the resources available to the House are used.
    Mr. John Greenway: I understand that it will be a duty of the Committee when it is established to consider the extent to which the parliamentary channel should be available around the Palace of Westminster. My right hon. Friend will know that many of us still occupy offices which are a good five or six minutes walk away from the Chamber. I appreciate the point that we keep fit by walking to and fro, particularly when there are many Divisions, but it would be helpful if the parliamentary channel were available, not necessarily in every hon. Member's office, but in certain selected rooms around this place.
    Mr. Newton: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right in thinking that it is primarily a matter for the Finance arid Services Committee. As Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee, and from my knowledge of the work being done both by the Accommodation and Works Committee and by the Information Committee, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are all aware of the desirability of reaching conclusions on matters of the kind that he has in mind.

    Summer Adjournment
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has had from people and bodies outside the House about the length of this summer's Adjournment.
    Mr. Newton: I have received several letters from members of the public commenting on the length of this summer's Adjournment. I understand that a number are received every year.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Leader of the House accept that many hon. Members feel acutely embarrassed about the inordinately excessive summer recess and consider that it makes a farce of our parliamentary role of checking the Executive? For instance, during the summer recess many things were sneaked through by the Government, which were referred to in the press but not on the Floor of the House. That is indefensible. Two examples are the unexplained dismissal by the Prime Minister of a senior civil servant, Peter Kemp, and the gross overspending by the Ministry of Defence on HMS Fort Victoria, commonly known as HMS De Lorean.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is a new colleague of mine in Essex, though I shall not call even him Essex man in this context. We have become familiar with the rather abrasive way in which he puts his questions and I do not wish to be taken to accept his suggestion, but he might perhaps have a word with his hon. Friends who have persistently pressed my predecessors over the years for Parliament to rise earlier in the summer so that they can have a reasonable holiday with their children.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that it is the right of hon. Members on both sides of the House to be able to go about their business, including voting, without being intimidated?
I wish to bring to your notice an article which has appeared in a newspaper in which the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) says that, during the debate and voting last Wednesday, she was described as a "Judas" and a "scab", and was verbally and sexually harassed. As I understand it, the newspaper in question has asked whether you will make an inquiry or investigation into the matter. Has a complaint, either from the hon. Member for Billericay or from any other hon. Member, come to your attention, officially or unofficially? What steps will you take to deal with the matter?
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Order. The question of intimidation may well be a matter of privilege. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, matters of privilege should not be raised across the Floor of the House. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Members have matters of this nature to raise with me, they should do so in writing, and they will be dealt with.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further paint of order on the matter of privilege. I have made it clear that, if there is any suggestion of intimidation, it could become a matter of privilege. Therefore, any hon. Member who has any concern whatever about it should write to me in the usual way.
Mr. MacKinlay: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have been approached by the President of the Board of Trade about making a statement on the crisis at Ford. We read statements today that Ford is contemplating the compulsory dismissal of thousands of staff—
Madam Speaker: Order. The answer is no, I have not.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I simply wanted to know whether the revealing of sexual secrets on behalf of hon. Members is also considered a matter of privilege. Whose privilege was it?
Madam Speaker: I dealt fairly fully with that matter earlier.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have see in press reports that the court case at the Old Bailey against three executives from Matrix Churchill has now collapsed because the Department of Trade and Industry cannot sustain the case. The case has lifted the cloak of secrecy on the arms that went to Iraq. Will the President of the Board of Trade come along and make a full statment on the arms dealing between this country and Saddam Hussein?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Government Department that a Minister seeks to make a statement today on that or any other matter.

Orders of the Day

  Education Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I welcome the fact that we have two days to debate the Bill. It reflects the importance that both sides of the House attach to the issues that we are addressing. I am sure that one thing that links both sides of the Chamber is the hope that we can provide the best possible education for all our children—even if we differ strongly on how that can be achieved. I hope that that, at least, will link both sides of the House.
  I want to improve education for all children in state schools, building on the hard work of the hundreds of thousands of teachers and governors who labour so hard in the schools of England and Wales. In particular, I want for children in our schools what most parents want for their children: for knowledge to come first and for visible achievement to be there for all to see.
  That approach builds on the equally visible achievements of the past 13 years. During that time, this Conservative Government have transformed the education system in England and Wales. We have successfully cast adrift the attachment to uniformity and conformity— that by-words of the left-wing education establishment that characterised our education system during the 1960s and 1970s and often did such damage to many in a generation of schoolchildren.
  We have replaced those by-words with some of our own —choice, diversity and, above all, standards. Our commitment to the essential goals of standards, choice and diversity will be further enhanced through the provisions in this landmark Bill.
  Our proposals—first set out in the White Paper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I published in July—are far-reaching. They will set in place a new framework for primary and secondary schools that will endure well into the next century. I cannot emphasise enough the fact that they will give much greater freedom —the twin freedoms for schools to become self-governing and to specialise and vary their approach within a basic curriculum, common to all, opening the same doors for all our children.
  The Opposition like to talk about equality in education, but they do not mean equality, they mean uniformity. They mean pushing children together, en masse, to be treated exactly the same.
  Mr. Derek Enright: When the Secretary of State talks about uniformity, does he think that the organisation of the national curriculum in various subjects is moving towards uniformity or diversity?
  Mr. Patten: I respect the hon. Gentleman, who I know speaks with authority as he was not only a deputy head of a school in the north-east but a classics teacher. However, the national curriculum has been one of the great achievements in education in this country since 1979. It is not imposing uniformity, as a range of different syllabuses are available in, for example, GCSEs. The national
  628
  curriculum ensures that every child in the country is educated to the highest level possible, as measured at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. The national curriculum should now be a matter of bipartisan agreement across the Chamber, even though the Labour party was once against it, and much as I respect the views of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright).
  Dr. Tony Wright rose—
  Mr. Patten: Is the hon. Gentleman another deputy headmaster or classics teacher?
  Dr. Wright: I have a question for the Secretary of State for Education about what he described as legislation that would set the scene for a generation—or did he say the next century? Does he think that the process as he described it, with a White Paper produced on 25 July—
  Mr. Patten: 28 July.
  Dr. Wright: That makes it worse. Does the right hon. Gentleman honestly believe that, if a White Paper is produced on 28 July to which replies are needed by 25 September, a Bill is published on 30 October and debated on Second Reading on 9 November, such a process is a foundation on which to build an education system that will work into the next century?
  Mr. Patten: Yes—it shows how hard my hon. Friends in the ministerial team and those in the Department for Education have worked to address the task in front of them.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: Yes—I know that my hon. Friend is not a classics teacher.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure that, with his background, he is—that the ideals that he has just enunciated are precisely those enunciated by Lord Boyle, who said that every child should go as far and as fast along the education road as possible? Lord Boyle's efforts were frustrated by the efforts of the Labour party, which put everything into a hotch-potch and destroyed the foundation that Lord Boyle sought to create.
  Mr. Patten: I know that my hon. Friend, with her considerable scientific knowledge, speaks with authority. She is right to recall that the late Lord Boyle wanted every child to get on as well as he or she could. However, his vision was obstructed by what went on in the 1960s and the 1970s, which is what the Bill, like its predecessor Acts, tries to address.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend referred to his hope for a bipartisan approach to be taken to the Bill. There are a number of grant-maintained schools in my Dartford constituency. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all opposition parties are still opposed to the concept, as they were six months ago?
  Mr. Patten: I confirm two matters: first, that my hon. Friend is lucky to have a number of excellent grant-maintained schools in his constituency; secondly, that the opposition parties are united in their opposition to grant-maintained schools. Needless to say, the Liberals

  629
  have done a few U-turns along their journey, as they normally do. Shortly after the election, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was quoted in the Western Daily Press—so it must be true—as saying:
  "We would return opt-out schools to a strategic framework provided by the local education authority."
  That was on 2 April 1992, and the hon. Gentleman waited slightly more than one month before committing his first U-turn and stating in the Bath Evening Chronicle on 6 May 1992:
  "We would be very keen to see the benefits of grant-maintained status passed to all schools … Maybe what we should do is to have all the schools opt-out instantly."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Do you want him?"] We do not want him, but at the time I thought that I would. In his Liberal Democrat statement on education, published in September 1992, he did a U-turn on his U-turn and said:
  "Liberal Democrats remain opposed to the creation of grant-maintained schools and we recommend continued opposition to applications for grant-maintained status."
  There is consistency of purpose on the part of the Liberal party.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend is being most unkind to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The latter will not leap to his own feet, but surely he is the gentleman who in his professional life was bidding to run the accounting system of a grant-maintained school? It seems that the Liberal Democrat Whips have got to work on him since.
  Mr. Patten: There is something lurking in the woodwork here. It is absolutely true that the hon. Member for Bath, like his party, is committed to opposing grant-maintained schools. It is also absolutely true—if I am wrong, doubtless he will get up and make his position clear—that he has a consultancy with a firm of accountants which recently approached one of the two grant-maintained schools in his constituency—Beechen Cliff—and offered the school its professional services, claiming as one of the great advantages for those services the fact that the hon. Member for Bath was working for the firm.
  It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman will not want to go down in history as Mr. "facing both ways in Bath". He has two choices: to drop his opposition to grant-maintained schools, or to drop his consultancy with the accountancy firm in question.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Patten: Certainly not. I shall, however, give way to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who seems to want to intervene—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I think also it is about time we got on with the Second Reading.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: While we are on the subject of U-turns will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he finds it possible to close rural schools with high standards in isolated areas in my constituency when I have asked him not to, and yet keeps them open, also in my constituency, when asked to do so by a neighbouring Member of Parliament?
  Mr. Patten: I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Lady gives me the details, I will look into them and reply. I have always stressed the need to maintain rural schools because of their importance to local communities.
  Perhaps I have already given way too much; in any event, I should like to return to my speech. I believe in providing children with an equal opportunity to excel and to reach their full potential. That is why I want an education system geared to the needs and aptitudes of every child, a system that can meet the needs of pupils with learning difficulties and those of gifted children at the same time. To achieve that goal we need an education system built on foundations of choice and diversity.
  We have already put in place many of the reforms necessary to achieve our goals. I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), whom I see in his place, who piloted through the Education Reform Act 1988, which I believe history will judge to be as important a measure as anything Lord Butler produced in his time.
  I pay tribute also to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), whose Education (Schools) Act 1992 set in place the vital independent inspection regime for all schools. I am building on what they and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) have achieved since 1987. The House should be pleased to have before it the evidence of what has been achieved in that time.
  I come now to grant-maintained schools and choice. More and more schools are choosing—
  Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom, if it would not get him into trouble, I would call my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Field: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the briefing that the Barnardos Society has produced for Members, in which it expresses pleasure at the Government's continued commitment to children with special education needs, but goes on:
  "However, it is unacceptable that, as provided by the Bill, mainstream schools, whether under the local education authority or of grant-maintained status arc able to exclude children with special education needs on the grounds of 'efficient use of resources' ".
  Does the Secretary of State accept that many of our constituents are worried by the Bill because they fear that the schools that they choose for their children will refuse entry on the basis that there may be additional costs? The Bill legally allows schools to do that under the catch-all category "the efficient use of resources". What special measures will the right hon. Gentleman take to protect the most vulnerable children?
  Mr. Patten: I welcome the Barnardo's briefing. I have not seen it, but I shall look at it tonight and address that issue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are setting up a tribunal to which aggrieved parents can turn if they think that their child has not been placed in the proper mainstream education school in which they wish their child to be educated. I shall deal with that matter later.
  The issue of resources arises where I approve the admissions policy of a particular school, and involves a clear statement of the number and sorts of pupils that the school can take. I certainly intend that all schools,

  631
  grant-maintained as much as local authority schools, should take as many grant-maintained pupils as possible. It is good to see some LEA schools and grant-maintained schools increasingly specialising in special needs
  Dame Peggy Fenner: I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's assurance, because there was some misapprehension about the provision for special needs in the grant-maintained system. I say that following a meeting with the British Dyslexia Association, which was also attended by an hon. Friend. The Secretary of State will know that that concern has been expressed, especially in my county of Kent. I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to make clear what he has said about special needs, because there is a great demand for such teaching, and parents, especially those of dyslexic children, are looking to the system to provide it.
  Mr. Patten: I recognise what my hon. Friend says about children with special needs. I am glad to report to the House that, in its examination of special needs assessments, the Audit Commission recently found that all the grand-maintained schools it had examined took special needs very seriously, and provided a high standard of education. A leader in The Times last week stated that a number of grant-maintained schools were beginning to specialise in the issue of children with special needs.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg rose—
  Mr. Patten: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have given way a great deal.
  I can announce that today we have approved the 340th school for grant-maintained status. A further 150 are in the pipeline, having voted yes. That enables me to say that I think that we shall have at least 500 grant-maintained schools by 1 April next year and will probably have getting on for 1,500 by 1 April 1994, in direct accord with the White Paper projection.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that excellent news, and hope we shall soon achieve the total he mentioned. Will he take steps under the Bill to try to prevent or to persuade Labour-controlled authorities, such as the one in the London borough of Merton in my constituency, to stop using tactics against schools that would like to become grant-maintained? Some authorities are bombarding parents on their doorsteps and at school gates with anti-grant-maintained literature.
  Mr. Patten: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The approach of a few authorities, although not most, is totally wrong. Parents should be allowed to make up their own minds about a serious issue in an atmosphere of peace and quiet. The evidence available to me from the London borough of Merton suggests that the literature from the local authority, paid for from community charge payers' funds, is—I must pick my words carefully—falling short in its adherence to normal standards of accuracy—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Patten: —in other words, what the hon. Gentleman who is asking me to give way would call a porky.
  632
  We have seen a lot of porkies from the Merton education department. What worries me is that these are attached not to politicians who, it is alleged, use these tactics form time to time, but to the names of education authority officers—the civil servants of local government, who should know better. I pledge that I will unhesitatingly move to tighten up the Bill further during its passage through the House.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: While the Minister is dealing with the issue of political interference in applications for grant-maintained status, would he care to comment on the situation in Fulham, where a school that is vastly over-subscribed is seeking to become a three-form entry school? The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) has told that school that the best way to enhance its chances of getting permission to become a three-form entry school is to become a grant-maintained school. In a letter to the school, the hon. Gentleman says:
  "The Government's policy is to encourage schools to go grant maintained and if there were two applications on the table, one from a grant-maintained school and one from a maintained school, and their priority was equal in educational terms, then the likelihood is that the grant-maintained school would be successful."
  He goes on to say:
  "I think that is a long way from being blackmail."
  I do not. I wonder whether the Secretary of State does.
  Mr. Patten: I have to consider every application for grant-maintained status or change of character on its merits. I must not fetter my discretion by commenting on any individual school. However, it would not be fettering my discretion to say how lucky the people of Fulham are to have my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) representing them.
  Mrs. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Patten: I will not give way, because I must make progress. I have a speech that is 40 pages long, and I am only on page 7. I will never get to the end at this rate, and I have given way as much as any Secretary of State has ever given way.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Patten: However, simply because he is so nice and charming, I will give way once more—to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I will then make progress with my speech.
  Mr. Banks: What a nice fellow the Secretary of State really is, when he is not being his usual obnoxious and smarmy self.
  May I take him back to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) about Merton council? It will not have escaped the attention of the Secretary of State that Rutlish, the Prime Minister's old school, rejected grant-maintained status by 61 to 39 per cent. Is the Secretary of State saying that the local authority used unfair methods in that case, and that the parents were not rejecting Government policies and the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Patten: The answer is yes, yes and yes again, to borrow a phrase from my right hon. Friend. Parents were told, in a leaflet shamefully distributed by the local education authority, that Rutlish school would lose

  633
  £80,000 a year. That was simply untrue. The allegation had no foundation in fact. It will not have escaped the notice of my hon. Friends that, last Friday, there were five ballots for schools on grant-maintained status and that, in the other four, the vote was yes. In those areas, the information put in front of parents was straightforward.
  I had better get on with the Education Bill itself. My civil servants want me to say that it is quite a long measure. It is indeed. It contains 255 clauses and 17 schedules. However, I can offer some small consolation. Parts II and IV, containing 134 out of the total of 255 clauses, reflect, respectively, a re-enactment and consolidation, with modifications, of the 1988 proivisions on grant-maintained schools, and a consolidation of the schools attendance provisions in a great number of Education Acts stretching right back to 1944. All that is needed to be done. Much of that which is contained in these parts of the Bill is not new, I believe that the education world generally will be grateful to us for having adopted a neat narrative approach. It will make the relevant legislation much more accessible, much more user-friendly and much closer to the aims of the citizens charter.
  I shall comment as briefly as possible on the major proposals that are contained in the Bill. First, I shall deal with grant-maintained schools and the funding agency. The unit of account in our proposals is the self-governing grant-maintained school. Local management of schools under local education authority control has gone a good way down the road of giving schools control over their own affairs. That is Government policy that goes back to the policy developed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker).
  At the end of the road is self-governing grant-maintained status, which offers schools the opportunity to have control over their total budget, to employ their own staff and to manage their own affairs. Schools here and elsewhere—for example, in New Zealand, where under a Labour Government between 1987 and 1990 they went much further in terms of grant-maintained status than anything that I am proposing—have shown how well they can take advantage of the opportunity.
  It has been suggested that allowing parents to take their schools out of local authority control is undemocratic. I find that a most paradoxical argument, to use a phrase of the right hon. Enoch Powell. A far higher proportion of parents vote in grant-maintained ballots than of electors in local authority elections. That is the truth about the democratic element. It is a simple fact that democracy prospers in direct proportion to the involvement of the relevant electorate. That is exactly what happens in grant-maintained ballots. More people vote in these ballots than in others and most of the ballots are successful —seven to eight out of 10 to date.
  It is precisely the rapidly growing popularity of grant-maintained schools that necessitates that I put in place a supporting framework for funding them. Hence the proposal to establish a Funding Agency for Schools, and the parallel proposal to take a power to set up a Schools Funding Agency for Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), the Minister of State, Welsh Office, will have more to say about that when he replies on behalf of the Government this evening.
  I wish to make it absolutely clear that the funding agency will not manage grant-maintained schools.
  634
  Management is the job of governors and head teachers, who are responsible to parents and the local community generally through regular ballots for governor places.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Patten: I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  Mr. Spearing: No, I shall not.
  Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman will not forgive me, he will have to learn how to do so.
  I move on to grant-maintained school funding. The total resources available to the funding agency and grant-maintained schools will be determined annually by Government in the normal way. More than a few LEAs, however, are telling their schools that they will be better off financially by staying with local authorities. That is simply not true. I have made it clear time and again that grant-maintained schools will be given additional funds to reflect their additional responsibilities. Just as important, when a school opts out, it will receive in cash what LEAs hold back from their schools to spend centrally. There is no way in which the allegations can be true.
  I have set out the advantages for grant-maintained schools now, and they will continue to be the arrangements for grant-maintained schools in future. By comparison, a much more uncertain future is in store for many LEAs. That is not because of the provisions of the Bill. There is uncertainty because of the work of the local government boundary commission, which is reviewing boundaries in county areas throughout the land. The review will lead to the end of many LEAs as we know them within four or five years. As I have said, there is a very uncertain future for many LEAs.
  In any system of compulsory education there must be a clear duty to ensure that sufficient school places are available to meet the needs of all pupils. We must ensure that there is that availability. The duty currently lies exclusively with LEAs.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State give way on that very point?
  Mr. Patten: I shall give way when I have concluded what I have to say on the supply of places.
  As the number of grant-maintained schools in any area grows, it cannot make sense for responsibility to continue exclusively to rest with LEAs.
  One of the Bill's key proposals is that as the number of grant-maintained schools grows, the funding agency will take on a parallel duty to ensure an adequate number of school places, sometimes responding to local groups, local people or voluntary organisations that want to set up a new school. I shall look very much to such people and organisations to supply those schools. In all but the most Luddite of local education authorities, I expect collaboration between the LEA and the funding agency to ensure that there are sensible proposals to deal with the need for more school places.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in overcoming his earlier remarks. Does he agree that, ever since popular public education has been in vogue in this country—about 120 years — a duty has been laid upon boards of education and LEAs, which was continued under section 8 of the 1944

  635
  Act, to ensure sufficient and adequate provision of schools in any one area? Does not the Bill destroy that principle, which has always been central to public education?
  Mr. Patten: No, the Bill develops that principle. There will he two bodies—the LEA and the funding agency—with parallel but not shared responsibilities. A little healthy competition will be no bad thing for some LEAs.
  We must also deal with the removal of surplus school places, of which there are up to 1·5 million in England alone. The money wasted on maintaining many of those places should be available to spend on children and their teachers, to whom I am most grateful. I guess that many of them would be glad if some of the money locked up in surplus school places was available in the classroom. I am advised that up to £300 million a year is lost in maintaining surplus school places. That is just the premises-related cost —it does not include the capital sums that would be available if the buildings and land could be sold and the proceeds ploughed back into education.
  That is why I am proposing to take a power under the Bill to direct, if necessary, either the LEA or the funding agency to make rationalisation proposals. If I am not happy with them, I can make my own proposals, at which point all the proposals will go to a new public inquiry system. As it happens, that is much along the lines of one of the ideas put forward by the Opposition before the general election, when the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was their education spokesman.
  I am aware of the particular reservation of the Churches about the proposal to widen the existing powers for LEAs to include voluntary schools in the drive to eliminate surplus places and so release money for education. We have listened carefully to what they have said. I shall continue to reflect equally carefully on the best way forward, as always in co-operation with the Churches.
  The desire to increase parental choice is central to the Bill. Self-governing grant-maintained schools extend choice, but there may be some anxiety about the length of time that can be taken to sort out pupil admissions to schools where there are both grant-maintained and LEA schools in the locality and where parents can apply direct to the schools of their choice—the more so where the LEA is failing to co-operate with the grant-maintained schools.
  I hope that that lack of co-operation will fast become a thing of the past. However, the Bill gives the holder of my office a power to impose collaborative admission arrangements if necessary. I hope that that power will be used only rarely.
  I pay tribute to the way in which the grant-maintained schools and LEAs in boroughs such as Bromley, Hillingdon and those in Surrey have worked together to ensure that school admissions go smoothly where parents have a choice between grant-maintained and LEA schools.
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that difficult situations can arise when excessive applications are made to a particular school? Does he agree that the spread of grant-maintained status will give schools that adopt it greater scope to meet more quickly the desire of parents to have their children admitted to those popular schools?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) is right to say that grant-maintained as well as LEA schools stand out as beacons of excellence. They are schools whose rolls bulge and at which parents queue to gain entry for their children. One of the Bill's aims is to improve the status and standing of our schools, so that queues will be spread more widely across the educational landscape.
  Selection is an issue that Opposition Members are prone to raise whenever Government education policy is debated. They would have looked in vain for evidence in the Bill that our proposals for increasing diversity really mean selection by the back door. I stress, however, that I am always happy to consider applications for changes of character from any schools in this country on their merits —as has been done since 1944.
  The Bill provides for business or other sponsors to nominate sponsor governors for voluntary-aided or grant-maintained schools. We hope that will support the efforts of an increasing number of schools to specialise in particular curricular areas, such as technology, and serve as a supplement to the delivery of the national curriculum.
  It is not our intention to force any particular pattern of schooling on any area. We want schools to reflect the requirements of local people. Too many people in the education world, and perhaps among Labour Members, suffer a kind of dyslexia when they see the word "specialisation", and read it as "selection". They are behind the times, once again. The S word of which Labour should be frightened is specialization—as I pointed out when the New Statesman, in a remarkably broad-minded way, recently invited me to contribute to its pages on exactly that issue. I look forward to receiving a similar invitation from Tribune—and I shall be happy to write for that publication too, free of charge.
  Mr. Tony Banks: We all have to do that.
  Mr. Patten: I make a pledge to the hon. Member that I shall make such a contribution for no fee, when the invitation comes.
  There has been much talk of the White Paper, and presumably the Bill, bringing the reign of local education authorities to an untimely end. They protest too much. The reign of some LEAs has been far from glorious but, even so, I pay tribute to the performance of many of them. I am happy to reassure all LEAs that I see them having a continuing role in the new structure, in the way that the White Paper and the Bill set out.
  Part III of the Bill makes provision for children with special educational needs. The Education Act 1981, following the Warnock report, was a landmark in education legislation. The Bill embodies the principle enshrined in that Act but reflects a fundamental review of its operation, on which we consulted widely. Much credit is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), for all the work that he contributed to that review. Our suggestions take much the same course as the joint report recently published by the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's chief inspector, which was generally welcomed.
  The Bill makes provision for the Department to provide a code of practice to which LEAs must have regard in performing their duties. It will contain clear guidance to help LEAs to decide when to assess a child's needs and when to make a statement. Regulations made under the

  637
  Bill will also set out rigorous procedures—including statutory time limits—that authorities must observe when assessing and statementing a child. Too many LEAs take too long to perform that essential responsibility—those are not my words, but the words of the independent Audit Commission. That delay causes anxiety to parents arid can often hold back the education and development of their children. It must stop.
  The Bill extends the parents charter to pupils who have special educational needs in the way described in the White Paper and in the Bill itself. Those measures represent a major advance, and I hope that they will command a wide measure of support from all parts of the House. Much as right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber my differ on other aspects of the Bill, I trust that special educational needs can largely be the subject of non-partisan scrutiny.
  Mr. Steinberg: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Bill confers on grant-maintained schools a legal responsibility to admit children with special educational needs? According to my reading of the Bill in its present form, grant-maintained schools will be expected to take such children only if they have been statemented; it makes no provision for the 18 per cent. who have not been statemented.
  Mr. Patten: The Bill makes it clear that any school—whether LEA-run or grant-maintained—must accept a statemented boy or girl when a direction has been given to that effect, subject only to an overriding right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I am afraid that councils of all political colours must bear the blame for the shameful queues of people who wait three years or more for statementing in many parts of the country. I hope that those queues will soon be cleared as a result of the Bill.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. We discussed the matter a couple of weeks ago, when I appeared before the Select Committee.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Patten: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not. I have given way several times, and I must make progress.
  A small proportion of schools, often in the inner cities, fail to equip their pupils with the basics that are required for them to lead a life containing any real satisfaction, and making any positive contribution to the rest of society. By any count, that small number of schools can be described as failing schools, and I have no doubt that the House will support the Government's determination to deal with them.
  Since 1944, we have entrusted that task to local education authorities. I do not pretend that it is an easy task to deal with a failing school—which is normally the result of a failure of leadership on the part of governors and/or head teachers—but all too often, with a few notable exceptions, LEAs have preferred concealing the difficulties to facing up to them. The Bill provides a framework for effective action, involving both LEAs and—if necessary —education associations appointed by the holder of my office.
  In one respect, the Bill goes beyond the proposals in the White Paper. Following constructive discussions with the Churches—for which my noble Friend the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
  638
  of State and I are very grateful—all voluntary schools will be brought within the scope of these measures. Education associations will be very important in ensuring that a child's only chance of a school career is not wasted in a failing school.
  We thought that "education association" was a pretty good name. We imagined that we in the Department had dreamed it up, but I am afraid that there is little new under the sun. Little innovative matter exists. We need only flick through the pages of 19th-century educational writers such as Ruskin—let alone Thomas Carlyle: only today, I discovered that he was busily corresponding with John Stuart Mill in February 1835 about the need to set up education associations. Those are the exact words that he used.
  I assure the House that, if a grant-maintained school fails its pupils in a similar way, I shall not hesitate to take equally effective action. That is provided for in part II of the Bill—in clause 111, I believe.
  Let me deal briefly with the curriculum and with religion. The Bill promotes autonomy, accountability, choice and diversity—all in the pursuit of our principal objective of improving quality and raising standards. The establishment of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, and of the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, will provide a new focus for the pursuit of better quality and higher standards.
  We discussed this matter earlier—during one of the many interventions on my speech—and I do not want to start any more hares of that kind. I believe, however, that the introduction of the national curriculum has been an astonishing success, thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and his successors. Nobody now can imagine the country's schools without the national curriculum. I have never met a teacher, in the 57 school visits[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Patten: That was just to see whether the Opposition were awake, Madam Speaker.
  I have never met a teacher, in the 57 school visits that my hon. Friends and I have made to schools throughout the land since April of this year, who told me that he or she wanted anything other than the national curriculum. The new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will provide a new coherence to the process of keeping the curriculum up to the mark and maintaining its vitality and relevance.
  Academic and intellectual standards are vital, but they are only one part of the ethos of a school. The new inspection arrangements now being launched will make it absolutely clear that a fresh impetus will be given to questions of spiritual and moral development—issues that the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed yesterday in his excellent article in The Mail On Sunday. He made some very telling points about the responsibilities of all of us here.
  In that context, the Bill amends the law relating to religious education, first to take account of the special position of grant-maintained schools and, secondly, to build upon the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 as they affect all maintained schools, by ensuring that all religious education syllabuses will be brought into line

  639
  with the provisions of the Act. It is quite simply shameful that, following the 1988 Act, two thirds of local education authorities have yet to revise their religious syllabuses.
  I have no doubt that the official Opposition will soon come round to supporting the provisions in this excellent Bill. They have done so on every other occasion during the past 13 years. We have had a new thought from them every time that we have considered an education Bill.
  Look at their record. They opposed the national curriculum; now they embrace it—a U-turn. They opposed local management of schools; now they support it—another U-turn. They opposed grant-maintained schools. Then they had a change of heart. After the general election, there was a U-turn. Then they had another change of heart. They have begun to oppose grant-maintained schools. They have done a U-turn on their U-turn over grant-maintained schools. There has been, I repeat, no fresh thinking on education by the Labour party on any occasion during the past 13 years.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—I look forward to the hon. Lady rising for the first time to make a speech on education at the Dispatch Box—will clarify one serious point. Parents have a right to know the answer to this question, as it goes right to the heart of the Bill.
  The Labour party went into the last election with a firm commitment to abolish grant-maintained schools. All the hon. culprits on the Opposition Benches fought on that manifesto. Within two months of the election, however, the Labour party's education spokesman, who was then the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), reversed that policy. He issued advice on grant-maintained schools to Labour party members that read:
  "parents and governors may feel bound to make decisions about what they think is best for their schools. Labour must not appear to be placed in a hostile position of opposition to parents."
  Perhaps the hon. Lady will be able to tell the House today how that advice squares with her own barely concealed contempt, expressed at the last Labour party conference, for those schools and their parents who wish to run their own affairs. At that conference in September, the hon. Lady accused parents of hijacking schools that wanted grant-maintained status.
  If that is the hon. Lady's position, can she tell the House today whether it is still her party's policy to return grant-maintained schools to local authority control? In other words, is she prepared to back her principles with a firm commitment against the provisions of the Bill, or will those principles go the way of every other principle held by the Labour party, as we saw last week—the "here today, gone tomorrow" sort of principles?
  Of course, it does not matter very much what the hon. Lady says about grant-maintained schools in the context of the Bill, because some Labour authorities—backed by Labour Members of Parliament and various trade unions and some professionals employed in education departments, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) pointed out in her important intervention—will in any event continue to fight applications for self-governing status. Those disgraceful tactics, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury has done
  640
  nothing to reverse—in fact, quite the reverse—must stop. We shall ensure that the Bill offers no hiding place for those people.
  I should like to take one case study of how the Bill might work on the ground in a named education authority. Why do not we look at what is going on in Birmingham, England's second city? Nowhere have some parents and some school staff who have wanted to opt out been subjected to more vilification than in Labour-controlled Birmingham. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Quite right."] "Quite right," I hear said from some part of the House.
  In the context of the Bill, some Labour Members have been quick to rush to the defence of Birmingham's Labour-controlled local education authority. I have to say "some", because not all have displayed such political Pavlovian instincts. Some Labour Members, to whom I pay tribute, have taken a more intelligent view, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who is not in her place this afternoon and whom I respect.
  She commented on the grotesque underspending on education compared with Birminghaam's standard spending assessment and hijacking of money earmarked for education for other prestige projects. She told the "Today" programme only last week:
  "the lesson is pouring public money, poll tax payers' money, into big prestige projects does not deliver the goods for the people who are paying."
  How right the hon. Lady is. I agree with that, and perhaps the hon. Member for Dewsbury will say whether she agrees with her hon. Friend and Front-Bench colleague.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a convention that, if an hon. Member intends to name another Member in a debate, that Member should be informed? Did the Secretary of State tell my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that he intended to refer to her in the debate?
  Mr. Patten: I was quoting with approbation and admiration the hon. Lady's criticisms of her own local education authority. Further to that point of order, but carrying on my speech, if I may, the hon. Member for Dewsbury did not have the common courtesy to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham that she would name him this afternoon.
  Mrs. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) has been passed the letters book, but if he has he will know that there is a letter for him on the Board, which he may not have collected.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): It might be useful if the House settled down and got on with the debate.
  Mr. Patten: I agree. The old excuse that it is in the post is never very good. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham tells me that he was in the Members' Lobby at 2 o'clock, but I will obey your injunction, as always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have even more interesting things to say about Birmingham and its attitude to the Bill.
  Ms. Estelle Morris rose—
  Mr. Patten: I have given way dozens of times, and I do not intend to do so further.

  641
  Does the hon. Member for Dewsbury agree with the sentiments expressed in a secret policy document on the White Paper that has fallen into my hands, which was prepared last month by Labour councillors and policy advisers in Birmingham? It states:
  "opting out will be even more attractive financially under the White Paper."
  It goes on to ask about the post-Bill world:
  "Would we be better to reverse our policy of spending more on schools and concentrate more on re-allocating those resources to our political priorities of nursery, special needs and wider links with the community where there could be a greater political return for us?"
  Ms. Morris: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Patten: I certainly will not.
  It continues:
  "Our values of quality, access and equality could be much more enhanced in these areas than by ploughing more and more money into schools, where not only are we losing the political battle with the Tories"—
  well done, colleagues in Birmingham—
  "but also continuing to pay more monies to other local authorities to educate Birmingham children."
  Does the hon. Member for Dewsbury share those sentiments?
  The hon. Lady had better be quick to tell us her answer, because the schools in Birmingham are voting with their feet. There are already four grant-maintained schools. Today, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, the Minister of State in the other place, added five more to the list, so there are now nine grant-maintained schools in Birmingham. That means that more than 10 per cent. of secondary pupils in Birmingham will soon receive their education in self-governing schools, which will allow the Funding Agency for Schools to operate in Birmingham as soon as the Bill becomes law and to sort out the awful mess made by the local education authority there.
  Ms. Estelle Morris: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Patten: No. I said that I was coming to the end of my speech, and I was cheered by Opposition Members. I now intend to come to the end of my speech.
  As the hon. Member for Dewsbury ponders the facts and tries to fashion some semblance of a policy to put forward as an alternative to the Bill, she could do worse then reflect on—
  Ms. Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State continually to refuse to accept a comment from an hon. Member who represents a Birmingham constituency when he continues to refer to the local education authority in Birmingham so disgracefully? He has talked this afternoon about democracy and openness. What sort of openness is it when he will not give way to an hon. Member who represents a Birmingham constituency?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether to give way.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Dewsbury could do worse than reflect on the advice of one of her party's former top education advisers, Ann Carlton, who is a one-time special adviser to Anthony Crosland. She wrote recently that the Labour party, in the face of the Bill, should now
  642
  "draw up an alternative education policy based not, as in the past, on the self-interested pleadings of local education authorities and the teaching unions, but on the interests of children and parents and on the needs of Britain's economy."
  That would be nice, but somehow the idea of Labour putting public interest before vested interest seems strangely remote.
  The legislative proposals I have outlined today are ambitious. They are ambitious because we recognise that education is the essential lifeblood of our community. The children we educate in our schools today will be the parents of the new century. Education is a vital investment for the future. That is why it has been and will remain at the very heart of the Government's programme.
  4.32 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I have no hesitation in opposing the Bill. Nothing that the Secretary of State said allayed my fears that the Bill will take Britain's education further in the wrong direction. It is wrong in principle to foster division, selection in schools and the centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State.
  It is significant that the Secretary of State had so little to say about the contents of the Bill. He seemed to spend more time knocking Birmingham than he did explaining any merits of his own legislation. I remind the Secretary of State that it was only in May that he wrote a glowing letter of recommendation to a school in Birmingham after his visit, apologising for his delay.
  Mr. Patten: The school is thinking of going grant maintained now.
  Mrs. Taylor: So the Secretary of State went to the school to persuade it. The Secretary of State now recognises that there are good schools—and more than just one. The Secretary of State said that he was very impressed by all that he saw of the hard work going on in Birmingham.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State should remember what the Minister for the Environment and Countryside said when he went to visit the green show in Birmingham. He was so impressed by Yardley secondary school that he got the Nature Conservancy Council interested in its work, and the school is now on the list for foreign visits.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State should recall Birmingham's record on nursery education. No Conservative authority in the country has as good a record on nursery education. Perhaps the Secretary of State should have a word with is right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir. N. Fowler) who, I understand, is chairman of the board of The Birmingham Post which stated recently that it was not surprised to see yet again the
  "usual knee-jerk reaction of the Department of Education that anything coming out of Birmingham local authority is, by definition, bad."
  Birmingham is used to being knocked by the Secretary of State, and his attacks today will impress no one.
  The Secretary of State's speech has proved that this is a pretty miserable, dreary and bureaucratic Bill with no vision for the future. It extends centralised control. The Secretary of State already has more powers than any of his predecessors. He can already dictate how many beads seven-year-olds must count in maths tests, but he now wants more powers. More than half the Bill is devoted to failed ideology. The Government have succeeded so far in persuading just 1·5 per cent. of schools to opt out, so the Bill is intended to push the other schools even further.

  643
  Another reason for our strong opposition to the Bill is that it is totally irrelevant to the real problems in education after 13 years of Conservative government. The main issues that concern parents, governors, pupils and teachers are not opt-out and grant-maintained status; they are over-sized classes, lack of nursery provision, a shortage of books, lack of resources and the Secretary of State's constant chopping and changing and interference in the classroom.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Is it not high time that the hon. Lady gave up her opposition to grant-maintained schools? She is not very good at U-turns and it took her a long time to do a U-turn over the right to buy. I think that she said that she would do that over her dead body. For the sake of all children, is it not high time that she did a U-turn over grant-maintained schools? She had the benefit of a very good education at Bolton school. Why should she deny other children that chance?
  Mrs. Taylor: I want all children, including mine, to have the best education available, and that does not mean following the grant-maintained status route.
  The Bill does nothing to address the main problems. Indeed, I believe that it will aggravate those problems as Department for Education resources are concentrated on glossy propaganda to promote grant-maintained schools. It is significant that the fastest growing area of Department for Education expenditure is self-promotion by the Secretary of State. In 1979, the Department spent a grand total of £103,000 on promotion and publicity. Last year it spent £6,942,000—a seventyfold increase. The new funding agency bureaucracy will soak up other moneys which should be spent in the classrooms.
  The Secretary of State boasted with his usual modesty that the Bill is the biggest Education Bill ever—a sort of "never mind the quality, feel the width" Bill—and a "never mind the quality, feel the width" speech went with it. The Secretary of State also had the gall to mention the Bill and his reforms in the same breath as the Education Act 1944. I must tell the Secretary of State that he is no Rab Butler. The Education Act 1944 created the foundation of our education system. It was an important breakthrough for the nation's education, not only because of what it contained, but because of the way in which it was constructed. If the Secretary of State wants any of his education legislation to last for 40 months, let alone 40 years, some important lessons must be learned about consultation and listening to people who may disagree but want to see an improvement in education.
  Mr. Spearing: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: Rescue her.
  Mr. Spearing: It is the Government who need rescuing.
  Is it not correct that, although the 1944 Act was the basis of our post-war education, it was introduced by a predominantly Conservative Administration under a Conservative Minister of Education with the wholehearted support in principle of all parties in the House as well as the Churches and all the professions in education? Did it not knit together the hearts and minds of those involved in the profession, rather than divide them, which is what this Bill will do?
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. The 1944 Act could never have been the success that it was if it had not been for the consensus which was developed so carefully at that time.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: If the 1944 Act had the support of Labour, why was the Labour party so energetically opposed to grammar schools, which were part of that legislation?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should understand education history. The previous Prime Minister abolished more grammar schools than any other Secretary of State.
  Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mr. Taylor: No, I want to make progress. I want to concentrate most of my remarks on the limited number of new ideas in the Bill rather than run through every clause.
  The opening remarks of the Secretary of State show that he has not taken on board the weight of the opposition to his proposals. Not only those who sit on this side of the House oppose the Bill; the opposition includes the concerted voice of those in local government on both sides of the political fence, and the professionals who are involved in education daily.
  The aim of the Bill is to implement the White Paper proposals which were published on 28 July when Parliament was in recess and schools had already started their summer holidays. The consultation period ended on 25 September, which was three weeks into the school term and before most parents, governors and teachers had had time to examine the proposals. This may well be the largest Bill, but it must surely have had the least consultation. However, that does not seem to have mattered a great deal to the Secretary of State, because he has obviously decided that his ideas are near perfect; hence the Bill says that it aims simply to implement the White Paper.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady will recall that the Bill will have a protracted Committee stage. It will then have a Third Reading and a Report stage, and be passed to the other place. During that period, representations can be made to Members of Parliament and members of the Standing Committee. In other words, the effective consultation period continues. Does the hon. Lady agree that, despite what she said about the consultation period that was set out, there has been ample time for trade unions and everyone else to make representations to not only my right hon. Friend but every other interested Member of Parliament?
  Mrs. Taylor: It adds a new dimension to consultation to suggest that it should take place after the Bill is published and when it is in Committee. I understand that Department for Education officials were drawing up amendments while the Bill was being printed, which shows the haste of the procedure.
  The Committee process may be made more meaningful if the Secretary of State serves on the Standing Committee which will consider the Bill. If the Secretary of State wants to tell us that he will sit on the Committee which examines the Education Bill, I shall be happy to give way so that he can make his position clear. However, he thought that he needed his beauty sleep and, therefore, would not serve on the Committee. He can clarify his position and say that he

  645
  will serve on the Committee. In this instance, his silence shows that he will not be with us. If the Education Bill is so important, why will the Secretary of State not be there?
  The timing of the White Paper and the Bill does not surprise anyone who has watched the Government retreat into talking only to those who agree with their ideas. Indeed, the Secretary of State went so far as to cancel a lunch with The Times after the newspaper's editorial on the White Paper dared to criticise him.
  Ministers appoint like-minded advisers and take their advice, which is not advice at all but simply a reinforcement of their prejudices. Not listening has become the hallmark of the Government. As has happened with the miners, the Government will pay a high price for their education mistakes if they do not learn to listen.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Has the hon. Lady listened to the thousands of parents who have voted with their feet so that their children can have the benefit of grant-maintained education? What message does she have for those parents today?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will do well to remember the vast majority of parents who want nothing to do with grant-maintained status.
  The Bill is wrong in principle because more than half of its provisions are aimed simply at pushing more schools to opt for grant-maintained status. If any good comes out of the Bill, it will be the opportunity to explore the fallacies of the opt-out proposals.
  In 1988, my colleagues predicted what would happen as a result of the education Bill of that year. At that time they were speculating about the position. However, we now have the facts that bear out what my hon. Friends predicted.
  Let me remind the House why so much of the Bill is considered necessary by Ministers. There are more than 25,000 schools in England and Wales. The Secretary of State said earlier that of those, 340 have opted for grant-maintained status and 150 are in the pipeline. That is hardly a success for the Government. So we have this Bill to try to push more schools down the grant-maintained road. The Government have tried hard already. We have had the bribes and the glossy image. I hear that heads of grant-maintained schools have been paid to preach to other schools about the virtues of grant-maintained status.
  Occasionally, reality breaks through. An example is the letter that the Minister sent to governors of grant-maintained schools which says:
  "Funding across the board will be restrained".
  As much of the pressure on schools to become grant maintained has come from the promise of extra funding, perhaps it is not surprising that we are having this debate before the public expenditure announcement on Thursday. The Secretary of State does not seem to have put up much of a fight for any education sector. However, it is probably just as well for the Government that this debate is taking place after last Wednesday, given the Secretary of State's treatment of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The Minister might not have persuaded some hon. Members into his Lobby last Wednesday, if this debate had already happened. [Interruption.] The Minister does not seem to understand that there are some northern Members in the House.
  The Government's confusion is not confined to that. The Government have always been confused about the
  646
  expected size of the grant-maintained sector. The former Prime Minister said that she expected half of schools to become grant-maintained by the last election in 1992. The former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who is not here now, expected opt-out to take off in what he called a few bad Labour councils. The figures for opt-out show that the vast majority of opt outs have taken place in Conservative local education authorities. So if opt-out is a sign of dissatisfaction with the local education authority, there is clearly far more dissatisfaction with Conservative local education authorities than with Labour ones. Tory Kent and Tory Essex have more opt-outs between them than all Labour authorities put together.
  The Secretary of State has now declared his target.
  Dr. Robert Spink: As an Essex Member, I wish to comment on that. The hon. Lady is wrong. The fact that so many schools are opting out shows how good the local education authorities have been to those schools. They have taken them to a level of maturity, competence and self-reliance whereby they can stand on their own two feet and make decisions for themselves—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. They are supposed to be questions, not speeches.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to explain that point. I suggest that he has a word with the right hon. Member for Mole Valley, because I was quoting him earlier when I spoke about bad authorities.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: In attacking grant-maintained schools, the hon. Lady seems to be arguing the case for local authorities, especially Labour-controlled local authorities, and their so-called "excellence at providing good education". Will she also explain why it appears that the 10 authorities with the worst GCSE examination results are all Labour-controlled? Will she also explain why, with one exception, those authorities are all in the top 10 for spending on pupils? Does not that show that Labour local authorities know nothing about educational standards?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has just proved why league tables and statistical results are of such little value. The Department for Education has sometimes acknowledged that. The hon. Gentleman has been active in trying to promote grant-maintained status. As there are still some 24,500 schools to go, Tory Members will be kept very active on that in future.
  Because the opt-out drive has failed so far, the Government are introducing proposals to make opting out easier: no second resolutions for governors; set limits on the spending of those opposing opting out; and clauses 72 and 73, which seem to be a licence to bribe for the Secretary of State. We shall oppose all those proposals, because we do not want schools to make decisions without the proposals having been discussed in detail. We are not afraid of discussing the facts.
  In Committee, we shall look carefully at some of the activities of grant-maintained schools and we shall want to know whether Ministers share the views that some of grant-maintained schools have of themselves. For example, does the Secretary of State believe that grant-maintained schools should be sold as private education without the fees? Is that the image that he wants

  647
  for grant-maintained schools? I am happy to give way to him if he will tell the House whether he thinks that that is an appropriate description of what grant-maintained schools provide.
  Mr. Patten indicated dissent
  Mrs. Taylor: The Secretary of State shakes his head. Is that because he disagrees or because he does not wish to intervene?
  Mr. Patten: Both.
  Mrs. Taylor: I give way to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins).
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Would the hon. Lady care to defend the use of charge payers' money for blatant political propaganda against grant-maintained schools? How can she defend that?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman would do well to find some hard evidence before he says such things. He should look carefully at the budget of the grant-maintained trust and of the Department of Education in promoting grant-maintained status.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No.
  Why are there so many clauses about the liquidation of grant-maintained schools? Is it a recognition of the logical outcome of trusting the Government? Can we expect those schools to run into difficulties?
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No, not again.
  Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady challenged me to produce evidence. Is it in order, when I seek to produce that evidence, for her to refuse to allow me to do so?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, it is in order to do so.
  Mrs. Taylor: The Bill's emphasis on grant-maintained status is simply an attempt to save a failed policy. Despite bribes and the escape route for schools that have opted out to avoid closure, less than 2 per cent. of schools have fallen for the Government's trap. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier, last Friday we heard the welcome result of the Prime Minister's old school, Rutlish, voting against opt out.
  The Secretary of State has been giving the impression that grant-maintained schools will get preferential treatment on funding, but he does so without admitting that he will be discriminating against the vast majority of schools. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will answer the simple question: will there be a level playing field for funding or, all other things being equal and over and above any administrative expenses, will a grant-maintained school get preferential treatment? Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) was right to say that a grant-maintained school was likely to be successful? I see
  648
  the Secretary of State telling his junior Minister that he can deal with that when he winds up. The House deserves an answer to that fundamental question now.
  Mr. Patten: I cannot resist the temptation. Grant-maintained schools will continue to get their fair share of resources, which recognise their additional responsibilities, their independence and freedom. That was there in the past and it will be there in the future. The hon. Lady should draw my remarks to the attention of those of her colleagues who are campaigning around the country on false information to the contrary.
  Mrs. Taylor: If that is an answer, we shall wait a long time for clarification. Perhaps the junior Minister will be more forthcoming when he winds up the debate this evening.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As the hon. Lady comes from my part of the world and has a similar accent to mine, she will be well aware that the Lancashire education authority starved the grammar schools in Lancashire so that their facilities were way behind when they became grant-maintained. Schools in Lancashire will benefit enormously from the fact that, from now on, the Lancashire education authority's funds, which have been massively misdirected, will now go into those schools.
  Mrs. Taylor: That does not appear to be what parents in Lancashire think. Not for the first time, I disagree with the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: Will my hon. Friend accept from me that everything that has just been said by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is untrue?
  Mrs. Taylor: Yes.
  Much of the discussion about grant-maintained status has been presented as schools escaping from local authority control—that is what, in essence, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was suggesting. The reality is that the grant-maintained schools will be opting into a new, powerful, centralised control system. The creation of the funding agency will not only be expensive, bureaucratic and a waste of scarce resources, but will give unprecedented powers of control to the Secretary of State. The Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils says that the Bill has significant constitutional implications.
  At times, the Bill is honest about the Secretary of State's intentions. Clause 245 states that there will no longer be any need for a local education authority. I had thought that subsidiarity was in favour with the Government at present, but apparently not with the Secretary of State. He will be appointing funding authorities that are accountable to no one but the Secretary of State. As the ACC said, that must be a loss of democractic accountability.
  We must ask ourselves who those in the funding authorities will be. Will they be as representative as all the other quangos from the Department of Education—the great and good of the Centre for Policy Studies? I do not think that the Government's record on the independence of their organisations can lead us to have much hope in the funding agency.
  During the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988, the Opposition raised a number of constitutional issues about the result of increasing power being placed in the

  649
  hand of the Secretary of State. They were added to a general warning that once the process of gathering power together starts, it will inevitably continue as it becomes a form of addiction for Conservative Cabinet Ministers.
  There have been some significant examples in recent years of Secretaries of State becoming hooked to the addiction of power, and the present Secretary of State has taken up the addiction. He adds an extra governor to one school, supposedly as a one-off, but then he carries on and further extends his powers. He allows a school that was part of the reorganisation programme for removing surplus places to opt out. Despite all the fine words about being tough on surplus places, schools have been allowed to opt out. There has been even more interference in the national curriculum, almost daily, by the present Secretary of State.
  At the right hon. Gentleman's appearance at the Select Committee, he acknowledged that he would receive 44 new powers as a result of the Education Bill. Given the precedents, I think that we can expect the number to rise during the Bill's passage. Why will that happen? It is because the Bill is a further reckless attack on local government. It builds on past attacks by creating a new experimental system of central control to run grant-maintained schools alongside existing local authorities.
  The Secretary of State will create the new Schools Funding Agency which, according to the Bill:
  "shall comply with any directions contained in an order made by the Secretary of State."
  If there is a new, centrally appointed funding agency with powers that exist in parallel with those of local authorities, there is bound to be conflict between the new quango and the LEAs.
  That conflict will be created simply because the Secretary of State is giving himself new powers. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that such a conflict will exist. How does he deal with it? By giving himself even more powers. The Bill states:
  "any dispute as to whether any functions are exercisable by a funding authority or a local education authority shall be determined by the Secretary of State."
  It is not surprising that even Conservative local education authorities feel threatened, and believe that the new system is being rigged from the start.
  The Conservative Education Association—not an organisation which I would normally consider quoting—has made a hefty and significant response to the Government's proposals. On the section on funding councils and the increase in the Secretary of State's powers, the association states that it is
  "seriously disturbed at a massive and dangerous increase in powers given to central government"
  and accused the Secretary of State of
  "nationalising our schools".
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I hope that the hon. Lady will accept from me that the Conservative Education Association, while containing the word "Conservative" in its overall title, is not an official Conservative party organisation. We in the Conservative, party have no pre-emptive right to the word "Conservative". I hope that the hon. Lady understands that the comments attributed to it are in no way associated with the Conservative party.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for making that clear. I have been checking, and understand that the author of the submission to the Secretary of State was one of those who travelled with the Prime Minister on
  650
  the campaign bus during the election, so perhaps some of the comments are significant. It might be worth quoting another of the comments of the Conservative Education Association. It states:
  "We have been disturbed by what we see as the growth over the past year or so of too ideological an approach to education policy making. We believe that there is too much ideology and not enough practical common sense."
  Occasionally the Secretary of State would do well to listen to those people—even in the Conservative party—who disagree with him.
  The centralisation of power does not stop with a new Schools Funding Agency. The Secretary of State is taking a number of direct powers over grant-maintained schools. They are his favoured few, for which he is supposed to believe in the right of self-determination, but he has taken powers so that he
  "may modify the instrument of government of any grant-maintained school. He may replace any or all of the first governors of any grant-maintained school."
  The Secretary of State controls all the resources of grant-maintained schools through the funding agency—a control which he has already used directly this year by warning those schools that they should not apply for capital grants to spend on libraries, sports halls or sixth-form blocks. He controls not only the money, but every instrument of government. He can replace any governor whenever he chooses. If that is independence from the Government, I am not sure what the Secretary of State would mean by central control.
  The Secretary of State repeated today that he intends to be tough on surplus places. He even claimed to have adopted some of our proposals. I wish that he had, because we believe that every authority should have plans to deal with that problem, and that there should always he a public inquiry. The Secretary of State does not establish a duty for all local authorities to deal with surplus places. Not surprisingly, the Bill simply gives him more power to pick and choose when the issue is tackled. There will be a public inquiry only if the Secretary of State uses his increased powers to bring in his own proposals.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that opt-outs are bad news at any time but that at a time of economic recession and a public spending squeeze more of them would be especially worrying? The example of universities relying on central Government funding does not augur well for secondary and primary education. Further centralisation of education at a time of recession will surely be bad news for parents and children.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some people in the grant-maintained sector are beginning to be alarmed about exactly how much funding will be available. As I said earlier, there may be even more bad news in store for them on Thursday.
  Does the Minister really think that his Department is capable of dealing with all the decisions that he wants to take on? Can it, for instance, deal with surplus places—of which the Secretary of State has been making much? He demonstrated that he lacks the knowledge to exercise these powers in his recent letter to all LEAs, in which he listed schools that do not exist, schools that had already been closed and, for one authority, he listed grant-maintained schools, which were well beyond the authority's power to deal with.
  Mr. Patten: That phantom list of schools was produced by the local education authorities themselves and sent to us. Does the hon. Lady agree that that shows the need for us and the funding agency to look more robustly at the evidence from local authorities? It seems that they do not even know which schools in their areas do not exist and have not existed for some years. To put it mildly, they should start dealing with their data collection systems.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the Secretary of State sets such store by the information that comes from local authorities. I wish that the Department would put that into practice. The case of Sheffield is instructive. That city has written on more than one occasion to the Department correcting the Department's figures. Sheffield wrote in January correcting the figures, yet in September the Secretary of State and the Department were still using out-of-date, misleading figures. Following one of the right hon. Gentleman's sets of figures, we learn that Sheffield should close seven or eight secondary schools; following the other, Sheffield apparently needs to build three more secondary schools. So much for the Secretary of State's ability to take over all decision making in education.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I hesitate to prolong the agony, and I salute the hon. Lady's capacity to pack a three-minute speech into three quarters of an hour, but she has given us everyone's view but her own. I should love to know what she thinks about grant-maintained schools. Is she saying that she is not ready to listen to the parents who have voted on this matter? Does she intend to rescind grant-maintained schools? Perhaps she will give us her own views and stop quoting so many other people's.
  Mrs. Taylor: There have been two ballots in my constituency since the election. I have listened to a great number of pupils and parents talking about the issue and I know the schools involved very well. The decision to opt out was overwhelmingly rejected because the parents bothered to look at the information and the facts—and I share their concern.
  Earlier, the Secretary of State was not willing to be drawn on the extra administrative burden of dealing with surplus places, but he has one clear responsibility in this respect. Many LEAs are worried that the Secretary of State wants them to publish proposals to reorganise schools so that some of their schools will feel under threat and, when under threat, may choose to opt out. Of the schools that have opted out already, no fewer than 63 have done so because they were threatened with closure under a reorganisation.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested in tackling surplus places, will he say here and now that he will refuse any application for grant-maintained status from a school seeking to opt out to avoid closure?
  Mr. Patten: I have said on a number of occasions, including occasions in the House, probably before the hon. Lady took up her present responsibilities for education, that I will not allow grant-maintained status to be used as a bolthole for failing schools or to be applied for by failing independent schools. Grant-maintained schools and local education authority schools must operate on equal terms. We do not want failing schools of any sort: if schools are failing, they should be shut.
  Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question, just as he has consistently failed to answer questions throughout this debate. I am sure that the Minister who winds up will want to pursue the matter this evening, as will we in Committee.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: The Secretary of State has just said that we do not want any failing schools—we would all agree about that—but he went on to say that if they are failing they should be shut. What, then, was the purpose of the education associations, which one assumes existed to help failing schools? I disagreed with that method of helping failing schools, but now the right hon. Gentleman says that they should all be shut.
  Mrs. Taylor: That is a good point, but my hon. Friend will understand that under pressure the Secretary of State will say almost anything.
  Then we have the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for specialisation. We certainly think that that is a code word for selection. I recognise that there is a lobby in the Conservative party—I suspect that we have already heard from it today—that wants to bring back the grammar schools. We may hear more of that later today—indeed, some Conservative Members seem to be indicating that we will. We never hear from the same lobby about the other side of the case6bringing back the secondary moderns —an inconsistency which I am sure is a mere oversight. I wish that those promoting selection would do so openly rather than hiding behind words such as specialisation. Then parents could know where they stood.
  Selection is certainly not what I want for my children; nor do I want them to specialise too early. I want educational doors to be kept open for each child as long as possible, not a system of education that closes doors in children's faces.
  There should be some scope for cross-party agreement on the part of the Bill that deals with special needs. I served on the Committee that examined the education Bill implementing the Warnock report. We recommended that, as far as possible, children with special education needs should be integrated into mainstream education provision. That principle received all-party support. As we predicted, the problem has been that resources have not matched the requirements of that policy. That has a parallel with community care. Integration is right in principle, but it cannot be delivered if it is treated as a cheap option. The integration of children with special needs will not work unless it is done properly, and that requires extra resources.
  The improvements in the Bill, while welcome, are not a complete answer. We welcome the time limits on statementing, although we hope to clarify some issues in Committee. We accept the need for the new tribunal system which acknowledges the concerns of parents. However, I am afraid that we share some of the worries such as those expressed by the Spastics Society that the new tribunal should not be just another panel of experts who can intimidate the parents of children with special needs.
  We also wish to look at the case for a proper attempt to ascertain the wishes of the child in line with the Children Act 1989. As the Secretary of State said, we are all well aware of the different statementing records up and down

  653
  the country. Significantly different proportions of children are being statemented, and the delay in some areas is too great. We hope that the Bill can help improve matters.
  The Minister must be aware of the resource implications. We cannot offer a new deal to special needs children without more resources. I hope that the Minister is aware that the proportion of children with special needs who require statementing is small, and that the majority of special needs are met in other ways. It was not clear from the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) whether he was aware of that. There is concern that although the Bill may somewhat improve the provisions for those who require statementing, it may do so at the expense of those who have a significant but lesser degree of special need.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady raises an important matter and I am conscious of the fact that I did not answer it properly when her hon. Friend intervened. Grant-maintained schools are not allowed to discriminate among applicants on grounds of ability unless they are selective schools. In addition, they cannot change their admission arrangements without coming to me as Secretary of State. That means that there is a clear guarantee that unless such schools are selective in some way there is no way in which children with special education needs will not be received into them. The matter can be further discussed in Committee.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that the parents of children with special needs would want to rely on that guarantee. The Secretary of State has missed the point. If local education authorities have to spend more time and resources on children who require statementing, where will the extra resources come from? Is there not a real danger that they will come from the special needs pool which will thereby be depleted, to the disadvantage of children with special needs that are not such as to require statementing?
  In his intervention, the Secretary of State spoke about grant-maintained schools. I was not dealing with those, but I share the concern of groups such as Mencap which are worried about the proposed division of responsibility between the funding agency and the local authority. As Mencap says, how can a system operate coherently and efficiently if one body retains responsibility for children with special needs while another is responsible for the schools which provide the education? Mencap and others are increasingly worried that if the funding of schools becomes more dependent on league tables that are supposed to demonstrate their success, children with special needs, and especially those with behavioural problems, may prove even more difficult to place in future. Those are some of the issues that we shall explore in great detail in Committee.
  I said earlier that the Bill was wrong because it concentrates on the wrong issues and ignores the real problems in education. We should be building on what is good and sound, such as the GCSE, and not undermining the good, as the Secretary of State did in August and September.
  Mr. James Clappison rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: No, I shall not give way. It is too late.
  The Secretary of State's reaction to this year's GCSE results was typical of what is wrong with his approach to education. His knee-jerk criticism of the examination
  654
  results was splashed all over the papers regardless of its impact on youngsters who had worked hard for their success. Tory right-wingers do not like the GCSE because of its course work and because they find it difficult to accept that half of our children can obtain the top grades. The Minister had to respond to his right wing and criticise the examination. His time and the time of the House would be better spent on other issues, such as trying to reform post-16 qualifications.
  The Bill should be judged on its contribution to improving education. Does it properly address the long-standing education problems faced by our children? It does not. Despite the Secretary of State's assertion that he wants to open the White Paper's door of opportunity to all children, he is returning to a divisive selective system that will open doors only to some. We have been down the road of selection, of specialised education. It led directly to second-class education for the majority of our children. It encouraged massive and widespread under-achievement and underpinned our low rating in international education comparisons. It gave the favoured few, those who were supposed to be succeeding, a narrow and limited view of what education opportunity was about.
  The Bill does nothing to ensure that every child in Britain will be offered the chances, choices and resources to raise educational achievements to the highest possible level. It gives the green light to those who wish to select and reject and will deny many children the chance to learn. It sells the majority of our children short and closes doors rather than opens them.
  Successive Conservative Governments have destroyed all hope of consensus in education, although many Conservative councillors share many of our values. There is a fundamental difference in approach between the Opposition and the Minister. We believe that the doors to education should be opened as wide as possible and kept open for as long as possible. The Government seem intent on creating a series of hurdles to discourage young people.
  The Bill is dangerously irrelevant to the needs of education. It has nothing to say about how to raise standards and levels of achievement for all our children. Every country in Europe knows that pre-school education with trained teachers provides the basis for higher achievement. Where does the Bill deal with early-years education? Every country in Europe knows that coherent post-16 education which ensures the highest quality of education, leading to real achievement—not the low-level courses designed to reduce unemployment that we have had from this Government—is the key to an efficient economy and real achievement. Where is the post-16 education in the Bill?
  Where is there any mention of the need to gain the co-operation of teachers using their professional skills in the enterprise of raising achievement levels? The Secretary of State is failing our children. The White Paper spoke of "developing moral values" and of teaching children to be involved in their communities. How can that happen if schools and pupils are encouraged to opt out of their communities?
  The Bill will not only encourage a divided set of schools but will create an amoral framework in which community, parents and children will be encouraged to despise and denigrate each other. The Bill will not help to create the kind of education system that our country wants and needs as we move into the 21st century. We shall oppose it on every occasion.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison (Selby): The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), to borrow an analogy from the classroom, has proved herself a disappointing examination candidate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set her a number of examination questions on grant-maintained schools. He did not expect every question to be answered, but most examination papers say, "Attempt to answer one question."
  The hon. Lady did not attempt to answer even one and then, perversity on perversity, she set some examination questions for my right hon. Friend—a curious inversion of the procedure that candidates in examinations are supposed to follow. When she did so, he promptly answered them all. The hon. Lady has given a disappointing performance in her answers about Labour party policy on grant-maintained schools.
  Let me warn the hon. Lady about one thing. She and the Labour party must tread warily. They are trying to minimise the impact that grant-maintained status is having by marginalising the 300 or 400 schools that have already gone through with grant-maintained status. They claim that that is only a tiny statistic in relation to the great mass of schools. She should recall early Labour party attitudes towards the sale of council houses—a good analogy, as that was the enfranchisement of tenants, just as this is the enfranchisement of parents.
  To begin with, the sale of council houses was a cloud no bigger than a man's hand—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know this familiar biblical metaphor. Now, it fills the firmament of political life. I believe that, while grant-maintained status may be a cloud no bigger than a man's hand now, it will grow similarly to fill the whole education firmament. The hon. Lady and her party should pay careful attention to the coming reality.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I should like to underline what my right hon. Friend says. The Labour party would do well to pay attention to this revolution in education. Is the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) aware that, in my constituency, every high school or secondary school has opted out, apart from one that was not allowed to do so last year but will do so this year? That represents parents who have money, parents who have only a little, and parents who have none. Old and young, rich and poor alike see grant-maintained status as an opportunity for their children and grandchildren, and the Labour party does not understand that.
  Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend underlines my point. Grant-maintained status is starting slowly, but it will gather momentum and will become one of the great realities in the political firmament.
  I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not only for his general presentation of this important Bill but for his special reference to religious education, in which he has taken a great personal interest, reflecting his own commitment, and about which he had a number of important things to say. Better still, there are important religious education features in the Bill.
  I shall briefly say a few words about this rather rarefied and specialised subject. The Education Reform Act 1988 required that all new religious education syllabuses should reflect mainly Christian religous traditions. However, as my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out, this requirement has been applied only by the one third of all local
  656
  education authorities that have drawn up or are in the process of drawing up new syllabuses. That is a poor performance.
  Therefore, in clause 224, my right hon. Friend proposes to close a legal loophole by requiring all local education authorities to bring their syllabuses into line with the Education Reform Act 1988, if they have not already done so. This provision is greatly to be welcomed and is likely to receive that welcome in all parts of the House.
  Clauses 10 and 11 give governing bodies of grant-maintained schools the right to be represented on local committees that prepare and monitor agreed syllabuses on religious education. This is also most welcome and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for this. My only concern is that these arrangements do not come into play until 75 per cent. of either primary or secondary pupils are educated in grant-maintained schools within the area of the local education authority. This trigger point should more appropriately be set at 50 per cent. and I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine the matter if an amendment along those lines is tabled in Committee.
  Grant-maintained schools will wish to play a part, working with others, in preparing local religious education schemes, but it has to be recognised that in some cases, agreed syllabuses are of poor quality, making few intellectual demands on children. For this reason, the Government are right, in clause 126, to give the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools the right to choose the agreed syllabus of another authority. That is a reflection of how poor some of the existing syllabuses are.
  I welcome the support the Bill gives to Church schools and in particular I welcome—I believe that I shall not be the only one to do so—the possibility of the creation of new denominational and non-denominational Christian schools.
  My right hon. Friend will have received some evidence from the Church of England Board of Education. This is an immensely influential and beneficial body in the firmament of the Church of England, and the Church of England has a substantial stake, as my right hon. Friend knows, in education. About 20 per cent. of all schools are based on a Church of England foundation, and that is a high proportion.
  However, the board of education has submitted some rather controversial proposals to my right hon. Friend. Without wearing my modest official hat as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, and speaking as an ordinary Back Bencher, I warn my right hon. Friend that I disagree with a couple of the ideas that the board has put forward. One is a change in the provisions affecting school worship. It proposes that the requirement for all grant-maintained schools to hold a daily act of worship should be dropped and replaced with the requirement for an occasional act of worship. As part of rendering the requirement occasional, the board proposes that children should be able to visit acts of worship according to non-Christian faiths. Most people accept that schools should teach about non-Christian faiths, provided that the integrity and coherence of each faith are respected and that the legal requirements of the 1988 Act that bear on a mainly Christian content are fulfilled.
  There is a great difference, however, between children studying a world religion in a classroom and participating in acts of worship of another world religion. The Church of England's Board of Education of the General Synod proposes that schools should be free to arrange visits to

  657
  acts of worship taking place within "faith communities", as it puts it. Many parents, however, will see little distinction between children observing acts of worship and participating in them.
  I fear that the board's proposals give insufficient: weight to the concerns of parents who have a sincere faith, of whatever religion. Its proposals may prove counterproductive in the aim of developing respect, tolerance and understanding.
  Many Muslim parents, for example, might have strong reservations about their children visiting Hindu temples. If it is not right to expect Muslim children to take part in acts of Christian worship, it cannot be right for Christian children to be expected to take part in acts of Muslim or Sikh worship. I heard that, a fortnight ago, primary school children within a northern education authority, on a school visit to a mosque, were made to pretend to be Muslims at prayer. Surely that is just as offensive to Muslims as to Christians.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will realise that real difficulties are likely to arise if we act on the board's advice in this context, although we all wish to maintain and integrate the mainly Christian emphasis of the 1988 Act with the need to learn discreetly about the reality of other world religions.
  Mr. George Walden: I ask for my right hon. Friend's views on the substance of religious education. It seems that the Government have done well in trying to ensure that the Christian tradition is used as a basis of teaching. In my experience, however, moralistic wiffle-waffle is taught about the third world, rain forests or some damned thing. Nothing is taught about the history of the Christian religion, let alone the Bible. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us his views on the substance of religious education rather than its form.
  Mr. Alison: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. It is one reason why we owe an immense debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and some of his predecessors for having joined in the general campaign to ensure that religious education syllabuses are brought properly up to date under the auspices of the 1988 Act and that "mainly Christian" means that most syllabuses have features of Christian religion that are properly taught, which means that there should be room for only one, or at the very most two, other world religion or religions.
  Syllabuses are now subject to complaints by parents, and, as a result of the innovation that is contained in the Bill, grant-maintained schools, at least, will be able to shop around for a proper religious education syllabus. That means that there will be a huge emphasis increasingly on a proper Christian content. Schools will be able to introduce religious syllabuses that are not likely to be the subject of complaint and that genuinely teach mainstream traditional Christian religion.
  I emphasise that religious education is not to be confused with religious instruction, religious indoctrination or religious nurture. The key word is "education". The complaints procedure and my right hon. Friend's innovation will, I am sure, lead to a great improvement in the content of syllabuses. We do not want thematic teaching to be aimed to impart, for example, the relevance of light in all world religions. That sort of teaching takes
  658
  us nowhere; it is thematic and hopeless. That is the sort of thing from which we are hoping to escape as a result of my right hon. Friend's innovations and changes.
  I hope very much that the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), as he articulately expressed them, will be met in what has been provided.
  I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to some representations that I have received from Christians in Education—a department of CARE, Christian Action, Research and Education. It greatly welcomes the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which requires that all schools should be inspected on the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of their pupils. Its provisions will help to implement some of the positive concerns that are set out in the White Paper about moral values in our schools.
  Spiritual, cultural and moral values, however, are given slightly less emphasis in the Bill than in the previous two important education Bills. We would welcome the possibility of an amendment that would require schools to publish information about their spiritual, moral and cultural values. Such an amendment would help parents to make appropriate choices and give inspection teams a baseline for inspection.
  Mr. Patten: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the tasks which I have laid down upon the Office of Standards in Education, the new inspectorate of schools —it will be examining and reporting on every primary and secondary school in the country over four years, and thereafter once every four years—is to report on the spiritual, moral and cultural ethos of a school? The chief inspector and his colleagues will be giving greater attention to that and setting great store by it.
  Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that I will, if he thinks that the procedure which I have outlined is inadequate, take seriously his request to consider the possibility—no more than that—of an amendment to the Bill along the lines that he has suggested?
  Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend has fulfilled the almost divine prerogative of "Before you call, I shall answer." He has made a fabulous contribution to the debate. We shall wait carefully on what he has said.
  I would welcome also—
  Mr. Pawsey: In addition to what my right hon. Friend has said about the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, does he agree that we have seen a positive example of further consultation on the Bill taking place this evening?
  Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend is an immensely flexible and receptive Secretary of State. He is well supported by allies and friends such as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who keeps a sharp eye on us when we debate education matters.
  It is to be welcomed that inspection teams will be reporting on the spiritual and moral aspects of school life. It is important that the teams include those who are equipped to report on such matters. That is especially important where schools have a particular and, in my advocacy to my right hon. Friend, clear Christian ethos.
  We must ensure that we avoid unsympathetic or even hostile inspections. Many schools will not be able to choose their own inspectors. It will be damaging if

  659
  non-Christians, or those hostile to the Christian religion, carry out an inspection of spiritual and moral aspects of school life. I am talking of those who are basically unsympathetic to the entire ethos of a school. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear these matters in mind.
  My right hon. Friend is to be welcomed for his immense grasp of education matters, representing as he does the greatest seat of learning in the known universe. He has taken a particular, committed, profound and sympathetic approach to the issues surrounding religious education, for which we are all profoundly grateful. We wish him every success with the Bill.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: As we are all aware, the Government have dictated education policy for the past 13 years, yet whenever any criticism is levelled against the system, they blame anybody but themselves: they blame the teachers, the schools or the local education authorities. Now, instead of taking the opportunity to invest in education, they intend to make our education system the most centralised, bureaucratic and nationalised system in the western world.
  We are told that the Bill will give us a double offering —choice and diversity—but in fact it contains more of the divisive reforms which have already caused upheaval in our schools and antagonised the education professions. Without any concessions to allow schools time to absorb the many and various alterations in recent times, the Bill moves the privatisation of the education system up a gear. It will extend opting out, further reduce the role of LEAs and increase specialisation and selection.
  There is a disguised and ominous theme to the Bill. I served on the Committee which considered the Education Reform Act 1988, which gave the Secretary of State immense influence over the education system. We complained at the time that he was taking on too many responsibilities. The proposals in the current Bill reinforce that influence and give him inordinate control over education matters at local level. At a Select Committee meeting last week, the right hon. Gentleman agreed that he would be taking on more than 40 new powers. The ultimate effect will be that the rights of parents and the entitlements of children will be eroded.
  Among other things, the Secretary of State will gain the power to approve changes of school character, to decide local admissions policies, to replace governors of opted out schools, to take over failing schools and to reduce surplus places. The sheer length of the Bill makes it impossible to mention every proposal during a Second Reading debate, so I shall concentrate on just a few.
  The Secretary of State will have the power to appoint a new school curriculum and assessment authority—a single body to replace and combine the functions of the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council. That new body will be firmly under the control of the Secretary of State and will not be in any sense representative. In fact, it will be similar to the NCC and SEAC, which are controlled by puppets of the Government.
  The Secretary of State's new powers to intervene in a wide range of matters will create confusion and administrative uncertainty for parents, teachers and
  660
  schools. The main confusion is about the Government's proposal to appoint a statutory body, the Funding Agency for Schools for England. Its members, again appointed by the Secretary of State, will share the duty to secure sufficient primary and secondary school places from the point where 10 per cent. of pupils are in grant-maintained schools.
  If more than 75 per cent. of pupils are in opted-out schools, the funding agency will take complete responsibility for education planning. We are told that local education authorities can apply to be relieved of that responsibility well before that point is reached. I expect that many Tory-controlled LEAs will jump at that opportunity. At the Select Committee meeting last week, the Secretary of State suggested that that was already happening and that many Tory-controlled LEAs were applying to get rid of their responsibilities for education.
  Once the Bill is enacted, LEAs will have only a range of residual functions. The potential administrative chaos and institutional conflict is obvious, especially as the funding agency will have an interest in extending grant-maintained status. The members of the agency will be appointees of the Secretary of State and are therefore highly unlikely to show any inclinations to resist Government direction. Indeed, it would be against their interests to do so.
  The Bill promises the continued existence of LEAs, but how can we believe that promise when they will have a markedly diminished role and the prospect of further delegation? The pressure to delegate even more will further weaken them and, as more schools opt out, the LEAs will lose powers to the funding agency. Eventually, they will be relieved of all their functions. Local government has been taken out of education. Democratically elected LEAs are being replaced by unaccountable quangos answerable only to the Secretary of State.
  It is once again clear that the opportunities for growth and development are to be restricted to the grant-maintained sector. The Government want all schools to opt for grant-maintained status, despite the fact that opting out has proved an embarrassing flop, as the figures that I shall give later in my speech so clearly show.
  Immediately before the general election, the then Education Secretary predicted that an avalanche of schools would opt out as soon as a Tory victory was assured. The Grant-Maintained Schools Trust claimed that 2,000 schools would quickly opt out. That has not happened. In fact, there has been a minimal response, with fewer than 400 schools opting out.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reason why so few schools have managed to opt out thus far is the LEAs' vigorous, vicious and hostile campaign against such schools?
  Mr. Steinberg: The majority of schools do not want to opt out because they are satisfied with their local education authorities. Those that have opted out are in local education authorities which have underfunded their schools, and those schools opted out only because they had no alternative but to do so. Opting out has been a complete wash-out in Durham, where there is no support for such a system. That has been profoundly embarrassing for the Government and has contributed to their desperation to make grant-maintained status easier to achieve and more attractive to individual governing bodies. Head teachers and school governors have been

