Sitting of 10 November 1992

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

    LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    LLANELLI BOROUGH COUNCIL (RIVER LLIEDI) BILL [Lords]
    Considered; to he read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Occupational Health
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the time that medical students spend on occupational health issues during their training.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Medical students already learn about occupational health medicine as part of the standard undergraduate medical curriculum. The General Medical Council has responsibility for the content of the curriculum and has recently issued a discussion document proposing changes. Those include proposals to increase our future doctors' knowledge of occupational health matters. The Government fully support the General Medical Council's proposals.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister. On a personal note, it makes a change to have discussions other than during Northern Ireland business.
    The Minister must realise that occupational health is not taught in seven out of 27 medical schools, and in many others it is treated casually. If the hon. Gentleman has discussions with the GMC, will he impress upon it the need to make occupational health a core subject rather than allow it to remain a peripheral subject?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I reciprocate the hon. Gentleman's first remark.
    I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It was partially his concern that caused the GMC to issue its proposals. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to occupational health being an important part of the medical undergraduate curriculum.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I welcome my hon. Friend's admission that occupational health has not always been
    726
    taught as well as it might have been. Will he assure the House that when he consults the GMC, he will pay particular attention to comparative studies with the services offered by our Community partners which, in many respects, have a much more sophisticated system?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister, in his discussions with the GMC, also consider the effect of the present restrictions on hospital intakes on the quality of medical training? I quote a letter from the consultants at Llandough hospital, which serves my constituency—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we do not have quotations at Question Time. He may paraphrase briefly.
    Mr. Morgan: A letter to me from consultants at Llandough hospital, which provides medical training for south-east Wales, refers to the fact that medical training is suffering because of the current restrictions on intakes. The dean of the medical school is concerned that, with no paediatric intake, no gyneacological elective operations and no waiting list in elective surgery, junior doctors do not have enough work to do and medical students are not being properly trained. What will the Minister do about that?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have no doubt that, if the hon. Gentleman wants us to take the matter seriously, he will be in correspondence with us and we shall look at the letter that he has received from his constituents. However, that matter goes much wider than this question.

    Practice Nurses
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the number of practice nurses employed by family doctors has changed (a) since 1978 and (b) since 1990.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): In 1978, 888 whole-time equivalent practice nurses were employed by general practitioners. The number at 1 October 1990 was 7,698—a massive increase of more than 700 per cent. The latest figures available are to 1 October 1991, when 8,776 nurses were employed by GPs.
    Mr. Day: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, which I am sure that the whole House will welcome. Does he agree that that answer is evidence of a vast—indeed, record—increase in NHS resources? Will he confirm that, since 1979, nurses' pay has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms? Does he agree that that is a sign not only of increased resources but of efficient use of those resources, which is vital in the present climate of pressure on public expenditure?
    Mr. Sackville: What my hon. Friend has said about nurses' pay is correct. Moreover, the total budget for family doctor services has more than doubled in recent years. The effect is clear: additional services are being offered, such as immunisation, and practice nurses are very popular with patients.

    Community Care
    Mr. Legg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the response from local authorities to the announcement about community care finance she made on 2 October.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Our decision to introduce a ring-fenced special transitional grant of £539 million in 1993–94, and to announce that and the grant for the following two years in advance of the general local government settlement, has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Legg: The sums that my right hon. Friend has won for the implementation of community care by local authorities are very welcome. Does she agree that, at a time of difficult choices in public expenditure, it is most welcome that priority is being given to community care? This is a long-awaited feature of Government reform.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. Certainly, very difficult decisions must be made about public expenditure, but we believe that it is right to fund care in the community fairly. That is a long-standing policy. We introduced the legislation; we have introduced the regulation; now, we are fairly funding it. It is now up to local authorities and health authorities to make care in the community the success that all intend it to be.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does the Secretary of State believe that those funds will be safe after the Chancellor's statement on Thursday? It is possible that he will remove the money that has been made available through her good offices, by way of the back door. In reality, no extra funds may be available for community care.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear that we have maintained our commitment to fund care in the community fairly, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, when all the consequences of the autumn statement are understood. It is now up to local authorities to accept a responsibility that they have long sought and to ensure that when they provide services the users of those services, rather than their own narrow or partisan interests, are at the forefront of their minds.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that, under the new arrangements, the excellent work carried out by drug rehabilitation centres such as Turning Point, in my constituency, will be allowed to continue? Is she aware of the grave concern that is felt about that matter?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend on that point. Drug and alcohol rehabilitation units are carrying out excellent work. A substantial sum is involved and detailed discussions have taken place with the providers of drug and alcohol care to ensure that all the proper regulations are in place.
    I can reassure my hon. Friend that there is a direction on choice. There is also a requirement that a substantial amount of the money must be used in the independent sector—the voluntary and private sectors—and that agreements with health authorities must be in place. I believe that, given all those safeguards, no anxiety need be felt on behalf of drug and alcohol misusers, but the
    728
    Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo)—is engaging in further discussions to ensure that all aspects are fully considered.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Apart from the £300 million shortfall identified by local authorities, do not the funding formula and the requirement for 75 per cent. of the money to be spent on independent provision demonstrate that the Government have completely abandoned one of the fundamental principles of the community care reforms—the avoidance of unnecessary institutional care? Is it not apparent that they are being prevented from developing a proper community care policy by irrelevant free market dogma? Is not their treatment of the private care sector in marked contrast to their complete ditching of previous commitments to protect drug and alcohol projects?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the position. On the day that I announced the ring-fenced money, my understanding was that, only the day before, the hon. Gentleman had said that no news on money would be available until at least the end of October or the beginning of November. We have fairly discharged that responsibility.
    As ever, the hon. Gentleman, who is sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, thinks always of the public sector providers and not of the voluntary and private sectors. We have made it clear that money must be spent by the independent providers if we are to safeguard choice. Choice always means very little to the Labour party. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman cares to listen, I am able to inform him, and others, that after consultations with local authorities we are amending the requirement relating to the percentage to be provided by the independent sector. That will now be 85 per cent. of the transfer element, but the additional 35 per cent. over and above social security money will be distributed normally and can be used in the way that local authorities choose.
    Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend recall the pleas made by the Social Services Select Committee, many organisations and hon. Members on both sides of the House that the transfer of funds from social security to community care should be both adequate and ring-fenced? I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting both those pleas. Is not a high proportion of the income support provided by social security already spent in the private sector? Does it not make sense, therefore, that the vast majority of the funds to be transferred should similarly be used in the private sector?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, my hon. Friend is extremely well informed and authoritative on these issues. The Select Committee took the view over many years that the money should be ring-fenced. We gave an undertaking not only that it would be available and be seen to be fair but that it would be transparent. Local authorities are now in a good position to take forward that policy.
    My hon. Friend is also absolutely right about income support. At present, it is spent entirely in the voluntary and private sectors. That is why today's announcement is important: that 85 per cent. of the money that comes over from social security will be spent in the independent sector. However, the 35 per cent., over and above, will be spent in the way that the local authority wishes.
    I think that the Labour party has singularly failed to understand the significance of what I am saying. The

    729
    announcement means that a lesser, not a greater, percentage of the total amount for community care is to be spent in the independent sector. It is only the transferred money, not the 35 per cent. additional money, that is involved. I suggest that the Labour party should try to understand the policy a little better.
    Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State has just made a statement. She has not answered the question. Her statement has changed completely from the previous position. The amount of money announced by the Secretary of State on 2 October has changed from a 75 per cent. allocation to the private sector to 85 per cent.—a very significant change in the amount that will now be available to other sectors of care. Will she confirm that, in the intervening six weeks, something has happened to change her mind? Can she tell the House what has changed her mind and why the sum has changed?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am only too happy to tell the hon. Gentleman. We have been consulting local authorities and have listened to their comments. Unlike the Labour party, which is in the pockets of NUPE, we listen to and work with local authorities. What I am trying to explain, in the most elementary way that I am able to do, is that the upshot of this announcement is that the amount to be spent in the independent sector overall will fall from 75 per cent. to 64 per cent. It is 85 per cent. of the transferred money from social security, not the 35 per cent. of extra money, that is coming through. We listen. We work in partnership. We treat local authorities fairly. Community care will be a great success.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I recognise the substantial sums of money that have been transferred to local government to deal with community care, but does my right hon. Friend accept the increasing reports from the professions that responsibility for mentally ill people should lie primarily with the medical profession and not with social services? Will she assure me and the House that there will be sufficient resources in local government to allow it, as the authority primarily responsible for social care and community care, to provide medical care to deal with mentally ill people?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend and I do not always see eye to eye on every issue, but we very much see eye to eye on the priority to be given to mentally ill people. That is why it is so important. It is one of the key areas in "The Health of the Nation". It is a targeted area not only in community care but in "The Health of the Nation". We have introduced the mental illness specific grant, which last year rose to £30 million. Above all, we have now established a task force in the NHS, led by David King, to ensure that we have a genuinely seamless service. It is no good people leaving long-term institutions without a long-term programme of care. Like my hon. Friend, I am absolutely determined to see that the standard of care for mentally ill people improves and is consistent throughout the service.

    Accidents and Illness at Work
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will encourage health promotion departments in hospitals to distribute information on the prevention of accidents and illness at work.
    Mr. Sackville: The NHS is already widely engaged in health promotion at work. Following up the commitments in the "The Health of the Nation" White Paper to develop that, we have launched the health at work initiative. A specialist workplace task force has been established to develop an action programme covering workplaces generally. That task force includes members of our wider health working group and representatives of employers, occupational health professionals, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, the Health and Safety Executive, the Health Education Authority and the Departments of Employment and of Health.
    Mr. Wardell: How much money has the Department made available to district health authorities and hospital trusts this year to enable them to promote campaigns to prevent accidents this year—the year of Europe—when Europe is specifically considering safety, hygiene and the protection of workers at work?
    Mr. Sackville: We expect managers to spend adequately on protecting their employees. I recently launched a handbook called "Handling of Patients", produced by the National Back Pain Association and the Royal College of Nursing designed to offer good practice and to prevent nurses from the accidents to which they are so vulnerable.
    Mr. Jessel: In view of the large number of nurses suffering from back pain from lifting patients, to which my hon. Friend referred, can he ask health departments to ensure the widest possible distribution of their booklet on handling patients, published by the National Back Pain Association, whose recent conference my hon. Friend was kind enough to attend?
    Mr. Sackville: I attended the annual general meeting of the National Back Pain Association at my hon. Friend's request. I intend shortly to lunch with the president thereof. The matter of back pain was mentioned in our White Paper and we attach much priority to it.
    Mr. McCartney: The Under-Secretary was rather complacent in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell)—
    Mr. Oppenheim: Stand up.
    Mr. McCartney: I am standing up. It is not true that Conservative Members have clumped together to buy a high chair for my debut at the Dispatch Box.
    The figures on occupational health are staggering: 20 per cent. of hospital accident admissions are work related, 2 million people suffer from work-related illnesses and a huge number of days are lost each year due to illness at work—a staggering 29 million. Despite that, the Government have set no targets or objectives in the White Paper. Will the Minister state clearly when he intends to introduce targets and objectives to reduce workplace injuries and matters related to occupational health?
    Mr. Sackville: We attach a high priority to that. It is for that reason that the Health Education Authority has set up a workplace project covering 4 million private and public sector employees in England, including many of the health authorities' employees.

    GP Fund Holders
    Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioner fund-holding practices are projecting overspends in the current financial year; and if she will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: That information is not held centrally, but I have no reason to believe that fund holders will be any less efficient in managing resources than they were last year.
    Mr. Davies: Are not regional health authorities having to bale out those GP fund holders who are overspending? Is that to save the Government embarrassment over the failure of the scheme? Should not the resources be used for better and fairer purposes in the health service than baling out fund holders?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, last year, overall savings were about 4 per cent.—that is to say, GPs came in at about 4 per cent. below budget. As a result of imprecision in the setting of some budgets—which I recognise and on which work is being done—a few GP fund holders needed to ask regional health authorities for special help and that was given, as the rules allow. Nevertheless, the fund holders' record in treating their patients is an enviable one for the rest of the profession to follow.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Are not fund-holding practices now getting value for money and, above all, obtaining treatment for patients faster, co-ordinated for the convenience of those patients?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Next April, the percentage of the population being served by GP fund holders will increase from 14 per cent. to, probably, just over 25 per cent. and, anecdotally, it is suggested that the fourth wave in the following year will be very large indeed. That reflects the attraction of the scheme not only to GPs but to their patients.
    Mr. Blunkett: Would the Minister care to comment on the article in The Times this morning which suggests that 100 GP fund holders are to form a consortium with a budget of more than £20 million, which will aim to match the purchasing power of district health authorities? Does the Minister agree that not only does that not square with the district health authorities' accountability for health care planning and strategy but that it runs contrary to the ethos of GP fund-holding practices as set out by the Government, which is that they should buy individual contracts for individual patients? Does not this whole sorry story show that the Government's reforms are in a terrible mess? Is it not time that they agreed to start again and put patients first?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to respond to the wisdom of the National Union of Public Employees. However many GPs enter GP fund-holding schemes in a given area, their share of the budget is only 20 per cent., so their purchasing power will not in any sense be comparable that of the district health authority. The Kingston GPs mentioned in today's edition of The Times are thinking of joining forces because, in their judgment, that is the best way to deliver the best services to their patients. If I have
    732
    to choose between those GPs' judgment of what is best for their patients and the hon. Gentleman's judgment, I shall side with the GPs every time.
    Mr. Paice: Is it not indicative and encouraging that many GPs, including some in my constituency, who were opposed to the principle of fund holding at the time of the NHS reforms are now applying to become fund holders because they have seen the benefits to patients of existing GP fund holders?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact that 600 GPs are to join the scheme next April gives substance to his remarks. GP fund holders, through their initiatives, have been in the lead in developing better services, not just for their own patients but for all patients in their community. That should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she intends to take in order to ensure that NHS dental services are universally available.
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received expressing concern about the provision of dental services within the national health service; and if she will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Since 1 April this year, the Department has received some 6,000 letters from hon. Members, dentists and others about the provision of NHS dental services. In the same period, there have also been some 120 parliamentary questions on dentistry. NHS dental services remain available throughout England. Family health authorities will assist any patients experiencing difficulty in obtaining NHS dental treatment.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister accept that that answer will fall very flat in Irlam in my constituency, a town of 17,000 souls who do not have a national health service dental facility? With reference to choice which the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, does the Minister also accept that a pensioner in Irlam in my constituency has received a letter from her dentist after being under his wing for a long time telling her that she could no longer be treated on the NHS? She must choose whether to pay or to travel eight miles down the road to another dentist.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am very happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the application of the FHSA to appoint a salaried dentist which was received last week was approved today. There will be an NHS salaried dentist in Irlam.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that over half the dentists in Cornwall are refusing to take new NHS patients? Does he agree that that is both confusing and annoying? When can we expect tangible evidence to correct that unsatisfactory situation and not have to depend on temporary expedients such as the employment of mobile dentistry facilities?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern about the fact that a number of dentists in Cornwall and in his constituency have decided to withdraw from offering NHS dental services. My hon. Friend will be aware that the local FHSA has appointed two salaried dentists who are mobile precisely because the

    733
    nature of my hon. Friend's constituency and others is such that they need to be able to move around. Given his concern, I will be very happy to draw his remarks to the attention of the FHSA in case it decides to make further application.
    Miss Lestor: What action is the Minister taking to safeguard the school dental inspection service? Is he aware that that service is being threatened or severely curt ailed in some areas which means that children will no longer have annual dental inspections? If that happens, it will have a serious effect on children's teeth in future.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I hear what the hon. Lady says. However, she will also be aware that under the new dental contract there was a significant focusing of dental attention on young people and on children. I hope that she will welcome that development which should be set alongside the school dental programme.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: When might we expect the results of the review on remuneration of dentists in the NHS?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Sir Kenneth Bloomfield has been asked to report by Christmas and I have no reason to believe that he will not be able to fulfil that request.

    Tomlinson Report
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the time scale for the implementation of the Tomlinson report.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We will carefully consider the proposals put forward by Sir Bernard Tomlinson and his team. No decisions will be taken without full consultation with those institutions that are affected. We shall set out our detailed proposals for change in the new year.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Health Secretary confirm the report in "London Health Emergency" that in the past six months the four regional health authorities covering London have drawn up plans to axe 9,000 beds over the next five years? Is not the presupposition in Tomlinson's and the Government's thinking that London has too many hospital beds an absolute myth? Has there not been a cut of 8,000 beds in the past decade and have not hospital waiting lists in the capital increased 30 per cent. in the same period?
    Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman studies the Tomlinson report, he will see that London already has many more beds than other parts of the country. It has 3·9 per thousand compared with 2·5 per thousand elsewhere. The waiting lists in London have come down by 10 per cent. over the past year and that is an achievement.
    The real point is that Tomlinson has identified a problem of long standing which has been recognised by 20 reports in the past 100 years. With 45 hospitals, 12 teaching hospitals and eight postgraduate hospitals, London must have an enormous overhead infrastructure, but does not provide the proper primary care services that are needed. It is time for us to take those decisions, which we shall do on the basis of improving health care for Londoners while safeguarding research and teaching.
    Mrs. Roe: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in last Friday's Evening Standard of a study conducted by two health experts which concluded that general
    734
    practitioners in London tend to be elderly with large practice lists and often without adequate back-up staff? Does not that report clearly make the point that action and change are needed to improve primary health care services in the capital?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I saw the report that my hon. Friend mentions. It comes from a report in the British Medical Journal. It recognises the point stressed by Tomlinson that London has poorer primary health care services than other parts of the country. It is absolutely vital that we invest in primary health care in London as we take forward proposals.
    I give an absolute assurance that no decisions will be made until careful consideration has been given and until it is possible to guarantee the improvements in primary care that were so clearly identified by Professor Tomlinson.
    Mrs. Roche: While the Secretary of State is considering implementation of the Tomlinson report, will she assure the House that members of staff who stand to lose their jobs if hospitals are closed will he redeployed, given that we have a waiting list of approximately 139,000 in London?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to say that some of the suggestions about the number of staff who would lose or change their jobs are ridiculous, irresponsible and scaremongering.
    It is untrue and devoid of explanation that figures of the kind quoted by the Confederation of Health Service Employees could seriously be considered. The figures that have been quoted are enough to alarm and worry people in the health service in London at a time when most people want to explain and reassure.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)—I give him credit—said that the status quo could not continue in London. Editorials in The Guardian, The Times, The Independent and New Statesman and Society have said that change must come. Of course, the needs and interests of staff will be very much in our minds so that we can find ways to redeploy them and make the changes as easy as possible.
    Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will know that there is great anxiety in my constituency about the proposed changes to Charing Cross hospital. Will she assure me that any changes made to health care in west London will improve the service to my constituents, rather than diminish it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. As has been said in many independent reports, the problems in London are of long standing and complex. Increasingly, patients now wish to be treated in their home communities. As I have made clear, a great number of specialist services need to be rationalised. We need improvements in primary care and community services. There will be no question of decisions being taken before we can be sure that they will lead to improvements in care, better use of resources and a strengthened national health service.
    Ms. Primarolo: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that she will conduct full public consultation with Londoners on the future of their hospitals? Will she guarantee that she has secured the additional funding that

    735
    is necessary for primary and community care before she gives any further consideration to implementing the Tomlinson report?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The House will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is having discussions with the different institutions in London on the basis of the recommendations in the Tomlinson report. As I made clear at the time of the statement, it is advice to the Government and not Government policy. We shall discuss with all interested groups how we can take forward those changes to improve health care for Londoners. I give the hon. Lady and others a clear commitment that those changes are about improving health care for Londoners. That is the message from all the professional journals—from the Nursing Times and Nursing Mirror, General Practitioner, House, and the Health Service Journal. As far as money is concerned, in answer to an earlier statement, I seem to remember that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was busy telling people at a social services conference that money for community care would not be ring-fenced—the day before I was able to announce community care resources. People should take prophecies of doom from the Labour party with a pinch of salt.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend accept, from a Kent Member of Parliament who represents an area which historically has long been underfunded and whose patients have had to travel well over 50 miles for hospital treatment in London, that his constituents are exceedingly grateful that she is showing her determination to reorganise the London hospital service, so that services that have been overfunded there can follow patients out of London to areas like ours?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members. In the past year, the rest of the country supported London health care to the tune of £50 million. Sensibly, 20 per cent. of the money in the national health service cannot continue to cover 15 per cent. of the people. I am well aware that there is great pressure outside London for us to move swiftly. We shall move only as fast as we are able to safeguard health care for Londoners, but we shall do so on the basis of the long-term interests of the national health service.

    West Midlands Ambulance Service
    Ms. Estelle Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will make a statement on the funding of the West Midlands ambulance service.
    Mr. Sackville: I have no plans to do so.
    Ms. Morris: Is the Minister aware that emergency calls to the West Midlands ambulance service increased by an unprecedented 8 per cent. last year, that 999 calls are being answered by the St. John ambulance service and that telephone callers are frequently put on hold? Given that crisis, how can the Minister justify the fact that some ambulance stations have to close down completely during some shifts because of cuts in staff levels?
    Mr. Sackville: The performance of the vast majority of ambulance services has changed out of all recognition in recent years—the West Midlands is no exception—and they deserve the hon. Lady's support, not to be denigrated.

    Residential Care
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on abolishing the division between residential care and nursing homes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): I have no plans to abolish the distinction. Generally speaking, residential care homes and nursing homes cater for people with different needs. That is reflected in the services and facilities that they offer.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that neither I nor my hon. Friends are in the pocket of the organisation that Ministers have mentioned three times this afternoon, or in the pocket of the tobacco industry, as are many of his right hon. and hon. Friends? Is he aware of the broad spectrum of agreement among organisations that the continuing division between residential and nursing care is harmful? Many frail, elderly and confused people have to suffer the trauma of changing from one to the other at the most difficult time of life. When can he institute a reform to give us a reliable continuum of care?
    Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware of the fact that there is nothing to stop a residential home from catering for its clients as they become more dependent and frail, by seeking dual registration for part or all of its facilities so that it can operate as both a residential and a nursing home, and in that way can provide exactly the continuum of care that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: As there are many of these homes locally in my constituency—in Tavistock and Bideford—does the Minister have any plans for involving families more in the care of relatives who are put into community care homes many miles away and never visited again, which is enormously unkind?
    Mr. Yeo: As my hon. Friend probably knows, one of the key themes in the whole of our community care policy is to reflect the wishes of both the users and their carers in the community and families. A statutory duty now lies on the local authority to meet those wishes. On the specific point of the continued involvement of families in the future of people who go to residential or nursing homes, we have issued a binding direction to local authorities to ensure that the individual preference of persons and their families in terms of which home they go to is met. I hope that in this way it will be possible for the needs of families who may find it difficult to travel to certain parts of the country to be met in the choice of homes to which people are sent. I will, in any case, pursue the point with home owners at some of the regular meetings that we have with them.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Cox: Does the Prime Minister recall the many promises that he made at the last election that there would be no increase in taxation? Against the background of those promises, will he confirm in the House that there will be no increase in national insurance contributions, or are the people of this country to see in the very near future yet another broken election promise from an already totally disgraced and devalued Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman ought not to get himself into such a tiz. He will know the answer to his question soon enough. On the subject of income tax, I seem to recall the Labour party contesting the election on the basis of increasing tax and the shadow Chancellor saying only yesterday that the Opposition are not proposing raising income tax at this time. Some U-turn.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, notwithstanding the efforts of Mr. Mitterrand and Mr. Delors, the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations will be brought to a successful conclusion?
    The Prime Minister: We are doing all we can to make sure that the Community re-engages in negotiations without delay so that we can reach a satisfactory GATT settlement in a matter of weeks at the outside. I hope that we shall reach agreement between the Community and the United States; then the remaining aspects of the GATT round ought speedily to be determined. It is the first priority for international economies at the moment to make sure that there is a GATT agreement and no single country should be permitted to stand in the way of it.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister recall assuring the House in January 1991 that
    "for some considerable time we have not supplied arms to Iraq"?—[Official Report, 31 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 1102.]
    How does the Prime Minister reconcile that assurance with the revelation in the Government documents produced at the Matrix Churchill trial that as late as 27 July 1990, only six days before the invasion of Kuwait, machine tools known to be intended to make fuses for missiles and artillery shells were supplied to Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that from 1985 until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the Government operated under guidelines first set out by the then Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Howe. Since the invasion, we have operated, and we continue to operate, the full embargo to which I referred in answering the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister understand that there are two aspects of this matter that are causing grave concern to the British public? The first is that equipment was supplied to Iraq which could have been valuable to it in hostilities against British service personnel; and the second is that the truth about a secret change of policy appears to have been concealed from the House and also from the British public. Will he now set up an inquiry under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 to make the fullest investigation into this deeply disturbing matter?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there have been some extraordinnary stories about this matter and I agree with him that they must be clarified beyond any measure of doubt.
    I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to make a statement on the matter later this afternoon. My right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House that the Government will be setting up an independent judicial inquiry, which will have full access to all the papers and will be able to take evidence from all he Departments and all the agencies concerned.

    EC Financing
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the issue of contributions by member states.
    The Prime Minister: The European Community's future financing arrangements are currently under review. This will be one of the issues on the agenda of the European Council meeting at Edinburgh in December.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As Britain's net contribution this year will be £2·6 billion, which is about £4 per week per family of four in Britain, and as the Court of Auditors has told us that much of that is spent on waste, fraud and food destruction, will the Prime Minister advise President Mitterrand and the others that it would be wholly unacceptable to expect the people of Britain to pay a great deal more for the potential huge extra costs of Maastricht when life is so hard for everyone in Europe at the present time?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend on the continuing need for restraint in Community spending overall. I have already made it clear that President Delors' future proposals are excessive and that we will not be able to support them. The Community, as with each individual member state, should not spend more than it can afford. It will remain our priority in the negotiations up to and including those at Edinburgh to secure firm budgetary discipline and value for money for all Community spending.

    Engagements
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister recall black Wednesday when the sharks and speculators made a real killing? Now we are approaching black Thursday with the autumn statement, when it will be the poor and needy in Wales and elsewhere who are likely to be affected as a result of cuts in public expenditure. When will the Government realise that those cuts in public expenditure will only hinder Britain's long-term recovery, or is this yet another example of a "Major" vision of a nation at ease with itself?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until Thursday.
    Sir George Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the House hardly needs lectures from

    739
    President Mitterrand on how to organise its own business? Does he accept that when he gives his word to this House that we will not consider the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill until after the Danish referendum, we know full well that he will keep it?
    The Prime Minister: I have expressed my views on President Mitterrand's reported remarks in a private letter to the President, but I am quite prepared to state publicly that the passage of the Maastricht Bill is a matter for the British Parliament and the British Government. The crucial immediate issue before Europe is achieving a GATT settlement and avoiding a trade war. I note that in the same interview President Mitterrand described a global settlement as
    "not only useful but necessary."
    I agree with that; a delay on GATT really would be unacceptable. I set out the answer on Third Reading in reply to the House earlier last week.
    Mr. Ashdown rose—[interruption]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time consuming..
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are at this moment more than 6,500 refugees who could be free but remain trapped in Serbian prison camps, living in the most indescribable conditions and without any kind of adequate shelter, because no third country can be found for them to go to? Does he not realise that temperatures will drop to minus 17 deg C in that area during this month? Does he not realise that the consequence of his Government's disgraceful decision to limit refugee entry from that area, together with his failure to put together an adequate programme of co-ordinated action by the European countries, will soon mean that some of those people risk paying for his failures with their lives?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman really should get his facts straight on what the European Community has done and on what the British Government have done. The United Kingdom has received more than 30,000 visitors this year from the former Yugoslavia. More than 3,000 have applied for refugee status and no one will be forced to return to the conflict zone. We fully support the view expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that the best solution is for the displaced to remain close to their homes, making eventual repatriation a much more possible proposition. The visa regime, which has clearly activated the right hon. Gentleman, needs to be seen in the context of overall asylum applications, and that point has been made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the British Airports Authority on its outstanding results, just announced? Will he take the opportunity to remind it that it has an obligation to ensure that regional airports, such as Humberside airport, have the opportunity of flying regional flights into Heathrow? Is he aware that failure to enable that to happen leads to business men in Humberside having to fly to Holland—to Schipol—thereby depriving British Airways of good business?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to offer congratulations to BAA, which has had an outstandingly
    740
    successful period, and I am happy to add my congratulations to his. I agree unreservedly with the balance of his remarks.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: In relation to the Matrix Churchill trial, will the Prime Minister be a little less economical with the actualite and say whether he thinks it is proper that three innocent men might have been imprisoned because Ministers tried to suppress the evidence? Has it not clearly emerged from that trial that the former Foreign Minister, now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, knew that the sales breached the arms embargo but agreed to the deception? Should he not be considering his position in the Government, or the Prime Minister be considering it for him?
    The Prime Minister: I advise Opposition Members not to go down the route that so many of them took with BCCI just a year or so ago. They would be wise to await the Attorney-General's statement. I have already said that there will be a full, independent judicial inquiry, and I repeat that to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that public interest immunity must be claimed, that it is at the sole discretion of the judge and that it cannot be waived by Ministers? Hence, all the talk in the tabloid press about a cover-up is nothing more than arrant nonsense.
    The Prime Minister: Ministers have a duty to claim public interest immunity where appropriate and that duty cannot be waived. It is then for the courts to consider where the balance of interest lies, and successive Governments have acted in that way.
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Madden: What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose, through the United Nations, to stop the partition of Bosnia? Why were Her Majesty's Government prepared to breach the arms embargo to allow Iraq to wage war, but now refuse to lift the arms embargo to give the Government Bosnian forces the means with which to defend their independent country, to stop genocide, to stop ethnic cleansing and to stop the displacement of thousands of men, women and children who face death?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to tie his questions to allegations that are as yet uninvestigated. A few moments before I came into the Chamber, I was advised—as yet, it is not confirmed—that there is said to be a cease fire in Bosnia from midnight tomorrow. We have heard that before. If it is sustained it will be extremely welcome news, but we must wait and see whether it is sustained. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to misrepresent the Government's position.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House and British industry fully support his efforts to force Mr. Jacques Delors and the bureaucrats of Brussels

    741
    to pull their bootstraps up and get cracking to find an urgent and equitable solution to the stalled GATT round? Although the cricket season is now over, will my right hon. Friend promise the House that he will not put his bat away until that matter is sorted?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to say that I share my hon. Friend's view entirely about the imperative need to get an early GATT settlement. There is no doubt that there is no longer a great distance between the United States and the Community on the substantive issues that need to be determined. I, myself, cannot accept that it is impossible to
    742
    reach an agreement that will be acceptable to both the Community and the United States. At the moment that agreement is reached, the GATT round can he concluded in Geneva without further delay. The damage of there not being a GATT round is too profound to contemplate. I assure my hon. Friend that that is a matter of primary importance to the Government and we will pursue it in each and every forum until there is an agreement.
    Madam Speaker: Time's up. I call the Attorney-General to make a statement.