  661
  bombarded with propaganda. We have heard about expenditure on campaigns by LEAs, but it cannot compare with the amount of taxpayers' money spent by the Government on bombarding head teachers and governors with propaganda.
  To ease the route to opting out, the Government intend to abolish the second governors' resolution before a parental vote, thereby reducing the amount of time for resistance. They intend to limit LEAs' spending on information about opt-out ballots and to allow voluntary bodies to impose the establishment of new grant-maintained schools. The Government are prepared to spend large amounts of public money on campaigns in favour of grant-maintained status, but they intend to wipe out any attempts by LEAs to oppose them, by placing a restriction on LEA expenditure. The Secretary of State has confirmed that today.
  The proposals are not so much about offering the choice to opt out as about the far more menacing implication of enforced opting out. There is a very real possibility that schools will be forced to opt out against the will of their governing bodies. Opting out is aimed at the break-up of the cohesive pattern of local education. It encourages moves towards selection, with a school able to choose its pupils, and it leads to neglect of the less able or disadvantaged child. Until now, financial bribes have been offered to opting-out schools at the expense of other children in the community. It is no wonder that the largest group of opted-out schools are those under low-spending Tory authorities. It is in Labour areas that parents have the greatest confidence in their locally accountable education service.
  Schools where ballots are pending include Blackfriars, Devon Foundation and King Edmund schools in Conservative-controlled Essex, and the George Warr school in Conservative-controlled Wiltshire. The list goes on and on. They are all schools in Conservative-controlled areas wanting to break free of useless local education authorities.
  Where schools are labelled as failing, LEAs will give way to local education associations—more ominously known as hit squads—which will move in to take control. Those hit squads are already being labelled as a dad's army, because they will consist of retired head teachers and former managers of industry. Again, the Secretary of State will have the power to appoint association members, who will have the authority to take over the management of a school, or even a group of schools, from the governing bodies and the LEA. Associations will have the power and the funding of a grant-maintained governing body.
  Education associations pose significant threats. No criteria are given to define a failing school. It will be left to unreliable, privatised inspectors to decide which schools are at risk. Only schools in LEA areas will have the pleasure of education associations. That presumably means that grant-maintained schools will never fail—or if they do, it will not matter.
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman appears apprehensive—as, in my experience, are some Conservative voters—about pitting one school against another and thus introducing friction. It is important that the public understand that the vision of a smooth-running machine is false. That is a totalitarian vision. Friction, as T. S. Eliot pointed out, is a necessary component of any successful
  662
  culture. Controlled friction between schools, by generating more competition, will be fruitful and beneficial. Friction is inevitable if one has freedom.
  Mr. Steinberg: The only friction that I know is that generated by a Tory Government who have been destroying education for the past 13 years. The Bill is the last nail in the coffin.
  An education association will have the power to propose changes in the character of a school under its management and, if necessary, to suggest closure. It will have the power to hire and fire staff in order to achieve its goals, and it will manage a school until the Secretary of State is satisfied that it has achieved a satisfactory performance.
  Following the involvement of the education association, the school would be forced to become a grant-maintained school without any ballot of parents. Where is the choice that we hear so much about? The truth is that education associations are being introduced as a way of ensuring that inner-city schools opt out when they would not otherwise do so.
  In some areas, three separate authorities will operate —the local education authority, the funding agency, and the education association. What is that but a recipe for absolute chaos? The Government are determined that the number of surplus places should be reduced to make financial savings. The Secretary of State has given himself ultimate control in the power to force a local authority to reduce the number of its school places.
  It is to be expected that LEA-controlled rather than grant-maintained schools will be targeted. The funding agency is almost certain to favour grant-maintained schools, and the new policy of rationalisation will result in "full" grant-maintained schools and the closure of LEA schools. Parents' choice will be limited when they find that a school of their choosing has been closed so that a grant-maintained school can flourish. That is total hypocrisy. LEAs attempting to close schools in an overall provision plan have found that the Government allowed threatened schools to opt out—and in some areas produced even more places by opening a city technology college.
  The Bill contains a substantial section on specialisation, which is distinct from selection. Specialisation is presented as schools "playing to their strengths" and is to be encouraged by the option of adding sponsor governors with a background in commerce or industry. Specialisation is, therefore, likely to be associated with increased funding inequality. Also, a school wanting to develop its specialism will be allowed, if necessary, to alter its structure.
  Grant-maintained schools will be given a free rein, with the possibility of becoming selective. They may apply to change their character and admission policies and will then be judged on their merits by—guess who—the Secretary of State. That will undoubtedly lead to selection re-emerging by the back door.
  Mr. Clappison rose—
  Mr. Steinberg: I have already given way, and I have much more to say.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bill's provisions will not work in counties such as Northumberland, which have a three-tier system comprising first schools, middle schools and high schools?
  Mr. Clappison rose—
  Mr. Steinberg: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I wish that he would sit down.
  If I were the Member of Parliament for my hon. Friend's constituency, I should be very worried about the local schools. They are the targets of the surplus places that the Government are talking about. Such schools are likely to be closed down. Unless they opt out, they will probably have no future. I should be a very worried man if any such schools were in my constituency.
  Selecting children for specialist schools ignores the developing and changing nature of children's abilities and needs. It assumes that the number of children having a particular aptitude at 11 years of age is definable—and that the same children and number will have identical aptitudes and needs later in their education. Educationists know that that is not the case, but the Government, as usual, ignore reality and claim to know best.
  In Durham, the local authority co-ordinates local planning and control in deciding what is best for the school, parents and students. We face the prospect of individual units specialising in music, science or languages vying for business. A number of schools will thrive in that environment and will be able to develop into selective centres with a high reputation for quality in their area of expertise. That will be achieved by selecting the brightest children. Anyone can do that. There will always be the survival of the fittest, but a proper national education system cannot develop in a free market atmosphere.
  The Government continue to reject equitable resourcing to nationally agreed minimum levels; yet with a national funding council, national curriculum, and national testing, the need for nationally agreed levels of resourcing is inescapable. The Prime Minister's insistence that pupils everywhere should have the same opportunities is solely a reference to the national curriculum. There is no such insistence in relation to funding.
  The Government continue to promote the myth of parental choice. They do not face the fact that, ultimately, parents will find their children being turned away from schools which are full, whether they are specialised or selective. The policies proposed by the Government will lead not to parents choosing schools, but to schools choosing pupils. As surplus places are removed, choice becomes more limited, because more schools are full. Parents are able to express a preference from a variety of options, but do not have the right to a choice of school. It is not explained what will happen to pupils when their parents are unable to secure their first choice.
  Although the Bill goes some way towards improving provision for special needs, I do not think that it goes far enough. Those with special needs are still under threat, and the introduction of the funding agency will bring confusion. The LEA and the funding agency will, from the 10 per cent. entry point, share a duty to secure sufficient places in the area for pupils with statements; the LEA will continue to be responsible for pupils with statements, whereas the funding agency may become responsible for pupils with special educational needs without statements.
  664
  That is totally confusing, and I fear that it will endanger the links that have been carefully made between mainstream, special schools, and their support services.
  The future of the integration of disabled and handicapped children in mainstream schools will be at risk unless a duty is placed on grant-maintained schools to admit any disabled or handicapped child, rather than the duty being placed only on the grant-maintained schools specified in the statement. The quality of education provided for such children will be seriously endangered unless we legislate for more than what I see as a quota system.
  The proposals could also result in LEA schools having to provide for all special educational needs, with grant-maintained schools becoming even more elitist than already planned. The 1981 and 1988 Acts were never resourced adequately, and there is already a huge commitment of resources for LEA schools. We do not want or need elitist grammar schools; we need schools which provide for a cross-section of the school population, giving all children the best possible quality of education. Such schools must be adequately resourced.
  While our European neighbours develop an education policy according to national interest, out Government pursue a policy of dichotomy, division and disregard. The Bill is irrelevant to the real needs of education. Not even passing lip service is paid to increased investment and better facilities. Parents care whether a school has sufficient books and equipment, enough teachers and adequate buildings; the Government's only investment, however, is in the establishment of a mechanism to dismantle local control.
  My principal demand is for minimum standards of resourcing for education, with particular regard to staffing levels linked to class sizes and curricular needs, to nursery provision, to books and equipment and to in-service training for teachers. It is clear that the education service is drastically underfunded. A significant and immediate injection of funds is essential; in turn, a high-quality education service will rely on well-motivated, properly qualified and trained teachers, with the time and resources to fulfil their professional role.
  Quality teaching goes hand in hand with an increase in the recruitment of teachers, and with their retention in the profession. The Bill makes very few references to teachers, and gives no hope for the opening of a serious dialogue with the profession the search for an improvement in schools. It says nothing about the central role that the teaching profession must play in any scheme to improve the quality of education. That may not come as a surprise, but it represents a fundamental flaw in the Bill.
  The Bill will reduce the influence of the LEA as an employer by increasing grant-maintained status and delegation under local management of schools. Teachers will thus become more vulnerable. The removal of surplus places will lead to the displacement of teachers; unless the Bill is changed drastically, the redeployment of teachers —already extremely limited—will become a virtual impossibility. The LEAs' ability to redeploy teachers will be seriously diminished. Grant-maintained schools would be unlikely to accept redeployees, and the funding authority is not likely to take responsibility for managing a redeployment programme and encouraging grant-maintained schools to employ redeployees. Schools which

  665
  remain under LEA control will face surplus place reductions themselves, and are unlikely to be in a position to accept redeployees.
  A quality public education service is the foundation of a civilised and economically successful society. The success or failure of the public education service rests essentially on both the level of resourcing and the efforts and contribution of the teaching profession. Without the necessary investment in education—including its teachers' salaries and conditions of service—its full potential cannot and will not be achieved, and the nation's children and the nation as a whole will suffer from all the adverse consequences.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: If the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) thinks that grant-maintained schools are such a flop, why did he devote about 75 per cent. of his speech to attacking them? If they are a flop, why is the hon. Gentleman so worried about the future of LEAs? I suggest that he is confused.
  I found the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) particularly disappointing. It was totally negative. After 55 minutes of it—and an intervention from one of my hon. Friends—the House is still unclear about the Opposition's official policy. Are they going to repeal legislation relating to grant-maintained schools, or are they not? Are they going to take grant-maintained schools back into LEA control, or are they not? If the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) wishes to intervene, I shall willingly give way to him.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I shall have something to say tomorrow.
  Mr. Pawsey: I hope that the House heard that. The hon. Gentleman wishes to remain silent, and Conservative Members find that silence eloquent.
  I welcome the Bill, which maintains the thrust and momentum of both the 1986 and the 1988 Acts. It is the third in a trinity of Bills designed to improve the quality and standard of state education, from which the majority of our children benefit. One aim of the Bill is to develop the grant-maintained school. There is no doubt that, following our general election victory in April, grant-maintained status is here to stay and will increasingly become the norm, especially in the secondary sector.
  Speaking at the Council of Local Education Authorities in Liverpool earlier this year, my noble Friend Lady Blatch said:
  "Local education authorities can no longer be guaranteed a monopoly in providing education services."
  Those who hear in those words the death knell of the LEA may be somewhat premature, but there can be little doubt that they sound a clear warning note about its continued existence, at least in its present form. A wind of change is blowing through the state education system, and LEAs will undoubtedly feel the draught.
  The role of the LEA will unquestionably diminsh as the number of grant-maintained schools increases. It should be remembered, however, that the LEA exists not for the benefit of the well-meaning people who serve on it, but for the benefit of children and their education. If that education can be improved by a vehicle other than an LEA, we should not hesitate to adopt such a vehicle. No one system enjoys a monopoly of virtue; there is clearly merit in increasing the amount of choice and diversity, and
  666
  that applies to school administration just as much as to the schools themselves. It is likely that a residual role will remain for LEAs, but it clearly will not be as all-encompassing as it is now.
  I readily acknowledge the work of those who serve on LEAs, both elected members and officials. We live in a time of change, however, and the education system cannot be immune to that change. It does not operate in a time warp. Clearly, it must respond to the greater parental expectations that exist as a result of the 1986 and 1988 Acts.
  Local education authorities, established almost 100 years ago by Act of Parliament, are not the only vehicles that can deliver good education to the nation's children. I am convinced that there are alternatives. The grant-maintained school is one. In the past, it has always been accepted that the Government must accept responsibility for what goes on in the nation's schools, even though the Government do not administer them. When I look at our education system, I am reminded that although the Government are responsible for what goes on in the nation's schools, they do not have power over how money is spent in those schools. They may will the means, but local government, through the local education authorities, decides how those means will be spent.
  It is sometimes argued that the resources made available by central Government are inadequate, but that is not borne out by the facts. In response to a recent parliamentary question that I tabled, it emerged that the United Kingdom spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product on education than either Germany or Japan. That is underlined by the fact that the pupil-teacher ratio in this country is now 17·5:1. Only seven years ago, it was 18·5:1. There has been a steady improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio throughout the lifetime of this Government.
  The increase in resources is also borne out by teachers' pay. According to a recent answer to another parliamentary question that I tabled, the average teacher's pay on 1 April 1992 was £20,630, an increase of some 273 per cent., in cash terms, since 1979—or a real-terms increase of 46 per cent. Despite the ill-informed comments of some Opposition Members, it is clear that this Government have consistently increased funds for education since 1979.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Government's commitment to education, but is it not true that, in real terms, spending on education each year since 1979 has been less than that in other areas of Government spending? If the Government were spending the same percentage as was spent in 1979, an additional £1·5 billion would have been spent on education in the last year alone. Those are the real figures.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman takes no account of falling school rolls. That is the key here, and it was the basis of the reference made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to surplus places. It may be that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my right hon. Friend's excellent speech.
  The problem facing the Government is that they have no control over the way in which funds are spent. To take up an illustration given by my right hon. Friend when he opened the debate, when we look at Birmingham, the nation's second city, we see that in 1991–92 its standard

  667
  spending assessment for education amounted to £457 million. Spending on education in the same year amounted to £392 million, so its standard spending assessment was underspent by £65 million. That illustrates some of the problems that have to be overcome by the present system of administering education.
  The priorities of some local authorities are not always those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Most of us want more money to be spent in the classroom, yet all too frequently resources are wasted on matters that do not relate to the child in the classroom. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend is anxious to move forward with grant-maintained schools. With grant-maintained schools, the apron strings that secure schools to the local education authority are cut. We see a much closer relationship develop in the grant-maintained school between the school, its teachers and its governing body and the local community.
  Grant-maintained schools are a substantial success. Parents like them. There is little doubt that by the end of this Parliament half of all the nation's secondary schools will have applied for grant-maintained status. Grant-maintained schools use resources best. They can make decisions more quickly and in their own best interests.
  Those three specific issues have to be contrasted with what happens in the local education authority school. First, it does not enjoy the same level of resources, for some of that school's money is used to fund the local education authority. Secondly, decisions relating to that school are often taken at local education authority level, and the LEA may be some miles away from the school. Thirdly, the LEA's consideration of the needs of that school is sometimes distracted because of the conflicting interests of other schools within its area.
  It is also interesting to note that grant-maintained schools encourage a greater sense of involvement by both parents and governors. It was significant that in a recent article in The Times, Dr. Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, said:
  "The single most potent factor in academic success is parental involvement and support."
  Although some of us might challenge his view about parental involvement being the single most potent factor, it plays a substantial part. The greater involvement of both parents and governors in the running of a school, which is seen as their own school, must be good for the education of the children in that school.
  It is interesting to note that Opposition Members are beginning to come round to that point. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to a press release that was issued in June this year by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who was then the official Opposition spokesman on education. I shall quote what he said in full:
  "It must be recognised that local circumstances will vary. The community of schools is under threat of being broken up but parents and governors may feel bound to make decisions about what they think is best for their school. Labour must not appear to be placed in a hostile position of opposition to such parents."
  That may not have been a blinding flash of light on the road to Blackburn or even Dewsbury, but it certainly represents a shift of opinion by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on those areas where substantial
  668
  numbers of parents have been interested in opting out? The London borough of Wandsworth's appalling record and its total contempt for the educational values and standards of the schools that are trying to educate children in that area has led to parents very reluctantly—I speak as one parent in that position—taking the view that anything is better than to have one's children under the regime of the London borough of Wandsworth. That factor has led some people to vote for opting out. I should have thought that that would be a matter of serious concern to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. John Bowis rose—
  Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but one of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), also has great knowledge of what goes on in the London borough of Wandsworth and its neighbouring authorities. Therefore the hon. Gentleman will, I know, forgive me if I give way to my hon. Friend who will put the other point of view.
  Mr. Bowis: I suspect that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) knows no more about Greenwich than he does about Fulham, which he left not so long ago. The truth is that Wandsworth's schools only recently escaped from the Inner London education authority's regime, under which 45 per cent. of parents voted with their feet and took their children out of that borough's education system. They are now coming back. The schools are improving. Wandsworth is giving the go-ahead to those schools that wish to go grant-maintained and the results—attendance and everything else—in Wandsworth are better.
  Mr. Pawsey: I was right to give way to my hon. Friend, who has given the hon. Member for Greenwich his come-uppance.
  To return to the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who now leads for the official Opposition on education, I am reminded that when she was the shadow spokesman on the environment she was originally opposed to the sale of council houses, but that even she came round eventually to acceptance of that policy. I believe that history will repeat itself. Grant-maintained schools in the 1990s will be what the sale of council houses was in the 1980s, for the same fundamental reason: they give more power and more responsibility to the individual and reduce the role of the town hall and the bureaucrat in people's lives. I am convinced that most parents know best what is right for their children, and grant-maintained status encourages that laudable objective.
  I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not duck the problem of failing schools, especially those in inner cities. Some schools have failed their pupils, and LEAs have not always been able to rise to the challenge of the failing school and to lift to an acceptable level the quality of education at the school. Under the Bill, where a school is identified as being at risk, the Secretary of State will be empowered to appoint an education association to take over its management until it regains and maintains essential standards. That is a fallback position, which will be adopted only after the LEA has been given every opportunity to put its house or the school in order.
  The education association will be small. Its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State and it will

  669
  receive direct grant from central Government. It will have powers similar to those enjoyed by a grant-maintained school. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed this specific problem, because some inner-city schools have undoubtedly failed pupils and parents. The education association will bring new ideas and new minds to an old problem, and so often it is new ideas rather than money that are needed to answer the problem of the failing school.
  The Bill makes it easier for specialist schools to emerge, and I look forward to their development. I want more schools to develop expertise in science, music and the technology that leads to engineering knowledge.
  Hon. Members will recall that the title of the White Paper that gave birth to the Bill was "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools". There is little doubt that such a twin approach will advance the quality of education. Parents want more choice in the type and character of schools. The old idea that only one type of school can deliver education to all the nation's children is increasingly discredited. Children are not, thank God, identical. Some will always rise to the challenge of an academic environment, just as others will prefer a slower and perhaps more technical approach.
  The Bill must ensure that children get the education that is best suited to their needs. The grant-maintained school provides more flexibility and autonomy and develops a stronger commitment among staff, parents and governors, which certainly results in better use of resouces.
  It has been patronisingly argued by Opposition Members that headmasters and school governing bodies lack the initiative, intelligence, expertise and enthusiasm to run their own schools and need the crutch of the local education authority. It has been argued that those schools cannot think for themselves or develop without the wisdom or guidance of the LEA. I have news for Opposition Members: most heads and governing bodies want more freedom to decide their own future. They are only too well aware of the shortcomings of the existing LEA system and want to improve their school and the education that it offers for the benefit of their children.
  The new Funding Agency for Schools will be responsible for recurrent and capital grants and will share with LEAs the duty of securing sufficient school places until 75 per cent. of pupils in an area are educated in grant-maintained schools. At that point, the funding agency alone will discharge that responsibility. It does not establish a son of LEA or set up an LEA by another name. The funding agency will have fewer powers, and essentially its job will be to allocate funds and not to direct the form of education in an area.
  Some, principally Opposition Members, say that we are centralising education, but that allegation is not borne out by the facts. We have reduced the role of the middle man in education—the LEA. Grant-maintained schools will have enhanced autonomy and greater responsibilities and the Department of Education will be responsible for providing funding. The interface that will be created by those two halves will do much to improve the quality and standard of state education and will give real local control. There will be no third party to interpret or distort the intentions of national Government as they apply to schools.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to small primary schools, especially those in small rural areas. I am
  670
  pleased that they will be able to come together in clusters —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friends, who appreciate that point —making it easier for them to apply for grant-maintained status. Village schools with relatively few pupils do not feel able to apply for grant-maintained status. Under the Bill, that will be made much easier and more attractive. They, too, will share in the benefits that come from grant-maintained status.
  I conclude by saying that Christmas is not too far away and by recalling my right hon. Friend's well-known sense of humour. The Bill reminds me of a Christmas cake. It is substantial, full of goodies and very fulfilling. I commend it to the House.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: May I begin, even in his absence, by congratulating the Secretary of State on delivering a speech which at least he enjoyed? Unfortunately, I did not enjoy it and I suspect that many people who are truly concerned about education would not have done so. I far preferred the measured speech of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg).
  Mr. Pawsey: He appreciated that.
  Mr. Foster: I thought he might.
  The Bill is the 17th education measure that the Government have introduced in the past 13 years. One gets the impression that the Tory approach is, "We shall keep on trying and might get it right one day." I believe that the Bill fails to get it right, and I hope to explain why I so believe. I also hope to deal with one or two of the points that the Secretary of State made directly to me.
  I acknowledge that there is merit in some parts of the Bill. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred to those, and I agree with her comments about special educational needs, to which I add the subject of pupil attendance. There is some merit in the Bills's proposals on those subjects, and I hope that it will be possible to achieve all-party agreement on them in Committee.
  For many, however, the biggest problem with the Bill is its omissions. It fails to tackle the key fundamental problem that is faced by many of our schools— underfunding. There is no commitment to ensure the massively increased funding that is so desperately needed to repair our rapidly crumbling school buildings, to provide more teachers, to reduce class sizes, to provide more opportunity for under-fives and to provide better equipment and more books.
  No doubt we shall have to wait until we hear what the Chancellor says in his autumn statement on Thursday. I suspect that none of us will hear any good news about overcoming the underfunding of schools. If the Bill is enacted, governors will still face the stark problem of choosing which books or which equipment not to purchase, or of choosing which teachers they will have to sack.
  The Bill goes no way towards meeting the aims set out in the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools". I cannot see a single clause that will ensure that every child will have the best possible start in life. Indeed, I suggest that the chaos and division which

  671
  the proposals will bring will go a long way towards harming the current quality of education in schools in England and Wales.
  I am sure that if he were here, the Secretary of State would have recalled that some months ago, I urged him to ensure that there was adequate consultation on the White Paper before the publication of the Bill. I specifically asked him to ensure that the consultation period did not cover only the summer holidays when it is most difficult for those directly concerned with education to produce co-ordinated responses. I know that I was not alone in making such a request. Clearly, the requests were largely ineffective, because the Secretary of State went ahead and the consultation period largely covered the summer holidays, with just a couple of weeks tacked on to the end.
  What was proudly hailed by the Secretary of State as the largest ever piece of educational legislation has had what I understand to be almost the shortest consultation period attached to it. If what we hear is true, the shortness of that period has caught out even Department for Education officials. It is almost certain that the Bill will receive as many amendments from them as it will from Opposition Members.
  One would think that the Government would have learnt their lesson from the poll tax with all its problems. The system of law-making used to be that we thought first and then legislated. The Government seem to see it the other way round—that we legislate first and think afterwards.
  Perhaps it did not really matter that there was a short consultation period. After all, there is little evidence that the Government took much notice of the responses they received. The latest edition of Education magazine says:
  "The Bill contains virtually no surprises. Nor does it reflect in any way the weight of opinion which so roundly questioned many of Mr. John Patten's original policy plans."
  It is as if the Secretary of State and his Department are a black hole into which any vaguely dissenting voice disappears, never to be heard again and certainly never likely to influence the thinking of the Secretary of State.
  It was, therefore, perhaps somewhat foolish of the Secondary Heads Association at its recent conference to complain, as many others have done, about the isolationist stance of the Secretary of State. It was perhaps even more foolish of the new president of the association to comment:
  "Since the election the Secretary of State has refused to consult the very people, heads and deputies, who will be required to make his new proposals work."
  It probably was foolish because the evidence suggests that, even when the Secretary of State consults, he takes only limited notice.
  The Secretary of State does not even take much notice of people who are normally his supporters. The Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils came across the reluctance of the Secretary of State to consult and then to listen. The association writes of its concerns that they were
  "explained to the Secretary of State at a meeting with him … obviously, time did not permit their reflection in the published Bill."
  That is very charitable of the ACC. I suspect that the real reason was that the Secretary of State simply did not agree with the points made by the ACC.
  Mr. Bowis: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is about to enlighten the House on the process and procedures of consultation which led him in May to be in favour of every school being grant-maintained, but in July to believe that no school should be grant-maintained.
  Mr. Foster: I have already said that I will turn to the points raised by the Secretary of State in a few minutes. I will pick up that point if the hon. Gentleman will wait a few moments.
  As we understand it, the Secretary of State has received hundreds of responses to the White Paper. I and many other hon. Members have received copies of many of those responses, which make interesting reading. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has referred to one response from the Conservative Education Association. It is so important that it is worth repeating one small extract from the document. The association says:
  "The Government is nationalising the schools of England and Wales … it represents a massive and dangerous increase in the power given to central government."
  We have already heard from Conservative Members that there is now an attempt to disown that association and its comments.
  Let us consider some other responses. It is believed that the intention that the unelected funding agency for schools should take over many of the functions of local education authorities will mean a marked loss of democratic accountability. That is the view of the Tory leader of Kingston upon Thames council. He continued:
  "In the place of the local LEA will be a remote national body, albeit with regional offices, which will be accountable only to the Secretary of State. It will be quite impossible for this body to respond flexibly to local needs, or to the problems of aggrieved parents."
  Let us consider the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association. What did it have to say about the Bill and about the White Paper? The association described them as a "cause of serious concern". Organisations from all walks of life have criticised the White Paper, but it is clear that those comments have fallen on deaf ears. Their comments have dealt with many specific aspects of the Bill.
  I touched earlier on the 39 or 44 increased powers that the Secretary of State will take on. Those 39 or so steps are steps towards the erosion of local accountability and local democracy. They are an attack on local government. That point is picked up by another of the responses to the White Paper:
  "The Bill implies a profound shift in responsibility from local to national government for the provision of education that is of great constitutional significance."
  Those are not my words, or the words of Liberal Democrats, Labour Members or trade unions. They are the words of the Tory-controlled Association of County Councils.
  It is interesting to reflect on the debate on the Education Reform Act 1988. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said:
  "The Secretary of State has taken more powers under the Bill than any other member of the Cabinet … Within the parliamentary system, no Secretary of State should ever be allowed to hold such a degree of power."—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 792–95.]
  Under this Bill, the Secretary of State will take on some 40 additional powers on top of those that he received from the 1988 Act. Is there no limit to the Department's desire to take all power to itself?
  There is no doubt that the Bill is an attack on local government. It further erodes the shared responsibility

  673
  between local and national government which was such an important feature enshrined in the Education Act 1944. Let us consider the major thrust of the legislation, which is the Government's desire to expand the grant-maintained sector despite having no evidence to suggest that a school will be able to deliver higher-quality education to its pupils merely by becoming a grant-maintained school.
  The whole concept of opting out is beginning to create chaos and division in our education system. It is already leading to the two-tier system that we have sadly already seen in the national health service. It removes any opportunity for coherent strategic planning at a local and democratically accountable level.
  I intend to refer in a moment to the intervention of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) about U-turns. However, let me say first that Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed opting out, and we are not alone in that. I referred a few moments ago to the present Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. This what he said about opting out five years ago:
  "Opting out should he dropped completely. It will undermine the whole of the basic educational system of this country."—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 795.]
  We understand why the Government are so keen to make it easier for schools to opt out. Like their proposals for city technology colleges, the Government's so-called grant-maintained revolution has turned out to be a damp squib. At the present rate of schools opting out, we will have to wait until the year 2150 before all schools have opted out. It is frightening to think that, in that period, there will have been another 200 major Education Bills through the House. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth say that he expected that more than 50 per cent. of schools would have applied for grant-maintained status by the end of this Parliament. That is well in excess of even the most optimistic dreams of the Secretary of State.
  There is evidence elsewhere in the Bill of the Government's attempt to railroad grant-maintained status through. For example, governors may now decide to put forward proposals for opting out as any other business at about 10.30 pm at a governors' meeting when many of the governors may already have gone home. If they do that, there is no redress in the legislation.
  The Government want to make opting out easier and they are also introducing a funding agency in England and its counterpart in Wales. The membership of those unelected quangos will be determined by the Secretary of State without any consultation. However, the Liberal Democrats share the Secretary of State's view in one respect at least. We accept—and we advocated it long before the Conservatives took it on board—that budgets and management decisions are best made at local school level. That is why we should like to see an extension of local management to all schools; not just to those that take the risky path of opting out.
  We should like that extension to be contained within a local, democratically accountable strategic planning framework. That is the problem about the alleged U-turn to which the Secretary of State referred. He quite rightly referred to an article that appeared in a local newspaper. However, that article gave only the first half of the story, which is that we should like to see further delegation of power and responsibility to all schools. The article did not
  674
  include the vital ingredient that that should happen within a strategic planning framework at the local level which is democratically accountable.
  In that sense, we could almost argue that the Government are not being radical enough. Given that the Government are so wedded to open competition within education, it is surprising that in certain circumstances, they are limiting the period within which grant-maintained schools can obtain services from the local education authority.
  When the Under-Secretary of State for Schools replies, perhaps he can explain how, under the market philosophy in which the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues believe, the Government will limit the opportunity for grant-maintained schools to purchase services for their LEAs when, for example, the LEAs provide the best quality service at the best possible price.
  The Bill is not as radical as we should like it to be in other aspects. We are very sympathetic towards the proposals to amalgamate the School Examinations and Assessment Council and the National Curriculum Council, although we should like to make changes to the composition. However, given the Government's clear wish to see vocational and academic qualifications given equal status, we should like the Government to go further and integrate into the new body the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.
  Clearly there is not enough time for me to examine all aspects of the Bill today. We shall be able to examine those aspects in Committee. We want to examine the possibility of the reintroduction of selection by the back door. The Secretary of State assured us that clauses 230 and 231 will not do that. We also want to consider carefully the proposals for sponsor governors in voluntary-aided schools, because at first sight that appears to be a mechanism by which those with the largest cheque books can buy themselves places on governing bodies.
  Not long ago, the former inspector of schools, Mr. Eric Bolton, predicted:
  "if we were able to lift the veil hiding the Government's intention for Education, we would find, not a coherent vision —worrying or otherwise—but uncertainty, confusion and incoherence."
  The veil has been partly lifted with the Bill, and Eric Bolton's predictions have been justified. The Bill creates more confusion, uncertainty and inherent instability than it resolves.
  The Secretary of State told us in the House recently that he had made an excellent speech at the Tory party conference. I disagreed with him and I have found very few people who would agree with him. The Secretary of State would now have us believe that the Bill is equally excellent. I disagree with that as well. The Bill is bad and it does not tackle the fundamental problems facing our schools today. It will increase division and set school against school, teacher against teacher and even pupil against pupil. That is why I and my colleagues will oppose the Second Reading of the Bill in the Lobby tomorrow.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I warmly welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this important Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on introducing legislation which will rank alongside the other important measures that the Government have introduced to promote parental

  675
  choice and, above all else, higher standards. The drive for higher standards lies at the heart of the Government's education programme. We believe that higher standards can be achieved through the exercise of parental choice.
  I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). The word "standards" passed her lips only once, in passing, at the end of her speech. She said very little about how she would raise standards. The word "choice" did not pass her lips at all. Anyone who heard the hon. Lady would be driven to the conclusion that standards appear low down the Opposition's agenda and that choice does not appear on it at all. That is the great difference between Opposition and Conservative Members. The drive for higher standards is the fundamental objective of our Government. I welcome the reforms in the Bill, which put in place the necessary framework for the achievement of higher standards. That framework will be warmly welcomed by my constituents.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned five schools which voted for grant-maintained status on Friday. I am proud to say that one of those schools is in my constituency. At Bushey Hall school, a popular and well-regarded school, 83 per cent. of the parents voted in favour of grant-maintained status. That decision came hard on the heels of the vote of parents at another school to opt for grant-maintained status. At Mount Grace school, another popular school, 89 per cent. of the parents voted in favour of grant-maintained status.
  The parents at those schools will be most surprised to hear what Opposition Members and especially the hon. Member for Dewsbury said about selection. The parents clearly voted to seek grant-maintained status because they wanted to keep the character of the schools—mixed-ability schools with highly motivated teaching staff who seek to bring out the best in every pupil.
  The parents will greet what Opposition Members said about selection with utter derision. Selection was not in the parents' minds. They may have been interested in specialisation, but that is a different matter. One feature of today's debate is that Opposition Members are unable to distinguish between specialisation and selection. That is worrying in view of the need for specialisation, especially in technology. I welcome what the Government have said about technology schools and colleges.
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by specialisation? He said that it would mean more technology. Will specialisation be only in technology?
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that 80 per cent. of a school's time is taken up by national curriculum subjects. That will be the case in any school which opts to specialise. However, some parents and some schools may feel that in the remaining 20 per cent. of a school's time there should be some scope for specialisation. It is possible for schools to specialise in several subjects. Classics may be important, but the hon. Gentleman may agree that today there is a strong need for specialisation in technology. Many schools may choose to specialise in technology, including possibly some in my constituency.
  Parents in my constituency will be interested in the attitude of Opposition Members to the exercise of parents' democratic choice. The hon. Member for Dewsbury talked
  676
  a great deal about local democracy and accountability. She had no view to express to parents about them exercising their choice in ballots. What does she say to the 89 per cent. of parents at Mount Grace school who voted in favour of grant-maintained status? The message that comes over loud and clear from the Opposition is that parents' views do not matter and that Opposition Members know better than they what is best for their children. Those parents will be worried by what Opposition Members said, but I am sure that they will draw great reassurance from what Conservative Members have said about the reforms in the Bill.
  Ms. Estelle Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a school serves more than the children who attend it at any given time? It also serves children who will be pupils there in the years to come. Does he accept that the school serves the whole community? How can he justify a system which does not give a vote to most members of the community but only to parents who have children in the school at that particular time? How is that democratic? How does it allow people in the community to express a view about the type of school that they should have in their neighbourhood?
  Mr. Clappison: I know that the parents of other children in my constituency and in the general community widely welcome the decisions of those schools. I am also aware that the local communities in Birmingham have welcomed the decision of schools such as Baverstock school to opt for grant-maintained status. Such schools make a distinctive contribution to the life of the community. The hon. Lady's argument is spurious. She seeks to deny parental choice. She suggests that parents do not know what is best for their children. That view will not receive the support of the overwhelming majority of parents.
  Parents, will however, welcome the reforms in the Bill. They will not see the need, for example, for a second governors' resolution when there has been a first resolution and in any event there will be a parental ballot. Nor will they see what is wrong with limiting local authority expenditure campaigns about grant-maintained status. Of course, local education authorities will be allowed to allocate some expenditure to such campaigns. They will be allowed to pay for the production of one leaflet. But why should they be allowed to continue spending valuable resources on propaganda? Why should they go beyond their duty to transmit reliable, balanced, objective information? Parents will not see why local authorities should squander money in that way.
  Parents will certainly warmly welcome the measure to allow clusters of primary schools to opt for grant-maintained status. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said. It is an important point. As yet, few primary schools have chosen the grant-maintained status option because they face obvious difficulties of scale. However, the Bill will assist them to opt for grant-maintained status by allowing them to opt out in groups and to pool their resources. The Bill does not force parents to do anything. It does not exercise favouritism. It enables parents to carry out their wishes. When the Bill is enacted there may well be a substantial increase in the number of primary schools

  677
  which opt for grant-maintained status in the wake of the substantial numbers of secondary schools which have done so.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury and other Opposition Members have been keen to play the numbers game, but they will lose. The number of grant-maintained schools is increasing all the time at an accelerating rate. At the time of the general election, there were 217 and there are now 330. There are 150 more in the pipeline. [Interruption.] By deriding those figures, Opposition Members deny the right of parents to exercise choice.
  Opposition Members stand in the way of a great tide of parental opinion. Parents have seen the success of grant-maintained schools, which have raised standards. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh at talk of raising standards, but their constituents will not find it a laughing matter, especially those in Birmingham.
  Mr. David Jamieson: Does the hon. Gentleman regard the 1·4 per cent. of schools which have opted out as a great tide of enthusiasm?
  Mr. Clappison: That figure represents thousands of pupils and parents. Those parents have made a decision about what is best for their children. The hon. Gentleman will have to accept that the schools which have opted out of Labour local education authority control are a beacon of hope for other parents in the area. We know how difficult it has been for such schools and how many obstacles have been put in their way. Schools which have opted out have higher standards, increasing numbers, a more conspicuous school ethos and greater pa rental support. Those beacons of hope are needed in Labour LEAs.
  Opposition Members will be aware that almost invariably the schools which prop up league tables—drawn up on any basis of academic performance—are in Labour LEAs. Parents will have noted the light-hearted way in which Opposition Members treat standards and choice. To Opposition Members it is a matter for laughter. Higher standards, greater academic achievement—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)Order. Let us have a little decorum in the classroom.
  Mr. Clappison: The overwhelming majority of parents in Britain want higher standards. Opposition Members talk of releasing grant-maintained schools from central control. They have got it completely wrong. They are denying parental choice and the exercise of parental rights, and standing in the way of the wishes of an ever-increasing number of parents.
  At the general election, the Opposition's manifesto echoed what they have said today about doing away with grant-maintained schools and returning them to local education authority control. They lost that election, and the only decision that they will have to make in the next four years will be when to reverse that policy and accept the inevitable, and how best to disguise the fact that they were wrong all along. They must face the fact that there is an ever-increasing volume of support from parents for grant-maintained schools, which are invariably associated with success. Indeed, they have become a great success story in our education system.
  I welcome the Bill, which puts in place the necessary framework for the development of that success story. I
  678
  look forward to thousands more parents exercising their rights and achieving the highest standards for their children through the grant-maintained system.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: May I tell the hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that grant-maintained schools are not a reality in the political firmament in Wales. Not more than three are up and running in the Principality.
  I hope that the special needs objectives are achieved and that the proposals work. Nothing is more distressing than to interview parents in my constituency who believe that their children are not getting a fair crack of the whip on that important matter. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that an injection of money is urgently needed so that the existing system works, let alone so that the proposed system is successful.
  I wonder whether there has ever been such an arrogant speech proposing the merits of a Second Reading measure as that made by the Secretary of State. It was a tour de force, but it was bombastic, arrogant and calculated. There was a lot of posing, pointing, declaiming and provocation in that tirade of one hour's duration. Such a style will not and cannot win a friend. However, I agree with the Secretary of State's opening remark that every child should have the right to the best education. After all, children are young only once.
  By implication, the Bill acknowledges major problems. Conservative Governments have been in power since 1979. Although they have been responsible for the education service in Wales for some 13 years, yet another Secretary of State has come to the House with legislation designed to put right the many serious faults, many of which, after such a long time of government, we can now lay at the door of the Conservative party. After all, since 1979 Conservative Administrations have had more than £100 billion of North sea oil revenues, which they have squandered when some of them could have been put into the education service to solve some of the problems with which we are now grappling. We have only to witness the over-large classes, the national deficiencies in skills and training, and the tumbledown and dangerous schools throughout Britain. Furthermore, teachers' morale is now dangerously low and schools are using out-of-date books and equipment.
  If teachers are demoralised, schoolchildren will lose. Teachers in areas of high unemployment have particular problems. Bad housing, housing shortages and homelessness represent powerful challenges to teachers in a hard-pressed profession. Many pupils in state schools—perhaps in all schools—come from broken homes. Marriages and partnerships frequently break down and it is foolish to believe that the consequences of those problems do not manifest themselves in the classroom from day to day.
  The Government underestimate the scale of the problems faced by those who must practise the art of teaching in the classroom every day. Teachers have not been well served by recent Secretaries of State, who have let the education service down. The work of teachers and the hopes of parents have been seriously affected. Looking back, we had Mr. Mark Carlisle and Sir Keith Joseph—

  679
  one was tired and the other was tortured. Soon afterwards, we had the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Their attitudes to their positions showed that they were clearly on the political make. It is fair to say, however, that we had a bland and rather quiet interregnum when the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) was Secretary of State. In all those 10 years of office, the major problems faced by our school service were not improved but made worse. The revenues from North sea oil were not employed effectively to improve prospects for children.
  The funding council in Wales and the funding agency in England are fundamentally undemocratic, yet all hon. Members will agree that they are at the heart of the Bill. They are likely to undermine the structures based on elected local education authorities under the Education Act 1944. The Bill is silent on future levels of investment in the school service. That factor is crucial, but the Secretary of State gave no inkling about how his proposals would be funded or how the problems within the school service will be tackled financially.
  I wish to protest about the undemocratic nature of the funding authorities. The Secretary of State for Wales, who has an English constituency, is to set up a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation—a quango. It will be neither accountable nor elected, but nominated. It will be set up in a Wales which voted overwhelmingly for Labour, by a Conservative Cabinet Minister without a Welsh parliamentary seat. It is insulting to Wales and goes against the grain. It is not in keeping with the times. The Government are making a major error of judgment in their treatment of Wales.
  Under the Bill, what guarantees will there be that the many smaller and rural schools in Wales will remain open? What is the long-term future of the Welsh joint education committee? Can the progress in the Welsh-medium education—where strides have been made—be maintained? Can the successful community schools now located in our high schools continue to fulfil their widest roles? The schools provide the locations for youth clubs and societies, and remain open 360 days a year. Under the Bill, can the community schools continue with their fine work in the long term, not least in my county?
  What consequences will the Bill have for the emerging post-industrial communities in our south Wales valleys, which deserve the very best? I remain unconvinced that the Bill will help those communities. I pose the same questions about the schools in the rural and scattered communities in mid-Wales and north-west Wales. The recent changes in Her Majesty's inspectorate are for the worse. The inspectorate will be at sea when the Bill is enacted.
  The Bill will prove a backwards move for Wales. The Government's decision to set up a funding council is a major misjudgment. Wales is democratic; it is a mature political democracy. We have concluded that we want fewer, not more, quangos. We want more elected representatives to deal with the issues and problems. The Secretary of State for Wales has made an error in acceding to English measures being enacted in Wales.
  If the Welsh LEAs are abolished—as they will be eventually under the Bill—what chance will there be for the school orchestras, bands, choirs, drama groups and
  680
  numerous sporting activities in the long term? We must pose that question, as we in Wales know that the LEAs have played an important role and provided good leadership. We are entitled to conclude—
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way, as I shall soon conclude my speech. After two hours of speeches from the Front-Bench representatives, we need shorter speeches from the Back Benchers.
  The Bill is undemocratic because the funding agency and the funding council, unlike the elected LEAs, are unaccountable to all but the Secretary of State. The Bill contains a massive defect. The funding agencies will create a big new bureaucracy, but there is a crashing silence on the source of the extra money needed. The Bill will encourage selection. The Society of Education Officers has correctly summed it up and states that the Bill is
  "a recipe for duplication and confusion."
  The Bill should point to a much wider provision of nursery education. It should aim to rebuild and modernise our crumbling schools, and make all schools warm, light and safe. It should seek to provide more books and modern equipment for the use of pupils and staff. It should plan to end the scandal of oversized classes.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way, as the Front-Bench team has had its hour. If the right hon. Gentleman is called he will have his time, although I am not at all sure how he has spent his time while in office.
  The Secretary of State did not make the case for the increase in the centralisation of our school service. The House should refuse the Secretary of State's invitation to support so flawed a Bill.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. John Bowis: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside will understand if, for reasons of etiquette, I cannot respond to any of the issues that he has raised, due to my role elsewhere. I am not surprised that he failed to give way to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as, in him, we have a right hon. tiger from Wales who will certainly respond to the hon. Gentleman's point later.
  The debate was opened in stunning style by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I can do no more than repeat the epithet which came from Selby to the effect that there must have been divine intervention when questions were answered. We look forward to more of that as the Bill proceeds to its rightful place in the statute book. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) continued in that light when he spoke of the trinity of legislation.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said too much, but the most memorable part of her speech was the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). The hon. Lady produced the three minutes of meat of her speech and seemed to say that the Labour party was opposed to grant-maintained schools because they were no good, so no-one wanted them, which was why there had to be campaigns to stop them in case too many people wanted them and, if so, it

  681
  was unfair, because if not everyone was able to have them, no one should have them. I hope that I have correctly related her policy.
  The Opposition should not oppose the Bill. They have not given a reason why they should do so in principle. Some issues for discussion have been raised from both sides of the House, and we shall no doubt continue to discuss them today and tomorrow. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will listen to and answer questions raised. The debate should be a chance to clarify and to explain to the world outside how the measure will proceed. The Bill has followed a consultation period, which is clearly and rightly continuing.
  At the outset I declare an interest that I share with the hon. Member for Dewsbury as I am a consultant for the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and, although I think it does not matter in the context of today's debate, for the Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education and for the Association of College Management. I should also declare the opposite of a pecuniary interest—something which costs me—in that my daughter is training to be a teacher and I am the son of a teacher. Therefore, I speak with feeling when I say how wonderful teachers are, and I expect my right hon. Friends to support me all the way. Teaching is a wonderful profession and we are fortunate that its members devote their lives to it—I say that in all sincerity, family apart.
  The House does well to introduce legislation to enable teachers to provide the best education for our children and to draw the best from our children. Education is about "educo"—drawing out of children what is contained in them. We sometimes forget that "educo" also applies to the teacher. If a teacher does not have the knowledge and experience drawn out of him or her, the benefits cannot be instilled in the child and the child does not receive a full education.
  All too often, arguments about education become polarised between those who wish it to be entirely child-centred and those who wish it to be entirely imposed. I liken the process to baking a cake. If a child is given the ingredients and told to bake a cake, he or she will make a nasty mess. It helps if the teacher gives some guidance not only on the relative quantities of the ingredients, but on how to mix and bake, and at what temperature. Teachers' experiences, taken together with the innate abilities, ingenuity and initiative of children, will lead to quality education.
  Mr. Enright: I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the Latin roots of the verb "to educate"—he said that it meant drawing out. Would he like to reflect on what "instil" means? Originally it meant a sort of forced feeding.
  Mr. Bowis: I was using the verb "to educate" from the teacher's and the child's point of view. We do not want any forced feeding; I hope that the best teachers will encourage feeding without resorting to the sort of drip feeding to which the hon. Gentleman may be alluding.
  I was chairman of my London borough education committee at the time of Lord Joseph's reforms—excellent reforms in their way, to do with reading, poetry, and so on. There was also the technical and vocational education initiative. Teachers said that it was all wonderful, but wondered when they would be allowed to get on with the business of teaching. I was in this place when the
  682
  Education Reform Bill introducing the national curriculum was going through. Again, teachers said that it was great, but they wanted to get on with teaching. What do grant-maintained schools represent if not the opportunity for teachers to get on with teaching, in partnership with heads, parents and governors? I cannot for the life of me understand why heads or teachers should resist this plea.
  There are positive and negative reasons for choosing grant-maintained status—a fact which sometimes confuses the Opposition. There are certainly negative reasons why people should want to escape from a bad LEA, but there are also positive reasons why they should join a good GM school. I do not need reminding of the horrors of the inner London education authority. I remember from the days when I was first elected, in 1987, the carol service that ILEA provided for its children. It had nothing to do with "Away in a Manger" or with Christmas trees; it had to do with Trafalgar square, the place where people go to demonstrate.
  I can remember the anti-cricket and anti-competitive sports mentality in ILEA. I can also remember the anti-police attitude. I quote an ILEA document circulated to teachers at the time:
  "The police have a vested interest in law and order and … thus are not best qualified to talk to children about the subject as their views are likely to be one sided".
  I can remember, too, ILEA's views on physical education:
  "The hidden curriculum of PE does more than its fair share to produce and reproduce the social and psychological basis necessary to sustain a system populated by ruthless captains of industry, technocrats and subservant proletarians."
  I can remember the time when Benjamin Britten's "Let's make an opera" was condemned as racist and sexist, largely because the villain was called Black Bob. I can remember the time when ILEA produced, at twice the cost, half the results for the children of London, particularly for those at secondary school. All this is why parents voted with their feet in the borough of Wandsworth.
  As I said, however, there are also positive reasons. Parents and school can see the benefits which can flow in terms of budgetary control and school morale—which in turn can lead to a higher quality of education. I have never said that grant-maintained status is the most wonderful thing that can happen to a school. A school may be on the right lines without it. But I do say that it often represents the right way ahead. Equally, it is a challenge, not an easy option. Choosing grant-maintained status means accepting the responsibilities which go with it.
  I had hoped that the Labour party's previous education spokesman was coming around to a more positive view of GM schools. At the time of the election, it seemed that the Opposition were agreeing to support parents and not to go back and undo everything that they have achieved and wanted. Today's sad statement of policy, however, made me realise that all that has come unwound in the intervening months.
  To listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) on the subject of voting is to remind oneself that when Labour introduced changes to schools—from grammar to comprehensive—it did so by means of circulars: there were no votes for parents. Suddenly the Opposition have found a new belief in democracy. Our way is the best way, since it deals with the wishes of parents.

  683
  I welcome the movement in this Bill to restrict the campaigns being fought against grant-maintained status. They have been grossly unfair in some parts of the country, and parents have been misled, not least in the borough of Merton, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) spoke earlier.
  I ask my right hon. Friend carefully to examine the way in which empty places are assessed. Sometimes applications for grant-maintained status are refused on the understandable grounds that there are too many empty places. There is always a balance to be struck between the need to remove empty places and the opportunity to take on grant-maintained status. It is not always easy to distinguish the genuine from the non-genuine. On several occasions I have wondered whether an assessment in my area has taken into account the use of rooms by nursery classes, for instance. Not always, I fear. We should also bear in mind other educational uses—secure resource centres, libraries, and so on. We must keep up the pressure to get rid of empty places, but we should also keep under review the procedures that these assessments follow.
  I have four questions for the Secretary of State; we can explore them further as the Bill proceeds. The first concerns quality control and how to ensure it. There needs to be such control before schools reach the stage when the education association is brought in. I saw how schools were rescued from ILEA by Wandsworth borough education committee and its officers, and I am sure that the same can be done for other schools by patient work to take them off the at-risk list and to enable them to flourish thereafter. We need quality control, not just a rescue system when schools have reached the stage when the education association has to be brought in, correct though that method probably is.
  Secondly, I should like to explore further the co-operation between the funding councils and the LEAs. Perhaps the councils could seek the views of LEAs and present the joint view, if one can be found, to my right hon. Friend for his final adjudication. Such a presentation could include local matters which might affect the LEA, not the funding council.
  Thirdly, I hope that my right hon. Friend will come to the schools prom in a fortnight's time and have a careful look at its programme. He will see all sorts of bands and orchestras—the county youth band, county wind groups and jazz bands, and so on. These groups are organised on a county or borough basis by the education authority to bring musicians from schools together and to create this wonderful festival of music. Many hon. Members on both sides feel that this is a precious system, and we need to ensure that it is not put at risk by the uncertainties which may emerge from an examination of the management of schools.
  Fourthly, I want to ask a question put to me by Deaf Accord. It concerns special needs and the grant for education support and training—GEST—which, as my right hon. Friend knows, was the Government's response in 1989 to the needs of the deaf-blind. That grant has enabled provision to be made on a regional basis. We need to know that the service will be guaranteed and, if it is available in a school which goes grant-maintained, that it
  684
  will still be provided in the region for which it was originally intended. Above all, we need to know how this funding will be dealt with in the future.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) spoke about special needs. I take a particular interest in that issue and welcome the Secretary of State's moves on it. He has met many of our concerns—some of which were raised in debate earlier this year—on the speeding up of statementing, the appeals procedures and parents' choice. We should also look at the whole issue of the funding of schools for children with special education needs who do not necessarily reach stages four and five and thus full statementing.
  Sixty per cent. of the children in one of my schools on the border of another London borough have special educational needs. However, only 10 per cent. of them are statemented and the school receives from Wandsworth borough extra funding only for that 10 per cent. The school takes many children from across the borough boundary and receives nothing extra through recoupment for them. I should like to see a scheme which provides recoupment from the centre in the same way as mandatory student awards. The Secretary of State will not be able to produce the response that he gave earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) because there might be a Treasury input.
  I warmly welcome the Bill and wish the Government well as they take it through Committee. It is the latest Bill on the road to seeking the best for every child. That is done by making sure that the best is the norm.
  7.41 pm
  Ms. Estelle Morris: Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I should like to deal with what the Secretary of State said earlier, when he made yet another of his repeated attacks on Birmingham's education system. He was not sufficiently well mannered on that occasion to let me, a Birmingham Member, answer him, so I shall take this opportunity to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not listening."] That is nothing new. I sometimes wonder whether the Secretary of State realises how much damage his repeated, unjustified and inaccurate attacks on Birmingham's education system are doing to the children. He has chosen to leave the Chamber. Earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State was manoeuvring his political virility and not engaging in proper discussion with a Member from one of the largest education authorities in the western democracies.
  In September, the Secretary of State launched a disgraceful attack on surplus places in the city of Birmingham, knowing full well that the city had a solid agreement with his Department on how those surplus places would be reduced. That agreement has been in place since before the general election, but despite that, the right hon. Gentleman chose to make political capital out of it. If Birmingham is close to the hearts of Conservative Members, why did the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and the Secretary of State, both of whom spoke about Birmingham, not take the chance to congratulate the city on the improvement in this summer's examination results which were published last week?
  I shall make the Secretary of State an offer. It is not one that I would make to many people, and certainly not to many Conservative Members. I shall take him out for half a day in Birmingham and show him Sheldon Heath school,

  685
  where he will see some of the best design work in the country. I will show him Cockshut Hill school, which has a wonderful technology centre and a level of expertise among teenagers that is unparalleled.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Morris: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.
  I will take the Secretary of State to Harvey Road school, Stechford school—
  Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady mentioned me in her speech, and it is the normal practice for a Member thus mentioned to be given an opportunity to reply.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): It is not a matter for me.
  Ms. Morris: I shall also show the Secretary of State Gilbertstone school. I have visited all those schools in the past few weeks, and in them primary school children excel in all areas of the curriculum and teachers create a marvellous learning environment. I shall even buy the right hon. Gentleman his lunch at East Birmingham college, where he will see adult learning and vocational courses taught to an exceptionally high standard. After all that, he will not even have left my constituency, let alone visited the rest of Birmingham, but he will have seen quality learning and quality teaching.
  The Secretary of State must stop using Birmingham children as political football: people there do not deserve it, and teachers' morale and pupils' performance is falling because of it.
  It seems that the Secretary of State and some hon. Members have read a different Bill from the one before the House. The Secretary of State spoke about quality, choice and accountability. Every response to the Bill that I have seen finds selection, uncertainty and confusion. The Bill destroys not only local accountability but the partnership between central and local government. It will destroy co-operation between schools and the network of support systems that is to he found in most local education authority areas. Nothing in the Bill and nothing that has been said in the debate can possibly justify that destruction.
  I am saddened by the fact that so little recognition has been given to the valuable role played by LEAs in our education system. For almost a century, nearly every piece of education legislation has been entrusted to LEAs for implementation. The Secretary of State said that legislation in the past 13 years has improved school standards. Who implemented legislation on training and vocational education, pioneered pupil profiles, trained the governors and guided the implementation of the national curriculum? It was not hon. Members but people in LEAs, working in conjunction with the Government and schools.
  Conservative Members seem to take credit for the legislation but will not give credit to the organisations that helped to make it a reality. The LEAs provide stability and continuity, and are the cornerstone of teaching and learning. Nothing justifies undermining that, but funding councils are to replace the LEAs. No matter what has been said by Conservative Members, those funding councils will take over a significant number of the functions that are currently carried out by the LEAs. The councils are ill thought out and ill defined.
  686
  The Government do not appear to have a strategic plan for education into the next century. We do not know how many grant-maintained schools are envisaged. Nobody has told us why 10 per cent. is chosen as the entry point for funding councils, or why 75 per cent. has been chosen as the exit point. No one can guess how quickly those percentages will be reached in local authorities, and no one has explained how what remains of an LEA will fit into any new local government structure. We have been offered no proof that grant-maintained schools are successful in any measurable way.
  The Bill is not about education: it is about bureaucracy and structure. For ideological reasons, the Government seem intent on pushing schools into an unknown abyss, and they have no idea of the consequences. I am the first to admit that LEAs may not be perfect, but they have a proven track record for innovation and as efficient vehicles for the management of education.
  The Bill will irreparably damage the network of expertise and support that is to be found in most LEAs. Above all LEAs are accountable to local people. The Secretary of State said in the Select Committee, and I have heard it said in the debate, that the local democracy argument does not count for anything, because not many people vote in local government elections. If only two people vote in a local council election, it is one more than will cast a vote for someone to serve on the funding council.
  What gives locally elected education authorities their strength and legitimacy is the fact that they operate from the community that they serve. People know who serves on them and how to get hold of them. Anybody who has represented his party at local council level will know that the crucial point is that a low turnout in a council election does not mean that people do not use local government. Whether they vote or not, people use the structures and the accountability of local government to express views and seek help. There will not be that access to members of the funding councils, and the quality of the decisions that those councils take will be the poorer as a result.
  The Bill is not only destructive but misleading. Its main buzzword is "choice". It raises parents' expectations. They think that they will be able to choose from an array of schools. One can imagine it, as the form comes through in January. One can see the parents saying to each other, "Should we choose the grant-maintained school or should we go for the LEA school? Should we try for a city technology college, or should we put our son into the grammar school? Should we take a risk on our 11-year-old developing an aptitude for maths and send him to a specialist school? Or should we choose that school down the road to which that nice business man has just given all that extra money?"
  There is then the ultimate choice. Can hon. Members see it: parents sitting there and saying, "Should we send our son or daughter to that school down the road where the head has just been sacked and which has been given a label saying 'failing school'?" Does any hon. Member think that that is what it would be like and that that will be the nature of the choice before parents? No law, and the Bill is no exception, has ever guaranteed parental choice. The best parents have ever had is the right to express a preference. That is all that the Bill will offer.
  Furthermore, with pupil numbers increasing arid surplus places reducing, the choices for parents will diminish even further. The Bill shies away from the crucial

  687
  issue of how schools will choose whom to take when demand exceeds supply. That concept is bound up with the concept of a range of different schools. No one can escape the reality that schools will choose and parents will be chosen, that teachers will select and pupils will be rejected. The only parents who will have any choice—the only parents who have ever had any choice—are those who have money, and those who have the skill and the contacts to weave their way through what will be an incredibly complex system.
  The basis of the White Paper and Tory party thinking is that schools should compete for pupils and resources. Schools have always been competitive. There has always been friendly rivalry between neighbouring schools. There is nothing wrong with that. That does no harm to schools or pupils. However, schools have been competitive within a framework based on the understanding that there is a wider responsibility to a public service of which they are all part. Because they understand that, schools have been co-operative as well.
  We should never underestimate the value to the education process of teachers from neighbouring schools sharing skills and knowledge, of their being prepared to collaborate and even to share resources. If the Government turn education provision into a marketplace, they will destroy that co-operation. They risk forcing schools to build barriers between themselves so that they can jealousy guard their ideas and strengths with the aim of climbing higher up the examination league table. That is wrong, because it will not give the nation what it needs —higher standards in all our schools and not just in few.
  This afternoon, Tory Members have alleged that Labour Members do not want individual schools to improve standards and do well. That is an insult, and they know it. The difference between the parties is that we are intent on providing a system that raises standards in all schools for all pupils rather than on focusing the resources and attention on a few selected schools and a few selected people.
  The Bill is one of the longest Education Bills in the history of education. In its 252 clauses, it manages to bypass the real issues surrounding education and the real problems facing our schools. We still have classes with over 30 pupils and school buildings that are a disgrace in a modern economy. We have a work force of frustrated teachers who despair, year after year, at having to make diminishing resources go further and further. We have teachers who are fed up to the back teeth with filling in forms when they would sooner be in classes with pupils teaching them what they need to be taught.
  Above all, schools in the 1990s are trying to operate in an economic and political climate that militates against their success. For as long as abject poverty exists in our towns and cities, so many families have to cope with the problems of homelessness, and poverty-related illnesses continue to rise, education standards will fall, because education and teaching do not take place in a vacuum.
  Schools need, more than ever, stability and continuity, certainty and clarity. The Bill and all that Government Members have said today offer none of that. That is why nearly all the clauses in the Bill deserve to be fought every inch of the way. We must stop the infliction on schools and children of a bureaucracy that will do no good to anybody.
  7.56 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Parental choice is exercised rather differently in rural areas from how it is in urban areas. Both at secondary and primary level, there is often no obvious choice for parents in rural areas, which is why we have a tradition—particularly in the part of Devon that I represent, which has more than 90 parishes —of local schools providing an education for children right across the spectrum, from those with special needs through to the high achievers and those who go on to attain higher academic qualifications. Therefore, choice for parents is geared to ensuring that standards in rural schools are maintained because they are part of the community.
  The White Paper rightly looked at the difficulties for small rural schools. Many of our schools have fewer than 100 pupils—60 or 70 is not uncommon. I know that governors have been addressing themselves to the proposal for clustering the smaller primary schools. I am sure that schools that wish to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Bill will co-operate.
  However, I ask the Secretary of State to look again at the proposal on the governing bodies at such small schools. People feel very passionately about their local school. That does not mean to say that they do not work with other small adjacent schools so as to reap the advantages of economies of scale. However, the parent governors in particular want to feel that they are the governors of their local school, as this is the traditional role. I ask the Secretary of State to address that problem to see whether we can provide for primary schools the opportunity to cluster without governing bodies feeling that their representation of their school is threatened. That would be most welcome.
  Will my right hon. Friend also look at another aspect of the rural schools? He is rightly addressing the issue of surplus places, and I have already heard hon. Members speak of the good use to which the money that could be realised in this sector could be put—not least to help children with special needs. The county of Devon has 7·9 per cent. surplus places, compared with a national average of 22 per cent. Any radical pruning of surplus places in the small rural schools would have a detrimental effect. It might mean that we could lose a school and then see a definite need for it two years later. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State carefully to examine the different ratios, especially as they bear upon rural schools.
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) would not let me intervene following his remarks about drama, music and school orchestras. Since local management of schools, I can assure him that schools in my constituency have been able to provide and, indeed, enhance those excellent facilities. If schools in Wales have difficulty in learning how to do that under local control, I am sure that there are people in Devon who could provide excellent advice.
  My main interest in the Bill is the way in which it provides for pupils with special needs and their parents. I have a special interest in the subject and I know that I am joined by many charities that welcome the Government's initiative, especially as set out in part III, which extends choice to the parents of a child with a statement. They will be able to be involved in the choice of a suitable school

  689
  and, more important, in the setting of a statutory time limit in which a statement is to be provided. The appeal directives are also welcome.
  Since April, when I became a Member of this place, I have received many letters on education from anxious parents. I have not received one letter from a parent who is concerned about the quality of education that his or her child is receiving, but I have received many letters from parents of children with special needs, many of whom I have been able to see. They are desperate and frustrated because of the time that it has taken for their children to be assessed and statemented. I know that the provisions that bear on these matters are greatly welcomed. It 'would seem that the Government, in a broader sense, are reflecting on the 1981 legislation.
  There are matters that I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind when the Bill is considered in Committee. Clause 156 turns on the input from health service providers. It refers to children under five years of age and the need for the health service to inform parents of and to advise them on the voluntary organisations that might give them appropriate advice on their child. I understand why the clause is in the Bill. If a child has come under the care of clinical psychologists or paediatricians, it will be apparent in many instances before he or she reaches school age that it will be helpful for the parents, and the school that the child will be attending, to be aware of individual needs, which should be considered long before school age.
  Unfortunately, when it comes to learning difficulties, there are many conditions that the medical profession is unable to diagnose. That means that a child may be under the care of paediatricians and clinical psychologists long after the age of five. I am concerned that some clinicians tend to feel that, once a child has reached school age, his or her problems are only educational and that they need no longer have an input. I hope that we are moving towards a system of multi-disciplinary teams and input from a range of people who have a connection with the problems of an individual child. To justify the role of paediatricians and clinical psychologists up to the age of five but not beyond does not take into account the fact that in many instances it will not be until the children are older —sometimes not before they are in their teens—that the exact difficulties will emerge and possibly medical diagnoses will be made.
  Obviously, there needs to be special provision in pre-school years, but input from the medical profession should be extended while the child is at school or in other full-time education, whatever his or her age happens to be. Let us take the case of a child of 12 or 16 years, even, who does not receive any form of diagnostic assessment that enables the medical profession to say, "This is the child's problem"—that happens in some instances. It is obviously a pity that the parents are not advised by the clinician about the voluntary agencies that might be able to give useful advice and support. I should like to see input from the medical profession extended throughout the school life of the child.
  Specialist or charitable schools are also important. The Audit Commission, in its report entitled "Getting in on the Act", cautioned on the basis of the experience of Denmark. It reported:
  "As such pupils grow older, the gap between them and their peers becomes wider and they become socially isolated."
  690
  There is a need to be flexible. We would entirely agree with integrated education for pupils with special needs where their needs can be adequately met—I emphasis "adequately"—in mainstream education. Denmark, however, is finding increasingly that it is having to increase the provision of special schools or make the necessary provision within the private charitable school sector.
  The Bill will establish stronger statutory rights for children with special education needs and their parents. I hope, however, that we shall examine more carefully quality of input and the outcome for the children. We are rightly concerned about standards for children in mainstream education; we wish to raise standards and we are interested in measuring outcome. Similarly, these are important matters for the child who is statemented as well as for the child who comes into the 18 per cent. category, who has special needs but has not received an official statement.
  It worries me enormously that even when a child has a statement and additional specialist teaching time is allocated, parents still complain to me that they read that the child will receive an additional five hours of teaching, for example, but find that that five hours does not always go directly to the child. They find that it is used by the local school to provide more teacher time and more one-to-one teaching.
  Special education needs involves much more than one-to-one teaching time. Without a doubt, that form of teaching is useful. It is more important, however, that the time that is allocated to the child, or the additional assistance, is appropriate to his or her needs. One-to-one teaching is not sufficient. It is important that the teacher, or any other person in the school who deals with the child, has been properly trained and is properly qualified to deal with the child's specific needs.
  Additional hours for individual children who have been statemented should not be merely mopped up within the education system. The hours should be used specifically for the individual child and not as general support for the class or school. That is not the outcome that the parents expect when they read and accept the statement. If we are serious about quality of teaching and outcome for both children with special needs and mainstream children, it is important that these matters are examined.
  Mr. Jamieson: May I give the hon. Lady an opportunity to support Devon county council, which is responsible for the area in which her constituency lies? Perhaps she will respond to a comment that went before the education committee—it is a Tory authority—only recently. It was said:
  "It is difficult to see how a funding agency could be other than remote, unresponsive, ignorant of local issues and unaccountable to local feelings."
  Mrs. Browning: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it was not relevant to special educational needs. Those needs will continue to be dealt with by local education authorities. I have already said that there are areas of special educational need with which I am not entirely happy.
  The hon. Gentleman has mentioned Devon, a county with one of the highest percentage rates of statemented children in the country. It is well over the 2 per cent. that Professor Warnock anticipated in her report, and the same can be said in terms of the 1981 Act. Three cheers for Devon for its achievement—it has done better than many

  691
  other local education authorities—but we are still using targets and figurees that stem from the Warnock report, the conclusions of which were enshrined in the legislation of 1981. There was identification of the 20 per cent., of which 2 per cent. would need either specialist education, additional help or specialist help within the mainstream of education.
  I am delighted that the 1981 Act is being reviewed. The difficulty with Warnock—excellent report though it was and a watershed in its day—is that although it listed a whole range of conditions that should qualify for the 2 per cent. group and mentioned dyslexia and autism, neither of those two conditions is included in the list of 20 subjects. We all know that there are thousands of children with dyslexia or autism. In many cases, autism is not diagnosed until late in a child's life, especially for those at the more able end of the continuum. However, it is a lifelong condition and handicap.
  I received a fax today from the National Autistic Society, which says about autism:
  "Several LEAs do not accept it as a useful label."
  That is appalling for the parents and children who live in the area of an LEA that does not recognise the term "autism". Indeed, I know that some LEAs do not accept the term "dyslexia". I am not sure what they call it—I think it is "specific learning difficulty". If we are to provide quality of education for such children and if we are to define and measure outcomes, it is vital that diagnostic assessment is accurate from the beginning. Only then can we provide the specialist education that they need.
  Some of those children do not come within the 2 per cent. group; many come within the 18 per cent. group. The difficulty for them, especially if they do not have challenging behaviour but are typical children who sit quietly in the classroom and allow everything to wash over them, is that when they leave full-time education they are the children we fail because they hit the buffers. When they go on to training or the workplace, it becomes apparent that they have serious problems that were not addressed during their school lives. They become a difficult problem for the training and employment agencies and others who seek suitably to qualify them to take their place in society. As the Audit Commission report said, they become isolated socially because it is often too late to begin a programme that should have started 10 or 15 years previously.
  I welcome the step forward in part III of the Bill, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the matters that I have raised. I hope that we can build on the Bill's provisions in Committee and within the general review of the 1981 Act. We need to ensure that local authorities do not use politically correct language—the modern terminology—to disguise the serious problems faced by many children with special needs, especially those in the 2 per cent. and 18 per cent. groups.
  8.13 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: Like many other hon. Members, during the summer holiday I read the White Paper that was the prelude to the Bill. It spoiled my summer holiday, as I am sure that it spoiled the summer holidays of many teachers, those involved in education, parents and, I hope, many hon. Members. The
  692
  White Paper made me angry because of its absurd proposed time scale. It is a profoundly insulting time scale for a Bill that we are told will transform the education system for a generation and more.
  Some hon. Members have drawn comparisons with the 1944 Act, but that was a consensual document, carefully researched and prepared, which set the basis for an education system for a quarter of a century. Everyone who has examined the Bill has remarked on the contrast with the 1944 Act. The Bill is intellectually shoddy and it was preceded by an intellectually shoddy White Paper. That was the main reason for my anger when I read it. It was not so much what the Government were proposing, as the fact that they were proposing to do it on the basis of an intellectually shoddy argument. Every hon. Member should remember that when considering the detail of the Bill. The White Paper was like a Pattenesque article in The Spectator about God, morals and the universe. It was elevated into a White Paper and is now transferred into a major Bill. It would be funny if it were not so serious and tragic.
  It is not the Opposition who are making those comments—far from it. Indeed, it is quite a job catching up with the comments of every informed outside commentator. I shall quote what was said by Stuart Maclure, the former editor of The Times Educational Supplement. He is one of the most independently minded, committed and informed supporters of the British education system. He read the White Paper while he was on his summer holidays, and he said:
  "Is it my imagination or is this White Paper not unbelievably bad? Bad in a sense of poor quality—far below the standard you expect from a great department of State? Could you imagine David Eccles, Edward Boyle or Anthony Crosland—or for that matter Margaret Thatcher or Keith Joseph—putting out such a slipshod and windy White Paper? And here is John Patten proudly boasting that he wrote the first and worst chapter himself."
  The Bill is shoddy. It is devoid of any analysis or research and it is unfounded in every sense.
  One Conservative Member gave a little peroration on how grant-maintained schools were somehow the route to quality, I wanted to intervene, but he would not let me. The fact is that there is no established link between grant-maintained schools and quality. One would have thought that there would be an attempt to show some connection, especially as the whole of the education system is to be transformed on the basis of that alleged connection —but there is no evidence of such a link, despite what Conservative Members want to believe. There is also no link in the White Paper with the fact that there is to be a wholesale reorganisation of local government.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Wright: I shall give way to those Conservative Members whose children attend state schools. Is the hon. Gentleman one of them?
  Mr. Thurnham: My child goes to a special school—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Is the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) giving way?
  Dr. Wright: Yes.
  Mr. Thurnham: I have a child with special educational needs who goes to a special school. It is a voluntary school,

  693
  not a state school, but it is excellent. It is maintained out of the fees paid for the children. The hon. Gentleman tried to impose a quite unnecessary qualification on hon. Members who want to intervene in his speech. Perhaps he will tell us which grant-maintained schools he has visited to judge the position for himself.
  Dr. Wright: That is an interesting question and I am happy to answer it. I have been in more than one grant-maintained school. Indeed, I have something to say later about Birmingham, which may interest you. However, perhaps we should not swap such questions because there may be some vulnerabilities around the place.
  There is no evidence that there has been any serious consultation. It has been a fraud, rather like the consultation about opting out of bits of the health authorities. One of the Government's great achievements has been that for ever and for all time they have devalued the word "consultation". It means that they are statutorily obliged to issue a document before they tell you what they will do.
  The White Paper's one practical offering was that the funding formula for grant-maintained schools would be related to standard spending assessments. Within two days of the Government making that announcement, it was exposed as nonsense. Because schools generally spend about the SSA level, most grant-maintained schools would lose out. The Government retreated from that one specific proposal within 48 hours, and we are still waiting for something to replace it.
  Earlier, the Secretary of State almost admitted just how sloppy is the Bill. He said that it could be tightened up in Committee—"Don't get too stressed. We have people who can do some work on it." That is an extraordinary remark to make about supposedly major education legislation. The Secretary of State was saying, "We may not have it right at the moment, but I am sure that we can get it right as we go along".
  That is no way to proceed in respect of the country's education system. If we were not used to that mentality, it would seem even more extraordinary.
  At the heart of the Bill is the dismemberment of the post-war education system and a move towards compulsory, universal opt-out. I hope that we can reach a consensus on some aspects, such as special educational needs, assessment integration, the curriculum, and attendance—but they are not at the heart of the Bill, as the White Paper's first Pattenesque chapter tells us.
  The Bill must be seen in the context of the failure of the opt-out experiment. If it had succeeded, the Bill would not be required. Opting out is considered completely irrelevant by the overwhelming majority of schools, teachers, and parents. Its failure compelled the Government to introduce inducements into the system and to skew formulas, to get what they want. The Conservative party is supposed to be the party of choice, and the public have said that they do not want opting out. The Education Reform Act 1988 gave the public the opportunity to choose. They made their choice and rejected opting out. The Government respond by saying, "You are jolly well going to have it, whether or not you like it."
  Even sordid little provisions such as dispensing with the second ballot are an attempt to abbreviate the democratic and consultative process.
  Mr. David Congdon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Wright: The same principle that I enunciated earlier applies.
  Mr. Congdon: I am not interested in the hon. Gentleman's qualifications.
  Dr. Wright: Then I will not give way.
  We have also seen the complete failure of the delegation system put in place by the 1988 Act. The Bill is in some respects a betrayal of that system. If it had worked and the Government were committed to it, it would not now have the ladder cut from under it by moving from delegation to complete severance. Despite the nods in the direction of the 1988 Act, the Bill technically repeals much of that legislation on the ground that it is inadequate for the Government's purpose.
  We have yet to see the arrival of the promised market solution to education. There is belated recognition that, even if people wanted to solve certain problems, they will not do so. Some form of planning must come back into the system. The Bill reflects the Government's inability to overcome problems through the market, which cannot plan, solve placing, or confront all the system's other problems. Unfortunately, the Bill approaches that aspect in a way that combines confusion and centralisation. That is one of its worst features.
  Many point to the way in which the Bill is riddled with defects from top to bottom. It embraces an enormous capacity for confusion and muddle between the funding authority—now known throughout the system as the sweet FA—and local authorities. In one of his glib asides, the Secretary of State said that there would be competition in the planning of school places. Imagine what that will mean in trying to run an education system.
  We should listen instead to those in the classroom. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) explained that the funding authority will be completely divorced from the other support systems that make schools work. The Bill reflects no understanding of what such a system involves and that a funding authority will need a quality dimension and some kind of quality inspectorate.
  The education association proposals for failing schools are laughable and reveal no understanding of the processes whereby schools succeed and fail, or of the consistent, long-term strategies that must be adopted. There is no clarification either of the funding basis. There is a bribe to voluntary schools, but there is no level playing field, and technology colleges are only an option for the grant-maintained sector. Even in the Government's own terms, there is no even-handed approach. Real diversity and choice would mean a level playing field between the different elements in the system. On count after count, the Bill fails, and many will be pressing for guarantees as it progresses.
  The Bill also undermines the very system of school government—and I support parental involvement—with the engagement of parents and volunteers that has been slowly and painfully built up over several years. That is not just my contention. The National Association of Governors and Managers comments—
  Mr. Congdon: We know what they are like.
  Dr. Wright: You want to abuse that association too, do you?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but there seems to be a growing habit among hon. Members to use the word "you". I can understand hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who are not yet familiar with the rules of the House falling into that habit, but I hope that they will remember that the Chair is not responsible for this Bill or any other.
  Dr. Wright: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is just unfortunate that Conservative Members instantly abuse organisations with whose views they do not agree. That is not at all helpful. The National Association of Governors and Managers, which has done sterling work in supporting the new system of school government, states:
  "The newly established system of school government would be weakened if some governing bodies were induced or obliged to assume additional responsibilities which they could not effectively discharge within the time and commitment that they could give them."
  I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear that important point in mind.
  What, then, is the Bill really about? Clearly, it is about conveying a particular ideological view to the education system, whether people agree with it or not, with no evidence to support it and with no concern about its likely effects. Worst of all—one would have thought that Conservative Members would find this slightly disconcerting, but plainly they do not—the Bill nationalises the system.
  I am not quoting what has been said by Opposition Members. We heard earlier that the Minister had cancelled a date with The Times on the basis of a sterling editorial, which had said exactly the same: that the system would be run from Whitehall and stuffed with quangos. The Bill offers us the erosion of local democracy and local accountability, the end of pluralism and partnership and a complete reversal of what we thought the education system was all about. It gives the Secretary of State more than 20 new powers; it sets up quangos; it provides for appointments by the score to be made by the Secretary of State. On almost every page of the White Paper is a magical sentence giving the Secretary of State a new power of direction.
  The Bill will bring about a major constitutional change. It will mean the end of a system based on partnership, and the worst feature of all is the casual way in which the change is being made. It used to be a source of pride among Conservative Members, among others, that one of the great virtues of our education system—indeed, an index to our whole constitution—was the fact that it was a national system locally administered. I am tempted to say that the Bill replaced that with a national system nationally administered, and I would say it if it did not overstate the coherence of the Government's proposals.
  The proposals are deeply dishonest. The Government have not even had the courage to set about creating the kind of system that they would really like to create; instead, they are legislating in a mean, sordid, shoddy and dishonest way.
  Let me conclude my speech—[Interruption.] This is important, at least to some Opposition Members. When we say that the Bill is irrelevant and dangerous, we say it
  696
  because we mean it. Our reasons are not ideological; we are concerned about what goes on in schools, and what happens to children and parents.
  Two or three days ago, a constituent wrote to me about her children, who attend a primary school in my constituency—I will not name it. She wrote:
  "Dear Sir,
  At a recent school meeting I was rather appalled to be told that the school budget had been cut to an all time low. Our school has already lost three staff members, making conditions for both staff and pupils extremely difficult, and if teachers are ill children cannot be taught. There are now mixed age classes in the upper end of the school years 3 and 4 together and years 5 and 6 together. My own child is seven years old and is in a class with 7, 8 and nine-year-olds. This is an intolerable situation. The teachers cannot be expected to work properly, and give their all under the new curriculum, to mixed age classes, and it would not be expected of them.
  Mr. Major has said that our children deserve the best education, but with the restrictions that are being put on them, I feel that our teachers cannot give this."
  My constituent goes on to describe how money is having to be raised for essentials; hon. Members will know the kind of story that she tells.
  Faced with what I am afraid is the reality in today's schools, my constituent asked me to write back telling her what was being done. I shall write back saying, "The Government are presenting an Education Bill. It is a tremendously big Bill, one of the biggest that we have had." She will ask what the Bill will do about the conditions that she described. The answer is that it is completely irrelevant to her concerns: indeed, in many respects it will make matters worse, by making effective planning much more difficult. Let me add that that lady's local authority is spending above its SSA level on education.
  Those are the issues that people want to discuss. That is what education means for people who live in this country and use its schools. They are not on some ideological trip, as the Conservative party is. Every response to the Bill—not from Opposition Members, but from others who know about education—has used the same words: confusion, instability, incoherence. I only hope that the Government will take such words on board, and that their obsession with structures will give way to some understanding of education as a process—for that is what they clearly do not understand.
  It is not just a question of resources, although of course resources matter. Let us not hear the same sterile argument again. Nearly every speaker so far has mentioned Birmingham—mention of Birmingham appears to be almost statutory. The Secretary of State put us on that track virtually at the outset. My children go to school in Birmingham; that is my vested interest in the Birmingham education system, but there are many serious questions to be asked about it.
  Let me add two points to the important observations that have already been made. First, many of the problems experienced in Birmingham result from the under-resourcing of the system, which means that resources must be relevant. Indeed, the Secretary of State made that case earlier, when he pointed out that many resources had been taken from education and put elsewhere. Resources matter deeply.
  Secondly—this has not been mentioned so far— Birmingham suffers from all the damage inflicted by a layer of selection. If we really want to use Birmingham as a model, we must see what kind of model it is. It is a model

  697
  of a system on which a layer of selection has been imposed, creaming off 10 per cent. of the pupils and creating a two-tier arrangement. It is a bit rich of the Government to describe such systems as monstrous, when the Bill is about to re-create them.
  The anger that I felt when I read the White Paper in the summer has now been compounded with a good deal of sadness. I was sorrowful, rather than anything else, to observe that the Secretary of State seemed to think that a measure of profound importance to many people was merely a jolly wheeze. What good fun it was to introduce a Bill like this! As the right hon. Gentleman puffed and preened in his usual way, telling us how he was going to wreck the system, I reflected on the tragedy that we were dependent on Conservative Members to say, "Hang on a minute; we cannot go on like this. We cannot set in train a sequence of events that will set school against school, parent against parent, governor against governor and teacher against teacher. We cannot let the system be wrecked because the Secretary of State—on some ideological mission, enslaved by right-wing pressure groups —thinks that it is a good idea."
  A real agenda for education is waiting to be seized. It is an agenda to do with quality and excellence; it addresses questions such as "Why do a third of 16-year-olds fail to gain a single GCSE pass at grades A to C?", "Why do one in four school leavers fail to gain a single graded GCSE?" and "Why do only one in five 18-year-olds gain an A level pass of any kind?". We should be discussing those problems. There is a huge educational agenda out there, and—as in 1944—a consensus is waiting to coalesce around it. The tragedy is that the Bill has nothing to do with any of that.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I have been waiting to hear about the two grant-maintained schools that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Wright) said that he might have visited, but by the time he reached the end of his speech he seemed to have forgotten about it. What a disgraceful qualification for an intervention. What is wrong with people making sacrifices to send their children to private schools, if they want to give them the best education they can? What is wrong with somebody striving to earn the highest possible income in order to pay the fees and, in the process, paying taxes so that the children of other people can have a better education as well? What is wrong—
  Dr. Wright rose—
  Mr. Thurnham: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He went on for long enough. When I asked him whether he had visited grant-maintained schools, he seemed to make out that he had, and then it turned out that he had not. If he had visited grant-maintained schools in his area, or in Bolton, he would have heard a very different story.
  I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman were to visit Greyfriars school and Baverstock school in Birmingham he would not find the decline in morale and standards about which he and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) spoke. He should also visit Bolton's grant-maintained schools—St. James's and Crompton Fold—and see the spirit among the children, parents and
  698
  staff—and the bearing and manner of the headmaster, someone who knows what he is doing and how to run a school in the best interests of the children, not as part of a uniform bureaucracy, which is what the Opposition favour—absolutely no choice whatsoever and no opportunity for people to do their very best for their children.
  I commend many of the Bill's provisions to the House. I am disappointed, however, that Opposition Members have been unable to appreciate its good features. I wonder how many lives the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has? I notice that she is not in her seat. She was kind enough to let me intervene during her speech. She once said that the right to buy would be over her dead body. I am not sure whether she wants this Bill to be passed over her dead body. I hope that she will eventually see the light, however slow she may be to do so.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education pointed out in his speech that about £300 million a year is wasted on the provision of surplus places. I hope that he will direct Bolton education authority's attention to the waste that occurs as a result of its surplus places. On a pro rata basis, I should not be surprised if £1 million a year was wasted on surplus places in Bolton. I hope that the education authority will make additional funds available for schools that deserve more money to be spent upon them. In addition to the two schools that have already become grant-maintained. Canon Slade is to hold a ballot at the beginning of December. I am sure that the parents will see the benefits that we are discussing tonight.
  A disappointing feature of the debate is the negative attitude adopted by the Opposition. Parents have written to me recently expressing their concern about the negative attitude of Labour authorities over the provision of bus fares for children attending private schools. One authority refused to provide the uniform for a child who had won a scholarship to a music school because it was a private school. The parents were on income support. How disgraceful. That nine-year-old child just does not exist in the eyes of that education authority. Those authorities are making a considerable profit by not having to pay for the education of these children if they do not even contribute towards the cost of bus fares or school uniforms.
  I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) on her excellent speech, in which she highlighted the special needs requirements, for which the Bill makes provision. The Bill will be a great success in that area. It deals with so many of the obvious requirements. I understand that the total cost of special needs education is about £1·5 billion. I intend to deal with some of the issues raised with me by constituents.
  First, the arrangements for speech therapy are riot working satisfactorily. I hope that the Bill will enable them to be improved. In the case of one child, Rebecca, in my constituency, her parents are still having to pay for her to have private speech therapy, although it should be available through state arrangements. A proper agreement should be reached between the health authority and the education authority as to who exactly is responsible for speech therapy. However, the latest circular seems only to have added to the confusion. It has not resolved the issue.
  The House has already heard about the long delays over the issue of statements. I hope that the Bill will help to reduce those delays and make the issue of statements a

  699
  much more straightforward process. The special educational needs tribunal, the appeal tribunal, should work far better than the present arrangements, under which one appeals to the same body that made the original decision.
  I hope that the Bill will address the need for choice of school in every possible respect. Children should not be forced to go to a special school when the parents and the child feel that that is not in the child's best interests. The local authority can make that decision now against the wishes of the child. I hope that full parental choice will be introduced.
  I am also concerned about the status of voluntary schools. In my constituency I have Birtenshaw, which is a very fine school for children with special educational needs. Its future is very uncertain under the new arrangements. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some comfort to such schools. I have already referred to the fact that my son is at the Royal School for the Blind in Wavertree, which is also run on a voluntary basis. That school also needs reassurance about how its costs will be covered.
  It is important that costs are compared fairly between the state and the private sector. If one takes into account all the overheads in the state sector, one often finds that a local authority tends to favour its own schools when their costs are probably higher than those in a well-run voluntary school. As for the arrangements in special residential schools for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children, there is considerable uncertainty about the number of children in those residential schools. A survey carried out in 1987 for the National Children's Bureau showed that there were about 11,000 children in these special schools. The costs of having children in special schools can be very high. In the case of Pepperharrow it can be high as £50,000 a year. However, it has been pointed out that the earlier a decision can be made to send a child to such a school the greater the chance the school has of success with that child.
  It may be that the Home Office ought to pay the bills. If children are not put on the straight and narrow after, in many cases, a disastrous early upbringing, they will clearly cost society a great deal of money later if they resort to a life of crime and end up in prison for half their life and commit crimes when they are out of prison. I hope, therefore, that the Home Office will be persuaded to cover some of the costs instead of leaving the cost to be borne completely by local authorities.
  I attended a meeting recently at the Department for Education when a delegation from residential schools for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children met the Minister, Lady Blatch. She said that she felt there was a need for these schools to market themselves to the local authorities, but local authorities are monopolies and can make decisions for reasons that are not entirely rational when it comes to marketing. If they have their own schools, they will be inclined to favour them and make short-term decisions based on immediate costs rather than on decisions that are in the best interests of the child—and in the long term, without doubt, in the best interests of society.
  I have also received a note from Mr. Stephen Lloyd, the director of the Hesley group of schools. It consists of six schools for EBD children and children with special needs.
  700
  He says that he is not happy with the way that the White Paper sets out the position. He believes that there is a contradiction between more pupils now being excluded from schools—we do not appear to have any figures, but I hope that the Department will start to collect figures for exclusions, because concern is growing about that matter—and the fewer placements that are now being made in residential schools for therapeutic purposes. Those fewer placements are taking place because of financial restrictions.
  Mr. Lloyd believes that the Education Act 1981 is not addressing that problem. He argues that there is no significant difference between the costs of residential education and care in the private sector and in the mainland sector, if all costs are compared on a like-for-like basis he says:
  "The White Paper is wrong to suggest limiting parental choice to the maintained sector only. Many other examples of high quality provision exist and, given similarity of gross costs, the child's best needs should be met (with parental involvement in decision making) irrespective of the legal operating base of the school."
  I am concerned that parents in my constituency are being denied the opportunity to send their children to Birtenshaw school, although they have moved to a house nearby.
  Mr. Lloyd continues:
  "The theme of the White Paper is 'choice'. This restriction of choice negates the theme. If one is planning a comprehensive service for children, local authority administrators should have the ability to use 'out of authority' placements as part of their planning process for best 'provision and financial reasons'. Many such officers are restricted by local authority policy from doing so."
  He says that the
  "White Paper is wrong to suggest that such oversight cannot be given to non-maintained or independent schools and implying, again wrongly, that local authority schools automatically achieve such status."
  Residential schools have high fixed costs, if one regards staff as fixed costs, and obviously get into difficulty if the number of pupils declines. I appeal to my right hon. Friend carefully to consider the case for residential schools. He will be aware from his previous position in the Home Office of the great cost to society of children who are classed as EBD. I hope, therefore, that he will not allow residential schools to wither on the vine because of the short-sighted policy of local authorities. He is in a position to direct that more resources be allocated to those schools so that in the long term, society can benefit from the good work that they do.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I came to the Chamber to hear a debate on the Education Bill. Many parents, teachers, councillors, and some Tory county councillors in Devon, in which my constituency of Devonport lies, will be watching this debate closely. I shall measure the column inches in Hansard tomorrow to assess the amount of time that the Secretary of State spent attacking the Opposition rather than addressing the serious matters in the Bill.
  The Bill is about the future not only of the education system but of local democracy. It is no exaggeration to say that, if the Bill's proposals are fully implemented, by the turn of the millenium local government could have all but disappeared.
  The Bill was spawned from the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools", which

  701
  was packed with unresolved questions and conflicting ideas and, worst of all, resounded to the heavy rumble of the remorseless juggernaut of state control. The White Paper was the diagnosis and the Bill is the cure. I had hoped that the Secretary of State might have told us what the disease was.
  The White Paper has every appearance of having been written by a novice on a voyage of discovery. As we leaf through it, on every page there is a treasure trove of hitherto undiscovered facts about our education system. I am sure that the education world held its breath when it was told in paragraph 1.5 that "comprehensives serve many communities". That astonishing revelation was surpassed in paragraph 1.16 by:
  "The reality is that children have different needs."
  Only the deep insight of the experienced eye could have spotted that. Paragraph 1.41 says:
  "praise or encouragement loses value if lavished on every piece of work."
  In my days as a teacher, that last trite epiphet, which was seemingly drawn from a bottomless pit of banality, would have attracted a failed grade and the comment: "Lacking in depth, showing little more than the most shallow understanding of the subject in hand. See me."
  When the White Paper was written, the Secretary of State was new to his command and as he travelled on his voyage of discovery in the world of education he encountered the natives, who had time-honoured practices and modes of working that he did not understand. So, like a proselytising missionary, he moved among them, attempting to change their way of life before he understood them, seeing evil where there was none and stamping out sins which did not exist.
  The Secretary of State would have done well to have paid regard to some of the 850 responses to the White Paper. Clearly, he would have furthered his own education had he done so. He has treated the consultation period with contempt by making no discernible changes to his proposals in the period of metamorphosis from White Paner to Bill.
  The worst aspect of the Bill is its power to embrace our education system with the clawing arms of state control. The Government want to inflict on our schools the very thing that they say is bad for business. The Government who introduced the state curriculum and dictated the content of examination syllabuses now wish to dictate articles of government, abolish local accountability, replace governors at will, send in education associations and, most of all, invest more and more powers with the Secretary of State. I remind him of the Prime Minister's foreword to the Tory manifesto for the last election, which stated:
  "Politicians must never make the mistake of thinking the state knows best."
  As the Secretary of State takes more powers to himself, inhibits the actions of others and dictates every aspect of education, I remind him of a quotation, for which I had to burrow in Devonport high and low, from Angus's description of Macbeth:
  "Those he commands move only in command, Nothing in love: now does he feel his title Hang loose about him, like a giant's robe Upon a dwarfish thief."
  I deal now with one of the five great themes of the Bill: choice—a concept enshrined in the name of the White Paper. When it comes to parents selecting a school for their child, choice is subtly changed to "preference", but,
  702
  most important, the Bill removes the most fundamental of parents' choices: the right to choose who runs the system locally, the right to choose councillors in elections, the right to elect an LEA and the right to change the people running the system if they so wish. The only person with choice will be the Secretary of State, who will have sole power to decide members of the funding agency.
  The Bill purports to free parents and schools from the alleged bureaucracy of local education authorities, only to replace them by a beast far more terrifying—the funding agency. Schools will be embraced by a far more powerful bureaucracy, which will be more remote, unresponsive, ignorant of local needs, unelected and unaccountable to local feelings. That costly new bureaucracy will prove worse by far than the one from which the grant-maintained schools thought they were escaping.
  There are other ways in which choice is being eroded. If the Government close all the surplus places in schools to make the aggregate number of places equal to the total number of pupils, parental preference will vanish as children are shoe-horned into the places available. To maintain the concept of preference, some surplus places must remain. I should welcome a statement from the Secretary of State about what percentage of extra places will be required and what basis of information he has used to arrive at his decision.
  It is worthy of note that the Bill does not propose that one more penny is spent on books, on equipment, on teachers, or on leaking roofs, and that the only extra funds available will be for the bureaucracy of the funding agency. The Secretary of State has given an assurance that the money will be found by savings from removing surplus places. That is ironic, as most of the surplus places exist only as a result of the schools having the ability to opt out if facing closure by an LEA. The opting-out laws have destroyed the local education authorities' ability to plan and to make savings.
  It is astonishing that such reliance should be placed on savings from the removal of school places when the definition, true number and nature of surpluses have not been established. Furthermore, there have been instances when the Government have allowed schools that would otherwise have been closed by local education authorities to remove surplus places to become grant-maintained schools.
  My lack of confidence in the Government's capability to act quickly and to respond to local needs has been more than adequately highlighted by their treatment of Devon county council, a Tory authority, in its plans to reorganise secondary education in Plymouth. The plans were launched in 1984, but it was only this summer that the announcement was made that in September 1993 the final reorganisation of the last two schools will take place. The attempts by the local education authority to remove surplus places have been met by prevarication, fumbling inefficiency, and totally unwarranted and costly delay.
  The main object of the Bill is to make schools go grant maintained—hence the need to set up the funding agency to replace the local education authorities. At no point does the Bill address the positive relationships which schools enjoy with local education authorities. Schools do not exist in a vacuum; they need the formal and informal networks, mostly provided by the LEA, on which they rely heavily. The Association of County Councils says:

  703
  "The National Curriculum and its associated arrangements are not implanted in the life of schools simply by virtue of text from the National Curriculum Council, or SEAC or the DFE."
  From my own experience in schools, I can confirm that the national curriculum, the GCSEs and the local management of schools proposals would not have been in place now if it had not been for the excellent work of local education authorities. Schools look to the LEAs on a practical basis for support services, specialist legal and employment advice, in-service training, and much more. Many local education authorities include councillors and full-time officers who provide inspiration and leadership. Indeed, the quality of education owes much to the vision of those people, who belong to other parties as well as to my own.
  All those benefits could be replaced by a centralised, remote funding agency appointed solely by the Secretary of State. Not in my wildest dreams could I imagine the grey, faceless quango, full of the Secretary of State's appointees, doling out grants in Whitehall, replacing our excellent local education authorities.
  The Secretary of State made an announcement that there are now 350 grant-maintained schools. That is hardly an avalanche.
  Mr. Patten: There are 340.
  Mr. Jamieson: As I said, it is scarely an avalanche. In 1987 the former Prime Minister assured us that by this time there would be almost 11,000 opted-out schools.
  The Bill is needed because of the resounding lack of enthusiasm of parents for grant-maintained status. The Secretary of State made much about democracy in his speech. If he had confidence in local democracy, he would introduce proposals to allow schools to hold ballots to opt back into local education authority control. Perhaps the lack of enthusiasm to become grant-maintained is due to lack of trust in the Government.
  I am sure that parents of children in grant-maintained schools will monitor the Secretary of State's commitment with interest. It was a case of, "Watch my lips: grant-maintained schools will receive more money", but the Secretary of State's muttered aside in response to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) spoke volumes. When the hon. Gentleman asked whether more funds would be available, the Minister said, "Not this week." I hope that that is on the record and that the Minister will explain what he meant by that when he replies to the debate.
  It is not my intention to address the detail of the Bill at this stage. However, I cannot ignore clause 19, which gives any parent the right to a copy of a list of names and addresses of every parent of every child registered at a school. Schools and local authorities currently consider that information to be confidential, limited-access information.
  Sometimes we judge a Bill on the major issues that it raises, but it is the detail which betrays the lack of insight of its authors. When clause 19 was inserted in the Bill, did the Secretary of State pause for a moment to consider the consequences of publishing that information? That information could be used by commercial organisations. Far worse, however, an estranged or violent parent could use it as a device to trace other parents or children. The
  704
  information could be used in the heat of the moment by a parent to demand the address of a particular child. At present, such demands are regularly turned down in schools. At the very worst, such information could provide a comprehensive list of local children for people with the basest of motives. A most senior education officer described the proposal to me yesterday as the paedophile's charter. I hope that the Minister will recognise the error of clause 19 and announce its withdrawal.
  Today we should have been considering the real issues which affect our schools. Parents should have the right to minimum standards enshrined in law. We should have been addressing issues such as class sizes, building standards, levels of equipment and teacher-pupil ratios. If the Bill had been about conditions and giving parents rights and genuine choice, I could have commended it to others. However, it is seriously flawed and it has engendered bitter opposition from local authorities, including the authority in my constituency, it has found little resonance with parents and it will effectively nationalise our schools.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I will not follow the path pursued by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), as I do not have much time. However, I was interested to hear him quote Shakespeare. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall these words of Shakespeare:
  "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
  To the last syllable of recorded time;
  And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
  The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
  Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
  That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
  And then is heard no more".
  I know that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport is a keen supporter of the National Union of Teachers. He will be pleased to learn that this evening I saw Fred Jarvis, who was general secretary of the NUT for many years. He had a terrible accident two weeks ago when his car overturned, but he emerged with only a scratch. Fred is good and well. As one who enjoyed a grammar school education, he will support the best education for others. The Bill will facilitate that.
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) spoke disparagingly about the Birmingham education system, which gives special education to 10 per cent. of its children. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the same argument against selection was used against the Parmiters school in Bethnal Green when I was the Conservative candidate for Stepney and Bethnal Green some years ago. I do not argue for selection but let us treat the matter academically.
  Socialists in the area, including Shirley Williams, said that that two-form entry grammar school was wrecking the surrounding comprehensives. They said that the fact that 60 children received a grammar school education in the area wrecked the 20 or 30 local comprehensives. Parmiters school was destroyed, and the 60 children a year who had previously gone to that distinguished school were distributed about six per school to the comprehensives.
  What difference did that make to those schools? None whatever. But it damaged the opportunity of the children who would have enjoyed a good, strong. grammar school education, just as the hon. Member for Devonport did. I

  705
  know that he was pleased with his education. Those children lost the chance of such an education, and suffered accordingly.
  Mr. Jamieson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: No. I listened to the hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he has not left me long, so I will ask him to forgive me.
  The hon. Member for Devonport said that the Bill centralised education. How can he say that when the Bill envisages a system which gives schools throughout the country independence which they have never had before?
  Mr. Jamieson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Greenway: He sits and shakes his head. I should be glad to take him to my constituency, to poor, not so poor and comparatively wealthy areas. All the secondary high schools have opted for grant-maintained status, except for one, which is on its way. Other schools within striking distance of my constituency have also become grant-maintained. They enjoy a new independence.
  I give cleaning as an example of the benefits of opting out. If the hon. Member for Devonport has ever run a school, as I have, he will know how important it is to have the school clean and free of graffiti, to have the floors scrubbed, and so on. If the school becomes derelict, that leads to more dereliction and a bad attitude among the children.
  Northolt high school examined its cleaning budget when it gained grant-maintained status. It took the cleaning contract away from the local authority and found a private cleaning system. It saved £70,000 a year. Where does the money go in such cases? It does not go back to the cherished local authorities about which we have heard so much. It goes to pay for books, pencils, rubbers and teachers for the children.
  Some of the children in Northolt high school are poor and deprived. They come from sad, tough backgrounds. I should have been thrilled and impressed if I had heard Opposition Members say that they were striking out for poor children and would support the opportunity which will come from the diversified system of education which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined.
  The diversified education system includes the assisted places scheme. I know cleaners in Hanwell whose children have had assisted places and are doing well. They are grateful, and the children have enjoyed the places. The diversified system enhances the role of Church schools and single-sex schools. It takes into account the fact that children are all different. If the hon. Member for Devonport—I concentrate on him but I should address my remarks to all Opposition Members—has ever run a school, he will know that children are different and need different types of schools and courses.
  The awful pressure that I experienced professionally from the Inner London education authority when it went loony Left was unbelievably Labour doctrinaire. It did not want choice for children. Rather, primary schools were zoned to secondary schools. Children went to their local primary school and were then zoned into their local secondary school. There was no choice or diversity, and certainly not the choice for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is providing. As a result, standards were not what they should have been.
  706
  The Opposition cannot say that every child should be treated the same and that no account should be taken of their differences. They must be given the education that each child needs and deserves. That is where the Labour party has gone wrong for so long, yet it still does not see it.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is scandalous that Labour-controlled local authorities should have used chargepayers' money to mount campaigns against schools that wanted to go grant-maintained. For example, the previous Leader of the Opposition sent his children, Stephen and Rachel, to Drayton Manor high school in my constituency. Parents of children at that school in Hanwell decided that they wanted the school to go grant-maintained. The loony Left council in control of Ealing sent the education officer, the deputy education officer and all the brass from the education committee—the paid officials—as well as elected members to pressurise parents and governors against doing that.
  However, those governors and parents, to their great credit, held out and investigated what grant-maintained status could mean for the school. They decided that they wanted an independent state school. The parents canvassed other parents and the governors and eventually, after a long tough struggle lasting many months against the Labour local education authority, they won through. To his credit, the chairman of the governors resigned.
  I have noticed that Labour governors of schools that go grant-maintained do not always resign when the school goes grant-maintained, even if they oppose it. Why do they hang in there? Are they converted or do they stay there for further trouble? Time will tell. I hope that Opposition Members will support me when I say that, if Labour governors who have been dedicated to the battle to oppose schools going grant-maintained stay on the board of governors, they will do so in a constructive manner and support the school's new status. That is fundamental and important.
  Religious education is as important as any subject on the school curriculum. The tragedy is that two thirds of local education authorities have not had a new syllabus for religious education, which is desperately needed. It needs to be genuinely and sincerely argued out and hard fought for. Under the Education Reform Act 1988, the former Ealing Labour council produced a new religious education syllabus that did not refer to God, the Bible, the Prayer Book or Jesus. That RE syllabus was required to be mainly Christian. Such a spurious exercise is not acceptable to parents. Parents in Ealing opposed it and petitioned against it. Finally, when a Conservative council was secured in 1990—
  Mr. Enright: Which school?
  Mr. Greenway: The school was in Ealing. Why does not the hon. Gentleman listen instead of interrupting from a sedentary position? Where are his manners?
  Mr. Enright rose—
  Mr. Greenway: No, I shall not give way.
  A religious educational syllabus was produced in Ealing by the local socialists which virtually disowned Christianity. Parents from Acton high school and others petitioned against it strongly. I am surprised that the hon.

  707
  Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who is a friend of mine, despite appearances, and who is a Roman Catholic—
  Mr. Enright: What is the name of the school?
  Mr. Greenway: I mentioned it, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not take what I say seriously. I hope that he will read Hansard tomorrow, look at what I have said and ensure that, where he has influence in other sectors—I am sure he does—where a Labour party or any other party is in control, such a thing never happens again.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: A number of Opposition Members will have sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on religious education. During a high-quality debate reference has been made to special education, a subject that unites a number of hon. Members. But that is where any consensus must end.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) and other hon. Members referred to the consultation process that led to the White Paper and subsequently the Bill. The lack of consultation is not untypical. When we consider the proposals for reforming —if that is the right word—Her Majesty's inspectorate, we see that the consultation process was short and was, on balance, ignored.
  When the head of Ysgol Hughes in Gwynedd and the heads of the nine primary schools that feed into that comprehensive school wrote to the Western Mail in September, they said:
  "We are amazed that this document"—
  the White Paper—
  "was released, not only when schools were closed for the summer holidays, but, furthermore, when the term of office of one governing body is drawing to a close, and the next body is not yet elected."
  To have a consultation exercise about a major reform of schools and education at the beginning of the school summer holidays shows the Government's lack of seriousness about consultation.
  Dr. Spink: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that in my constituency half the schools—17 out of 34—read the report, understood it, discussed it with me and wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with their comments on the White Paper. That is consultation par excellence, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that effort.
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) say that the consultation process would continue in Committee. My experience in Committee under this Government shows that very few concessions are made at that stage, but times are changing and one never knows.
  There was, at least, sufficient time for public organisations and those involved in education in the Principality to consider the consultation exercise and the White Paper. They have told the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of State their views on the proposals. We would expect the National Association of Local Government Officers, which represents those who administer education, the National Union of Teachers,
  708
  and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers to be worried about the proposals. But, so, too, are head teachers in Wales, local education authorities, the majority of academics who teach education in Wales and most people in the Principality. The Society of Welsh in Education said that the White Paper was
  "one of the most outrageous documents produced this century".
  The National Association of Head Teachers said:
  "the impact of the proposed legislation upon Welsh life, heritage and culture, specially in rural Wales, will be incalculable".
  The House will therefore realise that this Bill is essentially alien to our Welsh culture.
  A teacher who wrote to our national newspaper in September said:
  "The failure of the Welsh Office to act independently, or to listen to its own advisers, is a terrible betrayal of the education service in Wales."
  He went on, appropriately since the Minister of State is with us:
  "The Minister of State for Wales' sole function seems to be to rubber-stamp the latest imposition from Westminster, however wrong-headed or contradictory."
  The problem with the legislation that has come from across the Severn estuary is the same problem as the writer of the 19th century Encyclopaedia Britannica had when he wrote, "for Wales, see England".
  The proposals fly in the face of our strong Welsh democratic traditions and they are alien to our strong Welsh community values. They ignore almost wholly the separate administrative structure of Welsh education, set up as long ago as 1881. Above all, the Government have no mandate for the proposals from the people of Wales. Of the 38 Welsh Members, only six are Conservatives. All the others, Labour, Nationalist and Liberal Democrat, are united on this occasion in their feelings about opt-out schools and about the Bill.
  The Bill is a disgraceful and unnecessary imposition on the Welsh people. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the so-called opted-out, grant-maintained schools in Wales, where they have proved to be deeply unpopular.
  Mr. Patten: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a couple of excellent grant-maintained schools in his constituency. Does he condemn them? Is he against the teachers and parents there?
  Mr. Murphy: The Secretary of State has been given false information: there are no grant-maintained schools in my constituency.
  Mr. Patten: I apologise; my geography is not good enough. I understand that they are in the county next door.
  Mr. Murphy: Yes, they are in that county. I shall come to those schools in a moment. Meanwhile, of all the hundreds of primary and secondary schools in Wales, only three are grant-maintained, two of them as a direct result of proposals for closure. Four primary and 10 secondary schools are now applying for opt-out status. Four of the proposals from those schools were thrown out by the parents and two of the proposals were rejected by the Secretary of State—hardly a success story for GM schools in Wales.

  709
  Some of my hon. Friends have asked about the purpose of the Bill. Presumably it is designed to offer further inducements to GM schools. If grant-maintained status is so popular, why the need for the Bill?
  Many Welsh educationists see problems in the Bill. The possible reintroduction of grammar schools and of selection are universally detested in the Principality. We believe, too, that the so-called specialist schools would mean a concentration of resources on a small number of schools. We admire our experts in Wales; we do not say that those who have spent a lifetime studying education should be derided for their views. The experts tell us that the proposals will cause major problems in our rural areas. The last thing they want are grant-maintained schools in the south Wales valleys or in the inner parts of Cardiff, Swansea and Newport. Is it any wonder that, of the 692 ballots for opt-out in Britain, only 121 came from Labour-controlled local authorities?
  The point on which the Secretary of State was given false information is of interest to the House. We hear about the great success story of three opt-out schools in Wales, but two of them, Cwmcarn and Brynmawr in Gwent, were given grant-maintained status by the Secretary of State. They had asked to join the system because Gwent county council had been asked by the Welsh Office to come up with some ideas about school reorganisation.
  I have no doubt that the Minister of State will mention the £23 million spent in Wales on teaching no one and the 118,000 empty school desks in the Principality. When the local authority came up with plans to save that money, the schools that were to go because they were too small were saved so that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State had something to say about opt-out schools in Wales. Where is the logic or sense in that?
  The Secretary of State said that those schools were in my constituency. Cwmcarn, which has only 323 pupils, was in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who, by pure chance, was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, and the Government thought that they could score some cheap political points by allowing opt-out in that constituency.
  Perhaps the worse aspect of the Bill is that even more quangos will be created in Wales. Only last week the Secretary of State for Wales replied to one of my hon. Friends about appointments to public bodies in Wales. The answer took up 42 columns of Hansard. Almost 1,000 people in Wales are appointed by the Secretary of State in a Government who have no mandate whatever in the Principality.
  We are now being asked to have a curriculum council. There is some merit in that, and in the fact that the assessment aspect will be added to it. However, the Secretary of State has no statutory duty to consult it and there are doubts about its future independence. The Welsh Joint Education Committee has been established for many decades and is ideally qualified and suited to do that job. Why has it been sidetracked? Why can that body not be the curriculum council for Wales?
  The Minister of State is responsible for the Welsh language in Wales and will be aware of the good work carried out by the Welsh language education development committee of the WJEC, the so-called PDAG. It has been in existence for only six years, is effectively independent of the WJEC and everybody else, and virtually everybody in Welsh-medium education in the Principality has said that
  710
  it should remain. The deputy director of the Open university in Wales and the chairman of the University of Wales board for Welsh-medium teaching and many others wrote to the Western Mail some weeks ago and said that the committee's disappearance was
  "yet another attempt to undermine local democratic control over education by centralising all power in the Welsh Office and its nominated Quangos."
  There is much talk about education associations. If the so-called failing schools are in danger of disappearing, those associations will move in and take them over, but everyone knows that the best body to do that is the local education authority. It can do it discreetly and quietly and, without fuss, it will try to improve the school. The panoply of bringing in some association, another quango appointed by the Secretary of State, is absolute nonsense. It has been suggested that retired head teachers should be used for the job. One Welsh director of education wrote:
  "This is an extraordinary proposal and suggests a kind of task force of geriatrics who will rescue a school from perdition."
  That is only one aspect. The worst of the quangos will be the Schools Funding Council. It is unnecessary and unwanted. The Secretary of State will be able to appoint even more people to it.
  It does the Secretary of State and the Minister no credit when they ignore the good work of the Welsh Joint Education Committee, which only recently achieved top place in eight out of 20 A-level subjects—more than either the Oxford or Cambridge boards—and an 82 per cent. A-level pass rate. One of the finest institutions in the Principality is not being used, simply because it is linked to local government.
  All Welsh Members of Parliament are sick and tired of the quangos by which Wales is increasingly being governed. They are packed with the placemen and placewomen of the Secretary of State and the whole system is becoming corrupt and rotten. It is becoming a public scandal in Wales and the Bill does nothing but ensure that that will continue.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Is not the only solution to this deep-seated problem the establishment of a democratic Parliament for Wales with legislative and tax-raising powers? If we had that, we should not have to endure Bills such as this.
  Mr. Murphy: Regional government elected by the people of Wales is the answer to these quangos, because democracy, at whatever level, is valuable. We cannot afford to lose it.
  In her first-class speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) said that local education authorities have done a good job, but that the Secretary of State is reluctant to talk about that, and the Bill and the White Paper make no mention of it. However, as Dyfed county council has told us, only they can deal with the provision of Welsh language properly. They should be dealing with surplus school places, the oversight of admission policies, the overview of special education, weaker schools, local planning, local advice and in-service training. All those functions are properly the prerogative of democratically elected local education authorities.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us something about his plans for the reform of local government in Wales, as we are all awaiting with interest what the White Paper, if there is to be a White Paper, will have to say on that. As long as

  711
  there is uncertainty in local government, it will effectively be blighted. No expenditure decisions can be made or long-term planning undertaken.
  The Bill will fail because it is out of tune with Welsh traditional democratic values. It is ironic that in 1902, when an education Bill sponsored by a Conservative Government was passing through the House, Mr. Balfour said that the time had come for the end of what we would today call quangos. He said:
  "Our reform, if it is to be adequate, must in the first place, establish one authority for education … possessed of power, which may enable it to provide for the adequate training of teachers, and for the welding of higher technical and higher secondary education … In the second place … this one authority for education being as it is responsible for a heavy cost to the rate payers, should be the rating authority of the district … I would say to them"—
  the ardent believers in quangos—
  "that though they may prefer an ad hoc authority, they must surely know that no ad hoc authority now can cover the whole ground of education".
  If only Mr. Balfour were back so that he could talk about the value of democracy.
  The bureaucratic jungle in England about which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) spoke exists in Wales as well. Planning for schools will be in the hands of local education authorities, the Further Education Funding Council for Wales, the Schools Funding Council for Wales, the Welsh Office education department, grant-maintained schools and education associations. If ever there were a recipe for educational chaos and disaster, that is it. In the words of a former chief inspector of schools in Wales:
  "It is surely a triumph of hope over experience to expect that such self-interest, isolated, fragmented decisions, made in thousands of separate institutions, will add up to a sensible, effective and efficient national school system … there is no clarity at present about the Government's vision for the public education service of this country."
  My hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) both pointed that over these two days, rather than discussing this nonsense, we should be talking about nursery place, oversized classes, the lack of books and equipment and crumbling schools. That is what is at stake in education in Wales and the rest of Britain.
  The education system in the Principality and the country generally is yearning for stability and certainty. Instead, education is driven by the dogma of competition, market forces and the other rubbish that comes from the Centre for Policy Studies. The result is a jungle. School is set against school, college against college and college against school. That is no education provision for our young people.
  A few months ago in Cardiff—in the fine St. David's hall—500 young people from Gwent undertook a great festival of music and culture. They came from our valleys, county towns, villages and the inner city areas of Newport. I am fearful that the Bill's provisions will mean that such a festival will never take place again. Similarly, I fear that the advice that is given by local education authorities and the ability to give anyone, irrespective of where he or she lives and his or her earnings, the opportunity to have a good education, will be destroyed by the enactment of the Bill. When the professor of education at the university of Swansea said that the Bill
  712
  "is a shoddy, conniving and mendacious document that has little to do with raising standards or choice",
  she spoke for the people of Wales.
  9.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply on behalf of the Government on the first day of the debate. It gives me the opportunity to highlight the aspects of the Bill which are of particular relevance to Wales and to put the record straight on a number of points made by the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Before dealing with any detail, I have a question to put to both hon. Members about crumbling schools. If that is the position under the existing local education authority regime, why have local education authorities underspent their capital allocation this year by no less than 15 per cent?
  I hope to deal with some of the other issues that have been raised—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will settle down so that we can hear the Minister.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I hope to deal with some of the other matters raised during the debate. I am in the happy position of not having to rush through the issues as my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), the Under-Secretary of State, will have the opportunity to deal with outstanding matters when they open and close the debate tomorrow.
  The principles on which the Bill's provisions are based and the proposals as they were set out in the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools", apply equally in Wales as they do in England. The way in which they are implemented, however, will differ in certain important respects.
  The Government have an excellent record in recognising the distinctive needs and historical, cultural and linguistic characteristics of the education system in Wales. There is no clearer example of this than the way in which we have implemented the national curriculum. I do not know whether Opposition Members are aware of this, but we have made separate orders for geography, history, art and music—which, together with the Welsh language, will form the core of what we call Cwricwlm Cymreig—the Welsh curriculum—which will give children in Wales an understanding of the influence which the uniqueness of their country has on their lives.
  We have established a separate Curriculum Council for Wales. The hon. Member for Torfaen seems not to know that the body is already in existence. In fact it is. It advises the Welsh Office on curriculum matters. I hope to say more about it in a moment. More recently, we have taken steps to establish a separate and independent office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside finds wrong with that. I assure him that that office is greatly respected in Wales.
  The Bill's provisions continue in the same vein, with separate and different arrangements for Wales where we consider them to be right and necessary. Much of the Bill is concerned with grant-maintained schools, to which the Opposition are implacably opposed—at least for the time

  713
  being. I shall spell out in a little detail just where we are and what is happening in the grant-maintained sector in Wales.
  There are three grant-maintained secondary schools in place already in Wales—Cwmcarn, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), and Brynmawr, both in Labour-controlled Gwent, and Bishop Vaughan in Labour-controlled West Glamorgan. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) claimed that the majority were in Conservative-controlled authorities. Five other schools have balloted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status, and the proposals are either with my right hon. Friend for consideration or are awaited shortly.
  There has been a tremendous surge in interest in grant-maintained status over the past few months. There have been more parental ballots during the past six months than in the previous three years, and all bar one have been in favour of grant-maintained status. We are aware of interest in dozens more schools and I expect the issue of grant-maintained status to be on the agenda of most schools in Wales as the new governing bodies are reconstituted this term. I anticipate a significant increase in the number of applications coming to my right hon. Friend in the next few months.
  We should not forget the background against which that surge of interest has taken place. The attitude of some local authorities has been quite deplorable. My hon. Friends have described the position in many English authorities, which have not accepted a policy endorsed by the electorate last April—
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Endorsed in Wales?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: This is a united kingdom. Is the hon. Gentleman a separatist?
  Those English authorities have not recognised the wishes of parents and governors to have a greater say in the running of their schools. Neither have they collaborated in the interests of the education system generally and the welfare of pupils in particular. Their attitude has been one of open hostility and petty vindictiveness. It is not surprising that other schools, faced with that openly hostile attitude and intense pressure from LEAs, have taken a more cautious approach to the question of grant-maintained status.
  As I have said, the position is changing. Parents. governors and head teachers are recognising more clearly the benefits and advantages of grant-maintained status. I have visited two of the three grant-maintained schools in Wales. Indeed, I visited one on Friday. They are reporting much greater freedom in the use of their budgets and more money to spend on books, equipment and staff. The hon. Members for Dewsbury, for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) should take note of that.
  Those schools are also reporting a greater freedom to decide on their own priorities and not to have them determined to a large extent by the LEAs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke about that. Those benefits are apparent to parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and others described.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: In Wales, too?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Yes—in Wales, too. I am not surprised that each of the three grant-maintained schools in Wales has increased pupil numbers this year.
  Another important aspect is the interest currently shown in grant-maintained status by the primary school sector in Wales. We have a large proportion of primary schools, and almost 30 per cent. of them have fewer than 100 pupils. I am keen to emphasise the benefits to them of grant-maintained status. I assure Labour Members that those schools are certainly taking an interest. We are witnessing a tremendous upsurge in grant-maintained status in Wales—[Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh now, but the laugh will be on the other side of their faces in due course.
  At present, calculation and payment of recurrent and capital grants to grant-maintained schools in Wales is undertaken by the Welsh Office, as is the monitoring of the propriety of grant-maintained schools' expenditure. With the large number of such schools in Wales, it would not be right for those essentially executive tasks to be performed by the Welsh Office—which is why the Bill makes provision for the establishment of the Schools Funding Council for Wales to undertake grant-paying functions. It will not be bureaucratic, any more than its English counterpart will be.
  The council will also have duties for the effective administration of the grant-maintained sector in Wales in working alongside the local authority maintained sector to secure sufficient school places and, in certain circumstances, to rationalise provision and to remove expensive surplus places.
  Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: In a moment, as soon as I have described the essential differences for Wales.
  I stress that applications for grant-maintained status will still be decided by the Secretary of State for Wales. We are taking a pragmatic approach to establishing the funding council. Although we envisage a growing number of grant-maintained schools, it would be wrong for us to anticipate parents' wishes—so the Bill includes an enabling provision to allow the funding council to be established by order. That will be done when the level of grant-maintained schools justifies the formation of a separate body. It is therefore in the hands of parents in Wales as to when the funding council will be established.
  I hope that we shall hear no more nonsense about the imposition of an undemocratic quango on the Welsh education system. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) asked where local democracy was when the comprehensive system was foisted on us with a vengeance by circular. The Government adhere to the principle of parental choice and involvement, and if the Schools Funding Council for Wales is established it will be because parents decide that they want a significant grant-maintained sector in Wales. The experience of recent months indicates that we shall have a significant number of grant-maintained schools in Wales sooner rather than later. It is right, therefore, to make proper provision in the Bill.
  Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way now?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once I have put over this point.

  715
  As to curriculum and assessment, quality is the key to our education reforms. We aim at raising standards of pupil performance by setting standards and measuring achievements. Our proposals reflect our decisions on the next steps. In parallel with the amalgamation of curriculum and assessment functions in the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority, we are providing for the transfer of assessment functions to the Curriculum Council for Wales, and for the renaming of the council as the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales.
  Mr. Enright: On what principles will the Welsh Office select members of the Schools Funding Council? Will they be selected in the same way as members of South Glamorgan district health authority, or will they be selected in a reasonable and democratic way?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: If the hon. Gentleman reads the relevant clause in the Bill, he will see that the council is composed largely of educationists and business people.
  The Curriculum Council for Wales has already played a strong supporting role in the development of the national curriculum requirements in Wales. As a result, the distinctive geographical, cultural and linguistic heritage of Wales, the "Cwricwlwm Cymreig", is an integral part of the national curriculum in the Principality.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: No; this is very important. The council will continue to support work in monitoring and reviewing the curriculum, but as a result of this Bill it will receive new assessment functions. Those functions are the assessment of Welsh at all stages, including GCSE and A-level, and the assessment of all other subjects in Wales for key stages one to three.
  The new authority will build on the curriculum council's work, but will be a more substantial body for Wales. It will advise Ministers on all aspects of the curriculum in Wales, and it will have a significant part to play in supporting the place of Welsh language education.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has not been present for most of the debate. I am dealing with points that have been raised by hon. Members who have spoken.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I believe that the time is right for the council to become more involved in ensuring that supporting classroom materials are available, particularly materials in Welsh.
  716
  We propose that the authority should take over the development of classroom materials for Welsh medium and Welsh second language. That work is currently carried out by my Department, with the advice and support of the Welsh language education development committee of the Welsh Joint Education Committee.
  We are grateful for the work that the WLEDC has done over the years, but I must tell the hon. Member for Torfaen that we have moved on significantly since the establishment of that committee. The national curriculum is introducing the Welsh language to all pupils aged five to 16 in Wales. The council is responsible for monitoring and review of Welsh within the curriculum—work that the new authority will carry forward, with statutory assessment for the national curriculum, GCSE and advanced level work.
  It makes sense now to bring that work together with curriculum and assessment work so that the one can inform the other. It also makes sense in making the best use of available resources in a way which improves accountability for those resources. That is the difficulty: here we have a sub-committee of the WJEC which is largely dependent on Government money, as delivered through the Welsh Office. Even when the WLEDC was established, some people asked for it to have a statutory basis, and that is precisely what we are providing now. Above all, it makes sense for teachers to be able to look to a single source for advice and guidance on Welsh language teaching and materials.
  The proposals in the Bill will enable work on curriculum development and assessment in Wales to be brought closer together. They carry forward the work of the curriculum council into a new and extended body, which will have a key role in raising standards in our schools in Wales and in supporting Welsh language education.
  It has again become clear to me during the debate that the Labour party stands firmly for the status quo in this, as in everything else. The Labour party sees grant-maintained schools as a threat to the uniformity that it prizes above all else. It is against parents having a say in the kind of school that they wish their children to attend. It is against more devolution of power from county hall to the boards of governors of individual schools.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to he resumed tomorrow.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Malcolm Bruce be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Andrew Miller be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Don Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Ecolabelling
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mackay.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of ecolabelling, or green labels, as they are often called. I am pleased to see that the Minister of State is to reply to the debate, although I have to remind him that the last time we debated environmental issues he said that his wife did not trust him to do the shopping.
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): And she still does not.
  Mr. Bennett: I hope that, by the time the Minister has learnt a little more about ecolabelling, he will be trusted to do the shopping.
  It has always been important to me that we should try to leave our planet in good heart for future generations. That sentiment is shared by a large number of people in this country. I accept that any demand on resources for the purchases we make diminishes the resources available to the planet. However, one can make choices in the resources that we use. Some are more environmentally friendly than others.
  That view is shared by a substantial number of people in the United Kingdom. Figures suggest that about 30 per cent. of the population would, if given the choice, prefer to buy something that is environmentally friendly rather than a product that is less environmentally friendly. Sadly, the number of people who make environmentally friendly choices has waned, the reason being that people believe that they have been conned—that various manufacturers jumped on to the green bandwagon, claiming that their products were environmentally friendly, and people then found out, after discussion, debate and articles in the press, that some of those products were nothing like so environmentally friendly as had been claimed. They were not green in the environmental sense; it was just that manufacturers hoped that people would be "green" enough or naive enough to buy those products.
  We need a Government-inspired scheme. I have raised the issue on several occasions in the House, including an Adjournment debate. I urged the Government to introduce their own scheme, but their answer was that they preferred to go along with the European Community scheme. I understand the argument: that, if we can encourage people throughout the European Community to buy environmentally friendly products, the environment will gain far more than it would if it happened only in the United Kingdom. I fear, however, that it is taking a long time to get a European Community scheme off the ground.
  I am very pleased that a United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board has been set up, but I am disappointed that it is to look first into white goods—for example, washing machines. It is important that people should be provided with the opportunity to buy environmentally friendly washing machines, but I suspect that that will not provide people with as much choice as they would like. The difference of only a few pence between the price of one soap powder and another, one of which is environmentally friendly and the other not, makes it fairly easy for people to decide to choose the environmentally friendly one,
  718
  because the price difference is not all that great. However, washing machines on the market at the moment which claim to be environmentally friendly are considerably more expensive than others. That makes it much harder for people to make the right choice.
  I hope that the Minister will address one or two of the problems in choosing a washing machine. For instance, a machine that is environmentally friendly in one part of the EC, let alone in one part of the United Kingdom, may not necessarily be environmentally friendly in another. One of the criteria is the volume of water that is used. In parts of the EC where water is in short supply, the most important criterion will be that the programme uses little water, and perhaps uses it several times in the process. In the lake district or other parts of Britain where water is more freely available, low water consumption may not be as important.
  Another important criterion may be the amount of heat that is used to dry washing. In parts of the EC where temperatures are high, it may be far better to use natural heat from the sun rather than a drying machine. I should be interested to hear from the Minister, therefore, what progress is being made in the one area where Britain is supposed to be giving the lead—washing machines.
  I am disappointed that the scheme is not up and running. I know that much of the ground work has been done, but the first question that I put to the Minister is, how soon will it be possible for me to see in shops products displaying the United Kingdom ecolabel and to know that they are environmentally friendly?
  How soon will there be a list of environmentally friendly products? I notice from the literature that the Ecolabelling Board has issued that Denmark is supposed to be dealing with kitchen towels, toilet tissues, photocopiers and writing paper, Germany with laundry and detergents, France with paints and varnishes and the United Kingdom with washing machines and dishwashing machines, light bulbs, soil improvers and hair sprays. Denmark will also deal with tee-shirts and bed linen, and France with batteries. I welcome that, but I hope that the Minister will tell us that, by next Easter, we shall be able to buy an environmentally friendly product that has the EC seal of approval.
  I was told that the scheme is progressing slowly because it is an EC-wide scheme. Five countries, including the United Kingdom, have been preparing the list. What are Greece, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Ireland and Luxembourg, which perhaps does not have the necessary resources, supposed to be dealing with? If it is to be an EC-wide scheme, all member states should have been involved in preparing the list of products and specifications.
  What is the Minister doing to try to persuade his ministerial colleagues to amend the trades description legislation? It would be nice to find a product displaying the ecolabel symbol and to know that it was environmentally friendly, but at present one can find all sorts of signs and symbols on products, some of which make very vague claims about being environmentally friendly, without any scientific backing.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us very firmly that, by the time these labels are in force, it will be an offence for people to make environmental claims unless they can be backed up by scientific evidence. I hope that that can be done quickly.

  719
  I am a little concerned about the policy of some of the big supermarkets. In preparing for the debate, I asked my researcher to get me some information on Sainsbury, which was keen to produce a pack showing what an environmentally concerned company it is. My research of walking around my local store doing the family shopping shows that the policy appears to have more to do with the speed at which products can be sold and with profit margins than with whether products are environmentally friendly. I do not make the accusation against Sainsbury's alone; I am sure that it is true of most of the supermarkets. If the system is to be encouraged, we depend on the stores quickly to have a range of ecolabelled products to which they can give prominence.
  I notice on the list that Italy will consider packaging, which is an important question. I have often held forth in the House about what I see as the over-packaging of certain products. If we have ecolabelling for packaging, how do we decide whether an ecolabel should be put on to the packet to say that the minimum packaging has been used? Will the label be put on only when the package has been used to wrap contents that are environmentally friendly? If not, it could be misleading.
  If the principle in ecolabelling is that the product should be environmentally friendly from the cradle—the manufacture of the product—to the grave—its demise—we should consider one or two products that in themselves do not appear to be anything other than wholly environmentally friendly.
  The Daily Telegraph today makes some comments about all-the-year-round strawberries and says that they are tasteless. That is not the important point about them. The important point, according to that article and others, is the use of methyl bromide to sterilise the soil or the product. That chemical is used increasingly in the import of vegetables and fruit. There are considerable environmental questions and questions about development when we bring in fruit and vegetables from parts of Africa, and sometimes from countries where there is a food shortage, to be sold in British shops.
  I understand that it is nice to have a range of vegetables and fruit, and to be able to please one's family or friends by offering them an exotic choice. However, in environmental terms, we should consider the cost of transport, which may be considerable. In addition, if substances that damage the ozone layer are used in growing such fruit and vegetables, some people may stop and ask themselves whether they really want to buy out-of-season strawberries, for example, as an exotic fruit because environmental damage may have been done in the production process.
  The durability of products is also a factor in ecolabelling. The United Kingdom has gone a long way in considering washing machines. To what extent is the potential life of the machine considered? If a machine is easy to repair, on the whole it will be a more environmentally friendly product. However, over the years I have come across several products that are perfectly all right as long as one can get a replacement for a relatively minor part. Sometimes the production of a particular model finished long ago, so tracking down the individual part is difficult. In awarding ecolabels for washing
  720
  machines, to what extent can the Ecolabelling Board be confident that, in 15 years' time, the machine will work efficiently and that spare parts can be obtained?
  Another consideration is buying furniture made from hard wood. I can understand why we should not buy furniture made from wood from tropical rain forests. However, to buy an oak table which may last 300 years may be rather more environmentally friendly that to buy a table made of chipboard which will have to be replaced in six months' time. That is a difficult issue, and I should like the Minister to make some comments.
  My reason for raising the subject is to try to get a progress report from the Minister. I hope that he can tell me how quickly there will be products in the shops with ecolabels and how quickly there will be a comprehensive list of such products. I hope that he can tell us what efforts are being taken to persuade other EC members, who do not seem to be taking the matter seriously at the moment, to produce specifications so that we can have a bigger list of such products. I should also like the Minister to comment about the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and about packaging. I hope that he will also be able to deal with one or two of my more general issues.
  I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I very much hope that we will have an effective system up and running very quickly. The time for debate and argument is over. The system is long overdue.
  10.15 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on securing this important Adjournment debate. He has taken a keen interest in the development of an ecolabelling scheme, and has raised the subject on many occasions.
  I want to correct a comment that he made at the beginning of his speech in respect of the last occasion when the subject was raised during parliamentary questions. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I did not say that I did not know what washing-up liquid my wife uses, because I do know. I was merely trying to explain that I would not presume to tell her which washing-up liquid to buy. No doubt hon. Members who are married would never dream of making such major decisions on household policy. I will stick to minor ones on Government policy.
  I welcome this opportunity to report progress with the development of the scheme. There are essentially two ways for a Government to tackle environmental problems—through coercion or encouragement. Often it is appropriate, or indeed necessary, to set statutory standards, to limit or ban certain substances or processes or to require particular action to be taken. However, there are also many occasions when more can be achieved by voluntary co-operation. Ecolabelling offers us such an opportunity to go beyond confrontation and achieve significant environmental gains by encouragement—the organic carrot rather than the stick.
  The 1980s saw increasing public awareness of environmental issues. "Pollution", "acid rain", "ozone depletion" and "global warming" became household terms. People began to ask themselves what they could do to help the environment, and we saw the growth of green consumerism. There were notable successes, two of the

  721
  most obvious examples of which were the removal of CFCs from aerosols and the growth of the use of lead-free petrol. However, more needs to be done.
  As so often happens, there has been some disillusionment, as the hon. Gentleman said. People have come to doubt whether some greener products work as well as conventional products, and there have also been question marks over the independence and veracity of some manufacturers' green claims. Nevertheless, market research shows that consumers are still concerned about the environment. A recent survey showed that about 42 per cent. of people have changed their habits or bought certain goods out of concern for the environment.
  That is where ecolabelling has a role to play. It is an authoritative scheme, which is independent of manufacturers. It can identify products that are less harmful to the environment than others and so encourage the design, manufacture, marketing, and, of prime importance, the use of such products.
  The EC regulation setting up the ecolabelling scheme prohibits any false or misleading advertising of the ecolabel or the use of any label or logo that leads to confusion with the ecolabel, and the hon. Gentleman produced an example of the EC logo for the ecolabel.
  More generally, the Government have made it clear that we will legislate, when the opportunity arises, to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to make clear that it covers green claims and to deal with claims that products "contain no X, Y or Z". The hon. Gentleman pressed me on that point. In the meantime, it is encouraging that the advertising industry, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry, has published clear and positive guidelines on how far advertisers can go in making environmental claims.
  We gave considerable thought to how best to set up an ecolabelling scheme. We could simply have set up a United Kingdom scheme. We thought about it deeply. However, in a little more than seven weeks, we shall enter the single European market. Could a plethora of national schemes offer as much to the consumer, industry and the environment as a single Communitywide scheme?
  We were guided in particular by the views of the Environment Select Committee of this House. It examined the options in the last Parliament, and strongly urged the Government to co-operate with the development of a European Community ecolabelling scheme. The United Kingdom decided, therefore, to take an active role in the development of a European Community ecolabelling scheme and pressed hard for early agreement of the regulation to set up the scheme. I am pleased to say that that agreement was reached last December, and regulation 880/92 was formally adopted in March this year.
  The EC ecolabelling scheme covers all consumer products except food, drink and pharmaceuticals. Food is not included, but there is a separate EC directive on organic food. So those who are worried about the use of methyl bromide should be reassured by that directive. In Copenhagen in a few weeks, the United Kingdom will press for restraints in the use of methyl bromide as a fumigant or pesticide.
  The ecolabelling scheme is based on the principles of life cycle analysis. The scheme will work on a simple pass or fail basis—a manufacturer must show that the product meets all the criteria, or an ecolabel simply will not be awarded.
  722
  The ecological criteria for a product group are agreed at European level following a detailed study of the environmental impacts of the product group from cradle to grave—that is, from the sourcing of raw materials, through the manufacture, distribution chain, packaging and use, right through to the ultimate disposal of the product. The aim is to develop criteria which will minimise the key environmental impacts, without increasing other impacts or compromising either safety or performance—the product still has to do what it is supposed to do.
  The criteria will be pitched at a high environmental level. However, ecolabelling is a relative scheme—it is not intended to say that products are environmentally friendly but rather to provide information and guide consumers to less harmful products. For the scheme to be successful, therefore, it is important that there are products which can meet the criteria. The process of setting the criteria must therefore take into account what is currently achievable. There is no set target but, as a rule of thumb, perhaps 10 per cent. of currently available products should be able to meet the criteria and receive an ecolabel. The criteria will be reviewed after about three years, and we shall tighten them up if necessary.
  As I said, the life cycle assessment of the product group will take account of the environmental impacts of packaging—which the hon. Gentleman raised. We believe that this is the best way to deal with packaging in the ecolabelling scheme, because packaging inevitably forms an integral part of the product and is seen that way by the consumer. As a result, where packaging makes a significant contribution to the overall environmental impacts of the product, as is the case for hairsprays, this will be addressed by the final criteria.
  To ensure that the environmental impacts of packaging are treated consistently between different product groups and to identify, if possible, best-practice rules, such as minimising packaging—that is the first rule—which could apply across the board, the Italians are conducting a study of the environmental impacts of packaging materials. We expect a final report from them shortly. They are also considering whether it might be possible to ecolabel the packaging of food, drink and pharmaceuticals where the contents are excluded from the scheme. It is not yet clear whether this would be a practical option.
  Separately, the European Commission has also produced a draft directive on packaging and packaging waste that will establish specific markings for packaging alone and address some of the wider issues raised by packaging.
  Ecolabelling is a European scheme, so some decisions, such as the adoption of product criteria, must be taken in Brussels to ensure consistency across all 12 countries of the Community. However, most of the work in administering, developing and promoting the scheme will be carried out at national level, and the EC regulation requires each member state to set up a competent body to run the scheme. The United Kingdom has set up the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board.
  The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board, chaired by Dr. Elizabeth Nelson. began work in July in an advisory capacity, but, as I announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) on 20 October, we established it formally by regulations under the European Communities Act 1972 on 1 November.

  723
  As the House will know, we had originally hoped to launch the scheme before the end of this year. I assure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that I am as disappointed as he is at the lack of speed that others have shown in getting the scheme up and running. There have been some difficulties at a European level in setting up the necessary administrative arrangements. In particular, there have been lengthy delays with the establishment of the consultation forum of interest groups—industry, retailers, consumer and environmental groups—which must consider all criteria before they can be adopted. The development of product criteria has also proved more difficult and taken longer than originally planned.
  The United Kingdom has played, and will continue to play, a leading role in the development of the scheme. Through our presidency of the Community, we have been pressing the Commission to implement the scheme speedily and asking that other member states show the same commitment to it as we are showing because we think that it is important. Certainly I am disappointed that some other states have continued to develop their own national schemes, so splitting their effort, sadly, to the detriment of the Community scheme.
  The United Kingdom, jointly with the Commission, recently hosted a meeting, on 23 October, of representatives of the competent bodies of other member states to discuss issues of common interest—such as the assessment of applications, monitoring compliance and the promotion of the scheme. I understand that it was a very successful and positive event, which should do a lot to help push the scheme forward.
  Many of the environmental issues involved in the development of product criteria are extremely complex and there is not always agreement on how best to tackle them. To help resolve some of the difficulties that have arisen, the Commission is now considering the appointment of a consultant to co-ordinate the use of the developing science of life cycle analysis in the product group studies.
  Despite those delays, work is well under way—some half a dozen member states are leading or are about to begin studies of about 20 different product categories, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The very thoroughness of the studies should mean that the final
  724
  criteria have correspondingly greater credibility. They may take a bit longer, but hopefully they will be more accurate and credible when they are completed.
  The United Kingdom has already submitted formal proposals for washing machines and dishwashers and, now that the necessary European infrastructure is finally getting into place, it should be possible for them to be adopted in January. Two other United Kingdom studies, on hairsprays and light bulbs, are also coming along well, although I must confess that a study of soil improvers is proving trickier due to a lack of data. I understand that the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board is considering what further products it might study.
  Other member states' studies are also progressing—some well, others somewhat more slowly. But overall, we should have agreement on a range of product groups in the first part of next year. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I want to participate in the launch of a large range of those products as soon as we possibly can.
  Although large white goods such as washing machines and dishwashers should be among the first products to be covered by the scheme, the scheme will not be ready until a range of products is ready. Others that should be ready include paper products—writing and photocopying paper as well as kitchen rolls and toilet tissue—hairsprays and laundry detergents, everyday low-price products, about which the hon. Gentleman was worried.
  I hope that manufacturers and retailers will not try to exploit the ecolabel by adding a mark-up to ecolabelling products. There may be cases where new, cleaner technology enables a manufacturer to produce an environmentally more benign product. However, even in such cases, the product should be competitively priced to succeed in the market against traditional products.
  Although we should have preferred to meet our original plans to launch the scheme before the end of this year, what matters now is to ensure that the scheme is launched successfully early next year. To that end, the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board is planning its publicity strategy to make the best possible use of its resources and get its message across effectively—to industry, retailers and ordinary consumers. We want to ensure that the scheme is a success.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  RAF Hercules
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many relief flights have been made by RAF Hercules aircraft into Sarajevo airport; how many Hercules aircraft are devoted to this task; what information he has on the number of flights by other nations' air forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 8 November, RAF Hercules aircraft have made a total of 193 flights into Sarajevo. We have made available to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees four C-130 Hercules aircraft for use in accordance with Security Council resolution 758. The airlift co-ordinated by UNHCR and United Nations protection forces began on 3 July when one of our Hercules aircraft left Zagreb for Sarajevo. The other three aircraft remain on standby at RAF Lyneham. The information we have on total flights by other nations as at 5 November 1992 is as follows:

  Country

  Number of flights

  Algeria

  1

  Belgium

  28

  Canada

  160

  Denmark

  18

  France

  290

  Germany

  218

  Greece

  5

  Italy

  149

  Kuwait

  2

  Netherlands

  13

  Norway

  10

  Portugal

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  4

  Spain

  6

  Sweden

  27

  Tunisia

  1

  Turkey

  21

  United States

  309

  MED du MONDE (Contractor)

  1

  RAF Missiles
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF service and civilian jobs will be lost as a result of the move of in-depth maintenance of RAF missiles to royal naval armament depots; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Some depot level maintenance of RAF missiles has been carried out at Royal Navy armaments depot—RNAD—facilities for many years efficiently and effectively. Our plan to move more work to RNADs is expected initially to save in the order of 16 service and three civilian posts. Some service posts are planned to be civilianised once the new arrangements are established.
  538

  Sentry Aircraft
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether RAF E-3 Sentry aircraft are to receive an equivalent advanced passive sector system refit to that to be provided to equivalent USAF and NATO E-3 aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  RAF E-3D Sentry aircraft already have an advanced passive sector system equivalent to that to be provided for United States Air Force and NATO aircraft. There is no requirement for a refit.

  Ministry Committees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the committees that operate within his Ministry, giving the objective and membership in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The principal committees operating within the Ministry of Defence are listed in a publication entitled "The Ministry of Defence", a copy of which is available in the Library. The current edition is, however, out of date and is being revised. I have, therefore, also placed in the Library an updating paper listing the main MOD committees, their objectives and membership. A number of other committees exist in the Department or are convened from time to time as required, but these could be included in the paper only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Ministry Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites of Ministry land that have been sold to wildlife or landscape conservation organisations in each of the past five years, giving the name of the sites, to whom they were sold, the hectarage involved and whether the land was designated for conservation purposes; and what was the type of designation in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  HMS Drake
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to his Department of running HMS Drake; how much was spent in each of the last five years on hyperbaric medicine at HMS Drake; how many patients have attended in the past two years; and how many patients were sent from HMS Drake to the diving diseases research centre at Fort Bovisand in each of the past two years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The cost of running HMS Drake in the financial year 1991–92 was £27 million. No money has been spent on hyperbaric medicine at HMS Drake in the last five years. A total of 16,976 patients attended HMS Drake in 1991 and to date in 1992, 21,475 patients have attended. No patients have attended for hyperbaric treatment at HMS Drake or been referred to the diving diseases research centre at Fort Bovisand in the last two years.

  Mr. W. L. Martin
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to pay Mr. W. L. Martin of Blackdown goat farm, Loddeswell, Kingsbridge, compensation for the loss of a cow resulting from a low-flying helicopter on 5 February; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to reply to the two letters written by Mr. John Janes of Messrs. How and Janes, solicitors, Fore street, Kingsbridge, South Devon, regarding the claim for compensation submitted by Mr. W. L. Martin of Blackdown goat farm, Loddeswell, Kingsbridge.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A letter was sent to Mr. Martin's solicitors, Messrs. How and Janes, on 28 October offering a sum in payment of his claim.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the redundancy terms offered to civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence and contracted employees made redundant as a result of reductions in defence expenditure or relocation and rationalisation.

  Mr. Aitken
  Civil servants' redundancy payments are made under the terms of the principal civil service pension scheme and the benefits are based on reckonable service and pensionable pay. Generally, those aged 50 or over receive an immediate payment of their superannuation lump sum and an annual compensation payment, in lieu of and equal to their pension, and calculated using enhanced reckonable service. They also receive a compensation lump sum of up to six months' pensionable pay. Those under 50 have their pension benefits preserved to the minimum retirement age and receive an immediate compensation payment of up to three years' pensionable pay. A commercially run redundancy counselling and outplacement service has been set up to help civil servants who have been made redundant identify new opportunities.

  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member about the redundancy terms offered to contracted employees.

  17 Training Regiment, Royal Artillery
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the number of civilian redundancies that will occur if the 17 Training Regiment, Royal Artillery, moves from Woolwich;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the 17 Training Regiment of the Royal Artillery in Woolwich.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No final decision has been made on the future of 17 Training Regiment.

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a statement on the future of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwich.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 19 October 1992,Official Report, column 158.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many houses and flats in the ownership of his Department are currently vacant in each of the London boroughs; and how many have been vacant for more than three months, more than six months and more than one year;

  (2) if he will list the number of residential properties in the ownership of his Department in each of the London boroughs showing separately the number of houses and flats.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member.

  Trident
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 27 October to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid),Official Report, columns 860–61, suggesting a figure of 500 warheads, if he will now publish the number of nuclear weapon warheads to be deployed on Trident by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No. We have long emphasised that our Trident submarines will enter service carrying no more than 128 warheads each, but that the actual number to be deployed will be decided in the light of circumstances at the time.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Bailiffs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on the organisation and management of bailiffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On 30 October 1992, when the consultation period closed, 98 responses to the consultation paper on the organisation and management of civil enforcement agents had been received by this Department. Some additional late responses are also expected. The views expressed are now being considered, but have not yet been analysed in detail.

  Magistrates
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates there are in England and Wales; how many are(a) women, (b) from the ethnic minorities and (c) ethnic minority women.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total number of magistrates in England and Wales at 1 January 1992 was 29,441 of whom 13,336 were women. The total number from the ethnic minorities is not recorded centrally but of 2,017 appointments made in 1991, a total of 97—4·8 per cent.—were from the ethnic minorities, of whom 40 were women. All these figures include appointments made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give the political balance for each magistrates bench in England and Wales.
  541
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Duchy Accounts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date he expects to publish the latest accounts of the duchy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Duchy of Lancaster accounts are placed in the Library of the House in late January.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants are currently employed by all Departments and agencies at each of the grades from grade 7 upwards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the total number of non-industrial civil servants at each of the grades from grade 7 upwards, as employed by all Departments and agencies, at 1 April 1992.

  Grade

  Staff1 in post

  1

  36

  2

  130

  3

  487

  4

  280

  5

  2,557

  6

  4,569

  7

  13,321

  Total

  21,379

  1 Full-time equivalents (part-time staff are counted as half units).

  Source: Mandate and departmental returns.

  These grades represent just over 4 per cent. of the non-industrial civil service.

  Banking Supervision
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to appoint the head of the new investigations unit in connection with banking supervision from a firm which has not been criticised by the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors.

  Mr. Nelson
  The appointment of the head of the new special investigations unit is a matter for the Governor of the Bank of England.

  Banknotes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consult the Governor of the Bank of England concerning changing the colour of the new £20 and £10 banknotes so as to avoid confusion between them.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The design of Bank of England notes is the responsibility of the Bank. It advises that it has no plans to change the colours of the new £20 and £10 notes, which are predominantly purple and orange-brown respectively.542
  As well as different overall colours, the distinguishing features of the new notes include a bold coloured symbol on the front, different historical portraits on the reverse and different sizes, both in terms of height and width.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consult the Governor of the Bank of England concerning the redesign of United Kingdom banknotes or the use of different paper so as to reduce the risk of forgeries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The design of Bank of England notes is the responsibility of the Bank. It advises that it has no plans to redesign its banknotes or to use different paper. The existing designs and the paper used take full account of the need for security against counterfeiting.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 467, what is the expected loss of United Kingdom revenues from tobacco duties arising from the removal of fiscal frontiers; what increased level of tobacco imports this represents; and what action he will take in response to these changes.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: The removal of fiscal frontiers will improve trade opportunities for both imports and exports. However, commercial imports of tobacco and other excise goods will remain subject to United Kingdom rates of duty before they can be sold in the United Kingdom and there will therefore be no change in the volume of commercial imports or exports arising from the difference between United Kingdom rates of duty and duties in other member states.

  The removal of fiscal frontiers is expected to result in an increase in levels of cross border shopping for personal consumption. An estimate of £250 million for the revenue loss associated with personal importation of all excise goods was included in my right hon. Friend's 1992 Budget judgment—see "Budget Report and Financial Statement 1992–93", page 56.