Matrix Churchill
3.30 pm
The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Madam Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement on the Matrix Churchill case.
As the House will be aware, counsel for the prosecution in the Matrix Churchill case informed the court yesterday that, in the light of the evidence given by Mr. Alan Clark in cross-examination, he had concluded that it would no longer be right to seek a conviction in the case; and that the prosecuting authority, the commissioners of Customs and Excise, had accepted that conclusion. Both he and the commissioners were satisfied that during the course of cross-examination Mr. Clark had given evidence that was inconsistent with a written statement that he had made in 1991 and with what he had said in an interview with an officer of Customs and Excise in September 1992.
The case raises important questions about the operation of export licensing policy in relation to Iraq during the period to which the events related. The Government will therefore ensure that a full and independent inquiry into those events is undertaken by a judge. This will encompass the operations of all relevant departments and agencies. I am glad to tell the House that Lord Justice Scott has agreed to undertake that task. The precise terms of reference will need to be discussed with the judge. It is hoped to make them available to the House later this week. The judge will have access to all relevant papers and will be able to invite evidence from anyone he thinks fit. It will be for him to decide the extent to which he sits in public. His report and evidence will be published except insofar as, in the light of his advice, publication is contrary to the public interest.
The inquiry will be set up and conducted as speedily as possible, having regard to the need not to prejudice any further criminal inquiries or proceedings. On that aspect, I should say that the Commissioners have referred the papers in the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Any further action is a matter for them.
Finally, it has been alleged that Ministers, by signing public interest immunity certificates, gave orders that departmental papers should be kept from defence lawyers in an attempt at a cover-up. That is a complete misunderstanding of the law in that area and thus a distortion of the truth. It is the law, expressly enunciated by the courts, that Ministers have a duty to claim public interest immunity either in respect of specific documents or recognised classes of document the production of which would in principle be contrary to the public interest. This duty cannot be waived.
Once a proper claim has been made, it is for the court to look at the papers if it thinks fit, to balance the competing public interests and to determine whether the interests of justice in the particular case require disclosure of some or all of the documents in issue. Such a claim must be made irrespective of whether it is embarrassing to the Government either to reveal or to withhold. In this case, it was at the express invitation of prosecuting counsel that the judge looked at all the material before he made his ruling.
Mr. John Morris: I welcome the judicial inquiry, but I express my concern that it will be limited to policy. Will it include the conduct of Ministers? I am also
744
concerned that the judge will be able only to "invite" evidence. Will he be able to summon witnesses and to have them examined on oath?
The signing of public immunity certificates is a matter to be approached with care and not in a cavalier fashion. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether the exercise of the signing of these certificates has been approached in a responsible fashion? Is it not astonishing that, in the pursuit of the purported interest of the state, Ministers who signed public immunity certificates were prepared to connive at the sacrifice of the accused men and render them liable to long terms of imprisonment? On what authority was counsel for the Crown able to tell the court that the documents sought to be excluded contained—I quote a report today—
"nothing of assistance to the defence"?
That was not upheld by the court.
Since controversial matters involving defence exports certainly in my time—I as a Defence Minister had a responsibility for precisely these matters—were decided by Cabinet Committee, did the four Ministers agree together to issue the certificates? What restrictions were placed on the preparation of the case by Customs and Excise in relation to Government Departments and the intelligence services? Are those matters open to be examined without restriction by the learned Lord justice of appeal?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome in this matter. I can tell him that the inquiry will not be limited to matters of policy; it will be able to look into all relevant aspects of the matter, and to invite such witnesses as it thinks fit to appear before it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Invite?"]
The question of public interest immunity certificates was, I believe, looked at with care, but that can be examined by the inquiry if it thinks it appropriate. I have every reason to think that the exercise was approached in a responsible fashion: I have no reason whatever to believe —indeed, I profoundly refute—the irresponsible suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Ministers connived in relation to those certificates.
As to the documents which were opened by counsel for the prosecution in the case, counsel, as would have been expected in the light of the public interest immunity certificates, put the matters clearly before the judge, invited the judge to look at the documents and invited the judge, as would be his duty, then to make the ruling, balancing one public interest with another.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in paragraph 128 of the report on exports to Iraq, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry expressed deep disquiet at the independence and authority of Customs and Excise? Is it not the case that Customs and Excise is not answerable to the Treasury with respect to prosecuting decisions, nor, unlike the Crown prosecution service, is it accountable to the Attorney-General? Is not that unacceptable unaccountability? Will he review its status?
The Attorney-General: The important thing is that the Customs and Excise is an independent prosecuting authority and it exercises its judgment independently, as the House would expect.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Attorney-General must know that to say that the judge has the power to "invite" witnesses is wholly inadequate.

745
What is required is an inquiry held under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, which would allow the judge to compel the attendance of witnesses and if necessary to commit them for contempt if they decline to answer his questions. An inquiry with the powers which the Attorney-General has spelt out will be toothless and unlikely to get to the truth of the matter.
Will the scope of the inquiry include an examination of the circumstances that surrounded the Iraqi supergun affair, in which it is increasingly clear that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was thwarted and frustrated by Ministers and Departments?
Why cannot the Attorney-General bring himself to express some sense of regret and apology to the three innocent men who found themselves in the dock?
The Attorney-General: As one with responsibilities in the area of prosecution, I am extremely conscious of the fact that the power to prosecute is an extremely invasive power, which must be exercised by any independent prosecuting authority extremely carefully. I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's point in that respect.
The hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind that an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 can have compensating disadvantages as well as the advantages that he pointed out. There is no reason to anticipate that any relevant witness will fail to attend the inquiry carried out by Lord Justice Scott; in view of inquiries in recent years, such as the one into BCCI, it is nonsense to suggest that Lord Justice Scott's inquiry is likely to be toothless.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I greatly appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's readiness to come to the House so quickly and to instigate an independent judicial inquiry. It must be reassuring to know that it will be for the learned judge, not Her Majesty's Government, to decide what it is in the public interest to make public.
Why did not the three Departments of State, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry, immediately make known what was ultimately known to the court, thereby preventing the need for this unnecessary trial?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the speedy setting up of the inquiry. As he says, the judge will be able to decide and to give his guidance on the points that he mentioned, including publication?
As to what any Department knew or did not know at any particular time, that is a matter for the learned judge and the inquiry.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman consistently dodges the questions asked by Opposition Members about whether the inquiry will have the right to summon Ministers—because it is the conduct of Ministers that is at the heart of this scandal.
He said in his statement that the denial by Mr. Alan Clark of his participation in the meeting at the Department of Trade and Industry on 20 January 1988 was inconsistent with the truth—namely, that Mr. Clark had lied. Yet the Prime Minister, writing to me on 17 February this year after I had written to him about Mr.
746
Clark's conduct, wrote back to me upholding Mr. Clark's denial. Did the Prime Minister make inquiries about Mr. Alan Clark's resort to untruth and then deliberately purvey his untruth; or did he simply not bother to make inquiries—a different kind of dereliction of duty?
The Attorney-General: Yes, the inquiry will have the power to summon Ministers, and I am confident that they will all attend. That is a different question from the powers under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, he clearly has not read his papers or listened carefully to what I have said, because I made no comment on whether Mr. Clark's denial was at any stage inconsistent with the truth. What I told the House, and what prosecuting counsel told the learned judge when he withdrew the case, was that what Mr. Alan Clark had said in his original statement and what he had said under cross-examination had been different. It will be for the inquiry to sort out the results of that.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I, too, am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the announcement of the inquiry, but is there not a major ethical and moral point in the fact that a prosecution can be mounted which might take away the liberty of three business men when Ministers appeared to know that there was basis on which the trial should not proceed and that there would have been a grave miscarriage of justice if those men had been found guilty, convicted and possibly imprisoned?
Secondly, is there not a question of trust between the House and its Ministers in that, when we are told that a policy is such, it is such and there is not deviation from the honour and integrity of Government in their relations with the House?
The Attorney-General: In so far as there are questions. succinctly analysed by my hon. Friend, which need to be put and answered, it is the very purpose of announcing the judicial inquiry that they may be examined and answered.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he continues to dodge the issue, which surely cannot be covered by the inquiry, of what he will do to put right the dreadful wrong done to the three Coventry business men who have suffered enormously and quite unjustifiably? What will happen to the case that apparently continues against BSA Tools Ltd. and its chairman and owner, Mr. Keith Bailey? Does that go on? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us anything about those companies that allegedly settled before the matter went to court?
The Attorney-General: The answer to the second question is no. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman about the second case to which he referred, but I can look into the matter and write to him.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, as I emphasised to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) earlier, the process of prosecution is invasive. It is not to be taken lightly, and it is to be examined carefully and independently of Government by the independent prosecuting authority. But if there is a prosecution, which subsequently fails or is withdrawn for any particular reason, representations can be made, but it has never been

747
the policy for there to be formal compensation in those circumstances. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the House generally know that.
Mr. Edward Garnier: On behalf of my constituent, Mr. Peter Allen, one of the men acquitted yesterday at the Old Bailey, I welcome the announcement of the independent judicial inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Scott. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is not unheard of for prosecutions to founder, but will he also accept that this is a unique case in which the understanding of Mr. Alan Clark now appears to have been fundamentally at odds with that of Customs and Excise which initiated the prosecution?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, as a direct result of the conflict, my constituent has spent the past two years out of work and under the shadow of a sentence of imprisonment, accused of doing no more than he understood he was being encouraged to do? What guidance is given to Ministers to ensure consistency in interpretation of trade sanction regulations, and what steps will be taken to acquaint the prosecuting authorities with that advice?
Finally, what steps will be taken to draw the attention of Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry to the financial consequences of their actions for my constituent, who has lost heavily as a result of the matter? Is he not entitled to some sort of compensation?
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has raised four points. First—yes, although the word "unique" is always difficult to use, this case involves special circumstances. That is why the inquiry is being set up: so that those circumstances can be looked into carefully, impartially and independently.
Secondly, let me say this to my hon. Friend, and to other hon. Members who have said, "What about an apology?", and that sort of thing. I hope that I have made it clear already that I recognise what an invasive action prosecution of anyone is. I fully recognise, and I sympathise—[interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House. knows that these are very serious and important matters. [Interruption.] Order. When Back Benchers are putting questions and Ministers are attempting to answer, we ought to have order in the House. It is only within the framework of order that we can proceed at all.
The Attorney-General: As I was saying, I fully recognise the pressures under which prosecution puts any defendant. I am sure that the House will understand that.
My hon. Friend's third point concerned guidance. The question of guidance will be very much a matter for the inquiry, and one that the inquiry can look into—both what was given and what perhaps ought to have been given, if they were different.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked about financial compensation. As I said a moment ago, there is no formalised system of financial compensation in these circumstances. It is one of the facts of our constitution that prosecutions must be looked into very carefully and independently, and must be decided on; but then, as a matter of law, that is that.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not now give a full apology to those concerned, and stop hiding behind the framework of the law? Will he also ensure that the whole inquiry is held in public? I understood him to say in answer to the last question that witnesses would now be "summoned", not invited, and I believe that that is absolutely necessary. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, when the Select Committee on Trade and Industry looked into the matter, we found that people were disappearing and could not be traced. We want everyone to come forward, including those who profited from the deal—the Savoy mafia, for instance. It has even been said that the former Prime Minister's family benefited financially.
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, has raised the question of the form that the inquiry will take. I think that I can set his mind at rest —as much as is humanly possible—by saying that there can be no question of any Minister who has been requested to appear before the inquiry not appearing. There are, however, disadvantages in holding an inquiry under the 1921 Act, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree if he looked into the matter.
As I have said many times, I understand the point about the pressures that prosecutions bring. That is why I have emphasised that they must be looked at carefully, impartially and independently, so that such pressures are not brought without the most careful thought.
Mr. William Cash: First, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 presents difficulties in relation to whether a prosecution can take place after the evidence has been given? Secondly, Mr. Alan Clark gave evidence on oath. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, within the context of the judicial inquiry that has been announced, no person—be he a Minister or otherwise—will be immune from having to give evidence on oath, so that the same will apply to him as applied to Mr. Alan Clark? Had he given evidence that was contrary to the truth, he would have been guilty of perjury.
The Attorney-General: I agree that there are difficulties with the 1921 Act, one of which my hon. Friend has identified.
The question of form and procedure in the holding of the inquiry is, to a considerable extent, a matter for the learned judge who will undertake it, and I will not comment further.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why should the House of Commons have to wait for a judge for the answer to a very simple, straightforward question: on what date of what year did No. 10 Downing street and other senior Ministers first know about the Matrix Churchill situation? It is a very simple question with a factual answer that Parliament deserves to hear.
The Attorney-General: For all the hon. Gentleman's comments, I suspect that that question will require very careful examination. If the House were to be offered a very simple answer, as the hon. Gentleman said, it might well not be satisfied. I suggest that a full and independent judicial inquiry is what the House is entitled to, and is what the hon. Gentleman should look forward to.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is a very important issue and that we welcome the judicial independent inquiry under Lord Justice Scott? Is it right, however, that this honourable House should divert its attention from the regeneration of our commerce, trade and industry and many other matters? Would it not be wise for hon. Members to concentrate on the running of the country and to leave these important inquiries to a judge and an independent tribunal that has been set up to find the truth?
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right—that it is because of the importance and complexity of the issue that this type of inquiry has been set up, and that it is because it is someone who can set aside time and apply a judicial mind to these issues that a very senior judge has been invited to hold it.
Mr. Terry Davis: To revert to the experience of the three men who were prosecuted, why will the Attorney-General not simply say, "Sorry"?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman invites me to make comments about the prosecution decisions of an independent prosecution authority. That prosecuting authority took its decisions, difficult as they were, very carefully. I have recognised, as a matter of principle, that these decisions are extremely invasive. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can take it from what I have said that I know that nobody should be prosecuted lightly, and that if anybody is prosecuted unnecessarily, then they have suffered hardship—and that I regret.
Mr. Roger Knapman: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement, and particularly the judicial inquiry. Can he confirm that it is for the judge to decide whether the publication of further documents is in the national interest?
The Attorney-General: Yes, I can confirm that. An inquiry of this nature involves the judge looking into documents for which, just as in the court case, public interest immunity, as a matter of law, has to be claimed. The learned judge will no doubt be motivated and governed by the same principles when he makes his detailed inquiry and gives his advice as to what should be published.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Attorney-General aware that, apart from the legal and administrative matters to which he referred, the real issue is a political issue? Why was it that Ministers supplied arms to a regime that had already used chemical weapons against the Kurds, then sent our troops in to fight an army that had been armed, in part, by British manufacturers, and then, when the war was over, tried to get a big contract to sell more tanks to Kuwait? Is it not a fact that the international arms trade is a greater danger to the peace of humanity than either the AIDS epidemic or the drugs trade? Is it not time that Ministers took responsibility for what they clearly did, which was to put profit above human life in promoting the arms trade?
The Attorney-General: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, what is clear is that he is certainly prejudging the issue, which is to be looked at in detail and independently.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Although I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement of the appointment of Lord Justice Scott, does he not recognise that there are grave reservations about his announcement that not all of Lord Justice Scott's report will automatically be published? Does he not also recognise that, in recent years, there has been a tendency, going back to the Security Commission's report on the Bettaney case, for appendices not to be published, appendices that subsequently were leaked and were discovered only lo contain matters of political embarrassment—nothing that could ever really be described as not in the national interest?
The Attorney-General: I should be surprised in the extreme if Lord Justice Scott did not publish something simply because it was thought to be of political embarrassment. My hon. Friend is probably in as good a position as anybody to know the sensitivity of the matters that the learned Lord Justice will have to consider, whose independent advice will offer guidance on what should be published.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Attorney-General accept that there is an urgent need, in this inquiry or elsewhere, for clarification of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility for the policy and conduct of Departments? Does he understand that there is a growing feeling that no one ever accepts responsibility in this Government under any circumstances? Will he give a definition of what constitutes ministerial responsibility?
The Attorney-General: There could be no better way of examining whether ministerial responsibility should be pinned in any particular area than to have a detailed and independent inquiry. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will wait its outcome.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the full and independent inquiry will be widely welcomed outside the House? Does he further accept that it is a matter of great concern that the only country in the middle east to which we do not sell arms is the only democracy in the middle east?
The Attorney-General: I recognise and am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the inquiry, and I note his point.
Mr. George Foulkes: Can the Attorney-General assure us that Lord Justice Scott's terms of reference will be drawn wide enough to encompass allegations of other instances where Ministers may have been flexible in interpreting their roles in the arms embargo, in particular in relation to International Military Services and Astra. Unless that is so, we shall not be able to see whether there is a pattern to this sordid affair.
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is asking about the width of the terms of reference, and I think it is already clear from what I have said that they will be widely drawn.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Although I appreciate the very critical points that have been made, will the Ministers confirm that the terms of reference will be wide enough to include the impossible problem that is

751
faced by the British Government and industry when sanctions are imposed but other countries openly, blatantly and massively break them? For example, the German Government had 200 firms selling chemical weapons and extended Scud missiles in Iraq. Will the Attorney-General ensure that the terms of reference are wide enough to acknowledge that Britain has been the mug of the sanctions game time and again? We want sanctions to be properly imposed rather than inquiries into individual instances of this sort.
The Attorney-General: I am sure that the terms of reference will be quite wide enough to enable those important surrounding points made by my hon. Friend to be given proper consideration.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the reality of the matter the fact that, for some time, the Government gave the impression to all and sundry that they were not selling arms to Iraq? Now the truth is out. To what extent does the House expect Ministers to continue in their positions? When do Ministers of this squalid Tory Government resign?
We have an example here of at least three Ministers knowing that three men in court were likely to be sent down the line, yet they sat by, hanging on to their seats, ministerial cars and all the rest, hoping to Christ that they would not have to face the music. Ministers should now decide to resign, but the Attorney-General comes along and sticks up a judge—probably one of their Tory friends —instead of having a proper inquiry. The result is that the whitewash and cover-up will continue.
The Attorney-General: The longer the hon. Gentleman continued, the less I thought he was interested in an independent impartial inquiry into anything. He opened his remarks by asking about the reality of the matter; the purpose of the inquiry is to discover the reality of the matter.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Is it not the case that, contrary to the impression that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) sought to convey, the vast majority of armaments sold to Iraq in the 1980s came not from this country but from socialist France and the communist countries of eastern Europe?
The Attorney-General: I have noted my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Did Mr. Alan Clark meet officials or Ministers at the Ministry of Defence or the Department of Trade and Industry before the trial?
The Attorney-General: Any actions by Mr. Alan Clark when he was a Minister, or by other Ministers, are the subject of the inquiry.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Further to an earlier question, may I make a correction? There is another democracy in the area, and that is Iran. The recent United Nations report showed that Iran was the wounded party and not the initiater of the war during—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that hon. Members should be asking questions on a statement, not making statements themselves.
Miss Nicholson: Will the terms of reference of the inquiry be wide enough to offer the European Community potential alterations of rules? Some of the evidence that I have gleaned during my recent visits to Iran and Iraq has shown that France was indeed exporting chemical weapon components to Iraq during the period covered by the statement and the inquiry.
The Attorney-General: It will be for Lord Justice Scott to decide how far any questions concerning European rules are relevant to the subject of his inquiry.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the right hon. and supposedly learned Gentleman fully satisfied that, from the Government's point of view, the judge who has been put up is, in that classic phrase, "one of us"?
The Attorney-General: I think that, on reflection, even the hon. Gentleman will find that comment unworthy of him.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Attorney-General aware that one of the most disturbing aspects of the case is that, if the judge had decided otherwise regarding the documents in question, the defendants might well have gone to prison—including Paul Henderson who, it should be remembered, was willing to risk his life for his country and is proud of having done so? Yet Ministers signed documents that would have sent him to prison in Britain. Could there be a greater contrast than that between the honour and integrity of the judge in the court case and the record and reputation of Ministers, who were apparently quite willing to send innocent people to prison and who—if they have any honour left—should certainly consider resigning as quickly as possible, and long before the judicial inquiry?
The Attorney-General: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to distort the position, but I believe that he deeply misunderstands it, and consequently fundamentally distorts it. Once he realises that, I think that he will wish to withdraw the remarks that he has made.
Sir Peter Emery: Will Lord Justice Scott be able to spend all his time on the inquiry, because, although it needs to be done fully and completely, we should like the report as soon as is humanly possible?
The Attorney-General: I know that Lord Justice Scott is free to begin in the very near future, and I have no reason to think that his conduct of the inquiry is likely to be in any way impeded by any other duties.
Sir David Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, on 31 January 1991, I called in the House for the setting up of just such a high-level inquiry into arms sales to Iraq
"so that never again will our forces be faced with an enemy armed partly by ourselves"?
The Prime Minister refused an inquiry, and replied:
"for some considerable time we have not supplied arms to Iraq for precisely that reason."—[Official Report, 31 January 1991: Vol. 184, c. 1102.]
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure me that the terms of reference for this inquiry, which are still to be settled, will be wide enough to establish why that answer was different from the truth?
The Attorney-General: I am not at all sure that the answer was different from the truth at all, but I think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that the terms of the inquiry will be wide enough to enable all his concerns to be carefully looked into and evaluated.
Mr. Tony Banks: The Attorney-General said that he expected that Ministers, having been invited to appear at the inquiry, would not refuse to do that. That does not mean to say that they could not necessarily refuse. Will that also mean that civil servants and others will be able to attend—and will be compelled to attend?
The Attorney-General: I do not anticipate that any relevant witness will refuse to attend. The reason that I frame my answers in this form is that, if we go to different 1921 Act rules, one has disadvantages which I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish to have.
Dr. John Reid: Following on from that question, why was the Attorney-General surprised earlier when someone mentioned the connivance of Ministers? Is it not at least clear from the trial that, as late as November 1989, a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who is now in the Cabinet, a Minister at the Ministry of Defence who has now resigned and another Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry were conniving, colluding together and conspiring to act in entirely the opposite direction to Government policy?
In the light of that, does the Attorney-General accept that the difference between the inquiry that he has announced today and one held under the 1921 Act is that those Ministers or their successors cannot be obliged to attend and answer questions? Is the Attorney-General announcing a judicial inquiry today not in a spirit of openness, but precisely to prevent and pre-empt an inquiry under the 1921 Act which would force them to turn up and answer questions under oath?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the framework. What I have said to the House—I repeat this clearly to the hon. Gentleman—is that I am quite satisfied that any relevant witness, including Ministers and civil servants, will give their evidence. I cannot imagine how they could refuse without calling upon themselves the utmost condemnation. However, the hon. Gentleman should not prejudge the issue. It is for the inquiry to look into the very points that he has raised and then give its independent view.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that this is a classic example where, if the rules in the DPP v. Ward with regard to disclosure had been upheld, justice could have been served better? It is not time that the Attorney-General's guidelines on disclosure extended to all branches, parties and prosecuting authorities in a way that is most effective and efficient, so that innocent people can never again be put at risk before the courts of our land? It is not good enough simply to say that one regrets it: it is a disgrace and a shame on our society. It is a test of our judicial system which luckily had a judge in it prepared to stand by the rules and to see fair play done.
The Attorney-General: I am absolutely surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who understands these matters better
754
than some, should phrase his question like that. There is no question of the requirements of the DPP v. Ward having been anything other than fully complied with, but if the hon. Gentleman believes so, he just does riot understand what he is talking about. The point is that there will not be a full inquiry into the matters and the substance of the matters which underlie the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. and learned Friend has confirmed that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are an indpendent prosecuting body. That may be a unique power of Government, in that it does not fall under the Attorney-General's Department. Will the terms of reference of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry be wide enough to discover whether the prosecuting power of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise should come under the Attorney-General and his Department?
The Attorney-General: I see no reason, if Lord Justice Scott should think that that question was relevant for him to answer, why he should not give guidance about it. However, fundamentally his inquiry is to look into the facts of the matter and the way in which it was handled.
Mr. John Morris: Is it not astonishing that the Attorney-General has not acknowledged that the prosecution went appallingly wrong and that there is no acknowledgement that the Crown prosecutor, learned counsel, could no longer accept the evidence of a former Minister? Who will decide what is to be published—the Government or the judge? As the Attorney-General has repeatedly said that prosecution is invasive, on what basis was counsel for the Crown able to tell the court that the documents that it was sought to exclude contained nothing of assistance to the defence?
The Attorney-General: The case was prosecuted by experienced and responsible leading counsel, who examined the issues extremely closely, as I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept.
The prosecution had to be withdrawn, and it was proper that it was withdrawn. The prosecution was withdrawn on the advice of the leading counsel because evidence which was in his possession in a statement was contradicted in the witness box. Thus, part of the important foundation of the prosecution case had altered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will fully recognise that, in those circumstances, it would not have been proper to proceed.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked who on the inquiry would decide the issues to which he referred. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises that the point of having an independent inquiry by a learned Lord Justice is so that the Lord Justice will decide the issues [An hon. Member: "But will he be allowed to publish what he likes?"] I have said it about five times.
Leading counsel for the Crown presented, as it was the Minister's legal duty to do, the public interest immunity statements, and expressly invited the learned judge who was trying the case to read the documents and exercise his independent judgment according to law as to where the balance of public interest lay. That is what he did.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your assistance. You said that the matter was extremely important. When the Attorney-General was

755
asked whether Ministers could be summoned to the inquiry, he said yes. He then went on to say that Ministers would be invited to attend and he was sure that they would not decline.
It would be wrong for the House to move on to further business before the Attorney-General clarifies whether Ministers will be summoned and have no right not to attend or whether they will be invited to attend with the right not to attend.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. [Interruption.] Order. I am in charge here.
The Attorney-General: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I shall clarify the position. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) would undoubtedly wish to consider the advantages and disadvantages of the 1921 Act to which I have referred many times.
My response to his point of order and the factual matter that he put into the ether is that Ministers can be ordered to attend by the Prime Minister. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, any Ministers so ordered—the Prime Minister has just told me that Ministers will be so ordered—who do not attend, which I find inconceivable, would be unlikely to remain Ministers for long if they did not obey such as order.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that when an hon. Member intends to raise a matter in the House about another Member it is the courtesy of the House that he should inform the Member involved in advance? The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) named me yesterday on a matter of privilege. Do you also agree that, as the hon. Member derives his evidence from a Murdoch newspaper which he normally would despise, and as those sentiments are about as sincere as Colonel Sander's sentiments for chickens, the matter is bogus? If I need an hon. Member to defend me, I will not seek help from the whippersnapper opposite.
Madam Speaker: I know full well that the hon. Lady can defend herself on every matter, and I can tell her and the House that I do not make my rulings on what the papers say.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like your advice on how the House is left following today's statement. Is it the case that no further questions can be put or answered on the many issues that have come up in the questioning, on the grounds that it is sub judice? I hope that you will not answer today, because it is an important question.
If a Minister can set up a judicial inquiry and no questions can be put on the matter for the next 18 months, on the grounds of the sub judice rule, parliamentary accountability will disappear overnight. Will you reflect carefully on that matter and give us guidance, because I regard it as potentially a great threat to the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons?
Madam Speaker: It is my understanding that the sub judice rule does not apply to inquiries.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members' points of order are not points of frustration, because I see numbers of hon. Members rising whom I was not able to call. I am not prepared to prolong this.
Mr. Jimmy Boyce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you give me some guidance? The Attorney-General has left Opposition Members, at least, completely baffled as to the next stage in the procedure. Given that his terms of reference for the judicial inquiry were that it will be full, impartial and independent, can you use your good offices to bring the Attorney-General back here when he has drawn then up?
Madam Speaker: Regrettably, the hon. Member credits me with more authority than I have.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was called during the statement. Is it a point of order for me?
Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Madam Speaker. This morning, the Table Office accepted two identical questions from me—one for the Prime Minister and one for the Secretary of State for Defence —asking on what date they were first alerted to the Matrix Churchill situation. In the light of the answer to my right hon. Friend, are we saying that there is no need for Ministers to answer such questions, even if they remain on the Order Paper, on the grounds that the matter is sub judice, because that raises deep questions—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is quite the opposite. As I have already said, the inquiry is not sub judice. The hon. Gentleman has told me and the House that his questions were accepted.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you assist me further? lf, as we have been told, the sanction against Ministers who refuse to give evidence is that they would lose their jobs, what sanction would the House have over former Ministers who decline to give evidence? Is there any way in which you can assist me on that matter?
Madam Speaker: The inquiry is not being conducted by the House, and therefore I should have thought that the House had no authority over former Ministers.
Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you could assist me. I listened to the statement and to all the questions and answers, but I remain puzzled about our policy with regard to the shipment of machinery, which is capable of making munitions, to various middle eastern countries. Perhaps the relevant Minister—be it from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Prime Minister or someone else—could get up and tell me their departmental policies.
Madam Speaker: Hon. Members must not ask the Chair to attempt to interpret Government policy in that way.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appeal to you, in your capacity as the defender of Back Benchers' rights, to recognise that a

757
matter arises from this debate which calls for a statement to the House. I have examined dozens of questions and answers that I have received since 1987, and it is clear that the answers given to me by Mr. Alan Clark and other Ministers were untrue. Can the wrong that has been done to the House be undone by a statement from the Leader of the House and from the Government—a statement in which they will go through all the untruthful answers of the past four years and give us truthful replies?
Madam Speaker: I have no authority to instruct any Minister to come to the Dispatch Box, but the comments made by the hon. Member have obviously been heard by those on the Treasury Bench this afternoon.
Mr. Litherland: It was stated that the Prime Minister could instruct any Minister to attend the inquiry. I ask your guidance, Madam Speaker. Who can instruct the Prime Minister to attend the inquiry and make available his knowledge of this situation?
Madam Speaker: The points of order that hon. Members are now raising are by no means a matter for the Speaker.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: In relation to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), can you clarify whether it is not a fact that nothing that has been said this afternoon would preclude him from referring the matter to the Committee of Privileges?
Madam Speaker: If any hon. Member wishes to make any reference to the matters of privilege, he or she should, in the normal way, write to me.
Mr. Chris Mullin: It will be within your recollection, Madam Speaker, that, three years ago, the then Attorney-General came to the House and announced a judicial inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings, and that, once it became clear that the judge in charge of that inquiry, Sir John May, was
758
not willing to participate in a whitewash, the inquiry was nobbled. No Attorney-General has since come to the House to explain the fate of that inquiry. In order that we may know how seriously to take the inquiry just announced, could we first of all hear a statement from the Attorney-General about what happened to the last one?
Madam Speaker: I have already told the House that I have not been informed that any Minister is seeking to make a further statement today.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Can you help me by making it clear whether officers of MI5 and MI6 will be under a compulsion to tell the inquiry whether they advised the former Prime Minister of her son's arms dealings in this area and his involvement in the shipment of munitions to Iraq?
Madam Speaker: Certainly not; that is not a matter for the Speaker.
Mr. Llew Smith: Would the Attorney-General care to explain the links between the Government and the firm, Allivane, which supplied equipment to Iraq and Iran at the time of the Iraq-Iran war?
Madam Speaker: These are not points of order. Hon. Members are attempting to prolong the debate.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew MacKay.]
  Question agreed to.