  To adapt to the new circumstances of the single market, Customs have developed a new control strategy based on flexible anti-smuggling teams. As the focus of controls on EC trade is moved away from the physical frontiers, these mobile teams acting on intelligence, focused risk assessment and profiling will replace traditional systematic Customs checks at ports and airports.

  Financial Services (Regulation)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association on the operation of self-regulation arising from the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 6 November 1992]: Matters relating to FIMBRA and the other bodies recognised by the Securities and Investments Board under the Financial Services Act are primarily for the board.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Modernisation
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to modernise the operations of the House.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).

  Electronic Voting
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what consideration he has given to changing the system of voting in the Chamber by the introduction of an electronic system.

  Mr. Newton
  None.

  Departmental Select Committees
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many reports have been produced by Departmental Select Committees arising out of work undertaken by these bodies in the 1987–1992 Parliament; and how many of these reports dealt exclusively with Northern Ireland matters.

  Mr. Newton
  Departmental Select Committees agreed to 317 reports, excluding special reports, during the 1987–1992 Parliament, of which five dealt exclusively with Northern Ireland matters.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  East Timor
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 October to the hon. Member for Norwood, (Mr. Fraser)Official Report, column 697, what steps he has taken as chairman to refer the question of human rights in East Timor to the European Foreign Affairs Council.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None. European Community Ministers have considered and expressed a view on this subject, most recently in the presidency's statement to the 47th session of the UN General Assembly.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the framework guidelines implemented by Her Majesty's Government to cover the transfer or retransfer of plutonium from the United Kingdom to foreign states under article 9 of the International Atomic Energy Agency INECIRC/254/REVI part 1, on nuclear export controls.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to the then hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield on 31 March 1976. The relevant paragraphs state:"When considering the export of nuclear equipment, material or technology we shall study each case on its merits.
  544
  Our first consideration will always be the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Euratom Treaty, and whether or not the prospective customer has concluded a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  Our detailed requirements will include the application of IAEA safeguards or comparable safeguards which are verified by the IAEA to exported nuclear equipment and material: an assurance that whatever we export will not be used to manufacture nuclear explosives for any purpose: an assurance that our exports will be adequately protected against the possibility of theft or sabotage: and assurances that if the equipment or material that we export is re-exported then the new purchaser will be required to give the same assurances on safeguards, non-explosive use and physical protection as were given by the original customer."—[Official Report, 31 March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 515.]

  The safeguards requirement in these guidelines was subsequently expanded by the statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 24 September 1991:
  "As part of our policy of seeking further to strengthen the barriers against nuclear proliferation, the British Government has decided with immediate effect to adopt a policy of full-scope safeguards as a condition of supply. This means that in future Britain will not allow the export of any significant new nuclear supplies or materials to any country, other than the nuclear weapon states, where there are any unsafeguarded nuclear installations."

  Tunisia
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an estimate of the number of British tourists who visited Tunisia during the past year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no detailed figures available from Government records of the numbers of British tourists visiting Tunisia in the past year. However, the Tunisian tourist office in London says that 120,326 British tourists visited Tunisia in 1991 and that it expects that around 200,000 British tourists will have visited Tunisia by the end of 1992.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the reports of Amnesty International in March and October concerning human rights abuses in Tunisia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of the Amnesty International reports and have raised the question of human rights with the Tunisian Government.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those states that have ratified or acceded to the non-proliferation treaty since 1 January, including the date of ratification or accession for each state.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following states have become parties to the non-proliferation treaty this year:

  1992

  Estonia

  7 January

  Latvia

  31 January

  China

  9 March

  Slovenia

  7 April

  Uzbekistan

  7 May

  France

  3 August

  Azerbaijan

  22 September

  545

  1992

  Namibia

  2 October

  Niger

  9 October

  Israel
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to invite Prime Minister Rabin of Israel to visit London.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As I told the House on 28 October, at column 1008, the Israeli Prime Minister will visit London in December.

  Regional and Minority Languages
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's intentions regarding signing the European charter for regional or minority languages.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are still considering whether to sign the European charter on minority or regional languages.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to approve the proposal to establish a clothing manufacturing plant on St. Helena unless it has the support of the local population.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We understand that the proposal did not gain the support of St. Helenians. It has accordingly been rejected by the Saint Helena Government.

  Angola
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken within the international community to help bring about a return to peace and constitutional rule in Angola following the recent election; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have been working closely with the United Nations Security Council and our EC partners, as evidenced by United Nations Security Council resolution 785 adopted on 30 October and an EC statement issued on 4 November, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  In Luanda, our ambassador and his staff were instrumental in supporting the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to broker the cease fire which came into force on 1 November. They continue to be very active in support of efforts by the United Nations special representative in Angola to consolidate the cease fire.

  IAEA
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money has been allocated by Her Majesty's Government to the International Atomic Energy Agency to undertake monitoring work in relation to the non-proliferation treaty in 1992–93; what plans he has for the allocation of money for this purpose in the future; and if he will make a statement.
  546
  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 July 1992 at Official Report, column 211. For 1992–93 the United Kingdom has contributed £5·1 million to the Agency's regular budget. The Government will continue to meet its obligations as a member of the agency. Financial provision for the payment of future subscriptions will be sought through the main Supply Estimates.

EDUCATION

  Parents in Partnership
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning the future of Parents in Partnership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have received several letters from Parents in Partnership about future funding arrangements. This Department undertook to provide transitional funding for a limited period. Now that the three-year period has come to an end, it is for the London boroughs to support local and regional voluntary groups as they see fit.

  St. Paul's Secondary School, Abbey Wood
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding the future of St. Paul's Roman Catholic secondary school in Abbey Wood; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received one letter about St. Paul's school and I have replied to one previous question. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 19 October,Official Report, column 8.

  Schools, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for each school in the Chelmsford parliamentary constituency, the amount of money given to each school under the local management of schools formula in the last financial year and the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Details of schools' budget shares are contained within part 2 of the section 42 budget statements prepared and published by each local education authority. A copy of the statements for 1991–92 and 1992–93 published by Essex county council have been placed in the Library.

  Determination of budgets for a local authority's schools has to be in accordance with the local management of schools formula devised by the LEA within the national policy framework.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much his Department plans to spend on the compilation and publication of comparative tables of school examination results.

  Mr. Forth
  We now estimate that the total cost to the Department of compilation, publication and distribution to meet the expected demand for school-by-school comparative tables of examination results will be some £1·4 million.

  Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all of the reports his Department has commissioned from external consultants in each of the last three years; for each of the last three years, how many reports from external consultants to his Department led to further consultancy work being commissioned, stating for each of these who were the original and subsequent consultants and briefly describing the subject matter of the consultancy work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 15 July,Official Report, column 727. The majority of consultancies listed for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 in my earlier reply led to reports, some of which were for internal use; some of which were published. The following consultancies—asterisked—were either renewed or led to further work being commissioned:

  Consultancy Commissioned

  1990

  *90/7.

  Peter Pierce-Price

  Quality assurance of ECCTIS 2000 Contract renewed on 31 March 91 and 31 March 92

  *90/24.

  SSADM (SCOLL)

  Productivity Improvement Programme

  90/25.

  Lalcrest

  Productivity Improvement Programme

  91/13.

  LBMS Ltd

  Development of Productivity Improvement Initiative

  *90/31.

  BIS

  Project review of Enhanced Technical Data Service (ETDS)

  90/32.

  ORACLE

  Evaluation of software for ETDS

  90/33.

  Henley

  Feasibility of ETDS

  91/49.

  BBT

  ETDS data conversion

  91/79.

  Coopers Lybrand Deloitte

  ETDS and DCPS business case

  91/80.

  Insight

  ETDS CRAMM review

  *90/36.

  Kinesis

  Facilitator in implementation of IT Records Management System

  90/37.

  Coopers Lybrand Deloitte

  Management of change for IT Records Management System

  *90/38.

  Amtec

  Feasibility Study for Policy Branch Information System

  91/71

  EIS

  Policy Branch Information System

  *90/46.

  BIS

  Full Study for replacement of Data Collection Processing System (DCPS)

  90/47

  ORACLE

  Benchmark of hardware for DCPS

  91/82

  Sema

  DCPS

  1991

  *91/1.

  Robson Rhodes

  Selection and implementation of Financial Management System for Teacher's Pensions Agency

  Robson Rhodes

  Operation of FMS system

  91/28.

  Michael Gill

  Quality assurance of PROSPECT Contract renewed on 31 March 92

  91/76.

  ORACLE

  HMI management system

  77/91.

  Dataflex

  HMI management system

  University Staff
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many readers and professors there are in each of Britain's universities;

  (2) whether he will publish a list showing the numbers of (a) academic and (b) non-academic staff at each university.

  Mr. Forman
  The latest published details of academic staff are contained in "University Statistics 1989–90, Volume One, Staff and Students", published by the Universities Statistical Record—USR—and in "The Academic Staff in Polytechnics and Colleges: 1991", an information document published by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council—PCFC. I understand that copies of the USR publication are available in the Library and copies of the PCFC document will be placed in the Library. Details of non-academic staff at individual institutions are not available centrally.

PRIME MINISTER

  Library and Information Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister what inter-departmental co-ordination of Government policy towards library and information services exists; and what steps he is taking to improve such co-ordination.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage liaises with colleagues on library and information matters where these are not within a specific departmental interest. Department of National Heritage officials have close working relations with other Government Departments. The National Heritage Secretary is considering how far these links need to be strengthened, and will initiate action as necessary.

  Security Services
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in regard to permitting serving members of the security services to give evidence in court cases held in the United Kingdom on matters related to their responsibilities.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no objection of principle to serving members of the security and intelligence services giving evidence in court cases held in the United Kingdom on matters relating to their responsibilities, subject to considerations of the public interest, including protection of identification, and to the condition of relevance being satisfied.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in regard to examining reports produced by the European Parliament committees.

  The Prime Minister
  Departments in London closely follow European Parliament—EP—developments on subjects within their responsibilities. Councils in Brussels take account of EP resolutions relating to their current business. Each Foreign Affairs Council considers resolutions recently approved by the European Parliament and the presidency draws attention to resolutions of particular importance.

  Edinburgh Summit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will support the proposals to be made at the Edinburgh summit by the Government of Denmark.

  The Prime Minister
  The proposals submitted by the Danish Government on ratification of the Maastricht treaty will form the basis for our discussions with other member states. Our objective is to agree the framework for a solution at Edinburgh.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the Government's opposition to an arms embargo against Indonesia.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I do not believe that a review is necessary.

  European Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what opportunities exist for citizens of the United Kingdom to make suggestions to the European Commission for proposals to the Council under the provisions of the treaty on European Union.

  The Prime Minister
  Any citizen of a member state may make suggestions to the Commission.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he will put forward to enable the Danish request for exemption from part two of the treaty on European union, concerning citizenship, to be met.

  The Prime Minister
  A memorandum was presented by the Danish Government to Community member states on 30 October. This will now be discussed within the Community.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister in what areas of policy covered by the treaty on European union will the Commission's role be solely advisory.

  The Prime Minister
  There are provisions in the treaty on European union for the Commission to be consulted on a proposal by another party; for example, article 168a—court of first instance—and article N—amendment of the treaty.

  Government Employees
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the number of persons employed in general Government using the figures for(a) 1961 and (b) 1991; and what is the percentage increase that the 1991 figure represents.

  The Prime Minister
  The information required is available in the Central Statistical Office publication "Economic Trends", December 1991—Table D of "Employment in the public and private sectors". A copy is available in the Library.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.
  550
  The Prime Minister
  About 30 files of papers on open deposit at the Public Record Office are currently requisitioned for departmental use in London as permitted under the legislation, but the number may change from day to day. They have mainly been requisitioned for purposes of official historical research. A member of the public applying for access to any such file has only to cite its title and number, by reference to the shelf lists held at the Public Record Office, and arrangements can normally be made for its early return to the public reading room for as long as may reasonably be required.

  Health Pay Review Boards
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to suspend the health pay review boards; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 November 1992]: The Government see a continuing role for these review bodies, whose advice it has greatly valued. We have made clear to the review bodies, and more generally, the importance we attach to tight control over public spending and borrowing. As part of this, the Government will be seeking to maintain firm downward pressure on growth in the pay of public sector employees, including those whose pay is subject to the recommendations of the pay review bodies.

  President Yeltsin
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to President Yeltsin concerning the Russian seal cull at his forthcoming meeting; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: The Russian authorities are well aware of public concern in the United Kingdom about seal culling. The EC banned the import of harp and hooded seal pup skins in 1983. The United Kingdom persuaded the Community to extend the ban indefinitely in 1989.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official visits the Minister for Overseas Development has made over the last three weeks; what visits she plans over the next three weeks; which countries she visited; and for how long in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Official Visit

  Days

  Last three weeks

  Duration of visit

  Geneva

  1

  Russia and the Ukraine

  3

  Japan

  4

  Brussels

  1

  Next three weeks

  Expected duration

  Spain

  1

  Brussels

  1½

  New York

  2

  551
  The durations of the visits do not include time spent travelling to the destination.

  Tanzania
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid to Tanzania broken down by project.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Gross bilateral aid to Tanzania in 1991 was £40·344 million. Of this, £957,000 was project aid, £17·977 million programme aid, £13·196 million technical co-operation, and £8·214 million other types of aid, such as flows from the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  The table lists the capital and technical co-operation projects currently supported.

  Project

  Total cost of project £000

  Agriculture and Livestock

  West Kilimanjaro Farms Dairy Project

  495

  Zanzibar Clove Disease Research Project

  799

  Armyworm Control Project

  726

  Lindi/Mtwara Goat Development Project

  360

  Sunflower Research Project

  300

  National Agricultural Research Project (NARP)

  1,572

  Livestock Development

  120

  Kilimanjaro Farms Coffee Project

  30

  Zanzibar Cash Crops Project (Phase II)

  2,666

  World Bank Agricultural Study

  300

  Forestry

  Cashew Nuts and Coconut Tree Crops Project

  3,510

  Kilombero Hardwood Study

  91

  Conservation

  Ruaha Wildlife Conservation Project

  800

  Fisheries

  Lindi/Mtwara Fisheries Project

  212

  Energy

  Mufindi Electrification Project

  2,067

  Roads

  Songea-Makambako Road Post-Construction Maintenance Project (Phase II)

  1,573

  Regional Road Maintenance

  3,786

  Highway Sector Field Manager

  70

  Aveling Barford Road Maintenance

  5

  Tanzam Highway Study

  150

  Railways

  Tanzania Railways Corporation (TRC)

  10,969

  TRC Operations Improvement Plan

  502

  Water Transport

  Tanzanian Harbours Authority

  2,000

  Tanga Port Rehabilitation

  5,470

  Finance

  Financial Sector Adjustment Credit

  200

  Assistance Tanzania Development Financial Company (T.D.F.L.)

  100

  Assistance to National Board of Commerce (NBC) and Co-operative and Rural Development Bank (CRDB)

  265

  Privatisation Workshop

  30

  Computerisation of Foreign Aid Account

  40

  Assistance to Bank of Tanzania

  70

  Public Administration and Good Government

  Local Government Service Commission

  1,401

  Institute of Development Management

  422

  Zanzibar Civil Service Training Institute

  373

  552

  Project

  Total cost of project £000

  Government Audit Project

  1,246

  Police Training

  358

  Constitutional Reform

  24

  Paralstatal Reform

  1,000

  Social Development Adviser

  40

  Planning Commission

  130

  Personnel Control and Information Systems

  90

  Public Sector Adjustment

  144

  Education

  Zanzibar English Language Training

  1,441

  Tenger Agricultural Tutors

  290

  University Support Project Applied Zoology

  509

  Agricultural Engineering (Sokoine)

  383

  (ELT) Support Project (Phase II)

  5,580

  Population Census Support Project

  447

  Medium Term AIDS Plan

  3,000

  Adult Mortality/Morbidity

  1,139

  Family Health Project

  100

  Mbeya Health and Nutrition District Support (HANDS)

  646

  Tropical Forestry
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts have been undertaken by the Overseas Development Administration to press for the reform of the tropical forestry action plan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In many international meetings since November 1990 the Overseas Development Administration has argued strongly for the reform of the tropical forestry action plan. Our aim continues to be to make it more responsive to the needs of local people and forest conservation and to focus it more on capacity building and policy development in developing countries. We have also argued for the establishment of a broad-based consultative group to oversee its operations.

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the latest situation in Somalia generally and in the Republic of Somaliland in particular in the light of the resignation of Ambassador Sahnoun; and what representations the British Government have made to the Secretary-General of the United Nations as a result.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development met representatives from non-governmental organisations on 3 November to discuss the situation in the light of Ambassador Sahnoun's resignation. The security and relief situation in central and southern Somalia is volatile. In the north, the situation is more settled.

  Acting bilaterally and on behalf of our Community partners, we have impressed upon the United Nations Secretary-General and his new special representative in Somalia, Mr. Ismat Kittani, the need for United Nations troops to be deployed quickly and for the United Nations' 100-day plan to continue. We have assured Mr. Ismat Kittani that we shall give him our full support.

TRANSPORT

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what port facilities are currently under construction for the purpose of handling bulk imports of foreign coal; and what public funds are being spent on these facilities or related rail or road infrastructure improvements.

  Mr. Norris
  The development of bulk handling facilities suitable for importing foreign coal is a matter for individual ports. I understand that such facilities are under construction at present at Gladstone dock, Liverpool, Royal Portbury dock, Avonmouth, and Kingston Terminal, Hull.

  There are no improvements to the road network directly related to these developments. The provision of rail infrastructure is a matter for the commercial judgment of British Rail, However, the Department of Transport will be paying for widening a railway bridge across the M5, under a legally binding agreement with British Rail entered into when the M5 was being built. The current estimated cost is £2·35 million.

  At Hull, construction of associated rail facilities is being assisted under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 in recognition of the environmental benefits of distributing the product by rail rather than by road. The grant agreed was £226,000.

  Bus Services
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many companies in Scotland have(a) started operating bus services and (b) ceased operating bus services since the implementation of the Transport Act 1985.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many companies in England and Wales have(a) started operating bus services and (b) ceased operating bus services since the implementation of the Transport Act 1985.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the number of operators of local bus services is not available.

  Public Transport (Women)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines are currently provided by his Department to transport planners and providers concerning the provision of safe public transport for women.

  Mr. Norris
  The remit of my Department's standing panel on assaults on bus staff has been extended to include the monitoring of data on assaults on bus passengers and possible remedial measures. The panel has recommended that bus operators install radios and video cameras in their vehicles to protect both employees and passengers.

  We have also co-sponsored the passenger guidance leaflet published by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, "Travel Safely by Public Transport". The leaflet contains practical safety tips for women using all forms of public transport.

  Travel Cards
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make it his policy that whole system travel cards should continue to be provided within the proposed franchising system after rail privatisation;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to extend the requirement on carriers to participate in the west midlands travel card scheme beyond the current three-year provision.

  Mr. Freeman
  Travel cards are attractive to customers and have marketing advantages for operators. Our objective following privatisation is that travel cards should be sufficiently attractive commercially that franchisees will wish to participate in them.

  Preston-Colne Railway
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects British Rail to be in a position to run new rolling stock on the Preston to Colne line.

  Mr. Freeman
  The service is already operated by modern Pacer units.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the quality, speed, comfort and reliability of the train service between Preston and Colne.

  Mr. Freeman
  These matters are primarily for the British Railways Board. However, I understand that, while services have operated reasonably well over recent months, there is still room for improvements. British Rail's passengers charter provides for compensation to be paid to passengers where performance falls significantly below agreed standards.

  London Underground
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what stage London Underground Ltd.'s discussions on its proposals for the East London line extensions with the local boroughs along the route of the project have reached; and when, subject to the project meeting his Department's criteria, he expects London Underground Ltd. to seek parliamentary and planning approval under the powers contained in the Transport and Works Act 1992.

  Mr. Norris
  Over recent months, London Underground Ltd. have held a number of formal borough consultation meetings to discuss the principle of the project. These have been supported by meetings addressing specific issues. The project is currently being considered by the boards of London Underground and London Transport and no decision has yet been taken on when any powers should be sought.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he proposes Rail Track will raise investment income to maintain and extend the network; and if he will make a statement on the impact of franchise costs.

  Mr. Freeman
  Investment will largely be financed over its life from charges to operators. However, the
  555
  Government are also ready to provide direct support for investment in the railway for schemes which, although not earning an adequate financial return, provide a satisfactory cost-benefit return when wider benefits are taken into account. The benefits of investment, as well as the costs, for franchisees will of course differ from case to case.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of his privatisation proposals for British Rail on exploitation of the opportunities to improve the north-south rail service in the Coventry travel-to-work area and Coventry station.

  Mr. Freeman
  I expect the introduction of franchising to enable private sector operators to respond more flexibly to customer need.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that the financial regime governing the post-privatisation rail service will require local service and local economic factors to be taken into consideration in investment decisions.

  Mr. Freeman
  Privatisation will help the railways to give passenger and freight customers the services they expect. The Government have made clear that they fully recognise the social and other benefits of regional and commuter passenger services and are committed to providing continuing subsidy to support them.

  Railway Regulator
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the statutory provision governing the operation of the railway regulator with effect from 1 January 1993.

  Married couple with two children aged 6 and 4 Net income after payment of tax, national insurance and deductions of housing benefit and community charge benefit and family credit

  Taper

  Gross earnings

  50 per cent.

  55 per cent.

  60 per cent.

  165 per cent.

  70 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  80 per cent.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  108

  89·04

  86·99

  84·94

  82·89

  80·85

  79·54

  79·54

  109

  89·60

  87·54

  85·48

  83·42

  81·36

  80·21

  80·21

  110

  90·17

  88·10

  86·03

  83·96

  81·89

  80·89

  80·89

  111

  90·75

  88·67

  86·59

  84·51

  82·43

  81·57

  81·57

  112

  91·32

  89·23

  87·14

  85·04

  82·95

  82·25

  82·25

  113

  91·89

  89·79

  87·69

  85·59

  83·49

  82·93

  82·93

  114

  92·47

  90·36

  88·24

  86·13

  83·61

  83·61

  83·61

  115

  93·03

  90·91

  88·79

  86·66

  84·28

  84·28

  84·28

  116

  93·60

  91·47

  89·34

  87·20

  84·96

  84·96

  84·96

  117

  94·18

  92·03

  89·89

  87·75

  85·64

  85·64

  85·64

  118

  94·75

  92·60

  90·44

  88·29

  86·32

  86·32

  86·32

  119

  95·31

  93·15

  90·98

  88·82

  86·99

  86·99

  86·99

  120

  95·89

  93·71

  91·54

  89·36

  87·67

  87·67

  87·67

  121

  96·46

  94·28

  92·09

  89·90

  88·35

  88·35

  88·35

  122

  97·03

  94·84

  92·64

  90·44

  89·03

  89·03

  89·03

  123

  91·61

  95·40

  93·19

  90·98

  89·71

  89·71

  89·71

  124

  98·18

  95·96

  93·75

  91·53

  90·39

  90·39

  90·39

  125

  98·75

  96·52

  94·26

  92·06

  91·06

  91·06

  91·06

  126

  99·32

  97·08

  94·84

  92·60

  91·74

  91·74

  91·74

  127

  99·89

  97·64

  95·39

  93·14

  92·42

  92·42

  92·42

  128

  100·47

  98·21

  95·95

  93·68

  93·10

  93·10

  93·10

  129

  101·04

  98·77

  96·49

  93·78

  93·78

  93·78

  93·78

  130

  101·60

  99·32

  97·04

  94·45

  94·45

  94·45

  94·45

  131

  102·18

  99·88

  97·59

  95·13

  95·13

  95·13

  95·13

  132

  102·75

  100·44

  98·14

  95·81

  95·81

  95·81

  95·81

  133

  103·32

  101·01

  98·69

  96·49

  96·49

  96·49

  96·49

  134

  103·90

  101·57

  99·25

  97·17

  97·17

  97·17

  97·17

  135

  104·46

  102·13

  99·79

  97·84

  97·84

  97·84

  97·84

  136

  105·03

  102·69

  100·34

  98·52

  98·52

  98·52

  98·52

  137

  105·61

  103·25

  100·89

  99·20

  99·20

  99·20

  99·20

  556
  Mr. Freeman
  We shall shortly lay before the House regulations under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 to implement European Council Directive 91/440 on 1 January 1993. The regulations will provide for the establishment of an international rail regulator to oversee access to the rail network by international services.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the net income left currently after payment of tax and national insurance, and deduction of housing benefit, community charge benefit and where applicable family credit, for(a) a single person in employment and (b) a family with children, of whom one adult is in employment, for every extra £1 of earnings while benefit entitlement remains, and how this would change were the housing benefit tapers to be adjusted to (i) 50 per cent., (ii) 55 per cent., (iii) 60 per cent., (iv) 70 per cent., (v) 75 per cent. and (vi) 80 per cent.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the tables.

  The following assumptions have been made:

  1. The single employed person is over age 25.

  2. The family with children contains two children aged 6 and 4.

  3. The starting level of gross earnings in each case is that which gives a net income after housing costs around the level of net income after housing costs if in receipt of income support.

  All other assumptions are as in the published tax benefit model tables.
  557

  Taper

  Gross earnings

  50 per cent.

  55 per cent.

  60 per cent.

  165 per cent.

  70 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  80 per cent.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  138

  106·17

  103·81

  101·44

  99·87

  99·87

  99·87

  99·87

  139

  106·70

  104·33

  101·95

  100·50

  100·50

  100·50

  100·50

  140

  107·23

  104·85

  102·46

  101·13

  101·13

  101·13

  101·13

  141

  107·77

  105·37

  102·97

  101·76

  101·76

  101·76

  101·76

  142

  108·30

  105·89

  103·48

  102·39

  102·39

  102·39

  102·39

  143

  108·83

  106·41

  103·99

  103·02

  103·02

  103·02

  103·02

  144

  109·36

  106·93

  104·50

  103·65

  103·65

  103·65

  103·65

  145

  109·89

  107·45

  105·01

  104·28

  104·28

  104·28

  104·28

  146

  110·42

  107·98

  105·53

  104·91

  104·91

  104·91

  104·91

  147

  110·95

  108·50

  106·04

  105·54

  105·54

  105·54

  105·54

  148

  111·48

  109·02

  106·17

  106·17

  106·17

  106·17

  106·17

  149

  112·01

  109·54

  106·80

  106·80

  106·80

  106·80

  106·80

  150

  112·54

  110·06

  107·43

  107·43

  107·43

  107·43

  107·43

  151

  113·08

  110·58

  108·06

  108·06

  108·06

  108·06

  108·06

  152

  113·61

  111·10

  108·69

  108·69

  108·69

  108·69

  108·69

  153

  114·14

  111·62

  109·36

  109·32

  109·32

  109·32

  109·32

  154

  114·67

  112·14

  109·95

  109·95

  109·95

  109·95

  109·95

  155

  115·20

  112·66

  110·58

  110·58

  110·58

  110·58

  110·58

  156

  115·74

  113·20

  111·22

  111·22

  111·22

  111·22

  111·22

  157

  116·27

  113·72

  111·85

  111·85

  111·85

  111·85

  111·85

  158

  116·80

  114·24

  112·48

  112·48

  112·48

  112·48

  112·48

  159

  117·33

  114·76

  113·11

  113·11

  113·11

  113·11

  113·11

  160

  117·86

  115·28

  113·74

  113·74

  113·74

  113·74

  113·74

  161

  118·40

  115·80

  114·37

  114·37

  114·37

  114·37

  114·37

  162

  118·93

  116·32

  115·00

  115·00

  115·00

  115·00

  115·00

  163

  119·46

  116·84

  115·63

  115·63

  115·63

  115·63

  115·63

  164

  119·99

  117·36

  116·26

  116·26

  116·26

  116·26

  116·26

  165

  120·52

  117·88

  116·89

  116·89

  116·89

  116·89

  116·89

  166

  121·05

  118·41

  117·52

  117·52

  117·52

  117·52

  117·52

  167

  121·58

  118·93

  118·15

  118·15

  118·15

  118·15

  118·15

  168

  122·11

  119·45

  118·78

  118·78

  118·78

  118·78

  118·78

  169

  122·64

  119·97

  119·41

  119·41

  119·41

  119·41

  119·41

  170

  123·17

  120·04

  120·04

  120·04

  120·04

  120·04

  120·04

  171

  123·71

  120·67

  120·67

  120·67

  120·67

  120·67

  120·67

  172

  124·24

  121·30

  121·30

  121·30

  121·30

  121·30

  121·30

  173

  124·77

  121·93

  121·93

  121·93

  121·93

  121·93

  121·93

  174

  125·30

  122·56

  122·56

  122·56

  122·56

  122·56

  122·56

  175

  125·83

  123·19

  123·19

  123·19

  123·19

  123·19

  123·19

  176

  126·36

  123·82

  123·82

  123·82

  123·82

  123·82

  123·82

  177

  126·89

  124·45

  124·45

  124·45

  124·45

  124·45

  124·45

  178

  127·42

  125·08

  125·08

  125·08

  125·08

  125·08

  125·08

  179

  127·95

  125·71

  125·71

  125·71

  125·71

  125·71

  125·71

  180

  128·48

  126·34

  126·34

  126·34

  126·34

  126·34

  126·34

  181

  129·02

  126·97

  126·97

  126·97

  126·97

  126·97

  126·97

  182

  129·55

  127·60

  127·60

  127·60

  127·60

  127·60

  127·60

  183

  130·09

  128·24

  128·24

  128·24

  128·24

  128·24

  128·24

  184

  130·65

  128·90

  128·90

  128·90

  128·90

  128·90

  128·90

  185

  131·21

  129·56

  129·56

  129·56

  129·56

  129·56

  129·56

  186

  131·77

  130·22

  130·22

  130·22

  130·22

  130·22

  130·22

  187

  132·33

  130·88

  130·88

  130·88

  130·88

  130·88

  130·88

  188

  132·99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  189

  133·32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  190

  133·65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Current Housing Benefit taper.

  Gross earnings

  Single person aged 25 or over Net income after payment of tax, national insurance and deductions of Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Tapers

  50 per cent.

  55 per cent.

  60 per cent.

  165 per cent.

  70 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  80 per cent.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  40

  38·95

  38·95

  38·95

  38·95

  38·95

  38·95

  38·95

  41

  39·95

  39·95

  39·95

  39·95

  39·95

  39·95

  39·95

  42

  40·95

  40·95

  40·95

  40·95

  40·95

  40·95

  40·95

  43

  41·95

  41·95

  41·95

  41·95

  41·95

  41·95

  41·95

  44

  42·95

  42·95

  42·95

  42·95

  42·95

  42·95

  42·95

  45

  43·95

  43·95

  43·95

  43·95

  43·95

  43·95

  43·95

  46

  44·95

  44·95

  44·95

  44·95

  44·95

  44·95

  44·95

  47

  45·95

  45·95

  45·95

  45·95

  45·95

  45·95

  45·95

  48

  46·59

  46·56

  46·53

  46·50

  46·48

  46·45

  46·42

  49

  46·94

  46·86

  46·78

  46·70

  46·63

  46·55

  46·47

  50

  47·29

  47·16

  47·03

  46·90

  46·78

  46·65

  46·52

  558 559

  Gross earnings

  Single person aged 25 or over Net income after payment of tax, national insurance and deductions of Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit

  50 per cent.

  55 per cent.

  60 per cent.

  165 per cent.

  70 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  80 per cent.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  51

  47·64

  47·46

  47·28

  47·10

  46·93

  46·75

  46·57

  52

  47·99

  47·76

  47·53

  47·30

  47·08

  46·85

  46·62

  53

  48·34

  48·06

  47·78

  47·50

  47·23

  46·95

  46·67

  54

  48·32

  48·04

  47·77

  47·49

  47·22

  46·95

  46·67

  55

  48·63

  48·31

  47·99

  47·67

  47·35

  47·04

  46·72

  56

  48·95

  48·58

  48·22

  47·85

  47·49

  47·12

  46·76

  57

  49·27

  48·86

  48·45

  48·04

  47·63

  47·22

  46·81

  58

  49·59

  49·13

  48·67

  48·22

  47·76

  47·31

  46·85

  59

  49·90

  49·40

  48·90

  48·40

  47·90

  47·40

  46·89

  60

  50·23

  49·68

  49·13

  48·59

  48·04

  47·49

  46·95

  61

  50·54

  49·95

  49·36

  48·76

  48·17

  47·58

  46·99

  62

  50·86

  50·22

  49·58

  48·94

  48·31

  47·67

  47·03

  63

  51·18

  50·50

  49·81

  49·13

  48·45

  47·77

  47·08

  64

  51·50

  50·77

  50·04

  49·31

  48·58

  47·85

  47·12

  65

  51·81

  51·04

  50·26

  49·49

  48·71

  47·94

  47·17

  66

  52·14

  51·32

  50·50

  49·68

  48·86

  48·04

  47·22

  67

  52·40

  51·54

  50·68

  49·82

  48·97

  48·11

  47·25

  68

  52·65

  51·76

  50·86

  49·97

  49·08

  48·19

  47·29

  69

  52·90

  52·97

  51·04

  50·11

  49·18

  48·25

  47·32

  70

  53·14

  52·18

  51·21

  50·25

  49·28

  48·32

  47·36

  71

  53·40

  52·40

  51·40

  50·40

  49·40

  48·40

  47·40

  72

  53·64

  52·61

  51·57

  50·54

  49·50

  48·47

  47·43

  73

  53·89

  52·81

  51·74

  50·67

  49·60

  48·53

  47·46

  74

  54·14

  53·03

  51·93

  50·82

  49·72

  48·61

  47·50

  75

  54·39

  53·24

  52·10

  50·96

  49·82

  48·68

  47·54

  76

  54·64

  53·46

  52·29

  51·11

  49·93

  48·76

  47·58

  77

  54·89

  53·67

  52·46

  51·25

  50·04

  48·82

  47·61

  78

  55·13

  53·88

  52·63

  51·39

  50·14

  48·89

  47·64

  79

  55·39

  54·10

  52·82

  51·53

  50·25

  48·97

  47·68

  80

  55·63

  54·31

  52·99

  51·67

  50·35

  49·04

  47·72

  81

  55·88

  54·52

  53·17

  51·81

  50·46

  49·10

  47·75

  82

  56·13

  54·74

  53·35

  51·96

  50·57

  49·18

  47·79

  83

  56·44

  55·01

  53·58

  52·16

  50·73

  49·31

  47·88

  84

  56·79

  55·33

  53·87

  52·41

  50·95

  49·49

  48·02

  85

  57·15

  55·65

  54·15

  52·66

  51·16

  49·66

  48·17

  86

  57·50

  55·97

  54·44

  52·90

  51·37

  49·84

  48·31

  87

  57·86

  56·29

  54·72

  53·15

  51·59

  50·02

  —

  88

  58·21

  56·61

  55·00

  53·40

  51·80

  50·20

  —

  89

  58·57

  56·93

  55·29

  53·65

  52·01

  50·37

  —

  90

  58·92

  57·25

  55·57

  53·90

  52·22

  —

  —

  91

  59·28

  57·57

  55·86

  54·15

  52·44

  —

  —

  92

  59·63

  57·89

  56·14

  54·40

  52·65

  —

  —

  93

  59·99

  58·20

  56·42

  54·64

  52·86

  —

  —

  94

  60·34

  58·52

  56·71

  54·89

  —

  —

  —

  95

  60·70

  58·84

  56·99

  55·14

  —

  —

  —

  96

  61·05

  59·16

  57·28

  55·39

  —

  —

  —

  97

  61·41

  59·48

  57·56

  55·64

  —

  —

  —

  98

  61·76

  59·80

  57·84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  99

  62·12

  60·12

  58·13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  62·47

  60·44

  58·41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  101

  62·83

  60·76

  58·70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  102

  63·18

  61·08

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  103

  63·54

  61·40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  104

  63·89

  61·72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  105

  64·24

  62·04

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  106

  64·57

  62·33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  107

  64·90

  62·63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  108

  65·23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  109

  65·56

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  110

  65·89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  111

  66·22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  112

  66·55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  113

  66·88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Represents current Housing Benefit taper

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision exists for financially assisting those seeking political asylum in the period between entry 560
  and the receipt by his Department of the standard acknowledgement letter proving identity; and if he will make a statement.
  561
  Mr. Burt
  Income support is available to asylum seekers under the urgent cases rules from the date of their claim until their immigration status has been determined by the Home Office.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to speed up the delivery of cold weather payments this winter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No such plans are necessary as delays are already at a minimum. Last year's improvements to the cold weather payments scheme introduced automatic payments without the need to claim. As a result girocheques are posted on average within 11 days of a period of cold weather being declared, which is a considerable improvement on any previous scheme.

  Early Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ask the Occupational Pensions Board to review the imposition of early retirement reductions in many pension schemes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No. It is a well-established principle that a member of an occupational pension scheme who retires before the scheme's normal retirement age usually receives a reduced pension. The amount of any reduction, which is calculated on an actuarial basis, is determined according to the rules of the scheme.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if community care grants from the social fund are payable to help people without furniture or cooking facilities who are being rehoused from local authority temporary accommodation for the homeless.

  Mr. Scott
  Yes. People in these circumstances may receive a community care grant; but, as with all applications to the social fund, it is for the social fund officer to decide whether a payment can be made after taking account of all the factors in each case.

HEALTH

  Health Inequalities
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made, and what specific measures have been taken to reach the World Health Organisation's target of a 25 per cent. reduction in health inequalities by the year 2000.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The "Health of the Nation" Green Paper—Cm. 1523, appendix 1—reviewed progress towards the World Health Organisation "Health for All" targets. As illustrated in the subsequent White Paper— Cm. 1986—the Government have taken and are taking a wide variety of measures to continue the improvements in health that have been achieved across the board, and particularly to focus on people at greater risk.

  Benzodiazepines
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) residential and (b) day centres have been set up over the past year to help people withdraw from benzodiazepines.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are bed-blocked at each of the general hospitals in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Tomlinson Report
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish her financial analysis on the capital cost of implementing the recommendations of the Tomlinson inquiry.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We received Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report on 15 October, and we shall consider its recommendations carefully. We shall publish our proposals for action, and their financial implications, in the new year.

  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the detailed evidence on which Sir Bernard Tomlinson based his view that St. Thomas's and Guy's hospital should merge on to one site without detriment to patient care in south London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report refers to meetings with more than 1,000 people, and to 127 written submissions. Sir Bernard distilled this material into the strategic report requested by Ministers.

  Krypton-85
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been conducted by her Department into the health effects of Krypton-85.

  Mr. Sackville
  Assessments of the dose to a local population resulting from a release of the currently allowed does limit of Krypton-85 have been made by the National Radiological Protection Board, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I am advised that the dose at this level would be of the order of one microSievert per annum and may be regarded as negligible in relation to the average natural background dose from all types of natural radiation of 2,200 microSievert per annum.

  Vaccination
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she intends to make vaccination against Hepatitis B part of normal national health service vaccination procedure; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Hepatitis B immunisation is already recommended for a number of at-risk groups, and is kept under constant review, with expert advice from the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation and the advisory group on hepatitis. The continuing decline in laboratory reports of the disease is very welcome.

  Hyberbaric Medicine
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of the budget of each regional health authority is spent on research into hyperbaric medicine; and what information he has on expenditure on hyperbaric medicine of other EC countries for each of the last three years;

  (2) what percentage of the budget of each regional health authority has been spent on hyperbaric medicine for the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the extent of Government funding of research into hyperbaric medicine.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid through the Office of Science and Technology under the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I understand that the MRC is currently funding a number of research projects into hyperbaric medicine at its clinical research centre at Northwick Park.

  The Department of Health is not currently funding any research into hyperbaric medicine.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the start-up cost for each of the second and third wave hospitals and national health service unit trusts; and if she will state which budget has met this cost in each instance.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In the second wave, £226,000 was allocated to each NHS trust as a start-up cost. This non recurring revenue addition, top sliced from vote 1, hospital and community health services, is paid to regions to help cover expenditure incurred by trusts during their shadow running period—the period immediately prior to their operational date when they have no access to money of their own. This covers shadow board costs, legal expenses connected with the transfer of assets, employment of staff and other miscellaneous expenses.

  A similar sum will be allocated to third wave trusts.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 180, how much grant was paid to each national health service unit applying for trust status for (a) training and (b) development costs during the application process.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Training and development grants were not paid to individual units.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 180, how much of the revenue grant paid to trusts during their shadow running period was for (a) shadow board costs, (b) legal expenses, (c) employment of staff and (d) miscellaneous expenses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This allocation is not broken down centrally and is for the trusts themselves to determine, depending on their individual circumstances.
  564
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 180, how much each trust has spent on (a) shadow board costs, (b) legal expenses, (c) employment of staff and (d) miscellaneous expenses; and if she will define what costs are included under miscellaneous expenses.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The amount spent by each trust on these individual items is not held centrally. Miscellaneous expenses include any expense connected with tasks necessary to take over full operational responsibility from 1 April.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 180, how the revenue grant to trusts during their shadow running period is calculated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The amount allocated for top-sliced funding to meet start-up costs and consultation costs is divided on an equal basis and paid to successful trusts in each wave.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to her answer of 30 October,Official Report, column 936, if she will list by Benefits Agency district the number of live births during 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  The boundaries of some Benefits Agency districts split postcodes and the data requested are therefore not available in the form requested.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of redundancies among national health service staff by profession, that have taken place in each region for each of the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Data on redundancies in the national health service are not collected centrally, other than in respect of staff who are both over 50 years of age and have at least five years' reckonable service for superannuation purposes. These data are not broken down by grade.

  Qa Business Services Ltd.
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the operation of the Qa Business Services Ltd. pension scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Administration of the Qa pension fund, following the collapse of Qa Business Services Ltd., is being undertaken by the independent trustees, Bradstock Financial Services Ltd.

  Grants
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish her Department's policy on the issuing of grants under its section 64 general scheme; and if she will make a statement on changes to the policy agreed for the last 12 months.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 29 October at columns 842–43. Copies of the notes of guidance for

  565
  applicants for 1993–94, together with the covering letter I sent to all voluntary organisations receiving, or applying for, a section 64 general scheme grant, have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 180, how much was spent by each region (a) on statutory consultation costs and (b) on conveyancing costs; and how much was spent by each trust (i) during their shadow running periods and (ii) on training and developmental costs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not held centrally.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make a statement on the future of regional health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are consulting interested parties over the future relationship between Ministers, the NHS Management Executive and NHS authorities and trusts.

  Computerised Records
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the guidelines issued by her Department on the use of computerised patient records by general practitioners; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  No specific guidelines have been issued on the use of computerised patient records by practitioners. General practitioners are required by their terms and conditions of service to keep adequate patient records on forms supplied by family health service authorities. We will be reviewing the extent to which these terms of service should be amended to take account of new technology.

  Drugs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on drugs in the national health service for 1990–91 and 1991–92; what is the latest estimate for expenditure in 1992–93; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Expenditure on drugs by the family health services in England amounted to £2,080 million in 1990–91 and £2,317 million in 1991–92. Provision in main estimates for 1992–93 is £2,444 million. A revised forecast will be available at the time of the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  The annual accounts of health authorities in England record total expenditure on drugs of £460 million for 1990–911 An equivalent figure for 1991–92 will be available later this year. Analyses of expenditure are not collected in-year and any estimate for 1992–93 would therefore be speculative.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish(a) the proposed terms of reference for the inquiry into the London ambulance service, (b) the
  566
  membership of the inquiry team, (c) the timetable for the inquiry's work and (d) the likely publication date of the inquiry's report; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) on 6 November at columns 445–46.

  NHS Management Executive
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times the chief executive of the National Health service Management Executive has visited the executive's headquarters in Leeds in the last six months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Leeds headquarters of the National Health Service Management Executive—NHSME—have been occupied from 6 July 1992. The chief executive of the NHSME has visited the headquarters on six occasions since 6 July. His own office will be ready for occupation early in the new year.

  Women's Refuges
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give an estimate on the numbers of places per 10,000 women in women's refuges throughout England and Wales for each year since 1979 and at present.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The Women's Aid Federation (England) Ltd. estimates that about 30,000 women and children are admitted to refuges each year. Refuge provision in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Vitamins
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is held by his Department about problems which have arisen in the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years for which figures are available which have involved incidents of poisoning or illness following self-overdosing with vitamin, mineral or other dietary supplements.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases there have been in each of the last 10 years when individuals suffered adversely as a result of self-overdosing wtih(a) vitamin C, (b) multi-vitamins, (c) vitamin and iron supplements and (d) salt.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not collected centrally. The Government are considering whether a spontaneous reporting scheme for adverse reactions in association with use of dietary supplements should be established.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) pursuant to her answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 201, on the levels of wages received by those covered by wages councils, how many employers records were checked in the analysis, what was the date of

  567
  the analysis, when it was carried out, how many wages councils were covered and what was the geographical distribution of the employers concerned;

  (2) pursuant to her oral answer of 3 November to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle), Official Report, columns 129–30, what was the source and date of the information about the proportion of people covered by wages councils who are paid more than the rate set by those councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The estimate of around 3 to 4 per cent. of employees found to be underpaid is based on the annual statistics compiled by the wages inspectorate covering the inspection of some 30,000 establishments in all parts of the country. The estimate that two thirds of employees are paid significantly above the wages council minima is based on special information collected by wages inspectors in 1987 supplemented by up to date figures from the new earnings survey. The earlier information covered some 3,650 employers in all the inspectorate divisions. There are no separate details of the councils covered and their geographical distribution.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her oral answer to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) of 3 November,Official Report, columns 130, whether the other sources of income referred to include benefits, earned income or unearned income, respectively.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The 80 per cent. of wages council workers referred to are in households with two or more wage earners.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 199–200, what was the basis of her approximation that two thirds of wages council workers are women.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The estimate is based on the Department's quarterly statistics of employees in employment for industry headings covering the main wages councils.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases of underpayment of wages council workers were discovered by the wages inspectorate in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage this represented of premises inspected and of the number of workers in those premises.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  During 1991, the wages inspectorate discovered 12,812 cases of underpayment of wages council workers in 5,971 establishments. This represented 18·3 per cent. of all establishments checked and 4·5 per cent. of all workers covered by checks.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases of underpayment of wages council workers were reported to the wages inspectorate in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage that represented of premises visited.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1991, 1,486 complaints of underpayment were received from wages council workers, which resulted in visits to 1,195 establishments, 6·5 per cent. of the total establishments visited.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many members the Health and Safety Commission has; how many of them are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) from ethnic minorities and women.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Commission currently comprises the chairman and nine other members. At present, one member is a woman and none is from an ethnic minority.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many health and safety inspectors are(a) female or (b) from ethnic minority backgrounds; and in each case what proportion this figure is of the total number.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  At 1 November 1992, 209 or 14 per cent. of inspectors were women and 23 or 1·5 per cent. were from ethnic minority backgrounds.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) chairs and (b) members of industrial tribunals are (i) women and (ii) from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The figures are as follows:

  Number

  Chairmen

  Women

  16

  Members of the ethnic minorities

  2

  Lay members

  Women

  592

  Members of the ethnic minorities

  77

ENVIRONMENT

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to make representations to the Council of Ministers in order to allow EC member states to ban unilaterally waste imports and exports;

  (2) what action is currently undertaken by his Department to ensure that all transfers of hazardous waste from the United Kingdom for recycling in non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries;

  (3) if he will make representations to the Council of Ministers to secure that any ban on waste exports from the EC includes OECD green list wastes;

  (4) if he will make it his policy to support measures to ban hazardous waste trafficking with developing countries;

  (5) if he will make representations in the OECD to oppose the introduction of red, amber and green lists to cover transfers of hazardous wastes to non-OECD countries.
  569
  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on 27 October,Official Report, column 534, with the addition of the following.

  Under the regulation, before any green list waste for recovery is exported outside the OECD, the country of destination will be asked to state whether it will accept shipments without going through the amber, red or Basel control procedures. Where the country of destination regards a green list waste as hazardous, shipments of that waste will he subject to the appropriate control regime.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the results of his Department's national household waste analysis project.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 5 November,Official Report, column 374.

  Urban Regeneration Agency
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet representatives from Staffordshire county council to discuss the proposed urban regeneration agency.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have no plans for a series of meetings with individual authorities to discuss the urban regeneration agency. We have just concluded a wide-ranging consultation exercise to which many local authorities, including Staffordshire, submitted their comments. These have been taken into account in preparing the legislation currently before the House. They will also form a useful input to our future work on the development of the guidance under which the agency will operate.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends the urban regeneration agency to determine its strategy.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The urban regeneration agency will determine its strategy in the light of its financial regime and the guidance we will issue to it.

  Derelict Land
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that there will be no transfer of resources from existing derelict land reclamation undertaken by local authorities to prestigious projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I am well aware of the good work done by local authorities in reclaiming derelict land with the aid of grants from my Department. The urban regeneration agency will operate a new, unified grant regime to build on the success of derelict land grant and the other programmes it will inherit. It is, however, too early to take decisions on the agency's first work programme. This will be for the agency to determine in the light of guidance we will issue to it.

  Leasehold
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many court orders have been made in each year since 1988 under part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, approving the compulsory acquisition of premises whose landlord has been found to be in breach of obligations owed to their leaseholders; and how many leaseholders in total have benefited from such orders.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many court orders have been made in each year since 1988 under part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 appointing a manager to act in respect of premises whose landlords have been found to be in breach of their obligations; and how many tenants in total have benefited from such orders.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Housing Inspectorate
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to establish an independent housing inspectorate with responsibility for enforcing basic standards on housing improvements.

  Mr. Baldry
  No, the basic standard on housing improvements is laid down by section 604 of the 1985 Housing Act as amended by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the responsibility for enforcing this standard falls to the local housing authorities and ultimately to the courts.

  Abandoned Mines (Water Pollution)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the National Rivers Authority assessment of data on water pollution from abandoned mines will include information on the 31 mines which British Coal had scheduled for closure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The content of the forthcoming report is a matter for the NRA. I am sure that the NRA will have regard to the circumstances of these mines.

  Housing Waiting Lists
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice his Department issues to local authorities to ensure that housing waiting list criteria reflect social need.

  Mr. Baldry
  The allocation of local authority accommodation is entirely the responsibility of individual local authorities. Section 22 of the Housing Act 1985 requires authorities to give reasonable preference to people in housing need, such as those living in unsatisfactory conditions. It is for each authority to consider whether an applicant is in housing need.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he intends to put to international colleagues in relation to the Montreal protocol with regard to reductions in the use of methyl bromide.
  571
  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 November to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes),Official Report, column 372.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reductions he forecasts would be achieved in ozone damage as a result of(a) a 25 per cent. reduction in the use of methyl bromide by 1995 and (b) a complete phasing out of the use of methyl bromide by 1995.

  Mr. Maclean
  An international science panel has recently assessed current understanding of the impact of methyl bromide on the ozone layer at the request of the United Nations Environment Programme on behalf of the contracting parties to the Montreal protocol. Estimates of the impacts of methyl bromide were not made in the exact terms asked for but indicated that immediate elimination of anthropogenic methyl bromide would provide ozone layer protection comparable to that of an advance of the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and carbon tetrachloride (CC14) phase-out schedule by about one and a half to three years.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the air conditioning system of the new headquarters of his Department does not use chlorofluorocarbons as an integral part of the system.

  Mr. Maclean
  Environmental considerations are taken fully into account in the selection of new buildings for the Government estate. In the case of the proposed new headquarters for the Department of the Environment, none of the buildings that have been evaluated uses chlorofluorocarbons in its air conditioning systems.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place in the Environment Council during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council of Ministers on the applications of the cohesion fund to environmental projects, as proposed by draft article 130d of the treaty of Rome, under the treaty of European union.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. Discussions on the draft regulations to establish the cohesion fund are being pursued in ECOFIN and the Foreign Affairs Council in the context of the review of the Community's future financing.

  Council Tax
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the joint and several liability arrangements in respect of the council tax and the extent to which these differ from those in respect of the community charge.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There is a separate personal community charge liability in respect of each individual. If payment is not received from a person, the local authority can also invoke joint and several liability to recover the amount due from his or her spouse or partner.

  Under the council tax, there is only one liability in respect of each dwelling. The person responsible for this
  572
  liability will generally be whichever resident of the dwelling owns or rents it. Joint owners or tenants will be jointly and severally liable. The spouse or partner of a liable person will also be jointly and severally liable if they are residents in the dwelling concerned.

  Special arrangements apply to people who are severely mentally impaired. These mean that such people will not generally be held jointly and severally liable for the council tax on their home.

  The principal difference between joint and several liability under the community charge and the council tax is therefore that under the former an individual may be liable for a bill relating to his or her partner, whereas under the latter an individual's liability relates to his or her own home.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce measures to protect those people living in property which they occupy solely because of their employment from bills relating to the capial value of the property, under the council tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  An employee will be liable for the council tax on a dwelling provided by his employer only if he has his main home there; otherwise, the owner of the dwelling—normally the employer—will be liable. If the employee is liable, council tax benefit may meet up to the full amount of his liability if he is on a low income.

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to issue the consultation paper on the implementation of the habitats directive.

  Mr. Maclean
  Member states were formally notified of the habitats directive on 5 July 1992 and are obliged to bring into force the provisions necessary to enable them to comply within two years of that date. The Government are considering what additional measures are necessary to enable them to fulfil their obligations and my right hon. and learned Friend expects to consult on the Government's proposals within the next few months.

  Rents
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what records he keeps of those number of times rent offices increase rents above those recommended by housing associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is included in the statistical returns made to the Department by all rent offices, but is not currently separately analysed.

  Waste Disposal Sites
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the waste disposal sites in Lancashire and their anticipated lifespans; and what is the Government's assessment of the likely requirements for new waste disposal sites over the next 15 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Lancashire county council, as a waste regulation authority, maintains public register with details of currently operational disposal sites in its area and will be able to advise on their anticipated lifespans.
  573
  Responsibility for assessing the future waste disposal needs in Lancashire presently lies with the county council which is required to draw up a waste management plan for its area.

  In due course, when the environment agency has been set up, we envisage that the Secretary of State will :issue a statement of waste policies and priorities on the advice of the agency, which will consider waste disposal needs in each region, and across the country as a whole over the next 10 to 15 years. Copies of the Department's consultation paper "Waste Disposal Planning under an Environment Agency" which sets out these proposals in more detail, have been placed in the Library.

  Rating Revaluations
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if it remains his policy to hold a revaluation of non-domestic property in 1995;

  (2) what progress is being made in the preparation for a revaluation of non-domestic property in 1995.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Local Government Finance Act 1988 provides that there will be a revaluation of non-domestic property in 1995. This will be based on 1 April 1993 values. The Valuation Office agency is taking the necessary steps to achieve this.

  Library and Information Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the standard spending assessment for library and information services for each relevant local authority in England and in total for 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what was the year-on-year uprating in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There is no separate standard spending assessment element for library and information services.

  Water Pipes
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the working of the Water Act 1989, with particular reference to the charges levied on landowners for laying pipes when planning permission is gained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The conditions governing charges for the provision of mains water and sewerage services contained in the Water Act 1989 were consolidated in the Water Industry Act 1991.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the latest figures for vacant local authority dwellings for(a) England, (b) London and (c) each London borough; and how many in each case were available for letting, awaiting minor repairs, awaiting major repairs, awaiting sale, awaiting demolition or occupied by squatters.

  Mr. Baldrey
  Local authorities report the number of their own dwellings which are empty in their annual housing investment programme (HIP1) returns.

  The latest available figures, which are provisional at this stage, are for April 1992 and appear in columns A198,
  574
  total vacant; A191, available for letting; A192, awaiting minor repairs; A193 and A194, awaiting major repairs; A195, awaiting sale; A196, awaiting demolition; and A20, dwellings in unlicensed occupation, of the "1992 HIP1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Safety for Women
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines are currently provided by his Department to buildings and estate designers to ensure that buildings and estates take women's safety needs fully into account.

  Mr. Baldry
  Documents approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of the Building Regulations 1991 provide practical guidance on the design of buildings so that reasonable safety standards are secured.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will answer the letter sent to him on 25 June by the director of the International Art Exhibition.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: Following consultations with colleagues in other Government Departments, a response was sent to the director of the International Earth Art Exhibition on 3 November.

  Waterlogged Soil (Infant Mortality)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has commissioned on the relationship between waterlogged soils and variations in the infant mortality rate; what discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: The Department has not commissioned any research on this subject. I understand that the National Rivers Authority has received a copy of a report on the matter by two scientists and is investigating further.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the expert group's recommendations made under the chairmanship of Sir John Badenoch for a collaborative research programme into cryptosporidium to report.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: The drinking water inspectorate published an interim report, "Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies—Progress with the National Research Programme", in July 1992. Copies have been placed in the Library. The programme of research extends into 1993 and a further report will be made when it is complete.

  Water Supplies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to provide that payments for water services to domestic properties should be by charges linked to the valuation bands used for the council tax.
  575
  Mr. Maclean
  No. It is for individual water companies to decide on their preferred system of charging for their services, subject to the overriding requirement, contained in their licence of appointment, that their charges do not show undue preference to, or unduly discriminate against, any class of customers or potential customers. Our consultation paper, "Using Water Wisely", sought comment on a proposal that water companies should not be able to link charges to the valuation bands for the council tax. They will not, after the year 2000, be able to use rateable values from the former rating system.

  WALES
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have no plans to do so.
  585

  Tenants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will produce a charter for private rented sector tenants giving the tenants(a) first refusal to buy their houses, (b) the right to apply to the courts for a change of manager and (c) the right to apply to the courts for compulsory acquisition of the property by the local authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department is preparing a guide for tenants in the private rented sector which will explain their rights and responsibilities. It will also emphasise the support and best practise standards which those tenants can expect from their local authorities.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will produce new guidelines for local authorities on harassment within the private rented sector, placing a duty on local authorities to follow up complaints.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have no plans to do so. Tenants already have statutory protection from harassment and illegal eviction under the provisions of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish a tenants charter in Wales to include(a) specified rights for tenants to ensure that landlords undertake essential repairs within a set time scale, (b) the elimination of discrimination against tenants in receipt of benefits, (c) consultation and committee representation rights for tenants and (d) new safe tenancies established for tenants in properties having absentee landlords.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The principal elements of policy here are set out in the recently published charter for tenants of council housing in Wales, and the tenants guarantee appropriate to housing associations. A guide for tenants in the private rented sector is in preparation.

  Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to local authorities on the compiling of standardised housing waiting lists, to include all names of those awaiting rented accommodation in the local authority area;

  (2) if he will issue guidelines on the standardisation of allocation policies on housing provision, and for homelessness services, between local authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Our position on allocation policies and standardised housing waiting lists is set out in the 576
  published "Agenda for Action on Housing in Wales". We have issued guidance to local authorities on the discharge of their statutory responsibilities on homelessness in the revised "Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities".

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dwellings lacking one or more basic amenities exclusively house people over the age of 60 years in each(a) housing sector and (b) local authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The estimated numbers of dwellings—based on the results of the 1986 Welsh house condition survey—which lacked the exclusive use of one or more basic amenities and which exclusively housed people over the age of 60 were as follows:

  Number

  Owner occupied

  13,700

  Local authority/council/newtown

  2,150

  Private rented

  4,700

  An analysis of the total number of such dwellings in each authority is given in the table:

  Number

  Aberconwy

  200

  Alyn and Deeside

  300

  Arfon

  450

  Blaenau Gwent

  900

  Brecknock

  250

  Cardiff

  1,450

  Carmarthen

  350

  Ceredigion

  600

  Colwyn

  100

  Cynon Valley

  1,350

  Delyn

  250

  Dinefwr

  400

  Dwyfor

  450

  Glyndwr

  250

  Islwyn

  750

  Llanelli

  900

  Lliw Valley

  550

  Meirionnydd

  200

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,000

  Monmouth

  350

  Montgomeryshire

  300

  Neath

  500

  Newport

  550

  Ogwr

  750

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  400

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  300

  Radnorshire

  250

  Rhondda

  2,500

  Rhuddlan

  50

  Rhymney Valley

  700

  South Pembrokeshire

  200

  Swansea

  1,200

  Taff-Ely

  600

  Torfaen

  450

  Vale of Glamorgan

  100

  Wrexham Maelor

  450

  Ynys Mon

  550

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a new formula for assessing affordability so as to develop a target level of housing costs for all tenures.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish a central housing agency to co-ordinate public and social housing strategies in Wales.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pensioner households in Wales have central heating; and what percentage of total pensioner households this represents.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has to date published only a selection of 1991 census results in the county monitor series, CEN 91 CM. Detailed information on households containing only pensioners is not yet available. The figures given are provisional as they are derived directly from rounded county statistics in the monitors. National level and more detailed results will be released by OPCS in November 1992 and in county reports this year and in 1993.

  In Wales, an estimated 309,000 households with central heating in some or all rooms contained at least one pensioner and represented 76 per cent. of all households where pensioners lived.

  Health Practices
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to promote improved health practices in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the strategic intent and direction for the NHS in Wales 10 health gain priority areas have been identified, where the service and its partners will focus their efforts to improve the health status of the people of Wales.

  The Welsh Health Planning Forum is preparing detailed protocols for investment in health gain. Eight reports have already been issued. This material has been widely recognised as first class by other parts of the United Kingdom and beyond and complements the pioneering work of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  The protocol forms the basis for the local strategies for health being developed by the district health authorities and family health services authorities in partnership with other local organisations, including local government. The second round of local strategies is now complete, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider these early in the new year.

  The various plans and strategies being developed by NHS Wales are being brought together into a unified 10 year strategy, so providing a clear and coherent framework for future action. This document, to be known as "Caring for the Future", is currently being discussed with a wide range of service interests. The aim is to publish it in December. Further debate on its key themes will take place next year.

  The new health care environment introduced last year provides the appropriate structure for taking these important initiatives ahead in an efficient and effective way. The patients charter also plays a key role by ensuring that the NHS focuses clearly on the needs of individual patients.

  Infant Deaths
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to cut the death rate among those aged under five years in Wales.
  578
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Maternal and Early Child Health", which was issued in August 1991 by the Welsh Health Planning Forum, highlights those interventions which have been shown clearly to be capable of achieving a worthwhile health gain in respect of early child health. The protocols assist health authorities to develop their local strategies for health. Further important aspects of child health—respiratory disease, physical and mental handicap, congenital heart disease, childhood cancers and injuries—are considered in protocols dealing with other health gain areas.

  Babies
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to reduce the number of babies born with major unexpected malformations or handicaps in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  One of the health gain targets of the "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Maternal and Early Child Health", is to reduce the number of children born with major unexpected malformations or handicaps by 10 per cent. by 2002 compared with 1995. This is being taken forward in local strategies for health.

  Mothers and Children
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to improve the quality of childbirth and early childhood for both mother and child in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Maternal and Early Child Health", identifies where further investment could bring worthwhile health gain and indicates to health authorities where current practices might be improved and redirection of funds might be considered.

  Nitrogen Dioxide
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made in Wales to meet the target of reducing nitrogen dioxide emissions by 30 per cent. by the year 1998.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Various measures are being taken throughout the United Kingdom to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions, including the fitting of low NOx burners to major coal-fired power plants and new standards for road vehicles. Details are provided in "This Common Inheritance; The Second Year Report"—cm. 2068—which the Government published last month.

  Further records on nitrogen dioxide emission levels in Wales is also being produced by the Welsh Office.

  In order to gain a better picture of the current position on nitrogen dioxide emission levels in Wales, the Welsh Office is funding a survey of the Principality.

  Sulphur Dioxide
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made in Wales to meet the target of reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by the year 2003.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Various measures are being taken throughout the United Kingdom to reduce emissions of
  579
  sulphur dioxide, including retrofitting 800MW of power plant with flue gas desulphurisation equipment. Further details are provided in "This Common Inheritance; The Second Year Report"—cm. 2068—which the Government published last month.

  Data on sulphur dioxide emissions are not separately available for Wales. However, information on atmospheric concentrations of sulphur dioxide is given in table 3.20 of the "The Environment Digest for Wales, No. 6 1991", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Coastal Planning
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will amend the planning policy guidance note produced by his Department so as to include a reference to the role of ports and harbours under the general development order and the scope of the Crown Estates Commissioners in coastal planning.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The planning policy guidance note on coast planning—PPG20—was published in September 1992. There is presently no intention to amend it.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to amend paragraphs 8.6 and 8.9 of planning policy guidance notes on coastal zones so as to ensure that ecological impact criteria are applied to all sites.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. Guidance is given to local planning authorities in the planning policy guidance note on coastal planning. Further advice will be contained in the forthcoming guidance note on nature conservation.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what role is envisaged by his Department for non-governmental organisations in the collection of data and analysis on coastal resources prior to the preparation of development plans.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for the local planning authority to determine what information it requires in the preparation of a development plan. The planning policy guidance note on coastal planning advises close involvement with a range of Government bodies. It also lists contact points in relevant voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to encourage local authorities to adopt management policies and management plans for heritage coast areas in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  On 11 March 1992 the Government issued a statement setting out their position on heritage coasts. The statement, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, supports the concept of preparing management plans. In addition the Government planning policy guidance note No. 20 "Coastal Planning", advises that local planning authorities should include policies for the protection and enhancement of heritage coasts in their development plans.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to encourage the adoption of coastal and estuarial management plans in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government have stated in their response to the second report from the House of 580
  Commons Select Committee on the Environment, "Coastal Zone Protection and Planning" that they will encourage the preparation of management plans.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to amend the planning policy guidance notes produced by his Department so as to include a detailed report on his Department's coastal strategy; and how the strategy will be implemented.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. The planning policy guidance note on coastal planning, issued in September 1992, covers issues of relevance to the coastal zone. An interdepartmental group on which the Department is represented has been set up by the Government and this provides a mechanism for the continuing development of coastal policies.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to enhance the remit of the coastal strategic working group; and if he will make a statement on the effect of local government reform in Wales on the work of the working group.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I understand that the Assembly of Welsh Counties—AWC—is to submit advice to my right hon. Friend in the new year on the main strategic issues likely to affect Wales in the next 10 to 15 years. The work of the AWC's coastal strategy working group is expected to form an element of that report. A White Paper on local government reform will be published in due course.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to extend the remit of planning controls to cover the area below the low water mark in and around the coast of Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In response to the second report from the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, "Coastal Zone Protection and Planning", the Government gave a commitment to review regulation of activities below the low water mark and to issue a discussion paper.

  Minerals Permissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times the powers introduced by the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 have been utilised in Wales in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the use of the powers by mineral planning authorities is not collected centrally; but one order, to prohibit resumption of mineral working, has so far been submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation and is currently under consideration.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will introduce legislation to reduce the life of mineral permissions from 60 years to 10 years;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to place a statutory obligation on all new mineral permission applications to include conditions specifying the timing and content of subsequent reviews of such permission;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines granting mineral planning authorities in Wales the right to revoke or substantially amend mining permissions without compensation where workings would (a) damage nationally-designated sites, (b) cause an unacceptable level of environmental change to important non-designated sites or (c) damage important water resources.
  581
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Responses to the consultation paper on old mineral permissions issued by the Government in March, in which various possibilities for dealing with problems were discussed, are under consideration. Further consultation is likely before detailed proposals are implemented.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to impose a statutory duty on mineral planning authorities in Wales to review all existing minerals permissions during the next four years; and if he will allow mineral planning authorities to request environmental assessments as part of such a review.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Responses to the Government's consultation paper on old mineral permissions issued in March, in which the possibility of a four-year review was discussed, are under consideration. Further consultation is likely before detailed proposals are implemented.

  The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 do not apply to existing permissions.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to mineral planning authorities on compensation levels and the use of enforcement powers.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Guidance on these issues can be found in mineral planning guidance note—MPG2—"Applications Permissions and Conditions", MPG4, "The Review of Mineral Working Sites", and planning policy guidance note 18, "Enforcing Planning Control".

  Initial consultation has taken place on the operation of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 and the compensation arrangements under it.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to amend planning policy guidance note 7 produced by his Department so as to make reference to the design and quality expectations of industrial and commercial developments, including the utilisation of locally appropriate building materials, and the encouragement of the re-use of derelict buildings.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. Appropriate advice is already given in planning policy guidance note 7 and in annex A —design considerations—of planning policy guidance note 1.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will amend planning policy guidance note 7 to draw attention to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The 1988 regulations are already referred to in paragraph 2.7 of the revised planning policy guidance note 7 issued in January this year.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will amend planning policy guidance notes to include a clear description of the special nature of rural developments.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. Planning policy guidance note 7, "The Countryside and Rural Economy", provides 582
  comprehensive policy guidance on development in the countryside generally, together with advice on the special considerations which apply in designated areas.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will delete the statement in planning policy guidance note 7 that planning authorities should consider the likely effect on the operation of the business when considering enforcement action.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Advice on enforcing planning control is found in planning policy guidance note 18. I see no reason to amend that guidance at present.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will amend planning policy guidance notes to indicate circumstances in which the use of development plan policies can be used to limit change of use rights.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office circular 24/87 recognises that it may very exceptionally be appropriate for a local planning authority in determining a particular planning application to impose a condition restricting the use to which the land or buildings may subsequently be put. But development plans should not include policies which would generally restrict the freedoms available under the use classes order and the general development order to make certain changes of use without the need for specific planning permission.

  Marine Unit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a specialist marine unit within his Department.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to issue guidance to local authorities on the practice of charging fees for pre-application advice on development proposals.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The courts have held that local planning authorities have no power to charge fees for providing pre-application advice about development proposals. The Government consider that pre-application discussions are beneficial and local planning authorities are encouraged to continue this practice.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the relationship between the proposed new independent national park authorities and the new unitary authorities proposed in the local government reform package.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government's proposals for establishing independent national park authorities are set out in the Government's statement on the policies for national parks issued in January 1992. Detailed proposals on the structure of such park authorities and other related issues are presently under consideration.

  Neath and Port Talbot Hospital
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current status of the approval for the new Neath and Port Talbot hospital given by the Welsh Office in April 1991.
  583
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend's statement on 29 October made clear the continuing commitment to a new hospital on the Baglan site.

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance Service
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were transported by Mid Glamorgan ambulance service; and how many ambulance journeys were logged by Mid Glamorgan ambulance service, in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No information is collected centrally on the number of patients transported by ambulance or the number of ambulance journeys made. However information on the number of patient journeys is collected and is given as follows.

  Number of patient journeys1 logged by Mid Glamorgan Health Authority

  Year

  Number

  1987–88

  300,866

  1988–89

  298,425

  1989–90

  197,933

  1990–91

  248,409

  1991–92

  277,691

  1A patient journey relates to a single journey made by one person in an ambulance. Thus a return journey from a visit to a hospital is counted as a second patient journey and if an ambulance carried six patients at the same time it is counted as six journeys.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths were attributable to heart disease in Wales in 1985, 1990 and 1991; what proposals he has to reduce heart disease in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of deaths to residents of Wales in 1985, 1990 and 1991, where the underlying cause of death was ischaemic heart disease—ICD 9th revision 410–414—was 10,265, 9,438 and 9,541 respectively (Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  In March 1985, Heartbeat Wales was launched as a national demonstration project to combat coronary heart disease. The project has since been subsumed into the comprehensive work programme of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  Additionally, in May 1991, the Welsh Health Planning Forum published advice to the NHS in Wales in the form of a protocol for investment in health gain in cardiovascular diseases. The protocol identifies where further investment could bring worthwhile health gain and indicates where current practices might be improved and redirection of funds might be considered. It is a key input in the production of local strategies for health by health authorities.

  Typhoid Fever
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of typhoid fever in Wales were reported in 1988, 1990 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The data requested are presented in the table:584

  Cases of typhoid fever reported in Wales

  Cases of Number

  11988

  0

  11990

  2

  2 31992

  2

  Sources: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  1 Communicable disease statistics (MB2 Series.)

  2 Weekly return (WR Series).

  3 To week ending 16 October 1992.

  Mr. Stanley Gregory
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up an independent inquiry concerning the case of Mr. Stanley Gregory, who was injured recently whilst in the care of Cartrefi Cymru; what proposals he has to set out guidelines on staffing for community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Mr. Stanley Gregory, was unfortunately injured in an accident at his home in Forden, Powys on Thursday 22 October 1992.

  I understand that immediately following the accident Cartrefi Cymru the organisation employed to provide care and support for Mr. Gregory initiated an investigation into the circumstances that led up to the incident. That report has been made available to the Welsh Office, Powys health authority and Powys social services department. I further understand that a joint investigation will be set up immediately between the social services department, the health authority and Cartrefi Cymru further to investigate the incident, review procedures and training programmes and make recommendations for the future in order that such accidents are prevented. In addition, Cartrefi Cymru is also reviewing its own procedures and guidelines. Mr. Gregory has been provided with, and will continue to receive, independent advocate advice as to his rights and position in this matter. Until these investigations and reports are finalised, it would be premature to instigate an independent inquiry. I will require the findings to be sent to the Welsh Office and will take any appropriate action if we are not satisfied as to the findings and conclusions.

  Policy and guidelines on the support and accommodation for people with a mental handicap are set out in Welsh Office circular 1/91, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to strengthen the role of housing associations in making sensitive provision to meet special needs and community needs in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am satisified that housing associations are already well aware of the sensitivities involved in providing such housing.

  Domestic Rates
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals are still outstanding relating to bills received under the old domestic rating system.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is one outstanding lands tribunal appeal.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Development Board for Rural Wales first told the Welsh Office that the Comptroller and Auditor General was considering qualifying the Development Board for Rural Wales's accounts.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 21 August 1991.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals were still outstanding on 1 November relating to bills received under the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In respect of the 1990 non-domestic rating list as at 31 October, the latest date at which the information is available, there were 22,600 outstanding proposals of which 20,300 had been passed by valuation offices to valuation tribunals as appeals.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to which the United Kingdom transported hazardous waste for recycling for the latest year for which figures are available indicating the volume of the waste transported to each country;

  (2) how many transfers of hazardous waste were transported for recycling from the United Kingdom to non-OECD countries for the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the total tonnage of the waste transported.

  Mr. Eggar
  The principal non-OECD countries to which the United Kingdom transported hazardous waste for recovery, and the tonnage to each, are listed.Begins table

  Countries

  Tonnes

  South Africa

  6,998

  Indonesia

  1,652

  Dubai

  1,562

  Thailand

  1,410

  South Korea

  991

  Hong Kong

  688

  Saudi Arabia

  678

  Taiwan

  696

  India

  553

  The total tonnage of such waste exported from the United Kingdom to non-OECD countries in 1991 was 16,300 tonnes. Information on the number of transfers of hazardous waste for recovery from the United Kingdom to non-OECD countries is not held centrally and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  As the figures that the hon. Member is seeking may be subject to restrictions of commercial confidentiality, I shall write to the hon. Member more fully as soon as the most accurate picture can be established.

  Electricity
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average price increase for domestic electricity in 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  The average price increase for domestic electricity in 1990–91, over the corresponding period 12 months earlier, was 8·6 per cent.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost per unit for domestic electricity consumption, adjusted for inflation, for each of the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The average prices per unit, including standing charges, for electricity supplied to domestic consumers for each of the last 10 years are given in the table.

  Year

  Pence per KWh at 1991 prices1

  1982

  8·31

  1983

  8·24

  1984

  7·96

  1985

  7·71

  1986

  7·55

  1987

  7·13

  1988

  7·01

  1989

  7·12

  1990

  7·11

  1991

  7·28

  1 Cash figures adjusted to 1991 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.

  Figures for 1992 are not yet available. However, increases in domestic electricity prices in April 1992 averaged about 2 per cent., well below the rate of inflation.

  Institution of Electrical Engineers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the survey of manufacturing industry by the Institution of Electrical Engineers; and what plans he has to commission further surveys from the institution.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No formal response was asked for or has been made to the report from the public affairs body of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. However, my Department welcomes this interesting contribution.