Bail (Amendment)
4.27 pm
Mr. Michael Stephen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confer upon the prosecution a right of appeal against decisions to grant bail; to reverse the presumption in favour of bail in certain cases; to make other provisions relating to bail; and for connected purposes.
I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, is able to be in the Chamber this afternoon.
This is the second time that I have sought to change the criminal law. Having practised at the Bar for 15 years, I take particular interest in these matters. In 1987, I wrote a pamphlet which was published by the Bow Group and which urged Parliament to give the Attorney-General a right of appeal against over-lenient sentences. I was very glad that this was enacted in section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and I trust that the Bill for which I seek leave today will receive similarly favourable treatment from Parliament.
My Bill seeks to amend the law because our constituents are seriously concerned about offences which are being committed by people who have been arrested and then released on bail by magistrates. We read about such cases every week in our newspapers. The largest number of such cases relate to burglaries of dwellings and car thefts and it is the same group of people who are committing the same type of offence again and again. But the problem exists even in the most serious cases.
Hon. Members will recall with deep sadness and regret that Mrs. Anna McGurk was recently raped and murdered in Gloucester by a man who had already been arrested by the police for rape and had been let out on bail by magistrates, against the objection of the police. The House should take particular note of the fact that the murderer had been required by the magistrates to reside in a bail hostel as a condition of his bail.
My Bill would seek to make two changes to the law. First, it would give the prosecution a right of appeal to a judge where bail had been granted by magistrates against police objection. At present, the police can do nothing except watch the arrested man walk out of court. For police officers who spend their lives apprehending criminals on our behalf and at great personal risk, that
760
must be very demoralising. If the situation were reversed, and bail had been refused, the arrested man could apply to a judge for bail. My Bill would redress the balance in these matters between the defence and the prosecution.
The Scots are ahead of us in this matter, as in many things; it is already possible for the prosecution there to appeal if bail is unreasonably granted, and we should have the same rule in England and Wales.
Secondly, my Bill would reverse the burden of proof in the case of persons who had already been convicted of committing an offence in the past 10 years, while on bail. I believe that those people have forfeited the trust that bail implies. I do not say that they should not get bail at all, but it should be for them to prove that they should be given bail, rather than for the police to prove that they should not.
It may be argued that my Bill would increase the prison population and the cost of the prison service. I believe that it can be argued, however, that gaol is cheaper than bail. Bail hostels are not cost-free, and it is certainly not cost free to allow such persons to be at liberty to rape and murder our constituents, to burgle their houses and to steal their cars.
It is the very first duty of any Government to protect their citizens not only from external attack but from internal attack by criminals within our country. I trust that this Government will discharge that duty.
In the interests of protecting all our constituents from crimes committed by persons on bail, I seek leave of this honourable House to bring in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Stephen, Sir Anthony Grant, Sir Trevor Skeet, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. Roy Thomason, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Mark Robinson, Mr. David Congdon, Mr. Hartley Booth and Mr. Roger Evans.

Bail (Amendment)
  BAIL (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Michael Stephen accordingly presented a Bill to confer upon the prosecution a right of appeal against decisions to grant bail; to reverse the presumption in favour of bail in certain cases; to make other provisions relating to bail; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February and to be printed. [Bill 80.]
Orders of the Day

  Education Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9 November], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question again proposed.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call the Minister, I should tell the House that there will be a time limit on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm.
  4.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Nigel Forman): In the debate yesterday we heard a great deal of nonsense from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and other Opposition Members about the allegedly centralising motives and characteristics of the Bill. Of all the charges that could be levelled at us—precious few have any validity—the charge of centralisation is the most absurd.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his brilliant opening speech yesterday, and as several of my hon. Friends also pointed out during the debate, Labour has wilfully misunderstood and misrepresented the thrust of the Bill. Not for the first time, Labour is confusing means with ends. The means provided in this measure certainly involve the use of central power exercised with the full backing of parliamentary statute. But the ends achieved will be greater local choice and local autonomy at the level of individual parents and schools. We are confident that this framework of truly local choice will bring managerial benefits for head teachers, participation benefits for parents and other governors and—most important of all—educational benefits for the children concerned.
  I am glad to be able to say that, even since yesterday, two more applications for grant-maintained status have been approved by my right hon. Friend.
  The Government published the parents charter and have consistently sought to return the power in education to where it belongs—to parents, teachers and governors of schools.
  Our policy, in the Bill and in other previous measures, is all about enfranchising ordinary people, not about protecting outdated trade union or bureaucratic practices. This principle was true of the Housing Act 1980, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury fiercely opposed; it is true of our policies for wider pensions and share ownership; and it is true of the Bill, which places new opportunities in the hands of parents, teachers and governors so that the people most closely involved with our schools—
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the main Labour spokesman on this issue, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), not to be in her place on the Opposition Front Bench for a debate of this nature?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Whether an hon. Member is in the Chamber is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order.
  Mr. Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may seek to intervene in the debate, but I cannot take a point of order on what was not a point of order.
  Mr. Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forman: Yes.
  Mr. Davies: I appreciate the concern of some Conservative Members who may question the absence from the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I understand that she is on the telephone to the Secretary of State for Wales, trying to persuade him to come here to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Forman: I was explaining that we have been seeking to enfranchise ordinary people and not to protect outdated trade union or bureaucratic interests. I said that that principle was true of the Housing Act 1980, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury—who, as it has been pointed out, is not in her place—fiercely opposed. It is true of our policies for wider pensions and share ownership and it is true of this measure, which places new opportunities in the hands of parents, teachers and governors, so that the people most closely involved with our schools can truly develop a sense of ownership towards their schools and the education provided for the children in them.
  The parents charter made it clear that our policies involve giving parents important rights to complement their important responsibilities. For example, parents have a right to choose between available schools, which will bring financial pressure to bear on less effective schools and increase standards for all; parents have a right to good information about schools so that they can make informed choices in the best interests of their children and keep school performance up to the mark; parents have a right to good information about how their children are doing at school so that they can form a genuine partnership with the teachers and staff [Interruption.] I am pleased to see the hon. Memberr for Dewsbury in her place.
  Parents have the right to influence the management of their schools through serving as governors and voting in ballots on grant-maintained status; and parents have the right to be heard when things go wrong, meaning that appeal and complaints machinery is required by law.
  All those rights, which were denied to parents for generations, are now enjoyed by parents, thanks to Conservative Governments and the series of reforming Education Acts from 1980 onwards. The Bill builds on those achievements and will ensure that, as the new framework emerges, those rights are preserved and enhanced.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Minister said that it is important for parents to be fully informed about the proposals. Will he join me in congratulating West Glamorgan county council on providing fair but forceful information that persuaded the parents of Gowerton comprehensive school to vote overwhelmingly not to go for grant-maintained status? Will he endorse how the county council provided that information?
  Mr. Forman: The important point that lies behind the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that the information published in such cases should be fair and impartial. That applies as much to local education authorities as to those who support grant maintainance.
  Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware of the progress that has been made at Hendon school since it became the first school in London to become grant maintained? Is he aware that, when it was under local education authority control, it was undersubscribed and that it is now heavily oversubscribed? Is he further aware that the headmaster has now been able to spend much more on books and teaching materials than he could when the school was under local education authority control?
  Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks because they underline a general point that I wish to make to the House. The latest senior chief inspector's report on grant-maintained schools for the academic year 1991 gives the following gratifying conclusion. The independent senior chief inspector says:
  "Standards of work in grant-maintained schools were rather higher than they were in the maintained sector as a whole and many of the schools had been able to improve the quality and extent of accommodation, equipment, books stocked and other learning resources through the use of capital grant and a redeployment of the current grant now within their control."
  That makes the point clearly that, once schools go grant maintained, many educational benefits flow from it.
  The Bill will clarify parents' rights and responsibilities, for example, in cases of truancy, and extend parental rights where children have or may have special educational needs. I shall return to those two important topics in a few moments, but for now I wish to emphasise to the House that the Bill, far from being a measure to impose a pattern of education on England and Wales, will enable a new system to evolve and will enhance choice and diversity. Developments under the aegis of the Bill will be driven by popular demand, by parents freely voting in school-based ballots on whether to go grant maintained.
  It is a travesty for Opposition parties to misrepresent that process as undemocratic when they must know that the turn-out in ballots for grant-maintained status is typically a good deal higher than in local government elections. Indeed, the average turn-out in grant-maintained ballots is some 60 per cent., whereas the average turn out at local government elections is 40 per cent.
  Mr. Bryan Davies: Does not the Minister recognise that the intention behind the Bill is that one generation of parents in a school should take the irrevocable decision on whether the school should become grant-maintained? That is in sharp contrast to the democratic processes in education at present. In many local authorities the debate about the future of schools has been conducted year in, year out by an informed and educated public. Are not the proposals a denial of democracy?
  Mr. Forman: Our proposals are much more democratic than many of the carryings on in local authorities, particularly some Labour-controlled authorities where the elected representatives get notoriously out of touch with their local electorate.
  764
  The Bill is truly an enabling measure to create a sensible evolutionary framework within which parental choice and institutional diversity can thrive and grow. By contrast, the Opposition once again appear to argue for drab uniformity, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, and are the leading apologists for the bureaucrats in town and county halls throughout the land.
  However, such are the vicissitudes of politics that we on this Bench are prepared to offer a small prize—only a small one in the week of the autumn statement—to the first of my hon. Friends who guesses correctly the date on which the Opposition do another of their U-turns and accept our policy of enabling and encouraging the emergence of grant-maintained schools.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: Is the Minister aware of the comments made by Professor Brian Cox, a former guru of the Tory party, on the excellent "North Westminster" programme on BBC on Sunday, when he commented on the Government's proposals? He expressed concern about the effect that market forces are having on education and said:
  "It will harm children from poorer homes, in difficult areas. That's the place where this kind of emphasis on choice will do most harm."
  He went on to add:
  "middle class parents may be able to choose and move about a little bit but the local authorities have been responsible for helping children where the parents lack money and often lack initiative to know how to help their children."
  That is what an adviser to the Tory Government said. What does the Minister think about it?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister continues, may I point out that interventions should, by their nature, be short. I address that remark to both sides of the House equally.
  Mr. Forman: There was a time when the Conservative party wholeheartedly approved of the thrust of Professor Cox's advice. I regret to say that he seems to have lost touch with the educational realities of today. By that, I mean that one of the great things about grant-maintained schools is that they provide ladders of opportunity for children from disadvantaged as well as advantaged backgrounds. One has only to look at certain examples, such as Small Heath school in Birmingham, to see the validity in what I am saying.
  As for the Liberal Democrats, the prize which I am offering to my hon. Friends must be even smaller because of that party's habit of going round and round in circles and ending up what I would describe as politically giddy. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is in his place. He was against the proposals in April, for them in May and his party is against them now. It would be interesting to know which way that weathervane will turn next.
  Mr. Don Foster: I thought that I had responded to the accusation made in the Secretary of State's opening remarks on that point. He referred to an article that appeared in a local newspaper in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will now accept that that newspaper reported only the first half of my remarks, which are totally consistent with the policy document to which he subsequently referred—that is, that the Liberal Democrats would like to see more power and autonomy given to individual schools. But the other part of the document was that it was within the context of strategic planning—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the rule about interventions applies to all parties, even minority parties.
  Mr. Forman: In the light of that orgy of special pleading, I have two suggestions to make to the hon. Gentleman. First, he should put his entire remarks in the Library of the House of Commons, which has become an important practice these days. Secondly, he should resign his consultancy for the grant-maintained school.
  Mr. Foster: May I respond to that clear accusation? It will take me a second, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I hope that I shall have an opportunity to make the position clear.
  During the two and a half years prior to becoming a Member of the House, I worked for a major international consultancy organisation. During that time, my firm applied for audit of a number of educational organisations and, on a few occasions, my name was attached to those applications as the educational consultant. The last time that my name was involved in such ways was more than two years ago. I do not continue to provide any consultancy of an educational nature for that organisation, nor have I done so for some two years. I hope that the Minister will accept that that is the case.
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman has made his position clear and I pay tribute to him for that.
  I want to say a few words about the important and continuing role of local education authorities under the terms of the Bill. There has been a lot of self-serving and misleading talk about this, mostly from Opposition Members, many of whom have backgrounds in local government as elected officials or as employees. We will not abolish LEAs in the Bill; we will not even abolish local education committees, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury was implying. Rather, we are allowing local authorities to organise themselves as they see fit and to evolve in the most effective ways in order to enable them to concentrate on those tasks which they can perform best and which they are best placed to perform. In education, that means carrying out important continuing functions in the realms of special educational needs and school attendance.
  On special needs, which I hope can be approached in a relatively non-partisan spirit in the Chamber and in Committee, part III of the Bill illustrates the citizens charter in action. It reinforces the statutory framework for the involvement of parents in their children's education. It embodies three basic principles: first, that parents should have a clear and comprehensive set of rights; secondly, that parents should be able to judge the action of local education authorities against a statutory code of practice; and, thirdly, that, if dissatisfied, parents should have a simple, straightforward means of appeal to an independent tribunal.
  Thus, parents will have a right to ask local education authorities to assess their child if they believe that he has special educational needs, a right to know the name of the officer with whom they will deal and a right to make written and oral representations. If the authority decides to issue a statement of special educational needs, parents will have new rights over the choice of the maintained school that they wish their child to attend. Subject to certain reasonable conditions, the authority will be obliged to comply with that preference. If parents wish their child to attend a non-maintained or independent school, they
  766
  will have a right to make written and oral representations to that effect. Once their child has a statement, parents will have a right to request a reassessment.
  The code of practice will enable parents to judge whether authorities are fulfilling their duties. It will set criteria against which authorities will decide whether to assess a child and, subsequently, to issue a statement. At the same time, regulations will govern the manner in which authorities carry out assessments, setting, in particular, statutory time limits. We shall issue a clear guide for parents, so that they can understand authorities' duties and judge their performance.
  Under the Bill, parents will have new rights of appeal. There will be a new, independent special educational needs tribunal. Local authorities will no longer sit in judgment on their own actions. Parents may appeal to the tribunal against an authority's refusal to assess their child, a refusal to issue a statement or a refusal to reassess their child. Parents may also appeal to the tribunal if the authority declines to name the maintained school of their choice or the non-maintained or independent school for which they have made representations. For the first time, parents will have the right to put their case in person to an independent body or to ask a friend to do so for them. The tribunal will take full account of the code of practice in reaching its decisions. Those decisions will be binding on the authority.
  The Government believe that all parents should be involved in their children's education. We are determined that parents of children who are most in need of help should have every opportunity to make their voices heard and their choices met. The Bill gives statutory force to those principles.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: In regard to what the Minister said about special education, will the Bill ensure a continuation of the process towards full integration of children with special needs into other classes and prevent retrogression to the "sin bin" syndrome whereby those with special needs are lumped together in one group and not integrated as much as possible?
  Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman is making good points and is underlining the direction in which policy is moving. That thrust of policy is continuing. A few years ago, 14 per cent. of such children were integrated in ordinary schools; I understand that 35 per cent. are now integrated. The hon. Gentleman was right to make that point.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Following on from that, can my hon. Friend assure me that there will be no compulsion, because many parents of children with special educational needs want them to be in special schools? In one case, my local authority, Kirklees, tried to force the issue against great opposition. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Government approach will be flexible?
  Mr. Forman: If parents are concerned, my hon. Friend should be aware that that is why we have made provision in the Bill for a tribunal specifically to consider such representations.
  On school attendance, part IV of the Bill makes provision for enforcing regular school attendance on the part of children of compulsory school age. The Government set great store by ensuring that children go to school and stay there throughout the school day. Regular

  767
  attendance is of vital importance if children are to benefit from the opportunities that education offers them. Children who stay away from school are more likely to grow up unhappy and unfulfilled and to leave school much less qualified than they might otherwise have been. Worse still, such children may sometimes be drawn into a life of crime.
  The Prime responsibility under the law for seeing that children attend school regularly rests with parents, but schools must also regard maximising attendance as one of their most important tasks. They should take particular care to ensure that registers are properly maintained and that all instances of unjustified absence are pursued with vigour. From this autumn, all maintained schools will have to publish their truancy records—a powerful incentive for under-performing schools to do better.
  It is also important that local education authorities should use their legal powers to bring before the courts parents who have failed to ensure that their children go to school. Part IV of the Bill therefore consolidates and updates existing provisions scattered across a number of Acts—provisions which are concerned with the means by which local education authorities enforce the legal responsibilities of parents in respect of school attendance, the extent to which parental choice may be taken into account when LEAs are issuing school attendance orders, the rights and obligations of the schools named in such orders, and the machinery for dealing with those parents who choose to flout the law and put their children's future at risk. As such, I hope that this part of the Bill will command the support of all parts of the House.
  On the important subject of failing schools, I also hope that we can reach a measure of bipartisan agreement, because for too long education authorities of all political persuasions have been tempted to sweep these problems under the carpet and have taken action only when an inspector's report has forced the issue into the open and it has been unavoidable. It is not good enough to fail large numbers of pupils in this way. We intend to tackle the problem urgently and the Bill will give us the extra means of doing so.
  Under the passage of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, there were no systematic arrangements for identifying schools which were failing their pupils. The Bill moves forward to build upon that framework. It provides for clear procedures to remedy deficiencies in failing schools. The Education (Schools) Act provides for the regular and rigorous inspection of all maintained schools. There will be independent inspection of the quality of teaching and the standards achieved every four years. Every report will be published and made available to parents of children at the school. The report will highlight the strengths and the weaknesses. Schools will have to publish a plan of action to tackle the weaknesses identified by the inspectors and report on progress to parents every year. It is healthy that they should do that every year.
  Where a report identifies very serious weaknesses in many aspects of teaching in a school—in other words, where the school is "at risk"—we shall ensure that deficiencies are remedied as quickly as possible so that the education of the children in the school is improved. That will be done by requiring the governing body to draw up an action plan. That plan will go to the local authority for
  768
  comment and for proposals for it to play a greater role if it thinks the action proposed by the Governors is inadequate. The LEA will have a new power to appoint additional governors and enhanced power to withdraw delegated functions. Once delegation is withdrawn, the LEA would regain control over staffing matters, which should help the authority to take firm and effective action to address the problems of the school. The sort of firm and effective action which tends to be most effective is changing the head teacher.
  The Secretary of State will see the plans from the governors and from the local education authority. He will then have an opportunity to consider whether the plans provide a clear basis for improving the performance of the school. If so, the school and the LEA will be allowed to put the plans into effect, and their progress in taking the necessary remedial action will be closely monitored. However, if my right hon. Friend judges that the action plan from the governing body and the supporting plan from the LEA would not result in improvements within a reasonable period, he could use the power in the Bill to bring the school under the management of an education association immediately. Equally, if the monitoring process showed that insufficient progress was being made, he would also be able to use this new power.
  Education associations will provide a remedy for failing county and voluntary schools, but should a grant-maintained school be identified in an inspection report as being at risk, my right hon. Friend will have the power to replace all the first governors of the school. That would secure a majority on the governing body and thus achieve the same remedial purposes in the GM sector as in the LEA-maintained sector.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me on this important matter, which he calls performance. Given the freedom of governing bodies in LEAs and the freedom of which the Minister boasts for grant-maintained schools, and the advice that can be offered them, what additional skill does he think the education associations will be able to provide —they are presumably not statutory bodies—that would not be available to the local education authority or to the governors? He should also bear in mind that GM schools will have advice from the Department.
  Mr. Forman: The associations would be set up under statute, under the rubric of the Bill. More to the point, we now have the possibility of injecting into failing schools the right sort of leadership and teaching skills—the right people to lead a school out of trouble. Schools get into trouble because their leadership has failed to come up to the standards required. This is how education associations will be able to help all failing schools, except grant-maintained schools, the approach to which I have already described.
  We have received positive responses to our proposals for action in the case of failing schools, and I have every confidence that the House will support them wholeheartedly. No one wants failing schools left in disarray. We have to be able to step in to remedy problems in schools when their local authorities or their governors may have failed them. We owe as much to the children in such schools. They have only one chance of a school career. We must therefore do everything possible to see that they make the best of their talents and opportunities, especially if the

  769
  school in which they find themselves is shown by the inspectorate to be at risk in this way. Nothing less will do for my right hon. Friend and my other ministerial colleagues.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Has the Minister given any consideration to providing governors with the power to remove a chairman who the governors believe is not acting in the best interests of a school, or a power to enable them to recommend the removal of a serving governor whose behaviour is unsatisfactory?
  Mr. Forman: That is an interesting point, to which I do not have the answer. I shall invite my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools to deal with it when he winds up the debate.
  Finally, I should like to summarise as succinctly as I can the case for GM schools, as they are central to the purposes of this Bill. They are popular with parents. They encourage increased parental involvement. They are directly accountable to the local community. They have control of their own budgets and they can manage their own affairs. They can secure value for money and redirect resources to premium educational purposes. Above all, they are characterised by a new and positive ethos. Andrew Adonis, writing in the Financial Times earlier this week—he is a Liberal councillor and, on this issue, no friend of the Government—had this to say:
  "A visit to most grant-maintained schools reveals an extra sense of pride and commitment among the staff at running their own show entirely free from local bureaucrats."
  So at least a few members of the Liberal party have seen the light.
  The framework set out in the Bill allows for flexible and evolutionary development. The pace of change will be determined by the outcome of parental ballots on GM status. The Bill is about conserving the best and reforming the rest.
  The Bill rests on foundations laid down in previous years. It contains a range of provisions based on the philosophy set out in the White Paper—a philosophy that emphasises that structural and other reforms are pointless unless they are aimed at improving the quality of what is provided in the classroom. It is our conviction that the best way of achieving quality within the framework of the national curriculum is to increase parental choice and institutional diversity. That means not only greater autonomy for schools but greater accountability to parents and the community.
  We have made great progress in recent years in reforming our education system. Our White Paper set out our vision; once implemented, the Bill will help us to realise that vision. As we approach the next century, our education system will be characterised not by uniformity but by diversity, not by bureaucratic power but by parent power, not by levelling down but by levelling up. Our system of education will be much the better for that. The Bill is one more vital stage on our long journey towards a really well-educated and trained society. It is a real investment in human capital, and I hope that the House will support it in the Lobby tonight.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: The Government have
  had 13 years and they have not managed to do much yet.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on what I understand is his first
  770
  performance in an education debate. I am sure that he will be glad to have that ordeal out of the way. This is my first opportunity to take part in an education debate, too. [Interruption.] Before the Secretary of State gets too excited, I shall come to him in a moment.
  The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I have to leave shortly.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman had better stay for the latter part of my speech. I have some genuine thoughts to offer him.
  I take issue with the Minister's speech on two points. First, he was unwise to suggest that Opposition Members who have been members of local authorities or education authorities, or who have worked as teachers or as education officers, should be disqualified from taking part in debates on education. I should have thought that the House needs a little more expertise. The Government have been getting into a mess not only over education but in many other disastrous areas, and they should welcome a little more expertise among their own ranks as well.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: In a moment. The Minister is on thin ice when he suggests that we are not qualified to contribute to the debate. I looked at "Dod" to discover what the Minister's interests were: they certainly had nothing to do with education. He is interested in economic policy, foreign policy, environmental issues and European issues. It is a pity that he is not interested in education, but I hope that as time goes by he will become more interested in it—
  Mr. Forman rose—
  Mr. Davies: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) first. I understand that the Minister was a minor functionary in a Back-Bench education committee, and I will give way to him later.
  Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Members serving in local government. As one who served in local government for 17 years, may I tell him that what I saw there convinces me that this Bill is right?
  Mr. Davies: I am not quite sure which authority the hon. Gentleman served on—
  Mr. Marshall: A Labour-controlled authority.
  Mr. Davies: If so, the hon. Gentleman was not educated as well as he should have been.
  Mr. Forman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should not rely so exclusively on "Dod"—he should look at other sources as well. He would find there that, before becoming a Minister, I had been involved in the world of education in one capacity or another, usually part-time because of my responsibilities as a Back Bencher. For many years I taught at Essex university and in other universities. I taught for the Workers Educational Association; I took four degrees; and I know a little bit about the world of education. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark.
  Mr. Davies: All I can say is that it did not show in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  However well experienced the Minister is, he is no Secretary of State for Wales. If the Bill is so important,