  Travel Agents
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward proposals for legislation under which all travel agents trading as public limited companies would be required to display their most recent balance sheet and profit and loss account in their trading offices.

  Mr. Leigh
  No.

  Post Office Report
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his written answer of 2 November on the Kleinwort Benson report on the Post Office, if he will make available a copy of the report in confidence to the hon. Member for Neath.
  587
  Mr. Leigh
  Any reports produced by the Government's advisers on the Post Office are internal Government documents. I do not intend, therefore, to make such documents available outside Government and I do not intend to make a copy of Kleinwort Benson's report on the Post Office available to the hon. Member for Neath.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements exist in his Department to trace whether nuclear materials originating from the United Kingdom have been exported for use in Iraq.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government have requested the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Authority to give us confidentially details of any evidence of involvement by British companies in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes, including the supply of nuclear materials. Any indication of wrongdoing will be urgently investigated and if export controls have been breached, it will be a matter for the courts.

  Cleaner Technology Group
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the inter-departmental group on cleaner technology was set up; and how many times it has met so far.

  Mr. Eggar
  The interdepartmental liaison group on cleaner technology was established in December 1991. It has met twice and is next scheduled to meet in January 1993.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last visited British Aerospace at Woodford, Cheshire.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  During his time as President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend has not visited British Aerospace at Woodford, Cheshire.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total value of exports of aerospace products in each of the last 12 quarters for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  The most recent available data for the total value of exports of aerospace products, quarterly, not seasonally adjusted, are from the business monitor overseas trade statistics.

  Values £ billion

  Exports

  1990

  Ql

  1·65

  Q2

  1·94

  Q3

  1·99

  Q4

  2·37

  1991

  Ql

  1·63

  Q2

  2·00

  588

  Exports

  Q3

  2·24

  Q4

  2·09

  1992

  Ql

  1·79

  Q2

  1·90

  Q3

  1·75

  We have used parts of divisions 7, 8 and 9 of the standard international trade classification (revision 3) which cover aerospace systems, propulsion devices and equipment.

  Tunisian Imports
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of imports from Tunisia for the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  In the 12 months ending September 1992, the value of United Kingdom visible imports from Tunisia was £42·3 million.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list, for each local authority area in South Yorkshire, how many residential properties are currently owned by his Department; and if he will list, by location, those residential properties which are empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and its intended future use.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has no residential properties in south Yorkshire.

  Business (Legislative Burdens)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will investigate a survey into costs imposed on small and rural businesses by legislation, local government requirements and Common Market directives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Under the deregulation initiative, assessments of compliance and enforcement costs are among the factors taken into account by Ministers when considering proposals for new regulation and in negotiations on EC measures. There is also a continuing programme of work across Whitehall aimed at reducing significantly existing administrative and regulative burdens on business, particularly small businesses, whether imposed by central or local government or the EC. Currently, all regulatory departments are considering their programmes of work under the initiative for 1993 and beyond.

  Biofuels
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will include in his review of energy policy a study into the viability of biofuels; and if he will make a statement.
  589
  Mr. Eggar
  The terms of the review were announced in the answer of my right hon. Friend the President of the 590
  Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 26 October, Official Report, column 522–23.

  EC Used Machinery Directive
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the steps he is proposing to take to investigate the impact on farmers of the proposed used machinery directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department has conducted wide-ranging consultations with sectors likely to be affected by a directive on used machinery, including the farming industry. We have concluded that no such directive is necessary and that new controls in this area could impose heavy costs. Following firm opposition from the United Kingdom and other member states, the European Commission has not put forward its proposal to the Council.

  Reports
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now place in the Library the Oakes report, the Boyds report and the Rothschild report commissioned by his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The reports were commissioned on a confidential basis and contain detailed information which is commercially confidential.

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Eggar
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the chief executives of the 10 agencies for which my Department is responsible. I have therefore asked Mr. Mike Hoddinott, Accounts Services Agency; Mr. David Durham, companies House; Mr. Peter Joyce, Insolvency Service; Dr. Richard worswick, Laboratory of the Government Chemist; Mr. William Edgar, National Engineering Laboratory; Dr. Peter Clapham, National Physical Laboratory; Dr. Seton Bennett, National Weights and Measures Laboratory; Mr. Paul Hartnack, Patent Office; Mr. John Michell, Radiocommunications Agency; and Dr. Doug Cormack, Warren Spring Laboratory to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. J. Mitchell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question of 27 October about staffing in the Radiocommunications Agency. The information you request is as follows:

  Numbers of staff by grade in the Agency

  1991–92 Staff in post (March 1992)

  1992–93 Complement

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  Grade 5

  5

  5

  Grade 6

  7

  7

  Grade 7

  26·5

  26·5

  SEO

  20·5

  22

  SPTO

  21

  25

  STTO

  9

  9

  HEO

  25·5

  28·5

  HPTO

  18

  22

  592

  1991–92 Staff in post (March 1992)

  1992–93 Complement

  HTTO

  36

  40

  Investigation officer

  2

  2

  Librarian

  1

  1

  Graduate trainee engineer

  6

  5

  ATTO

  27

  30

  EO

  42

  46

  SPS

  1

  1

  Typing manager

  1

  1

  TTO

  113

  116

  AO

  53·5

  56

  PS

  36·5

  36·5

  Support grade band 1

  4

  4

  Support manager 3

  1

  1

  T/TTO

  4

  3

  AA

  46

  48

  Typist

  6·5

  6·5

  Process and general supervisory

  1

  1

  Support grade band 2

  12

  12

  527

  556

  Please note that while the left-hand column above lists staff actually in post at the end of March 1992, the right-hand column shows our "complement" for 1992–93. At any one time the number of staff in post is likely to be less than complement due to natural turnover. The latest figure available to me is that as at 30 September 1992 we had 530 staff in post.

  Staff costs

  In the time available I am able to give you only aggregated staff cost figures. They are as follows:

  1991–92 Actual spend

  1992–93 Forecast

  £

  £

  Salary and wages

  9,809,336

  11,127,570

  ERNIC

  753,971

  795,560

  Superannuation

  1,643,501

  1,845,362

  12,206,808

  13,768,492

  Letter from Mike Hoddinott to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992:

  In response to your recent Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding numbers of staff and costs within Executive Agencies, the information in respect of Accounts Services Agency is as follows:

  Staff Grade

  Numbers

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade 5

  1

  1

  Grade 7

  2

  4

  Senior Executive Officer

  4

  4½

  Higher Executive Officer

  9½

  11½

  Executive Officer

  16½

  15

  Administrative Officer

  38

  33½

  Administrative Assistant

  15

  10

  Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  Typist

  2

  1

  Support Grade Band 2

  2½

  3

  Total

  91½

  84½

  The above figures relate to the average number of substantive staff in post for each year. The total cost of their remuneration, including superannuation contributions, was 1·4 million in 1991–92 and is expected to remain at the same level in the current year.
  593
  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:

  I would refer to your Parliamentary Question dated 27 October to the President of the Board of Trade requesting that he list by grade the numbers of staff and their costs for 1991/92 and the estimated figures for 1992/93 for each Executive Agency for which he is responsible.

  As the Chief Executive of NEL I provide the information requested in the schedule attached. I trust you will find this information to he satisfactory for your purposes.

  Schedule

  Numbers of staff by grade

  Grade

  1991–92

  1992–93

  G3

  1

  1

  G4

  1

  1

  G5

  4

  4

  G6

  6

  6

  G7

  56

  56

  Senior Scientific Officer

  56

  54

  Higher Scientific Officer

  55·5

  55·5

  Scientific Officer

  22

  22

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  10·5

  10·5

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  3

  3

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  10

  10

  Professional and Technology Officer

  15

  15

  Technical Grade 1

  7

  7

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1

  1

  Graphics Officer

  1

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  1

  Chief Photographer

  1

  1

  Principal Photographer

  2

  1

  Senior Photographer

  1

  1

  Support Manager 3

  1

  1

  Support Grade Band 1

  6

  9

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  3

  4

  Executive Officer

  7·5

  6·5

  Administrative Officer

  23

  23

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  2

  Stores Officer Grade D

  1

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  4

  4

  Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Typist

  13

  12

  Craftsman

  41

  43

  Apprentice

  7

  7

  Experimental Worker

  16

  12

  Storeman

  4

  2

  Messenger

  3

  0

  Total No.

  388·5

  380·5

  Staff Cost

  £8,217k

  £18,919k

  1Estimate.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 137: 27 OCTOBER 1992

  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  The Laboratory of the Government Chemist is an Executive Agency within the Department of Trade and Industry and in 1991–92 employed 353 staff of which 271 were scientific grades and the remaining 82 were administrative support staff. The cost of salaries including ERNIC and superannuation came to £7,346,000. Details of staff numbers and cost by grade are shown on the attached annex.

  The estimated figures for 1992–93 are as follows:
  594
  360 staff, of which 284 are scientific grades, and 76 administrative support staff. Total pay costs are estimated to be £7·9 million.

  I hope this information is of help.

  Annex

  Grade

  Number of staff

  Total salaries by grade £k

  Other payroll expenses

  G3

  1

  57

  5

  3

  104

  6

  7

  269

  7

  26

  716

  SEO

  2

  45

  HEO

  4

  72

  EO

  8

  118

  AO

  31

  335

  AA

  4

  26

  TYP

  3

  28

  PS

  6

  72

  A.LIB

  1

  15

  SGB 1

  5

  47

  SGB2

  14

  111

  SPTO/SSO

  44

  1,050

  HPTO

  2

  64

  PTO

  3

  65

  SSO

  0

  0

  HSO

  68

  1,033

  SO

  62

  969

  ASO

  59

  603

  Total

  353

  5,799

  5,799

  Casuals

  143

  ERNIC

  436

  Superannuation

  968

  Grand total

  7,346

  Letter from Dr. P. B. Clapham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 November 1992.

  I am writing in response to your Parliamentary Question addressed to the President of the Board of Trade requesting details of staff numbers and costs for each Executive Agency. I have been asked to respond concerning my own Agency, the National Physical Laboratory.

  For 1991–92 the average number of staff was 826, and for 1992–93 it is expected that the average number will be a little under 800. The numbers in each grade are shown in the enclosed list.

  The pay costs of these staff are as follows:

  £'000

  1991–92

  Salaries and wages

  16,195

  Employers' National Insurance Contributions

  1,202

  Superannuation

  2,680

  Total

  20,077

  The forecast total for 1992–93 is about £20·5 million.

  National Physical Laboratory Executive Agency Average number of staff in post 1991–92

  Grade

  Number

  Grade 3

  1

  Grade 4

  1

  Grade 5

  12

  Grade 6

  40

  Grade 7

  116

  Senior Executive Officer

  2

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  15

  Senior Scientific Officer

  117

  Senior Information Officer

  1

  Senior Librarian

  1

  595

  Grade

  Number

  Senior Photographic Officer

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  5

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  8

  Higher Scientific Officer

  128

  Librarian

  1

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1

  Executive Officer

  19

  Professional and Technology Officer

  7

  Scientific Officer

  84

  Support Manager 2

  1

  Typing Manager

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  Graphics Officer

  1

  Graphics Technical Grade

  1

  Higher Photographic Officer

  1

  Process and General Supervisory Grade C

  2

  Administrative Officer

  62

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  50

  Technical Grade 1

  4

  Personal Secretary

  13

  Photographic Officer

  2

  Support Grade Band 1

  5

  Administrative Assistant

  10

  Typist

  17

  Support Grade Band 2

  3

  The Insolvency Service executive agency—staffing

  Grade

  Number in post on 31 March 1992

  Cost 1991–92

  Allocation 1992–93

  Forecast cost 1992–93

  £

  £

  Administrative

  G3 (Chief Executive)

  1·0

  55,182

  1·0

  60,467

  G4 (DIG)

  2·0

  100,216

  2·0

  105,978

  G51

  1·0

  31,071

  2·0

  87,994

  G7

  3·0

  97,762

  3·0

  103,773

  SEO1

  7·5

  186,639

  8·0

  227,225

  HEO1

  17·5

  334,886

  17·5

  397,986

  EO1

  112·5

  1,775,083

  124·5

  1,863,949

  AO1

  407·5

  4,306,187

  394·5

  4,698,989

  AA1

  164·5

  1,123,064

  162·0

  1,228,782

  Sub Total

  716·5

  8,010,090

  714·5

  8,775,142

  Technical

  HPTO

  1·0

  8,176

  1·0

  25,132

  PTO

  0·0

  0

  1·

  25,075

  Sub Total

  1·0

  8,176

  2·0

  50,207

  Insolvency Grades

  Grade A

  10·0

  439,424

  10·0

  466,132

  Grade B

  50·0

  1,797,725

  52·0

  2,005,343

  Grade C1

  106·0

  3,121,071

  104·5

  3,292,220

  Grade D1

  280·0

  6,410,781

  278·0

  6,751,898

  Grade E1

  144·0

  1,807,173

  14215

  2,041,269

  Sub Total

  590·0

  13,576,174

  587·0

  14,556,862

  Personal Secretary/Typing

  Personal Secretary1

  13·0

  217,593

  15·0

  254,109

  Chief typing manager

  2·0

  30,237

  2·0

  46,085

  Typing manager1

  18·0

  266,849

  15·5

  277,535

  Typist1

  156·5

  1,811,978

  159·5

  1,956,907

  Sub Total

  189·5

  2,326,657

  192·0

  2,534,637

  Support

  SM3

  1·0

  28,010

  1·0

  15,347

  SGB1

  4·0

  54,560

  6·0

  69,277

  SGB21

  45·0

  435,366

  44·5

  470,528

  Sub Total

  50·0

  517,936

  51·5

  555,153

  Permanent Staff Totals

  1,547·0

  24,439,032

  1,547·0

  26,472,000

  Casual staff

  149·0

  752,000

  138·0

  1,960,000

  596

  Grade

  Number

  Total non-industrial staff

  735

  Craftsman

  28

  Apprentice craftsman

  12

  Storeman

  10

  Experimental Worker

  22

  Driver

  1

  Messenger

  12

  Labourer

  5

  Cleaner

  1

  Total industrial staff

  91

  Total staff

  826

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992:

  I have been asked, as Chief Executive of The Insolvency Service, to let you have a substantive reply to the Parliamentary Question which you tabled on 27 October 1992 asking for details of staff employed in the Agency. I attach a breakdown by grade of staff numbers and costs for 1991–92 and 1992–93.
  597

  Grade

  Number in post on 31 March 1992

  Cost 1991–92

  Allocation 1992–93

  Forecast cost 1992–93

  £

  £

  Overtime

  143,000

  220,000

  Grand Total

  1,696·0

  25,334,032

  1,685·0

  28,652,000

  Note:

  1. Costs are based on salaries costs, including ERNIC but not notional superannuation.

  1 Includes part time staff who are counted as half.

  3. In addition special bonuses totalling £46,850 were paid to 321 staff in 1991–92.

  4. Staff figures shown for 1991–92 are for staff in post on 31 March 1992. Actual man years worked in 1991–92 were 1,500 permanent staff and 85 casual staff.

  Letter from D. Cormack to Mr. Martin Redmond dated 2 November 1992.

  House of Commons Parliamentary Question 137

  Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  In response to your question to the President of the Board of Trade, I attach this Agency's figures for the periods in question.

  Staff numbers by grade and costs for 1991–92

  Grade

  Average in post

  Cost £K

  Non industrial

  Grade 3

  1

  53

  Grade 5

  3

  162

  Grade 6

  8

  316

  Grade 7

  31

  986

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  22

  Higher Executive Officer

  1½

  42

  Executive Officer

  6

  89

  Administrative Officer

  18

  187

  Administrative Assistant

  6

  55

  Information Officer

  1

  18

  Assistant Information Officer

  2

  27

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  2

  39

  Professional and Technical Officer

  2

  30

  Process and General Supervisory Grade E

  ½

  3

  Senior Scientific Officer

  55

  1,175

  Higher Scientific Officer

  51

  1,047

  Scientific Officer

  32½

  480

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  26

  264

  Librarian

  2

  40

  Assistant Librarian

  1

  13

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  15

  Personal Secretary

  8½

  112

  Typing Manager

  1

  15

  Typist

  5½

  59

  Support Grade Band 1

  3½

  37

  Patent Office staff 1991–92 and 1992–93

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Staff numbers at 31 March 1992

  1991–92 costs £k

  Estimated staff numbers at 31 March 1993

  1992–93 costs £k

  Comptroller

  1·0

  66

  1·0

  75

  Assistant Comptroller

  20

  582

  2·0

  610

  Grade 4

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 5

  2·0

  2·0

  Grade 6

  6·0

  6·0

  Superintending Examiner

  8·0

  491

  8·0

  498

  Principal Examiner

  30·0

  1,706

  29·0

  1,604

  Senior Examiner

  181·0

  8,877

  173·0

  8,287

  Examiner

  32·0

  586

  38·0

  672

  Grade 7

  8·0

  294

  8·0

  290

  Senior Executive Officer

  27·5

  784

  29·5

  888

  598

  Grade

  Average in post

  Cost £K

  Principal Photographer

  ½

  12

  Senior Photographer

  1

  16

  Technical Grade 1

  1

  7

  Non Industrial Sub-Total

  272½

  5,321

  Industrial

  38½

  369

  Casuals

  13

  107

  Overtime

  —

  135

  Bonuses

  —

  1

  Superannuation

  —

  892

  Total

  324

  6,825

  Notes: 1. Costs by grade include salary and ERNIC.

  2. Superannuation costs are 17 per cent. for non-industrial staff and 16 per cent. for industrials.

  Letter from P. Hartnack to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992 :

  I am responding for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question about the number of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93.

  The Patent Office relocated from Central London to Newport, Gwent in 1991. The relocation was largely complete by December 1991 but in the course of the year staff numbers fluctuated because of the need to maintain our output in two locations for a period of about nine months. In the course of the year we also reduced the number of IT consultants employed by the Office, following the introduction of a new computer system.

  Because of the wide variations in staff in post in 1991–92 it would be difficult to compute averages for the year broken down by grade. The attached table has therefore been prepared in response to your question showing actual numbers of staff in post on 31 March 1992, and our total staff costs for the financial year 1991–92, with corresponding estimates for the current financial year. The cost figures cover salaries, employers related national insurance contributions, overtime and the accruing superannuation liability charge.
  599

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Grade

  Staff numbers at 31 March 1992

  1991–92 costs £k

  Estimated staff numbers at 31 March 1993

  1992–93 costs £k

  Higher Executive Office

  57·5

  1,352

  59·5

  1,374

  Executive Officer

  182·0

  3,179

  177·5

  3,109

  Admin Officer

  247·5

  3,076

  250·0

  3,220

  Admin Assistant

  177·5

  1,734

  179·5

  1,675

  Personal Secretary

  9·5

  152

  10·0

  184

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  448

  2·0

  439

  Typist

  28·5

  27·5

  Support Manager 2

  1·0

  209

  1·0

  191

  Support Grade 1

  9·0

  9·0

  Support Grade 2

  56·0

  828

  60·5

  665

  IT Consultants

  25·0

  3,499

  20·0

  1,475

  Total

  1,093·0

  27,863

  1,094·0

  25,256

  Letter from Jon Cowdock to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:

  Staff and Costs—by grade—National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Grade

  1991–92 Staff in post

  1991–92 Pay costs

  1992–93 Staff in post

  1992–93 Pay costs

  £

  £

  Grade 5

  1

  44,212

  1

  45,980

  Grade 7

  5

  151,033

  5

  157,075

  Senior Executive Officer

  0·5

  11,760

  1

  24,462

  Higher Executive Officer

  2

  41,798

  2

  43,470

  Executive Officer

  2

  29,115

  2

  30,280

  Administrative Officer

  4

  47,195

  4

  49,083

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  10,295

  1

  10,706

  Administrative Assistant—Part time

  4

  24,048

  4

  25,010

  Senior Professional Technical Officer

  7

  205,858

  7

  214,092

  Higher Professional Technical Officer

  8

  148,823

  8

  154,775

  Professional Technical Officer

  4

  66,433

  4

  69,090

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1

  23,284

  1

  24,219

  Higher Scientific Officer

  1

  18,199

  2

  34,760

  Scientific Officer

  3

  45,900

  2·5

  39,780

  Personal Secretary

  1

  13,290

  1

  13,821

  Typist—Part time

  3

  22,713

  3

  23,622

  Technical Grade I

  2

  24,172

  2

  25,138

  Sandwich Student

  1

  3,562

  —

  —

  Vacation Student

  1

  985

  3

  4,000

  Total

  932,675

  989,363

  Letter from D. Durham to Mr. Martin Redmond dated 2 November 1992:

  You recently put down a Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade asking him to list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93, for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  The information you have requested is set out on the attached Schedule.

  Staff numbers by grade full-time equivalent

  Grades

  Average 1991–92

  Estimated 1993

  G4

  1·0

  1·0

  G5

  3·0

  2·0

  G6

  1·0

  3·0

  G7

  9·5

  9·1

  SEO

  17·0

  17·0

  HEO

  60·2

  55·8

  EO

  137·1

  117·2

  AO

  362·3

  324·6

  AA

  205·1

  183·2

  600
  My Chief Executive has been asked to respond to you directly with the information you requested in Parliamentary Question 137, tabled on 27 October. I am responding in his absence.

  The details of NWML grades, numbers and costs that you request are set out in the attached table. I hope that this information meets your requirements.

  Grades

  Average 1991–92

  Estimated 1993

  SPS

  1·0

  1·0

  TM

  1·5

  1·0

  PS

  4·0

  5·0

  TYP

  19·1

  19·5

  SM2

  4·0

  3·0

  SM3

  16·5

  17·0

  SG1

  61·75

  51·4

  SG2

  278·6

  263·4

  Total

  1,182·6

  1,074·2

  Staff costs

  £000

  1991–92

  Estimated 1992–93

  Total

  15,570

  14,713

  Fact-finding Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the fact-finding visits made in the last 12 months by the chief executive of each executive agency for which he is responsible; and what where the findings resulting from each visit.

  Mr. Eggar
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the chief executives of the 10 agencies for which my Department is responsible. I have therefore asked Mr. Mike Hoddinott, Accounts Services Agency; Mr. David Durham, Companies House; Mr. Peter Joyce, Insolvency Service; Dr. Richard Worswick, Laboratory of the Government Chemist; Mr. William Edgar, National Engineering Laboratory; Dr. Peter Clapham, National Physical Laboratory; Dr. Seton Bennett, National Weights and Measures Laboratory; Mr. Paul Hartnack, Patent Office; Mr. John Michell, Radiocommunications Agency; and Dr. Doug Cormack, Warren Spring Laboratory, to arrange for replies to be given.

  Letter from D. Durham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:

  You recently put down a Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade asking him to list, fact finding visits made in the last 12 months by the chief executive of each executive agency; and what were the findings resulting from each visit. Following the answer given by Mr. Eggar, I am replying in respect of Companies House.

  I visited the United States and Canada in late April, early May 1992. The visit was aimed at improving my understanding of quality management and image technology.

  I visited the US Patents Office in Washington, the United Services Automobile Association (a major insurer) in San Antonio and the Province of Ontario's Ministry of Consumer and Commercial relations in Toronto and Thunder Bay. All three organisations use image technology and have pioneered its use in different ways. Although Companies House had decided recently not to continue with its own image project, it is still a longer-term possibility to replace our microfiche system. I gained a valuable insight into the use of image technology, both its problems and its benefits.

  The USAA has a world-wide reputation for quality and it conducts monthly seminars to pass on this knowledge to other organisations wishing to improve their quality management. Companies House were at that time in the middle of their own total quality management programme and attendance at the seminar provided a valuable insight into how improvement could be brought about. Much was also learned about the USAA's introduction and use of image technology.

  Letter from M. J. Michell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:

  You have recently tabled two Parliamentary Questions to the President of the Board of Trade, concerning papers published and fact finding visits by the Chief Executives of DTI Agencies. The President has asked me to write to you on these matters in relation to the Radiocommunications Agency.

  I have not myself published any papers since this Agency was established in 1990. However the Agency as such has published a large number of technical papers, reports and so forth. I am not sure this kind of publication is what you had in mind in your Question but I have enclosed details of publications over the past 12 months should these be of interest. I am also enclosing a copy of the Agency's latest annual report.

  In the last twelve months I have not made any fact finding visits as such. During the course of my work I have visited a number of UK companies to discuss matters of business, as well as visiting different Agency establishments. I have made one overseas visit to Australia and New Zealand, to discuss with the authorities there certain radical changes in radio
  602
  spectrum management policy they have introduced or are in course of introducing, in order that I may better advise Ministers on future policy in this country. As you may know, the Government has announced its intention of issuing a consultative document on future radio spectrum management in due course.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from M. Hoddinott to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 October 1992:

  In response to your recent Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade, I have been asked to advise you of fact finding visits I have made in the last twelve months as Chief Executive of Accounts Services Agency.

  I have made no such visits. Visits have been made to colleagues in DTI and other Government Departments to discuss the delivery of the Agency's services and management or similar issues.

  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:

  I would refer to your Parliamentary Question tabled on 22 October to the President to the Board of Trade asking that he produce a list of the fact finding visits made in the last 12 months by the Chief Executive of each Agency for which he is responsible and that he identify the findings resulting from each visit.

  As the Chief Executive of NEL I can confirm to you that I have not made any purely fact finding visits in the last 12 months. All my trips outside the office are, in the interests of maintaining a cost effective operation, of the multi-purpose variety whereby I visit clients, make presentations on NEL's capability, attend meetings with partners in various joint ventures and also include a host of other activities. Where fact finding/market research initiatives are required these are normally carried out and coordinated by the marketing department or operating divisions and are normally combined with a number of other tasks carried out simultaneously.

  Letter from Dr. P. B. Clapham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:

  I am writing in response to your Parliamentary Question addressed to the President of the Board of Trade requesting a list of fact finding visits made in the last 12 months by Agency Chief Executives. I have been asked to respond concerning my own Agency, the National Physical Laboratory.

  I have not made any fact finding visits in the usual sense of the phrase. I have, however, attended two meetings in the last 12 months concerned with increasing the level of European collaboration within the sphere of the Agency's interests—primarily measurement standards. These discussions are 'on-going', so there are no specific findings to report. The final outcome will depend in part on the priorities placed on measurement and testing in the European Community's Fourth Framework Programme.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:

  I am writing to you in reply to your PQ about 'fact finding visits" made by the Chief Executives of the Department's Agencies.

  Since my appointment as Chief Executive of LGC in May 1991 I have visited several organisations in the UK and Europe concerned directly or indirectly with the work of the Laboratory.

  Further afield I led a high level mission on analytical instruments to Japan last year. I also visited the National Institute of Science and Technology in the United States.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from P. Joyce to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 October 1992:

  As Chief Executive of The Insolvency Service, I have been asked to let you have a substantive response to the

  603
  Parliamentary Question (No. 125) which you tabled on 22 October 1992. This concerned 'fact finding' visits made by Chief Executives of Agencies.

  The Insolvency Service has 36 offices throughout England and Wales, principally Official Receivers' offices, together with one in Edinburgh. I and my senior management colleagues will between us hope to visit all these offices in the course of any 12 months. These are not fact finding visits as such but rather the means by which I and my colleagues can keep in touch with what is going on at a local level. I and my senior colleagues also visit Insolvency Practitioners from time to time, which enables us to take the views of the insolvency profession on the practical application of insolvency law.

  Letter from D. Cormack to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 October 1992:

  Warren Spring Laboratory is a non-monopoly supplier of scientific and technical services to government and other customers, who themselves operate competitive tendering. We therefore only do what we can recover the costs of through contracts.

  I have not been contracted to take part in any fact finding visits and consequently have not been involved in any, although I am aware that fact finding missions to foreign countries are from time to time organised by the relevant divisions of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:

  I am writing in response to your Parliamentary Question number 125 of 22 October 1992 about fact finding visits. I have made no such visits in the last 12 months.

  Letter from S. Bennett to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 October 1992:

  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to let you have details of any fact finding visits made during the last 12 months.

  I have made no such visits in the last year.

  Coal
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance he has given to British Coal in respect of the introduction of compulsory measures in respect of pits where voluntary redundancy arrangements are already in place and volunteers are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 October 1992]: Following discussions with the Department, British Coal has given further details about its redundancy arrangements in a letter to the mining unions, dated 30 October 1992, which is reprinted in the November 1992 issue of "Coal News".

  EC Funding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many areas in the United Kingdom that are part of the United Kingdom's assisted areas map are recognised by the EC for regional development funding; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: There are 89 whole travel-to-work areas (TTWAs) and four part-TTWAs in the United Kingdom which are both assisted areas and qualify for EC regional development funding.

  The whole TTWAs include: in England—Accrington and Rossendale, Barnsley, Bishop Auckland, Blackburn, Bodmin and Liskeard, Bolton and Bury, Bradford, Bude, Darlington, Doncaster, Durham, Falmouth, Gainsborough, Grimsby, Hartlepool, Helston, Hull,
  604
  Liverpool, Middlesbrough, Morpeth and Ashington, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newquay, Oldham, Penzance and St. Ives, Plymouth, Redruth and Cambourne, Rochdale, Rotherham and Mexborough, Scunthorpe, Sheffield, Stockton-on-Tees, Sunderland, Telford and Bridgnorth, Walsall, Widnes and Runcorn, Wigan and St. Helens, Wirral and Chester, and Wolverhampton; in Scotland—Alloa, Arbroath, Ayr, Badenoch, Bat hgate, Campbeltown, Cummock and Sanquhar, Dumbarton, Dundee, Dunfermline, Dunoon and Bute, Falkirk, Forres, Girvan, Glasgow, Greenock, Invergordon and Dingwall, Irvine, Kilmarnock, Kirkcaldy, Lanarkshire, Lochaber, Newton Stewart, Skye and Wester Ross, Stewartry, Stranraer, Sutherland, Western Isles and Wick; in Wales—Aberdare, Bangor and Caernarfon, Bridgend, Cardiff, Cardigan, Ebbw Vale and Abergavenny, Fishguard, Flint and Rhyl, Haverfordwest, Holyhead, Lampeter and Aberaeron, Llanelli, Merthyr and Rhymney, Neath and Port Talbot, Newport, Pontypool and Cwmbran, Pontypridd and Rhondda, Porthmadoc and Ffestiniog, Pwllheli, South Pembrokeshire, Swansea, and Wrexham.

  The part-TTWAs include: Birmingham, Coventry and Hinckley, Dudley and Sanderwell, and Manchester.

  Silverhill Colliery
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received from British Coal about(a) its former strategic plan for the Silverhill colliery and (b) its prospective profitability for each of the next four financial years.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: The issues which the hon. Member raises are matters for British Coal.

  Energy Review
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to visit a coal mine during the period of the energy review.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: I have no such plans at present.

  Customs Brokers
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to support the proposal of the European Commission to establish a special fund to alleviate the problems that will be faced by employees of customs brokers following the completion of the European single market on 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: The Government have serious reservations about the Commission's proposals. It would appear to duplicate assistance available from the EC structural funds: particularly under the cross-border Community initiative INTERREG—in Kent and Northern Ireland—and from January 1993, when assistance under objective 3 of the structural funds will be made available to all redundant customs agents, from the European social fund.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Child Care
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 381–82, if he will outline the progress made towards the establishment of a day nursery in the Palace of Westminster or its precincts.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what progress has been made towards the establishment of a day nursery in the Palace of Westminster for hon. Members and staff.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress he has made towards establishing a creche in the House.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement outlining progress on child care facilities for Members and staff in the Palace of Westminster.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress is being made in the provision of nursery facilities for children of House of Commons staff and Members.

  Mr. Beith
  I refer the hon. Members to the oral reply I gave to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) earlier today.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the policies of the House of Commons Commission with regard to the employment of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Beith
  The policy of the Commission remains as set out in its statement of April 1982—that disablement is no bar to recruitment to, or advancement in, the House of Commons service, and that every opportunity is taken to employ disabled people.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Vining Peas
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on vining peas and the vining pea areas within the set-aside regime for 1993; and if he will clarify the proposals.

  Mr. Curry
  We did not support the Commission's decision to make vining peas eligible for area aid under the new arable support regime. Following pressure from the United Kingdom and a number of other member states, we understand from the Commission that it now intends to reverse this decision. That would be a satisfactory outcome, and it is one for which we will continue to work.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to co-ordinate the payments his Department makes to landowners under all the schemes for which he is responsible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department operates a range of schemes which offer payments to landowners. These schemes have different purposes and take different formats reflecting those purposes. There is therefore limited scope for co-ordinating payments under them.

  Biofuels
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is carrying out into the viability of growing biofuels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is sponsoring research in a number of relevant areas, including work on improved varieties of traditional crops, such as rapeseed and on potential solid biofuel crops such as miscanthus. Agricultural aspects of liquid biofuel manufacture—for example, biodiesel and bioethanol—have generally passed the research stage. However, our economic and scientific research raises doubts about their ability to compete with fuels from fossil sources, even when grown with the benefit of area or set-aside payments. Biodiesel, for example, costs two or three times as much to produce as conventional diesel.

  Set-aside
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to encourage pilot schemes of alternative uses of land currently under set-aside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Land currently entered into the nonagricultural use or woodland options of the voluntary five-year set-aside scheme can be planted with trees or put to other appropriate alternative uses.

  The EC regulations governing the new arable area payments scheme, under which land will be set aside for the first time from this winter, allow such land to be used to grow a wide range of crops for specified non-food uses. subject to suitable controls. Though optional for member states this year, we are implementing these arrangements in full from the outset.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on permanent and rotational methods of headland set-aside; and how he plans to protect viable headlands.

  Mr. Curry
  Set-aside of headlands and field margins can bring environmental benefits. We were able to secure provision in the Community rules for the set-aside of such areas provided they meet minimum width and area requirements.

  Member states are required to apply appropriate agronomic and environmental safeguards to all land set-aside under the new arable area payments arrangements. Our management requirements are listed in the booklet on the area payments scheme, a copy of which has

  607
  been placed in the Library of the House. These requirements will be reviewed to reflect the choice between rotational and non-rotational set-aside, which is due to be introduced in 1993.

  Intervention Wheat Stocks
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a table of all intervention stocks of wheat held in each member state of the Common Market, stating the relative quality and cost of buying into intervention in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest data that are available on a member state basis are at 7 June 1992, when EC intervention stocks of wheat were as follows:

  ('000 tonnes)

  Member state

  Common wheat

  Feed wheat

  Belgium

  121

  0

  Denmark

  109

  42

  Germany

  4,237

  53

  Greece

  4

  0

  Spain

  0

  0

  France

  3,939

  0

  Ireland

  0

  0

  Italy

  8

  0

  Luxembourg

  3

  0

  Netherlands

  0

  0

  Portugal

  7

  49

  United Kingdom

  0

  9

  Imports of fatty liver of geese or ducks by country of origin (kg)

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Total of which imported from:

  6,015

  8,459

  13,091

  17,118

  23,704

  24,723

  24,072

  France

  5,991

  8,459

  13,091

  17,118

  23,675

  24,723

  21,622

  Phillipines

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Canada

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  0

  0

  0

  0

  29

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,450

  Source: HM Customs and Excise

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from(a) right hon. and hon. Members and (b) other individuals and organisations concerning the proposed European draft directive on dietary supplements; how many of those representations in each case have been broadly in favour of allowing such supplements to continue to be widely available to consumers; and how many have endorsed calls for the introduction of restrictions upon the sale of such products.

  Mr. Soames
  Responses to the consultation exercise earlier this year on the EC discussion paper on this subject, including those from consumers, enforcement authorities, the health food trade and manufacturers, generally favoured EC regulation in this area. Since then, from 1 April this year, the Department has received 147 representations from right hon. and hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, many of whose letters have been expressed indentical terms. Sixty-two letters have
  608

  Member state

  Common wheat

  Feed wheat

  Total

  18,430

  153

  1 Total does not add due to rounding.

  Currently there are around 6·64 million tonnes of common wheat and 200,000 tonnes of feed wheat in intervention in the EC.

  Cereals purchased into intervention must meet the minimum quality standards as prescribed in EC Commission regulation 689/92. They are purchased at the intervention buying-in price applicable at the time of delivery, to which must be added the actual costs of physically taking the stocks into store. However, as some of this wheat has been in intervention for several years, it is not possible to estimate, with any degree of accuracy, the costs associated with purchasing it into intervention.

  Foie Gras
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will show the volume of imports of foie gras into the United Kingdom and their countries of origin for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is shown in the table. For years from 1988 onwards, figures are for fresh or chilled fatty livers of geese and ducks only. For years 1985 to 1987, the available figures refer to fatty liver of geese and ducks whether fresh, chilled, frozen, salted or in brine.

  been received from individuals and organisations. All these representations have been broadly in favour of maintaining the status quo.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the expected scope of the forthcoming European directive on dietary supplements; and what information he has about the possible inclusion of salt and sugar.

  Mr. Soames
  On the basis of the discussion paper produced by the European Commission last December, I anticipate that the draft proposals will cover supplements in a concentrated form—that is, vitamin and mineral pills and, possibly, herbal extracts. There is no indication that salt or sugar would be within the scope of a directive on dietary supplements.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the retail value of those vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements which are consumed annually in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 8 July in the Official Report, column 234.
  609
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the number of individuals who use vitamin, mineral or other dietary supplements on a regular basis.

  Mr. Soames
  Data from the dietary and nutritional survey of British adults, 1986–1987, indicated that 13 per cent. of consumers took some kind of dietary supplement. However, I am aware that sales have been increasing and a recent report in the market research magazine "Market Intelligence", September 1992, gave a figure of 30 per cent. for households which had purchased vitamins or dietary supplements in 1992.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek derogation for the United Kingdom from the forthcoming European directive on dietary supplements.

  Mr. Soames
  We have made our views on future legislation known to the European Commission in the form of an outline draft directive on dietary supplements. In negotiations, we will press for a Community regime that strikes the right balance between ensuring public health and maintaining the availability of safe products for which there is clearly a strong public demand.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy to discuss the forthcoming draft directive on dietary supplements.

  Mr. Soames
  Arrangements for this are already in hand. Moreover, my officials have already met with most of the interested parties, including this body.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Food Safety Act 1990 and other legislation in preventing the marketing of dangerous food products, or the making of unsubstantiated claims about health benefits which may accrue through the consumption of particular food products.

  Mr. Soames
  Procedures are in place which aim to ensure that the Food Safety Act 1990 is enforced effectively and sensibly. The Government believe the Act is largely effective both in deterring the marketing of food products which might be unsafe and in allowing action to be taken against the marketing of products which are, or may be, in breach of its provisions. However, this is kept under review and, in particular, the Government are concerned that a small number of food supplements may pose a potential risk to health and also that consumers may be misled by unsubstantiated claims in relation to certain products. The Government have recently accepted recommendations from the independent Food Advisory Committee for the tightening of controls on claims which may be made for foods. These include the recommendations that a food must be able to fulfil the claim being made for it; adequate labelling information must be given to show consumers that the claim is justified and that manufacturers should be required to be able to produce for enforcement purposes information substantiating any claims, and that such information as is appropriate should also be available to interested parties, including consumers. A copy of the full recommendations is being placed in the Library of the House. The recommendations on claims are being taken forward within the European Community.

  Diet
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives are currently being undertaken by his Department to encourage people to seek a balanced diet; and if he will indicate in each case the cost of that initiative.

  Mr. Soames
  A free booklet is available to the public advising on healthy eating as part of this Department's continuing Foodsense campaign. The publication contains dietary guidelines based on recommendations by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. The costs related to the production of this publication so far amount to £99,000. In addition, this Department is involved in the nutrition task force, recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health which will draw up a co-ordinated action programme for achieving the dietary targets set out in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper. That programme will involve advising and encouraging the public to change the balance of their diet.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the report of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, relating to methyl bromide will be published prior to the Montreal protocol negotiations starting on 17 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides evaluation document on residues of methyl bromide in some vegetables is now available. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports have been received in each of the last six years of adverse human reaction to sheep dip products licensed by his Department.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested for each of the past six years is as follows:

  Number of reports received

  1986

  10

  1987

  11

  1988

  19

  1989

  9

  1990

  6

  1991

  138

  For 1992, a total of 121 reports have been received up to 31 October. A significant proportion of the reports received since 1990 are historical cases where a suspected adverse reaction had occurred more than one year previously. These figures should be set in the context of in excess of 1 million dippings since 1985.

  Ectoparasiticide Medicinal Products
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in his Department's review of licensed ectoparasiticide medicinal products.
  611
  Mr. Soames
  Apart from sheep dips, the review of licensed ectoparasiticide medicinal products has almost been completed. For outstanding products, companies have been asked to provide the necessary data as soon as possible.

  On sheep dips, since the announcement of the completion by the independent Veterinary Products Committee of the initial phase of its review, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate has had dicussions with the pharmaceutical companies concerned about further work that is required to bring the review to a conclusion. The companies have been asked to progress this work as speedily as possible. It is however, unlikely that the review of these products will be complete before mid-1993.

  Bass
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to conclude his study into the effect on bass stocks of seismic surveys.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry expects to be able to publish a report by the end of summer 1993 which will include an assessment of a bass tagging programme undertaken on behalf of Elf Enterprise Caledonia Ltd.

  The tagging programme, which was funded by Elf, was carried out by Fawley Aquatic Research Laboratories under the guidance of MAFF fisheries scientists.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an undertaking to purchase only ozone-friendly fridges that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons or hydrochlorofluorocarbons for his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  The policy of the Department is not to purchase new fridges containing substances harmful to the ozone layer as set out in the Montreal protocol and its revisions.

  When existing fridges containing substances harmful to the ozone layer are to be replaced, fridges which are understood to be ozone friendly will be purchased.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures have been taken to ensure that any ozone-destroying substances in use by his Department identified as controlled waste under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 do not reach the atmosphere.

  Mr. Curry
  The disposal of controlled waste is governed by the Duty of Care Regulations which came into force on 1 April 1992 under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. These regulations put a responsibility on producers of controlled waste to ensure that it is disposed of safely and legally. There is no Crown immunity from these regulations and the Department takes care to observe them.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many refrigeration and air conditioning systems in his Department are equipped with automatic leak detection systems.

  Mr. Curry
  Ten per cent. of buildings occupied by MAFF are provided with in-built refrigeration or air conditioning systems. Most installations have been in use 612
  for five or more years and none are currently equipped with automatic leak detection systems. All such installations are subject to a rigorous maintenance regime, performance is regularly monitored and defects are attended to promptly.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much funding has been allocated or spent to specifically deal with measures to reduce his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Curry
  It is not possible to say how much money has been spent across the whole Department in reducing consumption of ozone-depleting substances because the programme is funded from many budgets and cannot be separately identified.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which current uses of ozone-depleting chemicals by his Department are considered essential.

  Mr. Curry
  We would not consider any uses for which ozone-friendly alternatives are available and it is the Department's policy to purchase such alternatives wherever possible.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many catastrophic leaks of ozone-depleting substances have occurred within his Department buildings in the past five years.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what date his Department's use of ozone-depleting chemicals will conform to European Community regulations on limits on these chemicals.

  Mr. Curry
  Both the Montreal protocol and the EC regulations seek to control the production, but not the use, of substances which deplete the ozone layer. However, the Department is playing its part in helping to phase out these substances by wherever possible not purchasing them.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to designate an environmentally sensitive area in(a) England and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  There are already 10 environmentally sensitive areas in England and two in Wales. My right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales plan to make announcements on the timing of further designations in the near future.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his oral statement of 14 July,Official Report, column 1027, on the entry into force of limitations of days at sea, whether the effective steps to be taken by other EC states refers to days at sea limitations or to other means such as decommissioning schemes.

  Mr. Curry
  All member states must agree on multi-annual guidance programme targets. The contribution to be made by effort control and the overall targets themselves are still under discussion. "Effective Steps", therefore refers to action to achieve agreed targets.

  Fishermen (Hairnets)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received over the terms of the proposed European legislation involving the possibility of fishermen being required to wear hairnets at sea.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. There is no such requirement.

  The EC directive on health conditions for the production and placing on the market of fishery products, which come into force from 1 January 1993, requires those handling fishery products in working areas on factory vessels to wear clean working clothes and headgear which encloses the hair.

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Gummer
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the Agricultural Development Advisory Service, the Central Science Laboratory, the Central Veterinary Laboratory, the Intervention Board executive agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. I have asked their respective chief executives to write to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from G. Stapleton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 7 November 1992:

  I refer to your recent Written Parliamentary Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the number of staff by grade employed by executive agencies for which he is responsible and the associated staff costs for the 1991–92 and 1992–93 years. As the Minister promised in his reply I am now writing to let you have the information for this Agency.

  The Intervention Board employed 999 staff during the 1991–92 year and our estimated projected manpower figure for the current year is 1,037 staff. I attach a table which provides a breakdown of these staff totals by grade.

  I enclose a copy of the Agency's Annual Report which I hope you will find of interest. Page 23 provides details of our administration expenditure and you will see that staff costs, ERNIC and pensions, accounted for £15,394,000 during 1991–92. Our estimated forecast for the current financial year, which includes a factor for inflation, is £17,716,000.

  Intervention Board—staff figures by grade

  Actual 1991–92

  Estimated 1992–93

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  Grade 5

  5

  5

  Grade 6

  5

  5

  Grade 7

  20

  19

  Senior Executive Officer

  43

  45

  Higher Executive Officer

  104·5

  107·50

  Executive Officer

  197·5

  211

  Administrative Officer

  415·5

  433

  Administrative Assistant

  127

  131·50

  Support Grade Band I

  8·5

  9·50

  Support Grade Band II

  26

  25·5

  Superintendent Telex

  1

  1

  Specialist Telex

  4·5

  4

  Chief Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Typing Manager

  2

  2

  Typists

  22

  20

  Personal Secretaries

  11·5

  12

  ADAS 1

  2

  2

  614

  Actual 1991–92

  Estimated 1992–93

  ADAS 2

  2

  2

  999

  1,037

  Letter from Dr. T. W. A. Little to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 9 November 1992:

  Question:

  "To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible."

  As you know the Minister has asked that Chief Executives of executive agencies for which he is responsible write to you direct with their answer to your question.

  The number of staff by grade employed at the Central Veterinary Laboratory during 1991–92, and the estimated figures for 1992–93, are listed below at Annex 1.

  The staff costs during 1991–92 were £10,561,000 and the estimate for 1992–93 is £11,467,000.

  Annex 1

  Central Veterinary Laboratory Number of staff by grade for 1991–92 and 1992–93

  Number1

  Grade

  1991–922

  1992–933

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  Grade 4

  1

  1

  Grade 5

  3

  3

  Grade 6

  10

  12

  Grade 7

  15

  14

  Senior Executive Officer

  3

  2

  Higher Executive Officer

  6

  8

  Executive Officer

  11½

  12

  Administrative Officer

  36

  34

  Administrative Assistant

  45

  49

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  Personal Secretary

  2

  2

  Chief Typing Manager

  —

  1

  Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Typist

  11½

  11½

  Senior Librarian

  1

  1

  Librarian

  1

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  3

  2

  Stores Officer Grade D

  1

  1

  Higher Photographic Officer

  1

  1

  Photographic Officer

  1

  1

  Process and General Supervisory:

  A

  1

  1

  B

  1

  1

  D

  10

  11

  E

  2

  1

  Experimental Worker I

  23

  22

  Experimental Worker II

  17½

  25½

  Experimental Worker III

  13

  9

  Experimental Worker IV

  2

  3

  Senior Research Officer II

  23

  19

  Veterinary Research Officer

  27½

  24½

  Senior Scientific Officer

  38

  32½

  Higher Scientific Officer

  56

  57

  Scientific Officer

  66

  63½

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  110

  126

  Support Grade Band 1

  17

  17

  Support Grade Band 2

  61

  66½

  Sandwich Course Student

  12

  11

  Total

  635

  650

  1 Part-time staff counted as half units.

  2 Average weekly number of employees during 1991–92.

  3 Estimated weekly number of employees for 1992–93.

  615
  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 29 October 1992:

  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their costs for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  In his reply to the above question about Executive Agencies in MAFF, the Minister said that as this was a matter which was the direct responsibility of Chief Executives, he would ask them to write to you direct. I am doing so as Chief Executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).

  The numbers of staff by grade and their costs for 1991–92 are set out on pages 47 and 42 respectively of the VMD's Annual Report and Accounts, a copy of which was enclosed with my letter to you dated 26 October.

  The estimated figures for 1992/93 are 91·5 staff and £2·202m staff costs; the actual figures will be included in the VMD's Report and Accounts for 1992/93 due to be published in July 1993.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 9 November 1992:

  Parliamentary Question: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.

  ADAS was established as an executive agency on 1 April this year. The enclosed figures for 1991–92 are therefore based on the number of ADAS staff in MAFF at 1 October 1991. These figures do not include MAFF administrative staff who were also engaged on ADAS work, many of whom transferred across to ADAS from 1 April 1992. As the figure for 1992–93 is based on the number of ADAS staff in post on 1 October 1992 the figures for the two years are not directly comparable. The figures provided relate only to "non industrial" staff. About 135 "industrial" staff, e.g. farm workers and craftsmen, were employed by MAFF on ADAS work on 1 October 1991, compared to an ADAS staff in post figure of 98 on 1 October this year.

  ADAS staff numbers and annual salary cost 1991–92

  Grade

  Number of staff1

  Total annual salary cost2

  £

  Unified Grades

  167·5

  7,242,052

  Advisory Grades

  703·5

  18,865,412

  Science Grades

  330·5

  5,686,826

  Professional and Technology Grades

  334·0

  8,293,304

  Mapping and Charting Grades

  43·0

  814,008

  Research Officer Grades (Resource and Planning)

  24·5

  511,855

  Graphics Officer Grades

  1·0

  18,616

  Photographer Grades

  2·0

  43,080

  Administrative and Typing Grades

  171·0

  2,801,262

  Support Grades

  12·0

  123,156

  Process and Supervisory Grades

  10·0

  158,790

  Totals

  1,799·0

  44,558,361

  1 Figures extracted from MAFF Personnel database

  2Total Annual Salary Cost comprises pay, ERNIC and PCSPS costs

  ADAS staff numbers and annual salary cost 1992–93

  Grade

  Number of staff1

  Total annual salary cost2

  £

  Unified Grades

  150·0

  6,737,185

  Consultancy Grades

  1,006·5

  28,963,777

  Science Grades

  304·0

  5,247,713

  Professional and Technology Grades

  51·0

  1,041,035

  Mapping and Charting Grades

  39·5

  773,898

  Information/Librarian Grades

  1·0

  23,654

  Graphics Officer Grades

  4·0

  81,780

  616

  Grade

  Number of staff1

  Total annual salary cost2

  £

  Photographer Grades

  2·0

  45,665

  Administrative and Typing Grades

  578·5

  7,574,783

  Support Grades

  47·0

  532,661

  Process and Supervisory Grades

  8·0

  134,656

  Totals

  2,191·5

  51,156,807

  1 Figures extracted from MAFF Personnel database, which is in the process of being updated to reflect the new ADAS structure.

  2Total Annual Salary Cost comprises pay, ERNIC and PCSPS costs.

  EXPLANATORY NOTE
  Unified Grades

  Grades 3–7 plus ADAS I.

  Consultancy Grades1

  Advisory Officer/Science Specialist II-IV Senior Consultant,

  Consultant and Team Leader.

  Professional and Technical Grades

  SPTO-PTO, Graduate Surveyor and Farm Manager.

  Mapping and Charting Grades

  SMCO-MCO (trainee).

  Research Officer Grades

  SRO-RO.

  Administrative and Typing Grades2

  SEO-AA.

  Typing Manager, SPS-Typist.

  Support Grades2

  SGB 1 and 2.

  Photographic Grades

  Principal and senior photographer.

  Process and Supervisory Grades

  Sample tester.

  1 Advisory Officer, Science Specialist, SPTO, HPTO, SRO and RO grades have been absorbed into the restructured Consultancy Grades in the 1992–93 figures.
  2 The number of administrative and support grade staff go up in 1992–93 because MAFF staff engaged on ADAS work are not included in the ADAS 1991–92 figures.
  Letter from Dr. P. I. Stanley to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 29 October 1992:
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list by grade the number of staff and their cost for 1991–92 and the estimated figures for 1992–93 for each executive agency for which he is responsible.
  The numbers of staff employed by the Central Science Laboratory on a permanent basis, by grade, for 1991–92 and the estimated numbers for 1992–93 are as follows:

  Grade

  1991–92

  1992–93

  3

  1·0

  1·0

  5

  1·0

  1·0

  6

  9·8

  12·2

  7

  34·6

  30·0

  SEO/SSO and equivalent grades

  48·2

  48·9

  HEO/HSO and equivalent grades

  73·4

  75·7

  EO/SO and equivalent grades

  70·8

  83·7

  AO/ASO and equivalent grades

  80·5

  79·1

  AA

  22·5

  22·3

  Industrial

  28·1

  30·0

  Totals

  369·8

  383·9

  In addition, there are a number of students and staff employed on a casual basis as follows:

  617

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Students

  22·8

  11·7

  Casuals

  29·4

  36·0

  Totals

  52·2

  47·6

  Staff costs for 1991–92 are £7,141 million and are estimated for 1992–93 to be £7·9 million.

SCOTLAND

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what planning policy guidance he gives to local authorities over coastal erosion.

  Mr. Stewart
  There is currently no planning policy guidance available to local authorities on the subject of coastal erosion. Following a review of the priorities for planning guidance, coastal planning has been identified as requiring attention and we accept the need to extend guidance in this area. Revised guidance will be drawn up to take forward the approach set out in the Government response to the Environment Select Committee's report on coastal zone protection and planning. A copy of the response has been placed in the library of the House.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff hours were involved in preparing to the Scottish local government reform proposals.

  Mr. Lang
  Preparation of the proposals has involved staff in many parts of the Scottish Office. De tailed information on staff hours devoted to particular subjects would take too many staff hours to calculate.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid to Touche Ross for its consultancy report on the reorganisation of Scottish local government.

  Mr. Lang
  The figure is £38,000·

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of all the published documents, maps and videos which were produced at the launch of the Scottish local government reorganisation proposals.

  Mr. Lang
  The cost, excluding Scottish Office staff costs, of preparing and reproducing 15,000 consultation papers, 700 videos, 1,000 posters and 110,000 leaflets was approximately £115,000.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of land are held by each regional and island water authority; what percentage, in each case, falls within areas designated for environmental protection such as evironmentally sensitive areas and areas of natural beauty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on 27 October.

  Japanese Language
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers qualified to teach the Japanese language are currently employed by education authorities in the maintained sector and teaching in secondary schools to(a) ordinary level and(b)higher level; and if he will make a statement on the teaching of Japanese in Scottish schools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The information requested is not held centrally. A small number of Scottish schools teach elementary Japanese as part of Japanese Studies courses. SCOTVEC also offers national certificate modules which include elements of the Japanese language. I have no plans to advise education authorities on the teaching of Japanese to Scottish Certificate of Examination standard, but I believe this is a subject worthy of further consideration, and I will keep it under review.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each local enterprise company, the number of jobs each local enterprise company has created since coming into operation for(a) adult males,(b)adult females,(c)young males and(d)young females.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 6 November 1992]: Oversight of the activities of the local enterprise companies is the responsibility of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands respectively. I have therefore asked the chairmen of these two bodies to write to the hon. Member about the information which he has requested. Such information as they are able to provide is likely to reflect the fact that it is individual employers who create jobs; and that the role of the enterprise bodies is to help foster the conditions for employment growth rather than direct job creation.

  Regional Financial Assistance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amounts of regional financial assistance were given to industry in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow, by way of regional development grants, regional selection assistance and regional enterprise grants, in each financial year since 1989–90; and what is the sum to be paid in the year 1992–93.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: The information requested is given in the table. Expenditure in the remainder of 1992–93 will depend on claims made by companies in respect of progress with projects which have been the subject of individual offers of grant.

  Gross expenditure on regional assistance to industry in Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency

  Regional selective assistance

  Regional enterprise grants

  (£000s) Regional development grants1

  1989–90

  424·1

  30·5

  2,475·4

  1990–91

  3,565·3

  15·7

  2168·5

  1991–92

  3·578·5

  19·5

  848·4

  21992–93

  380·0

  12·8

  602·9

  619
  1 Includes expenditure on original and revised regional development grant schemes. The revised scheme was closed to new applications on 31 March 1988.

  2 To 28 October 1992.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on his policy on the European Commission's proposals to reform the common fisheries policy, (COM (92) 387 final):

  (2) what assessment he has made of the European Commission's proposal to repeal Council Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83, and of the implications of such a reform of the common fisheries policy for the Scottish fishing industry; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what action he will take to ensure consideration of the interests of the Scottish fishing fleet when considering changes in the common fisheries policy.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: Fisheries Ministers agreed at the Councils held on 3 April and 9 June 1992 to maintain key elements of the common fisheries policy including relative stability and access to the 12 mile zone and the Shetland box. These elements have benefited our fishermen over the last 10 years. The chief changes in the Commission's proposed revision of Council Regulation 170/83 relate to multi-annual programmes integrating permitted catches and fleet structure, control, licensing and changes in the balance of decision making between the Council and the Commission.

  We are considering the Commission's detailed proposal against the background of the earlier Council decisions with the overall objective of ensuring that fishermen in all parts of the UK can make of all the fishing opportunities obtained for them in 1983.

  EC Funds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much financial assistance has been awarded to(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow,(b)Glasgow and(c)Strathclyde by way of each of the four objectives of the European Community's European regional development fund in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: Strathclyde region benefits from European regional development fund (ERDF) assistance objectives 2 and 5b only. Within each of these objectives assistance is awarded to the eligible area as a whole. For the years 1989–91, some £149 million of ERDF assistance was awarded to the Strathclyde integrated development operation under objective 2. Argyll and Bute district and part of Cunninghame district are instead eligible for objective 5b assistance awarded to the Highlands and Islands, for which some £54 million was made available in 1989–91. In addition, for 1990 and 1991, the European Comission made further ERDF awards to the west of Scotland of £6.8 million under RENAVAL and £0.2 million under RECHAR.

  War Crimes Act 1991
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are for legal action against Antony Gecas under the War Crimes Act 1991.
  620
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
  [holding answer 5 November 1992]: It is not the practice to disclose whether proceedings against any individual are contemplated.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will consider merging the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no immediate plans to legislate for any changes in the status of either body but I will, of course, keep the matter under review.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the current arrangements for the management of the BBC.

  Mr. Brooke
  This is a matter for the BBC, within the terms of the present royal charter and the licence and agreement.

  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will make it his policy to use the opportunity of the review of the BBC charter to streamline the regulation of the broadcasting industry.

  Mr. Brooke
  I intend to publish a discussion paper in the next few weeks. This will set the framework for the public debate about the future of the BBC, including regulatory options. We shall want to hear the opinions of viewers and listeners, as well as those of the broadcasters and other interested parties, before we take decisions.

  Public Libraries (Closures)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many public libraries have been closed in the past year.

  Mr. Key
  Figures for the number of closures are not yet available for the past year.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received on reform of the law on media ownership.

  Mr. Brooke
  The subject is raised in many of my regular meetings with broadcasters and the press.

  "Managing England's Heritage"
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he became aware of the proposals of English Heritage outlined in the document "Managing England's Heritage"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Following my appointment as Secretary of State on 25 September, I was briefed about English Heritage's strategy proposals and discussed them with Jocelyn Stevens, the chairman of English Heritage, on 1 October.

  English Sports Council
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage by what date the English Sports Council will be established.
  621
  Mr. Key
  The successor bodies to the GB Sports Council, the United Kingdom Sports Commission and the Sports Council for England will be established on 1 October 1993.

  Rugby League Clubs
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to assist Rugby League clubs.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department's main agency for distributing grant aid to sports bodies in England is the Sports Council who do not assist professional bodies. However, they gave £172,000 in assistance to the British Amateur Rugby League Association in 1991–92. The Foundation for Sport and the Arts has given over £750,000 in grant aid to Rugby League clubs since its establishment last year following a reduction in pool betting duty.

  Victoria History of the Counties of England
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on the future of the Victoria History of the Counties of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Department of National Heritage has received four letters about the financial difficulties of the Victoria History of the Counties of England. I recognise the merits of this project, but it is for local councils to decide whether to continue their support for it, I am unable to offer support from my Department's funds.

  British Library
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the British Library will open on its new St. Pancras site.

  Mr. Key
  The opening dates for the new building are currently being reviewed by the Department of National Heritage and the British Library.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the amount of money being allocated to the arts in the current year; and what it was in 1979.

  Mr. Brooke
  For the current year the Government's grant in aid to the Arts Council of Great Britain is £221·2 million. For 1979–80 it was £63·125 million in cash terms or £153·1 million at today's prices. This represents a 44·5 per cent. increase in real terms.

  Local authorities also contribute significantly to the arts. Although no reliable figures are yet available best estimates suggest that they contribute well over £200 million a year.

  In addition, the arts receive funding from the private sector. For 1990–91, the latest year for which firm figures are available, annual business sponsorship reached £44·5 million to which can be added £12·5 million in corporate membership. My own business sponsorship incentive scheme has raised over £48 million for the arts since its inception in October 1984.

  Bolsover Castle
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the proposals relating to English Heritage announced on 26 October as they affect Bolsover castle.

  Mr. Key
  English Heritage's new strategy for the 1990s envisages allocating three categories of importance to their historic estate, concentrating resources and improving facilities in the top two categories and passing properties in the third category to local management wherever possible.

  Bolsover castle is to be in the first category and there are no plans to devolve its management.

  Scottish Arts Council
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to seek an early meeting with the chairman and members of the Scottish Arts Council in order to seek their views on the role of the council and its relationship with the state.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no plans at present to meet the chairman and members of the Scottish Arts Council but I look forward to doing so when the opportunity arises.

  Cricket
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to provide assistance towards the development of cricket within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Brooke
  All Government funds for sport are channelled through the Sports Council who allocate these according to their policies and priorities. In 1991–92, the Sports Council provided £130,000 to cricketing governing bodies and a further £428,000 in grand aid for various regional projects aimed at developing the game in the United Kingdom. In addition, since its establishment last year the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has provided over £2 million to cricket projects. The Government also welcome a range of initiatives such as "Kwik Cricket" and "Capital Kids Programme", which are aimed at promoting cricket for young people.

  Pitchford Hall
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what further representations he has received since 20 October on Pitchford hall.

  Mr. Key
  My Department has received two further letters from member of the public, both written before 20 October, about Pitchford hall.

  Tourism
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage from which country the greatest number of tourists visited Great Britain during the current year.

  Mr. Key
  In the first quarter of 1992, the latest for which statistics are available, the United States of America generated the greatest number of visits to the United Kingdom, with 504,000 visits, 15 per cent. of the total.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list, for each local authority area in South Yorkshire, how many residential properties are currently owned by his Department; and if he will list, by location, those residential properties which are empty, giving the type of accommodation available, the length of time each property has been vacant, and its intended future use.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Industrial Heritage Sites
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list for the three counties of Yorkshire and for Humberside, what new initiatives he proposes to introduce to secure the preservation of sites of industrial heritage.

  Mr. Brooke
  Controls and grant mechanisms to protect the heritage are well established. English Heritage made special reference to our unique industrial heritage and maritime heritage in their recent strategy for the 1990s.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the bodies with which the GAH Group consulted, prior to reporting to him on a national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  Many of the bodies contacted by the GAH Group responded on a confidential basis. I do not intend to publish a list.

  Library and Information Services Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the membership of the Library and Information Services Council; and how many meetings it held in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Key
  The Secretary of State appoints the members of his advisory body in their own right, but ensures that the full range of library and information interests is represented. The council met three times in 1991 and four times in 1992. The present membership is:

  Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer

  Stuart Brewer

  Brian Burch

  Sir Charles Chadwyck-

  Mrs. Gillian Cross

  Healy

  Chris Heinitz

  Miss Rosemary Gray

  Chris Koster

  Dr. Phil L. Holmes

  David Leabeater

  Dr. Brian Lang

  Dr. Bob McKee

  Nigel S. Macartney

  Mrs. Sylvia I. Martin

  Mrs. Sally R. Marshall

  Nigel Oxbrow

  Michael M. Messenger

  John Sumsion

  Mrs. Sheila Pantry

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many papers his Department has currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office: if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

  Mr. Key
  My Department currently relies on other Government Departments for retrieval of records from the Public Record Office. They do not keep separate statistics 624
  on which papers are withdrawn for our use and, therefore, our records will be included in the numbers supplied by those Departments.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ozone-destroying Substances
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide details from the maintenance and servicing record of the quantity and type of ozone—destroying chemicals used annually in his Department's refrigeration and air conditioning equipment for servicing and in leakages; and what proportion is removed for recycling;

  (2) how many chlorofluorocarbon and hydrochlorofluorocarbon installations are contained within his Department's buildings;

  (3) what quantity of HCFC 22 is purchased by his Department from ICI per annum;

  (4) what the latest available figures are for his 3Department's total purchase of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons;

  (5) how many chlorofluorocarbon domestic fridges are contained within his Department's buildings;

  (6) what is the quantity of ozone-depleting substances recycled within his Department and returned to the manufacturer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which current uses of ozone-depleting chemicals by his Department are considered essential;

  (2) if he will given an undertaking to purchase only ozone-friendly fridges that do not contain CFCs or HCFCs for his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are currently reviewing our policy on the use of such chemicals and of goods containing them.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action has been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances consumed by his Department are identified as controlled wastes when they are no longer in use;

  (2) what measures have been taken to ensure that any ozone-destroying substances in use by his Department identified as controlled waste under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 do not reach the atmosphere;

  (3) what proportion of his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances becomes controlled waste in terms of section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Most waste, of whatever nature, from Home Office premises is controlled waste under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 34 of the Act (the duty of care) which came into force on 1 April 1992 requires any person subject to the duty who has controlled waste to take reasonable steps to prevent its illegal management. There is no Crown immunity under the Act, and the Department takes care to ensure that controlled waste leaving its possession is consigned only to authorised persons for treatment or disposal. Information is not
  625
  recorded centrally about the Department's use of ozone-depleting substances or the disposal of controlled waste.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refrigeration and air conditioning systems in his Department are equipped with automatic leak detection systems.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison service's five major vegetable cold stores all have leak detection systems, and 26 air-conditioned vehicles operated by the prison service also have leak detection systems. Only one other unit, at the Emergency Planning College. is known to have such a system.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date his Department's use of ozone-depleting chemicals will conform to EC regulations on limits on these chemicals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Both the Montreal protocol and EC regulations seek to control the production but not the use of substances which deplete the ozone layer. However, the Department is playing its part in helping to phase out these substances by not purchasing or using them unless no suitable alternative is available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many catastrophic leaks of ozone-depleting substances have occurred within his Department's buildings in the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets have been set for the recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals within his Department's buildings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been sought and received on alternatives or substitutes to the ozone-destroying chemicals in use by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My Department adheres to the guidance and specifications issued by the DOE and PSA, and pays close attention to relevant published research findings.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been allocated or spent to specifically deal with measures to reduce his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Measures to reduce consumption of ozone-depleting substances are taken as part of the Department's general maintenance programme, and the costs involved are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his departmental green Minister has promoted protection of the ozone layer with specific policy measures; and which possible measures have been considered and rejected, and on what grounds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has signed the declaration of commitment to responsible 626
  energy management on behalf of the Department; has set in hand a review of the Department's policy on the purchase of ozone-depleting chemicals and of goods manufactured with these substances; and is supervising the development of a green housekeeping strategy for the Department, in accordance with the commitments given in the 1990 White Paper, "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200), and subsequent White Papers.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government measures to ensure the right to private and family life of all persons resident in the United Kingdom as set out in article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government are satisfied that the United Kingdom meets its obligations under the European convention on human rights, including those set out in article 8. The United Kingdom is committed, where it is found to be in violation of the convention, to ensuring that its arrangements are consistent with those obligations.

  Fire Extinguishers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many portable halon fire extinguishers are contained within his Department's buildings; and what measures are being taken to ensure their recycling and replacement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Records of portable halon fire extinguishers are not held centrally. Practice on their recycling and replacement is being reviewed in the light of the relevant DOE guidelines.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions exist to explain their rights to asylum seekers at the port of entry; and what changes will occur to these arising from the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Asylum seekers at ports are informed orally by the immigration officer, in a language with which they are familiar (through an interpreter if necessary), that their application will be treated in confidence, that it will be referred to the asylum division in Croydon, and that they are not obliged to leave the United Kingdom pending a decision. Asylum questionnaires contain a preamble supplementing these details in writing and inform applicants of the existence and function of the refugee legal centre. Detained asylum seekers have access to written information in ten languages.

  The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill will not require any changes to these procedures.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the full text of the document or written advice given to someone who has been granted clearance abroad to enter the United Kingdom in order to make an asylum application.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no provision for receiving applications for asylum from abroad, but we are prepared to consider granting entry clearance for the purpose of making an asylum application where a person falls within
  627
  the definition of a refugee in article 1A of the 1951 UN refugees convention and has close ties with the United Kingdom such as to make it the most appropriate country of refuge.

  There is no standard document or written advice for use in such circumstances.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers have been granted entry clearance abroad in each of the years for which figures are available since 1979;

  (2) how many individuals have (a) applied for and(b)been granted asylum status by the United Kingdom before they have reached the United Kingdom for each of the last 15 years;

  (3) how many times in each of the years for which figures are available entry clearance has been granted abroad for the purpose of making an asylum application.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Available information on principal applications for asylum made abroad is given in table A. This information may be under-recorded.

  There is no provision to grant asylum to a person who is not in the United Kingdom. Figures for those granted entry clearance abroad either for the purpose of seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, or as dependants joining refugees or people with exceptional leave here, are not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  Figures for grants of settlement to south east Asian refugees, who form a distinct group dealt with under a specific programme, are given in table B.

  Table A: Applications1 2 for asylum in the United Kingdom received by British posts abroad and referred to the Home Office for decision, 1986–91

  Year

  Number

  1986

  30

  1987

  35

  31988

  35

  31992

  30

  31990

  35

  1991

  35

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Figures may be under-recorded. Rounded to nearest 5. 1991 figure is provisional.

  3 In addition, about 1,695 applications in 1988, 35 in 1989, 55 in 1990 and 15 in 1991 by nationals of Afghanistan to the British High Commission in New Delhi, and 40 applications in 1991 by nationals of Liberia to the British High Commission in Lagos, were processed locally.

  Table B: Grants(1)(2) of settlement in the United Kingdom to south east Asian refugees

  Year

  Settlement grants

  1979

  3,150

  1980

  9,100

  1981

  2,880

  1982

  880

  1983

  1,220

  1984

  800

  1985

  530

  1986

  830

  1987

  440

  1988

  710

  1989

  720

  1990

  650

  1991

  490

  1 Includes dependants.

  2 All these grants were on arrival to the UK, except for a total of 2,700 during the years 1979–82 which were on removal of time limit.

  Electoral System
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of people entitled to vote who were not on the electoral register for the current year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is estimated that 4–3 per cent. of the eligible population are not included in the 1992 register of electors. This estimate is based on the 1981 census results with an allowance for subsequent births, deaths and migration.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publicise the availability of the postal vote for local and parliamentary elections.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A national television and newspaper campaign costing just under £500,000 was undertaken to let people know about postal and proxy voting arrangements at the recent general election. No decision has yet been taken about publicity for the next general election. The electoral registration form, form A, contains information about postal voting. We also produce publicity material for people who need an absent vote on an indefinite basis. Local government elections are the responsibility of local authorities and we do not provide publicity for absent voting at those elections.

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what publicity will be given to electors' right to check if they are on the draft register of electors when it is published at the end of November.

  Mr Peter Lloyd
  Electoral registration officers are required to place notices in prominent places within their area telling people where they can inspect the draft register and how to make a claim for their name to be included in the register. Many electoral registration officers also place advertisements in local newspapers. In addition, a press release about the publication of the draft register will be distributed shortly to all national daily and Sunday newspapers and the major television companies and through the Central Office of Information news distribution system.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to introduce a voters charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the expenditure on(a) electoral registration within the United Kingdom and(b)registration of overseas residents eligible for the United Kingdom electoral register in each of the last 10 years; and if he will also list the expenditure on electoral registration for both of the above categories in each local authority district areas as (i) a total figure in 1992 terms, (ii) as a percentage of local authority expenditure and (iii) on a per capita basis.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Details of spending by some local authorities on electoral registration on a per capita basis may be found in the report of a survey by OPCS, "Compiling the Electoral Register 1991", a copy of which is in the Library.
  629
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker),Official Report, 30 October, column 931, if he will make it his policy to publish the list of members of the five working groups of the Home Office joint committee on electoral matters in the Official Report.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will require his working group on electoral affairs to give detailed consideration to(a) the concept of a rolling register,(b)additional powers for electoral registration officers to seek and find eligible citizens,(c)other countries' electoral registration procedures,(d)the impact of the poll tax upon levels of electoral registration and(e)the effectiveness of the current level of public spending on electoral registration.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) on 30 October,Official Report, columns 931–32). Within those remits, the working groups will be able to consider any matters which are relevant.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy for his working group on electoral affairs to take evidence from(a) Liberty,(b)Mencap,(c)the Royal National Institute for the Blind,(d)the Spastics Society,(e)Shelter,(f)CHAR and(g)other interested bodies.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have recently written to MENCAP and to MIND to seek their views on a draft practice note for electoral registration officers on the registration of mentally ill and learning disabled people. Before the general election we circulated to acting returning officers guidance produced by the RNIB on helping blind people to take part in the electoral process. We have also written to the Spastics Society offering to do the same in respect of people with physical disabilities.

  Where appropriate, we will consult other voluntary groups about matters in which they have an interest; and we are always prepared to consider the views of such groups when they are submitted to us.

  Island Prisons
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the breathing apparatus to be made available to island prisons; and if he will make a statement on the delay in providing the equipment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Governors of the three Island prisons were asked in October to assess the numbers of sets of short duration breathing apparatus required for their establishments as part of a service-wide initiative to replace smoke hoods. Parkhurst prison has been in possession of conventional breathing apparatus since 1988.

  A programme of training is now planned and the Island prisons will be among the first to receive it in December 1992. Following training, equipment will be supplied to the establishments. The delay in the provision of equipment and training is a consequence of a delay in the signing of the relevant contract.

  Gambling
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the most recent figures expressed as total expenditure and on a per capita basis, for gambling in the United Kingdom on(a) off-course and on-course betting,(b)gaming machines,(c)casinos,(d)bingo,(e)football pools and(f)small lotteries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Estimated figures for net consumer expenditure on gambling (i.e., amount staked less winnings) in the financial year 1991–92 are set out in the table. Those for off-course betting, pool betting and bingo are based on returns to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. Those for casinos and lotteries are taken from the annual report of the Gaming Board for Great Britain, although the latter includes only those lotteries registered with the Board.

  The estimates for on-course betting and gaming machines cannot be calculated directly and should be treated with extreme caution. The turnover per head per annum is based on an estimated United Kingdom population of 57·4 million.

  Estimated net consumer expenditure/year £ million

  Expenditure/head/ year £

  Off-course betting

  1,205

  21

  On-course betting

  103

  1·8

  Gaming machines

  549

  9·6

  Casinos

  367

  6·4

  Bingo

  240

  4·2

  Pools

  576

  10

  Lotteries

  37

  0·6

  South Wales Police
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now agree to increase the establishment of the South Wales police force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Applications for increase in police force establishments will be dealt with as soon as Ministers have decided on the level of resources for the police service for the coming financial year.

  Chelmsford Prison
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners there were in Chelmsford prison at the latest available date;

  (2) what further action is being considered to reduce overcrowding in Chelmsford prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 6 November there were 308 prisoners in Chelmsford prison. The establishment's certified normal accommodation (that is its uncrowded capacity) is 244. The prison service is considering how to meet the need for increased capacity in the prison, and I hope to be in a position to announce proposals on this in the near future.

  Police Officers
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of police officers up to chief constable are(a) women,(b)from ethnic minorities and(c)ethnic minority women.
  631
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Prisoners' Mail
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department has issued on the handling of prisoners' mail; to what extent the handling of mail is a matter for the discretion of the governor of each individual prison; and if he will set out the grounds on which mail may be withheld from prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidance to governors on the handling of prisoners' correspondence is set out in standing order 5 and circular instruction 10/1991, copies of which are in the Library.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve prison officers' training in dealing with drugs problems.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Training in the care and treatment of drug misusers has been available for the last two years through the sponsorship of courses at Ruskin college Oxford and we are extending this provision this year to a specialist course designed specifically for prison staff of all disciplines. In addition a series of seminars have been introduced to familiarise staff with the Guidelines on the Throughcare of Drug Misusers published in 1991. An increasing number of health care staff now hold nursing qualifications and we have given priority to providing funding to enable nursing staff to attend professional courses on drug and alcohol dependency nursing.

  Provision has also been made for prison medical officers to undertake professional training in the treatment of addictive behaviour.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out his plans for tackling the problem of drug dealing and drug abuse in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Peter Lloyd
  We have developed a wide range of measures for tackling drug dealing in prisons. These include the routine searching of prisoners (including those returning from home leave), their cells and other areas. Prisoners and their visitors will also be searched if there is reason to believe that they may have drugs in their possession. Visitors' hand luggage is routinely searched. The police are called in if intelligence suggests that a particular visitor intends to smuggle drugs in to a prison. We have increased the number of prison dogs trained to detect drugs. And the Prison Service College have produced a drugs training package, which has been sent to all prisons, to help staff detect and identify drugs that find their way into prisons.

  Guidelines on the throughcare of drugs misusers were first published in 1987 and revised and republised in 1991 in the form of circular instruction 12/1991. In addition a multidisciplinary resource manual entitled "Caring for Drug users" was compiled and published last year. Copies of both these documents are available in the Library. The guidelines provide for all prisons to have in place effective arrangements for identifying drug users and providing clinical care and detoxification programmes where necessary. Prisons are also encouraged to make full use of
  632
  community drug agencies to provide counselling and preventative training; to ensure that drug users are given every possible opportunity to identify themselves; and to ensure that, where necessary, contact is maintained with community based drug agencies following discharge.

  Wolds Remand Centre
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a race relations officer has been appointed at the Wolds remand centre; and what training has been given on racism and race issues to prison officers at the Wolds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A race relations officer has been appointed at Wolds remand prison. All prisoner custody officers there must receive training in prisoner management which includes a minimum of four hours on racism and race issues during basic training and a further four hours of "anti-discriminatory" training during development training.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates are currently held at the Wolds remand centre; and what percentage are from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 5 November 1992, 237 prisoners were unlocked at the Wolds remand prison. Of these 9·7 per cent. were registered as being from ethnic minorities.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has inspected the Wolds remand centre since its opening; and whether he is afforded the same powers to investigate and comment on all aspects of the establishment as in state managed prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has not yet inspected the Wolds remand prison. He has exactly the same powers in respect of contracted-out prisons like Wolds as he has in relation to prisons managed by the state.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were received by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board as a whole between 1979 to 1992; and how many and what proportion were made by(a) women,(b)members of ethnic minorities and(c)ethnic minority women; and if he will provide details of the percentage of applications successful in each category.

  Mr. Jack
  In the period 1 April 1979 to 31 March 1992 the board received 504,460 applications. I regret that the available records do not separately identify applications made by women or members of ethnic minorities.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many domestic violence units have been established by the police in each of the police force areas per 10,000 women in their area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Blundeston Prison
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the disturbance at Her Majesty's Prison Blundeston on 17 September; what evidence there is that the disturbance was drugs-related; and what action has been taken subsequent to the disturbance.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 17 September there was a disturbance at Blundeston prison which consisted of a series of incidents amongst which were an assault by a prisoner upon another, three prisoners barricading themselves in an empty wing, and two fires. The fires were not related to the other incidents.

  There is no firm evidence that the disturbance was drug related.

  An inquiry has been held into these incidents as a result of which disciplinary charges have been laid against four prisoners; a charge under the prison service code of discipline has been laid against a prison officer; the prison's contingency plans have been amended and fire-fighting equipment replaced.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area Violence against the person

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  5,346

  5,386

  40

  0·75

  Bedfordshire

  2,224

  1,822

  -402

  -18·08

  Cambridgeshire

  2,440

  2,509

  69

  2·83

  Cheshire

  2,440

  2,673

  233

  9·55

  Cleveland

  2,721

  2,696

  -25

  -0·92

  Cumbria

  1,963

  1,854

  -109

  -5·55

  Derbyshire

  3,630

  3,881

  251

  6·91

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,599

  3,704

  105

  2·92

  Dorset

  1,564

  1,483

  -81

  -5·18

  Durham

  2,131

  2,242

  111

  5·21

  Essex

  4,054

  4,028

  -26

  -0·64

  Gloucestershire

  1,533

  1,565

  32

  2·09

  Greater Manchester

  8,889

  9,518

  629

  7·08

  Hampshire

  4,188

  4,933

  745

  17·79

  Hertfordshire

  1,732

  1,794

  62

  3·58

  Humberside

  5,008

  5,074

  66

  1·32

  Kent

  3,684

  4,662

  978

  26·55

  Lancashire

  2,971

  3,069

  98

  3·30

  Leicestershire

  3,123

  3,475

  352

  11·27

  Lincolnshire

  2,119

  2,081

  -38

  -1·79

  City of London

  189

  146

  -43

  -22·75

  Merseyside

  5,406

  6,417

  1,011

  18·70

  Metropolitan Police District

  36,495

  38,346

  1,851

  5·07

  Norfolk

  1,891

  1,883

  -8

  -0·42

  Northamptonshire

  2,102

  2,011

  -91

  -4·33

  Northumbria

  5,541

  5,809

  268

  4·84

  North Yorkshire

  2,021

  2,150

  129

  6·38

  Nottinghamshire

  7,610

  7,616

  6

  0·08

  South Yorkshire

  4,848

  4,655

  -193

  -3·98

  Staffordshire

  5,354

  5,594

  240

  4·48

  Suffolk

  1,725

  1,949

  224

  12·99

  Surrey

  1,839

  1,767

  -72

  -3·92

  Sussex

  3,280

  3,220

  -60

  —1·83

  Thames Valley

  4,542

  4,521

  -21

  -0·46

  Warwickshire

  1,096

  1,215

  119

  10·86

  West Mercia

  3,371

  3,111

  -260

  -7·71

  West Midlands

  10,244

  10,984

  740

  7·22

  West Yorkshire

  9,347

  10,136

  789

  8·44

  Wiltshire

  2,191

  2,269

  78

  3·56

  England

  174,451

  182,248

  7,797

  4·47

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,839

  2,032

  193

  10·49

  Gwent

  2,108

  2,230

  122

  5·79

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing for each police force area in England and Wales, and for the whole of England and Wales, the number of notifiable offences in the 12 months ended(a) June 1990,(b)June 1991 and(c)June 1992 and the percentage increase over the previous year in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 October 1992]: The required information is published in table 6 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 31/90, table 2 of Bulletin 18/91 and table 2 of Bulletin 31/92, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing, for each category of crime(a) the number of notifiable offences recorded in each police authority area in the year to March 1992, and England and Wales as a total,(b)the figure for the 12 months to March 1991 and(c)the percentage increases in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 October 1992]: The information requested is contained in the following tables:

  635

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  North Wales

  2,402

  2,546

  144

  6·00

  South Wales

  4,481

  5,180

  699

  15·60

  Wales

  10,830

  11,988

  1,158

  10·69

  England & Wales

  185,281

  194,236

  8,955

  4·83

  Sexual offences

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  672

  686

  14

  2·08

  Bedfordshire

  327

  321

  -6

  -83

  Cambridgeshire

  382

  432

  50

  13·09

  Cheshire

  378

  481

  103

  27·25

  Cleveland

  301

  299

  -2

  -0·66

  Cumbria

  304

  212

  -92

  -30·26

  Derbyshire

  488

  444

  -44

  -9·02

  Devon and Cornwall

  824

  751

  -73

  -8·86

  Dorset

  272

  385

  113

  41·54

  Durham

  407

  430

  23

  5·65

  Essex

  640

  535

  -105

  -16·41

  Gloucestershire

  297

  313

  16

  5·39

  Greater Manchester

  1,347

  1,469

  122

  9·06

  Hampshire

  1,014

  1,132

  118

  11·64

  Hertfordshire

  347

  361

  14

  4·03

  Humberside

  854

  883

  29

  3·40

  Kent

  734

  958

  224

  30·52

  Lancashire

  606

  563

  -43

  -7·10

  Leicestershire

  398

  394

  -4

  -1·01

  Lincolnshire

  469

  306

  -163

  -34·75

  City of London

  17

  38

  21

  123·53

  Merseyside

  718

  744

  26

  3·62

  Metropolitan Police District

  5,354

  5,485

  131

  2·45

  Norfolk

  370

  419

  49

  13·24

  Northamptonshire

  298

  261

  -37

  -12·42

  Northumbria

  675

  683

  8

  119

  North Yorkshire

  267

  246

  -21

  -7·87

  Nottinghamshire

  1,083

  1,121

  38

  3·51

  South Yorkshire

  612

  630

  18

  2·94

  Staffordshire

  468

  527

  59

  12·61

  Suffolk

  371

  435

  64

  17·25

  Surrey

  363

  457

  94

  25·90

  Sussex

  819

  764

  -55

  -6·72

  Thames Valley

  830

  959

  129

  15·54

  Warwickshire

  213

  158

  -55

  -25·82

  West Mercia

  443

  525

  82

  18·51

  West Midlands

  1,521

  1,598

  77

  5·06

  West Yorkshire

  1,624

  1,614

  -10

  -0·62

  Wiltshire

  425

  371

  -54

  -12·71

  England

  27,532

  28,390

  858

  3·12

  Dyfed-Powys

  339

  366

  27

  7·96

  Gwent

  307

  280

  -27

  -8·79

  North Wales

  346

  420

  74

  21·39

  South Wales

  524

  521

  -3

  -0·57

  Wales

  1,516

  1,587

  71

  4·68

  England & Wales

  29,048

  29,977

  929

  3·20

  Robbery

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  1,123

  1,138

  15

  1·34

  Bedfordshire

  504

  644

  140

  27·78

  Cambridgeshire

  198

  259

  61

  30·81

  Cheshire

  143

  249

  106

  74·13

  Cleveland

  127

  212

  85

  66·93

  636

  637

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Cumbria

  57

  91

  34

  59·65

  Derbyshire

  175

  306

  131

  74·86

  Devon and Cornwall

  197

  278

  81

  41·12

  Dorset

  131

  127

  -4

  -3·05

  Durham

  111

  147

  36

  32·43

  Essex

  395

  405

  10

  2·53

  Gloucestershire

  173

  285

  112

  64·74

  Greater Manchester

  2,587

  3,669

  1,082

  41·82

  Hampshire

  401

  469

  68

  16·96

  Hertfordshire

  217

  263

  46

  21·20

  Humberside

  245

  313

  68

  27·76

  Kent

  378

  534

  156

  41·27

  Lancashire

  314

  440

  126

  40·13

  Leicestershire

  456

  734

  278

  60·96

  Lincolnshire

  68

  77

  9

  13·24

  City of London

  56

  69

  13

  23·21

  Merseyside

  1,697

  1,887

  190

  11·20

  Metropolitan Police District

  18,599

  22,535

  3,936

  21·16

  Norfolk

  150

  218

  68

  45·33

  Northamptonshire

  175

  318

  143

  81·71

  Northumbria

  585

  881

  296

  50·60

  North Yorkshire

  81

  130

  49

  60·49

  Nottinghamshire

  741

  925

  184

  24·83

  South Yorkshire

  492

  586

  94

  19·11

  Staffordshire

  223

  329

  106

  47·53

  Suffolk

  101

  140

  39

  38·61

  Surrey

  142

  189

  47

  33·10

  Sussex

  432

  478

  46

  10·65

  Thames Valley

  697

  868

  171

  24·53

  Warwickshire

  86

  124

  38

  44·19

  West Mercia

  153

  203

  50

  32·68

  West Midlands

  3,155

  4,312

  1,157

  36·67

  West Yorkshire

  1,270

  2,171

  901

  70·94

  Wiltshire

  108

  113

  5

  4·63

  England

  36,943

  47,116

  10,173

  27·54

  Dyfed-Powys

  33

  42

  9

  27·27

  Gwent

  92

  127

  35

  38·04

  North Wales

  93

  94

  1

  1·08

  South Wales

  244

  358

  114

  46·72

  Wales

  462

  621

  159

  34·42

  England and Wales

  37,405

  47,737

  10,332

  27·62

  Burglary

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  28,785

  33,210

  4,425

  15·37

  Bedfordshire

  12,289

  13,800

  1,511

  12·30

  Cambridgeshire

  8,713

  12,712

  3,999

  45·90

  Cheshire

  14,217

  17,871

  3,654

  25·70

  Cleveland

  16,466

  18,979

  2,513

  15·26

  Cumbria

  8,385

  11,286

  2,901

  34·60

  Derbyshire

  14,116

  19,540

  5,424

  38·42

  Devon and Cornwall

  23,327

  25,929

  2,602

  11·15

  Dorset

  8,090

  9,457

  1,367

  16·90

  Durham

  12,086

  13,764

  1,678

  13·88

  Essex

  21,084

  25,975

  4,927

  23·41

  Gloucestershire

  10,147

  13,442

  3,295

  32·47

  Greater Manchester

  90,342

  100,884

  10,542

  11·67

  Hampshire

  26,992

  33,233

  6,241

  23·12

  Hertfordshire

  9,550

  11,262

  1,712

  17·93

  Humberside

  27,707

  34,075

  6,368

  22·98

  Kent

  21,103

  28,152

  7,049

  33·40

  Lancashire

  22,768

  26,107

  3,339

  14·67

  Leicestershire

  17,333

  22,372

  5,039

  29·07

  Lincolnshire

  8,417

  9,656

  1,239

  14·72

  City of London

  1,007

  1,026

  19

  1·89

  Merseyside

  33,139

  34,087

  948

  2·86

  Metropolitan Police District

  177,057

  194,936

  17,879

  10·10

  Norfolk

  12,987

  15,903

  2,916

  22·45

  638

  639

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Northamptonshire

  10,091

  12,492

  2,401

  23·79

  Northumbria

  56,384

  68,392

  12,008

  21·30

  North Yorkshire

  9,970

  13,241

  3,271

  32·81

  Nottinghamshire

  25,788

  32,428

  6,640

  25·75

  South Yorkshire

  28,675

  36,531

  7,856

  27·40

  Staffordshire

  19,839

  24,307

  4,468

  22·52

  Suffolk

  7,248

  8,167

  919

  12·68

  Surrey

  10,529

  11,450

  921

  8·75

  Sussex

  23,980

  26,579

  2,599

  10·84

  Thames Valley

  28,816

  35,686

  6,8870

  23·84

  Warwickshire

  7,718

  11,273

  3,555

  46·06

  West Mercia

  11,132

  15,237

  4,105

  36·88

  West Midlands

  70,309

  89,158

  18,849

  26·81

  West Yorkshire

  62,342

  83,971

  21,629

  34·69

  Wiltshire

  6,674

  8,382

  1,708

  25·59

  England

  1,005,566

  1,204,952

  199,386

  19·83

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,862

  5,019

  1,157

  29·96

  Gwent

  5,715

  7,914

  2,199

  38·48

  North Wales

  8,568

  10,943

  2,375

  27·72

  South Wales

  29,648

  37,618

  7,970

  26·88

  Wales

  47,793

  61,494

  13,701

  28·67

  England and Wales

  1,053,359

  1,266,446

  213,087

  20·23

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  74,825

  82,892

  8,067

  10·78

  Bedfordshire

  32,659

  30,285

  -2,374

  -7·27

  Cambridgeshire

  27,985

  35,949

  7,964

  28·46

  Cheshire

  28,582

  35,978

  7,396

  25·8

  Cleveland

  41,286

  44,017

  2,731

  6·61

  Cumbria

  18,746

  22,963

  4,217

  22·50

  Derbyshire

  32,549

  41,445

  8,896

  27·33

  Devon and Cornwall

  51,285

  57,251

  5,966

  11·63

  Dorset

  30,350

  29,257

  -1,093

  -3·60

  Durham

  28,674

  33,699

  5,025

  17·52

  Essex

  54,330

  61,007

  6,677

  12·29

  Gloucestershire

  25,124

  35,116

  9,992

  39·77

  Greater Manchester

  174,371

  194,749

  20,378

  11·69

  Hampshire

  69,762

  83,345

  13,583

  19·47

  Hertfordshire

  26,917

  33,126

  6,209

  23·07

  Humberside

  53,295

  58,971

  5,676

  10·65

  Kent

  62,064

  85,112

  23,048

  37·14

  Lancashire

  56,884

  67,126

  10,242

  18·01

  Leicestershire

  41,962

  49,241

  7,279

  17·35

  Lincolnshire

  22,710

  25,281

  2,571

  11·32

  City of London

  4,969

  5,049

  80

  1·61

  Merseyside

  71,444

  78,096

  6,652

  9·31

  Metropolitan Police District

  422,089

  466,983

  44,894

  10·64

  Norfolk

  31,495

  37,071

  5,576

  17·70

  Northamptonshire

  27,074

  30,632

  3,558

  13·14

  Northumbria

  97,656

  99,276

  1,620

  1·66

  North Yorkshire

  28,644

  30,210

  1,566

  5·47

  Nottinghamshire

  77,675

  86,273

  8,598

  11·07

  South Yorkshire

  56,193

  64,131

  7,938

  14·13

  Staffordshire

  35,462

  42,519

  7,057

  19·90

  Suffolk

  20,088

  23,391

  3,303

  16·44

  Surrey

  23,825

  28,699

  4,874

  20·46

  Sussex

  55,720

  64,068

  8,348

  14·98

  Thames Valley

  92,927

  117,982

  25,055

  26·96

  Warwickshire

  19,659

  22,278

  2,619

  13·32

  West Mercia

  36,734

  42,959

  6,225

  16·95

  West Midlands

  138,274

  150,723

  12,449

  9·00

  West Yorkshire

  129,829

  153,871

  24,042

  18·52

  Wiltshire

  19,298

  21,253

  1,955

  10·13

  England

  2,343,415

  2,672,274

  328,859

  14·03

  Dyfed-Powys

  10,675

  14,283

  3,608

  33·80

  640

  641

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Gwent

  17,927

  21,844

  3,917

  21·85

  North Wales

  19,531

  22,437

  2,906

  14·88

  South Wales

  76,933

  82,642

  5,709

  7·42

  Wales

  125,066

  141,206

  16,140

  12·91

  England and Wales

  2,468,481

  2,813,480

  344,999

  13·98

  Fraud and forgery

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  6,947

  6,623

  -324

  -4·66

  Bedfordshire

  2,505

  2,313

  -192

  -7·66

  Cambridgeshire

  1,488

  1,790

  302

  20·30

  Cheshire

  1,714

  2,236

  522

  30·46

  Cleveland

  2,008

  1,814

  -194

  -9·66

  Cumbria

  853

  962

  109

  12·78

  Derbyshire

  1,223

  1,277

  54

  4·42

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,952

  3,693

  -259

  -6·55

  Dorset

  3,509

  3,713

  204

  5·81

  Durham

  2,118

  2,250

  132

  6·23

  Essex

  2,951

  3,457

  506

  17·15

  Gloucestershire

  1,597

  2,135

  538

  33·69

  Greater Manchester

  11,214

  11,921

  707

  6·30

  Hampshire

  5,174

  5,453

  279

  5·39

  Hertfordshire

  1,547

  1,549

  2

  0·13

  Humberside

  2,993

  3,374

  381

  12·73

  Kent

  2,731

  3,887

  1,156

  42·33

  Lancashire

  3,317

  3,456

  139

  4·19

  Leicestershire

  2,308

  2,934

  626

  27·12

  Lincolnshire

  1,108

  1,363

  255

  23·01

  City of London

  626

  585

  -41

  -6·55

  Merseyside

  4,217

  5,726

  1,509

  35·78

  Metropolitan Police District

  37,896

  44,348

  6,452

  17·03

  Norfolk

  1,446

  1,776

  330

  22·82

  Northamptonshire

  1,285

  1,531

  246

  19·14

  Northumbria

  3,209

  3,647

  438

  13·65

  North Yorkshire

  1,006

  1,180

  174

  17·30

  Nottinghamshire

  3,436

  3,846

  410

  11·93

  South Yorkshire

  2,070

  2,054

  -16

  -0·77

  Staffordshire

  1,724

  1,972

  248

  14·39

  Suffolk

  1,829

  2,201

  372

  20·34

  Surrey

  1,838

  2,134

  296

  16·10

  Sussex

  3,758

  4,561

  803

  21·37

  Thames Vallev

  5,696

  7,727

  2,031

  35·66

  Warwickshire

  978

  1,223

  245

  25·05

  West Mercia

  1,343

  1,430

  87

  6·48

  West Midlands

  6,530

  7,736

  1,206

  18·47

  West Yorkshire

  5,949

  6,945

  996

  16·74

  Wiltshire

  1,554

  1,679

  125

  8·04

  England

  147,647

  168,501

  20,854

  14·12

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,357

  1,192

  -165

  -12·16

  Gwent

  1,172

  1,063

  -109

  -9·30

  North Wales

  1,198

  1,436

  238

  19·87

  South Wales

  3,164

  3,615

  451

  14·25

  Wales

  6,891

  7,306

  415

  6·02

  England and Wales

  154,538

  175,807

  21,269

  13·76

  Criminal damage

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  17,969

  19,277

  1,308

  7·28

  Bedfordshire

  7,717

  8,168

  451

  5·84

  Cambridgeshire

  5,502

  6,838

  1,336

  24·28

  Cheshire

  8,917

  9,794

  877

  9·84

  642

  643

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Cleveland

  11,158

  12,791

  1,633

  14·64

  Cumbria

  6,136

  8,052

  1,916

  31·23

  Derbyshire

  11,217

  12,748

  1,531

  13·65

  Devon and Cornwall

  13,503

  14,706

  1,203

  8·91

  Dorset

  5,293

  5,526

  233

  4·40

  Durham

  11,645

  13,336

  1,691

  14·52

  Essex

  14,527

  16,392

  1,865

  12·84

  Gloucestershire

  5,264

  5,459

  195

  3·70

  Greater Manchester

  59,533

  64,661

  5,128

  8·61

  Hampshire

  17,285

  19,927

  2,642

  15·28

  Hertfordshire

  8,203

  8,759

  556

  6·78

  Humberside

  16,490

  17,630

  1,140

  6·91

  Kent

  17,618

  22,974

  5,356

  30·40

  Lancashire

  21,490

  26,716

  5,226

  24·32

  Leicestershire

  11,061

  12,466

  1,405

  12·70

  Lincolnshire

  5,848

  6,704

  856

  14·64

  City of London

  443

  419

  -24

  -5·42

  Merseyside

  22,374

  23,579

  1,205

  5·39

  Metropolitan Police District

  148,140

  165,783

  17,643

  11·91

  Norfolk

  7,379

  8,461

  1,082

  14·66

  Northamptonshire

  9,676

  11,663

  1,987

  20·54

  Northumbria

  42,466

  48,416

  5,950

  14·01

  North Yorkshire

  5,208

  5,661

  453

  8·70

  Nottinghamshire

  20,932

  23,077

  2,145

  10·25

  South Yorkshire

  16,825

  19,717

  2,892

  17·19

  Staffordshire

  11,145

  12,873

  1,728

  15·50

  Suffolk

  6,528

  5,500

  -1,028

  -15·75

  Surrey

  5,956

  6,483

  527

  8·85

  Sussex

  11,864

  12,951

  1,087

  9·16

  Thames Valley

  22,284

  26,562

  4,278

  1·92

  Warwickshire

  4,909

  5,113

  204

  4·16

  West Mercia

  11,573

  11,346

  -227

  -1·96

  West Midlands

  39,771

  46,256

  6,485

  16·31

  West Yorkshire

  37,843

  44,704

  6,861

  18·13

  Wiltshire

  5,565

  5,547

  -18

  -0·32

  England

  707,257

  797,035

  89,778

  12·69

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,957

  5,077

  1,120

  28·30

  Gwent

  5,570

  6,144

  574

  10·31

  North Wales

  7,233

  7,604

  371

  5·13

  South Wales

  29,573

  33,466

  3,893

  13·16

  Wales

  46,333

  52,291

  5,958

  12·86

  England and Wales

  753,590

  849,326

  95,736

  12·70

  Other offences

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  716

  741

  25

  3·49

  Bedfordshire

  297

  211

  -86

  -28·96

  Cambridgeshire

  281

  287

  6

  2·14

  Cheshire

  894

  1,144

  250

  27·96

  Cleveland

  323

  306

  -17

  -5·26

  Cumbria

  170

  318

  148

  87·06

  Derbyshire

  467

  565

  98

  20·99

  Devon and Cornwall

  435

  560

  125

  28·74

  Dorset

  703

  674

  -29

  -4·13

  Durham

  325

  407

  82

  25·23

  Essex

  654

  658

  4

  0·61

  Gloucestershire

  257

  376

  119

  46·30

  Greater Manchester

  2,071

  2,559

  488

  23·56

  Hampshire

  839

  1,041

  202

  24·08

  Hertfordshire

  406

  399

  -7

  -1·72

  Humberside

  354

  524

  170

  48·02

  Kent

  902

  1,112

  210

  23·28

  Lancashire

  972

  1,088

  116

  11·93

  Leicestershire

  321

  437

  116

  36·14

  Lincolnshire

  369

  502

  133

  36·04

  City of London

  83

  64

  -19

  -22·89

  Merseyside

  1,616

  1,820

  204

  12·62

  Metropolitan Police District

  6,724

  6,913

  189

  2·81

  644

  645

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Norfolk

  329

  447

  118

  35·87

  Northamptonshire

  257

  340

  83

  32·30

  Northumbria

  760

  767

  7

  0·92

  North Yorkshire

  317

  369

  52

  16·40

  Nottinghamshire

  708

  560

  -148

  -20·90

  South Yorkshire

  739

  1,072

  333

  45·06

  Staffordshire

  363

  311

  -52

  -14·33

  Suffolk

  535

  548

  13

  2·43

  Surrey

  287

  246

  -41

  -14·29

  Sussex

  1,110

  1,213

  103

  9·28

  Thames Valley

  963

  1,068

  105

  10·90

  Warwickshire

  193

  235

  42

  21·76

  West Mercia

  542

  474

  -68

  -12·55

  West Midlands

  1,557

  1,633

  76

  4·88

  West Yorkshire

  1,568

  2,281

  713

  45·47

  Wiltshire

  269

  392

  123

  45·72

  England

  30,676

  34,662

  3,986

  12·99

  Dyfed-Powys

  211

  239

  28

  13·27

  Gwent

  244

  300

  56

  22·95

  North Wales

  271

  337

  66

  24·35

  South Wales

  711

  786

  75

  10·55

  Wales

  1,437

  1,662

  225

  15·66

  England and Wales

  32,113

  36,324

  4,211

  13·11

  All offences

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  136,383

  149,953

  13,570

  9·95

  Bedfordshire

  58,522

  57,564

  -958

  -1·64

  Cambridgeshire

  46,989

  60,776

  13,787

  29·34

  Cheshire

  57,285

  70,426

  13,141

  22·94

  Cleveland

  74,390

  81,114

  6,724

  9·04

  Cumbria

  36,614

  45,738

  9,124

  24·92

  Derbyshire

  63,865

  80,206

  16,341

  25·59

  Devon and Cornwall

  97,122

  106,872

  9,750

  10·04

  Dorset

  49,912

  50,622

  710

  1·42

  Durham

  57,497

  66,275

  8,778

  15·27

  Essex

  98,599

  112,457

  13,858

  14·05

  Gloucestershire

  44,392

  58,691

  14,299

  32·21

  Greater Manchester

  350,354

  389,430

  39,076

  11·15

  Hampshire

  125,655

  149,533

  23,878

  19·00

  Hertfordshire

  48,919

  57,513

  8,594

  17·57

  Humberside

  106,946

  120,844

  13,898

  13·00

  Kent

  109,214

  147,391

  38,177

  34·96

  Lancashire

  109,322

  128,565

  19,243

  17·60

  Leicestershire

  76,962

  92,053

  15,091

  19·61

  Lincolnshire

  41,108

  45,970

  4,862

  11·83

  City Of London

  7,390

  7,396

  6

  0·08

  Merseyside

  140,611

  152,356

  11,745

  8·35

  Metropolitan Police District

  852,354

  945,329

  92,975

  10·91

  Norfolk

  56,047

  66,178

  10,131

  18·08

  Northamptonshire

  50,958

  59,248

  8,290

  16·27

  Northumbria

  207,276

  227,871

  20,595

  9·94

  North Yorkshire

  47,514

  53,187

  5,673

  11·94

  Nottinghamshire

  137,973

  155,846

  17,873

  12·95

  South Yorkshire

  110,454

  129,376

  18,922

  17·13

  Staffordshire

  74,578

  88,432

  13,854

  18·58

  Suffolk

  38,425

  42,331

  3,906

  10·17

  Surrey

  44,779

  51,425

  6,646

  14·84

  Sussex

  100,963

  113,834

  12,871

  12·75

  Thames Valley

  156,755

  195,373

  38,618

  24·64

  Warwickshire

  34,852

  41,619

  6,767

  19·42

  West Mercia

  65,291

  75,285

  9,994

  15·31

  West Midlands

  271,361

  312,400

  41,039

  15·12

  West Yorkshire

  249,772

  305,693

  55,921

  22·39

  Wiltshire

  36,084

  40,006

  3,922

  10·87

  England

  4,473,487

  5,135,178

  661,691

  14·79

  646

  647

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1990 to March 1991

  April 1991 to March 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Dyfed-Powys

  22,273

  28,250

  5,977

  26·84

  Gwent

  33,135

  39,902

  6,767

  20·42

  North Wales

  39,642

  45,817

  6,175

  15·58

  South Wales

  145,278

  164,186

  18,908

  13·02

  Wales

  240,328

  278,155

  37,827

  15·74

  England and Wales

  4,713,815

  5,413,333

  699,518

  14·84

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing for each category of crime(a) the number of notifiable offences recorded in each police authority area in the year

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area

  Violence against the person

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  5,537

  5,321

  -216

  -3·90

  Bedfordshire

  2,102

  1,804

  -298

  -14·18

  Cambridgeshire

  2,431

  2,628

  197

  8·10

  Cheshire

  2,496

  2,641

  145

  5·81

  Cleveland

  2,747

  2,664

  -83

  -3·02

  Cumbria

  1,963

  1,873

  -90

  -4·58

  Derbyshire

  3,708

  3,958

  250

  6·74

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,621

  3,809

  188

  5·19

  Dorset

  1,566

  1,480

  -86

  -5·49

  Durham

  2,065

  2,345

  280

  13·56

  Essex

  3,929

  4,201

  272

  6·92

  Gloucestershire

  1,566

  1,570

  4

  0·26

  Greater Manchester

  8,879

  9,914

  1,035

  11·66

  Hampshire

  4,193

  5,186

  993

  23·68

  Hertfordshire

  1,727

  1,892

  165

  9·55

  Humberside

  5,031

  5,141

  110

  2·19

  Kent

  3,839

  5,129

  1,290

  33·60

  Lancashire

  2,966

  3,198

  232

  7·82

  Leicestershire

  3,163

  3,572

  409

  12·93

  Lincolnshire

  2,135

  2,099

  -36

  -1·69

  City of London

  173

  226

  53

  30·64

  Merseyside

  5,542

  6,811

  1,269

  22·90

  Metropolitan Police District

  36,947

  38,503

  1,556

  4·21

  Norfolk

  1,956

  1,854

  -102

  -5·21

  Northamptonshire

  2,001

  2,212

  211

  10·54

  Northumbria

  5,712

  6,023

  311

  5·44

  North Yorkshire

  2,095

  2,115

  20

  0·95

  Nottinghamshire

  7,542

  7,994

  452

  5·99

  South Yorkshire

  4,720

  4,776

  56

  1·19

  Staffordshire

  5,367

  5,683

  316

  5·89

  Suffolk

  1,785

  1,974

  189

  10·59

  Surrey

  1,845

  1,882

  37

  2·01

  Sussex

  3,240

  3,237

  -3

  -0·09

  Thames Valley

  4,451

  4,754

  303

  6·81

  Warwickshire

  1,091

  1,278

  187

  17·14

  West Mercia

  3,144

  3,259

  1·15

  3·66

  West Midlands

  10,435

  11,415

  980

  9·39

  West Yorkshire

  9,692

  10,038

  346

  3·57

  Wiltshire

  2,118

  2,488

  370

  17·47

  England

  175,520

  186,947

  11,427

  6·51

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,955

  2,107

  152

  7·77

  Gwent

  2,022

  2,323

  301

  14·89

  North Wales

  2,401

  2,608

  207

  8·62

  South Wales

  4,537

  5,519

  982

  21·64

  Wales

  10,915

  12,557

  1,642

  15·04

  England and Wales

  186,435

  199,504

  13,069

  7·01

  648
  to June 1992, and in England and Wales as a whole,(b)the figure for the 12 months to June 1991 and(c)the percentage increase in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 27 October1992]: The information requested is contained in the following tables:

  649

  Sexual offences

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  743

  614

  -129

  -17·36

  Bedfordshire

  331

  278

  -53

  -16·01

  Cambridgeshire

  400

  432

  32

  8·00

  Cheshire

  415

  492

  77

  18·55

  Cleveland

  264

  316

  52

  -19·70

  Cumbria

  256

  215

  -41

  -16·02

  Derbyshire

  492

  429

  -63

  -12·80

  Devon and Cornwall

  791

  719

  -72

  -9·10

  Dorset

  300

  391

  91

  30·33

  Durham

  417

  443

  26

  6·24

  Essex

  603

  573

  -30

  -4·98

  Gloucestershire

  295

  309

  14

  4·75

  Greater Manchester

  996

  1,465

  43

  3·02

  Hampshire

  1,422

  1,158

  162

  16·27

  Hertfordshire

  371

  351

  -20

  -5·39

  Humberside

  882

  836

  -46

  -5·22

  Kent

  699

  1,097

  398

  56·94

  Lancashire

  634

  524

  -110

  -17·35

  Leicestershire

  400

  392

  -8

  -2·00

  Lincolnshire

  434

  291

  -143

  -32·95

  City of London

  18

  41

  23

  127·78

  Merseyside

  701

  759

  58

  8·27

  Metropolitan Police District

  5,437

  5,538

  101

  1·86

  Norfolk

  419

  387

  -32

  -7·64

  Northamptonshire

  264

  256

  -8

  -3·03

  Northumbria

  669

  720

  51

  7·62

  North Yorkshire

  260

  224

  -36

  -13·85

  Nottinghamshire

  1,135

  1,102

  -33

  -2·91

  South Yorkshire

  618

  627

  9

  1·46

  Staffordshire

  477

  487

  10

  2·10

  Suffolk

  401

  433

  32

  7·98

  Surrey

  383

  429

  46

  12·01

  Sussex

  733

  800

  67

  9·14

  Thames Valley

  855

  946

  91

  10·64

  Warwickshire

  192

  178

  -14

  -7·29

  West Mercia

  470

  498

  28

  5·96

  West Midlands

  1,533

  1,586

  53

  3·46

  West Yorkshire

  1,657

  1,506

  -151

  -9·11

  Wiltshire

  433

  389

  -44

  -10·16

  England

  27,800

  28,231

  431

  1·55

  Dyfed-Powys

  338

  363

  25

  7·40

  Gwent

  306

  271

  -35

  -11·44

  North Wales

  378

  361

  -17

  -4·50

  South Wales

  500

  518

  18

  3·60

  Wales

  1,522

  1,513

  -9

  -0·59

  England and Wales

  29,322

  29,744

  422

  1·44

  Robbery

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  1,204

  1,157

  -47

  -3·90

  Bedfordshire

  585

  558

  -27

  -4·62

  Cambridgeshire

  201

  271

  70

  34·83

  Cheshire

  163

  299

  136

  83·44

  Cleveland

  149

  238

  89

  59·73

  Cumbria

  55

  100

  45

  81·82

  Derbyshire

  205

  298

  93

  45·37

  Devon and Cornwall

  204

  294

  90

  44·12

  Dorset

  139

  140

  1

  0·72

  Durham

  113

  156

  43

  38·05

  Essex

  389

  454

  65

  16·71

  Gloucestershire

  192

  302

  110

  57·29

  Greater Manchester

  2,707

  3,882

  1,175

  43·41

  Hampshire

  407

  509

  102

  25·06

  Hertfordshire

  238

  278

  40

  16·81

  Humberside

  245

  330

  85

  34·69

  Kent

  424

  548

  124

  29·25

  Lancashire

  342

  470

  128

  37·43

  650 651

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Leicestershire

  505

  756

  251

  49·70

  Lincolnshire

  64

  82

  18

  28·13

  City of London

  57

  65

  8

  14·04

  Merseyside

  1,705

  1,963

  258

  15·13

  Metropolitan Police District

  19,804

  22,970

  3,166

  15·99

  Norfolk

  153

  226

  73

  47·71

  Northamptonshire

  210

  317

  107

  50·95

  Northumbria

  621

  941

  320

  51·53

  North Yorkshire

  84

  135

  51

  60·71

  Nottinghamshire

  775

  939

  164

  21·16

  South Yorkshire

  476

  616

  140

  29·41

  Staffordshire

  237

  354

  117

  49·37

  Suffolk

  106

  138

  32

  30·19

  Surrey

  138

  216

  78

  56·52

  Sussex

  458

  490

  32

  6·99

  Thames Valley

  719

  941

  222

  30·88

  Warwickshire

  97

  133

  36

  37·11

  West Mercia

  172

  209

  37

  21·51

  West Midlands

  3,387

  4,531

  1,144

  33·78

  West Yorkshire

  1,439

  2,386

  947

  65·81

  Wiltshire

  116

  114

  -2

  -1·72

  England

  39,285

  48,806

  9,521

  24·24

  Dyfed-Powys

  38

  48

  10

  26·32

  Gwent

  97

  121

  24

  24·74

  North Wales

  99

  102

  3

  3·03

  South Wales

  266

  375

  109

  40·98

  Wales

  500

  646

  146

  29·20

  England & Wales

  39,785

  49,452

  9,667

  24·30

  Burglary

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  31,351

  33,679

  2,328

  7·43

  Bedfordshire

  12,605

  14,110

  1,505

  11·94

  Cambridgeshire

  9,668

  13,125

  3,457

  35·76

  Cheshire

  14,743

  19,001

  4,258

  28·88

  Cleveland

  16,496

  19,757

  3,261

  19·77

  Cumbria

  9,011

  11,563

  2,552

  28·32

  Derbyshire

  15,892

  20,252

  4,360

  27·44

  Devon and Cornwall

  24,709

  26,922

  2,213

  8·96

  Dorset

  8,500

  9,631

  1,131

  13·31

  Durham

  12,696

  13,462

  766

  6·03

  Essex

  22,461

  26,410

  3,949

  17·58

  Gloucestershire

  10,906

  14,432

  3,526

  32·33

  Greater Manchester

  93,405

  100,720

  7,315

  7·83

  Hampshire

  29,208

  32,963

  3,755

  12·86

  Hertfordshire

  10,254

  11,548

  1,294

  12·62

  Humberside

  29,238

  34,538

  5,300

  18·13

  Kent

  23,507

  29,126

  5,619

  23·90

  Lancashire

  23,036

  26,263

  3,227

  14·01

  Leicestershire

  18,943

  22,262

  3,319

  17·52

  Lincolnshire

  8,547

  10,150

  1,603

  18·76

  City of London

  1,077

  1,000

  -77

  -7·15

  Merseyside

  33,799

  33,742

  -57

  -0·17

  Metropolitan Police District

  182,485

  194,338

  11,853

  6·50

  Norfolk

  13,510

  16,225

  2,715

  20·10

  Northamptonshire

  11,007

  12,401

  1,394

  12·66

  Northumbria

  58,995

  68,385

  9,390

  15·92

  North Yorkshire

  10,836

  13,804

  2,968

  27·39

  Nottinghamshire

  27,735

  33,121

  5,386

  19·42

  South Yorkshire

  31,035

  38,076

  7,041

  22·69

  Staffordshire

  21,612

  25,318

  3,706

  17·15

  Suffolk

  7,417

  8,403

  986

  13·29

  Surrey

  11,253

  11,521

  268

  2·38

  Sussex

  24,637

  27,340

  2,703

  10·97

  Thames Valley

  31,101

  36,174

  5,073

  16·31

  Warwickshire

  8,386

  11,956

  3,570

  42·57

  West Mercia

  12,095

  16,102

  4,007

  33·13

  West Midlands

  74,163

  92,394

  18,231

  24·58

  652 653

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  West Yorkshire

  68,126

  85,108

  16,982

  24·93

  Wiltshire

  7,257

  8,595

  1,338

  18·44

  England

  1,061,702

  1,223,917

  162,215

  15·28

  Dyfed-Powys

  4,428

  4,999

  571

  12·90

  Gwent

  6,328

  8,146

  1,818

  28·73

  North Wales

  8,872

  12,093

  3,221

  36·31

  South Wales

  32,475

  37,554

  5,079

  15·64

  Wales

  52,103

  62,792

  10,689

  20·52

  England and Wales

  1,113,805

  1,286,709

  172,904

  15·52

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to July 1991

  June 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  80,350

  85,086

  4,736

  5·89

  Bedfordshire

  32,116

  29,524

  -2,592

  -8·07

  Cambridgeshire

  30,316

  36,512

  6,196

  20·44

  Cheshire

  29,392

  36,854

  7,462

  25·39

  Cleveland

  41,740

  45,018

  3,278

  7·85

  Cumbria

  20,503

  21,992

  1,489

  7·26

  Derbyshire

  34,448

  43,352

  8,904

  25·85

  Devon and Cornwall

  53,648

  58,403

  4,755

  8·86

  Dorset

  31,138

  29,187

  -1,951

  -6·27

  Durham

  30,714

  33,843

  3,129

  10·19

  Essex

  57,202

  61,954

  4,752

  8·31

  Gloucestershire

  26,280

  36,670

  10,390

  39·54

  Greater Manchester

  184,125

  191,642

  7,517

  4·08

  Hampshire

  73,752

  83,961

  10,209

  13·84

  Hertfordshire

  28,417

  33,262

  4,845

  17·05

  Humberside

  54,725

  59,696

  4,971

  9·08

  Kent

  69,297

  86,190

  16,893

  24·38

  Lancashire

  59,323

  68,388

  9,065

  15·28

  Leicestershire

  44,860

  49,843

  4,983

  11·11

  Lincolnshire

  24,146

  24,927

  781

  3·23

  City of London

  5,133

  4,954

  -179

  -3·49

  Merseyside

  73,480

  78,131

  4,651

  6·33

  Metropolitan Police District

  434,816

  465,768

  30,952

  7·12

  Norfolk

  32,961

  37,097

  4,136

  12·55

  Northamptonshire

  28,710

  30,319

  1,609

  5·60

  Northumbria

  99,992

  96,144

  -3,848

  -3·85

  North Yorkshire

  29,256

  30,453

  1,197

  4·09

  Nottinghamshire

  80,910

  87,047

  6,137

  7·58

  South Yorkshire

  57,963

  65,225

  7,262

  12·53

  Staffordshire

  37,975

  43,555

  5,580

  14·69

  Suffolk

  20,745

  23,625

  2,880

  13·88

  Surrey

  25,606

  29,480

  3,874

  15·13

  Sussex

  58,459

  65,585

  7,126

  12·19

  Thames Valley

  101,034

  118,464

  17,430

  17·25

  Warwickshire

  20,807

  22,577

  1,770

  8·51

  West Mercia

  37,954

  44,685

  6,731

  17·73

  West Midlands

  142,192

  150,562

  8,370

  5·89

  West Yorkshire

  138,419

  151,597

  13,178

  9·52

  Wiltshire

  19,804

  21,436

  1,632

  8·24

  England

  2,452,708

  2,683,008

  230,300

  9·39

  Dyfed-Powys

  11,619

  14,753

  3,134

  26·97

  Gwent

  19,362

  22,291

  2,929

  15·13

  North Wales

  20,473

  23,094

  2,621

  12·80

  South Wales

  79,157

  82,789

  3,632

  4·59

  Wales

  130,611

  142,927

  12,316

  9·43

  England and Wales

  2,583,319

  2,825,935

  242,616

  9·39

  654 655

  Fraud and forgery

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  1,141

  6,248

  -999

  13·79

  Bedfordshire

  2,357

  2,252

  -105

  -4·45

  Cambridgeshire

  1,654

  1,712

  58

  3·51

  Cheshire

  1,754

  2,330

  576

  32·84

  Cleveland

  1,992

  1,743

  -249

  12·50

  Cumbria

  901

  949

  48

  5·33

  Derbyshire

  1,150

  1,330

  180

  15·65

  Devon and Cornwall

  4,085

  3,627

  -458

  -11·21

  Dorset

  3,353

  3,885

  532

  15·87

  Durham

  2,071

  2,429

  358

  17·29

  Essex

  3,088

  3,673

  585

  18·94

  Gloucestershire

  1,678

  2,230

  552

  32·90

  Greater Manchester

  11,624

  12,227

  603

  519

  Hampshire

  5,518

  5,403

  -115

  -208

  Hertfordshire

  1,531

  1,560

  29

  1·89

  Humberside

  3,166

  3,208

  42

  1·33

  Kent

  3,071

  4,071

  1,000

  32·56

  Lancashire

  3,310

  3,665

  355

  10·73

  Leicestershire

  2,577

  2,984

  407

  15·79

  Lincolnshire

  1,137

  1,363

  226

  19·88

  City of London

  643

  526

  -177

  -18·20

  Merseyside

  4,629

  5,489

  860

  18·58

  Metropolitan Police District

  42,129

  42,623

  494

  1·17

  Norfolk

  1,551

  1,838

  287

  18·50

  Northamptonshire

  1,431

  1,589

  158

  11·04

  Northumbria

  3,418

  3,632

  214

  6·26

  North Yorkshire

  1,009

  1,203

  194

  19·23

  Nottinghamshire

  3,547

  3,898

  351

  9·90

  South Yorkshire

  1,998

  2,059

  61

  3·05

  Staffordshire

  1,802

  2,106

  304

  16·87

  Suffolk

  1,943

  1,997

  54

  2·78

  Surrey

  2,014

  2,134

  120

  5·96

  Sussex

  3,934

  4,406

  472

  12·00

  Thames Valley

  6,364

  7,776

  1,412

  22·19

  Warwickshire

  1,058

  1,256

  198

  18·71

  West Mercia

  1,410

  1,405

  -5

  -0·35

  West Midlands

  6,878

  7,903

  1,025

  14·90

  West Yorkshire

  6,530

  6,768

  238

  3·64

  Wiltshire

  1,637

  1,758

  121

  7·39

  England

  157,189

  167,255

  10,066

  6·40

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,318

  1,184

  -134

  -10·17

  Gwent

  1,130

  1,093

  -37

  -3·27

  North Wales

  1,230

  1,417

  187

  15·20

  South Wales

  3,344

  3,640

  296

  8·85

  Wales

  7,022

  7,334

  312

  4·44

  England and Wales

  164,211

  174,589

  10,378

  6·32

  Criminal damage

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  18,761

  18,470

  -291

  -1·55

  Bedfordshire

  7,525

  8,078

  553

  7·35

  Cambridgeshire

  5,912

  6,851

  939

  15·88

  Cheshire

  8,874

  10,051

  1,177

  13·26

  Cleveland

  11,586

  12,900

  1,314

  11·34

  Cumbria

  6,606

  7,912

  1,306

  19·77

  Derbyshire

  11,302

  13,471

  2,169

  19·19

  Devon and Cornwall

  13,874

  15,164

  1,290

  9·30

  Dorset

  5,366

  5,644

  278

  5·18

  Durham

  12,095

  13,134

  1,039

  8·59

  Essex

  14,812

  16,709

  1,897

  12·81

  Gloucestershire

  5,382

  5,439

  57

  1·06

  Greater Manchester

  61,798

  63,931

  2,133

  3·45

  Hampshire

  17,605

  20,693

  3,088

  17·54

  Hertfordshire

  8,199

  8,989

  790

  9·64

  Humberside

  16,359

  18,223

  1,864

  11·39

  Kent

  19,397

  23,650

  4,253

  21·93

  Lancashire

  24,020

  23,932

  -88

  -0·37

  656 657

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Leicestershire

  11,614

  12,408

  794

  6·84

  Lincolnshire

  5,952

  6,925

  973

  16·35

  City of London

  441

  414

  -27

  -6·12

  Mersey side

  22,689

  23,903

  1,214

  5·35

  Metropolitan Police District

  152,823

  166,476

  13,653

  8·93

  Norfolk

  7,617

  8,531

  914

  12·00

  Northamptonshire

  10,005

  11,691

  1,686

  16·85

  Northumbria

  44,974

  48,994

  4,020

  8·94

  North Yorkshire

  5,177

  5,726

  549

  10·60

  Nottinghamshire

  21,564

  23,654

  2,090

  9·69

  South Yorkshire

  17,552

  19,935

  2,383

  13·58

  Staffordshire

  11,647

  12,982

  1,335

  11·46

  Suffolk

  6,228

  6,029

  -199

  -3·20

  Surrey

  6,108

  6,724

  616

  10·09

  Sussex

  12,019

  13,471

  1,452

  12·08

  Thames Valley

  23,634

  27,432

  3,798

  16·07

  Warwickshire

  4,873

  5,300

  427

  8·76

  West Mercia

  11,491

  11,395

  -96

  -0·84

  West Midlands

  39,922

  47,426

  7,504

  18·80

  West Yorkshire

  39,561

  44,571

  5,010

  12·66

  Wiltshire

  5,329

  5,849

  520

  9·76

  England

  730,693

  803,077

  72,384

  9·91

  Dyfed-Powys

  4,315

  5,257

  942

  21·83

  Gwent

  5,897

  6,057

  160

  2·71

  North Wales

  7,294

  7,742

  448

  6·14

  South Wales

  30,785

  33,843

  3,058

  9·93

  Wales

  48,291

  52,899

  4,608

  9·54

  England and Wales

  778,984

  855,976

  76,992

  9·88

  Other offences

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  752

  692

  -60

  -7·98

  Bedfordshire

  289

  214

  -75

  -25·95

  Cambridgeshire

  288

  301

  13

  4·51

  Cheshire

  1,001

  1,175

  174

  17·38

  Cleveland

  329

  283

  -46

  -13·98

  Cumbria

  208

  326

  118

  56·73

  Derbyshire

  459

  571

  112

  24·40

  Devon and Cornwall

  434

  629

  195

  44·93

  Dorset

  656

  717

  61

  9·30

  Durham

  318

  445

  127

  39·94

  Essex

  670

  653

  -17

  -2·54

  Gloucestershire

  270

  395

  125

  46·30

  Greater Manchester

  2,210

  2,594

  384

  17·38

  Hampshire

  890

  1,106

  216

  24·27

  Hertfordshire

  404

  415

  11

  2·72

  Humberside

  378

  539

  161

  42·59

  Kent

  874

  1,329

  455

  52·06

  Lancashire

  1,003

  1,180

  177

  17·65

  Leicestershire

  325

  471

  146

  44·92

  Lincolnshire

  425

  485

  60

  14·12

  City of London

  79

  70

  -9

  -11·39

  Merseyside

  1,637

  1,853

  216

  13·19

  Metropolitan Police District

  6,819

  6,842

  23

  0·34

  Norfolk

  361

  467

  106

  29·36

  Northamptonshire

  290

  348

  58

  20·00

  Northumbria

  736

  810

  74

  10·05

  North Yorkshire

  320

  413

  93

  29·06

  Nottinghamshire

  665

  566

  -99

  -14·89

  South Yorkshire

  786

  1,157

  371

  47·20

  Staffordshire

  353

  375

  22

  6·23

  Suffolk

  523

  562

  39

  7·46

  Surrey

  292

  278

  -14

  -4·79

  Sussex

  1,145

  1,235

  90

  7·86

  Thames Valley

  959

  1,082

  123

  12·83

  Warwickshire

  193

  253

  60

  31·09

  West Mercia

  489

  498

  9

  1·84

  West Midlands

  1,551

  1,690

  139

  8·96

  658 659

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  West Yorkshire

  1,627

  2,380

  753

  46·28

  Wiltshire

  295

  424

  129

  43·73

  England

  31,303

  35,823

  4,520

  14·44

  Dyfed-Powys

  228

  258

  30

  13·16

  Gwent

  278

  299

  2

  7·55

  North Wales

  279

  353

  74

  26·52

  South Wales

  727

  737

  10

  1·38

  Wales

  1,512

  1,647

  135

  8·93

  England and Wales

  32,815

  37,470

  4,655

  14·19

  All offences

  Change

  Police force area

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  145,945

  151,267

  5,322

  3·65

  Bedfordshire

  57,910

  56,818

  -1,092

  -1·89

  Cambridgeshire

  50,870

  61,832

  10,962

  21·55

  Cheshire

  58,838

  72,843

  14,005

  23·80

  Cleveland

  75,303

  82,919

  7,616

  10·11

  Cumbria

  39,503

  44,930

  5,427

  13·74

  Derbyshire

  67,656

  83,661

  16,005

  23·66

  Devon and Cornwall

  101,366

  109,567

  8,201

  8·09

  Dorset

  51,018

  51,075

  57

  0·11

  Durham

  60,489

  66,257

  5,768

  9·54

  Essex

  103,154

  114,627

  11,473

  11·12

  Gloucestershire

  46,569

  61,347

  14,778

  31·73

  Greater Manchester

  366,170

  386,375

  20,205

  5·52

  Hampshire

  132,569

  150,979

  18,410

  13·89

  Hertfordshire

  51,141

  58,295

  7,154

  13·99

  Humberside

  110,024

  122,511

  12,487

  11·35

  Kent

  121,108

  151,140

  30,032

  24·80

  Lancashire

  114,634

  127,620

  12,986

  11·33

  Leicestershire

  82,387

  92,688

  10,301

  12·50

  Lincolnshire

  42,840

  46,322

  3,482

  8·13

  City of London

  7,621

  7,296

  -325

  -4·26

  Merseyside

  144,182

  152,651

  8,469

  5·87

  Metropolitan Police District

  881,260

  943,058

  61,798

  7·01

  Norfolk

  58,528

  66,625

  8,097

  13·83

  Northamptonshire

  53,918

  59,133

  5,215

  9·67

  Northumbria

  215,117

  225,649

  10,532

  4·90

  North Yorkshire

  49,037

  54,073

  5,036

  10·27

  Nottinghamshire

  143,873

  158,321

  14,448

  10·04

  South Yorkshire

  115,148

  132,471

  17,323

  15·04

  Staffordshire

  79,470

  90,860

  11,390

  14·33

  Suffolk

  39,148

  43,161

  4,013

  10·25

  Surrey

  47,639

  52,664

  5,025

  10·55

  Sussex

  104,625

  116,564

  11,939

  11·41

  Thames Valley

  169,117

  197,569

  28,452

  16·82

  Warwickshire

  36,697

  42,931

  6,234

  16·99

  West Mercia

  67,225

  78,051

  10,826

  16·10

  West Midlands

  280,061

  317,507

  37,446

  13·37

  West Yorkshire

  267,051

  304,354

  37,303

  13·97

  Wiltshire

  36,989

  41,053

  4,064

  10·99

  England

  4,676,200

  5,177,064

  500,864

  10·71

  Dyfed-Powys

  24,239

  28,969

  4,730

  19·51

  Gwent

  35,420

  40,601

  5,181

  14·63

  North Wales

  41,026

  47,770

  6,744

  16·44

  South Wales

  151,791

  164,975

  13,184

  8·69

  Wales

  252,476

  282,315

  29,839

  11·82

  England and Wales

  4,928,676

  5,459,379

  530,703

  10·77

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing for each police force area in England and Wales and for the
  660
  whole of England and Wales (a) the number of notifiable offences in 1979,(b)the number of notifiable offences in 1991 and(c)the percentage increase.
  661
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: The information requested is contained in the following table:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police force area England and Wales 1979 and 1991 Numbers and percentages

  Police force area

  1979

  1991

  Percentage change

  Avon and Someset

  51,333

  153,770

  199·55

  Bedfordshire

  28,097

  57,121

  103·30

  Cambridgeshire

  24,645

  58,167

  136·02

  Cheshire

  30,396

  66,298

  118·11

  Cleveland

  34,846

  78,053

  123·99

  Cumbria

  19,531

  45,088

  130·85

  Derbyshire

  38,640

  75,636

  95·75

  Devon and Cornwall

  43,480

  108,208

  148·87

  Dorset

  23,260

  51,552

  121·63

  Durham

  27,351

  65,218

  138·45

  Essex

  54,060

  108,427

  100·57

  Gloucestershire

  16,589

  55,980

  237·45

  Greater Manchester

  169,749

  380,809

  124·34

  Hampshire

  66,910

  143,904

  115·07

  Hertfordshire

  38,8001

  55,573

  43·23

  Humberside

  48,195

  118,830

  146·56

  Kent

  55,370

  138,435

  150·02

  Lancashire

  57,105

  122,474

  114·47

  Leicestershire

  30,351

  89,754

  195·72

  Lincolnshire

  17,539

  44,860

  155·77

  City of London

  6,809

  7,575

  11·25

  Merseyside

  108,433

  148,835

  37·26

  Metropolitan Police District

  557,378

  926,203

  66·17

  Norfolk

  22,655

  64,115

  183·01

  Northamptonshire

  22,966

  58,470

  154·59

  Northumbria

  99,512

  226,193

  127·30

  North Yorkshire

  21,887

  51,471

  135·17

  Nottinghamshire

  72,659

  150,551

  107·20

  South Yorkshire

  56,340

  125,559

  122·86

  Staffordshire

  37,952

  86,285

  127·35

  Suffolk

  20,152

  39,924

  98·11

  Surrey

  26,965

  50,083

  85·73

  Sussex

  48,609

  112,203

  130·83

  Thames Valley

  75,740

  187,185

  147·14

  Warwickshire

  13,986

  40,474

  189·39

  West Mercia

  35,088

  74,188

  111·43

  West Midlands

  156,671

  302,864

  93·31

  West Yorkshire

  128,675

  295,479

  129·63

  Wiltshire

  20,545

  39,321

  91·39

  Dyfed-Powys

  11,752

  25,970

  120·98

  Gwent

  20,498

  38,673

  88·67

  North Wales

  23,589

  44,418

  88·30

  South Wales

  71,628

  161,977

  126·14

  England and Wales

  2,536,737

  5,276,173

  107·99

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing for each police force area in England and Wales and for the whole of England and Wales the number of notifiable offences in the 12 months ended(a) March 1990,(b)March 1991 and(c)March 1992, and the percentage increase in each case in the previous year.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area

  All offences

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1988 to March 1989

  April 1989 to March 1990

  Number

  Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  95,830

  104,924

  9,094

  9·49

  Bedfordshire

  38,665

  40,841

  2,176

  5·63

  Cambridgeshire

  33,736

  38,677

  4,941

  14·65

  Cheshire

  47,090

  49,782

  2,692

  5·72

  Cleveland

  58,829

  63,142

  4,313

  7·33

  Cumbria

  26,981

  28,251

  1,270

  4·71

  Derbyshire

  43,724

  51,501

  7,777

  17·79

  Devon and Cornwall

  73,474

  79,074

  5,600

  7·62

  662
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 October 1992]: Information for the 12 months ended March 1990 compared with the previous 12 months is contained in the table. The remaining information is published in table 2 of Bulletin 13/91 and table 2 of Bulletin 2/92; copies of which are available in the Library.

  663

  Change

  Police force area

  April 1988 to March 1989

  April 1989 to March 1990

  Number

  Percentage

  Dorset

  35,413

  42,098

  6,685

  18·88

  Durham

  43,621

  48,283

  4,662

  10·69

  Essex

  71,712

  81,193

  9,481

  13·22

  Gloucestershire

  32,450

  37,477

  5,027

  15·49

  Greater Manchester

  290,036

  301,078

  11,042

  3·81

  Hampshire

  93,376

  103,094

  9,718

  10·41

  Hertfordshire

  41,694

  41,869

  175

  0·42

  Humberside

  84,865

  95,860

  10,995

  12·96

  Kent

  77,721

  88,662

  10,941

  14·08

  Lancashire

  91,856

  96,738

  4,882

  5·31

  Leicestershire

  50,655

  59,029

  8,374

  16·53

  Lincolnshire

  32,293

  35,740

  3,447

  10·67

  City of London

  6,208

  7,203

  995

  16·03

  Merseyside

  138,352

  136,483

  -1,869

  -1·35

  Metropolitan Police District

  716,609

  770,363

  53,754

  7·50

  Norfolk

  42,075

  46,710

  4,635

  11·02

  Northamptonshire

  37,598

  40,884

  3,286

  8·74

  Northumbria

  165,181

  188,185

  23,004

  13·93

  North Yorkshire

  34,233

  37,623

  3,390

  9·90

  Nottinghamshire

  96,916

  112,345

  15,429

  15·92

  South Yorkshire

  88,497

  97,799

  9,302

  10·51

  Staffordshire

  57,155

  62,293

  5,138

  8·99

  Suffolk

  29,749

  33,084

  3,335

  11·21

  Surrey

  31,523

  35,098

  3,575

  11·34

  Sussex

  67,945

  79,430

  11,485

  16·90

  Thames Valley

  109,311

  127,455

  18,144

  16·60

  Warwickshire

  23,263

  26,950

  3,687

  15·85

  West Mercia

  48,507

  55,816

  7,309

  15·07

  West Midlands

  231,141

  237,684

  6,543

  2·83

  West Yorkshire

  177,338

  197,897

  20,559

  11·59

  Wiltshire

  26,483

  28,481

  1,998

  7·54

  England

  3,492,105

  3,809,096

  316,991

  9·08

  Dyfed-Powys

  18,547

  18,113

  -434

  -2·34

  Gwent

  24,511

  26,179

  1,668

  6·81

  North Wales

  34,830

  34,251

  -579

  -1·66

  South Wales

  116,804

  121,865

  5,061

  4·33

  Wales

  194,692

  200,408

  5,716

  2·94

  England and Wales

  3,686,797

  4,009,504

  322,707

  8·75

  664

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

CFC Refrigerants
2.37 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken safely to dispose of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants from government establishments, and whether they plan to use ammonia or other non-CFC refrigerants in future large refrigeration installations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, government departments are taking action to ensure the safe disposal of CFC refrigerants in equipment in their premises in accordance with current legislation, standards and best industrial practice.
Departments are also being encouraged to consider whether CFC-based refrigerant systems need to be retained. We will continue to examine the scope for using alternatives that are acceptable on health and environmental grounds.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Government for that very encouraging reply. Can the Minister say whether we are pressing other EC countries to follow suit?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Viscount is encouraged by my first reply. Yes, we are encouraging other EC countries. The
2
noble Lord may know that in Copenhagen this November we are reviewing the Montreal Protocol to try to bring forward the date for phasing out CFCs.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the accepted replacement for CFCs, which is HCFCs, is now recognised to be just as bad in environmental terms as the CFCs themselves? Can he say why it is that the Government are being so reluctant to look for yet another alternative? Is it because they are being advised solely by the chemical industry and are trying to recover that particular investment?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that HCFCs may cause damage to the ozone layer. It is damage which is considerably less than that caused by CFCs. Therefore we recognise that it is an important transitional substance. I do not deny what the noble Baroness has said. We recognise the need to control the use of HCFCs. The United Kingdom is pushing for strict controls on their consumption to be included in the reviewed protocol.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the matter a little further. Why are the Government refusing to accept the United Nations' suggestion that HCFCs should be phased out by the year 2005 and are insisting on 2020 instead?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is something that will be discussed in the run-up to the review of the protocol in Copenhagen. My understanding is that the United Nations is currently suggesting a phase-out of HCFCs by the year 2020. The Community has not yet decided whether a date should be accepted. I am sure that that will be decided before the meeting in Copenhagen.

Price Marking Order 1991: Consultation
2.41 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to amend the Price Marking Order 1991 (SI 1991/1382).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I am pleased to assure my noble friend that my department will be in a position to discuss the way forward with interested parties very shortly.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this order was declared defective by the Joint Committee on Statutory Affairs as long ago as July 1991? Is she further aware that the delay by the department in amending the order has resulted in two prosecutions; one resulting in a £5,000 fine and the other in a conviction which might cause the loss of a job? Does she not agree that it is time that the description "shortly" is put into effect immediately?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I point out to my noble friend that the law must always be followed as it stands at present. Retailers are aware of that. Therefore, it is for the court to decide the outcome of prosecutions. I stress that I said "very shortly" and not "casually". I am also determined that, given the difficulties of dealing with the concerns within the terms of European Community directives, this time we shall get it right.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister explain why, although in September 1991 the DTI agreed with the British Retail Consortium that the order was unreasonable and/or unclear in certain instances and undertook to produce a consultation document, it has not yet done so? Can the Minister say where the amending order is that was promised to enable sales by auction to be excluded from the pricing provisions as that was promised in July 1991? Why is there such an enormously long delay?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we went out to consultation twice before the last legislation, and we assumed that that consultation would give us the answers from the party involved. On this occasion we have had to go back and look at it again. Although it is important that we do not overregulate, we must protect the consumer in these matters—and the protection of the consumer is best ensured by offering choice.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, but protecting the consumer when the Government undertook to produce a consultation document well over a year ago seems hardly to have been a priority on their part. Why the delay when they have made that promise?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the promise that was made was to come forward with this. I can only repeat my initial statement—that this will come forward very shortly indeed.

Industrial Strategy: Policy
2.43 p.m.
Lord Benson Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have formulated an industrial strategy and, if so, whether it has been recorded in any official publication which acquaints the public with the detailed proposals.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government have a clear industrial strategy. Put simply, it is a long-term commitment to help British industry succeed in world markets. That means creating the climate within which industry can thrive and ensuring that the policies of both the DTI and the rest of government take the needs of business into account. No single publication spells this out in terms of detailed proposals. It is a deep-rooted concern which informs all our decision-making.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer to my Question, but I am bound to say that it has confused me a little about what the situation is. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware that on 7th October the President of the Board of Trade is reported to have said that the Government should have an industrial strategy and gave some details of what he proposed. My question is: is that a private strategy of the President of the Board of Trade, is it one which the Government have discarded or is it one which they propose to adopt?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, obviously the strategy of the President of the Board of Trade is not a private strategy. At the Department of Trade and Industry we are responsible for the future of industry and I can assure your Lordships that that strategy is understood and endorsed by the Government.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not a fact that the industrial strategy of the Government is not to have one?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I said very clearly in my first Answer to this Question that we have a very clear industrial strategy: it is a long-term commitment to help British industry succeed in world markets. I note from previous debates that there has been some question about non-intervention in industry. We will intervene on behalf of industry and we have certainly improved our lines of communica-tion with industry.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am not quite sure to what extent my noble friend's colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are avid readers of your Lordships' proceedings. If they are not, I wonder whether my noble friend will do her utmost to persuade them to read and then to read again the very pointed but short speech that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in your Lordships' House last week.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am delighted to tell the noble Lord that that we have already done.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the words that she read out sound more like a slogan than a strategy and it is a slogan that we have heard with every single change of government policy over the past 13 years? Could she please tell us what are the latest evidences of this "industrial strategy"?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to quote some of the evidence of the success of our past policy. Output has risen since the start of the year. In the 1980s, output growth was the same as that of Germany and faster than that of France or Italy, while productivity grew faster than in any other major industrial country. Since 1981, output is nearly one-quarter higher, investment is one-third higher and productivity is well over one-half higher. If it is a slogan, it must be a pretty effective slogan.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, does the commitment to which the noble Baroness has referred in her Answer extend to the question of training? Given the importance of training to British industry and to the refreshment of our skills base on which our competitiveness depends, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she and her colleagues—both the President of the Board of Trade and those at the Department of Employment—will intervene with the Treasury in the current spending round to make sure that training is not cut?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord knows better than I that we must wait for the Autumn Statement for that answer. Perhaps I may simply say that we at the Department of Trade and Industry work very closely with the Department of Employment and with the Department of Education, because that is where the whole issue starts.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that perhaps the greatest failure of this Government has been their inability to halt the decline in manufacturing industry? As the noble Baroness has mentioned the President of the Board of Trade, does she recall him saying in a speech that he would intervene before every meal every day? Can we not have something more specific about intervention in manufacturing industry as that will certainly be crucial over the next few years?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must, unfortunately, disagree with the noble Lord. The United Kingdom volume share of world trade in manufactures is estimated to have risen over the past three years. Perhaps best evidence of intervention is in his own part of the country where, by leading the fight for inward investment, we have returned to that area of manufacturing which will match the best in the world.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will my noble friend reflect on the history of the past 40 or 50 years in this country which is littered with industrial strategies which have gone quite wrong? Is it not the case that over the past 40 or 50 years governments of all parties have proved much more successful in
6
identifying sunset industries and pouring billions of pounds of taxpayers' money into them than in identifying the sunrise industries which have proved the basis for our success in manufacturing output in this country?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to agree with my noble friend. It is important that we are at the beginning of the cycle, not at the end.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, has raised a crucial issue? There is a widening debate on the question of industrial strategy. Today in Harrogate the CBI is talking about this issue with four Ministers present. Would it not be desirable from the public's point of view if in due course the Government were to prepare a White Paper on all the issues which are now arising in connection with industrial strategy?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a good point in that the CBI is indeed meeting today and will be addressed by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade tomorrow. I shall certainly convey the noble Lord's remarks, but what is really important is that we keep working closely with industry to encourage growth.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness understand that the nearly 3 million unemployed people in this country are not a bit impressed with what she has just said about there being an industrial strategy because they know it is not true? Can we expect therefore on Thursday, when the Chancellor speaks, to hear about an industrial strategy?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I would simply repeat that I cannot go ahead of the Autumn Statement.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, without anticipating the Autumn Statement, is my noble friend in a position to comment in any way on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, on 4th November, which commanded respect and attention from many noble Lords in the House?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to say that there was much in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, with which all of us at the DTI absolutely agreed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the Government clearly—
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, surely the—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think that we have time for both noble Lords' questions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the Government clearly do not have an industrial strategy, may I recommend that they now dust down the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade of 1985 which proposed an industrial

7
strategy which is just as relevant today as it was then? That would help the Government very much. May I recommend that the Government do that?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his recommendation but I would say that we in government firmly believe that the world has moved well forward since 1985.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, surely the relevant question is not what is the Government's policy but what are they doing about implementing it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I shall restrict my answers to what the DTI is doing about implementing it, which includes opening up markets, removing barriers to trade, providing the best possible service to exporters, making constant efforts to attract inward investment, encouraging wealth-creating exploitation of publicly financed research and development, restructuring our department so that we are closer to industry and encouraging industrial secondees to join us so that the conversations are absolutely relevant.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have been most impressed by the replies of the noble Baroness. We have made enormous advances in production, the economy is booming and the Government have done marvellous work. Can she explain why this has led to our being £15 billion in the red in the balance of payments?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do know always to be nervous when praised. We can still have growth in manufacturing industry. We can see enormous growth and improvement while still not having yet solved our balance of payments problems which must be high on our list of priorities.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that it is not enough just to read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Benson? It is important to digest it, which clearly the department has not done. Is she not aware that what she has told the House today bears little relationship to the reality that surrounds the lives of some 3 million unemployed? Is she not aware that under her Government's tutelage we have lost 4 per cent. of our output, 7 per cent. of our manufacturing industry, 11 per cent. of our engineering industry and 30 per cent. of investment in manufacturing industry? Is that a record of which she can be seriously proud?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, had the noble Lord asked his question earlier I would have quoted some of the changes in Germany. There has been restructuring of industry throughout the world. Unemployment is a major issue. Productivity makes companies competitive. We have to live with that fact and we must make sure that it is dealt with. Perhaps I may say as a final remark on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, that we believe that his suggestion that we should behave like a football manager and manage from the side is something that we are already doing.

House of Lords: Members' Interests
2.58 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked the Leader of the House:
Whether it would be desirable to introduce a register of Members' interests into the House of Lords, and if so, whether he will suggest this to the Procedure Committee.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the Procedure Committee has examined the issue of Lords' interests on a number of occasions in the past, most notably when a sub-committee looked at the whole matter of 1974. While successively clarifying the guidance in the Companion, the committee has concluded that a register of interests should not be established. Since the committee last considered the matter as recently as 1990, I am not myself sure that there would be much to be gained from returning to the subject at the moment.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the 18 years that have passed since this matter was last considered in detail a number of institutions in this country have been undermined by real misbehaviour and scandal in some cases and in other cases by mere innuendo, often falsely based and malicious? Are there not two alternative defences to innuendo? One is privacy and secrecy and the other is transparency. Is not transparency by far the better approach?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, in his supplementary question my noble friend phrased some points with which I would not wish to disagree. However, I do not think that they address the Question on the Order Paper, which is whether or not we should have a register. The position in this House has been discussed many times before. It has always been accepted that noble Lords speak on their personal honour. It follows that a noble Lord should voluntarily declare any financial or other interest that he may have before speaking. As the House has no power to enforce compulsory declaration, I am unsure what a voluntary register would add to the current rules. However, I am sure that it is open to my noble friend to place the matter before the Procedure Committee. If he thinks that he ought to do so, I suggest that he sends the committee a memorandum.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that parliamentary colleagues in another place are in fact obliged to subscribe to a register of interests, whereas we, as the noble Lord has just said, are not so obliged and treat it as a matter of personal honour? Is there any significance in that, especially as this House deals with more or less the same subjects?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, there is a significant difference but it is not as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested. The fundamental difference is that this House has none of the sanctions available in the other place to ensure compliance with a register. The powers of the other place include the expulsion of Members on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. In contrast, it has

9
always been accepted that this House cannot override the right of your Lordships to speak and to vote provided by the Writ of Summons. That is the important difference in the procedures between the two Houses.
Of course, there are a number of other differences; for example, Members of your Lordships' House are not in the same position as Members of another place, or indeed as members of local authorities. The financial privileges of the other place mean that this House has few powers over the public purse and, unlike local authorities, it awards no contracts. It is the fundamental difference between the Writ of Summons and the powers of the House of Commons. If we wanted to change the position, it would require legislation and not a register.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the matter has been exhaustively considered on quite a number of occasions and that no evidence of any kind has been produced of any abuse which would be remedied by a register? Therefore, I suggest to my noble friend that we should leave the matter alone.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend has infinitely longer experience on such matters than me. However, when I was preparing myself to answer the Question I recognised the fact that the matter has been looked into a great deal. I can see no argument for changing the present arrangements.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us wish that we had something to declare? Is he also aware that on these Benches some years ago (when I was the Liberal Party Chief Whip) we introduced a voluntary system for people wishing to make a declaration which was very much in line with the system in the House of Commons? A register was produced, but over a period of about four or five years no one ever came to look at it. So we stopped doing it.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord thus far. Certainly when I was in another place, I always found that if I had an interest to declare I was most anxious to do so because it seemed to me that, if I had some interest in the matter, I might be able to persuade the House that I knew something of what I was talking about. Of course, it is not correct for a Member of your Lordships' House to fail to declare before he speaks any financial or other interests that he has. That is the procedure. It is a voluntary procedure but it is still an important procedure and one to which I think the House would expect your Lordships to stick. It is the question of whether or not to make it compulsory. I am advised that that would require legislation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that there has been some decline of public confidence in the probity of finance in this country over the past year or so, and that there may be a case for putting the matter to the House so that the House can decide on a free vote whether or not voluntarily to adopt a procedure which
10
would give the public confidence in the transparent honesty of the House in which so many of your Lordships have been expressing their confidence?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the House is perfectly entitled to do so. However, I believe it is right that I should point out once again to your Lordships that it would not have any binding force upon Members of the House whose right to speak in the Chamber is as a result of the Writ of Summons. It would require legislation to change the position and not a resolution of the House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble friend really think that having a voluntary register of Members' interests goes against the way that the House is set up and the legal position? It seems to me that the public will not think very well of a House which operates on its behalf and which has an arrangement that requires it by honour to say what are its interests and not to go any further. Sometimes we need to check up on our colleagues to see whether or not they have told us the whole story. I cannot see that there is anything wrong in your Lordships having a voluntary register.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the point that I was seeking to make is that a voluntary register does not, in my view, add anything to the present position. There is a voluntary code. It is expected that Members of this House will follow it. A person who wishes, so to speak, to cheat on that is just as likely not to put something in a voluntary register as not to declare it at the time of speaking.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, the matter has not been "exhaustively" raised before the Procedure Committee; indeed, when I questioned the issue in June 1989, I discovered, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, that it was last properly examined in 1974. It has never been thoroughly examined since then. However, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has indicated that a memorandum could be submitted to the Procedure Committee. That was also suggested to me in June 1989. Do I take it that its feasibility will be examined?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I suggest that what is exhaustive is a subjective matter rather than an objective test of anything. It is possible that the powers of endurance of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, are greater than those of others and, therefore, he does not think that the matter has been fully exhausted. However, as regards putting the matter before the Procedure Committee, certainly any noble Lord who wishes may do so. In so far as I have any influence with that committee, I would expect it to look seriously at the matter. Of course, it is primarily a matter for the committee, but I would certainly encourage those concerned to do so.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, on the question of voluntarism which seems to be worrying him, does my noble friend agree that the system has worked well in the other place, although in a sense it was voluntary because Mr. Enoch Powell always chose not to

11
comply with it? However, he was an exception and an exception that was accepted. Would he further agree that the most effective pressure for compliance in such matters, and perhaps especially in this Chamber, is peer pressure?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I agree that that is an important pressure. However, I think that my noble friend overlooks the difference between this and another place. The other place has powers which include the expulsion of Members on the recommen-dation of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. That is a powerful sanction.