  771
  why was the Secretary of State for Wales not on the Front Bench this evening to open the debate on behalf of the Welsh Office? We know that he does not have a mandate in Wales and that the people of Wales did not vote for him or for the Bill, but the Secretary of State has responsibility for education in Wales and the least he could have done was come to the House to answer to the Bill to which he is a signatory.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): There is a simple explanation for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has been attending a funeral today.
  Mr. Davies: In that case, I accept without reservation the Secretary of State's absence. However, he was absent throughout yesterday's debate, apart from the closing speeches. I do not know the domestic arrangements to which the Minister referred, but I understand that it was never the Secretary of State's intention to speak in the debate, whether or not there had been a bereavement or other demands on his time.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman made a handsome statement about my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and greeted him on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box; my hon. Friend made an excellent first speech. The hon. Gentleman said that he, too, was making his first speech in his new capacity and we agreed that this was a momentous moment. Therefore, we started off in a nice bipartisan way. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be fitting for him to apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, whom he traduced as having no educational experience—a man who has been a university lecturer? The hon. Gentleman really should try to put things right.
  Mr. Davies: I have seen such behaviour before. For the past four years I have been shadowing the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is something of an excitable individual, and I am seeing exactly the same behaviour this evening. There may be an explanation for it. It is relevant to the Bill—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been following the debate closely and so far we do not seem to have heard much about the Bill.
  Mr. Davies: I have the option of exercising my usual courtesy in giving way to Conservative Members who wish to intervene, or desisting. If I wished to desist, I am sure that they would rise on points of order, making life difficult for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it is important that we come on to the Bill.
  It is as well to consider the attitudes of the Secretary of State for Education which have been demonstrated this evening. He is fond of tut-tutting in moral indignation about the state of our society, and that is the belief which lies at the heart of the Bill. In April this year, having just taken up his office, he wrote in an article in The Spectator:
  "Dwindling belief in redemption and damnation have led to loss of fear of the eternal consequences of goodness and badness."
  The Scotsman commented on that, saying:
  "But he clearly sees a relevance to his new portfolio as Education Secretary since he wants schools to play a part in restoring the fear of damnation among the young. Rather
  772
  alarmingly for a Minister responsible for science he also holds scientific advance in part responsible for loss of admonitory faith. His sincerity is not to be doubted, but his logic assuredly is."
  For a Minister who is charged with the development of education policy to allow for the full provision of citizenship for our young people and for the development of the potential of our young people as they progress through the education system and to create a system of education which meets the social and economic needs of our country, the right hon. Gentleman is alarmingly out of touch. He shows himself to be an unbalanced and irrational Minister.
  The Minister's faulty logic can be seen in the Bill. We are told that this is the cap on the progress of 13 years. Since 1979 we have had 17 major pieces of legislation and countless pieces of secondary legislation, but where is the progress? Where do we look in our education system to see the brave new world which, time and again, we have been told would be created by that legislation?
  There is much need for reform, but the Bill is not the jewel in the crown. If there is need for reform in our education service, it was identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) yesterday when he referred to the £1·5 billion underfunding in the education system. We can see it in Wales, where capital expenditure on school buildings has been cut by 35 per cent. since 1981. [Interruption.] The Minister of State will have a chance to correct me if he wishes.
  There is a need for reform. We want decent buildings and an end to overcrowding. In Wales during the past 10 years, the teacher-pupil ratio in junior schools has worsened. We need a Government who will stop denigrating the teaching profession, stop centralising and start working with the local education authorities to allow them to get on with the job. None of that is contained in the Bill and that is what makes it, at best, an irrelevance and, at worst, an appalling interference with the good practice that has been developed by our local education authorities.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: On a factual point, I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figure for a decrease in capital allocations, but there has been a real-terms increase in capital allocations of 21 per cent. since 1986–87. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, as I said last night, in the current year there was an underspend by local education authorities in Wales on the capital side of 15 per cent. There was also an underspend last year and the year before.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister is making two substantial points. The Minister knows as well as I do that on the underspend I was quoting the period from 1980 to 1991, the period during which the Government had been in control of the education budget. It is perfectly reasonable for me to use that period and it is unreasonable to the Minister to apply those figures from 1985 to 1991. I am afraid that he will not get away with that trick.
  The second suggestion is that there has been underspending by local authorities. I discussed that very matter this morning with the treasurer of my local education authority. He explained to me the difficulties in meeting the revenue contributions to capital expenditure because of the cuts and the capping for which the Government are responsible. If there is an underspend, it is nothing to do with an over-provision for education. If

  773
  the Minister is saying that we do not need to spend money on our schools, I suggest that he visits schools in Cardiff, Newport, Swansea or the valley communities.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Or Hemsworth.
  Mr. Davies: I cannot ask the Minister to go to Hemsworth. We cannot allow a Welsh Office Minister to interfere in the affairs of England. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
  The Government have allowed precious little opportunity for debate and public consultation on the White Paper and I am clear that that was done deliberately and cynically to prevent there being any real debate. But even within that limited time there was universal criticism from schools, educationists, local authorities, trade unionists, parents, teachers and everyone involved in the education system.
  A Times editorial summed it up very well on 29 July, stating:
  "The government is dismayed at Britain's poor education record and has responded as governments always respond. It has blamed everybody but itself, and decided to nationalise the schools … This is one of the most dramatic extensions of Whitehall power seen since the war … This is a devastating vote of no confidence in local democracy … Nationalisation will make schools more not less uniform … The government has not thought through its search for 'diversity, parental choice, specialism and standards' in the resulting school system."
  That criticism, expressed by Simon Jenkins—then editor of The Times—reflects very well the plethora of condemnation that has come from every part of the country.
  Mr. Forman: I think that, for the sake of completeness, the House should be acquainted with the mature and considered view expressed by a Times leader on 31 October. That leader stated:
  "If the bill seems to have conflicting motives—centralising control of the curriculum where it preaches greater diversity, for example—it is because the political manoeuvring of the education establishment has left little alternative. The interlocking influence of the schools inspectorate, the colleges of education, the teaching unions and the council education officers who dominate the staffing of state schools present a skilful variety of different faces when threatened with change."
  That is the real view of The Times today.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister must accept that he cannot rewirte history—much as he would like to do so, and despite his ability to interfere with the teaching of history in schools. The fact is that in July, when the White Paper was published for consultation, The Times was vociferous in its condemnation.
  Mr. Forman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: If the Minister wanted to use the conversion of The Times in support of his case, he should have done so during his speech. He chose not to do so, however, and I chose to cite the view expressed by The Times—under its then editor—when the document was published, when the issue was open to consultation and when the Government were seeking the views of the public. As far as I am concerned, that is the record, and the record must stand.
  Given that the Government have presided over 1:3 years of what has been at best a mediocre performance, and given that their proposals have been condemned by all
  774
  who have the best interests of education at heart, why on earth are the Government introducing the Bill? What do they intend to do?
  We can identify three developments. First, there is the desire to control—a theme which has run through many of the policies of the present Government and their two predecessors. By that, I mean the view that Whitehall knows best; that, if powers can be taken away from the centre—from the pluralistic institutions of our society—we shall have a better form of government. Secondly, there is an anti-local government ethos, principally because local government has stood out against the Government's centralising tendencies. Thirdly, and most worrying of all, the Bill paves the way for the reintroduction of selection in schools, and, I believe, for the reintroduction of market forces in the education system.
  The Bill is a recipe for chaos, and I think that the Secretary of State knows that. Last night, when challenged about the way in which the policies would affect surplus school places, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "We must also deal with the removal of surplus school places … The money wasted on maintaining many of those places should he 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."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 635.]
  Those are perfectly acceptable and sensible sentiments. Unfortunately, however, the system of grant-maintained schools is being deliberately abused by the Welsh Office to undermine the very process of rationalisation that is taking place in Wales.
  Two clear examples are Cwmcarn and Brynmawr schools, both of which have been earmarked for closure by Gwent county council as part of a proposed rationalisation programme. Both were small and had declining rolls, and it was considered necessary to secure the future of the other schools in the catchment area. I know that it is difficult for the Minister of State to come to terms with this, because he does not really know where the schools are.
  His ignorance is clearly shared by the Secretary of State for Education. Last night, when my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) was making the same point, the Secretary of State suggested that the two schools were in my hon. Friend's constituency. He subsequently had to apologise from the Dispatch Box, with the immortal words, "I am not very good at geography." That is something of an admission, coming from a reader in geography at the university of Oxford. However, we are concerned not with the Secretary of State's knowledge of geography, but with his knowledge of education. His proposals are destructive and damaging.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: Let me give another example first: it relates directly to the Minister of State, and he may wish to respond.
  About 12 months ago, I had a conversation with the Minister—not a confidential conversation—about a school in my constituency, Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni. It is a Welsh-medium school. The building is very old; the comprehensive school had moved out, and the building had become surplus to requirements. It was sub-standard accommodation, decrepit and with holes in the roof. Mid Glamorgan county council, however, is striving bravely to provide Welsh-medium education there.

  775
  I said to the Minister, informally, "Wyn, we really do have a problem at Ysgol Gyfun. The building is dilapidated and outdated, and the form of education provided there is unacceptable in the 20th century." The Minister replied, "Tell it to opt out." Of course, in the Minister's eyes, that made absolute sense. Tell the school to opt out; then it will go to the top of the list. It will receive preferential treatment, priority treatment.
  That is all very well for Ysgol Gyfun, in which I have a particular and passionate interest, but what about the other schools that will be prejudiced as a result of such priority treatment? The example of Ysgol Gyfun illustrates very well the fact that some individuals in my constituency stand to benefit, while other schools in Mid Glamorgan will lose resources and suffer as a result. Moreover, if the Minister gives Ysgol Gyfun additional resources, the peculiar way in which our local education authorities are financed—education resources are not hypothecated, as they are in England—means that Mid Glamorgan's social services, such as provision for children and the elderly, will be cut.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: It is precisely because schools under local authority control do not receive all the resources that they could receive—in terms of both revenue and capital —that I recommended such a course. As for Cwmcarn, a grant-maintained school, it is the constituency of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). If that school should have closed, why did the right hon. Gentleman—then Leader of the Opposition—put the strongest possible case for its retention?
  Mr. Davies: I know where Cwmcarn school is. I taught a couple of miles up the road at Newbridge school. I know, too, that that school is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn, who was then the leader of the Labour party. If that school had not been in the Islwyn constituency, I also know that it would not have been granted permission to opt out. That decision had nothing to do with the educational merits of Cwmcarn school. It was an act of deliberate malice to try to embarrass the leader of the Labour party.
  The Minister of State properly referred to the question of funding. Let me take this opportunity to put a direct question both to him and to the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, who is to reply to the debate. Can the Minister of State give a guarantee that any funds that are made available for schools such as Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni will be additional to the expenditure currently being made available to Mid Glamorgan county council? is that new money? Can the Minister answer that question?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I cannot do so.
  Mr. Davies: I know that the right hon. Gentleman cannot do so. That is why I asked him the question.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that I cannot anticipate the statement that we are to hear on Thursday.
  Mr. Davies: I think that we shall all find that Thursday is a day for bad news.
  The Minister is encouraging schools to opt out. He knows that money is not available and that the additional resources, which will be accelerated by means of the Bill,
  776
  will be taken away from people who are already underfunded. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Schools who is to reply to the debate will deal with a subject that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers). It has been the subject of considerable press speculation. I understand that 65 local education authorities in England are overspending on the basis of their standard spending assessments to the tune of about £524 million. In addition, 43 local education authorities are spending £311 million below their SSAs. Can we have a clear and unequivocal statement that—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): No, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it.
  Mr. Davies: I got an answer even before I asked the question. The Minister shows himself to be a man of considerable talents. If we cannot have the answer, how on earth can the Government give the assurance that they give at the moment, which is that schools stand to benefit financially if they opt out? Notwithstanding Thursday's proposals, the Minister tells us that the Government can give no guarantees.
  For those local authorities that are spending above their SSAs, the problem is that the calculation that will be used to provide schools with additional resources will be based not on the SSA but on the current expenditure of the local education authority. That means that it will have more money than if the calculation had been based on the SSA. We are told, however, that in two years' time the formula will revert to the SSA. That must provide a clear warning signal to any school that is considering opting out that it will be offered a financial inducement and a bribe now, but in two years' time, however, it will find that the promised money is not forthcoming. That is before the cuts that we know will be announced on Thursday. The Minister cannot give an answer.
  One of my constituents wrote to the Secretary of State for Education on 20 August. She had been a school governor. She is a parent and is very much involved in her local community. She urged caution on the Government and pleaded with them to think of the implications and to consult widely before introducing these reforms. She received a reply from the Department for Education on 18 September. It said:
  "Dear Mrs. Davies"—
  She is no relation
  "Thank you for your letter"
  concerning the White Paper "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools"
  "of 20 August to the Secretary of State about the above. This is, however, a matter for the Welsh Office…and I have passed your letter to them to reply to you direct."
  My constituent had not received a reply from the Welsh Office by 19 October, so she contacted me and asked me to take up the matter with the Welsh Office, which I did straight away. A few weeks later I had a reply from the Secretary of State for Wales, which said:
  "Dear Ron, Thank you for your letter of 19 October on behalf of Mrs. Davies … I am sorry that Mrs. Davies has had to wait so long for a reply. We do not, however, have any record of her letter being received from the Department of Education."
  That is a fairly good illustration of the extent to which the Welsh Office is involved in decision making—that an individual who makes a formal submission to the Secretary of State for Education urging caution in response to the consultation document has the courtesy of

  777
  a reply from the Secretary of State for Education but does not even receive an acknowledgement from the Secretary of State for Wales. Apparently, the Welsh Office cannot even find her letter.
  Even better is to come. The Secretary of State for Wales tried to reassure Mrs. Davies by saying:
  "Within these arrangements"—
  regarding grant-maintained schools—
  "there is nothing to prevent LEAs continuing to provide advice and services to all schools, even those that have decided to become grant maintained."
  That is a completely misleading and dishonest statement. As grant-maintained schools opt out of local education authority control, the ability of LEAs to provide a central core of services will he diminished by each and every opt out. Apart from the local education authorities being subverted, the whole capital expenditure programme will be subverted. There will be top slicing. The cream will be taken off. The ability of local authorities to deliver their statutory requirements, in terms of attendance and transport, will be undermined.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) made clear last night, the ability of local education authorities to make provision for special needs will be undermined. Their ability to maintain establishments for outdoor activities will also be undermined. The provision of peripatetic teachers for services that cannot be provided in all schools will be undermined as schools opt out. The advisory service that seeks to improve and maintain the quality of teaching in the classroom, will be undermined because of the undermining of local education authorities.
  Welsh-medium education in Wales will be undermined, too. I shall give the Minister two examples. I have already referred to Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni. If that school were to decide to opt out, parents in the Rhymney valley who wish their children to have a Welsh-medium education will have no option. They will be able to send their children to an opted-out school or they will be denied Welsh-medium education. That is no choice. I know that the Minister of State has actively encouraged Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni to opt out. If it does, the provision of Welsh-medium education in Mid Glamorgan will be undermined.
  I know that my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Gwynedd are concerned about the way in which the opting out of schools will undermine and destroy the cohesive fabric of Welsh education as it has developed in the county of Gwynedd.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: My hon. Friend is making an absolutely excellent speech—[Interruption.]—far superior to the speech that we heard yesterday from the Secretary of State for Education. Does my hon. Friend agree that the educational psychology service will also be undermined? As schools opt out, local authorities will need fewer educational psychologists and therefore will be unable to provide that service to opted-out schools. Special educational needs will be affected by opting out.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is correct. That is why parents are voting increasingly against the proposals—most dramatically in the case of Gowerton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). Recently they voted against the proposals by about three and a half or four to one. There was no bribery or persuasion. The information was presented to the parents and they came to a balanced judgment.
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: My hon. Friend perhaps underestimates the fact that, when local authorities find themselves in this dilemma, as did West Glamorgan county council in the case of Gowerton comprehensive school, they sometimes shift towards delegating a much larger proportion of their budget to local schools that are not grant-maintained. The threshold for the retention of core services could be diminished so much that their retention, which is so important if the family of schools is to be retained, is fundamentally undermined. Local education authorities must ensure that they do not delegate too much of their budget to non-grantmaintained schools, or that will happen.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes his case very powerfully and persuasively, and in so doing raises a further point. I wish that the Minister of State, Welsh Office would consult the Under-Secretary of State for Education and give us an answer. Hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies are concerned about the local government reorganisation. I am aware of the delays that might result from the reorganisation in England, but the Secretary of State for Wales has told us that there will not be a commission for Wales or any delay because the Government will move immediately to a pattern of unitary authorities. That has peculiar circumstances and consequences in Wales, because the central debate is about what form of local authority will be best equipped to pick up the residual responsibility that is now discharged by the local education authority. As yet, we do not know.
  We have the prospect of the Bill going through Parliament, but at the same time the Secretary of State is sitting on the proposals that will determine the form of local government in Wales that will have to operate it. It is a nightmare for those involved in local authority planning, especially local education authority services. I plead with the Minister of State, Welsh Office to consider that matter and the enormous worry that is being felt by those in local government in Wales and to ensure that when the Under-Secretary of State for Schools replies he will be in a position to give a considered answer to the point.
  Mr. Forth: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that it is his rather pathetic and craven adherence to the thought that only an LEA or local authority monopoly provider can possibly make any education provision that has got him into the box that he is in? The more flexible people are prepared to be and the more that schools are prepared to look beyond their LEAs for the provision of services, the more flexible and certain that provision is likely to be. That applies as much, or more, in Wales as anywhere else.
  Mr. Davies: Let me concede straight away that the Government won the last election, have a majority in the House and have every right to put this legislation through the House. I question their right to legislate for Wales, but I shall concede that point for a moment. The Minister must recognise that the number of schools that have opted out in Wales can be counted on one hand. He said that local government reorganisation will take effect from 1995. The prospect of anything more than a dozen or a couple of dozen schools opting out will not be a reality for four or five years.
  Mr. Forman: No.
  Mr. Davies: All the experience tells us that, and the Minister should consider it.
  In the meantime, those who plan local education authority services must decide what to do next year. Those who are considering how the new local authorities will operate after 1995 must know on what basis they will discharge services, or does the Under-Secretary think that that can be put to one side—"Local authorities are redundant so we need not worry and, hopefully, a trust will come along, organise a ballot and do it themselves"? That was implicit in the casual, dismissive attitude of the Under-Secretary.
  Education in Wales is now endangered. It is doubly endangered by the Bill and the spectre of local government reorganisation, which the Government are making a hash of, and they are refusing to tell the Welsh people what will happen.
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Davies: The Under-Secretary cannot add anything; I have made the point. I ask him to consult the Minister of State, Welsh Office, who is clearly on unsure ground with local government in Wales. Perhaps when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate he will give a more balanced reply.
  Mr. Patten: Why will the hon. Gentleman not let the Under-Secretary respond? He is frightened.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The class is getting too restless.
  Mr. Davies: If there is one hon. Member at whom the Secretary of State cannot throw that accusation, it is me. If, however, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, deem it appropriate to allow him to rise to the Dispatch Box, I clearly must accept it.
  I want some answers from the Minister that will allow those responsible for planning education in Wales to carry out their task on a reasonable and coherent basis. The Secretary of State for Education and his cohorts are interested only in making cheap education points, and I am afraid that it will not wash.
  Let me come to my final point—
  Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate, you asked for speeches to be kept relatively brief. We are now hearing the final point after 40 minutes.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully enough: I was referring to interventions.
  Mr. Davies: I know that the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has some difficulty with his attention span, but he was the first hon. Member to whom I gave way. Perhaps he should bear that in mind.
  The Bill has been presented as a reforming measure which will offer choice and diversity in our education system. It will do nothing of the sort. It will lead to divisiveness and competition and will set school against school, community against community and provider against provider. That is of no benefit to parents, children or the proper development of education in this country. To many Conservative Members, that will be an unpalatable truth. It will become increasingly clear that it is the truth as the Bill proceeds and as our education service
  780
  degenerates into chaos. I am convinced that it will not be too long before that chaos is reversed, either by a Government U-turn or by a Labour Government.
  5.49 pm
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: I shall try to set an example of brevity, because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  In common with many colleagues on both sides of the House, I spent many years in local government. I do not share the enthusiasm of those who seek to condemn it for all that is ill in the education system. For a period in my career, I was privileged to be chairman of the Convention of Local Education Authorities, and I would defend much of what local education authorities were able to achieve. In fact, much of the innovation in education came from them.
  One must recognise that time has moved on, and that things that perhaps were possible in slightly happier days when there was much more consensus between local and national government are now no longer possible. It would be foolish of anyone to refuse to accept that that change has taken place.
  Perhaps that is best exemplified by the way in which Secretaries of State of all political persuasions have fought with their Cabinet colleagues for their share of resources, so that what they see as the priorities for education expenditure are passed on to our schools.
  Increasingly, the argument has turned on whether the money fought for at national level is being properly targeted in our schools. I have concluded, somewhat reluctantly, that the drawing of a much clearer line between funding determined nationally and resources available to be deployed by individual schools is long overdue. I propose to confine my remarks, therefore, to what I regard as the logic of the Government's own position.
  I share the reservations expressed by many bodies, including the National Association of Head Teachers, over the difficulties that will probably arise—let us be frank —in the difficult period of transition from local education authorities to funding councils. We should consider that matter extremely carefully.
  It would be much better, and in the logic of the Government's position, if each school had a clearly defined sum of money. Rather than allowing a somewhat woolly withering on the vine, we should say that, at a certain point—perhaps when 50 per cent. of schools have become grant-maintained—schools should go over to grant-maintained status completely. That would end the uncertainty once and for all.
  The transition could become unnecessarily expensive and unduly bureaucratic. I should not want my right hon. Friend's hard-fought battles for education expenditure to end in such a dissipation of funds. I want all the money that my right hon. Friend can wring out of the Treasury to be spent in our schools, and I ask him to consider those points carefully during the passage of the Bill, which I regard as an opportunity.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to special educational needs. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and I are both members of the Select Committee, and share an interest in that subject. I have been heartened by the attention that has been paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to that aspect of education, which is especially important.

  781
  Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I was a member of the Committee that considered the Education Act 1981, which became known as the Warnock Act. Members of that Committee attached a great deal of importance to special educational needs, and recognised the need to ensure that children with special education needs are dealt with properly and equitably within our system.
  I warmly welcome the assurances given by the Minister in his opening speech. In the past, I have been critical of the Government for skating over the problem of special educational needs, and I believe that there were some deficiencies in the Education Reform Act 1988. I am therefore delighted that the Government are attacking the problem in the present Bill.
  The Secretary of State knows that the Select Committee is considering a particular aspect of special educational needs, and I ask all hon. Members, including my ministerial colleagues, to accept that, as we discuss the new arrangements, we should not lose sight of the fundamental principles that were debated during the passage of the Warnock Act. Although we agreed that we should move much further towards integration—I welcome the figures that we have heard this afternoon—the Committee recognised the need, which we did not regard as one that would go away, for special centres of excellence to deal with the areas of greatest need.
  Last Friday, I visited Rowan Park special school in my constituency and saw for myself the work that is being done with children whose need is so great that no one could realistically expect them to be integrated into mainstream schools. I talked to a teacher who told me that, that very day, one little boy with severe communication problems had said the word "duck" for the first time. Hon. Members may not think that that is a great achievement, but that child had previously been totally incapable of communicating, even by using eye contact, even though he could understand much of what was placed before him. When shown a farmyard scene, he volunteered the word "duck". The teacher said that it was the highlight of her week.
  Special needs arouse much emotion, but we should nevertheless consider the matter coldly and objectively, which means ensuring that schools have the resources to cope with special needs because they cannot be dealt with on the cheap.
  On a more general and slightly philosophical note, I remind the House of what the Minister said in his opening speech about the Government's desire for quality in the classroom. That desire is shared by all hon. Members, regardless of their views on how best such quality can be achieved. We should be aware that the reforms—the national curriculum and the delegation of budgets to schools, which have been warmly welcomed by many in our education system—need to be constantly reviewed to establish whether what is being achieved in schools measures up to the Government's expectations. The Committee stage will present us with an opportunity to consider that.
  The Under-Secretary of State who will wind up the debate knows of my long-standing concern over the effects, in many our our schools, of formula funding. I welcome the assurance given to the Select Committee by the Secretary of State that, in their review of formula funding, the Government would consider all those
  782
  important matters, because we cannot deliver an improvement in educational standards purely and simply by passing legislation.
  We must be aware that improvements in standards are delivered by teachers who stand in front of classes. I am delighted at the increasing emphasis that my right lion. Friend is placing on that concept, thus giving the lie to the suggestion that all Conservative Members do is knock the teaching profession. That profession alone is capable of implementing the Government's reforms.
  We therefore cannot refuse to listen to the fears and suggestions for improvements that are being made by those eminently qualified practitioners. We are talking not about people who mismanage their budgets but about people who find themselves having to make decisions that go against the interests of the qualitative improvements that the Government seek. It would be quite wrong if we did not take the opportunity afforded by the Bill's passage through the House to consider those matters.
  The Bill contains much of merit, and continues with reforms that many of us believe to have been long overdue. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider this, however: it sometimes pays to look at what is actually happening as a consequence of such reforms. We should not be afraid of saying that some changes are necessary, but that need not deflect us from our central purpose, which is to ensure that our children have the best education that we can give them.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that there will be a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: The press release which accompanied the publication of the Bill on 30 October boasted about its impressive vital statistics—200 pages, 252 clauses and 17 schedules. However, it did not point out the extremely short consultation period between the publication of the White Paper "Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools" on 28 July and the publication of the Bill. That is surely one of the shortest consultation periods ever in relation to the significance claimed by many hon. Members for the Bill.
  The White Paper had a remarkably short gestation period if it was to be, as was claimed, the crowning feature of more than a decade of Conservative education legislation. The White Paper never looked like a consultative document. The time scale and the features on the face of the Bill suggest that it was never intended to be such a document.
  Therefore, the Bill bears the flaws evident throughout the White Paper. The aims of the White Paper—for the best education for every child—were blameless. Indeed, the Prime Minister put his name to those flawless aspirations. Unfortunately, the proposals that followed had little evident relevance to the achievement of those aims.
  The White Paper had five great themes—quality, diversity, parental choice, autonomy and accountability. Of those, only the first has direct relevance to the aims set out in the foreword. The rest are, at the best, diversions.