Business of the House
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Viscount Caldecote and the Lord Elton set down for 11th November shall each be limited to two and a half hours. —(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) (No. 2) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before your Lordships' House is an important one and, as noble Lords who attend the proceedings will discover, a very technical measure, the purpose of which is to improve the administration of the law on bankruptcy in Scotland in a manner that secures greater value for money for the taxpayer.
It is an amending Bill. It proceeds by textual amendment to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The 1985 Act, based on a report by the Scottish Law Commission, brought about much needed changes in the law of bankruptcy. It established some important principles which the Bill now seeks to build upon. The 1985 Act established for the first time an obligation on the state to finance the administration of sequestra-tions where there were insufficient assets in the sequestrated debtor's estate to cover the cost.
Another important reform introduced in the 1985 Act was the requirement that an interim trustee be appointed in every sequestration to investigate the debtor's affairs and protect his estate until such time as the creditors elect a permanent trustee, or the court appoints one, to realise the assets. These trustees are private sector insolvency practitioners whose services must be paid for. The remuneration and costs of the trustee have first call on the funds realised from the sale of the debtor's assets. However, where there is a
12
shortfall between the costs and income, it is the taxpayer, through the office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, who foots the bill.
Unfortunately the 1985 Act contained a flaw. It did not provide an adequate means for the control of the public expenditure involved and for ensuring that the service provided was cost effective and represented good value for money. It is an understandable omission when one considers that at the time the Act was passed it was anticipated by all concerned that the number of cases each year which would have to be funded by the state would only amount to some 200 or so.
However, since the 1985 Act was enacted the position has turned out to be substantially different from that originally anticipated. The cost to the taxpayer in paying the fees and outlays of the insolvency practitioners administering sequestrations has risen from £13,000 in 1986 to £18.5 million in 1991. If the historical trends in the volume of sequestrations continued, this cost could rise to £50 million by 1993–94. That is clearly an excessive amount of public money to spend on a system which does not at the end of the day provide creditors with any form of dividend for their debts. I believe it is widely recognised that the present system cannot be allowed to continue.
Lying behind the growth in expenditure has been a substantial growth in the number of sequestrations from 560 in 1986 to some 8,584 in 1991–92; on an annual basis, an average rate of growth of 74 per cent. In the great majority of these sequestrations—some 80 per cent. or so —the debtor has no realisable assets. The petition for the sequestration is not brought by any creditor—why should he when he has so little to gain? Rather it is brought by the trustee appointed under a voluntary trust deed signed by the debtor and entirely on the debtor's behalf. Such petitions accounted for 87 per cent. of all sequestrations last year. Sequestration, rather than being a process by which creditors can obtain access to the debtor's assets to recover the sums owed to them, has developed as a means of relieving debtors from the burden of their debts.
It is quite clear when one examines the report of the Scottish Law Commission and the 1985 Act that there was a clear intention to strike a balance in the law between the interests of creditors and debtors. To that end the procedures in the 1985 Act envisaged a closer involvement by creditors in the process, to the extent that the Act only allows a debtor to bring his own petition for sequestration with the agreement of a qualifying creditor.
There is a very real concern among creditor bodies that, in practice, the balance which the Law Commission sought to achieve has swung entirely over to the debtor. This gives rise to real anxiety and brings the operation of the present procedures into disrepute. The Bill before your Lordships' House attempts to deal with these concerns in a number of ways.
First, it extends the present role of the accountant in bankruptcy from supervising and paying the bills of insolvency practitioners to taking on a more active

13
and direct responsibility for administering sequestra-tions where there is likely to be a call on public funds. Secondly, it introduces new summary procedures to simplify the administration of cases where there are few assets. Thirdly, it revises the rules on who may bring petitions for sequestration to restore some of the balance lost in the present system.
Turning first to the new role of the accountant in bankruptcy, in the future he will be appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. In addition to his present task of supervising the conduct of sequestrations, he will be appointed interim or permanent trustee in cases where no private sector insolvency practitioner has been nominated by the petitioner. In practice, this is likely to mean that the accountant will act as trustee in cases where there are insufficient assets to finance the administration of the sequestration. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill are relevant here. Where there are sufficient assets, then I believe the work should be done by the private sector as now. The Bill provides for this.
Where he is appointed trustee, the accountant in bankruptcy will have the option of either administer-ing the case in-house with his own staff, or by employing agents to undertake the work. Such agents would usually be qualified insolvency practitioners. As my ministerial colleagues have made clear during the debates on the Bill in another place, it is the Government's intention to subject the conduct of sequestrations to a process of market testing. In that way we can determine whether the service can be provided more cost effectively through the public sector or through the private sector.
Market testing will also allow us to introduce a much needed dose of competition into the process to ensure that the service operates efficiently and provides value for money to the taxpayer. The Government are at present engaged in a dialogue with the relevant professional bodies over how the market testing exercise should be organised.
Secondly, it is widely recognised that the present block fee paid to insolvency practitioners, at £2,147 per case, is too high. Even the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, which represents the majority of insolvency practitioners undertaking this work, acknowledges this fact and has been prepared to work with the Government and the accountant in bankruptcy to find ways to reduce the cost.
One of the most significant ways in which costs can be reduced is to introduce simpler procedures for cases where there are few assets and little likelihood that creditors will receive any dividend. The present 1985 Act in effect treats all sequestrations equally, irrespective of the assets involved. The Bill seeks to amend that by introducing a new summary procedure which provides the permanent trustee with the discretion to tailor the administration of the case to its specific circumstances.
Under the Bill the accountant in bankruptcy, or other interim trustee, may apply to the court for a certificate of what is described as summary administration where the assets involved are less than £2,000 and the liabilities below £20,000. The procedures and effects are set out in Clause 6 of the
14
Bill. When such a certificate has been granted, the permanent trustee need only comply with certain of the requirements in the 1985 Act to the extent that he considers it would be to the financial benefit of the estate and in the interests of creditors. He retains all his powers, but may now choose to exercise them more selectively. This simplification, coupled with other procedural changes, such as allowing the accountant in bankruptcy the possibility of dispensing with the statutory meeting of creditors, will allow the cost of administering summary cases to be sharply reduced.
The accountant in bankruptcy estimates a cost of around £400 for a typical summary case. Following discussions with the Government over the summer, some insolvency practitioners, I understand, believe a summary case might be dealt with for around £550, plus outlays. Obviously more complex cases would cost proportionally more. In any event, these figures represent a great improvement on the present position. Taken together I believe these measures should enable the Government to achieve savings of around 75 per cent. of the costs which would otherwise arise in administering the present regime.
I also referred earlier to the Bill as introducing changes in the rules on who may bring a petition for sequestration. That is the third strand to which I now turn. The key provisions affecting these matters are set out in Clauses 3 and 4. At present, as I have said, the majority of petitions for sequestration of a debtor are brought by a trustee under a trust deed. The Scottish Law Commission saw value in encouraging the greater use of voluntary trust deeds whereby a debtor transfers his assets to a trustee for the benefit of his creditors. Trust deeds are both potentially more flexible and less formal than sequestration. To that end the 1985 Act contained a number of provisions relating to them.
The Commission also recognised that such trust deeds may not always work out in the way originally intended. For that reason the 1985 Act provides a right for the trustee to petition for the sequestration of the debtor's estate. It is clear from its report that the Commission envisaged such a right being exercised where the debtor was refusing to co-operate with the trustee or where there had been a change in circumstances which meant it was in the creditor's interests to move to sequestration.
However, that is not the way the law now operates in practice. Instead the present pattern is that a debtor is referred to an insolvency practitioner and signs a trust deed appointing the practitioner as trustee. The practitioner then moves immediately to petition for the debtor's sequestration and for his own appoint-ment as interim trustee, thus guaranteeing the trustee access to the block fee paid by the accountant in bankruptcy for administering the sequestration.
No attempt at all is made to administer the trust deed. It is merely a device to allow the debtor access to sequestration without the involvement of his creditors. Had it been Parliament's intention to have allowed debtors such access, then it would have been apparent on the face of the 1985 Act. That was clearly never the intention and the use of this device has meant that trust deeds have not developed in the way

15
intended. It introduces a degree of confusion as to whether the trustee is acting in the interest of the creditors or of the debtors. It has also brought the sequestration process into disrepute among creditors.
The Bill deals with that problem by placing restrictions on a trustee's right to petition for sequestration. He now may only do so where the debtor is being unco-operative or where he can satisfy the court that sequestration is in the interest of creditors. At the same time the Government recognise that things have indeed moved on since the passage of the 1985 Act and that it is no longer sufficient to rely on the possibility of a creditor concurring with the debtor before a petition for sequestration may be brought. The Bill therefore provides a debtor with the right to bring his own petition but in certain prescribed circumstances thus providing a degree of protection for the creditors.
Before a debtor can bring his petition, he must have debts in excess of £1,500; he must not have been sequestrated in the past five years and either he must be apparently insolvent or have attempted to establish a protected trust deed which his creditors have rejected. These rules are set out in Clause 3 of the Bill.
Apparent insolvency is a concept well understood in the courts and is an objective and public demonstration of the debtor's financial difficulties. It is defined in Section 7 of the 1985 Act. It is also the basis upon which a creditor may bring a petition for sequestration. For the purpose of a debtor petition we have excluded the grounds that the debtor has signed a trust deed or a trade debtor has sent a notice to his creditors that he has ceased to pay his debts. To have retained these would have meant that a debtor could have simply declared himself insolvent without any requirement to prove his financial position and thereby gain access to sequestration. Thus where a creditor has taken action to enforce the payment of his debt or the debtor has tried to convert a voluntary arrangement into a protected trust deed which has been rejected by his creditors, then the debtor may have access to sequestration. I believe this arrangement strikes the right balance between the interests of debtor and creditors.
The remaining provisions in the Bill largely give effect to those policy requirements. At the same time we have taken the opportunity to introduce a number of technical amendments to the 1985 Act to reflect experience in operating its provisions. Many of these changes which are contained in Schedule 1 reflect suggestions put forward by the professional bodies most involved in this field. Certain of the provisions will come into force on Royal Assent as set out in Clause 12, primarily to allow a smoother transition from the present regime to the new arrangements. However, generally speaking, the provisions of the Bill will not apply to any sequestration where the petition is presented to the court before commencement of those provisions, apart from two technical provisions in paragraphs 22 and 30 of Schedule 1.
The Bill comes before your Lordships after full and detailed examination in another place. During its consideration there it was amended in a number of
16
important ways to reflect the comments which the Government have received since the Bill was first published. The Government have amply demonstrat-ed their willingness to listen to constructive criticism and the Bill is much improved as a result.
The need for change is self-evident. The present bankruptcy regime is incurring costs to the taxpayer of around £2 million each month to operate. Such expenditure cannot be justified particularly at a time when there is a paramount need to control public expenditure. The Government are therefore keen to see the reforms in the Bill brought in at the earliest opportunity. Subject to the approval of your Lordships to the Bill and with the co-operation of the professional bodies most concerned, I would hope that we could begin to see some of the benefits of the Bill flowing through from 1st April 1993. The Bill will achieve a useful and much needed reform of bankruptcy law in Scotland. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I happened to read in a well-known organ of Conservative truth yesterday the following pronouncement.
"In Roman times a bankrupt's body was cut up and distributed in direct proportion to what he owed—the origins of the phrase 'a pound of flesh'. Today's creditors can be almost as unforgiving".
Having heard the noble and learned Lord speak today, I wonder whether in attempting to balance an imbalance he has created an imbalance on the other side in favour of creditors.
As the noble and learned Lord has said, this Bill comes before your Lordships' House having received considerable scrutiny and criticism in another place. However, the Bill is still in an unsatisfactory state. On this side of the House it is readily recognised that the working of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 was in need of revision as it had not achieved the aims of those who framed it. It is also recognised that there has to be a balancing act between all those with an interest in the bankruptcy law and proceedings.
It goes without saying that no one in his senses wishes to become involved in such proceedings. From the way that the Minister talked one had the impression that it was almost as if people wanted to get themselves sequestrated. No one wishes to become involved in such proceedings because by definition bankruptcy reflects failure in the financial field whether it be corporate or personal. Bankruptcy is also a miserable state of affairs for the debtor and the creditor. I accept that in most cases the creditor loses out. However, on the other hand, the debtor has the restricting label of "bankrupt" put upon him with the handicaps that flow from that which last for a period of three years.
It is plain that those responsible for the 1985 Act, particularly those responsible for forecasting the effects and costs of that Act, have been proved to be seriously wrong as regards their expectations on the cost to the taxpayer who has had to foot the bill for a very expensive exercise. However, to be fair, that is not

17
necessarily the fault of the forecasters. The economic thunderstorms which have covered this country over a long period of time during this Government's Administration have engulfed people in financial distress. The figures that were produced in support of the 1985 Act have become meaningless.
What has happened is that bankruptcy has become a growth industry for insolvency practitioners. That is not necessarily their fault either. Social and financial conditions must have contributed hugely to the rise in the number of bankruptcy proceedings. The easy acquisition of credit in the Government's so-called happy days of the 1980s, allied to the rising unemployment now being suffered under this Government and the tightening of credit by the banks have all contributed to the rise in sequestrations from 560 in 1986 to 8,584 in 1991–92.
The upward trend shows no sign of declining in the present economic climate in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's famous green shoots are in danger of disappearing up their own terms of reference. The cost of bankruptcy to the taxpayer has risen with the number of bankruptcies from £13,000 in 1986 to £18.5 million in 1991. As the noble and learned Lord has said, if this trend continues, the cost is forecast to rise to over £80 million in 1994–95. There has, of course, as the noble and learned Lord has outlined, been a rush to appoint a trustee on the part of the debtor. I accept that in so doing in one sense the debtor is beating the creditor to the draw. That fact is reflected in the figures which the noble and learned Lord has given.
The millions of pounds expended at the cost of the taxpayer to date, and forecast for the future, clearly indicate that the Act needs to be reviewed and revised. When it is alleged that one firm in 1991 alone earned £3.427 million, another £2.2 million and yet another £1.9 million from these painful and wretched insolvency proceedings then clearly something has gone badly wrong. It is not in the public interest at times of stringency that such sums should be going from the taxpayer to swell the profits of such practitioners at such a level of remuneration.
As I have said, the blame does not lie entirely with the practitioners because they were awarded a negotiated block fee of £2,147 when it was never anticipated that the number of sequestrations would reach the present level. As I understand it, the Institute of Chartered Accountants has recognised that a reduction in the fees would be appropriate. It has suggested a scheme which would result in a 50 per cent. cut in costs, and for small asset cases has suggested that a fee of £800 might be appropriate.
The Government have been asked in another place what is the position in regard to those suggestions made by the institute. So far as I am aware the response has been negative, and the Bill has gone ahead. The Bill has all the hallmarks of creating a bureaucratic machine which, if it is not itself controlled, may be no better for the Exchequer and the taxpayer. I endorse the suggestion that there should be at least an experiment, with the co-operation of insolvency practitioners, to analyse the effect of applying the proposed fees over a six month period.
18
A great deal of anxiety has been expressed about the Government's failure to consult with the appropriate parties before the Bill was produced out of the draftsman's hat. I should like the Minister to tell your Lordships' House what consultation took place, for example with the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Law Society of Scotland, before the Bill was produced. Equally, what consultation has taken place since the Bill has been in another place? On the other hand, is it perhaps the Government's view that in this particular field consultation with interested and concerned parties was and still is inappropriate and that the Bill must go ahead without such consultation? It is recognised that the Government's efforts are designed to make some constructive changes which will, if operated properly, streamline some of the processes in the bankruptcy field. However, it is also asserted that the failure to consult has been a major omission on the part of the Government and that in the absence of such consultation there is no reason to assume that this Bill will be any more cost effective and will save costs any more than the 1985 Bill.
I do not pretend to be an expert, to any significant extent, on the law of bankruptcy, which has become a very specialised field. Nevertheless, I am able to conclude that the Bill has been rushed through, in the main to stop the number of applications being put through the trust deed process, to reduce the cost to the taxpayer and to cut down the profit to the insolvency practitioners. I suggest with respect to the Government that, in view of the constructive attitude which has been adopted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Government should take time to consider whether the present system could not be operated reasonably now that it has been agreed that the old block payment will in effect be reduced.
If the objective of the Bill is to change the present legislation in order to reduce reasonable access to sequestration, does that mean that many people who would wish to be sequestrated will not achieve that objective because the Government are creating a creditor-led Bill? The debtor has a right to apply for his own sequestration, but it is ring fenced with all kinds of conditions and if he cannot get round those conditions he will never be sequestrated and will have to live in the misery which lack of finance produces.
The Government have indicated that the concept of the simple trust deed has now disappeared. One of the important aspects on which the Bill is silent is the question of to whom the person requiring financial advice should go. Once he is in the hands of the accountant in bankruptcy he is in a financial no man's land as it has been made clear in the other place that it is no part of the function of the accountant in bankruptcy to give advice nor is it the function, by definition, of his agents. It has been said on behalf of the Government in another place that the accountant, in employing agents in rural areas, will:
"appoint practitioners in the more remote rural areas and in many other parts of Scotland as his agent, in order to ensure that a good quality of service is provided to debtors". — [Official Report, Commons, 17/6/92; col. 946.]
That completely begs the question. The Minister who made that statement clearly did not understand

19
what he was saying, because the agent is there to do the work of the accountant in bankruptcy and not to provide a good quality of service and advice to the person who is in financial trouble. I ask the Government what service they envisage the agent of the accountant in bankruptcy could give to a debtor who faces potential sequestration. Indeed, in the same debate the Secretary of State for Scotland stated that the accountant in bankruptcy did not have the role of tendering advice and had no right to do so. The burden for that operation falls on money advice centres, citizens' advice bureaux and solicitors, with legal aid.
The Bill is silent on the question of legal aid. Certainly, under the advice and assistance scheme limited access is made available to legal advice. However, the right to full legal aid depends upon a form of means test and will not necessarily be available to all persons contemplating sequestration because they may have substantial assets which are not yet realised. The granting of legal aid is not necessarily a swift process. In sequestrations time is often of the essence so far as concerns both the debtor and the creditor. The Government should look at the issue of structured advice being made available within the context of the Bill before the debtor resorts to the processes under the supervision of the accountant in bankruptcy.
In approaching this difficult field, the Government have said that it will be market tested, with the private sector having an opportunity to undertake the work, when it can be done, in a cost-effective manner. We are to have a stronger dose of competition, a contracting out to insolvency practitioners to ensure that value for money and quality of service are assured. Those words have the echo of the DTI behind them.
That may or may not be wishful thinking. What is to be the test of value for money? Is the contracting out to be a form of tender for individual cases, is it to be for an area or for a period of time? How is the quality of service to be tested? Who will monitor the testers? Is the cheapest offer to be accepted? That indicates that the Government have not paid any attention to the suggestion of the Institute of Chartered Accountants that it can put its house in order and give the same service, without the setting up of a unit of government the size and cost of which cannot be determined because the increase in bankruptcies cannot accurately be gauged on present information and as the 1985 situation has demonstrated. It also indicates once more why the Government should stand back.
The Government promised to publish a guide and to assist advice bureaux on alternatives to sequestra-tion. That is all very well, but why not go to the experts and consult them in a positive way? I do not suggest for one moment that experts always get it right, any more than governments and draftsmen, but it is folly not to take their views into account.
This is a Bill which on the one hand virtually nationalises the area of bankruptcy and on the other then puts it out to privatisation, with the farming out
20
of work to insolvency practitioners who are already doing the work, albeit that they previously did so at a high rate of profit.
Before that step is taken talks should be held with all the agencies which have acquired expertise over the years since 1985. Accountants are not the only ones involved. Many other associations are involved, and my noble friend Lord Carmichael will speak on that aspect in his winding up speech.
Can the Government state whether the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Society of Scotland were ever consulted on the draft Bill, or at any time after it was contemplated that it was to be introduced? Can they say, if legal aid is to be made available, what effect the passing of the Bill will have on a legal aid fund which is already under scrutiny and strain and will increasingly be so as savings are made? The assumption that lawyers will undertake this type of work under the legal aid scheme must be looked at carefully in the light of the fact that more and more firms are no longer doing legal aid work. That is not because of greed or lack of interest but because it is no longer economically viable for them to do so and to run a firm, with all that that involves in terms of staff costs and so on. The burden will fall once more on the voluntary agencies, who will need support.
If saving money is the object of the exercise, along with more efficient procedures, then an attempt should be made to make the process simpler and cheaper for the debtor wishing to present a petition for sequestration. The creditor obviously has rights and is entitled to recover his debt. But that does not mean that he should be able to dictate what happens to the debtor. That is what this Bill does.
I suggest that consideration should be given within the Bill to the formation of debt arrangement schemes which would enable the debtor and the creditor to come to an arrangement, short of bankruptcy, satisfactory to both parties involved in the procedure. That has the advantage that the person is not declared bankrupt, can keep his job and obtain credit. It is not often that I quote twice from the Sunday Express. In an article yesterday it says—I have checked it in Part VIII of the Act:
"The 1986 Insolvency Act, applying in only England and Wales, redefined bankruptcy and provided a legal framework for voluntary arrangments".
The article continues:
"Creditors and debtors hold 'round table talks' to thrash out a repayment system. An insolvency practitioner—typically an accountant qualified in insolvency—acts as go-between … Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs) provide the chance to reschedule debts, usually over three to five years".
They appear to be quite successful, although some people cannot cope with the conditions applied. It is however something worth thinking about.
It is important also to remember that in almost all cases where bankruptcy looms, the debt is already established and probably in most cases accepted. The process should be a supervisory one to encourage the settlement of the debt, assist the avoidance of bankruptcy and look after the interests of the debtor, creditor and taxpayer.
In closing, I emphasise that this is not a purely financial issue. It is a grave social issue involving many

21
people who set out with the best of intentions to make a success of their lives but who have been caught up in the recession. They over-committed themselves in the boom days and for them life in the economic sense has come to a juddering halt. Their misfortune is reflected in the situation of the creditor who was content to grant credit when the financial world seemed secure. The creditor who is chasing the debtor may well become the next debtor if proper arrangements are not made to ensure that he can be paid. The approach in this Bill will not do that.
The provisions in the Bill are completely lacking in a social approach to these difficult problems and have about them a clinical air. They are not conducive to solving the many problems which arise. As I said, the Government must not assume that solicitors and voluntary agencies will be either willing or able to cope with the situation. The Government must, even now, consider whether they have not gone too fast too soon and ignored advice given to them.
This is a difficult and complicated area of the law, which not many people understand. It was perhaps that monopoly of interest and experience of sequestrations on the part of certain firms which led to their being accused of "gravy train" practice. I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that insolvency practitioners in general took the easy way out with the minimum of effort and the maximum of financial return, as seems to be part of the reasoning behind the Bill.
The monitoring of conduct, as opposed to actual cost, is an entirely different matter. Monitoring cost is relatively easy. Anecdotal assassination of a profes-sion is easy to do but does not get to the heart of the problems. It is important that there should be a workable, efficient and cost-effective system of dealing with these matters. This Bill does not guarantee to achieve that aim.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am not a lawyer and not a bankrupt, although there have been times in my life in the bad years when bankruptcy has loomed over me. This Bill has perturbed that excellent body, the Citizens Advice Scotland, and also the Consumer Council. I should like to say a few words on their behalf.
I was struck by the figures produced by the citizens advice bureaux that in Scotland they dealt with 278,000 inquiries concerning money advice, 81,000 of which involved the negotiation of debt with creditors. The citizens advice bureaux do a tremendous job. They have 1,600 advice workers, only 11 of whom are full-time paid workers. One can imagine the amount of work they do.
Most people who come to them for advice have got themselves into such a mess that they are totally unable to think clearly. The advisers sit down and go through the debts one at a time and try to assess income. They have to deal with people who consider it necessary to spend £25 a week on cigarettes and who have all kinds of extraordinary spending habits. The advisers have to try to do an educational job. The Government might well consider their point of view.
22
Of the 81,000 cases examined, eventually some 2,000 were sent to insolvency practitioners, who I understand charge a great deal of money. It costs the state, alas, a great deal of money. Of those cases, 75 per cent. were sequestrated. The bureaux are extremely worried that numbers will increase because unemployment is still increasing. The number of cases of personal insolvency will therefore increase. If there is nobody ultimately to judge on those cases they cannot possibly help, it becomes extremely worrying.
The Government could do everything they are setting out to do by the simple act of passing into law Clause 9, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations determining the remuneration paid to trustees. The noble and learned Lord has already said that there are indications that the amounts in simple bankruptcies could be reduced enormously and that there is no need for the very large statutory fee to be paid in those simple cases.
I have little more to say on this subject. Those good advisers are worried. I should like to know what the Government think of their complaint and why they should not simply leave matters as they stand and produce Clause 9 which enables them to fix the amount of money that the insolvency practitioners receive. That seems to me to be a solution about which the Government might well think.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, quite rightly drew attention to the point of view expressed by the citizens advice bureaux, which have great personal experience of the problems of individual people who get into debt. I am sure that we shall hear from my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser that he has been in touch with the citizens advice bureaux. I know that he and I attended the annual meeting of our local citizens advice bureau during the summer and this matter was discussed at that meeting. Now that the Bill has come to this House, I shall be interested to see how the bureaux view it.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that I do not believe that this Bill should be seen simply as brought about by the pressures of recession. As we heard in the debate, the figures show that every year since 1985, when the previous legislation was introduced, when the economy in Scotland was growing and corporate bankruptcies were not increasing, the number of sequestrations as a whole increased rapidly and so did their cost. We have heard the figures. All the evidence indicates that if matters are left as they are that trend will continue into the future. Matters will become more and more out of hand.
Something must be done because of the way that the use of the 1895 legislation has developed. I remember its passage through the House. When it became law, Parliament saw the new sequestration procedures mainly as a way of helping creditors: a threat hanging over the heads of debtors which would help creditors to obtain their money. What has occurred is very different.

23
The pressures seem to have come from two directions. First, the various agencies, such as the citizens advice bureaux, to which people go for advice when they get into debt have realised that for a growing number of individuals who have no assets, or very few assets apart from earned income, to opt out from bankruptcy can have positive advantages. Because it is often not easy to prove that a person has so-called "free" income that can be spared to pay creditors, and there is no simple cost-effective way for the court to require a reasonable sum to be handed over, the debtor can be, and often is, virtually untouched. No fee is payable to start the sequestration process; and the creditors simply lose out. The debt advice agencies have increasingly been advising that course. That is one reason for the massive increase in the number of sequestrations.
The other pressure is that the insolvency practitioners, the professionals, have found that there is good money to be made from helping people through the process. My noble friend has told us that the fee is over £2,000 a time. Therefore those professionals, not unnaturally, have taken to marketing their services. That too has increased the number of sequestrations.
The way in which the service has been marketed has reduced the sense of stigma attached to bankruptcy. I am not sure whether that is a good or bad thing. However, that has occurred. One advertisement financed by a firm of accountants refers to,
"Voluntary Bankruptcy. If you are in serious debt, going bankrupt may be the way out of trouble".
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, complained that it is a creditor-led Bill. However, the people who suffer as a result of the current pressures are the creditors, many of whom are people who run very small businesses and have difficulty in withstanding those pressures. They may well receive little or nothing because of the debtor opting for sequestration. There is no simple, inexpensive way for them to challenge the appropriateness of sequestration in a particular case. As has been mentioned, some debtors may lose out too by being persuaded that voluntary sequestration is the best way for them. They may not appreciate that as a result in future it might be harder for them to obtain credit.
The Bill attempts to streamline the procedure and so reduce the cost. It seeks to redress the balance of advantage somewhat in favour of those to whom money is owed. For that reason, the Consumer Credit Association of the United Kingdom, which represents almost 1,000 independent credit providers, and other similar organisations welcome the Bill. However, they have some anxieties. In another place, my own Member of Parliament, my honourable friend the Member for Tayside North, moved amendments in Committee on the advice of the Consumer Credit Association of the United Kingdom and others. Two matters on which he was unsuccessful are of concern to those associations. I shall be grateful if my noble friend will tell me whether he has given those matters further consideration.
24
First, with regard to Clause 3(6) of the Bill, when a person opts for sequestration under the Bill, he has to provide a list of his assets and liabilities. Would it not be reasonable also to include on the face of the Bill the debtor's incomings and outgoings, his cash flow, so that some assessment of his so-called "free" income can be made?
Secondly, is it possible for a bankrupt person's creditors to be allowed to make representation to the permanent trustee when the bankrupt's assets other than income are small or non-existent? They might then receive some of the debtor's income. To prevent frivolous use of such a power there could be a condition that representations could be made only by creditors owed not less than perhaps 25 per cent. of the value of the debt. I hope that I shall receive answers to those two questions when my noble friend replies.
I read in today's press of the anxieties of the citizens advice bureaux. I hope that we shall discuss them in Committee because I believe that they are important. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, stated that there was no social content to the Bill; I am not sure how he put it. However, anything that seeks to help one person meet his obligation to another must be good for the social fabric of our country. To make it too easy to renege on one's responsibilities is bad for the social fabric and does not help the debtor because of the damage that it does to his creditworthiness.
Having asked those two questions, and having made those few remarks about the parts of the Bill which at this stage I understand, I look forward greatly to discussing those parts that I understand less well. I give broad support to the Bill.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, much has already been said in your Lordships' House today about the position of the debtor, in particular the consumer debtor; and properly so. Much comment along those lines was made in another place when the Bill was debated at considerable length. However, we have to keep in mind that a declaration of bankruptcy is either on a voluntary or compulsory basis. The vast majority of individuals who proceed to voluntary bankruptcy are consumer debtors who have taken advantage of easy credit during the past 15 years or so. Those of your Lordships who received, as I did, communication from the Citizens Advice Scotland will have been made aware of the gaps in advice which will result in this area of the Bill if it is enacted in its present form.
I remind noble Lords that insolvency practitioners must also deal with clients in business who are due money from debtors and who from time to time pursue them to bankruptcy. In my view, bankruptcy legislation must balance the interests of the debtors and of the creditors. The Bill does not seem to me to hold such a balance.
Under legislation prior to the 1985 Act, a creditor who petitioned for sequestration could find himself liable for the entire costs (including the trustee's fees) where a debtor had little or no assets. As well as the large increase in consumer debt sequestrations over the past six years, there has been an increase in sequestrations at the instant of the creditors. I believe

25
that that factor is beyond dispute. Because the public purse meets the cost of a trustee in "small assets" cases, creditors' costs are limited to those of serving the petition.
While the measures proposed in the Bill will not alter the cost-exposure to the creditor, they will have a fundamental effect on the willingness of some creditors to petition if the interim trustee is to be the accountant in bankruptcy. Creditors have no knowledge of the accountant in bankruptcy, and for all I know may have little confidence in his ability or experience to handle the administration of the sequestration in an efficient and thorough manner, because I suppose that the practitioner in insolvency at this time would do just that.
Over the years creditors have found certain insolvency practitioners who are more able than others to conduct certain types of insolvencies—this is one of the facts of professional life in this area—or who are more thorough in carrying out initial investigatory work, which often uncovers assets for the general body of the creditors. If an insolvency practitioner is to act, the Bill requires a written undertaking that he will carry the case through to its conclusion. I submit that this undertaking is unlikely to be given if prior to sequestration the asset position of the debtor is unknown, and the trustee's costs may not be met.
The measures proposed in the Bill will deprive creditors from nominating the insolvency practitioner who may be most suited to act as trustee. Bankruptcy is not an area to be tackled by the untrained and the inexperienced. I accept that many sequestrations do not involve matters requiring a high technical knowledge. But I find it difficult to imagine the department of a civil servant based in, say, Leith being able to possess the understanding and sensitivity which is often shown at the present time by many insolvency practitioners throughout Scotland with regard to the social and medical problems that flow from uncontrolled indebtedness. It is not perceived by either the consumer advice bodies or the insolvency profession that the agency or market-testing scheme referred to in Clause 1B(2) will overcome this problem.
In England and Wales the official receivers are members of the insolvency service, an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry based at 33 locations. The official receivers are responsible for the administration of personal bankruptcies. I am advised by an accountancy firm which practises here in England and Wales that it is virtually impossible to obtain information from the official receiver on the assets and liabilities of a debtor, let alone the more detailed information that might he deemed to be necessary. I am told that the file is often placed on a shelf and gathers dust for the three years' duration of bankruptcy. I am fearful that this situation could spread into Scotland and that high standards of efficiency and thoroughness in handling bankruptcy work which presently exist will be lost with the overburdening of a poorly-trained and inexperienced department whose main priority will be, no doubt, to cut costs.
26
Further, I understand that the accountant in bankruptcy has been in dialogue with the insolvency profession over a considerable time. The figure of block fee which was informally agreed in August 1990 has been mentioned once or twice this afternoon. The figure was £2,147. But this agreement was on an informal basis, and there was no reason why continued dialogue could not have produced a similar reduced block fee to take into account the modified duties of the now summary administration process envisaged in the terms of the Bill.
Many of your Lordships will have received the briefing from Citizens Advice Scotland and the Scottish Consumer Council and will have seen the numerous representations made by various consumer bodies while the Bill had its passage through the other place. It is clear that the Bill does little for both debtors and creditors alike, and we should understand that this is not merely a technical piece of legislation. The Government are suggesting to your Lordships this afternoon—and they certainly suggested in the other place—that it is a purely technical piece of legislation. It is nothing of the kind. It will have a serious effect on the man in the street. That was a point which was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar.
The Government therefore should brace themselves for amendments submitted at the appropriate stages of the Bill, particularly at Committee stage, which will seek to rectify some of the points that I outlined in my earlier remarks. I hope that the Government will look at the amendments with a view to making a considerable improvement to a seriously flawed Bill.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, when I saw that we were to debate the Second Reading of this Bill I tried to recall whether I had taken part in any of the discussions on the Bill in 1985, and indeed whether I could remember any of the arguments. I was quite worried that perhaps my memory was beginning to fail me, because I could not recall any of the deliberations in 1985. However, I was relieved when I looked at Hansard to discover that it was taken through the other place by the then Solicitor General for Scotland, so I was, so to speak, starting off with a clean sheet.
As all noble Lords who have already spoken have indicated, this is a difficult field. In fact the whole field of bankruptcy is difficult. I am only sorry perhaps that the Government have not taken the opportunity of this small Bill to look at some of the problems that occur in the wider field of bankruptcy; for example, in the bankruptcy of companies. As many of your Lordships will have heard, small firms in particular complain about companies which have gone bankrupt, following which the creditors have gone to sales of the equipment of the bankrupt company only to discover that there are the people who are being made bankrupt buying the equipment and re-emerging in two or three weeks with a similar name and in exactly the same field of operation as the company that has gone bankrupt. The only person

27
who has lost out is in fact the creditor, who has found himself with either a small dividend or, in some cases, no dividend at all.
When I look at this Bill with your Lordships I want to think about the position of the creditor as well as the position of the debtor. A debt of any kind has two parties, and it would be unfortunate if we framed the law, or allowed the law to be framed, in such a way that the interests of one of the parties was simply subordinated to the interests of the other. I am convinced by all the arguments that I have heard and read in the other place that there is a need for a Bill of the kind that we have in front of us to prevent the abuse that has occurred since the passage of the 1985 Act. The position—and some of your Lordships have already mentioned it—is that in far-off 1986 there were something like 560 cases a year, costing the taxpayer the huge sum of about £13,000. By 1991 that had risen to something like 8,500 cases, costing the taxpayer £18.5 million.
This contrasts markedly with the suggestion of the Law Commission when it proposed these changes, which were eventually embodied in the 1985 Act. In 1982 it suggested that there would be between 120 and 150 new sequestrations at a cost of some £6,000 to £7,500. I am afraid that the Law Commission's crystal ball was a little misty when it looked at the consequences of its proposals. In 1986 three-quarters of all the awards for sequestration were granted on the petition of the creditor. The 1985 Act did not envisage the change which has since taken place. Last year only 13 per cent. were in petition of the creditor, the other 87 per cent. being what could be termed as "self-bankruptcies".
According to the debates, the original intention of the 1985 Act was to allow for a voluntary arrangement between the debtor and his creditors permitting him to order his affairs without recourse to sequestration. "Without recourse to sequestration" has become a pious hope. It was hoped that in time the creditor would receive his money, and the debtor's money problems would be resolved. The device of the debtor using a trust deed has frustrated those arrangements to the disadvantage of the creditor and at a cost to the taxpayer. Am I right that the Bill provides that the debtor, in consultation with the creditors and with their knowledge, is referred to an insolvency practitioner? He is then advised to sign a trust deed appointing the practitioner as trustee. In the case of small assets the petitioner claims his fee, petitions for sequestration and, as 80 per cent. of all sequestrations in 1991–92 had no assets, the creditors receive nothing. That is a fair amount of nothing. Many small companies—and no doubt large companies which people may believe can cope with the debts more easily —find a hole in their income which other customers of those companies must pay. The debtor may clear his liabilities, although not without personal damage. The accountant will collect his fee, the taxpayer will pay out the fee but the creditors will receive nothing.
According to the Bill and 1985 Act, the creditor knows what is happening. I am puzzled about a matter raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy with regard
28
to Clause 3(6) and wish to put down a marker. Is it right that the creditor and the court can deny an application for sequestration if they believe that the debtor can make repayment arrangements? In the same vein the noble Baroness mentioned that the Member for Tayside North raised another issue in Committee in another place. Can a creditor through the court, and indeed the court itself, ask about the debtor's income, and can the court have that investigated? While a trust deed in a sequestration may seem an "easy" way out of immediate financial problems, do many debtors realise what they are doing for their future? At a future date when their income has improved they may wish to take on credit but will discover that their past history prevents them from doing so.
Lastly I turn to the accountant. The fee is a block fee of £2,147. Many of the debts are small—they had to be not less than £750, but the figure is being raised to £1,500—and so they would be under £2,147. Therefore, the taxpayer will have to pay out £2,147 to an accountant and the creditors will receive nothing. One wonders idly whether it would not be better for the taxpayer to pay the poor creditors and not bother with the accountants in the middle. We must look at the logic of what has happened and make sure that we are not merely putting money into the accountants' pockets to the detriment of the taxpayer and at no advantage to the creditor.
I am a little ambivalent about whether the way to solve such a problem is to add to the public sector. It is certainly not consistent with the Government's general philosophy in other fields. I read in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that an additional 85 civil servants will be required next year, and that the figure will rise to 120 in the year after. I hope that the costs I read in the memorandum are correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, mentioned the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. It has offered—and its offer underlines the generosity of the original fee to cut its fees from £2,147 to £800, plus about £200 for other outlays. That represents a considerable saving. I suspect that as £800 is the initial offer, it might be possible to beat it down a little lower. Have the Government considered whether at much lower fees it would be as cheap to proceed with the present situation than to undertake the costs of setting up a small department of the Accountant in Bankruptcy to carry out this work rather than the private sector?
I have spoken for long enough and have illustrated my slight unease with the Bill. I am sure that in his summing up or in Committee my noble friend will be able to assure me that this is the correct and only way to proceed.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that I shall please my noble friend and neighbour Lady Carnegy by first declaring an interest. I am a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, so ably referred to by my noble friend Lord Mackay. It has been kind enough to have me on its records for 25 years. I do not

29
practice. I pay a healthy subscription but I do not pay a practising fee nor do I attempt to pay a further fee as an insolvency practitioner. In the Glasgow branch of the firm with which I undertook my apprenticeship no such words are used; the department is known as corporate reconstruction. As we have heard, many of the problems which arise are small in financial terms but they are serious to the individual, the firms and the partnerships involved.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I have returned from a weekend in Yorkshire. My host's daughter—a young lady called Matilda—reminded me of a rhyme by Hilaire Belloc. He wrote:
"Matilda told such Dreadful Lies,
It made one Gasp and Stretch one's Eyes".
My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser and members of his esteemed profession would never dream of doing such a thing. However, my eyes were stretched and amazed when I consulted the financial and manpower effects of the Bill. The figures given in the paragraphs under that heading are astonishing. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the third paragraph. Perhaps my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will pay particular attention to those words because they bear out what was said by my noble friend Lord Mackay about insolvency practitioners.
After looking at the list of speakers for today's debate, I was startled to see that four are from the county of Angus. Indeed, the county is also represented by my noble friend the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard who sits on the Front Bench. I hope that that does not indicate that the county of Angus is somewhat more vigilant or interested in these than in any others which concern your Lordships' House.
Where does the worried citizen turn with regard to bankruptcy or financial difficulties? The first place to which any citizen of Kirriemuir might turn is to the citizens advice bureau or a professional adviser. In most cases the debt will be the result of existing low income, the worried person seeking advice having over-estimated his or her ability to cover the debt. Alternatively, the individual might have incurred debts, the reduced income resulting in financial difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to the figures provided by the citizens advice bureaux. I think that the final figure for referrals to insolvency practitioners was something over 2,200; and in a high percentage of those cases, insolvency practitioners thought it to be in the best interests of the debtor as well as, I suspect, the creditor, for the matter to proceed to sequestration. Also, insolvency practition-ers indicated that 50 per cent. of their cases came from referrals by the citizens advice bureaux. Therefore, over 2,000 cases had to be dealt with by the insolvency practitioners; but of those, only 60 per cent. proceeded to sequestration and the other 40 per cent. were dealt with in some other way. As was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mackay, most of the cases coming from solicitors or other advisers would have been
30
those in which insolvency practitioners were consider-ing an average block fee of something in the region of £2,000.
Under the provisions of the Bill I hope that the debtor will be able to petition for sequestration. The word "insolvent" is used in Clause 3. I was rather at a loss to discover where that was defined but that information was quickly pointed out to me by my noble and learned friend and is now reasonably clear to me, a mere accountant rather than a lawyer. Clause 6, which deals with summary administration, goes some way towards defining the limits of sequestration and difficulties.
Clause 9 deals with the detailed remuneration of the permanent trustee. Some difficulties have been mentioned to me by chartered accountants, all of whom were not necessarily insolvency practitioners. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether Clause 9(3) (b) and (c) provides for some arm's length and reasonable discussions between the Scottish Office and the insolvency practitioners and any other bodies involved in the giving of advice so that the fees could be reduced, perhaps along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Mackay. Those paragraphs provide a basis for some ongoing discussions.
I am somewhat at a loss to understand why Clause 9 cannot achieve the objectives which are set out under the paragraphs headed "Financial and Manpower Effects of the Bill".
It will not surprise my noble and learned friend to learn, since he wrote the original letter to the insolvency practitioners, that I shall be raising the problem as regards conflict of interest. Clients of the citizens advice bureaux would only be too pleased to have the very best advice from the bureaux. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, pointed out, there are only 11 specialists throughout Scotland. Therefore, is it not reasonable that in the first instance the advice should be given by the citizens advice bureaux? That may be in a small town like Kirriemuir. Is it not reasonable that in the first instance the citizens advice bureaux or the lawyers should have access to an insolvency practitioner? I hope that Clause 9, and further discussions on the Bill, will pave the way for a reasonable compromise so that the problems raised by my noble friend Lord Mackay to the Minister can be resolved.
I have been encouraged by much of what I have heard from my noble and learned friend, and I look forward to hearing more later this evening and during the passage of the Bill.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, first, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for introducing the Bill as it was amended in another place. He helped the House this afternoon and that will be of assistance when we frame amendments to be discussed in Committee.
The Committee stage in another place was extremely long for such a Bill. However, the noble and learned Lord and other Members of your Lordships' House who have experience of the other place will know that if there is a vacuum in Scottish business, the

31
Scots will always find a way to fill that vacuum; namely, by using the time in Committee. That may have been one reason.
The other reason is that many Members in the other place—and I experienced this when I was there —have drawn to their attention problems which are extremely distressing and cause a great deal of unhappiness for individuals. Therefore, there was a great deal of annoyance expressed on all sides of the Committee because it was felt that the Government had not consulted as widely as they should have done not only with the professional bodies but—and this is even more important—also with the voluntary bodies. Those voluntary bodies play a vital role in many ways but particularly as regards solving the problems of small debts which cause shame and anxiety to many people. It is not easy to discern that shame and anxiety, as it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He implied that there is less shame on the part of large companies, which do not seem to be quite as worried, as there is on the part of individuals who become terribly ashamed and worried about such matters. The local voluntary organisations do a wonderful job in that respect.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has any idea of the average debt which is owed in all these cases. Perhaps it would be better if the figures were broken down so that we could see how many of the debts were at a relatively low and manageable level before somebody decided to be awkward and apply for sequestration.
An example has been given to me of someone who owed about £8,500 in credit card debts and various other debts. An arrangement was made whereby, with control and with a certain amount of discipline he could pay back the debt within two years. However, because one of the credit card companies decided that it did not want that to happen, the matter was referred to sequestration.
The money advice centre in Drumchapel, which is one of the voluntary bodies which has contacted me, is particularly annoyed by one of the omissions in the Bill. This matter has been raised by a number of noble Lords either specifically or in general; that is, that the Scottish Bill contains no debt arrangement scheme. That was not included in the Bill nor was it included in the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. I am informed that such a scheme has operated successfully in England since 1959 and has been of great help.
The lawyers know better than I do, but I understand that in Scotland several actions for debt can be raised against a debtor. He would thus be forced to make several applications for directions as to time to pay or for orders under the Debtors (Scotland) Act. In other cases, the inability to reach realistic informal debt arrangement schemes with creditors may result in bankruptcy. The absence of such a scheme available to the Scottish courts may result in bankruptcies, unlike the situation south of the Border.
Another matter that should be examined at Committee stage is the list of articles that are exempt from poinding in Section 16 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. The Minister may remember that the noble
32
and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, expressed strong views on that matter when sitting on this side of the House. In view of the recent judgment in a sheriff's court in Glasgow, we feel that a list of exempt articles should be included. Section 16(2) (f) of the 1987 Act states that exempt articles are,
"articles reasonably required for the care and upbringing of a child".
The Glasgow sheriff's court decision has exempted from poinding a TV and video recorder owned by a lone parent on that ground. That may be thought to be a shocking situation but the sheriff took the definition,
"reasonably required for the care and upbringing of a child".
In the modern world that is something that is fairly important to a child. Can it be confirmed that the decision of the sheriff, which has not been appealed, will stand in the future?
I have received a suggestion from the Glasgow district council housing department. Obviously all local authority housing departments and housing associations have a great deal of experience in the problems of debt. It suggests that there could be a new clause, the object of which would be to relieve a district council housing department from being forced to take eviction proceedings before a tenant with arrears could become bankrupt. Local councils and housing associations in the vast majority of cases work out an arrangement between the tenant and the landlord and have a fairly good rate of success in resolving those problems. If the tenant is made bankrupt, all the other social services become involved, perhaps at great expense, in order to relieve the problem.
We have received help over many years from voluntary organisations, not only in relation to the Bill—for example, from Citizens Advice Scotland, consumer councils and some of the local authorities. They have experience in this field that has been invaluable to us. When one looks at the financial and manpower effects of the Bill one realises that something must be done.
One wonders how many sequestrations have been avoided by voluntary organisations, plus the not inconsiderable savings in personal humiliation and shame that people undoubtedly feel. If there was an assessment of the range of debts, perhaps part of the £18.5 million saving could be given to those organisations to set up small organisations of their own. Professional people could then give personal advice to those concerned before sequestration was considered.
I hope that the Minister will think about such matters. They will all be raised at the Committee stage of the Bill. I hope that it will be profitable and will not take anything like as long as it did in another place.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with that reassurance from the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench, I shall be as brief as I can. This is a highly technical Bill in an area in which not everyone has a great deal of expertise, but it nevertheless

33
reveals, as we have explored the issues, that very important social problems underlie the difficulties that have emerged.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, indicated quite correctly that where there are interests of both debtor and creditor there should be a balance. I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The point of balance may require adjustment from time to time. If one thing is absolutely clear, it is that the balance that was sought to be struck in the 1985 Act has been seriously disturbed—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, unhelpfully recalled, I was the Minister who took the Bill through in another place.
One provision in the Act was an excellent one and a constructive social one—that opportunities should be given to a debtor to enter into arrangements for securing a trustee. It also allowed for further provisions to give a kind of protection to that trustee. I should have thought that both sides of the House would consider such arrangements to be desirable. They would allow for payment to be made and for the debtor to get back on a sensible path without attracting the stigma of a bankruptcy that I believe still attaches to that status.
However, that is not the situation. The trustee has simply been used as a device whereby a trustee is appointed and that trustee then applies for sequestration where there are no assets at all. That situation is of no interest to the creditor because no creditor will receive any money at all. The sequestration goes forward and the taxpayer picks up the bill. It was originally envisaged that the number would be very small, but it has been growing at the rate of approximately 75 per cent. per annum.
If, as I anticipate, it would cost anything up to £50 million in the next financial year, without adjustment, in some circumstances £50 million might be a price worth paying. However, there are very serious questions to be asked. Is it desirable or worth while that those who have no assets should rush into sequestration without the most careful regard to the possible consequences? Whether or not a social stigma still attaches to sequestration is an interesting question, but of this I have no doubt: if those who go to sequestration and obtain the status of a bankrupt, with no assets and with the creditors getting nothing, in the kind of circumstances adverted to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, subsequently find themselves back on the rails, there is a very real concern that in the future their opportunity of securing any degree of credit will be very restricted. For that reason, it is worth while to consider whether the balance that was disturbed in the 1985 Act ought to be brought back into a more sensible equilibrium by way of arrangements that have been introduced here.
I accept without hesitation that initially the Bill was introduced without a great degree of consultation. Subsequent to that time there has been consultation, not only with the Scottish Law Commission, which was consulted prior to introduction, but also with the Law Society of Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. They may not like all that we have introduced, but to my personal knowledge there has been considerable discussion with them.
34
I have been asked a number of very interesting but technical questions. I do not propose to attempt to answer them all in winding up this debate. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, raised with me the briefing paper he has received from Citizens Advice Scotland. Perhaps I may make this point again in the context of what it has to say. In that briefing the CAB indicated that the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 introduced three new main provisions, including,
"(b) the ability for a debtor to petition for his or her own sequestration indirectly, by granting a trust deed for creditors. The trustee appointed could then petition for the debtor's sequestration".
That may be in direct consequence of the introduction of the trust deed for creditors and the way in which it was spelt out in that Act. But it was never the intention of this House that it should be used as a device in that way. I am a little concerned that the CAB should now, in 1992, consider that that was indeed one of our original objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was concerned that sometimes the creditors did not get a look in. One of the difficulties about that device is that, where a debtor applies for a trust deed and gets a trustee appointed and he then applies for sequestration, the creditor may know nothing about what the trustee is doing.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord would give way for one moment. I was very concerned about the Leith civil servant.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I was about to come to that. There is a different set of circumstances. I have been addressing myself specifically to the 80 per cent. of cases where there are no assets whatever.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I can see that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there has been a properly expressed concern which I recognise. We should not have the trustee accountable in bankruptcy intervening where there are those with expertise in the private sector on insolvency matters. He should not take over that work. I recognise that. A great deal of sequestration work is extremely technical. Where there are assets where individuals and trading have gone under it can be a very elaborate task sorting everything out.
In those circumstances, if the creditor has any reservations about the Accountant in Bankruptcy undertaking the work, then, as the Bill will provide, he has the right to nominate his own choice of interim trustee. However, if his view is that he would like X to take on the work because there are assets to be gathered in and distributed among the creditors and that is his assessment of the matter, we consider it right that he should be prepared to pay for the choice by underwriting the trustee's costs. These are technical points. I do not believe it right that he should expect the taxpayer to foot the bill if his calculation is wrong.
My noble friend Lord Lyell, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and the Opposition Front Bench were concerned as to why we did not just rely on Clause 9 alone to produce some savings from the figure of £2,147. Such a provision allows for a reduction in costs but it does not address the central problem which I have repeatedly mentioned. The use of a trustee on

35
a trust deed applying for sequestration is a device which we consider inappropriate. Simply going to Clause 9 does not address that problem.
I wish to make it clear that, while greater powers are given to the Accountant in Bankruptcy, I certainly intend that there should be market testing of the services delivered by the Accountant of Court and independent agents. I can see very easily that in a country the size of Scotland, and with its geographical spread, there may well be circumstances where he will wish to have agents carrying out the work on his behalf, be it in Aberdeen, the South West or in any one of the far-flung corners of Scotland.
A number of technical points have been raised with me. I hope that we can address these at Committee stage. My noble friend Lady Carnegy raised a number of issues which have been addressed by the Consumer Credit Association. I believe that those observations which have been made to me personally by the association are perfectly valid observations to be addressed. I am still considering them. As yet, I am not persuaded that they require to be addressed by amendment to the Bill itself, although both points are important ones. This matter requires to be emphasised —there is some misunderstanding of it in Scotland—that because someone has been sequestrated, it does not mean that, if they have sufficient income, that income should never be available to make some payment to creditors who have been left with considerable sums unpaid. I regret there is some misunderstanding at present that, once sequestrated, any income, however significant it may be, is never under attack.
I am grateful to all who have contributed to this debate. I wish to emphasise that, while I understand the concerns of such organisations as the citizens advice bureaux—I join the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and others in paying tribute to them—what we require to establish is a proper basis for making sure that these matters, which are often very unhappy for those concerned, are resolved quickly and cleanly. We have to be careful that stigma should not be ignored. While the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is concerned that there should possibly be better arrangements for giving advice prior to sequestration, this Bill is essentially concerned with those circumstances which flow once the step to go forward to sequestration has occurred. I repeat my gratitude to those who have contributed. I hope that we shall have a fruitful and constructive discussion of this matter in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 1992
4.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 10th August be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made this order proscribing the Ulster Defence Association on 10th August, it came into effect on 11th August and is subject to approval within 40 sitting days.
The Ulster Defence Association is the largest of the so-called Loyalist paramilitary organisations current-ly operating in Northern Ireland. It was originally formed in 1971 and during this period reputedly had a membership of about 20,000. Today, however, there are estimated to be around 1,000 members.
The decision to proscribe the UDA was not taken lightly. We had to judge carefully all the available information about this organisation against our well-publicised criterion for proscription; namely, that an organisation is actively and primarily engaged in the commission of criminal terrorist acts. That criterion has been used in all recent proscription decisions and was spelled out by the then Minister of State during the Committee stage of what is now the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.
After careful consideration my right honourable friend concluded that the UDA is a body which is actively and primarily engaged in criminal terrorist acts. He also concluded that the self-styled Ulster Freedom Fighters, at whose door, on their own admission, lies the responsibility for many outrageous attacks on members of the minority community, and which is already proscribed, merely provides a cover for acts directed, organised and carried out by the Ulster Defence Association.
I would remind your Lordships in particular of the brutal killings in the betting shop in the Ormeau Road in January of this year and of Mrs. Philomena Hanna in April and of Leonard Fox and Gerard O'Hara in September. They were despicable, cowardly crimes which were rightly condemned throughout the community, and which we condemn again today.
Once a judgment had been made about the UDA my right honourable friend felt it right to take prompt action to proscribe the organisation because any organisation which is constituted primarily for the purpose of planning and carrying out terrorist acts has no legitimate place in our society. It would clearly have been wrong to delay acting to deprive the UDA of its cloak of legitimacy. My right honourable friend therefore made the necessary order using the urgency procedure.
As a result of the order, it is an offence to be a member of the UDA from the time it became a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to solicit or invite financial or other support for the organisation, or knowingly to make or receive any financial contributions for it, or to solicit or invite any

37
person to become a member of this organisation or to assist in the holding of a meeting to support or further its activities.
Proscription may not, in itself, directly prevent terrorist acts. But it will make life much harder for terrorists: for example, by preventing them openly recruiting members or raising funds. It makes a clear and unambiguous statement of the Government's and society's abhorrence of those whose primary aim is to terrorise others either under the mistaken belief that this serves to defend their own community, or for more cynical reasons. It will serve as a clear warning to those who might otherwise be seduced by the organisation's propaganda. The message of this order is, in short, to say to those who continue to be a part of the UDA or to support it, "You are involved with an organisation which is a conspiracy to perpetrate acts which are repugnant to society. You put yourselves beyond the law by having anything to do with it. You must take the consequences if you do not break with it."
The UDA has joined the IRA, the INLA, the UVF and the rest on the list of proscribed organisations. Like them, it will remain there until it ceases its barbarous crimes—crimes which only increase the Government's determination to heal the present tragic divisions within Northern Ireland, and to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands; something which all of us in your Lordships' House support. I have no hesitation in commending this order to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 10th August be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this order is brief, precise and clear. Its effect has been fully explained to the House by the Minister. We on this side of the House fully support it.
The Minister has also assured the House that the decision to ban the UDA was not taken lightly. I do not question the validity of that statement at all. Indeed, the decision to ban an organisation should not be taken lightly. But for at least 18 months before August last the press reports and the appalling pictures coming out of Northern Ireland suggested very clearly the sinister role which the UDA was then playing in the affairs of Northern Ireland—whatever may have been its original role when it was founded. It appeared to many of us that the Government were not in need of further evidence that the Ulster Defence Association was actively and primarily engaged in terrorist activity. The case against it had become unanswerable.
As the Minister has explained, the Government made use of the urgency procedure. We believe that that was a perfectly proper use of that procedure. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the Government for the prompt steps which they took on 10th August to inform the Northern Ireland spokesmen of the decision as soon as it was announced. That was appreciated.
Of course, difficulties remain. I believe that it is common ground that, in practice, the order will not
38
deter those members of the former UDA with the will and the determination from going underground and from continuing to plan and execute further violence. Indeed, there are signs which suggest very strongly that the UDA may be continuing with its terrorist activities. The evidence since August seems to signal "business as usual" on the part of the UDA. I have also come across the name of another organisation which appears to be active in the Province. It calls itself the "Red Branch Knight". This organisation has claimed responsibility for a number of acts of violence since last August. To the best of my knowledge, this organisation was previously unheard of—at least by members of the general public. I wonder whether the Minister can say anything at all about this worrying, although foreseeable, development.
I conclude by confirming, if confirmation is required, that we fully support the order.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches in August when the order was brought before us, I supported the order and I support it now. Last night a woman, Donna Wilson, in Annadale was murdered by 10 men with baseball bats and pickaxe handles in a way that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which must in all conscience be hardened enough by now, described as "particularly brutal". It is said that this was a paramilitary, Protestant, loyalist killing. Such a horrible act defames the good name of Protestantism and the good name of loyalty. Thugs are thugs and killers of women are sadistic murderers who are outside the civil system whatever labels they may put on themselves.
Generally, the Government must be vigilant about the potential abuse of power, such as that embodied in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Therefore, the power to proscribe under that Act should never be treated lightly. It is an emergency provision and it inevitably raises questions about freedom of association and about the tendency to drive organisations underground. There is a potential attraction for ill-informed, young and impressionable people. Disturbingly, there is some evidence that paramilitary violence is now in the hands of young, impressionable people, motivated by ideas of glory. However, in this instance I am quite clear that it is time to remove the veneer of respectability which legality, as it were, confers on an organisation which has been responsible for such atrocities as the Ormeau Road betting shop murders to which the Minister referred.
In his annual report for 1991, the Chief Constable of the RUC wrote:
"Republican and loyalist gangs demonstrated that they can and do match each other in fanatical hate, blind bigotry and sectarian savagery".
It is therefore particularly important that the Government are not seen to differentiate between acts of this sort of violence whatever quarter they may come from. I was slightly concerned that in April the Minister of State, Mr. Mates, described IRA violence as "pro-active" and loyalist violence as "re-active". We need to move away from this division. Violence feeds upon violence in such a way that it is now

39
impossible to detect the original source. It is all to be deplored and it is to be hoped that this order can help the security forces in that difficult role of curbing it.
Finally, perhaps I may advise the Minister and the Government that, as we take these onerous security measures, it is important to recognise that we need to maintain the Government's twin-track policy of political progress as well as intensified security. We must get the balance right. From outside it is difficult to tell what progress has been made in the talks, but they are still continuing and have obviously reached a critical juncture. I simply urge the Minister when he replies to tell us what he can about the progress of those talks because it is in that context that we on this side of the House are prepared to support necessary and rigorous action on proscription.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, at the opening of this debate I described the UDA as having no legitimate place in our society. I am particularly grateful therefore to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, who have spoken so clearly and so thoughtfully on this subject. It is often difficult to believe that there are people who can carry out such atrocities on fellow human beings. The Ulster Defence Association consists of such people. I welcome the condemnation of the organisation in today's debate. It would be preferable if such orders were not necessary but until we can bring those who join such organisations to see the futility of their violence and so to renounce it, we have no alternative but to use all lawful means to disrupt and frustrate their efforts and eventually to defeat them.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, questioned the effectiveness of such an order. I say to him, as I said at the beginning of the debate, that proscription cannot guarantee the prevention of terrorist acts but it does provide sanctions against terrorist organisations and their supporters and denies them any legitimacy under the law. It also sends a clear message to those involved in such organisations that they are putting themselves beyond the law and thus must take the consequences. The Government believe that proscrip-tion thereby has a useful deterrent role to play in the fight against terrorism. The noble Lord then mentioned the Red Branch Knights. This is a hitherto unknown Loyalist paramilitary group and is believed to be made up of elements of other Loyalist groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned the heinous and barbaric crime last night to Donna Wilson. It is as yet too early to make a definitive or authoritative statement on this matter. Of course the RUC will pursue the perpetrators in order to bring them to justice.
In conclusion, we believe there is ample justification for the decision to proscribe this organisation. Therefore I have no hesitation in commending the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service (District Health Authorities) (No. 3) Order 1992
5.2 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the orders be annulled.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, in view of the obscurity of meaning to the Motion on the Order Paper, I feel that I should explain that it relates to a merger which took place on 1st October 1992 between Kidderminster and District Health Authority and Bromsgrove and Redditch District Health Authority.
The Secretary of State for Health, in a statement quoted in the Health Service Journal of 18th June 1992, said about the future structure of the National Health Service:
"But I want to make clear that my general approach is that any further change should be with the grain".
Ministers were happy for health authorities to merge if they had local support. I believe that the noble Baroness the Minister is of the same mind.
Sir James Ackers, chairman of the West Midlands Regional Health Authority, and Mr. E. M. Nock, assistant managing director of that authority, in their minutes of 21st November 1991,
"stressed that the RHA were not seeking to instigate mergers. They were, however, happy to support them in circumstances where the districts concerned had themselves agreed that it would be in the best interests of both authorities and their respective populations".
In the next paragraph of those minutes Mr. Nock is reported to have said that,
"a year ago the two authorities had agreed to an integrated working relationship under which they had one chief executive and one director of purchasing. The benefits, including cost benefits, were felt to be such that both authorities had agreed that to achieve the full benefits a formal merger should now take place"
There is a great deal of evidence available which shows that neither the Kidderminster and District Health Authority nor the population of Kidderminster asked for or wanted that merger, and yet it took place on 1st October 1992.
The matter was first raised at a seminar on 1st November 1991 on an entirely different topic for members of the Kidderminster DHA, apparently without notice. Only 30 minutes were allocated for discussion. On 31st October 1991 a non-executive member of the authority wrote:
"I am concerned that we have not been presented with an appraisal of all the options which would enable the non-executive members to make a decision".
He went on to say:
"and in any case such information as we have received regarding this"—
the merger proposal—
"suggests that the principal objective is to reduce the number of bodies with which the regional health authority has to negotiate. I see no reason to move towards a merger for the administrative convenience of the RHA"—
and—

41
"it feels that the merger issue is being driven by other imperatives and imposed upon us rather than being our own initiative".
He went on to list a number of problems in formally merging with Bromsgrove and Redditch DHA. I have already made some of these known to the Minister in a letter I wrote to her early in July.
A consultation paper was issued to a number of interested bodies. Without exception all those consulted in the Kidderminster district objected to the proposals for the merger. These included all the local authorities, the district medical advisory committees, the local medical committee, the general practitioner associations, the community health councils, the district nursing advisory committee and the trade unions and staff associations. At a meeting of the Kidderminster DHA on 27th February 1992 it was resolved that,
"The authority's formal response to the West Midlands Regional Health Authority consultation document be as follows:
"In view of the current uncertainties, and the many views which have been expressed, the authority agrees that further consideration of a possible merger between Kidderminster and District Health Authority and Bromsgrove and Redditch Health Authority should be deferred".
And significantly:
"Kidderminster and District Health Authority indicates its preference for a local Kidderminster-based purchasing authority".
The report of the outcome of the consultation was produced in a document on 19th March 1992. Incredibly, the responses were described as showing a fairly even spread, when in fact nine out of 34 positive responses came from four MPs, one MEP, Bromsgrove and Redditch District Health Authority and five other unrelated health authorities, the Hereford and Worcester Family Health Service Authority and Bromsgrove and Redditch District Nursing Advisory Committee. Of five listed as being inconclusive four were definitely against the merger. As a result of this report the regional health authority was recommended to resolve:
"That the Secretary of State be requested to approve the merger of the existing Bromsgrove and Redditch and Kidderminster and District Health Authorities into a single health authority to be known as the North Worcestershire Health Authority with effect from 1st October 1992".
This resolution was passed on 21st May 1992.
I believe that the people of Kidderminster have had an extremely raw deal. They were consulted, but the outcome of that consultation has been totally ignored. They have bitter memories of the period prior to 1974 when Bromsgrove unilaterally decided that it would no longer take Kidderminster maternity cases. Relationships were bad then, and knowing both areas as well as I do, I can see no reason why they should be any different now or in the future. Kidderminster has a very small physical boundary with Bromsgrove and Redditch, transport facilities are very poor and there is no community of interest.
Kidderminster and District Health Authority is well managed. In fact it was described in another place as being one of the 30 best in the country. The parlous state of the finances of the Bromsgrove and Redditch Health Authority is no secret. It is not surprising that Kidderminster feels that it will not be treated fairly. This would seem to be demonstrated by the
42
appointment of the non-executive members to the new North Worcestershire Health Authority. The two members for Bromsgrove and Redditch were members of the previous authority, while the two appointed for Kidderminster and District have no previous health service experience. The chairman of the new authority was chairman of the Kidderminster and District Health Authority. It was by his casting vote that an amendment completely to withdraw from the merger was defeated. Incidentally, two executive members voted against that amendment without declaring an interest.
Originally, the merger was expected to give financial savings of £250,000 a year. That sum was soon reduced to £100,000. In response to a letter from the GP adviser to the authority, on 15th June 1992 the chairman of Kidderminster and District Health Authority, wrote:
"However, I would not expect significant changes in the current level of costs because, as has often been said, the management arrangements of the two health authorities have already been merged".
Kidderminster and District Health Authority was never given the opportunity to discuss alternatives to the merger. There is considerably more community of interest between that health authority and those of Dudley, with which it was already working, and Worcester. The authority felt that it might have had a fairer deal if there had been a merger with Worcester, Bromsgrove and Redditch and itself; but, though the question of alternatives was raised at meetings, they were never allowed to be discussed.
Letters to the chairman of the Kidderminster and District Health Authority, the chairman and the assistant managing director of the West Midlands Regional Health Authority and the Secretary of State remain unanswered or have been ineffectively answered to this day. Some were not even acknowledged. Is that really the way the consultation process should be conducted?
I am praying that the orders be annulled because there is no indication whatever that the correct procedures have been followed. The words of the Secretary of State and the chairman of the West Midlands Regional Health Authority have a nasty hollow ring when they talk about the wishes of people in the locality. A director of public health for Stockport—incidentally, Kidderminster is to lose its public health director—Dr. Stephen Watkins is reported in the British Medical Journal of 17th October 1992 to have said:
"We are being intimidated into accepting proposals for merging district health authorities".
Is Kidderminster merely one of many? What is the policy of the Government? Why are they disregarding the wishes of the people directly concerned when they and their appointees have repeatedly said that those wishes would be paramount? The new arrangements are of no apparent benefit to the people of Kidderminster. The hospitals are so far apart that there is unlikely to be any joint use of them. We have already heard that there are unlikely to be any savings. The suspicion is that Bromsgrove and Redditch will be

43
the main beneficiaries and the suspicion has also been expressed to me that the managers and the chairman of the larger authority will not suffer either.
I am hoping that the noble Baroness will be able to explain the real reason for the merger, and that she will be able to assure me that no other mergers will take place in the face of such strong public opposition.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the orders be annulled—(The Countess of Mar.)
5.12 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, The House will be most grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for drawing our attention to the matter and for covering the ground so well. It means that I can be brief. I am afraid that this is much more of a post-mortem than a prayer to annul because, as we know, the merger has actually taken place. It seems to be a good example of how not to conduct such an operation. It seems to have happened extremely quickly and the consultation, or lack of it, is I believe the prime cause of the concern expressed by so many local people. It appears that the motion for the merger was moved at a seminar rather than in a properly constituted meeting. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comment on that aspect. The main reason for the merger is not clear; it has never been properly explained. Was it cash savings? Was it administrative convenience for the regional health authority, or what? There have been conflicting answers as to the reason for the merger. So, again, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the matter.
As we have heard, it was strongly felt to be an imposed decision with very little account being taken of local feelings and responses. Can the Minister say what was the consultation process; for example, who was consulted, how were they consulted and have the responses been published? There is a peculiar matter upon which I should appreciate some enlightenment. Although the merger is to be effective from 1st October of this year, it is to be reviewed at the end of the year after three months. I find that hard to understand, but perhaps I misunderstood the point. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the position. I understand that it may be that the intention is to see whether there have been any cash savings. Various figures have been quoted in this respect throughout the procedure starting, I believe, with a figure of £250,000, which was then reduced to £100,000 and now there is the hint that there will be no cash savings at all. Can the Minister say what will happen if no cash savings are apparent at the time of the review at the end of December as regards a merger which only took place on 1st October?
As we heard, there are some question-marks over the role of the executive members and the way that their votes are cast on matters affecting their jobs. Is there machinery in place to ensure that they always declare an interest? Again, we can all certainly agree with the noble Countess when she says that there should be a community of interest between merged
44
districts; for example, that there should be good transport links together with natural community links.
The brief from the Department of Health on the prayer headed, "Merger of Bromsgrove & Redditch and Kidderminster Districts", says:
"The proposal to merge was the subject of local consultation".
That is a statement of fact. Can the Minister say whether it is correct that only nine out of the 34 organisations consulted actually supported the merger? In his 1991 annual report the chief medical officer of health of the department referred to the difficulties for public health doctors when health authorities merged to strengthen their purchasing function: they were less able to respond to the needs of small local populations. He also said that if all mergers were being pushed through with the minimum of opposition then the battle was lost. As I said earlier, there is something of a mystery about the reasons for the merger. I understand from the minutes of the West Midlands and Regional Health Authority on the matter that a,
"Mr. Nock reminded Members that financial savings of at least £100,000 would result from this".
That was in May and I understand from the latest round of discussion on the matter that there is now no hint of cash savings. But at that time Mr. Nock stressed that such a saving,
"was not the driving force for the proposals".
If the cash savings were not the driving force for the proposals, perhaps the Minister can tell us what was.
There was an excellent letter from a Dr. J. Adams, who is the GP adviser to the district health authority, to the Secretary of State on 22nd June. I understand that there has been no reply. It was pointed out to the Secretary of State that, following the decision to defer the merger on 27th February 1992, no further discussion took place at the Kidderminster and District Health Authority's meetings on the subject. In view of the stated intention of the regional health authority not to proceed with the merger without the agreement of the local authority and of the local population, it is inexplicable as to why the RHA decided to proceed with the proposal.
Dr. Adams continues in her letter to list a number of errors and misunderstandings that have arisen. She points out that the response to the 34 organisations has not been reported correctly. I referred earlier to the minutes on 21st May when financial savings of at least £100,000 were mentioned. In her letter, Dr. Adams points out that in a letter from the chairman of the Kidderminster and District Health Authority dated 15th June—that is less than a month after the minutes from the regional health authority —it is now stated that,
"significant changes in the level of costs are not expected".
So here we have the regional health authority of 21st May saying that it expects financial savings of £100,000 and we have the chairman of the district health authority in less than a month stating that significant changes in the level of costs are not expected. I hope that the Minister will agree that there has been some confusion in the matter. I believe that