  783
  My first reaction to the White Paper on 28 July was that, if the Secretary of State truly sought to clothe his aims with substance, then the emperor had no clothes. After further reflection and reading of the White Paper, I changed that image. I imagined one of those naked men that we sometimes see in variety shows dancing on the stage with balloons concealing their nakedness. The balloons were the proposals which diverted the reader's attention from the original aims of the Bill.
  Let us consider the themes of diversity, parental choice, autonomy and accountability and see how they relate to the delivery of quality education for every child. In itself, diversity does not guarantee quality. Diversity in an education market is predicated on variations of quality for the consumer to choose between. In the White Paper and the Bill, grant-maintained schools are regarded as superior institutions in that education market.
  Diversity of the kind envisaged in the Bill is a narrow distortion. It is diversity of schools that vary within parameters that have been tightly drawn by the Secretary of State. Diversity does not guarantee parental choice. For example, some parents would like schools to offer an education different from the parameters laid down from the centre by the Secretary of State. Some parents would like teaching of reading, course work and activity learning of types proscribed by the Secretary of State. There is no parental choice for those parents.
  There is another way in which parents will not necessarily exercise their choice in an education market as envisaged in the Bill. If grant-maintained schools are over-subscribed, particularly if they become specialist schools—hon. Members have referred to that danger in the proposals—the choice will belong to the schools and not to parents. So much for parental choice.
  Parental choice in itself will not guarantee quality. Parents differ, from being positively hostile to education, through apathy and incomprehension to being overzealous in what they demand and expect from schools. If the Secretary of State stands by his statement in the White Paper that parents always know best, are parents always right? If they are not, when, how and by whom will that be determined?
  Nor is autonomy a guarantee of quality. It is dangerous for grant-maintained schools to be subjected to such little regulatory control as is envisaged in the Bill. Similarly, the principle of accountability in the Bill is a sham. The funding agencies for England and Wales are accountable to no one but the Secretary of State.
  There is no local accountability, but the agencies are to have sole responsibility, or shared responsibility with local education authorities, for provision, distribution and management of school places. That is a matter of intense local significance. It is difficult to see any connection between that and the delivery of quality education to every child in every school in an area. In short, there was a mismatch between the impeccable aims of the White Paper and its proposals. That mismatch is carried through into this deeply flawed Bill.
  The White Paper and the Bill are all about administration, and contain nothing about delivery of quality. They contain nothing about funding except proposals for bureaucratic structures the funding for which is to be found from savings on surplus places in
  784
  schools. If those savings could be found, the money would be better spent on resources and teachers to fill the schools that are delivering education to our children. There is nothing in the White Paper about teachers—the people who are to deliver that quality education. The White Paper and the Bill are an empty sham.
  I want to refer to the grant-maintained sector, because the expansion of that sector is central to the Bill's purpose. Every line of the Bill is based on the presumption that grant-maintained schools are superior, although there is no evidence yet to support that contention, but there is accumulating evidence of the problems into which such schools can run. It is all the more regrettable that, in default of that evidence, the Secretary of State is so determined to simplify, extend and accelerate the process of opting out.
  The removal of the second ballot would make it possible for ambush tactics to be used. A vote might be taken at a thinly attended meeting at the end of a long agenda, with no counter-balancing opportunity. It is reprehensible that that situation should be made possible. Important decisions like a ballot to opt out should be taken coolly, and ratified in the light of full and informed debate.
  There is scope for argument about the curbs on LEAs campaigning against opt-out proposals. We believe that the LEAs defend the legitimate interests of the community at large against a pressure group with selfish, narrow interests. The Government choose to view them differently, and to distort their purpose and practices. There may be some argument about that, but there is no argument about the inequality of curbing LEAs and at the same time supporting and encouraging governing bodies which want to campaign the other way. That is but one example of the more than even-handed treatment given to grant-maintained schools.
  The Bill is weak in what it has to say on provision in grant-maintained schools for pupils with special educational needs. It now offers them the opportunity to apply for change of character at the point of opting out. I could recount a long list of more than even-handed enticements to schools that opt out, but I am aware of the time constraint.
  I warn schools to beware, because there is the potential for discord and chaos in the suggestion that primary schools might opt out in clusters and that resources may be distributed inequitably between those clusters when those primary schools may still be in competition in the market.
  We must also be aware of the big black hole of the future funding formula for grant-maintained and maintained schools to which my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred earlier.
  There is not adequate time to refer to the potential for chaos in the division of responsibilities between funding agencies and local education authorities. Funding agencies are weak bodies. They have no responsibility for quality control, unlike their counterparts created by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. There is a potential for disputes and discord between funding agencies and local authorities. Such disputes must always be decided by the Secretary of State. We can guess which way the Secretary of State will make his decision in a dispute between funding agencies and local authorities.
  This is a Bill of missed points and missed opportunities. The dangers in it—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the 10-minute rule is strict.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) has had experience on local education authorities. I spent 10 years on local education authorities and was on the Association of Metropolitan Authorities education committee. I agree with my hon. Friend that not all local authorities are bad.
  The Bill recognises—it is a difficulty that the Labour party does not seem to be able to address—that if standards in the classroom are to be raised, it will be done by encouraging the partnership of parents, teachers and pupils, on which all good education depends. The best way to encourage that partnership is to ensure that parents have a direct and intimate investment in their own schools. Grant-maintained schools and their popularity are all about that process of empowerment.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: Will the hon. Gentlemen give way?
  Mr. Coombs: I shall not give way because I have only 10 minutes.
  I welcome the streamlined procedures for grant-maintained schools in the Bill. I recognise the importance of education associations when things go wrong. I recognise that it is important for the Government to take action against truancy and to strengthen the moral curriculum of schools.
  It is curious that the Labour party seems to have abandoned parents and parental choice. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, on 10 June the previous Opposition spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), appeared to move towards parents when he said that Labour must not appear to be in a position of opposition to those parents who would like greater control over their own schools.
  It is curious that the Labour party should be against the parents and schools given that the last survey showed that 88 per cent. of grant-maintained schools had an increase in the number of pupils following the change to grant-maintained status and 82 per cent. had an increase in the books and equipment that they were able to produce for their children.
  Graham Lock, the headmaster of Audenshaw high school, a grant-maintained school in Manchester, said:
  "It is a bit of an insult for Labour to say to the same people who want to take power over these schools that they are entitled to vote for the Government but they are not fit to vote for the way they want these schools to be run."
  Mr. Byers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to mislead the House? Audenshaw grammar school is not in the Manchester local education authority area.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Matters of fact are not matters for the Chair, fortunately.
  Mr. Coombs: I said that Audenshaw school was in Greater Manchester. Progress has been made at grant-maintained schools in areas of the country that one would not regard as wealthy, such as Small Heath school and Baverstock school in the middle of Birmingham. One must examine the views of parents who send their children to those grant-maintained schools.
  786
  I shall give a few examples. Mr. Sultan Mohamed, whose daughter turned down a place at one of the city's grammar schools to go to Small Heath school, said that the reason why Small Heath school gave a thorough education was that
  "the school belongs to the community. You automatically feel part of it. I like the home/school contract. It binds both parties into supporting each other."
  Mrs. Pickerill, whose child goes to Baverstock school—the Labour party should listen to this—said:
  "I used to be for the council. But it doesn't work. I've come right round. We've only taken back what's ours by right. Now we've made something of the school, much more than they ever did."
  As has been shown by the paranoid reaction of the Labour party to the Bill and grant-maintained schools, it is curious that Labour Members should object to a meeting that I have arranged in my constituency on 27 November merely to give information to schools and parents on which they will be able to ballot. Such paranoia is shown by various Labour-controlled local education authorities, which, in the guise of giving objective information to schools that want to think about opting out and balloting, give schools biased information. Birmingham education authority gave what it called essential information on grant-maintained status and opting out to parents of children at Hampstead Hall school. The information said:
  "No existing grant-maintained school has been able to demonstrate that opting out has improved or maintained the educational standard of the school."
  What absolute bunkum. The authority need only examine the improvements that have been made in Baverstock school and Small Heath school in its city.
  In the past four years, examination results have doubled at Baverstock school and trebled at Small Heath school. Truancy at Baverstock school is 0·04 per cent.; previously, it was appalling. Truancy at Small Heath school is only 1 per cent., which is considerably lower than the city average. In 1982, attendance at Baverstock school was 81 per cent. Under grant-maintained status, attendance is 95 per cent. at Baverstock school and 93 per cent. at Small Heath school. Under grant-maintained status, the number of staff at Baverstock school has increased by eight and a half and at Small Heath school by six. Baverstock school can now boast a sixth form of 92 pupils. Small Heath school has been able to reinstate its sixth form. Those statistics show the significant improvements that have been made in two inner-city schools that have changed to grant-maintained status.
  I shall make some comments on other aspects of grant-maintained status. First, it is extremely important that the Education Assets Board makes a sensible decision about Great Barr school. If we are to encourage relationships among local education authorities, local authorities and, ultimately, grant-maintained schools, it is absolutely crucial that grant-maintained schools must not take assets with them in perpetuity.
  Secondly, it is crucial for the Government to guarantee capital programmes for the schools that have achieved grant-maintained status. I have heard rumours in one of the major cities not too far from the west midlands that a deputy chairman of education has visited certain schools that are thinking of becoming grant-maintained and said that the new roofing programmes would go by the board if the schools did something so stupid as to go grant-maintained.

  787
  Thirdly, it is absolutely crucial to step head teacher training in not simply administration but management development at grant-maintained schools. I know that the Westminster college in Oxford and the community education development centre which is based in the west midlands are keen to help with such training.
  Fourthly, it is vital that we move to a system whereby all parents, irrespective of how obtuse and prehistoric their education authorities are, have the opportunity to ballot regularly on the grant-maintained schools option. I shall certainly table amendments to the Bill to allow that to happen.
  In the Bill, there are significant advantages in respect of statementing. In my own local authority of Hereford and Worcester, one girl was asked for a statement on 23 March 1991. She is dyslexic. A week ago, I heard from her mother, who said, "I regret that I'm no further forward with the LEA, who are still procrastinating." I hope that the special education procedures within the Bill will be amended so that time limits are laid down to ensure that local education authorities act expeditiously.
  I welcome the parts of the Bill that relate to religious education and the ethos of schools. I should have liked the Bill to take up the measures suggested by the children's legal centre, putting into effect much of Lord Elton's report on discipline in schools. I shall table amendments to establish procedures to ascertain pupils' views on matters affecting them and to establish an accessible complaints procedure.
  Apart from that, the Education Bill encourages choice—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the time limit.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Government obviously intend effectively to eliminate local government powers over school education. The White Paper puts it explicitly, describing the Secretary of State's hope
  "that over time all schools will become grant-maintained".
  Responsibility for such services as educational psychology, welfare and home-to-school transport will remain with the LEAs "for the time being" and it is anticipated that the private sector will step in to provide museums, the library service, peripatetic music teaching and the like. However, that massive and deeply significant removal of local government powers is to be carried out with what I can only describe as the illusion of parental consent. The White Paper states:
  "It is right that the route to GM status should remain the parental ballot."
  In Wales, it is clear that if it were left to the volition of parents, the grant-maintained movement would never get off the ground. Unlike England, where about 300 schools have become, or are becoming, grant-maintained, in Wales there are only three. As has been established, two of those were set up as a result of the LEA's decision to close them in an attempt to deal with a Government-defined problem of surplus places.
  If the Welsh Office's approval of those schools' applications had any logical basis, it was that the competitive environment—market forces—free of any
  788
  regulation was more likely to solve the problem of surplus places than strategic planning by a body charged with that responsibility. That would be perfectly consistent with the Government's ideology. Yesterday an hon. Member citing the work of T. S. Eliot spoke of the beneficial effects of friction between schools. That was the authentic voice of Thatcherism—an ideology which still affects policy formation, after it has lost all intellectual conviction.
  It is clear that leaving education to market forces is inconsistent with the provision of a comprehensive and just public education system. It would not work. Strategic decisions concerning the provision of places have to be taken and someone has to take them—some body has to take them. The White Paper and the Bill show that the Government clearly recognise that. The only serious remaining questions are, what decisions need to be taken by a body other than the schools, and what sort of creature should that body be?
  The Government's answer is that it should be an unelected quango—the Schools Funding Council for Wales—rather than local education authorities. According to the Bill, the funding council will be able to assume that role partly when sufficient schools have opted for grant-maintained status and completely when 75 per cent. of pupils are educated in such schools. The key question is, how do the Government propose to shift from A to B and at the same time maintain the illusion of parental consent? There are two answers. First, they will seek to create a climate in which schools and parents perceive an inevitable and increasing momentum towards the break-up of the existing system and thus wish to be considered pioneering and abreast of the times, rather than dilatory. Secondly, they will undermine the will of local government to continue as strategically significant bodies and providers of support services.
  The Government intend to reorganise local government in Wales so that, in 1995, there will be about 23 unitary multi-purpose authorities. They will be small and inexperienced compared with the county councils. Many will be run by a new generation of councillors. How much stomach will they have to assert their position as strategic bodies, knowing that the thrust of Government policy is to remove that function?
  As soon as 10 per cent. of pupils are in grant-maintained schools, the national funding council will share the responsibility for securing sufficient places, being able to propose enlargement and changes in character in grant-maintained schools and the establishment of new schools. What will be the state of affairs in that twilight zone between two regimes? The Association of County Councils describe it thus:
  "The ACC believes that placing concurrent duties for providing sufficient school places on LEAs and the proposed FAS will be confusing and a recipe for costly duplication … The ACC is also concerned at the fragmentation of responsibility … which will led to a complex superstructure and the inevitable emergence of an extensive and costly regional bureaucracy over time."
  At that stage, local councils will be free to divest themselves of their strategic role if they so desire, and they will no longer be statutorily obliged to establish an education committee.
  In the confusion of joint responsibility, as services to schools are increasingly provided by the private sector, and knowing the Government's intentions, the pressure on councils to hand over responsibility to the funding council will be considerable. If they do so, and if they are no longer

  789
  able to provide services to schools, what reason will any school have for not going for direct grant status? That is probably what the Government think will occur. I subscribe to the conspiracy theory, rather than the cock-up theory, although in the case of this Government there is no contradiction between the two.
  One thing is sure, a central agency—even the agency in Wales—will not be able to deal properly with local issues and their infinite variety, so
  "the funding agency will need to be able to gather local information to perform some of its functions … will be able to set up regional offices as the number of grant-maintained schools grows."
  I do not know what size the region served by the offices will be, nor, perhaps, does anyone, but it is clear that at some level there will be a regional and/or a local bureaucracy. The key difference will be that the bureaucracy will not be democratically accountable. The present bureaucratic procedure will be duplicated without democratic accountability.
  The schools funding council for Wales will be accountable only to the Secretary of State for Wales. If anyone tells me that he is subject to democratic accountability, I must tell them that if democracy had its way in Wales any proposals to reform school education would be radically different from those in the Bill. It is worth bearing it in mind that the Secretary of State will have the power to bypass his own quango. If the funding agency does not set about the task of closing schools with a will, he will be able to propose such closures.
  The loss of democratic accountability at the local level —the only level at which we have democratic accountability in Wales—is a desperately serious matter. The Welsh joint education committee believes
  "that the creation of more nominated, unelected bodies is a threat to the health of the democratic process in Wales."
  It is as serious as that.
  Let us consider the consequences. Democratic accountability breeds a tradition in public servants of responsiveness, sensitivity to public opinion, respect for the elected representatives of the people and courtesy towards people. For a time after its loss, the tradition, the attitude of mind, the habits, will survive, but with the loss of direct democratic control the erosion of that tradition will proceed apace. Among the results will be arrogance, insensitivity, corruption, inefficiency and an educational system that will serve best the needs of the influential and the powerful—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Mrs. Lait.
  6.30 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It has been of great interest to me to learn so much about Welsh education today and yesterday. It is also of great interest to me that the degree of comment on the Bill from the Opposition benches has been at the lower percentage end and there is an overwhelming feeling of ritual. I do not think that much has changed after 13 years. Indeed, I am reminded slightly of the Bourbons: they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak because I am conscious, that I come from a constituency in East Sussex which, as was mentioned yesterday, has no grant-maintained schools. I can understand why some teachers find it very difficult to leave the safe and cosy world of
  790
  education and try to take on a more competitive edge. After all, they have left school, gone to college and gone back to school. I pay a tribute to East Sussex education authority and I would like to associate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) with these comments. It is a good local education authority. It was at the forefront in delegating budgets. It has always given a lot of authority to its head teachers.
  The councillors of East Sussex maintain that they take a neutral stance on these issues. That translates, I sometimes think, into the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), that they should be fair and impartial.
  I want to comment briefly on a memo that was sent by the county education officer to the schools in East Sussex just after the publication of the White Paper. Making a completely fair and impartial point, he said:
  "the White Paper is actually very encouraging to us in East Sussex… We still have everything to play for".
  When schools indicate any interest whatsoever in going grant-maintained they get another letter from the county education officer. This includes comments such as:
  "the White Paper…shows for example that East Sussex secondary schools would receive around £300 less per pupil if they were funded at the level of the government's standard spending assessment, as is proposed…in the White Paper";
  and
  "Governors might also have concerns about how admission levels will improve if you have to rely only on first preferences."
  The letter goes on:
  "There has been no discussion with the authority as to our view of the advantages and disadvantages for"
  your school, and also says:
  "It seems to me odd, to put it no higher, that you consulted with a pressure group with no knowledge about your school and simply committed to opting out, but not with the authority which has been supporting you."
  That is not a requirement at the stage that this school has reached.
  It is therefore of great concern to Members in East Sussex that this impartial and fair education authority is perhaps not being as impartial and fair as it could. It stands behind the phrase "parental choice". I recently came across its definition of parental choice as it relates to enrolment. It includes pins and a rubber band on a map, and those of us who know anything about rubber bands know that they can extend, but not in East Sussex.
  On the subject of special schools, we have one special school in Hastings which is in the maintained sector. It is responsible to Lambeth. Those of us who have any knowledge of the Lambeth education authority can only have sympathy for the school. Over the last few years the school's roll, which was full at 36 pupils, is now down to 19. Parents are not told that this school is available to them. With increasing evidence of further exclusions, plus, as so many hon. Members have said, statement procedures taking so long, it is clear that children who would benefit from attendance at residential special schools are falling through the net. This is particularly true of the school in Hastings and other residential special schools that Lambeth controls. Children are better reintegrated into the system having had the opportunity of education in these special schools.
  I very much hope that, when the Bill is being considered, it will be made clear that parents will be fully informed of the options their children have of going to special schools, so that they can choose which way to go

  791
  forward. It will also help the schools if they can go grant-maintained and sell their services. We welcome the independent tribunal, but we wish to see, either on the tribunal or able to give evidence to the tribunal, an expert who knows the child who is being considered personally.
  There is also the issue of non-maintained special schools, of which there is one in Brighton for deaf children. There is a considerable worry that, yet again, parents are not given information about services available. Some local education authorities appear to think that these schools are infinitely more expensive than their own, which is palpably wrong. I should therefore be grateful if, in Committee, we can look at this situation to ensure that the high quality of education provided by these non-maintained special schools can be continued, and that parents clearly understand that they may use those schools if they think they are best for their children.
  I also want to mention the problems of rural schools in which problems are encountered because the catchment area is not as large as it might be and rolls are not complete. This makes it very difficult to provide the education that one would wish, particularly in secondary schools. I know that schools can now extend their catchment areas to include more children, but it is a real problem that they do not necessarily have access to the number of pupils they need to be able to run the school as effectively and efficiently as they wish.
  This is a very good Bill, which deals with quality and excellence in education that we as a Government have been pursuing in the last 13 years. I very much hope that, in Committee, we shall be able to deal with the issues that I have raised.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I preface my remarks by saying that it would perhaps have been a more healthy debate had the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), for whose views on education I have a great deal of respect, had been piloting this Bill through. We would then have had a much saner debate over the last two days.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)—she is not present, so I am forced to be extremely polite about her—said that schools in Lancashire had had to opt out because they were starved of funds by Lancashire education authority, and added:
  "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."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 648.]
  According to Hansard, six secondary schools out of 110 have opted out of the Lancashire education system. Of those six, four have opted out in an undisguised attempt to preserve their grammar school status and to enhance their selection procedures and their desire for total selection. The fifth of those schools was in the aided sector and could not afford its share of a necessary £200,000-plus rebuild. The Government promised it that, if they opted out, they would get that money, but, having done so, they have received only half of it. They would have got that amount in any case.
  792
  Five other comprehensive secondary schools in the non-aided sector have held a ballot and decisively rejected the opt-out opportunity.
  Secondary schools in Lancashire receive per capita funding in line with the national average. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy statistics show that Lancashire spends well above average on sixth form provision. Therefore, the grammar schools which I have mentioned have significant income advantages over other schools in the county.
  I cite all that information not simply to score some points against the hon. Member for Lancaster, which is an easy thing to do, but to demonstrate that the hon. Lady, in common with the Conservative Government, operates by promulgating myths. Often, what the Government say bears no resemblance to any truth, even as shown in their own statistics. However, simply by reasserting over and over again that certain authorities are such-and-such or that such-and-such an activity is taking place in schools, the Government hope that, eventually, those myths will stick in the public mind—and perhaps they do.
  The hon. Member for Lancaster referred to underfunding, but, out of a total budget of £300 million, Lancashire schools hold £23 million in their balances. They have been encouraged to do so by the local authority, of which I was until recently a member, because that local authority is wise enough to know that, as a result of the new dispensation, schools need to hold reserves and to gather funds for building and refurbishment projects. Therefore, the charge of underfunding is not true, either.
  Why does the hon. Member for Lancaster make such claims about Lancashire? Simply because it has been led by Labour since 1981 and because a handful of Lancashire Tory Members—not all—have sought for years in this House to portray it as an extreme authority. They have attacked it with a million terminological inexactitudes and, over the past decade, have inflicted a great deal of damage on that county. However, their attacks have failed, because the people continue to return a Labour administration, largely on the basis of its education record.
  Lancashire is typical of many local authorities of all colours and of none, because, over many years, it has developed a highly sensitive network, which depends largely on local knowledge and traditional relationships. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) made a superb speech, which said it all. She highlighted the quality of local authorities and demonstrated that they were subject to smear after smear from central Government. Those smears are not confined to Labour authorities.
  It is true that Labour local authorities and others have opposed the education legislation to which the Government have subjected them over the years, but the test is how those local authorities implement it in order to serve their people and to protect them from the absurdities in much of that legislation. It is okay for the Government to push through their 17 changes, but who has to implement them? Who has to institute the consultation, the phasing-in procedures, the guidance, the advice and support, particularly the support for the local management of schools? Who has to provide the governor support units, which, in my authority, have made many friends.
  The vast burden of the many Tory changes to the education system has been shouldered by local authorities and schools, not by burgeoning ministerial bureaucracies in London, and certainly not by the Secretary of State and

  793
  his hon. Friends. They will project this rag-bag of a Bill out into the world and leave it to fend for itself, and they will watch the system collapse into chaos.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the Bill was about choice, but I must tell him that, in Lancashire, 95 per cent. of secondary school children and 98 per cent. of primary school are given their first choice of school. That is happening in an authority which has central administration costs of 3·7 per cent., while the central administration costs of its potential schools budget stand at 1·63 per cent. In Kent, those costs stand at 3·78 per cent.
  I should like the Secretary of State to tell me whether there is anything in the Bill that suggests that that level of choice satisfaction will be maintained for parents in Lancashire, given the nonsensical creation of a two-tier system. I should also like him to tell me what private businesses or commercial enterprises, never mind opt-out schools, could operate on central administration costs of 3·7 per cent.
  The drive towards grant-maintained status has been patently rejected by most schools, most boards of governors and most parents. It has nothing to do with education, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said, everything to do with a desire to emasculate local authorities and to centralise control. Imagine what would be said in the press and by Conservative Members if a Labour Government implemented such a centralising Bill.
  The bribes have not succeeded, and now procedural and organisational changes must be made to make the process more weighted and slanted. Pressure is put not only on Labour authorities, such as Lancashire, but Conservative ones. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) mentioned East Sussex, and I am sure she is aware of the comments of Mr. Frank Keen, the chair of education in West Sussex, which has no opted-out schools:
  "I am a Conservative. We are a Conservative LEA and it gives me no joy to say that they"—
  the Government—
  "are using all sorts of immoral bribes to persuade schools to go with the dogma"
  Exactly so. One does not have to think any further about the implications of the Bill.
  All that pressure would be understandable if the case for GMS had been proved. Perhaps all those schools are good, but where are the statistics and inspection reports to demonstrate that they are better than they were before they opted for GMS? The only evidence quoted by the Minister who opened the debate was a Mr. Adonis who said that the school he had visited was "smashing". Apparently Mr. Adonis is a Liberal—with a name like that perhaps he should be the leader of the Liberal party.
  The consultation between publication of the White Paper and the Bill has been selective. My local authority and the regional branches of the teachers' unions have complained that their comments have not been heard.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. David Faber: I am glad of this opportunity to take part in the debate and to welcome the Bill. I thank the Government for giving two days to the subject, thus enabling more hon. Members to take part.
  We have come a long way down the road of better education since 1979, and throughout those years the Government's principal objectives have been to enshrine
  794
  in the education system the essential qualities of choice, diversity, accountability, greater responsibility for schools and, above all, higher standards.
  The Education Reform Act 1988 created grant-maintained status, since when the spread of GM schools has moved to the heart of our education system. My right hon. Friend said yesterday that 340 schools had either applied for or been granted grant-maintained status, and I understand that about another 150 are in the pipeline.
  When I made my maiden speech to the House in the summer, I referred to the outstanding success story of schools such as St. Augustine's in Trowbridge in my constituency. Grant-maintained status means more money, but that is not the whole story. Schools can at last have control over their total budgets, and freedom to spend and manage their affairs as they see fit. GM schools are popular with parents, as shown by the increased number of applications for places, and parental involvement is greater from the moment of the initial ballot. Above all, GM schools have freedom over and responsibility for their own destinies.
  The Bill will streamline the process by which the next generation of GM schools will make that transition. The ballot procedure will be speeded up, and strict limits will be placed on the sums that can be spent by obstructive and destructive LEAs campaigning against schools balloting for GM status. Those measures should help to combat some of the scandalous extremes to which some local authorities will go in trying to block applications by spreading misinformation and, sadly, often by spreading threats.
  I welcome the decision taken by my right hon. Friend last week to write to all LEAs reminding them of their responsibilities and legal rights. I hope that he will not hesitate to use the full force of his powers against any LEA which deliberately seeks to mislead or, worse still, to intimidate parents.
  I urge the Minister to consider carefully an issue that I have raised with him—the ability of some local councils hostile to GM status to continue to influence adversely some schools, even after grant-maintained status has been granted. The most obvious area is that of planning.
  Aloeric primary school in Melksham in my constituency received GM status last summer, but it was recently surprised when its annually renewed planning permission for mobile classrooms was refused for the first time in its 20-year history by the local Liberal Democrat-controlled planning authority. I am happy to say that the decision was subsequently overturned on appeal, but it has left a nasty taste and, I fear, bodes ill for the future.
  A crucial cornerstone of the Bill is the funding agency that is to be established as a statutory body to take over funding responsibilities from the Department of Education. The agency will rightly be responsible for decisions such as the payment of grant and financial monitoring, while at the same time having increasing responsibility for the provision of sufficient school places.
  A common concern expressed by LEAs and those opposed to the Bill—the matter was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton)—revolves around the transitional phase from overall LEA control t o financial control by the funding agency. I believe that the Government have the transitional period about right. With 10 per cent. of pupils taught in grant-maintained

  795
  schools, responsibility will be shared. Once 75 per cent. are taught, the LEA will lose the power to determine local places.
  LEAs will increasingly be encouraged to act as the provider of certain services. They will continue to control non-grant-maintained schools, school transport, educational welfare and, most important, special needs education.
  Clause 244, by which LEAs will be allowed to continue selling services for two years after the funding agency takes over, is causing some controversy. The thinking behind the clause is sound. Total dependency on an LEA should be discouraged, as that is the whole point of opting out in the first place. A market should be encouraged and allowed to develop in the private sector to assume those responsibilities.
  Given that the two-year period will not begin until the number of grant-maintained schools is so high that it puts control beyond the LEA, they should have time to develop to a degree where private companies can then draw on their expertise and even their personnel.
  However, I have some sympathy with LEAs which will be prevented from selling what may be, even after the two-year period is up, the best and most competitive services. That could be a disadvantage to some grant-maintained schools, and I am concerned lest some schools think twice about applying for grant-maintained status because of that barrier.
  I do not claim the expertise of some hon. Members of special needs teaching, and I read with interest the Official Report the two excellent speeches made in the debate yesterday by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning). But I have long taken an interest in special needs education in my constituency and, like hon. Members in all parts of the House, I am proud to serve as President of my local Mencap branch.
  I am also vice president of the mid-Wiltshire dyslexia group, and I am fortunate to have in my constituency an active branch of the excellent Portage project. Some hon. Members will be acquainted with that project, but I hope that many others will gradually become fully acquainted with it.
  I particularly welcome the fact that, under the Bill, the assessment of children and their statementing will continue to be the responsibility of the LEAs. It is crucial that the obligation to identify and assess the need is strictly adhered to, so that all children have every opportunity.
  I am concerned about the provision of special needs teaching. In Wiltshire, with Department of Education approval, the LEA has introduced a scheme for delegating money within the locally managed system formula to secondary schools for children with moderate learning difficulties. The Minister will know that that innovative scheme is much in line with the recommendations of the recent Audit Commission report, "Getting the Act Together".
  But in spite of that scheme, the strains on Wiltshire's special needs budget remain severe. There are two central problems. I urge the Minister to consider the vague definition in the Education Act 1981 that a child has a learning difficulty if he
  "has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age."
  796
  That definition is repeated in the Bill. Demand is growing daily, as, understandably, parents become more aware of the problems and expect more from their LEAs. More pressure groups are being formed, especially in areas of moderate learning difficulty such as dyslexia, and there is increasing recourse to the law.
  At the heart of the problem is the assumption in the 1981 Act—still prevalent today—that only 2 per cent. of all pupils need statementing. In Wiltshire, the true figure is now nearly 5 per cent., the highest in the south-west, up from an accurate figure in 1983 of 1·8 per cent., and it is rising constantly.
  Our children have only one chance to obtain a good education. It is our duty in government to ensure that we guard that chance jealously, so that all children go on to become members of a better educated generation. We in west Wiltshire are fortunate. We have many excellent schools, grant-maintained and locally managed. We have dedicated teaching staff and increasingly experienced school governors prepared to give generously of their time. I pay tribute to them all. We have seen the merits of the education reforms of the last 13 years. I hope that many others will reap the benefits of the proposals in the Bill.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: On 3 June I received a letter from the Secretary of State about grant-maintained status for schools. He informed me that at that time there were more than 260 approved GM schools in England and that the number was increasing rapidly. Yesterday he told the House that there were 340 and we were told today that it had increased to 342.
  So in five months there have been 80 new GM schools. That reveals the reason for the Bill. It shows clearly that the measure is born out of the failure of the Conservatives to attract the number of GM schools that they anticipated. If we continue at the rate of 16 a month, which is 200 a year, it will take all four and a half years available to the Government—if they last an undeserved further four years or more—to achieve about 1,200 GM schools. That would give them just 5 per cent. of all schools. Clearly, the forecast level of 500 by the end of March puts the rate up to 320 a year, which is still below the Government's expectation. The Government have therefore changed the rules so that they can say that they expect, in the year from 1993–94, a further 1,000 schools to go grant maintained.
  Grant-maintained schools are a disruption of the educational system for no good purpose. They are the antithesis of community because they make it impossible for neighbouring schools to share facilities and for schools to share their facilities with the wider community. They make extremely difficult the wider strategic planning framework in which education must prosper. It is essential that educational provision can be planned for all children in a particular area. If schools are taken out of the system and isolated, so that it becomes difficult to put the jigsaw back together, that is a form of disruption.
  The Bill's funciton is to challenge local authority responsibility and to upset established structures. Naturally, that is not the stated aim, but it is the probable result of the Bill's enactment and implementation.
  I am concerned about how the process is being pursued. Yesterday, the Secretary of State was pursuing it with unwarranted arrogance. The way in which he refused to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,