45
the people of the district, the doctors and others who have expressed their concern are entitled to an explanation.
In conclusion, the BMA points out that doctors,
"campaigned…to oppose the proposed merger but, despite the overwhelming opposition to the merger from the vast majority of the medical staff at the hospitals, the general practitioners and others locally, the decision was taken for the merger to go ahead".
The association expresses the concern that the projected savings—and we still do not know what they are; whether they are £250,000, £100,000 or nothing—which in fact are a very small proportion of the health authority's budget in any event,
"could easily be swallowed up by additional expenditure for higher graded managerial salaries and other administrative expenses".
Also, as their views are ignored in the consultation process, the doctors in the two health authorities which were merged are anxious to know how the medical representation is to be affected by the merger.
Uncertainty was expressed about the new health authority's ability to provide the services which are needed and whether those services will be responsive and accessible to patients.
To sum up, this has not been at all a happy scene. It seems that there has been crass mishandling of the whole subject by the RHA. There was a lack of consultation and it seems that what little consultation took place was ignored. We hope that the Minister can enlighten the House regarding this rather sorry affair.
5.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the prayer against the order which brings into effect the merger between Bromsgrove and Redditch District Health Authority and Kidderminster District Health Authority provides me with a welcome opportunity to explain the Government's policy on health authority mergers and to state the reasons why we decided that this particular merger, to create the North Worcestershire District Health Authority, was in the interests of local people and their health services.
Since the introduction of the NHS reforms in 1990, 12 mergers have taken place in England involving 25 DHAs, bringing the total number of district health authorities to 177. Mergers between district health authorities are a natural and expected consequence of the NHS reforms which changed the role of DHAs and gave them an explicit responsibility for purchasing local health services. In the pre-reform days the focus of DHAs was very much on running and providing services. One of the key objectives of the new reforms was to make service management the clear responsibility of individual hospitals and community units or trusts, while at the same time giving DHAs the job of assessing the health needs of their population and purchasing appropriate health services to meet those needs.
For many DHAs the challenge of developing a new purchasing role and shedding responsibilities for service management has meant a re-assessment of resources and the way in which they do their job. Some have decided to set up purchasing consortia
46
with neighbouring DHAs to make the best use of purchasing expertise. They recognise that two DHAs in partnership have a greater influence in commission-ing health services for their local populations than the two alone acting separately. Other DHAs have decided to go one step further and to seek approval for a formal merger on the basis that it would enable them to maximise their combined purchasing skills and contracting power. Such was the case with Bromsgrove and Redditch DHA and Kidderminster DHA, where both authorities recognised that the combination of two budgets and two sets of purchasing skills would make for more effective purchasing of health care for the people of North Worcestershire.
The Government do not have a blueprint for the number or shape of DHAs in England; our policy is to enable health authority mergers to take place where that is desired locally and where it can be shown to be the best way for those authorities to develop their role as purchasers. Although our approach to mergers is very much one of responding to changes generated by the service rather than one of pushing from the top, what is emerging from recent changes on the ground is the view that health authorities, to carry out effectively their new role as purchasers, need to be in the range of between a quarter and half a million in population size in order to be effective.
There are four main benefits to be realised from a merger: first, it can allow for a pooling of purchasing expertise and greater strength in the labour market in attracting high calibre staff. This is particularly important when it comes to attracting good public health physicians. Secondly, a merger brings economies of scale with regard to purchasing overheads and helps to save on administrative costs. Thirdly, by combining two budgets, a merger can bring considerable increased buying power and enhances the ability of a purchaser to get the best possible contracts from local providers. Fourthly, mergers can help towards better links and joint working with other agencies such as local authorities; indeed many of the mergers to date have resulted in co-terminous boundaries between health and local authorities which in turn bring benefits of a closer, more co-ordinated method of working.
Turning now to the merger of Bromsgrove and Redditch and Kidderminster Districts, I do of course recognise the natural anxieties and local loyalties which are aroused by proposals of this sort. Local commitment—"ownership", in the jargon—is vitally important in the management of the health service. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, has left us in no doubt of her strength of feeling on this aspect. But we must also consider how best to arrange provision of efficient, effective and responsive health care for local residents.
It is our judgment and that of the West Midlands Regional Health Authority that in North Worcestershire this is best achieved by bringing together these two districts and harnessing their combined strengths—a view shared by the officers of the two authorities and their chairmen. It is they who initiated a merger in order to maximise the benefits of

47
joint working and to overcome the considerable degree of administrative and financial duplication associated with placing two sets of contracts for what had essentially become a single purchasing authority. I understand that the creation of a single authority would in this case save at least £100,000 a year from administration to be spent on direct patient care.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, questioned that figure since only this afternoon it was confirmed to me yet again by the newly appointed chief executive. I think that some of the confusion may have arisen through the fact that, if the authorities had continued to operate separately and not used joint purchasing, savings would then have been made of £250,000.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I did not question it. It was the chairman of the Kidderminster District Health Authority—I do not have the quote with me—who said that significant cost savings were not now expected. It was not I who said it; it was the chairman.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am assured by the chief executive, who has the day-to-day running of the organisation, that savings of £ 100,000 are expected to be made.
An essential feature of all health authority mergers is that they are subject to public consultation, and the merger between Bromsgrove and Redditch and Kidderminster DHAs generated, as we know and have heard this afternoon, a considerable debate locally and a fair degree of opposition. Most local concern focused on the perception that the merged authority would be remote and unresponsive to local needs and patients would have to travel long distances to receive hospital care.
There is no statutory requirement to consult but a reasonable expectation that there should be consultation. I understand that in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 there is no statutory requirement, but in this case consultation was carried out over a period of three months between 1st December 1991 and the end of February 1992. Thirty-four organisations were invited to comment, of which 11 opposed and 23 supported, did not respond or gave an inconclusive reply. Eight others offered their views, six were against and two in favour. I can assure noble Lords that we did not ignore local views but weighed up the responses and balanced them against the need for better management arrangements in order to purchase the best possible health care for the people in the two districts.
There is no evidence to suggest that larger DHAs are less sensitive to the differing needs of people in various neighbourhoods; indeed a greater focus on purchasing based on small communities is entirely compatible with a larger district and can be achieved at the same time. In the cases of Bromsgrove and Redditch DHA and Kidderminster DHA, both districts had since the reforms were introduced taken a lead in setting up pilot systems to ensure that purchasing decisions were sensitive to local needs—usually by focusing decisions on areas covering groups
48
of GP practices. It is the intention of the North Worcestershire authority to extend this work so that there is even greater locality-based purchasing than in the past. The Government attach great importance to sensitive purchasing, and in approving the merger the Secretary of State specifically requested that the newly merged DHA be encouraged to continue its work on this front. I also understand from the chief executive this afternoon that the authority plans to increase its use of local hospitals rather than the reverse. That intention is published in the authority's purchasing plan for next year.
I think it is fair to say that of the responses to the consultation on this merger the most vocal concerns that we heard were from people in Kidderminster who feared that they might be disadvantaged by the merger. I hope that what I have already said about the new authority's commitment to local communities will be a clear signal that this is by no means a retrograde step for Kidderminster; indeed, health care for the people of the former Kidderminster DHA will benefit from the merger, precisely because the new authority will be able to get better value for its contracts and its purchasing decisions will be based on more reliable public health data than could have been the case for an authority with so small a population base. The chairman of the new authority, Mr. Malcolm Cooper, was formerly chairman of Kidderminster DHA, and —I take up the points made by the noble Countess —I understand that three of the five non-executive directors live within the boundaries of the former Kidderminster district; that surely is a signal that the interests of the people of Kidderminster will be fairly served.
In its approval of the merger the West Midlands Regional Health Authority agreed that the two existing community health councils should continue in their respective roles. CHCs have a vital part to play in keeping local health authorities informed of consumer views and future aspirations and I know that the new North Worcestershire Health Authority places great store by its relationship with the Kidderminster and Bromsgrove CHCs.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked what the benefits of mergers were. I mentioned earlier that DHA mergers can bring benefits in terms of closer working between health and other authorities, and this merger is no exception, for while it has not created entirely common boundaries it has enabled working relationships to be streamlined and for duplication to be minimised. The local family health services authority covers the whole of Hereford and Worcester and I know that the creation of a merged authority in North Worcestershire has considerably helped to improve working relationships. There is now a plan to set up a joint commissioning forum between the family health services authority and the district health authorities in the area. This will have obvious benefits for primary care and community health services.
The local county council embraces the whole of Hereford and Worcester and the new DHA of North Worcestershire will cover the same area as one of the intended new areas for the county's social services

49
department. This should result in improved inter-agency working on community care which is especially important at this time when authorities have to work so closely together to ensure that elderly and vulnerable people get the health and social care most appropriate to their needs.
In conclusion I have outlined the benefits of a merger between Bromsgrove, and Redditch DHA and Kidderminster DHA in the context of government policy on the new and changing role of DHAs as purchasers. This merger is an essential response to the change which gives service management responsibility directly to hospitals and community units. Despite the current unease, it is a change which will, I feel, over time bring considerable benefits to the future health care of the people who live in the towns and villages of North Worcestershire.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure whether I missed the point I am about to refer to. Did the Minister explain the rather curious point about the merger on 1st October which is to be reviewed on 31st December? I am not sure that the Minister mentioned that point when she replied.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that that was a decision reached in order to go out to consultation. The final decision was obviously reached after consultation when everybody's views had been taken into account. That was carried out in a formal meeting.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. But I am not entirely happy about this business of consultation. Why is it that Ministers and executives of the various authorities place so much importance on consulting with the local community and then take an "Auntie knows best" attitude? It is as if they are saying, "We might have asked your opinion, but I am sure that our opinion is better". Would it not be better to say, "We know anyway what we are going to do"? In fact this merger was reported to be on its way in the House of Commons Hansard of 15th June of this year. Obviously it was a fait accompli regardless of what anyone said.
The Kidderminster and District Health Authority merged its purchasing nearly two years ago, but the motion to defer the complete merger asked that its purchasing should be separated from that of Bromsgrove and Redditch. No account was taken of that request and no reply has ever been given to it. The district health authority is not happy about that. I have with me a letter from the chairman of the district health authority in which he says there are not expected to be any changes in the current costs. If the Minister wishes to see that letter after this debate I shall be happy to show it to her. Apparently no economies are to be made. As I have said, the buying power was already put in place by the merger of the two health authorities' purchasing facilities some two years ago. There is no community of interest between Bromsgrove and Redditch and Kidderminster. In all the social and charity work I have done I have never
50
been able to get the two communities to work together. They have a far greater community of interest with Worcester and Dudley, as I have said.
As regards the newly appointed members of the newly formed North Worcestershire Health Authority, admittedly there are two from the Kidderminster and District Health Authority but they have no experience, whereas both the members of the Bromsgrove representation have previous experience as members of the authority.
I was pleased to hear what the noble Baroness said about community care as I am keenly concerned with that. I realise that the boundaries of the Hereford and Worcester Social Services Department will coincide with those of the new authority. That, as far as I can see, is the only benefit to be gained from the measure. In view of the fact that this measure is already a fait accompli, I have no intention of dividing the House. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Religious Broadcasting
5.35 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they will take to ensure that the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and codes made thereunder in relation to religious broadcasting are observed.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name. I say straight away that my Question is not as well phrased as it might be because the relevant part of one of the codes is so confusing that it would be difficult to observe it.
The 1990 Act refers only to independent broadcasting. It does not apply to the BBC, which is advised on religious broadcasting by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, whom I am so very glad to see in his place and who is to speak later in the debate. I assure him that I am not tonight going to quarrel with the BBC. I have admired and often watched "Songs of Praise" and have listened to the short morning service on the radio which I generally hear when motoring on Monday morning in my car. I only wish that "Songs of Praise" on Sunday evening were broadcast more often and at greater length. I think there is scope for more religious broadcasting by the BBC but I shall leave it at that, except just to say that I found the Festival of Remembrance on Saturday evening as moving as ever. It was beautifully done.
Before I go any further I should make my own confession. I am a middle of the road Anglican but I believe in a broader and more united Christian Church and I am very glad that Christians and Jews are getting closer together. I am deeply grateful to the Jewish community in this country for personal reasons, some of which may be known to some of your Lordships. The Jewish community has given wonderful financial and other support to MENCAP

51
and my own severely handicapped daughter has been cared for by a Jewish foundation for over 20 years. I am deeply grateful for that.
In my opinion—which is shared by many others —there is a great need for religious revival in this country. It is mainly because I believe that broadcasting, which now plays such an important part in the lives of our people, has a part to play in such a revival that I have tabled this Unstarred Question this evening. Broadcasters should do nothing to impede, but do all that they can to encourage such a religious revival, not only of the Christian faith although this is a traditionally Christian country. Of course, other noble Lords may have other reasons for speaking in the debate.
Section 6(1) (d) of the 1990 Act lays the foundations. It states that the Independent Television Commission:
"shall do all that they can to secure that every licensed service complies with the requirements … that due responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of any of its programmes which are religious programmes, and that in particular any such programmes do not involve—

(i) any improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of those watching the programmes, or

(ii) any abusive treatment of religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination".

That is what Parliament said, and none of us would disagree with it.
The ITC is required by Section 6(1) of the Act to publish codes for broadcasters to observe. One of those is the Programmes Code, Section 10 of which deals at length with religion. It is not enforceable against the two main independent television com-panies—Channel 3 and Channel 4 —until 1st January. Meanwhile, it is merely a guideline. However, if it needs amendment—and I hope that your Lordships may feel that it does—there is time for it to be amended before it comes into force on 1st January. Today is only 9th November.
The relevant paragraphs of Section 10 are paragraphs 10.2, 10.5 and 10.7. They are quite brief and I shall inflict them upon your Lordships. Paragraph 10.2 reads:
"Religious belief and practice is central to many people's lives and is capable of evoking strong passions and emotions".
So far so good. Paragraph 10.5 reads:
"In general, religious programmes on Channel 3 and Channel 4 should reflect the worship, thought and action of the mainstream religious traditions present in the United Kingdom, recognising that these are mainly, though not exclusively, Christian. Religious programmes provided for a particular region or locality should take account of the religious make-up of the area served".
That is fair enough. However, the crucial part of the code is paragraph 10.7, which reads:
"Although religious programmes may quite properly be used to propound, propagate and proclaim religious belief, religious programmes on non-specialist channels may not be designed for the purpose of recruiting viewers to any particular religious faith or denomination".
I suggest that it would be difficult to propagate and proclaim religious belief without suggesting religious revival, even among non-practising Christians who have let their religion lapse. However, that may not be recruiting and there may be no difficulty there. But what about such an appeal to agnostics and atheists?
52
It would be recruiting if there were an appeal to such people; but why should it be forbidden if all the other excellent practices which are to be allowed take place?
It seems to me that if St. Paul had appeared on television he would have been allowed to propagate and proclaim his religious belief, and in doing so he could describe his conversion. But he would not have been allowed to appeal for converts because that would have been recruiting. To me that does not seem to make sense.
It so happens that paragraph 10.7 is not only self-contradictory, as I tried to explain, but it does not fit in with what Sir George Russell, the chairman of the ITC, wrote in a letter to Mr. David Porter, Member of Parliament, on 8th October. I shall quote from that letter. It is not a long quotation, but it is relevant and encouraging:
"Although the Code does not become binding on Channel 3 (ITV) and Channel 4 until the beginning of next year, we are confident that it will, in fact, permit a far wider range of religious expression than some have feared. For example, it would allow: … appeals for recruits or for funds within material offered as follow-up to programmes; … programmes about or interviews with those who proclaim a particular faith or belief, including those who believe that they or their church/faith has a mission to convert".
Splendid! Lastly, the chairman says that it would allow:
"programmes or items which report recruitment campaigns".
I find it strange that that letter should give so much encouragement and be in contrast with what is written in paragraph 10.7 of the Programme Code.
The inconsistency goes further, because the ITC has also published a Code on Advertising Standards and Practice, appendix 5 of which deals with religious advertising. In paragraph 5 of that appendix, under the heading "Acceptable Categories" (of religious advertising), it is stated:
"Advertising is acceptable for any of the following purposes: (i) publicising events such as services, meetings or religious festivals, and for describing an organisation's activities and how to contact it".
My Lords, that comes awfully close to recruitment.
On 28th September my right honourable friend Mr. Alastair Goodlad wrote to the new Secretary of State for National Heritage about the problems I have mentioned to which the code gives rise. Perhaps I may say in passing how delighted I am at the appointment of Mr. Peter Brooke. It gives one great confidence because he has all the qualities needed for the wide responsibilities of that new department. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me.
In his reply of 23rd October the Secretary of State said—and he was right to say it this:
"The codes are … the responsibility of the ITC. The Government does not have the power to alter [them]".
He adds that only the courts can decide whether a code complies with the Act. Perhaps noble Lords will take it from a rusty old lawyer like me that we could not get this matter into court, dealt with and an order made for amendment of the code before 1st January —not a hope! Indeed, it would be a long and costly business to get the matter reviewed by the courts. Surely it is better that this problem should be raised in Parliament and that the ITC, the broadcasting bodies and individual broadcasters should take note of views

53
expressed in Parliament, especially if there is any doubt of the Act of Parliament not being observed by all concerned.
In that letter Mr. Brooke also said:
"There has never been any restriction on broadcasting evangelistic sermons"—
I wish we heard more of them incidentally—
"in the context of an act of worship".
He said something else which I must briefly read out. Your Lordships will be glad to know that this will be my last quotation. He said:
"Editorial responsibility for coverage of those events lies with the licensee who broadcasts the programme".
He added—I wonder whether he had been quite well advised —this:
"No new restrictions have been added by the new codes".
I should love to think that they had not. But if there is a contradiction and part of the material which gives rise to the contradiction is restrictive, as the expression of "no recruitment" must be regarded, I fear that we have to accept that a new restriction which was not there before has been added to the new codes.
Let me summarise. Section 10.7 of the programme code is not only self-contradictory but does not fit in with the letter from the ITC chairman, does not fit in with the Advertising Code and does not fit in with the letter from the Secretary of State. Section 10.7 should be amended so that it dovetails with the other provisions of both the Programme Code and the Advertising Code.
What can we do about this? The Government cannot compel the ITC. That is clear from the statute. Going to court could not get the matter resolved in time. I suggest that the Government could at least send to the ITC a copy of the Hansard report of your Lordships' debate this evening, in the hope that the inconsistencies can be resolved in time and perhaps with the expression of such a hope by the Secretary of State himself, although that would be for him to decide.
This is a big subject. Other noble Lords will be taking part in the debate and some of them know a great deal more about the matter than I do. I see in his place the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who has great experience as a broadcaster and great interest in this subject. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say as well as the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and other noble Lords. I have merely tried to give chapter and verse of the relevant documents in order to lay the foundations of the debate.
In our mainly Christian country we have a tradition of religious freedom, a tradition of religious tolerance, a tradition of freedom of speech and a tradition of the rule of law as amended from time to time by Parliament. I hope that each of those great principles will in future be applied to religious broadcasting.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for raising this very interesting but extremely difficult subject tonight by way of an Unstarred Question.
What immediately emerges is that the 1990 Broadcasting Act is different from all previous Acts and it changed the whole structure of the authority
54
which is responsible. Until then, the IBA and before that the ITA were broadcasters. What that Act did was to turn the ITC, which succeeded the ITA as the Independent Television Commission, into a regulat-ory and licensing body, not a broadcasting body. But the Broadcasting Act lays certain requirements on the ITC, as the noble Lord pointed out, with regard to religious broadcasting. The ITC is required to do all it can to ensure that those requirements are met by its licensees.
Section 10.2 of the ITC code states that:
"Religious belief and practice is central to many people's lives and is capable of evoking strong passions and emotions".
Possibly that is not only true but almost an understatement, especially if one considers what history demonstrates. Many wonderful things have been done in the name of religion but so have many evil things, however sincerely based they have been.
The responsibility for compliance with the ITC code is on licensees, not individual religious groups. It is for the licensees that the various ITC codes, including the programme code, have been written. Moreover, Section 10 of the code, which was quoted by the noble Lord and which deals with religion, has been drawn up to attempt to ensure that licensees treat all religious groups fairly and to ensure that, as the Broadcasting Act requires, the audience is protected from the irresponsible exploitative or abusive treatment of religion, whatever its source.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord when he refers to Section 10.7. I found myself puzzling over it. The fine line between propagation of ideas and recruiting is very difficult to draw, to define legally or even to put in legislation. It seems to me that that paragraph is something which the noble Lord might feel should be discussed at a meeting with the chairman of the ITC. I do not think it is quite clear. I am not at all sure whether it can be made any clearer. Nevertheless, I see the problem and had already queried it myself before I heard what the noble Lord had to say. I remind your Lordships that the audience for religious programmes may consist of those of all religious beliefs and none. Being Jewish, I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord said about the Jewish religion and how an organisation (which I think I know) helped his daughter.
A great deal of discussion took place on this subject —I am speaking of the part concerning religion in the Broadcasting Act—during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill through this House. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool is also the Chairman of CRAC. That body received a great deal of flak during the Bill. I was quite amazed at the strength of feeling. I may be wrong, but I believe that a certain amount of intolerance was shown.
Religious programmes should have a wide reach. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, there should be broad-based representation of religious beliefs within religious broadcasting. The term "Christian" should not always replace "religious". It is important to stress that aspect. Although I did not participate to a great extent in the debate on that aspect of the Bill in this House, the legitimate and proper discussion about the nature of religious broadcasting in our

55
society appeared in danger of being hijacked by a small group of Christians who believed that it was being discriminated against. If I am right, no doubt we shall hear more about that today. If that belief is not right, I shall be pleased to hear it.
The ITC has been at great pains to make sure that the rules of its codes are generally applicable. The only point in the code at which a particular group is singled out for special mention is Section 10.5 which requires religious programmes on the main channels to recognise that Christianity is the major religious tradition in this country; and that will continue while the state and Christianity are intertwined in our constitution.
My colleagues in the Labour Party support religious broadcasting but are also in favour of other cultures having the right to air time, as is provided for in the ITC code. In addition to the 200-plus hours per annum of religious broadcasting available on ITV and Channel 4, viewers of cable and satellite channels now have access to an increasing number of sponsored Christian programmes including Robert Schuller's "Hour of Power" on Sky and "Victory" with Morris Cerullo. The ITC has also licensed two specialist Christian channels: "Vision" in Swindon, and "The European Christian Family Network". That suggests an expansion of opportunity for Christian broad-casters rather than the reverse. At this point, however, I ask the Minister when he replies to assure the House that the Broadcasting Act will not be amended to allow tele-evangalists to fund-raise on screen on any channel. At present they cannot do so, but it is possible that under pressure the Bill might be amended. I believe that it would be a great relief to many of us to know that that will not occur.
Finally, the Broadcasting Act 1990 provides ample opportunity for the expansion of religious broadcast-ing. Indeed, that is already taking place. However, increased freedom brings with it the challenge of ensuring that sensitive topics—what could be more sensitive than some of the topics that are dealt with under the heading of religion?—are handled respon-sibly, so far as possible without prejudice and always with great tolerance.
6.6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the kind remarks that he made personally to me in the speech with which he introduced the debate. When we put our names down on a list and then find what the order of events will be it is difficult to know what later speeches will include. Since I am the only speaker from this Bench, I believe that I am right to expect that other noble Lords who took part in debates on the Broadcasting Bill—I refer in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing—will raise matters which underlie what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. But it may be right for me to say a little on some of those points. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to a feeling that a
56
group is being discriminated against. It was a point raised during the passage of the Bill. I believe it right for me to speak on that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, stated that it is difficult to make a distinction between the words "proclaim" and "recruit". During consultations I was told by the lobby that the key word that was wanted was "proclaim". I believe that everyone should be content that that is the word in the programme code. Noble Lords should have a great deal of sensitivity about the difficult course for the ITC to steer between a proper freedom for full-blooded proclamation of different faiths, as well as by different Christian Churches, and recruitment, which invites and presses people to come and join a particular body.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the right reverend Prelate. Surely one of the objectives of proclaiming the truth of something in which one believes is that one tries to persuade a person to join one's religion, group or whatever it is.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, that is quite true. I doubt whether noble Lords would be eager for a Moslem to try to recruit viewers in a full-blooded and careful way. There is a complete distinction, as I shall try to indicate later, between the dedicated religious channel in which people know what they are buying into and understand that they may hear such a challenge (as it is open for viewers to hear) and a broadcast channel which millions of people may have been watching for other reasons but a religious programme may then be broadcast. I believe that all responsible noble Lords will wish to say, "Of course we must draw a careful line and distinction". It is easy to show that things are not totally logical in every way. However, many Members of Parliament, noble Lords and many others have told me how grateful they are that a stand has been made to try to prevent the high-pressure broadcasting with which the United States is familiar.
Underlying some of the arguments is a book called Hidden Agendas. It is based on a conspiracy theory. As always when conspiracies are believed, it is almost impossible to persuade people that they do not exist. The book puts forward the concept that the religious advisers, through the IBA and the ITC, conspired to keep full-blooded, evangelical Christianity from television and radio. I was chairman of the Central Religious Advisory Committee (CRAC) three-and-a-half years ago. I knew that some people believed that concept at the time. I believed that I was well placed to estimate the truth of such an allegation. The word "evangelical" means a great deal in positive and important ways to me. It is part of my roots. I do not believe that there is any such conspiracy, but all programmes which are submitted to mainline channels are subject to the judgment of programme controllers. Those controllers have built up large viewing audiences and believe that programmes must begin where that audience is and not where a church audience might be. But I am quite clear—I have watched an enormous amount of television during my years as chairman of CRAC—that I have seen a great deal of full-blooded evangelical Christianity. for

57
example, in the last two or three weeks I watched the Wirral Christian Fellowship and the Elim church being given absolutely full and unfettered freedom to proclaim the gospel.
I should say a word about CRAC. In your Lordships' House it was greatly misunderstood at Second Reading. We were accused of being a censor that stopped things from going on the air. I explained that we never discussed programmes before they went on the air. In the Committee stage we were accused of being a toothless tiger that had no power to influence matters. People really cannot have it both ways. It is a vigorous body. Members are invited by the BBC and the ITC. We advise the BBC. We also advise the IBA, the ITC and the Radio Authority, and CRAC has now been invited after 1st January to continue to be an adviser to the ITC. Members are invited by the BBC and the ITC jointly, after careful consultation with the churches and the other faiths that they represent, for we represent all the mainline churches in the four countries of the United Kingdom and other faiths. We have Jewish, Moslem and Hindu membership.
I want to say firmly on the public record that at our meeting in September, when our committee had carefully considered the book Hidden Agendas with its allegations, it unanimously passed a vote of confidence in our religious advisers and in their integrity. I would want that to be heard and firmly held on the record.
The book purports to show that Section 10 of the ITC programme code was written by the then religious adviser to the IBA, the Reverend Eric Shegog, before the Broadcasting Bill had completed its passage. But the initial draft was quite properly made when the outline of the proposed new clauses on the content of religious programmes was known in June 1990. The programme code could not be finalised until the legislation had received Royal Assent in November 1990, and the draft code was sent out for wide consultation on 12th November 1990, some three months after Eric Shegog had left the IBA.
Among those consulted were members of the evangelical and traditionalist lobby, who are identified in the book. A number of changes were made to the code as a result of the consultation: for example, to allow recruitment on specialist channels and appeals for funds and for members within follow-up materials to programmes. Hidden Agendas makes no reference to the consultation process, stating only that the original draft ITC programme codes were issued on 12th November. Nor is there any reference to the important changes made to Section 10 following the consultation process.
Indeed, the book claims that when the code was finally published "there were no concessions". That is quite untrue. I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, means when he says that a restriction was included which was not there before. The ITC drew up the codes following this wide and careful process of consultation.
I hope that noble Lords may understand the present situation. Specialist religious channels licensed under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, Part II of the Act may recruit members by way of programmes designed
58
for this purpose. They have won their own audience. Whatever channel they may be watching the audience knows what to expect. So far as mainline channels reaching very broad audiences is concerned, the ITC takes into account the need to ensure that the code can apply to all religious groups, all faiths.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was a governor of the BBC in Lord Reith's day. In the debates on the Broadcasting Bill I believe that he was trying to call us back to the Christian broadcasting heritage which Lord Reith gave us, and I have a warm sympathy for all that was positive that he wanted to say about that. It is certainly the case that Reith was moved by Christian conviction and made an important place for religious broadcasting within the BBC, which lasts to this day. But he wanted the broadcaster to hold the ring and to ensure fair representation of all the different Christian traditions. Reith never confused the BBC either with a church or with the Church. The BBC has never agreed to he a recruiting station for a particular tradition but a place where all voices can be heard.
I share with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, the firm wish that robust expressions of Christian life and preaching should be broadcast. I have watched and listened to a great amount of broadcasting in these last three-and-a-half years. I believe that much is sensitively done, beginning where people are and not where the church people might like them to be—audiences that channels have built up over years. Religious broadcasting rightly takes note of our living in a multi-faith society. Within that society I believe that religious broadcasting in Britain does a fine job, reaching far higher proportions of audiences than religious programmes in the United States.
I am informed that the "Everyman" programme on Sunday nights, for example, an extremely thoughtful programme, obtains 3½ million viewers if it comes on at the earlier time that it should and has in fact more listeners and viewers than all the tele-evangelists put together. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, hoped for a more united church. I indeed agree on that. I hope that we may meet gladly in saluting the best of religious broadcasting and leave aside unworthy attacks on religious advisers, who serve us very well. I believe that the provisions of the Act are being observed.
What do the churches think about it? Recently the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England have reaffirmed their support for the programme code as it stands. I firmly hope that the Minister will make it plain that Her Majesty's Government do too.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down could he help us on one point? We have all been very interested in what he has had to say. But the right reverend Prelate referred to the discussions and the codes that had gone before the one we are discussing. Can he point to any previous code or any previous Act of Parliament in which there has been an expressed prohibition on what is described as recruiting?
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I am not sure that I can find the right references. I can say that the body that I chair has for many years—I think I am right in saying since 1975—said that religious broadcasting should reflect the composition and the membership of religious bodies in this country. Because of the guidance that CRAC had observed I was strongly pressed that the word "proclaim" should be included, as it was not. It seems to me that the movement is in that direction and not in the direction that the noble Lord suggested.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, as we can see this evening, religious broadcasting is a sensitive issue. The broadcasting authorities know that programmes can give offence to the faithful and indeed to those of no denomination at all. That is why they set up advisory bodies such as CRAC to draw up codes of practice which lay down what those who make, and take part in, religious programmes may or may not do. The trouble is that, when some issue arises, the authorities quickly pass the poisoned chalice on to their advisory boards. They then accept their advice, and if they are challenged reply that the Churches have always endorsed the composition and the rulings of the advisory board. The authorities take a similar line about the codes of practice. That is reasonable because why keep a dog and bark yourself? The result is that the advisory board comes to regard itself as all powerful and the Churches hesitate to challenge its rulings.
There can be no doubt that, as the Authority, the ITC is responsible for the content of religious programmes presented by the companies. If it accepts the codes drafted by the advisory boards they become official ITC practice½
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. If by "the advisory board" the noble Lord means CRAC, the body which I chair, I must point out that it did not draft any codes. The employees of the ITC drafted the code after careful and wide consultation, which included consultation with our body. I do not believe that our body has felt all powerful. I made the point that it never considers programmes before they are screened or broadcast.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I meant all powerful in presenting the codes, which the ITC is then of course at liberty to refuse. However, it is understandable that normally the ITC will accept the view of its advisory board. That does not mean that the Government can never express a view contrary to that of the authority. Indeed, governments do that all the time. The "Real Lives" controversy, which was handled so badly by the then Home Secretary and the Director-General of the BBC, is an example of how governments will raise an issue with an authority. However, no one denies that in the past Home Secretaries have, or today the Secretary of State for National Heritage has, every right to make their views known to the relevant authority and to ask for its comments.
60
I understand that both Mr. Mellor and Mr. Brooke told the ITC and the radio authority that it is legitimate for a broadcaster specifically to recruit believers provided that it is done in an act of worship. Indeed, Mr. Mellor inserted a section in the Act which states that that may be done provided that it is responsible and not an exploitative programme. That was done to ensure that the Moonies could not recruit but that the door was left open to the Evangelicals. In other words, when in a studio in 1950 Dr. Billy Graham appealed direct to viewers to change their lives, he was entitled to do so.
Do the new codes prohibit such an appeal to listeners? On that point, which is the real point at issue, the ITC speaks with two voices. The ITV religious broadcasting officer, Ms. Rachel Viney, said:
"If Billy Graham addressed the viewers direct to camera that would contravene the programme code as drafted because the programme code says that religious programmes on non-specialist channels may not be designed for the purpose of recruiting viewers to any particular religious faith or denomination".
Even more to the point was the evidence of Mr. Shegog, who was the author of the draft of the ITC codes. In a taped interview he explained that the "no recruitment" restriction in the ITC codes would stop Dr. Graham making the kind of personal appeal to viewers and to listeners that he has made in the past. Again, in March 1991 Ms. Clare Mulholland said that if the speaker on camera did make a direct appeal to millions of viewers the ITC would intervene. Nor have those officials left the broadcasting companies in any doubt about what would happen if such an appeal were made. They have told the companies that they would be liable to be fined and their licence re-examined and perhaps not renewed. I am told that they have threatened sanctions on a number of occasions.
But now ITV has sent to noble Lords taking part in tonight's debate a brief dated 5th November. At first sight the brief appears to endorse the attitude of those officials. Paragraph 10 states:
"The ITC does not believe that general audience channels should broadcast religious programmes made with the express purpose of recruiting viewers to a particular faith or denomination".
Such a programme could be broadcast only on a specialised service under an ITV licence. But in paragraph 13 ITV appears to run counter to its officers. It states that paragraph 10.7 of the code would permit Dr. Graham seeking to convert viewers,
"in the context of a rally, church service or other religious event".
It then adds:
"This already happens".
What the code would not permit would be:
"a change of emphasis from an event taking place in its own right … to a coverage aimed specifically at recruiting viewers".
Alas, my mind has not had the legal training which the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has had. As I am not a lawyer I have difficulty in understanding the fine distinctions which are being made tonight. I am not at all sure where we are being led. I can imagine Mr. Graham saying that if his act of worship is not aimed specifically at recruiting viewers it is nothing. Indeed, I am reminded of a story about the visit to a seminary of a Cardinal. He said to one of the young

61
seminarists, "M. l'Abbé, your superiors praise you for the great acuteness of the theological distinctions which you draw. Tell me, is it canonical to baptise an infant on point of death in soup?". The reply, which came back quick as a flash, was, "In your Eminence's soup, no; in the seminary's soup, yes".
The distinctions being drawn in this document are very fine indeed and they are extremely difficult to follow. I am worried further by the conclusion of the ITV briefing document. It stated that people imagined that the 1990 Act was deregulatory and that broadcasters would have greater freedom. With great satisfaction the document states that that view is mistaken and that the 1990 Act made changes which were re-regulatory and:
"necessitate a variety of rules and guidelines which were not required under the old system".
The ITV document added that:
"religious broadcasting will suffer as the result of too little regulation rather than too much".
There speaks the bureaucrat—we might be in Brussels!
I have often warned broadcasters about flouting the codes which prohibit excessive violence and ensure political impartiality. But I have always been in favour of giving broadcasters freedom unless it can be shown that grave damage will be done if some contentious programme is shown. Other speakers tonight have spoken, and will speak, from deep religious conviction. I speak in the cause of freedom. I have seen and still see the danger that what once was permitted will now be prohibited by the zealous efforts of officers whose sincerity and the difficulty of whose problems no one doubts. But a freedom is now being threatened with abolition and the ITC appears to be refusing to state its reasons for refusing to comply with what the Government were asking it to do. I hope that in reply the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will give the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his friends the unequivocal assurance that their fears are groundless.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on his masterly speech. He always entertains us, whether or not we agree with him. On this occasion he was at his fizzing best.
The noble Lord mentioned Billy Graham. When I was looking through the records I was surprised to see that Billy Graham was allowed, generally in football grounds and other large stadia, to broadcast in 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1980. When he went on a mission to Scotland there was a hitch. I am not sure whether or not that was because of the new regulations. We always throw mud at tele-evangelists. Surely it would be wrong to include Billy Graham in that, and I am sure that the right reverend Prelate would not do so. Billy Graham may be a tele-evangelist but no one could say that he was anything other than extremely sincere and successful in his message.
I wish to speak on another subject. I welcome the publication of the book Hidden Agendas—much work has been done on it in the past three years by two professors—which is about religious bureaucracy trying, it seems, to outwit Parliament as regards the regulation of religious broadcasting.
62
I welcome the introduction by the Government of a due responsibility and improper exploitation section —Section 6(1) (d), in the Broadcasting Act—to allow responsible evangelism, but not by the militant extremists or cults. I oppose the proposed restrictions in the ITC codes on recruitment and donations in order to make programmes. That represents a severe and unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the Act.
I remind your Lordships of the argument that I used during our debates on that legislation. The spread of religious broadcasting in the United States did not really take off until it was permitted to raise money by sponsorship or advertising. It is very expensive to make television programmes. Without proper funding programmes must be televised at unsocial hours when nobody sees them. I believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool tabled an amendment, which was turned down by this House, to oppose advertising.
I oppose the proposed restrictions on recruitment and donations to make programmes in the ITC codes which represented, I thought, a severe and unneces-sary restriction. Such over-regulation kills creativity and innovation. Although ITC officials consulted some parliamentarians, I believe that the interview took only just over half an hour. The code was modified in some respects but it was felt necessary to reject other suggestions that we made.
I am informed by the National Council for Christian Standards in Society that last week a large number of Church denominations sent out letters asking to be consulted about the ITC codes. They include churches in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, independent free churches, pentecostal, congregational and house churches, Afro-Caribbean churches, presbyterian churches, free methodist and baptist churches and the Salvation Army. They join dissent from the recruitment wings of the more traditional established Church. I should describe myself as a traditional established churchman. Those churches have all now said that they wish to be consulted. Therefore, the consultations which took place up to two years ago do not seem to have been thorough and perhaps it was not realised what was happening. The established Church has been caught out because those churches have not been invited to the recent cosy meetings held here in London by the advisory committees. The members of those different churches watch the same television as the rest of us and have every right to demand to be consulted as regards the ITC religious restrictions.
The ITC claimed that it consulted the churches before finalising its code at the beginning of 1991. Why is it that dozens of church denominations representing thousands of congregations and hun-dreds of thousands of people are asking to be consulted about the ITC religious codes?
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that none of those churches was consulted in that extremely wide consultation procedure? My understanding—because some of them have written to me—is that they objected because they were not invited to a private meeting with a private minute. I had nothing whatever to do

63
with that but I am aware that there was a meeting to which they were not invited. Is the noble Lord suggesting that those churches were not consulted in those earlier wide-ranging consultations?
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I suggest that some of them were not consulted in the earlier consultation when their views should have been sought. As regards what happened at a meeting recently, it was a very small, unofficial committee and perhaps the people present were not representative of those churches.
The ITC claims to have consulted the churches. If that is so, why has it now finished consulting? I believe that something is wrong here and Her Majesty's Government cannot ignore it. The ITC—a public regulatory body and a creature of the Broadcasting Act—has slightly overplayed its hand at Church politics.
The book Hidden Agendas quotes from the November 1987 affidavit by the ITC controller of advertising. He won a judicial review in the High Court, which, as my noble friend said, was an extremely long and drawn out business. That was against advertising the children's Bible stories: Noah's Ark, Moses, David and Goliath and Daniel in the lion's den. That ITC controller of advertising then expressed his disapproval of religious advertising in his published article of spring 1990 entitled:
"Hell-fire and Credit Cards—Is religious advertising coming to British Television; Frank Willis anticipates the worst".
That controller was then made responsible in 1990 for the ITC's impartial consultations about their religious advertising and sponsorship codes. When the codes were published it was no surprise that they were bursting with restrictions. I believe that it was unwise and unfair to put that referee in charge of those subjects.
Like many other noble Lords, I sat through debate after debate on the Broadcasting Act. We persisted in trying to build more into the Bill because we could not help but feel that when the codes were published, they would raise issues which we thought Parliament had decided against. I came across one small but strange example. In the early days of the draft Bill, after taking a great deal of legal advice, the Minister took out the word "denigrate" and instead inserted the words "abusive treatment". Your Lordships will see from the much-quoted wording of the present code that the words "abusive treatment" have been taken out and in their place is the word "denigrate". That shows what a strange way the ITC has of irritating Parliament by sweeping away the decisions of the democrats and instead putting in its own version. Bureaucrats should not always be allowed to get the better of democrats.
Section 6(1) (d) (ii) states:
"any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination",
should not be allowed. I am sure that we all say "hear, hear!" to that. However, only this month I came across the proposal to use a puppet of Jesus Christ in the "Spitting Image" programme. Those responsible had read neither the code nor the Act. I know that the ITC could argue that it has no responsibility until 1st
64
January. However, along with some other parliamen-tarians I sent a letter to The Times. That raised an issue from a person much beloved and respected in this House, the Bishop of London, Graham Leonard. He said:
"I understand that the Church of England made no effective public protest following the guying of Christ in 'Spitting Image'. It was left to the Muslim community to do so, which it did with effect. Do we now have to depend upon it rather than the Established Church to stand up for our Blessed Lord?"
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? He has taken the opportunity of attacking what he calls Church bureaucrats. Was the noble Lord not aware that the Reverend Eric Shegog, who is the communications officer for the Church of England, made a statement that was broadcast on the Sunday programme the morning before that programme came out and that it was in all the major newspapers that day? There could be no clearer comment from the Church of England.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, if I was unaware of it, so was the former Bishop of London. He stated that no one else had spoken up.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Lord would withdraw the point. I am stating what the communications officer of the Church of England did on that day.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I was quoting the former Bishop of London, who I knew quite well. It was a very high Church view and if he had not heard of the statement of the Reverend Shegog, who was appointed as chief communicator for the Church of England, I had not either. I apologise from that point of view. Others are equally ignorant.
My noble friend started the debate very effectively and suggested a solution. We cannot wait for a judicial review. We know that they take up to two years to complete and that they cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. If the Act that was passed after a year and a half of consideration is not matched by the codes, some solution should be found. Is Parliament incapable of finding a solution to the problem and making minor corrections that will be widely supported in most parts of this House and in another place?
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the last speaker has contributed an enormous amount of devoted work on this subject over the years, as have other speakers. I cannot lay claim to such a distinction. I speak simply as a man in the pew—a man who was in the pew yesterday. I said my prayers yesterday, as usual; and today.
I rise therefore with a certain diffidence, real or assumed. I ask three questions. First, have I complete confidence in Christian leaders, who negotiate arrangements with the broadcasting authorities on our behalf? Secondly, are those arrangements, humanly speaking, perfect? Thirdly, does the man in

65
the pew who is greatly privileged to be a Member of this House have a right and duty to offer a few humble suggestions of his own?
I can answer the first question easily. I have complete personal confidence in all of those who act for us in this matter—and most of all, because I know him best, in the right reverend Prelate, although later I may criticise one of his statements.
I remember fielding at long leg to the fast bowling of a previous cricket captain of England, the late G. O. Allen. He showed extraordinary tolerance when the ball trickled through my feet to the boundary, spoiling his average. I hope for a similar tolerance from the right reverend Prelate today.
In asking whether the arrangements are perfect, I do not begin with the spirit of someone who wants to disparage the statements in a general sense. I rang up my admired friend, Mary Whitehouse, last week and I received an answer which I did not expect. I asked about religious broadcasting and whether it was satisfactory. She said "It is a good deal better than it was". That was an answer that I should like to record. I did not say that the situation is all quite lamentable —not at all—but I do not think that it is perfect.
I am not sure whether Cardinal Newman had become a Roman Catholic when he stated:
"To live is to change and perfect is to have changed often"
I hope that the noble Lord will accept the possibility that change or improvement is necessary in the present arrangements.
What kind of general guidance do I offer today in my humble role? I begin by rejecting all the talk about a multi-faith society. I hope that it was my failing ears that told me that the noble Lord had used that expression. I know that in this House only parliamentary language is permitted; otherwise, I could say something which would certainly not be permitted here.
When noble Lords discussed the Education Bill in 1988, the heroic noble Baroness, Lady Cox, stated that 85 per cent. of the people of this country call themselves Christians, and only 5 per cent. owned up to, or took pride in, allegiance to some other religion. The figures do not appear to be very different today. With great respect to the noble Lord, it is my opinion that talk about a multi-faith society is fantastic. When other faiths represent between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. of Christians, to say that it is a multi-faith society is misleading. I reject with equal disdain the same talk of pluralist society. That might be true of Bradford or one or two other places; but it is certainly not true of Britain as a whole.
If I am allowed to make a general remark, the trouble with Christians is that, collectively speaking, they suffer—if they suffer at all—from an excess of humility. I wrote myself a little book on humility; but I suppose that if I mention that it will be a sin against the virtue in question. It is something that can be overdone. Christians are leaders speaking collectively more than other denominations. They have a duty to speak up for themselves and not to be misled by our humanist friends into the idea that we are all a lot of different religions, as in the old days, and Christians might have a majority but only a bare majority.
66
I hope that I do not appear to be a bigot. When I entered this House one of my sponsors was Jewish. I have introduced more than one Jewish friend. I have helped to introduce that tremendous rationalist, the late Baroness Wootton. I remember standing there while the alternative form of words was searched for, which was not so popular in those days.
I cannot accept the idea that I am ignoring the tremendous contribution made by Jewish friends, humanists and various religious minorities. Nevertheless, noble Lords surely have to take pleasure in the fact that we took the initiative in introducing the word "Christianity" into the Education Act. After almost half a century of religious education in the modern sense, it was finally included. It was not introduced through the initiative of the Churches, although I believe that they all welcomed it. The former Bishop of London welcomed it. It was introduced on the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She waited for other people to join and then it was introduced. The phrase in the Act states that religious education has to be wholly or mainly Christian. That does not sound like a multi-faith society. I view with horror the idea that all the religions, whatever their spiritual value in England, be treated as though they were on an equal footing.
I find some discussion among Christians—and here I shall place a strain on the almost infinite patience of the right reverend Prelate—on whether religious broadcasting, so far as it lies in the power of the Christian leaders, should reflect a state of opinion or should give a lead for that opinion. If it reflected opinion, then it would figure much more strongly in Christian education than it does now. Even so, how does one work out that equation? That is a very inadequate ambition.
It is up to the Christian leaders, in whom we have such great personal confidence, to give a lead and to do everything in their power (they are not dictators) to try to persuade other authorities. They should try to persuade and give a lead to Christians. If anyone says that that is proselytisation, then what is wrong with that? It is a Christian trying to persuade other people to become Christians. If Jesus Christ had not gone in for proselytisation, there would not be much Christianity. I do not shrink from these bad words. I testify in that sense in favour of the Motion. I do not want to seem to be crabbing the efforts which are being made by Christian leaders. I return to what I said. In the words of the schoolmaster, one is to be congratulated, but encouraged to do still better in future.
6.51 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I speak as a vice-president of the Christian Broadcasting Council. I welcome the opportunity for as many Christian Churches as possible to be consulted over the ITC restrictions. I support freedom for clergymen to express their views and directly to challenge television viewers about their spiritual needs in programmes recorded in the studios or on location.
If they are fit and proper persons and what they say is responsible but not exploitative, they fulfil the

67
requirements of the Broadcasting Act 1990. These provisions, coupled with discretion for the regulators, were put there to allow people like Billy Graham and his evangelism, while keeping out groups publicly regarded as unacceptable and offensive.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Will he suggest to your Lordships how, without a code, we might find a way of describing who was not acceptable?
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I agree that it is very difficult to see how any such way could be achieved. But that has always been an aim on the part of the people responsible for these regulations. During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill in 1990, the opposition of ITC officials and their advisers to the new opportunities in religious broadcasting was well known. But the Bill was changed by Parliament and those changes for removing the preponderance of religious restrictions are now law. This is an important point.
The regulatory codes are not the place to exact retaliation or punishment for those who lobby for greater freedom. The Government announced that the new Act would allow religious advertising and sponsorship. The ITC code distorts that to ban religious advertising and sponsorship directly towards people under 18 years of age. Surely that is totally unacceptable. Indeed, one might call it, in Shakespeare's words,
"the most unkindest cut of all".
The ITC advertising code also bans advertising of spiritual, moral or emotional counselling services, exhortations to change religious behaviour and any references to the benefits of religion for personal well being. I congratulate HMG for honouring their commitment to remove restrictions on religion in the Broadcasting Act, but, as it were, they have appointed vegetarians to run the meat counter.
This is an important point. The codes also ban appeals for donations to make programmes. That means that British Christian programmers are hamstrung if they try to compete with American groups which already have ample financial backing.
This issue is not a fitting matter for judicial review. Members of the public cannot be expected to fight court battles with public regulatory bodies to try to reinstate parliamentary authority. What is Her Majesty's Government going to do about all these unnecessary ITC code restrictions, which, taken together, are designed to throttle new and creative programmes coming from the evangelical and traditional heart of the Christian Church in our country?
6.58 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, if this debate has done nothing else it has shown up the need for Section 10.7 to be clarified. I am not going to say what I originally intended to say because a great deal of clarification has already emerged in that direction. I should like to talk along the lines of what my noble friends were saying about that section.
68
It seems that the ITC is saying loud and clear at the moment that matters like Billy Graham missions may be broadcast on independent television. The letter from Mr. David Glencross, the Chief Executive of the ITC, in reply to the letter from my noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing, Lord Ashbourne and others, has not yet been mentioned in this debate. In it, incidentally, Mr. Glencross made clear that he appears to have rebuked Central Television for using a "Spitting Image" illustration of our Saviour.
I was very glad to read in the letter to The Times that he states very categorically,
"As to religious broadcasting, the ITC's code does not, as the letter suggests"—
that is the letter of my noble friends Lord Ashbourne and others—
"prevent the televising of a church service, rally or meeting at which Dr Billy Graham or any other Christian preaches the Gospel".
That is excellent. The letter continues:
"The code's provisions are designed to implement the requirements of the Broadcasting Act 1990".
Section 6(1) (d) is then referred to.
What is written in that letter is perfectly clear and good. What he does not do in that letter is refer to Section 10.7, which is what my noble friend Lord Ashbourne had raised in the letter to which several Members of your Lordships' House contributed. They talk quite clearly about a code,
"which effectively prohibits an evangelist such as Billy Graham inviting viewers to make a commitment to Jesus Christ".
That has been denied in Mr. Glencross's letter and I believe it was also denied in the letter which my noble friend Lord Renton quoted from originally. Let us therefore look at Section 10.7. I was helped by what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said. As I see it, he is saying that the section is dealing with a limited range of activities. It states,
"Although religious programmes may quite properly be used to propound, propagate and proclaim religious belief, religious programmes on non-specialist channels may not be designed for the purpose of recruiting viewers to any particular religious faith or denomination".
I had always read that as being what is commonly called a "no recruitment" policy and intended to prohibit the sort of appeal that Dr. Graham, whom I have had the privilege of knowing for some 35 years, normally makes in his evangelistic missions. This is backed by what Mr. Shegog has said—that the code was intended to prohibit that. Mr. Shegog has gone on record as saying that very clearly. I appreciate that he claimed to have drafted the code, but this has been denied by Mr. Glencross.
If I understood correctly what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was saying, this does not refer to a public mission where the principal aim is to speak to those who are attending the mission, but exclusively to that sort of occasion which is geared only to recruiting on television. I am not clear whether that is what this means. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I am a lawyer by training, and I consider that its wording is unsatisfactory in either of two sets of circumstances: either Mr. Shegog is right and it is intended to prohibit that sort of mission appeal or, if Mr. Glencross is right

69
in saying that it does not prohibit that sort of appeal, the wording should be clarified in order to meet that. I submit that this position is totally unsatisfactory.
Historically, appeals by Dr. Graham have frequently been broadcast on the television by both the BBC and ITV. He has clearly been photographed while at Roker Park in the course of a local mission. He has been photographed (and that has been put out over television), making an appeal to both those who are sitting in their homes watching television and those in the football ground, urging them to commit themselves to Jesus Christ and become his disciples. That has always happened in the past. The question that we are asking now is: will that happen in the future? I submit that the wording of Section 10.7 is unsatisfactory and I should like my noble friend Lord Astor, who is to reply to the debate, to agree to write to the chairman of the ITC and to say that that section needs amending. If it is correct that it is not intended to prohibit a mission, I hope that that will be clarified and made crystal clear.
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House this evening, I must ask the Minister who is to reply to the Unstarred Question to accept that there is a syndrome of mistrust between what I may call the religious lobby in your Lordships' House and the ITC as established by the Broadcasting Act 1990. As to the religious lobby, it is in part represented by those who have put their names down to speak this evening; and as to the ITC, it is not represented here, so the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, must do his best with whatever brief it has presumed to provide him so that he can answer some 64,000 dollar questions. In pausing at this point, I appeal to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool to help me to resolve this spirit of distrust rather than taking sides and defending one party or another too exclusively.
Perhaps I may make it clear that there is no question in my mind of any sort of disingenuous behaviour by Ministers in this House or in another place. They and the religious lobby—and possibly the higher echelons of the ITC itself —have in my view been double-crossed by officials of what was once the IBA, and now the ITC. Let me also assure your Lordships that nothing I shall say in any way implicates the sound-broadcasting world.
Your Lordships may recall that when the printing press was first invented there was an immediate attempt by the religious authorities of the day to embargo the printing of canonical works—the Old and the New Testaments, the writings of the fathers of the Church and so on. That was futile as is every attempt to strangle and to stamp on something that is new and acceptable at large when people at large have got used to the idea. One might quote the advice that Gamaliel gave to the Sanhendrin over what was new in those days, "If this thing be of men it will fail, but if it is of God you cannot withstand it".
I want to be as clear as possible about why officials treat this whole matter as a hot potato. But my noble friend Lord Annan has done it so well that I shall not
70
take up your Lordships' time in saying less effectively what he has already said so well. I can only speak with whatever residue of authority vests in me as an ex-governor of the BBC—albeit 30 years ago—and, as the right reverend Prelate remarked, as a friend of Lord Reith, a son of the manse, who had high hopes of the part that religious broadcasting could play in the life of the nation.
I know a lot about quangos, boards of governors and officials. I know that part-time governors, meeting for only half a day and only once a month, can only too easily have the wool pulled over their eyes by officials whose main concern is to combine doing the things that they want and keeping out of trouble. Ministers of the Crown are from time to time at hazard in this respect. This is what has led to the present syndrome of distrust—and only the ITC can resolve it. It must either live with mistrust or modify its code before 1st January. The onus is on that body to take action, as I was telling its chairman only last week.
I have in my hand and in particular a tape dated 29th March 1991. It is not my property and belongs to the author of the book which has been named, Hidden Agendas. I cannot therefore surrender it for inspection because it does not belong to me, but I spent an hour this morning making a faithful transcript in my own hand of some of the questions and answers at interviews with the ex-head of religious broadcasting of the former IBA, and in the interview with the current religious broadcasting officer of the ITC. I could name them, but I prefer to give them their official titles in order not to make it a personal matter.
I shall deal first with the ex-head of religious broadcasting at the former IBA. He left its employment in September 1990—that is to say, before the Broadcasting Bill came before your Lordships' House; before your Lordships amended it; before your Lordships' amendments were referred to the Commons; before the Commons returned them to your Lordships and before the Bill passed. He left as a legacy the draft of the code—the code as it now is —and recorded his reminiscences in March 1991. He had previously contributed to a book in which he expressed the view that evangelism had its place in church, at the street corner, in meetings or in schools, but no place in broadcasting. In the unpublished tape recording that I have just transcribed, he asserts:
"The grammar and syntax of Broadcasting does not lend itself to that sort of thing".
The phrase "that sort of thing" was a reference to Billy Graham. So here we have a code drafted by someone who, not being in any way hostile to religion, is apparently hostile to religious broadcasting.
There then follow questions and answers about the codes.
"Q. I wonder how you got them out so quickly.
A. I wrote them."
Then, in a later comment:
"I started my new job in September".
So they must have been written before they ever came to your Lordships' House. Asked why, he stated:
"There was nobody else to do it. There was nobody else with the requisite experience of legislation".

71
One wonders what experience of legislation he may have had.
"Q. Watching the legislation you sat down and wrote the code. Was it modified?"
His answer was in the affirmative.
"Q. But its fundamentals are your code?
A. Yes, its fundamentals are the one I drafted."
So the fundamentals of this code were drafted in June 1990 —in the summer of 1990—by someone who left the employment of the IBA in September and was giving this interview in March of the following year. Is it any wonder that on finding this out a syndrome of mistrust arises?
Later on the tape he spoke of challenging the IBA for its implementation, if you please, of the spirit of the Act in its own code and he appeared disappointed when the IBA took legal advice as to whether its implementation was in conformity with the spirit of the Act. This disappointed him. I have also checked with the tape the comment of the ITC religious broadcasting officer quoted by my noble friend Lord Annan.
So we have a situation in which those basically hostile to religious broadcasting as such have drafted a code to make life as difficult as possible for those who wish to promote it, a code very far from expressing the views of this House or another place.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I apologise for rising to speak again, but no one else is here to speak for people who in my view are being denigrated in a disgraceful way. The noble Earl has said that those officers are opposed to religious broadcasting. Their whole life work is to promote religious broadcasting and they do it with great sensitivity. I remind your Lordships' House that the committee which I chair—noble Lords may see that its published membership is from all the major Churches in the four countries and from other religious bodies —passed a unanimous vote of confidence in their integrity. The committee has had a lot of time to debate and consider all the matters which your Lordships are asserting.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the committee would pass comment on the integrity of a colleague. One always would if challenged.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, that is passing comment on a colleague. I am not a colleague. I am an independent member of a Church, as is every other member of CRAC. None of us is paid; none of us is an employee of the BBC or the ITC. We are members of an objective body who have had plenty of time to take the most careful look at these matters. On the basis of a full and thorough investigation—we have heard all the things that have been asserted today —we passed a unanimous vote of confidence in their integrity.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I regret to say it to the right reverend Prelate, but CRAC is another body which is subject to mistrust.
The ITC has asserted that the code in its final form results from widespread consultation. This is not accepted by those whose attitudes object to it most
72
and who feel less than consulted. The National Council for Christian Standards in Society, of which I have the honour to be president, does not feel that it has been consulted. There has been selective consultation, or, if you like, bogus consultation. Write round and ask for everyone's views, acknowledge their reply, tick off their name as having been consulted on the consultation list—and lo! and behold they have been consulted.
What is to be done? First, the Government must recognise that this syndrome of distrust exists. It is no use trying to talk it away. It is there. Secondly, the ITC must recognise it and come under pressure from the Ministry, as has been recommended, to put it right before 1st January. As I told its chairman, only the ITC can do it, and only the Government can kick the ITC into doing it following the representations in your Lordships' House.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, first, I should say that I shall not detain your Lordships for very long on this subject and, secondly, I should apologise that my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth is not speaking in my place as he planned to do. Unfortunately, he was called away on an unavoidable engagement.
I must confess, as one who is not as expert in these matters as almost all the other noble Lords who spoke on the subject are, that I feel strong sympathy with the right reverend Prelate who has alone expressed the view in the exceedingly unbalanced debate that we have had today—in which the large majority of those who participated come from one particular branch of the Christian faith and have expressed one particular view. I find it especially unattractive when people focus their attack on officials—officials who cannot speak for themselves, officials whose job is not to pervert the course of justice or destroy religious broadcasting, which is their livelihood if nothing else.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I attacked offices, not officers.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I stand corrected. Their job is first to carry out and interpret the wish of Parliament as expressed in legislation; and secondly, to carry out the instructions of boards of governors and advisory bodies which they serve. It is unwarranted to treat them as though they were the source of our problems in this matter. If there is a problem in dealing with religious broadcasting—it appears to be a specific one the responsibility must fall on boards of governors and senior officers in broadcasting bodies.
I have listened with great interest to what has been said. I take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the Broadcasting Act 1990 was a bid to change the broadcasting system in this country. It has done so and I believe that it will do so for the worse. But that is another matter. It has also changed the nature of religious broadcasting because it has changed the position of the ITC vis-à-vis broadcasters in a way which is fundamental and leads to the

73
necessity of drawing up elaborate codes of practice as guidance to broadcasters who will be fined or punished if they disobey the spirit of the Act.
What has not been emphasised in the course of the debate is the fact that very shortly in this country we shall have broadcasting by satellite and cable on a large scale. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, with anticipation and pleasure, never ceases to remind us of the fact that the whole of this country will be "Murdochised". But when that happens we shall have religious broadcasting of precisely the kind that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others who have spoken appear to look forward to. We shall have religious broadcasting which is allowed to recruit. We shall have religious broadcasting which is allowed to appeal for funds. I only hope that it will not imitate, as I suspect it may, the American type of TV evangelism the so-called electronic church.
Perhaps I may describe to the House what it is like or what it is thought to be like by one who has read the book Hidden Agendas and found it a somewhat suspect volume. The reviewer of the Catholic Herald writes:
"The writers are unduly scathing in their criticism of British religious programme makers, but do not apply their critical faculties with the same rigour to the American-style 'evangelists', and the so-called electronic Church they would advocate for Britain … They have failed to appreciate that the ethos of the electronic Church as developed in America is a distorted vision of the Christian faith, individualistic, cosy, comforting and unchallenging".
I hope we avoid that fate. But on the day when we are bombarded from satellite and cable and elsewhere with religious messages in that style, I suspect that we may look back with nostalgia and, perhaps, some gratitude to the era of self-restraint when religious broadcasting was conducted by the IBA and the BBC.
As many speakers have said, there is a central problem in the IBA code of practice. It is a verbal problem. It is the problem of how one distinguishes between proclaiming and recruiting. I think it should be admitted that it is a fudge. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was right to ask what it is intended to do. It is intended to keep the Moonies off. That is an act of censorship and we must face that fact. But that is what Parliament suggested. Parliament cannot avoid responsibility: it willed the end and now it cannot deny the means. I do not think that it is particularly respectable and I have no solution to the problem. Nevertheless, I do not look forward to the day when the contrary takes place.
Those who have objected have not suggested anything very concrete as to what we should do. No one in this evening's debate has solved the verbal conundrum. They have said that the Government must do something about it. In point of fact, the people who are doing something about it are those who are in charge of broadcasting and those, like the right reverend Prelate, who deal with CRAC. The only suggestion I have heard as to how the matter should be dealt with is that the Government should say what must be done.
If there is one rule that I learnt in my experience as vice-chairman of the BBC it is that whenever the Government tell broadcasters to do something they get themselves into trouble and the advice is nearly
74
always wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to the fiasco of "Real Lives". The only people he did not blame who should have been blamed in addition to the Director-General and the Home Secretary were the governors of the BBC for taking any notice of what the Government said. They should have said "Yes, we take your message; we will look at it". They should then have said, as they did after a fortnight's delay, "We will broadcast the programme". It was just a rather boring programme in point of fact. It did no harm, except to politicians, the Director-General and to the reputation of the governors of the BBC.
In the same connection, as regards the present issue, the last thing I would advocate is that the Government should ring up broadcasting authorities and tell them what to do about religious broadcasting. That would make me believe even more firmly than I do today in the necessity for separating Church from state. If there is one thing that governments in this country should not talk about, or try to organise, it is religion. I therefore believe that our present situation is infinitely preferable to one in which the Government intervened and told the broadcasting authorities what to do about—of all the things in the world—religious broadcasting.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will clarify a point before he sits down. Does he agree that it is perfectly all right for the Government to say, "We have heard this debate and are alarmed that something which has been allowed in the past may be in danger of being prohibited in the future"?
Lord Renton: My Lords, that is the whole point.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I have not gained the impression that that will be the effect of the code. Of course, I may be wrong and such fears may be justified. However, I am prepared to take a big bet that the poor officials concerned will have enough sense to see that the code is interpreted sensibly.
7.24 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for initiating tonight's debate on a subject which is clearly of considerable concern to your Lordships. I know that there were lengthy and thought-provoking debates on religious broadcasting when the Broadcasting Bill passed through the House. Of course, your Lordships have an advantage of me, as I did not take part in the proceedings on that legislation. There remains a feeling of unease among some noble Lords that the intentions of Parliament on religious broadcasting will not be achieved in practice; and that, in some way, the development of responsible religious broadcasting will be inhibited.
I hope to assure your Lordships this evening that that will not be the position. I therefore welcome the opportunity to restate the Government's intentions and commitment to the development of religious broadcasting and to explain the roles and responsibili-ties of the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority in licensing and regulating religious programming and advertising.

75
We are all mindful of the powerful influence that television can have on the hearts and minds of its audiences, particularly, perhaps, on those who look to television for companionship and support. We therefore need to balance carefully the desire to allow greater freedom in religious broadcasting against the need to safeguard viewers' susceptibilities. We need also to give due consideration to the diversity of people living in this country. We have always applied the concept of religious broadcasting in a way which reflects the range of religious views in the United Kingdom. We intend to maintain that concept while giving proper weight to the traditions of Christian belief in our society.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what we want to achieve. With the Broadcasting Act 1990, we set out to introduce a number of measures to liberalise the regulation of broadcasting. Moreover, the regulation would be achieved in a different way; namely, through licences and codes, rather than through previewing programmes or approving schedules. That type of regulation is no longer sensible when the number and choice of broadcasting services has increased so rapidly and will continue to do so in the future.
Under earlier legislation, the IBA had to give prior approval for the broadcast of any religious service or propaganda relating to matters of a religious nature. Under the 1990 Act, licensees will no longer be required to obtain approval from the ITC. The automatic ban on religious advertising has been removed. Religious groups will be allowed to own radio stations and some have already taken advantage of the new regime to operate stations. That never happened under the 1981 Act, when the expectation was that the IBA would not allow it. Most importantly, the 1990 Act opened up the possibility of new channels and stations, so allowing many new outlets for religious programmes.
I know that some noble Lords were concerned that those provisions did not go far enough and were still unduly restrictive. We were willing to listen and to think again. As a result, the Broadcasting Bill was amended in two important ways. First, Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees will be required to give a sufficient amount of time to religious programmes. That guarantees that religious programmes will continue to be shown on the main independent terrestrial services, as they will be by the BBC. Secondly, the ITC was given discretion to allow religious groups to own cable and non-domestic satellite services, if it is satisfied that that is appropriate. One licence has already been issued for a non-domestic satellite service. Other religious groups are also showing interest in operating religious services on satellite or cable television channels.
Much has been achieved. But I return to my point about the influence of television on its audience. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that safeguards are necessary to avoid abuse of broadcasting by religious cults, extremists, fanatics or people who might be described as the wrong sort of "telly
76
evangelists". The Act therefore requires that any treatment of religious matters must be responsible and not exploitative.
We expect the ITC and the Radio Authority to spell out that requirement in their codes on programming standards. Further, as with all broadcasting licensees, religious broadcasters have to be fit and proper persons and must abide by the codes covering advertising sponsorship and appeals for donations, comply with consumer protection requirements on taste, decency, offensiveness and on not encouraging crime or disorder, and avoid editorialising on religious as well as political matters.
The Act, therefore, allows responsible religious broadcasting to develop, but with safeguards. The ITC codes on programming and advertising are one such safeguard. I know that there is concern over their content and that some noble Lords fear that they are unduly restrictive. It has been suggested that Ministers should intervene. Indeed, during the Broadcasting Bill's passage through Parliament it was suggested that the religious programme code should be made subject to parliamentary approval.
This would not be right. The Act specifically established the ITC and the Radio Authority as the public bodies responsible for licensing and regulating all commercial radio and television services. They have a statutory responsibility to publish various codes relating to the standards and content of licensed services. The purpose of these published codes is to enable them to set out detailed rules for their licensees on aspects of broadcasting which Parliament wants to be regulated. Members of the commission and authority are advised on the content of the codes by a permanent staff, including specialists in programming and advertising regulation.
Parliamentary approval of the codes or government intervention of any kind is not only unnecessary but it has potential dangers. It would undermine the authority of the ITC and the Radio Authority. Moreover, if government or parliamentary approval were needed to some aspects of the codes, why not to others? The risks of political interference are obvious. The Government therefore have no power to alter the contents of the codes. It is finally for the courts to determine whether the codes comply with the Act. Having said that, I give my noble friend Lord Renton an assurance that I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the ITC what has been said this evening by your Lordships, including of course the view on the code, particularly paragraph 10.7, of my noble friend Lord Brentford.
However, the ITC and the Radio Authority did not formulate and publish the codes without consultation with CRAC and also many other religious bodies. The programme and advertising codes were published in draft form after the Act came into force. The ITC and Radio Authority consulted widely on their contents. Broadcasters, religious groups and individuals were invited to comment. As a result of the consultations the programme codes were amended.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, chairman of the Central Religious Advisory

77
Committee, mentioned the book Hidden Agendas. It is a book written and published in support of a particular view; it marshals its arguments towards that end. I do not propose to answer the individual allegations which its authors make, but one of the themes in the book is that the Government in some way misled the House during the passage of the Bill and have not honoured undertakings that were given by them.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will give way, I specifically dissociated myself from that point. I said that I had no feeling whatever of disingenuousness by the Government.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, what I described was not what the noble Earl said this evening. It was one of the themes in the book. I do not associate the remark with the noble Earl.
I do not believe that a thorough analysis of the record would support that conclusion. As your Lordships know, there were many meetings in the course of the passage of the Broadcasting Bill and long debates. We have carefully examined our records of what was said and done. The allegation of misleading the House is not one which we took lightly.
From this assessment we take the view that three assurances were given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers and that all three were fulfilled. They were: that the ITC would in practice implement the policy described in the amendment to the Bill proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, that religious programmes maintain the centrality of the Christian faith while still allowing opportunities for the views of other religious groups to be expressed; that the ITC draft guidelines would be subject to full and wide consultation; and that they would seek to reflect the words in the noble Earl's proposed amendment.
Paragraph 10.5 of the ITC's programme code reflects and gives effect to the assurance which my noble friend Lord Ferrers made without using the precise wording in the withdrawn amendment. It requires the ITV companies to recognise that the mainstream religious traditions in this country are mainly but not exclusively Christian.
As I have said, the ITC consulted widely about the programme code. I must tell my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that it consulted a wide range of religious bodies. The drafts were publicly available and discussed in the press. Everyone who took an interest could have commented if they chose and it was not empty consultation.
The ITC amended the programme code to allow specialist religious channels to recruit to a faith and to permit follow-up literature to include fund-raising provided that the tone and content of the literature was responsible; and lifted the prohibition on the proclamation of faith in programmes to allow religious groups to advocate their views provided the programmes do not prey on people's fears and susceptibilities. These are not the actions of a body trying to restrict or marginalise religious broadcast-ing. It is not the act of bogus consultation.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool explained this to your Lordships, I thought, in the
78
most useful, thoughtful and illuminating speech and his explanation of the use of the word "proclaim" as opposed to "recruit" was extremely useful for us all.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I raise a question? I thought that no light at all was thrown on that distinction today. How the noble Viscount, whom I respect so highly, could possibly say that it was useful to us all passes belief.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl did not find it interesting. I thought that the word "proclaim" was interesting. My noble friend Lord Renton asked whether St. Paul would be able to preach. The answer is of course that St. Paul could recruit on a specialist religious channel and he could also recruit if it was within an act of worship that was being broadcast. The key is that it should be within that act of worship.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed to meet the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool before the end of the year to discuss the scheduling of religious programmes, the future of the BBC and some of the evangelical Christian groups' concerns. We look forward to that meeting.
My noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that paragraphs 10.5 and 10.7 of the code are self-contradictory and inconsis-tent with Section 6(1) (d) of the 1990 Act. They said that the distinction in paragraph 10.7 of the code between "propounding", "propagating" and "pro-claiming" religious beliefs which allows recruitment and therefore is not allowed, is meaningless. It is not the Government's role to be drawn into this kind of detailed textual criticism. It is for the ITC to interpret the words of the Act and for the courts to test that interpretation if necessary. In its foreword to the code the ITC says that the code is subject to interpretation in the light of changing circumstances. No doubt the ITC will wait to see what happens in practice before considering changes.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? I am afraid that all my notes are with Hansard, but I remember quite clearly raising the matter of paragraph 10.7 and the difficulties that could arise. I do not believe that I personally raised the question of Section 6 of the Act and said that it was contradictory to Section 10 of the code. However, I may be proved wrong.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness raised the question on the two sections and I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton and another noble Lord compared the provision with Section 6. I apologise to the noble Baroness. I was answering more than one question at a time but on the same subject.
My noble friend Lord Renton asked about religious advertising. It is not permitted on ITV or Channel 4 until 1993. It has been permitted on the radio since 1991. The dioceses of Lichfield and Oxford have run generic campaigns at Christmas and Easter on behalf of all local churches and denominations to encourage people to go to church. St. Martin-in-the-Fields recently advertised some of its services on LBC.

79
My noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, asked me about the code for advertising. As I have said, the former IBA prohibition continues; but from 1st January 1993 advertising and sponsorship by religious bodies will be broadcast on ITV and Channel 4 subject to the requirements of the ITC code on advertising and sponsorship. I understand that the ITC is considering some revisions to the sponsorship code for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, talked about the religious stations currently running. I believe the noble Baroness referred to the cable only Christian TV channel in Swindon called "Vision". There are Christian radio stations. There is "Radio Cracker". United Christian Broadcasters has a temporary station in Stoke and has had one in Great Malvern. Several other Christian groups have been awarded temporary restrictive licences. Some of those groups have now applied for permanent local radio licences.
The noble Baroness also asked me about fund-raising. We have no plans to amend the Act. The provisions of the Act, which were discussed at great length and with much care during its passage, have not yet fully come into effect. We must give the new framework the opportunity to be tested before turning our minds to thinking of how to change it.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was the chairman of the committee on the future of broadcasting which reported to the Government in 1987. He gave us his views and, as usual, he entertained your Lordships. I notice that in a personal postscript to the book Hidden Agendas the noble Lord comments on CRAC's evidence to the committee and on the book's allegation of dissension within it. However, I noted he concluded that the broadcasters alone have the right to decide on programming and the ITC exists to ensure that what is broadcast in accordance with legislation is approved by Parliament. I do not think there is an inconsistency between that view and the view of other noble Lords. The ITC must, after due consultation, draw up its code under the Act.
80
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing talked about "Spitting Image". I realise I must tread very carefully here. Perhaps this is a personal view, but I believe the Church and our Christian faith have the strength to ignore, be amused or be horrified by "Spitting Image" without considering that it damages either our faith or our Church. However, that is my personal view. Having said that, I appreciate my noble friend's concern but I must repeat that the code is the responsibility of the regulatory body and that editorial decisions are ones which broadcasters must first make for themselves.
In conclusion, the provisions of the 1990 Act will result in a liberalisation of broadcasting which will create, not restrict, opportunities. There are no new restrictions on religious broadcasting. Broadcasters are able to continue to show acts of worship and to report on religious recruitment crusades. As I am sure noble Lords will realise, television is a constantly evolving medium. People's views and standards also change, perhaps more slowly than technology and the means to express them. The ITC has said it intends to wait to see how the codes operate in practice. It would consider amending the codes if, for example, there were examples of perfectly acceptable religious programmes which could not be shown. It is open to any religious group to make its view known to the ITC on any subject at any time.
This has been a debate of the highest quality and I can assure your Lordships that the Government will keep the effect of the religious broadcasting provisions under review.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill [H.L.]
A Message was sent to the Commons that they be pleased to return the Bill because Clause 14 was incorrect. Bill returned from the Commons pursuant to the Message of this day.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  MALAWI: AID
  MALAWI: AID
  EXTRADITION: RATIFICATION OF PROTOCOLS TO EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  EXTRADITION: RATIFICATION OF PROTOCOLS TO EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  MORTGAGE POSSESSION ACTIONS IN GREATER LONDON
  MORTGAGE POSSESSION ACTIONS IN GREATER LONDON
  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: TRANSMISSIBILITY
  BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: TRANSMISSIBILITY
  NUTRITION TASK FORCE: MEMBERSHIP
  NUTRITION TASK FORCE: MEMBERSHIP
  TOMLINSON REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE
  TOMLINSON REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE
  DIET COSTS: ASSESSMENT
  DIET COSTS: ASSESSMENT
  DIET COSTS: INFORMATION SOURCES
  DIET COSTS: INFORMATION SOURCES
  SOCIAL SECURITY EXPENDITURE: HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
  SOCIAL SECURITY EXPENDITURE: HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
  DTI PREMISES, 1–19 VICTORIA STREET
  DTI PREMISES, 1–19 VICTORIA STREET
  BUSINESS FAILURES IN GREATER LONDON
  BUSINESS FAILURES IN GREATER LONDON
  NOS 6–7, OLD PALACE YARD
  NOS 6–7, OLD PALACE YARD