  797
  Yardley (Ms. Morris) was unfortunate, given his earlier responses. But when he followed that by walking out when my hon. Friend spoke, it showed a degree of personal rudeness which, from a Secretary of State for Education, is an extremely bad example to young people watching how the House is considering the system by which they are educated.
  I am also worried about the Government's intolerance and direction on this issue. Why is it that, when local authorities put forward their views on the Bill, they are accused of unfair propaganda and curbing measures are taken, yet when the Secretary of State does the same thing, there is no condemnation?
  Next week, the Secretary of State has called a meeting for head teachers in the north of England at the Hilton hotel, Garforth, in my authority—the city of Leeds. He has not told Leeds education authority that he will be meeting in Leeds to discuss educational issues. When it found out about that and suggested that it might meet him, it received no response to the invitation. A headmaster in my constituency asked to go to that meeting, but was told that he could not because there was not sufficient room —the space was already full.
  How much has the meeting in Leeds to do with the Secretary of State's undoubted disappointment that Leeds has no opted-out schools and has had no applications for opting out, and that there is not even a ballot in sight? The answers by the Under-Secretary of State for Education in today's Hansard show that 322 schools in Leeds are eligible to follow that procedure, yet none of them has.
  A schools commission has been set up in Leeds. It is run independently from the authority by 20 people: five head teachers; five governors; five members of the city council —only two of whom are members of the controlling Labour group; the leader of the Conservative group; and the education spokesman of the Conservative group. Every school in Leeds belongs to that schools commission. It has already agreed a parental choice-led system and abolished catchment areas throughout the city. It has agreed plans for the reduction of 3,000 secondary places and 2,500 primary places, most of which will be in place by 1994. It has agreed the closure of certain schools that are educationally, socially or financially unviable. Furthermore, it is producing a plan for the entire area, which shows strategic direction for that authority, and its plans are for 91 per cent. of funding to be devolved.
  Will not the Government congratulate the city of Leeds on bringing forward such a comprehensive plan, put together by head teachers, governors, members of the authority, a small group of external people who represent race relations interests in the city, and the Churches? That is a model of a system that seeks planning for the whole authority. My argument against grant-maintained status is that it disrupts the coherence of plans which, ultimately, can only be bad for many of those whom we represent.
  Why are the Government so keen on subsidiarity when it means devolving powers from Europe to nation states, but have such a hostile view of subsidiarity when it means moving from central Government to local government? Why does the Secretary of State need 44 additional powers whereby he can give direction?
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gunnell: I have only half a minute left, but I shall give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Forth: We are pushing the concept of subsidiarity to its limit in devolving power to schools, not to local education authorities.
  Mr. Gunnell: The Government are not doing that at all. The Secretary of State is taking powers to correct anything that he considers is going wrong in local decision-making.
  I regret that the debate has focused entirely on structure and organisation rather than on what is really happening in education today—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. David Congdon: This important Bill builds on the excellent reforms that we have put in place in recent years. We are already seeing some of the benefits of the introduction of a national curriculum and standard assessment tests, with improved GCSE results.
  What has been depressing about the debate is that it is based on a Bill introduced after a White Paper called "Choice and Diversity". It is abundantly clear that the Opposition have no conception of choice and diversity. They believe in a system in which all schools are the same—children go to their local comprehensive or nowhere. The Conservative party believes in a rich diversity of provision.
  I am pleased that my constituency contains a city technology college, and Croydon has another technology college for the performing arts. It has just been announced that Edenham high in my constituency is to become a grant-maintained school. I hope that in the borough of Croydon we will see a continued growth in the number of grant-maintained schools.
  We wish to see a system with a variety of schools. I do not mind whether they are voluntary aided, grant-maintained, assisted places, grammar schools or whatever. We are not afraid of diversity; it is clear that Opposition Members are. Everything they have said has been about fear of change in education. As I listened to some of their statements about grant-maintained schools, I could well understand why too few schools in Labour-controlled areas have opted out because of the disinformation that is being spread.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) talked about grant-maintained schools being a process of centralised control. How can it be centralised control when those schools manage the totality of their own affairs without the interference of the local education authority?
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) implied that the process of going grant-maintained was compulsory. What could be further from the truth when schools have to go through a democratic balloting process? The hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said that grant-maintained schools involved privatising the educational process. How can they involve privatisation when grant-maintained schools are state-funded schools which run locally?
  The grant-maintained process is not privatisation: it is giving power to those who run the schools. It removes the dead hand of local education authority control where too many local education authorities interfere far too much in the running the schools. It is a logical extension of the very

  799
  successful reform of local management of schools, whereby 85 per cent. of expenditure has to be devolved to the schools.
  I welcome that extension. It is popular. Yes, it has been slow to take off in some areas because of the opposition of local education authorities. I was particularly grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) about some of the barriers to grant-maintained status that are put in the path of schools.
  If I have any criticism of the Bill, it is that perhaps we need to go further in removing the barriers to schools becoming grant maintained. When the Bill goes into Committee, perhaps we should consider an annual ballot of parents, because the existing procedure, and even the procedure suggested in the Bill, is a recipe for not ensuring that enough schools at least have the opportunity to decide whether they wish to opt out. I should like to see such an improvement.
  Turning briefly to the funding agency, given the growth in the number of grant-maintained schools, it is right to have a body that is responsible for the distribution of funds to the schools. It is very important that we severely circumscribe the role of the funding agencies so that they do not become surrogate local education authorities. I very much welcomed the comments of the Secretary of State yesterday when he made it clear that they would have a limited role.
  Clearly the funding agencies should have a planning role in regard to the number of places in an area. Percentages are laid down in the Bill. My only plea on the percentages is that we should look carefully at the higher cut-off point for control to pass totally to the funding agencies. There is a case for arguing that that percentage should be lower to ensure a smoother transition to an improved regime of managing numbers in schools.
  There is great doubt about the future role of local education authorities. I was pleased to be a member of an LEA for nearly 16 years. Many LEAs do a good job, but that is not true of all of them. That is one reason why I have very few qualms about taking some powers away from them. That is the quid pro quo for giving more control and power to the schools.
  One important point, which I welcome very much, is that, apart from responsibility for school attendance, transport and the psychology service, LEAs will have a key role in special education. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), in an excellent speech last evening, outlined the real importance of special education. Many of us recognised that the Education Act 1981 was a landmark and a great step forward. Regrettably, there has been a tendency for too many LEAs not to implement that legislation properly by taking far too long to issue statements for pupils with needs. Even when they issued statements, they made them so meaningless as not to lead to the right provision for the children.
  The report of the Audit Commission was particularly useful and relevant. I am delighted that most of the recommendations in the report have been included in the Bill. That is a great step forward, which will lead to improved special education.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
  Mr. Congdon: I will not give way, because I have only 10 minutes.
  The education system must respond to parental choice. While it is important to allow popular schools to expand, I welcome the proposal to deal with failing schools. For too long local education authorities have allowed schools that are not up to the job to continue to deliver third-rate education to the children. Even if there had been inspections by local inspectors, the schools had usually succeeded in making sure that the real difficulties went uncovered.
  The Education (Schools) Act 1992 provided a firmer and stronger basis for inspection. The proposals in the Bill extend that by introducing a concept of educational associations. As has already been said, one difficulty is that youngsters have only one chance to get an education. We cannot afford to allow schools to continue to deliver third-rate education for too long.
  Truth and reality in education are that a school depends very much on the quality of the head teacher, the leadership that is given and the quality of senior staff. It also depends crucially on the ethos of the school. Much research has shown that if a school has high expectations and the right ethos it will achieve high results.
  I make a brief comment about surplus places; of course, it is right to take action to reduce some of the 1·5 million surplus places, but we must be careful not to reduce them too far. We need some surplus places to provide for parental choice.
  In conclusion, the Bill builds on previous legislation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Greg Pope: Education Bills are a common occurrence under the Conservatives. I sometimes wonder if they have taken Labour's election slogan, "Time for a change", and made it the motto of the Department for Education. Sadly, it is change for change's sake. We have had city technology colleges, assisted places, the national curriculum, changes to the national curriculum and more changes to the national curriculum. All that has achieved is to make education an ideological playground. Now we have this Bill of 255 clauses and 17 schedules, with no doubt many more to come before the end of the Committee stage. The sum total of that is to increase the sum total of the powers of the Secretary of State for Education.
  It is not only the Opposition who believe that the Bill is a centralising measure. No less a journal than The Times, hardly the most left-wing of papers, said in a headline on the day after the White Paper that preceded the Bill was published: "Ministers to seize control of education." So The Times knows the real purpose of the Bill. So do hon. Members and so, I suspect, do parents.
  The Government are committed to privatisation, yet the Bill is as important an act of nationalisation as anything in the 1945 to 1950 Parliament. The Government profess the virtues of subsidiarity to our European partners; yet the Bill vests power not in the lowest tier of authority but at the highest level, with the Secretary of State. The proposed funding council will be non-elected and unaccountable. I fear that it will be underfunded, like many other bodies for which the Government are responsible.

  801
  Parents do not welcome the Bill. They know the truth about the education system, although the Government try to hide it—they know, because unlike most Ministers, they send their children to schools in the public education system.
  One of the central tenets of the Bill is the idea of increasing the number of grant-maintained schools, which have been a disastrous flop. Only about 300 schools have opted out, despite the financial incentives to do so. Now we see the pathetic spectacle of the Secretary of State for Education sending out begging letters to the head teachers in every school in England, pleading with them to opt out. The head teacher in my constituency who gave me his copy of the letter told me that he did not need it any more: head teachers get enough junk mail offering them newfangled designs which are of no use to school children.
  I shall try to speak about special educational needs in the non-partisan spirit that the Minister advocated earlier. I welcome the powers in the Bill to tell GM schools to accept excluded children and to name GM schools in school attendance orders. Those are both constructive ideas. The problem is that they are bright spots in an otherwise gloomy Bill. More than anything else, this is a bill of missed opportunities in special education. It fails to answer the central question of who is responsible overall for special education.
  The Bill makes it clear that LEAs are responsible for statements and statemented children, but it does not make clear who is responsible for special educational needs overall. As far back as the Warnock report, the Government have always accepted the estimate that about one fifth of pupils will require extra help with special needs at some point in their school careers, but only 2 per cent. of children will require statements. I hope that the Minister will tell us who is responsible for the other 18 per cent. of children who may need help at some point but who do not warrant a statement.
  A great deal of work is done by educational psychologists with this larger group of 18 per cent. In particular, they work with children who have emotional or behavioural difficulties—difficulties not mentioned in the Bill. Unless all 20 per cent. are covered by legislation, they will not be protected. They should all be included in the Bill to ensure that LEAs and psychologists can continue to protect and enhance the education of children in the wider group.
  Why are no incentives offered to schools to take children with special needs but who may not be statemented? Some schools will not take children with behavioural difficulties because they believe that they might affect truancy rates, which will then be published. Some schools will not take children with learning difficulties because they think that they may affect their published examination results. We must offer incentives to schools to take non-statemented children with special needs.
  Why does the Bill place no duty on agencies such as social work and health departments and LEAs to work together? Such duties were given in the Children Act 1989. We have heard a great deal about delays in the statementing process. They are not always the fault of the LEA; they could be the fault of the social services department or the health authority. If the Bill placed a duty on all those agencies to work together, we could cut
  802
  some of the delays. Some of the most vulnerable children are those who are most likely to have special needs arid to need help from these agencies.
  Why do the Government provide no target for the training of educational welfare officers to ensure that they become qualified social workers? I have the impression that the Government think that truancy can be solved by nabbing the truants. That simplistic approach helps no one —the problem is more complex than that. It would be much more sensible of the Government to invest in training educational welfare officers and ensuring that they were qualified. In the end, truancy is more likely to be a symptom than the root problem. Hence we need to deal with it in a skilled and professional way.
  Why has one of the central thrusts of the Children Act been ignored in the Bill? I refer to the right of a child to be consulted about its own future. This would be an ideal opportunity to bring special needs policies in line with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, article 12 of which states:
  "Children's views should be considered on all matters and administrative proceedings relating to them."
  We live in a society in which a child can take legal proceedings to divorce itself from its parents, yet children cannot have a say in deciding whether to agree to be assessed or in the sort of educational provision that would be best for them.
  The Bill gives the Secretary of State 44 new powers, but it gives no new powers or rights to children. It reflects the long-term tendency of Ministers to take away powers from local people and elected local authorities and to give them to Ministers and their civil servants.
  The Bill will fail to arrest declining standards in public sector education. It will fail to restore public confidence in the public education system. Worst of all, the Bill will fail to protect the most vulnerable children, those with special needs, and that is disgraceful.
  We now spend less on education as a proportion of our national wealth than we did 13 years ago under a Labour Government. That is the root cause of the crisis in our schools. Nationalisation, centralisation, or however Ministers dress up this measure, it will not improve the education of a single child.
  7.27 pm
  Mr Graham Riddick: The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) referred to an editorial in The Times, but as he said, it appeared the day after the launch of the White Paper, when the Times staff had not had time yet to read it. Once they had read it, they changed their tune.
  This is not a measure of nationalisation. As far as possible in a state-funded system, the Government are creating semi-independent schools with a large degree of autonomy.
  I should like to offer the Bill a positive welcome. I hope that it will not be too long before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduces another Bill, this time to abolish the student unions' closed shop. It is high time the Government allowed students the freedom to decide whether to belong to a student union—or to the National Union of Students. I look forward to the day when my right hon. Friend presents that legislation. I take it from the fact that he is nodding that he intends to do exactly that.

  803
  I welcome the measures in the Bill to reduce the incidence of truancy, and I am sure that making parents more responsible for their children's attendance at school is the right approach.
  I support the Secretary of State's additional power to intervene where individual schools are not properly providing education for their children. I welcome the way in which the Government are encouraging schools to specialise. However, such specialisation should not, and I am sure will not, in any way detract from the delivery of the national curriculum.
  I particularly welcome the general thrust of the Bill. It is designed to encourage diversity among schools, to extend parental choice and to channel resources away from administration into education.
  However, if I have one criticism of the Bill, it is that it is simply not radical enough. It does not go far enough. If the Government believe that grant-maintained schools are the most effective way of maximising educational opportunities for our children, we should bite the bullet and legislate so that all secondary schools become grant-maintained by a certain time—perhaps by the end of 1994 or the end of 1995. We should thereafter be looking to extend grant-maintained status to all primary schools.
  I have no doubt that grant-maintained schools provide a better quality of education, because they introduce real competition into our education system. We should not be ashamed of that. We should be shouting it from the rooftops. Competition is good in every other sector of life and it will be good in education. Competition drives up standards. Competition between schools would force schools to deliver what parents want for their children, not what the schools think those children should have. Competition between schools forces head teachers and their staff to ensure that academic standards are high, that extra-curricular activities are available and varied and that there is proper discipline and a proper spiritual and moral culture within the school.
  That is what parents want. Where there is true competition and choice, parents will choose those schools which provide the highest standards. In a competitive environment, some schools will decide to specialise and that will increase choice. Therfore, the Government should go further than the Bill allows and ensure that all parents have access to a grant-maintained school for their children.
  As Conservative Members know, that is complete anathema to the education establishment. It believes that competition is vulgar. Head teachers talk about the need for their schools to "co-operate", whatever that means. It really means that they do not have to compete. Some teachers become governors at other schools in order to block those schools taking on grant-maintained status. Local education authority administrators do everything in their power to maintain their power over local schools. The teachers' unions argue for the status quo. It is not surprising, therefore, that many parents feel somewhat overawed in the face of the conspiracy against grant-maintained status by the education mafia.
  I am sorry to say that the combination that makes up the education establishment is clearly present in and around my constituency. I regret that no schools in my constituency have taken on grant-maintained status. I
  804
  hope that they will and that the Government will act to ensure that all those secondary schools do become grant-maintained, so that parents in my constituency can enjoy the benefits of grant-maintained status—high standards, more choice, more diversity and greater discipline in schools.
  Moreover, teachers and head teachers would benefit from having more control over the running of their schools. No longer would they have to respond to the dictates of the LEA. They would feel that they had a real stake in the schools in which they were working.
  In a slightly less controversial vein, I come to special education. When I intervened earlier on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, he gave me some reassurance on the point that I now want to touch on. We should be careful how far we push the drive for the integration of children with special educational needs into mainstream schools. That is the direction in which, dare I say, the education establishment, as well as my right hon. and hon. Friends, are going.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: That is not true.
  Mr. Riddick: It is true. The hon. Gentleman clearly disagrees, and I accept that, but the accepted wisdom is that it is better for children to be integrated into mainstream education. However, there are times when a child will lose as a result of such integration, perhaps because he or she cannot cope with a new environment or because the mainstream schools simply cannot deliver the sort of special education that the children need.
  When my local council, Kirklees council, issued a document last year to force through integration at a far greater pace, many parents expressed concern and opposition to the plans. I have a number of special schools in my constituency, and my experience is that they have achieved remarkable results in drawing out the full potential of individual children with special needs.
  One of those schools, Royd Edge school in Meltham, is being forced by Kirklees council to become a day school as opposed to a residential school, much against the wishes of many parents. I therefore voice that note of caution, which I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will take on board.
  My second concern relates to independent and non-maintained special schools. Concerns have been voiced to me by a friend who is a governor of Chailey Heritage school in Sussex, and also by the headmaster of Holly Bank school near Mirfield, just outside my constituency.
  I have visited Holly Bank several times, and I know that it provides a wonderful service for many children with severe disabilities. I think that I am right in saying that there was no mention of those schools in the White Paper. There is a real concern that LEAs will simply stop using the services of such schools if the LEAs suffer a financial penalty, and there is certainly concern that they will suffer a financial penalty. I hope that my hon. Friend will address that point when he replies.
  The Conservative party is the only party with any radical ideas about how to improve Britain's education system. The Labour party is interested only in protecting vested interests—the teachers' unions and local education authorities. Labour's hostility to grant-maintained schools is a disgrace. The Labour party remains wedded to the outdated and discredited notion of equality, where the lowest common denominator is dominant.

  805
  It is the Conservative Government who are forcing through changes to improve Britain's education system. We believe in diversity, choice and high standards, and I am delighted to lend my support to a Bill which will provide all those things.
  7.37 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: The Education Act 1944 was an inspiration to teachers who felt that it was an opportunity to raise standards and to increase advantage and possibility for children. It was a real opportunity for educational reform.
  The so-called reforms of the Government have the opposite effect. They have demoralised rather than inspired teachers. Local management of schools, based on the average teacher's salary, threatens the most experienced and valuable teachers in schools. Primary school teachers have been forced to put their children through the hoops of standard assessment tests. Classes are getting larger, and the lack of money for supply teachers means that classes have to be split up when teachers are away. All those things, coupled with the increased proportion of administrative work to teaching time, are demoralising teachers.
  The White Paper fails to recognise that teachers are the linchpin of the education system. It says that parents are the experts, and I am not denigrating the expertise of parents, but I do not like the expertise of teachers to be brushed aside as of no importance.
  Although the White Paper concentrates on the role of parents, it fails to deal with their concerns. My advice surgery, like those of some of my hon. Friends, has revealed those concerns very clearly. One that arises again and again is the need for parents and children to benefit from the provision of nursery education, but the White Paper says nothing about that.
  The same applies to discretionary grants for students; to clothing grants for parents on low incomes; to adult education, which is being whittled down to nothing, while LEAs are left short of money and forced to cut all provision except that which is a statutory obligation; and to schools for children with special educational needs. Parents fear that good schools for children in that latter class are closing down, and that the money and expertise are not being invested in mainstream classes.
  If anything can be said to be of paramount importance in education, it is the need for stability. Since the Government began to introduce education Bills, however, instability has become chronic in London. First we saw the wanton destruction the Inner London Education Authority—a much maligned organisation which provided a good standard of education in the inner city, against dreadful odds. It pioneered research into education, and the philosophy of education, and it raised the cultural level in many spheres. I remember the last concert that it organised in the Albert hall: children and adults from every ILEA area gave a brilliant performance, and I was reduced to tears by the thought that it would all be destroyed—along with the other avantages provided by a unitary authority, in art, drama and other spheres.
  The local education authorities then took over in London. They tried to establish new methods, depending very much on the old ILEA divisional offices but trying to build up the schools. They were then faced with the problems posed by local management of schools. Now we
  806
  have opt-outs and funding agencies. As the Government exert pressure on schools to opt out, the LEAs will be given less money and less control over planning. That is a recipe for turmoil and chaos.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) in the Chamber. He intervened to mention Hendon school, which he presented as a shining example of grant-maintained status which has now increased its numbers. The hon. Gentleman, however, did not tell the whole story. Barnet borough council—a Conservative body if there ever was one—tried to do away with its surplus places by amalgamating Hendon school, which was formerly a grammer school in a middle-class area, with Whitefields, formerly a secondary school on a council estate.
  Whitefields was on the larger site; it had the more modern building and the better facilities. Hendon school parents, however, did not want their children to go to Whitefields—not on your nelly. They fought it, and they were allowed to opt out. Their grant is at the expense of Whitefields'.
  Mr. John Marshall rose—
  Mrs. Gordon: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
  As a result, the disadvantaged children on the council estate have been further disadvantaged. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter; I might not have thought of it otherwise.
  Mr. Marshall rose—
  Mrs. Gordon: No, I will not give way. I have waited for two days to speak for 10 minutes, and I think that it is unreasonable to expect me to give way now.
  All the organisations that have written to me are worried about what the Bill will do for children with special educational needs. Mencap asks this about the funding agency:
  "How can a system operate coherently and efficiently if one -body retains responsibility for children with special needs"—
  the LEAs, that is—
  "while another body is responsible for funding the schools which provide the education?"
  That puts it in a nutshell.
  So-called reforms—I cannot mention the Government's reforms without putting them, as it were, in quotation marks—such as the publication of league tables will disadvantage children with special needs who have not been statemented, and children who are learning English as a second language. Grant-maintained schools that want a high position on the league tables will be reluctant to take such children, although they may give other reasons.
  Many hon. Members have pointed out that children have only one chance in the education system, and that a single experiment can affect their whole lives. The Government should have been more prudent: they should have waited to see how the funding agency worked in higher education before establishing a similar agency for schools. Given that if only 10 per cent. of schools were to transfer to grant-maintained status, the Government should have devoted much more serious thought to the process. They should have worked out what would happen when a conflict arose over plans.
  For instance, an LEA might feel that a sixth form school should be set up rather than a primary school, or vice versa, and the funding agency think the reverse. It

  807
  would have been more prudent to arrange pilot schemes at an earlier stage of the so-called reforms for SATs and all the other alterations. The Government's chopping and changing has driven teachers to distraction: they have been completely demoralised by the way in which policy has been made on the hoof.
  The Secretary of State said a good deal about democracy. He said that helping, forcing or persuading schools to become grant-maintained would give parents more of a say. I think that that diminishes democracy. It takes control from elected bodies on which parents can have some influence—by voting, demonstrating or going to see their councillors—and centralises it, giving the Secretary of State more and more powers. He himself says that the Bill gives him 44 new powers.
  If the Secretary of State wants to give more power to parents and the community, why does the Bill not mention the representation of teachers, parents and the local community on the funding agency and the education associations? Real power—control over funds, sackings and other changes—will be in the hands of appointed quangos that are directly responsible to the Secretary of State.
  The Bill takes another step towards the introduction of the market in the education system. Teams of inspectors have already been set up, to price the job and establish what profits can be made. Next will come the establishment of education associations. Recently, I spoke to a dedicated teacher whom I have known for some years. Every year, he takes a group of children over to France on the exchange system, and in the past he has always been able to discuss the arrangements with an LEA adviser. Now the school at which he works has become grant-maintained, and he has realised with a shock that, if he wants advice, the school will have to pay a fee. That has upset him very much, and he does not feel too good about the changes in the system.
  I am not easily shocked, but I was shocked by what I was told by an American I met recently. He is a nice man. He told me that, following his retirement, he had become very involved with a residential school for mentally handicapped children. Originally, he had been a volunteer, but he had become so involved that he was now employed by the school. When I asked him what he did, he said that he was an investment agent or broker: he persuaded people to take shares in the school. I was shocked. I asked, "How can people take shares and profit out of"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We may hear further information on another occasion.
  7.48 pm
  Mrs. Angela Knight: One of the most surprising aspects of yesterday's and today's debates is the fact that Opposition Members clearly do not believe in diversity. They also oppose parental choice, and they have not even dealt with the whole issue of standards. Yet those are the very matters which are important to parents and children. I join other Conservative Members in welcoming the Bill, which builds on the Education Reform Act 1988 and will continue to promote parental choice and high standards.
  Let me declare my personal interests in the Bill. I have two young children who will be affected by it, and until the
  808
  end of last year I was the governor of a large comprehensive school—one of the first in the area to have a delegated budget. For the past five years, until the spring, I was a councillor and a member of a local education authority. That was Sheffield city council, a Labour-dominated local authority.
  I know from personal experience there just how undemocratic and unresponsive to the needs of parents and children that local education authority was. I witnessed too often the wishes of parents and governing bodies being overruled, not for financial reasons but simply in order to preserve a set of ideas held by a handful of councillors elected on a low poll—ideas which had little to do with the good education of children.
  I do not condemn all education authorities, because of that experience, but I know where I place my trust for good education—with the parents, the governors, the teachers and the school communities. That is how to deliver locally a good education service. However good a local education authority may be, it will seldom be able to plan well for the needs of an individual institution or school, yet it is to a particular school that parents look to give a good education to their children. If a school is to meet the needs of the children and the community that it serves, it is far more likely to be able to do so if it controls its own affairs—that is, if it is a grant-maintained school.
  Sadly, Sheffield's education authority campaigned against grant-maintained status. It tried hard to dissuade parents with children at one school from voting in favour of becoming grant maintained. Although just one school was considering making an application for grant-maintained status, the education authority sent a leaflet to every household in the city and tried to dissuade them from voting in favour of grant-maintained status. I saw at first hand the overt and covert hostility of that campaign.
  I welcome the proposals that are directed towards limiting the amount of money that education authorities can spend on publishing information on grant-maintained status. I welcome, too, the strong stance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has taken regarding the content of that information. One has to take into account also the innuendos—the drip feed of half-truths that happens all too often.
  When the White Paper was published an article appeared in a local newspaper that relayed the contents of a report to the Derbyshire education authority. The article said:
  "Education experts have warned Derbyshire schools not to opt out—because they are so well off under education authority control."
  If you believe that, you will believe anything. The article continued:
  "And last year Derbyshire spent 15 per cent. above its SSA on education—the highest overspend of any education authority outside London."
  Not surprisingly, the education system—or chair as they are still called up there—was in favour of the report, but a report such as that is designed to deter, worry and put schools off considering grant-maintained status. That worry was greatly reduced when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced that schools would not become worse off by seeking grant-maintained status. He confirmed that in his speech yesterday.
  It is worth looking more closely at some of the assumptions that are made regarding SSAs. Some of them have been referred to by Opposition Members. It is often erroneously believed that, if an authority spends over its

  809
  SSA on education, that money goes into the schools. A recent investigation by schools, including those in my constituency, showed that, at best, only between 2 and 3 per cent. of the 15 per cent. overspend of Derbyshire education authority arrived in the schools. A further investigation by the same schools showed a massive difference between the funding of one school compared with another.
  I draw the attention of hon. Members to the words used by one school about that investigation. It said:
  "Despite our outstanding success, we are the poor relations under local education authority control."
  Not surprisingly, therefore, more schools, even in Labour-controlled Derbyshire, are seeking grant-maintained status.
  To take the matter a little further, since we have heard so much about a handful of pressure groups, about the theoreticians and the attitude of remote local education authorities, may I commend to hon. Members the views of a school that is seeking grant-maintained status. It said that a yes to grant-maintained status would give it greater autonomy and financial control, the ability to implement plans, the ability to plan its maintenance schedules and to do it on an accurate cost prediction. It said that it would also give it the ability to manage. The school would be managed directly by the local community, through the governing body. Those are the issues that are important to education and to standards in schools.
  It is sad that there has been so much fudge and mixture of fact and fiction that is so often used by those whose principal objection to schools seeking grant-maintained status is that it will reduce their own personal power base. I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that only one resolution by a governing body will be necessary before parents are consulted on grant-maintained status. However, to revert to Derbyshire county council, it has ensured that there are no Conservative governors in local education authority schools. When Erewash borough council became Labour-controlled last year, it did the same. Such acts show the unpleasant aspect of unwarranted intervention.
  The consequence for schools is that they have lost the benefit of many experienced governors. In addition, it has led to political blockage on the governing body regarding grant-maintained status. If a governing body does not even consider grant-maintained status, it denies choice to the parents. Whether to apply for grant-maintained status is still a matter for the parents, but that choice has been denied to them.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) in asking that consideration should be given to promoting further the rights of parents and to ensuring that the governing bodies of every eligible school consider grant-maintained status each year.
  The local government review will have an impact on my authority, as it is one of those in the first wave of the review. Derbyshire county council is unlikely to continue in its present form. Few, if any, will mourn its passing. The local education authority will also cease to exist in its present form. Even fewer tears will be shed about that. Nine district authorities are making bids for unitary status. That may be the final shape of the education authority's area, but the number may be fewer than nine. Smaller unitary authorities mean that services are brought closer to the people. In the changing circumstances, however, there is a particular need to ensure that education money goes
  810
  into the schools to benefit the children of my constituents and others in the county, rather than towards rebuilding a series of smaller versions of the local education authority which will soon cease to exist.
  At some point between the announcement of the outcome of the review and its implementation, I hope that, in the best interests of the education of children in the area, it will be possible for all eligible schools to consult the parents on whether to seek grant-maintained status.
  High standards are important to parents. The drive towards higher standards is the theme which runs throughout the Government's education programme. I have not yet heard Opposition Members talk about standards, yet it is good standards which make schools popular with parents—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The 10-minute rule restriction is now lifted. May I ask hon. Members to respect Madam Speaker's wishes for short speeches?
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Stephen Byers: I am tempted to make the speech that I wanted to make, which would have taken far longer than 10 minutes, but I know that a number of hon. Members want to speak in the debate and I shall therefore exercise self-discipline.
  Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a rare occasion for two former chairs of the Council of Local Education Authorities to speak in the same debate in this Chamber. I follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who spoke earlier. I hope during my speech to reflect on my experience as the chair of the Council of Local Education Authorities.
  There can probably be no greater condemnation of 13 years of failure by the Conservative Government than the fact that, in the past two days we have had to consider the 17th measure affecting education. The previous 16 have failed our children, as will the 17th. We have had a period of constant change, of experiments and of gimmicks in our schools, with our children acting as the guinea pigs.
  It has been a period of permanent revolution of which a Maoist would be proud, yet our education system is not meeting the needs and demands of the 1990s. In The Sunday Telegraph, David Sainsbury, chairman of Sainsbury, said:
  "For the top 10 per cent. of people education in this country is superb."
  But the Government have plans.
  "For the bottom 40 per cent. the system is appalling."
  I agree with that. Unfortunately, the Bill fails to address the underlying weaknesses of our education service. If enacted, it will make matters worse. It will result in the creation of an education underclass of disappointed and disillusioned parents, bitter and rejected children and failing and blighted schools. That is the Government's vision of education into the 21st century.
  Although the Secretary of State calls the Bill a landmark piece of legislation, he will not take it into Committee; he has handed it to his Under-Secretary.
  The great failing, which is not mentioned in the Bill, is the chronic under-investment in education. The White Paper and the Bill make it clear that there will be no new money for education. Correction: there will be some new money, not for education but to fund bureaucrats in the funding agency. We need the resources.

  811
  The Government's record in the past 12 or 13 years shows that the increase in education spending is lower than the average for other areas of Government spending. Had the same percentage of total Government spending on education in 1991 matched that of 1980, education would have had an extra £1·5 billion. Local education authorities in England and Wales calculate that there is a £4 billion backlog of capital works to school buildings. The Educational Publishers Council says that the lack of investment in books is now at crisis levels. The Department for Education's evidence to the school teachers' pay review was that between 1990 and 1991—just one year—the number of qualified teachers in England fell by 4,287, with obvious consequences. In England, the pupil: teacher ratio worsened from 16.94:1 in 1990 to 17.22:1 in 1991—the first time that the ratio had worsened in England since 1964. What a catalogue, which condemns the Government and the priority that they attach to education.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) challenged Ministers—it is a challenge that they need to take up—about the funding of grant maintained schools, especially in local education authorities that spend above their education standard spending assessment. When the Secretary of State launched the White Paper, he said that he would base his common funding formula on the Government assumption of what should be spent on education—the standard spending assessment. He used Birmingham as an example. We heard much about Birmingham yesterday. Indeed, I thought at one stage that we were debating the Education (Birmingham) Bill. At least today's debate has managed to move to some of the other 115 local education authorities in England and Wales.
  Ministers must make it clear what the funding arrangements will be, because there are 65 local education authorities spending more than £500 million above their standard spending assessment on education. Perhaps there will be good news in the autumn statement on Thursday and we shall be told that education will have a real increase of £500 million, but I doubt it. Without it, the message is clear to schools thinking of applying for grant-maintained status: extra annual resources will not be available, and the Government's silence on the issue speaks volumes.
  The philosophy underlying the Bill follows the philosophy that underlay the Education Reform Act 1988. The Government say that the Bill's purpose is to bring the discipline of the marketplace into the schools sector. I should have thought, given what the market did to the nation's economy on 16 September, black Wednesday, that we would have learnt the lesson that the market does not have the interests of the nation at its heart, yet our schools are to be subject to it.
  We are told that grant-maintained status is the mechanism that will raise standards and offer parental choice. Let us look at the facts. We have heard about Labour local authorities blocking, and being obstructive in, ballots to opt out. That does not explain why the local education authorities in North Yorkshire, East and West Sussex and Suffolk—all Conservative-controlled—do not have a single grant-maintained school in their areas. There is a better, clearer reason why schools opt out of local authority control. There is a common thread running
  812
  through those local education authorities—they are Conservative-controlled and spend very little on educating their children.
  Mr. Congdon: Nonsense.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Member says, "Nonsense." I do not want to confuse his prejudice by giving him some facts, but Lincolnshire, which has the third largest number of opted-out schools—23—and is Conservative controlled is 101st out of 108 local education authorities in spending per pupil. Conservative-controlled Kent has the highest number of opted-out schools—35. Where does it rank out of the 108 local education authorities on spending per pupil? Conservative Members are keen on league tables. Kent comes 108th.
  Mr. Congdon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I should like to do so, but I am under a time constraint.
  The message is clear: opting out has been given a massive vote of no confidence by parents in Conservative-controlled, low-spending local education authorities.
  The other thread that runs through the Bill is the centralisation of our education service. There is no doubt that the Bill promotes the most dramatic extension of Whitehall power that we have seen since the war. The funding agencies, unelected and unaccountable, will have wide-ranging powers to determine the amount of places that schools will make available within a local authority area and the grants that might be made available to grant-maintained schools. Already, parents up and down the country are being denied choice: they cannot select the school to which they want their children to go.
  There is a paradox at the heart of the Bill: on the one hand, the Government want to take out surplus places; on the other, they want to extend parental choice. How can we reconcile the removal of 1·5 million surplus places with the extension of parental choice?
  The Bill will lead to the merger of the National Curriculum Council and SEAC—the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council. Both examinations and curriculum will be controlled by 10 to 15 people appointed by the Secretary of State. I am deeply concerned at the notion of such political control, not just over what is taught in the classroom but over how it is examined and assessed. The Secretary of State has already determined that Shakespeare must be taught to all 14-year-olds—and not just Shakespeare in general but "Romeo and Juliet", "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Julius Caesar" in particular. Why have those three been chosen? Given the problems in the Conservative party at the moment, I can understand why a play about the death of a leader may be appropriate. But one might make other suggestions. Given our debate last Wednesday, might not it have been appropriate to include "Much Ado About Nothing", for example?
  At the beginning of the White Paper, there is a quote from John Ruskin's preface to "Unto this Last". If the Secretary of State had read on, he would have come to what I believe is a better quotation on the basis of which to direct our education service:
  "Government and co-operation are in all things the laws of life; anarchy and competition the laws of death."
  I agree with that.
  There is a powerful case for the reform of our education system, but that reform should be carried out on the basis

  813
  of consensus rather than competition and of partnership rather than patronage. We need an education system that values all our children. What the Bill does is to turn the clock back to the dark days of selection. All it offers the children of our country is a future made up of all our yesterdays. It fails our children, and that is why we will oppose it both in the House and outside.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. David Porter: The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) referred to last week's shenanigans. Last week, I was unable to support the Government, so I am delighted to be able to speak tonight in full support —or, at least, broad support—of a Government measure which will extend diversity and choice for many British children, British parents and British schools without reference to any Europeans.
  During yesterday's debate, reference was made to the schools to which Conservative Members send their children. I should like to place on the record the fact that I have four children, three of whom are at local authority schools and one of whom has yet to reach school age.
  To promote higher standards, it has been necessary to give attention to structures and organisations within and around schools, and I think that ever fewer people now maintain serious objections to such planks in our structure as local management of schools. We find example after example of extra teachers taken on on a part-time or full-time basis, of repairs, alterations and building improvements carried out and of curriculum developments that were not possible—not even dreamed possible —before LMS.
  Equally, with the national curriculum, and testing to make it effective, new frontiers have been opened. There are still residual doubts about the wisdom of testing at age seven, often because summer-term birthday children have spent only a short time at school by the time they reach that age. But good schools were monitoring seven-year-olds in any event and I feel sure that, given that most children enjoy the testing anyway, the remaining doubts will disappear as the years go by.
  When I visit schools, I often wish that those who, because they have no children or because their children are no longer of the relevant age, have no direct contact with primary teaching as it now is, could see the basic spelling, reading groundwork and number work that go on. The best schools always did it; now all schools should do it. When the present generation of primary schoolchildren reaches the jobs market in a few years' time, we shall all notice the difference in their numeracy and literacy.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend mentioned my local authority of Suffolk where, with the exception of the Church schools, we have a three-tier system, with schools for children aged five to nine, nine to 13 and 13-plus. That means that the high schools are testing key stage three children of 14 on their middle school work. That forces better and closer public co-operation with the feeder middle schools, but the incompatibility of the key stage ages with our school ages needs to be borne in mind when judgments are made on high schools in league tables. I have visited schools in my constituency that have piloted testing and have talked to staff and pupils who have experienced tests. On science alone, I have a whole page full of detailed concerns and will bring those objections and worries with me to the Standing Committee.
  814
  I want to mention detail, because that will allow me to welcome the formation of the new school curriculum and assessment authority. That should sort out the overlap and examine teacher work loads, especially on the adminstrative side, as well as bringing a much-needed new coherence to testing and exams.
  Perhaps even more important, I hope that the new authority will consider the impact of testing on the delivery of the national curriculum. We are talking of a large number of school teaching days effectively wiped out so that tests can be conducted. We must strike a balance between testing and teaching and set both in the context of a limited school day and of the amount of work with which both teachers and pupils can cope.
  All Conservative Members give high priority to individual choice. That is why I no longer accept the view of many of my hon. Friends, who want instant, compulsory self-governing status for all schools. Parental and school community choice, with good example, good practice and good work the only pressures, should be the driving force. A comparison could be made with the employment law reforms since 1979. My predecessor, Lord Prior, always maintained that, if one takes one step at a time, it sticks because it works. He was labelled "Pussyfoot Prior" for that, but in that at least he was right.
  Let me add a rider to those remarks. In rural areas, and even in some large town areas, choice in schools is a phrase to which we may give lip service, but it is contradicted by reality. A family without transport or with limited transport in a rural area has no choice of school—any more than they have a choice of doctor's surgery, church, shops or pub.
  The clustering of schools suggested in the Bill will be an excellent means of bridging some of the gulfs that will always exist in rural areas. The idea of having one governing body, one head and a shared bursar may well be a helpful step on from the co-operation and the sharing of specialist teachers that we already have in some areas.
  What of the concept of squeezing out surplus places? Of course they are a drain on resources and some hard bullets have to be bitten, especially in rural areas. Let us be sure, however, that all apparently surplus places are, indeed, surplus. To my mind, a small teaching area between two or more classrooms in primary and middle schools may, technically, be surplus to requirements, but, in practice, it is a valuable teaching resource, which is already there, in use, heated and lit. We should beware of any numbers formula that limits school building size and provision to consideration of bottoms on seats.
  Conservative-controlled Suffolk is one of the few authorities with no grant-maintained schools—and none have yet balloted for such status. Hon. Members may say that that tells us all that we need to know about grant-maintained status. They are entitled to that view. It also says much about the authority, by which I was employed as a teacher. I visit its schools regularly and often and I know that Suffolk offers a real and developing service to its schools. I know, too, how it has developed in response to our reforms in the past 10 years. There is loyalty which consists of more than clinging to nurse for fear of something worse.
  I do not oppose the stripping out of LEAs in principle, but, as with all our legislation, we should be wary of making law for the worst cases. I do not want us to risk throwing out the best with the bad to get the law right. Let us by all means devolve funding to the schools, but there

  815
  will come a point at which LEAs are left with insufficient funds to keep together the excellent teams that they have gathered. That is a danger. Perhaps our reviews of local government—quite apart from the Department for Education and the Bill—will effectively end the LEAs as we know them, but, while the Bill is in Committee, we should consider carefully whether to write into it a definition of the new model LEA which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described to me so graphically in the Select Committee a few weeks ago.
  We must listen to advisers and to heads, always remembering that not all the best teachers naturally become heads. Let us listen to teachers with a good track record. If primary teachers tell us that reports are too intense and that they often miscue what primary teaching is really like, including the daily contact of primary teachers with parents and not just once-a-year contacts through reports, we should take note of what they say.
  I admire my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for rushing on, but I urge him to carry with us as many people as we can. We have heard the perception of many Opposition Members and teachers that we have diminished choice, quality and parental influence in favour of centralist control. We perceive the opposite, and we must overcome their view by practical experience of the facts.
  When I first taught years ago, anyone could attend an interview one day and be before a class the next. The hon. member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) referred to Inner London education authority schools. I was one on supply in an ILEA school and, because I had been there for several weeks, I was part of the furniture in the staff room. The only job I was given one day by the deputy head was to telephone area office and ask for a supply teacher to teach 4C because there was no one upstairs to teach that form.
  Those days and the teaching passengers of the 1970s have gone. Teachers have worked hard to build foundations with the blocks that we have given them. At times, that had the apparent chaos of a building site in Sarajevo. Many are bewildered not just by the speed of our reforms, but by the reforms of our reforms. Many are politically opposed to us. However, I believe that the profession in general has done us proud in setting up the foundations.
  Fortunately, the Bill seeks to build on those foundations. It does not sweep them away and start within a new plan. The profession deserves our praise and thanks for what has been achieved and it now deserves our encouragement to build higher. Let us keep the skies as clear of confrontation as we can. Let us not change the rules any more than we have to and let us stop that unprecedented deluge of paper which has almost drowned the profession, so that teachers can get on and deliver the education that we all want.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Mike Hall: I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate, as I spent 14 years in the teaching profession—seven years in schools and seven years working with children with special educational needs.
  816
  I have concluded that the wrongly named Education Reform Act 1988 has failed. The only intention of that legislation was to centralise the control of education at the Department for Education. The route for that centralisation was grant-maintained schools.
  The Bill will cause the destruction of a co-operative partnership in education that has survived numerous political parties in Government since 1870. The history of locally delivered education, with the support of elected representatives, dates back to the establishment of school boards in 1870. The Bill will remove local education authorities from our democratic processes, and for that reason alone we should oppose it.
  The route towards the destruction of the LEAs is straightforward. Grant-maintained schools will become more prevalent in the education system. As that happens, the funding councils will take over the role of the LEA's. Locally democratically elected people in charge of the delivery of education will be replaced by political patronage of the Secretary of State for Education.
  That anti-democratic move must be resisted. If we allow it to happen, it will be a sad day for democracy and for our education system. It is wrong to allow the Secretary of State the sole prerogative to appoint the members of the funding councils.
  We oppose grant-maintained status, because it is divisive. Grant-maintained schools are fragmentary, and they will abolish a tier of democracy. As the funding councils take over the role of LEAs, the Government will insist on the introduction of selection. That process is clear in the White Paper, and it is abundantly clear in the Bill.
  If the Government had been honest about their intentions for centralisation and for the abolition of LEA's and about the fact that they wanted selection, and had spelt out precisely what the Bill was about, would such a Bill have been passed by the House? I believe that it would not have been passed, because it would have caused outrage in the community at large.
  The White Paper also contains an attack on surplus places. It says that it is
  "imperative that the available money is spent on pupils and not on empty buildings."
  The Secretary of State must therefore explain what he intends to do when schools that are threatened with closure because of reorganisation and an attempt to rationalise places in an LEA apply to opt out. Will he grant them grant-maintained status? If he will, the so-called attack on surplus school places is nonsense.
  There have generally been two reasons why schools have applied for grant-maintained status: first, they have been threatened with closure by the LEA, and secondly, they wanted increased funding because LEAs have underfunded them. The Bill attempts to move in that direction.
  We are also told that it is the Secretary of State's intention that more schools should be grant-maintained. If he believes that, why did he not legislate for it in the first place and so be honest with the public? He did not do so because he knows that grant-maintained status will not address the problems in education.
  Grant-maintained status does nothing to improve the chronic underfunding of our education system. It does not lower class sizes, and it does nothing to improve school building maintenance. Similarly, it does nothing to improve the morale of teachers. If the Secretary of State allowed every school to become grant-maintained, he

  817
  would not be able to pass the buck to anyone else. He would have to accept responsibility for what is wrong in the education system.
  We have had 13 years of Conservative rule, and the Opposition will not accept lectures from Conservative Members about standards in education when the Government have had 13 years to address the problems. I am deeply concerned about the Curriculum and Assessment Authority, which has to do with the centralisation of control of education in the hands of the Secretary of State. Staffed by political patronage on behalf of the Secretary of State, the authority will allow the Secretary of State to control the knowledge taught in schools and to interfere in the way in which that knowledge is delivered. That provision is fundamentally wrong.
  I make no bones about the fact that we need a curriculum and assessment authority. However, it must be independent and able to take an objective view of the needs of education in society. The council should not have to suffer the Secretary of State's diktat.
  If the Bill achieves its aims in respect of integration of children with special needs into mainstream schools, I will applaud that. It intends to make such integration a greater feature of our education system. If that is to work, it will need adequate resources to ensure that children with special educational needs have full access to facilities in ordinary schools.
  Special educational needs can be met through the statementing procedure. I accept that the procedure has not so far worked as it was meant to work under the Warnock report, the concept of which was that a child's educational needs would be assessed and met. Over the past seven or eight years, the assessment has been resource-led rather than needs-led. In other words, the resources available in local authorities have determined what individuals have received. It should be the other way round.
  It would be welcome if we could speed up the statementing procedure, but that will require extra resources. That will mean more educational psychologists and more resources in social services for the social work element in the assessment, and the medical profession will have to be speeded up to ensure that the appendices are submitted on time. If that happens, I will applaud it as a step in the right direction.
  If the Secretary of State is intent on increasing the number of pupils with special needs in mainstream schools, the number of pupil places necessary in special schools will decrease. We are told in the Bill that special schools will now be able to apply for grant-maintained status. Will the Secretary of State allow special schools, which are threatened with closure because resources have been reallocated to ensure that pupils go to mainstream schools, to apply to opt out? He should answer that question.
  Hansard of 1 December 1987 contains the following words:
  "The important question is what is required in education today and what is necessary to achieve it. I am sick to death of education in this country being knocked in the way that it is, largely for political purposes, and of teachers being constantly hammered. The great majority of our teachers are good and devoted people, as I have found in my constituency and my home area. However, they are now completely demoralised because of the treatment they have received." [Official Report, 1 December 1987; c. 792.]
  818
  That was in a speech by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). I agree with every word of it.
  We need to take a detached look at education. We need an in-depth inquiry into the requirements of our education system similar to the great inquiries previously held into education. We need a considered view about how education is delivered.
  The demand for the Bill does not come from teachers, pupils or anyone involved in education. It has been introduced because the Tory party has so far failed to deliver under the 1988 Act.
  The Bill is anti-democratic. The 1944 Act set up a partnership between local authorities and central Government and that should persist. Reinhold Niebuhr said in 1944:
  "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary."
  That is why the Bill must be refused a Second Reading this evening.
  8.31 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: I shall focus this evening on religious education. I noticed with some sorrow that neither the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) nor the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made any attempt to deal with the issue. I wonder why. Perhaps they are not interested or perhaps they do not care.
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I am sorry, but I cannot give way, because time is tight.
  The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are not interested or do not care, but parents care. Parents are making their feelings known, and it is right that we should respond. I pay a special tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his interest and commitment to religious education. I appreciate his desire for a fresh impetus in RE, which he expressed yesterday. It is significant that large sections of the Bill are devoted to religious education and contain positive steps to revitalise spiritual and moral education.
  The time has come to stop being apologetic about being a Christian country. We should be proud of it. We should not allow non-believers to undermine our traditions. As I described in July in my Adjournment debate on religious education, it is a tragedy that the teaching of the Christian faith has become woefully neglected in the face of multiculturalism which is promoting minority faiths at the expense of Christianity—the faith allegiance of the vast majority of the people of this nation.
  As a result of that neglect, a generation of children are growing up with at best a muddled understanding and knowledge of Christianity, and at worst sheer, frightening ignorance. Children have a right to a faith without being proselytised. They have a right to understand our Christian history, which provides our moral and cultural heritage.
  Sadly, more needs to be done. I welcome the attention given in the Bill to religious education. Since July, I have sent out a questionnaire to parents and children to assess the exact amount of Christian teaching at schools. I have received a considerable response. Often, the replies are pitiful and demonstrate the sheer wanton neglect of

  819
  religious education. Some children are unable to recite the Lord's prayer. They have never studied the gospels or the Bible. Indeed, in many cases, RE is not even timetabled.
  I do not have the time to go through all the examples, but one typical 12-year-old at a county school cannot recite the Lord's prayer, has not studied the gospels and knows nothing about the 23rd psalm. A 16-year-old—my goodness, she should know by now—had only the sketchiest idea of Jesus's life. She said that RE was not timetabled at the school. An 11-year-old at a Greenwich school has no timetabled RE lessons. However, I was informed that the infants celebrated the harvest festival, and that the age group took part in the Chinese new year and Diwali.
  What are we to do with that depressing catalogue? I welcome the attention given to religious education in the Bill. I particularly welcome clause 126, which allows grant-maintained schools to choose their own agreed RE syllabus from another local authority. At present, grant-maintained schools that are not voluntary schools must follow the syllabus of the local education authority even after they have opted out. Under clause 126, an opted-out school in, say, Birmingham, would be free to choose the RE syllabus of another authority and so be released from the requirement to study non-theistic life stances such as communism and Marxism.
  Might I suggest that a model for a mainly Christian RE syllabus, which is what a syllabus should be according to the 1988 Act, might be taken from Cornwall or West Sussex, for example? Those LEAs both have a more acceptable approach which grant-maintained schools might consider. The syllabuses have a much better balance than, say, the Rotherham module adopted by many left-wing authorities, including Sutton. The Rotherham syllabus lists Christianity as just another off-the-shelf religion alongside five others—Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism.
  Sutton's primary school teachers are offered 167 themes for seven to 11-year-olds. I do not detect one word devoted to Christianity, its faith and its teaching. The buzz words are new life, aging, death, creations, light and dark, growth, wind, fire, water and eggs. A junior school in my constituency recently banned a local vicar from its religious education activities.
  I particularly welcome clause 224, which provides that a local authority must review its RE sylabus and bring it into line with the 1988 Act to make it mainly Christian. As the Secretary of State said, it is disappointing that two thirds of the LEAs have yet to revise their RE syllabus. I trust that the way in which the syllabus is applied in schools will be monitored stringently.
  In view of what I have described, I call for particular attention to be paid to the process to speed up and strengthen the parental complaints procedures. That must be done sensitively, and in some cases information must be accepted anonymously. Parents fear, in some cases rightly, that their children will be victimised at school. I know of parents and governors who were removed from school governing bodies when it became known that they had complained and made their feelings public.
  820
  I welcome the attention paid in the Bill to the spiritual and moral welfare of the children of this country. We cannot have academic study without moral study to go with it.
  8.38 pm
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I shall exercise self-discipline, although, having watched the antics of Government Front Benchers, led by the Secretary of State, the smart Alec of the third form, I know exactly where not to seek a good example.
  We have had numerous Secretaries of State and a multiplicity of Bills, directives and changes which have disrupted schools, burdened teachers and confused and frustrated parents. All the while, we have paid scant attention to the consumers of the service—children and young people.
  The Bill is yet another to be based on a White Paper which barely mentions school children and has little to say about quality education. That is where we are, because the Government are bent on disrupting and cajoling and on following blinkered and disruptive policies regardless of the damage that they will do to the education of our children. I shall deal briefly with whether the Bill tackles the problems of London and special educational needs.
  The Government persist in following the failed policies of opt-out. Parents and governors have consistently rejected the policy. Now they are to be bribed and browbeaten into accepting it. In four years, only 2 per cent. of schools in London have opted out. Clearly, the policy is unpopular and unwelcome, so why do the Government insist on persisting with it? Why do they not understand that they have nothing to offer but failed ideas? They are in an ideological straitjacket and simply cannot accept that governors and parents know their schools best and know the best interests of the pupils in them, which is to stay within the local education authority.
  On special educational needs, the policies to increase competition between schools and to introduce the marketplace into the classroom will marginalise children who need extra help and support and who will not feature at the top of league tables. The Bill proposes to establish guidance and criteria to determine the need for assessment of pupils' educational needs. I welcome the establishment of such objective criteria, but let us remember that only 2 per cent. of children have statements of their special educational needs, while one in five has a learning difficulty which requires extra support at some stage in their school life. There is no provision in the Bill for those children—nothing; just dogma.
  It was clear from the Secretary of State's remarks yesterday that he did not even understand the difference between special educational needs and statementing. What is particularly worrying is that the overemphasis on statementing will lead parents to believe that the only way that they will get extra support for their children is through a statement, which will lead to less funds for other areas of support and will undermine the opportunity for quality education for all those in need.
  I welcome the Government's stated support for integrating pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schooling. That will enshrine in legislation the existing good practice in Labour local authorities. For example, in Lewisham two and a half years ago less than 2 per cent. of the school population had statements and

  821
  there was a poor record of integration, with just 13 per cent. of pupils with statements in mainstream schools—the national average is about 37 per cent. Lewisham set itself a target of 50 per cent. of pupils with statements being educated in mainstream schools within five years. At present, 60 per cent. of statemented pupils in Lewisham attend mainstream schools. I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State congratulate Labour-controlled local authorities on their achievements in that respect.
  We have heard that the people who are most concerned for children with special educational needs are worried about the implications of the Bill. It is not clear who is responsible for what. Local education authorities have a duty to review their arrangements, but who oversees what is happening in grant-maintained schools? Who is responsible for ensuring that there is a range of provision locally? In grant-maintained schools, what will happen to pupils with special educational needs who do not have statements? The choice and diversity for such children and their parents are being thrown out of the window. Schools will choose pupils, rather than parents choosing schools, and we know which pupils they will choose. It will not be the youngsters with behavioural or emotional problems.
  Organisations for the disabled want the Secretary of State to consult further with them on funding, over and above the standard per capita amount, to meet the needs of children without statements. Will the Secretary of State guarantee tonight that he will discuss that with people who know what they are talking about? Even when pupils have a statement, grant-maintained schools can refuse them on the ground of non-compatibility with the efficient use of resources. What a get-out clause—so much for choice.
  What bothers me about this enormous Bill is its singular lack of provision for children under five. Everyone who knows anything about children with special educational needs knows that one can do more for them and can advance their abilities much faster if one begins as early as possible. Neither the White Paper nor the Bill deals with the statutory response to their needs. It focuses on the school system after the child reaches the age of five.
  One would have thought that, if one were determined to add to the 17 Acts in 13 years of Conservative government, one would at least have tackled an area where there is desperate need. The Secretary of State could have come up with a Bill that would provide nursery places for all three and four-year-olds whose parents wanted them. He could have made statutory provision for children under five with special educational needs; instead, he chose to ignore the clamour for nursery education, to brush aside the needs of the most vulnerable children and to present a Bill that is filled with failed policies and failed ideas and that will inevitably fail our children.
  The Bill is based on huff and puff, but it blows away a real opportunity to be a "landmark" which—to quote the Secretary of State—
  "will endure well into the next century."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 627.]
  Not only are the educational needs of London children ignored, but so are their parents' views. During the rapid consultation period, there has been no change of mind, no taking on board what people involved in education have had to say and no acceptance of the views of people involved with children's welfare or concerned with quality education for every child, regardless of ability. There is
  822
  nothing—just dogma. The Bill is simply the White Paper renamed. It is wholly inadequate and an inappropriate foundation for education in the next century.
  London's education authorities have tried to do their best under enormous contraints. The new authorities have struggled to overcome the enormous disruption caused by the abolition of the Inner London education authority. They have worked with outer London boroughs to provide high quality education and to respond together to the continuing intervention of central Government. Yet they have improved standards by sharing good practice and expertise. The Bill seeks to undermine that partnership and the partnership that local authorities have built with parents, governors and teachers. The Bill is simply a dogmatic attack on local government by a Secretary of State who could not bring himself to mention children, students or pupils until his first Question Time was virtually over.
  Added to the volume of political change in the education service during the past decade, the Bill will prove a major and tragic setback to the development of excellence in education. It passes over the real problems of children with special educational needs and leaves grant-maintained schools to do as they please, with local authorities picking up the tab. Clearly, it is an attempt to establish not merely a two-tier education system but a three-tier system, in which those who are least able to articulate their needs will fall by the wayside.
  I hope that everyone on the Conservative Benches who seriously cares about quality education for children will join us to oppose a damaging, disgraceful and dangerous Bill.
  8.47 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: In education, the key is quality and the essence of the Bill is increasing quality. In Committee, the House should consider the use of the Office for Standards in Education to assess quality in grant-maintained and local education authority schools. While discussing quality, I must praise teachers, who are conscientious, dedicated and professional and who often work long hours. They hold the key to the success of the individual and to our success as a nation. The Bill gives teachers the tools to do their job properly.
  Special education is often discussed at the end of a debate, as an afterthought, but it has been prominent during this debate. The Secretary of State has drawn our attention to the considerable programme aimed at integrating special needs children into mainstream schools. Much as that can be welcomed, some children can do better in the protected and caring environment of a special school. Therefore, as the Bill allows, special schools should be encouraged to opt in to self-governing status so that they can secure benefits for their children as well.
  I also believe that parents generally know best which school is right for their child. I therefore welcome clause 8, which will force a nominated school, grant-maintained or LEA, to take a statemented child.
  As the Secretary of State, who I am pleased to see is here tonight, knows, I represent Castle Point, which itself represents a milestone in the development of education in this country, because Castle Point will be the first constituency in which 100 per cent. of secondary phase schools have self-governing status. Many of our local primary schools are also opting in to self-governing status.

  823
  Benfleet votes next Monday. This clearly shows that the people of Castle Point are discerning people; they are an educated crew who care deeply for their children. These are the real Essex men and Essex women.
  Castle Point schools do not go for GM because of money. They have told me quite unambiguously that they take grant-maintained status because it enables them to enjoy better management control of their schools for the benefit of their children and of our local community.
  It is also widely acknowledged in Castle Point that this Bill will increase local accountability, not erode it. What could be more accountable and democratic than annually elected boards of governors, comprising parents, local people and teachers, all with one thing in common—an overwhelming vested interest, that of their children?
  Self-governing status is not the pursuit of some novel ideology, as the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said yesterday. It is the pursuit of the common-sense practical means of improving quality, choice and diversity, and of increasing real local democracy.
  I come now to the Funding Agency for Schools. We in Castle Point are keen to learn how this will work and how the formula will be constructed. Consultation on the common funding formula should begin at the earliest possible moment, therefore, so that the formula and the mechanisms can be fixed, and we can make decisions and plan ahead with more certainty.
  In Essex, the LMS formula is wrong and causes underfunding of primary schools. Essex LEA accepts this fact. It has put extra money into primary schools this year, but the problem has not yet been totally resolved, notwithstanding my continued pressure. I am hoping that the common funding formula will be better balanced than was Essex's formula as between the primary and secondary age-weighted pupil units. I also hope that the common funding formula will be based on SSAs in a rational way, because Essex spends £23 million below its SSA on education. I trust, therefore, that Essex education and Essex primary schools will benefit directly from this Bill. That is why this Bill is liked in Essex.
  I must stress that, notwithstanding the underspending in Essex, its results are well above average. We achieve well above the average level of graded GCSE passes. This speaks volumes for the quality of the LEA in Essex, the quality of the teachers and the governors in Essex and the quality of the parents, all of them Essex men and women.
  I want to consider carefully clause 7(4) of the Bill. Perhaps the 75 per cent. for funding agency trigger is a little high; 51 per cent. might have some advantages—I do not know. The pros and cons will need to be weighed very carefully in Committee.
  I shall also be keen to watch carefully the development of the funding agency. It must not become a massive replacement bureaucracy for the old LEA. I know that the Secretary of State agrees with me on this.
  That brings me to strategic planning. The LEAs have failed miserably; they do not do this effectively. I welcome the powers given the Bill to reduce vacant places from 1·5 million to about 750,000, which is the maximum we need to support choice and normal turnover. I want these powers to be used with rapier-like speed, to remove the
  824
  dead space and return that money, which I estimate to be about £150 million, to the education of our children. That is simple common sense.
  I can illustrate for the House how poor LEAs are at strategic planning by reference to further education in Castle Point. The 1991 staying-on rate for all Essex schools was 65 per cent. The staying-on rate for Castle Point schools—my constituency, but just the mainland part—was 67 per cent. Yet the schoolchildren of my 40,000 Canvey Island residents were able to get a rate of only 49 per cent.—shamefully low. In past years, the difference has been much worse, with Canvey totally let down by the Essex LEA.
  Essex LEA does not provide one place for further education on the whole of Canvey Island, even though on that island there is a 16-to-18 cohort of well above 1,000 youths. Young people on that island are robbed of the opportunity for further education, or made to jump through hoops to get it.
  At the same time, the LEA in Essex has maintained many empty places in Castle Point secondary schools—wasted assets, wasted money, wasted opportunities. I will take no lectures from any hon. Members on the need to retain strategic planning in the LEAs. That would be simply a sick joke for my constituents. We have on the mainland only one further education establishment. I therefore welcome the powers in the Bill which enable the Secretary of State to allow some of our excellent secondary schools to change their character and to provide totally independent, self-managed sixth-form further education opportunities. That is what we need; that is what we will get, sooner rather than later.
  I should also like the Secretary of State to use his powers to give specialised status to a secondary school on Canvey Island to use the schools technology initiative to give Canvey Island its first further education places, and to redress the scandalous failure of the LEA in strategic planning.
  I welcome the provision in clause 224 with regard to the religious education syllabus in the 1988 Act. I welcome, too, the speech just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).
  I welcome the creation of education associations to identify failing schools. I want them to be staffed with experienced people with a balance of skills that must include chalkface experience. Clause 194 should clarify that matter. I want clause 227 and schedule 14 to clarify how we will prevent the unacceptable indefinite exclusions of difficult pupils. More details should be given about how we can deal with a disruptive child.
  I want a system in which every child and every school has equality of opportunity, free from political manipulation, so that each can succeed by their own efforts. That is why I came into politics; that is why I stand in this House, and perhaps this is the point at which I should sit down.
  8.58 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I should like to take up what the Secretary of State said about choice and diversity.
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that, for some parents, choice has been available since local government reorganisation in 1974. In my constituency, there are five secondary schools, and when my eldest children were choosing their secondary schools in 1976

  825
  and 1978, under a Labour Government, we could exercise a preference for any of those schools and for two or three others immediately outside the constituency. There were no practical constraints on choice, except the number of places available and the popularity of the schools. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about choice, it is difficult to know how choice of school could be increased for parents in my area. I suspect that he means that he will create artificial divisions and differences to make it more likely that parents will want to reject their local school.
  The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about diversity and specialisation; by that we assume that some schools will be encouraged to specialise in certain subjects, perhaps technology or music, as the national curriculum allows, of course. A parent with two children might want to send one to a school specialising in technology and one to a school specialising in music, but she might find that those schools were 30 miles apart, at opposite ends of the county. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a sensible method of arranging things?
  I want all schools to be able to accommodate their teaching methods and their specialties to the children within them. That is what the business world calls "customer orientation" and what the education world calls "child-centred learning". Most parents want to be able to send their children to the local state school, and they want to be guaranteed a quality education that is flexible to them and their needs, can accommodate their children's difficulties and encourage their children's talents. Parents want that school to liaise effectively with them.
  The right hon. Gentleman should also consider the logic of trying to create different kinds of schools. We are beginning to integrate the vast majority of children with special educational needs into ordinary mainstream schools— I understand that that is still Government policy. In other words, special schools are gradually being phased out. In that case, why are we trying to create another kind of special school for those with difference aptitudes? Are we saying that our maintstream schools can cope with children with physical, learning and behaviourial disabilities, but that they cannot provide the right sort of environment for those with another kind of special need? That is an illogical and poorly thought out policy.
  Even the schools in the Prime Minister's constituency are not succumbing to grant-maintained status. Hinchingbrooke school in Huntingdon has a Prime Minister as its Member of Parliament, and the Education Minister, Baroness Blatch, is a former chairman of its governors. The governors of that school, however, have decided against even asking parents to vote on opting out. Evidently they were not convinced that opting out would raise standards, and the head was quoted as saying: "I think there was a feeling that there is a lot wrong in principle with opting out."
  I ask hon. Members to reject the Bill. Let us tackle the real issue in education by looking at the evidence and the facts. There is no evidence that creating diversity either through specialisation, selectivity or by changing the status of a school will do anything to raise standards. However, there is a great deal of evidence that much can be done by raising teachers' morale, increasing resources and stopping the experiments with our children's lives.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: I have listened with interest to many of the speeches, particularly, to that of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) who asked what progress had been made under this Government. Is he not aware that a record number of pupils are staying on at school? Is he not aware that a record number of pupils are going into higher education? It is a bit rum for a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team to talk about progress when, in an act of mean-minded reactionary vandalism, they wanted to destroy grammar schools, city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools.
  I disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), because we must recognise that we live in a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society. It is wrong that a system of religious education should be angled at one part of our community. If we do not have a system whereby Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and the vast majority of the Jewish community can go to voluntary aided schools, religious education in the state system must take account of that fact. Those religions have a positive contribution to make and I do not think that we want a WASP-dominated religious education system today.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I was trying to say that the vast majority of people in this country owe an allegiance to Christianity. I was not in any way trying to denigrate minority faiths.
  Mr. Marshall: I suspect that the members of the minority faiths attend places of worship at the weekend. The majority probably stay at home, so the "don't knows" are no doubt in the ascendancy in this public opinion poll.
  I am taking part in the debate for three reasons. The first is that year after year Barnet has the best education results of any local authority. We are told a great deal by Labour Members about the level of public expenditure on education. Frankly, parents do not worry so much about the level of expenditure as about whether their children will get to university at the end of their period of schooling.
  Labour Members have the nerve to talk about the demise of the ILEA, that high-cost, low-result education authority which put socialism before results. Nobody should complain about the demise of that incompetent organisation. Barnet council is a thousand times more efficient, achieving far better results, than the ILEA ever was.
  My second reason for taking part is that Hendon school was the first in London to opt out of local authority control. I remember the consultation meetings. As a good constituency hon. Member, I chaired the meetings to ensure that there was fair play. Events have belied the fears of the opponents of opting out, who claimed that there would be huge administrative difficulties. In fact, the system of LMS means that the school, whether or not it has opted out, is automatically responsible for the vast bulk of its budget.
  It is a short step from LMS to becoming grant-maintained. It may be a short administrative step, but it is a gigantic leap for the future of the school. For example, Hendon school was able to redistribute resources away from the centralised local authority services towards improvements in education. In the first year of Hendon

  827
  becoming a GM school, the headmaster was able to give the teachers everything they wanted by way of books, teaching aids and so on.
  He was able to improve the quality of life for the teachers by employing outside invigilators for school exams, so that the teachers did not have to sit there being bored for a couple of hours or so invigilating the pupils. The headmaster was also able to improve the quality of school lunches by getting Gardner Merchant Services, instead of the local authority, to run them. Let us not forget that an army of schoolchildren marches on its stomach.
  The real test for a school does not depend on what we politicians say, because we sometimes get it wrong. Teachers and parents decide whether a school is good or bad. I recall an experience when my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), now the Secretary of State for Transport, visited the school in 1990. A teacher told my right hon. Friend, "I am a member of the Labour party." I wondered what he would say next and I thought a gigantic political debate was about to start. But he added, "The best thing that happened to this school was when it became grant-maintained." When I accompanied Lady Thatcher around the school during the election campaign, that same teacher wanted only a signed photograph of that distinguished lady.
  The real test must be the numbers applying to the school. In 1987–88, Hendon was a heavily under-subscribed school. Today it is heavily over-subscribed. If the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) were still in her place, I would remind her that 50 per cent. more pupils now apply to go to that school than applied to attend it when it was within the local authority system.
  The third reason why I am taking part in the debate is that my two sons are educated in the maintained system. I emulate the Minister and make a small confession. I, too, have lectured to a branch of the Workers Educational Association. I found most of those present to be middle-class, middle-aged and middle-brow in their interests. Nor were they any longer supportive of the Labour party.
  I pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of the vast majority of teachers. We do the profession a disservice when we dwell on the small minority who are not truly professional, because they are not typical of the vast majority of teachers.
  Will my right hon. friend the Secretary of State turn his attention to voluntary-aided schools? Since the passage of the Education Act 1944, such schools have been a great success. They have met the desire of many Catholic and Anglican parents for their children to be taught in denominational schools. There are also a number of Jewish voluntary-aided schools. All those schools have good academic and behavioural results. Schools that emphasise standards of behaviour always tend to have good academic results and those that are very academic usually have relatively well-behaved children.
  A majority of Catholic children who want to be educated in a voluntary-aided denominational school can be so educated. The vast majority of Anglican children who want to be educated in a voluntary-aided Church of England school can be so educated. Many of those who go to the C of E school in my constituency would not be
  828
  classified as believers in the Christian faith. Indeed, some of them have not darkened the doors of a church for many years and some come from other denominations.
  My orthodox Jewish constituents welcome the fact that Catholic schools exist for Catholic children and Anglican children can be educated in Anglican schools. But they ask why, as they pay their taxes too, their children cannot be educated in voluntary-aided Jewish schools on the same basis.
  The Government need to look closely at the problems for other denominations, as well as at those of the two main denominations that have benefited from voluntary-aided status. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools look again at the problem of the Hasmonean preparatory school, about which I have peppered them and their predecessors with letters? Until they change their mind, I will continue to pepper them with correspondence. It might save public expenditure if we called it game, set and match to the parents and staff of that school, because it has been in existence for 50 years and has very good results. They have spent a lot of money on modernising it and bringing it up to date, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will recognise their achievements in the not-too-distant future.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Yesterday afternoon, we heard one of the most lamentable performances that the House has ever heard from a Secretary of State for Education. It contained no substance, no serious analysis, no creative thoughts and no attempt to grapple with the real and serious issues that face Britain today as, educationally, and sadly, we fall further down the European league of achievement and standards.
  Instead, we saw a Secretary of State who was more preoccupied with his appearance—the master of the blow wave and Thespian histrionics. We saw a Secretary of State delighted with himself, denouncing Labour authorities for supposedly indulging in political interference in discussing the future of their schools. What a pity that he had not first had a word with his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) rightly pointed out, the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) had been engaged in an exercise of arm-twisting of a voluntary-aided school in Fulham—[Interruption.] I shall tell hon. Members some more if they will listen. That school had applied, reasonably and rightly, to expand from two to three forms of entry because it is a popular, successful school and has a huge demand for places. The hon. Member for Fulham intervened to try to persuade the school that it would have a prospect of success only if it went grant-maintained.
  His approach produced the following response from the four groups of people most likely to know the interests of that school and its educational needs. I am talking about the chairman of the governors, the chair of the staff association, the chair of the parents' association and the head teacher, who in a combined letter wrote as follows —and the Secretary of State would do well to listen—
  "as the signatories of this letter show, there is deep and widespread concern at the news that our application to become"—
  Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the Second Reading of the Education Bill. Can you say whether this intervention is in order and has any relevance to the subject of the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I would have called the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) to order if he had been out of order. There are, after all, 200 pages in the Bill. The speech has so far been in order.
  Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The letter says:
  "as the signatories of this letter show, there is deep and widespread concern at the news that our application to become a three-form entry school will not be dealt with on its merits and in particular the strong educational case and uniquely high rate of overscription, but may be dependent on whether we are prepared to choose Grant Maintained Status at this point. Indeed, it seemed to us, that you were saying that the application might be refused precisely in order to encourage us to become a Grant Maintained school … If the Government really want schools to exercise a free and informed choice whether to become Grant Maintained, is it not counter-productive to resort to what has all the appearance of 'blackmail' to achieve that purpose?"
  The Secretary of State was evasive when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury to say whether that and similar applications would be treated on their merits on a level playing field, or whether other political influences would be brought to bear. The House deserves an answer tonight, but, above all, the governors, parents and teachers of that school deserve an answer, as do other schools interested in similar applications, on whether the applications will be entitled to consideration on their merits or whether political bias on the Government side will influence the decision. If we do not get a straight answer that confirms that any such application will be treated on its merits, the Government will stand condemned of the most blatant hypocrisy, criticising others for political interference while practising it themselves in the most flagrant way.
  The fact that the Government have to resort to such tactics speaks volumes. So much for the much-vaunted success of the grant-maintained initiative. The truth, which was well presented by many of my hon. Friends in the debate, is that surprisingly few schools have taken up the grant-maintained option, despite all the hype, all the encouragement and all the incentives which the Government have offered.
  Let us take the figures for London. They show that a total of 54 primary and secondary schools have been given approval to opt out. That is an average of 1·6 schools per borough. When we examine the breakdown, we see that five boroughs, all Tory-controlled, account for no fewer than 38 of those 54 opt-outs; that is 70 per cent. of the total. Bromley with 11 heads the list; Hillingdon with 10 is next; Ealing with seven and Sutton and Wandsworth with five each complete the list.
  There is clear evidence that, by contrast with those five Tory authorities, which dominate the opt-outs in London, no Labour-controlled authority in London had more than one school opting out, and many, like Greenwich, had no opt-outs at all.
  Talking as I do to the head teachers, staff and parents of children in Greenwich schools, I am well aware of the concerns and priorities. They are totally at variance with the priorities of the Bill. Greenwich parents and teachers
  830
  want their schools to be properly resourced and they want also a reversal of the cuts which have seriously affected many schools in the last two years, with the withdrawal of the transitional funding around the abolition of the Inner London education authority and the unfair treatment of Greenwich under the standard spending assessment formula.
  They, like me, want the many very good schools in Greenwich to be able to provide the high-quality education that they aspire to provide for their pupils. They want resources, stability and freedom from the political interference which has characterised the Government's behaviour over the past 13 years, so that they can then deliver what they are in education to deliver. They want to give high-quality education to the children of our area and country who deserve far better than they are getting from this Government.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: This has been a lively debate. Over the past two days, it has exposed this sham of the Bill. It is an admission by the Government of 13 years of failure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) so eloquently pointed out.
  The Bill has nothing to do with improving standards in education. The only clear benefits in it are some of the provisions for improving education for children with special needs, but even they contain some shortcomings that must be ovecome.
  Like all the other education legislation proposed by the Government, the Bill puts the cart before the horse. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) gave the game away. The Opposition had been berating the Government over the short consultation period and the lack of attention paid to that consultation, as evidenced by changes in the Bill which the Government have described in a press release as some refinements to 200 pages of legislation. The hon. Gentleman said that the Committee stage would be protracted, so the opportunity for consultation would continue. We certainly hope so, but why could we not have proper consultation first, followed by a Bill? Then the Government would not have had to announce amendments to the Bill even before Second Reading.
  The Times Educational Supplement summed up the disappointment felt by almost everyone in education, apart from a tightly knit group of Conservative Members:
  "There is now little support for the advance publicity claiming that a definitive Act to see out the century was in the making."
  The editorial went on to expose the failings of the Bill and the criticisms levelled at it from every quarter.
  The experts are also worried about what does not appear in the Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) underlined the serious shortcomings in the Bill in respect of children with and without statements.
  The Special Education Consortium, which represents just about every voluntary organisation—RADAR, Mencap, the Spastics Society, the British Dyslexia Association, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and Deaf Accord—speaks of the potentially damaging implications for the education of children with special needs, especially those who are not statemented. It speaks

  831
  of the fears about parental choice and of the evidence that education is already being damaged. It says that, because of the pressures on local authority budgets, after delegating money to schools, they are already beginning to lose some of the excellent people involved in the support services for special needs education. The list is damning. Only statemented pupils will have certain resources to support them, and it is feared that non-statemented children with special needs will not be properly recognised throughout the system. Only some local authorities, such as Lewisham, have the good sense to make the effort to prevent that.
  The many criticisms made by the voluntary organisations involved with children with special needs show that the Bill will have to be much amended if it is to be made half decent for those children who deserve special help across the board.
  Much has been said about the wonders that the funding agency will achieve for schools that opt out. My hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Warrington, South and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) have all said that the funding agency, whatever name it has, will not be local, accountable or democratic. Even with a regional set-up, parents who wish to express concern will have to travel a long way in order to do so and will not be able to remove the agency if they are dissatisfied with its performance.
  We must ask whether that national unaccountable bureaucracy is likely to suffer the unwarranted interference of the Secretary of State as, for example, the National Curriculum Council has in the past. There is concern from all quarters about the removal of local accountability and from all quarters there is fear that the arrangements for joint responsibility, for the provision of places to be decided between the local education authority and the funding agency, will be a recipe for chaos and a duplication of powers.
  Criticism has also come from the Conservative quarter. The Conservative Education Association has said:
  "Those who spend that sort of public money should be publicly accountable."
  It has also said that the funding agency is a
  "far larger, more bureaucratic and less accountable national education authority."
  Even the chair of the Grant-Maintained Heads Association, Mr. Lloyd, has expressed real fears that that bureaucracy will endanger the so-called newly won freedoms—out of the LEA frying pan and into the funding agency fire. The funding agency will not be accessible in the way that the LEAs, the staff and councillors were. The sooner the Government—
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Griffith: If the hon. Gentleman had been here throughout today's debate, I would have given him that courtesy, but he has not been here.
  The funding agency will not be accountable and the sooner we can return to funding being channelled through local authorities, the better.
  The Bill attempts to make opt-outs easier. The removal of the second governor's resolution will make the procedure easier. However, it is unlikely that we shall see
  832
  the opting out of 11,000 or 12,000 schools as was talked about in the early days of grant-maintained status. My hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley, South, for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall), for Wallsend and for Warrington, South showed that opting out is already a failure. There is no substantial evidence that such schools provide any better education than the large bulk of maintained schools.
  Far too many schools have been given grant-maintained status because they have been faced with closure. Two thirds of ballots have taken place in Tory authorities; parents have sought to escape their low-spending policies, or their attempts to reintroduce selection in, for instance, Wandsworth and Trafford.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid not. The hon. Gentleman has been absent from the Chamber for most of the evening.
  Both the CBI and the Institute of Directors have expressed doubts about the validity of the Government's support for, and belief in, grant-maintained schools. The CBI wants to ensure that their efficacy and effectiveness is reviewed within three to four years. The Institute of Directors plainly says that it cannot be assumed that all grant-maintained schools are performing well.
  The headmaster of Queen Elizabeth high school in Hexham exposed what opt-outs were all about when he said that opting out was a pretty squalid scheme, which for the most part ensured that scarce resources went to those who needed them least. The Conservative Education Association has also expressed concern, saying that, if the grant-maintained system developed, the system would restrict choice rather than increase it. The Government's emphasis on grant-maintained schools is something about which the association has grave doubts.
  As for the issue of choice, we should bear in mind the horrendous impact on parents in Bromley, who, last summer, did not know where their children were going until a week or two before term started. Some of those parents were not even able to send their children to the school that they had named as their fifth choice. In that context, choice is a hollow concept. Labour will get rid of the funding council and will ensure that the performance of grant-maintained schools and the coherent provision of education for all children in LEA areas are examined. Our objective will be to recreate the educational planning role of the LEA and the self-management role of schools. Successful management models can be seen in both Labour and Tory authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West quoted the Conservative chairman of the West Sussex authority. I should like to quote the chairman of the East Essex authority—[Interruption.] I apologise: I meant East Sussex. At least I know that they are both on the south coast. I have done better than the Secretary of State did yesterday in connection with the whereabouts of Gwent and Torfaen. The chair of the East Sussex education committee said:
  "We haven't been physically leaned on, but I sense there is pressure. The whole idea of a Tory-controlled authority which doesn't have a grant-maintained school is a disappointment to ministers. But I don't understand why that should be if that authority has high standards and is giving schools the chance to make local decisions."
  It is perfectly possible.
  Hardly a good word has been said by any independent source about the education association. It has been

  833
  pointed out by the Children's Legal Centre, and by many others who have blitzed us with griefs on the Bill, that there is already a way of dealing with the problem of schools that fail or have a high proportion of difficult children—namely, full implementation of the Elton report. Some authorities are doing that already; it is a pity that the Secretary of State does not take his educational responsibilities seriously and ensure that all authorities implement the report. If he did that, there would be no need for education associations.
  The Conservative Education Association, in its comments on that idea, said that support was best given firmly and discreetly. The association regards education associations as precisely the sort of ideologically bound policy that should be avoided. It went on to say that it regarded this as an unwarranted extension of central Government power, capable of abuse in the future. It would be more helpful if the Elton recommendations were properly introduced, and a formal and effective complaints procedure, so that all schools could act effectively. The Conservative Education Association also said that the Bill and the White Paper that preceded it have left teachers punch drunk with change and that the last thing they need is more change that is driven by ideology rather than educational need.
  If the Government were interested in educational need and good quality education everywhere, they would long ago have abandoned this continual tinkering with the education of pupils in England and Wales. They would have sought real consultation. They ought by now to know that parents want good quality neighbourhood schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge so rightly pointed out. Parents do not want to have to rush far and wide throughout the local authority's area, or outside it, looking for good schools. They want them on their doorsteps. The Secretary of State for Education should ensure that grant-maintained schools provide high quality education.
  The Opposition would have been prepared to enter into real consultations in order to achieve a proper consensus on how to provide good quality education for all our children. Unfortunately, the Government, in the 17 Bills that they have introduced, have failed to provide for adequate consultation. After the Government introduced their last huge Bill on education, they had to table nearly 600 amendments in the other place to try to put right their first thoughts. They presented this Bill as an even greater Bill than the great Education Reform Bill. I would not mind betting that even more amendments will be tabled by the Government in order to put right the rush to judgment that they have made in this Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth says that it is part of the consultation. Why on earth could the Government not consult in the first place and then prepare a good Bill, instead of wasting paper, acres of trees, on amendments that then would have been unnecessary?
  The Bill is not about choice in education. It is about creating quangos, with Tory placepeople being appointed to positions of influence, thereby being able unduly to influence the education of our children. The Secretary of State already has the power to appoint hundreds of people to quangos in Wales. If a funding council is established for Wales and if a large number of education associations is established in Wales, the strong possibility is that there will be more jobs to fill than there are Tory voters in the whole of the Principality. The Welsh Office should give some
  834
  thought to the fact that, if it is not careful, it will have to appoint Labour supporters to fill those positions. If it did that, some common sense would prevail in education.
  I look forward to the Committee stage because it will offer an opportunity to correct the myriad of mistakes that the Government have perpetrated in their hasty consultation period. They have already admitted that they need to table amendments because the Bill simply is a failure. The Government can rest assured that we shall table amendments to ensure quality education for all children in England and Wales, delivered through a democratic system, which the Bill seeks to destroy.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): The two-day debate on this important and major Bill has been characterised by the concerns of Conservative Members for the themes of quality and standards, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), parental choice, which was rightly emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and constant and knowledgeable references to special educational needs needs by my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) and for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), to mention but a few.
  Those were the themes which came through strongly from Conservative Members. Unfortunately, the themes of Opposition Members were, sadly but predictably, driven by concerns for producer interests—local authority bureaucracies and trade unions—and were embedded firmly in the past. Rarely have I seen such a contrast in attitude, content and approach between Conservative Members and the deadbeats on the other side of the House.
  It is little wonder that the Bill and the White Paper have been so widely welcomed. The speeches of Opposition Members marginalised the Opposition in the debate on education and its future.
  In a speech devoid of direction or content, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) made the rather ritualistic claim, which was echoed by the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), that the consultation period had been abbreviated or inadequate. That is puzzling. When we were returned after the election in April, the Department was faced with the imperative to set a legal framework for the growing grant-maintained school sector. That could not be delayed or avoided, and we did not want to do so. We wanted to make real improvements to the Education Act 1981 and to special educational needs, which was widely welcomed by the special educational needs world. We wanted to take real action against local education authorities that had persistently failed to address failing schools and the pupils suffering in them.
  We therefore published a comprehensive and radical White Paper in record time—by the end of July—and allowed until September for responses. I do not know whether it is unreasonable to expect people, given the whole of August and most of September, to reply to such a document. Suffice it to say that, although Opposition Members were probably safely on the beach, we received nearly 1,000 replies from local authority associations and local authorities, the Churches, the special educational

  835
  needs lobby and all those sufficiently interested in education to consider and to reply to the White Paper. Why Opposition Members believe that it was so difficult and impossible is beyond me. They will have to answer for that, but it hardly supports their contention that the consultation period was inadequate.
  We are determined, having laid this excellent and comprehensive Bill before the House, to press on with the Committee stage to ensure that the Bill's provisions are enacted as early as possible so that its benefits can be spread as far as possible.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister described the Bill as excellent and comprehensive. Does that mean that there will be but a few Government amendments to it?
  Mr. Forth: I cannot possibly anticipate the Committee stage or subsequent stages of the Bill's consideration. As ever, the Government will be a listening Government. My Secretary of State and I will listen carefully—more carefully than the Opposition—to representations made to us and, if we think that there is a good case for amending the Bill, I am sure that we shall be prepared to do so. That is the essence of the process. Why the hon. Gentleman should find this so amusing, I cannot possibly understand; perhaps he will explain why he finds the concept of listening and flexibility so strange.
  I want to deal immediately with a question that arose frequently during the debate. It was raised first by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), in his own individual style, then by my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who wondered whether education authorities were deliberately misleading parents and governors of schools concerning the possibilities that surround grant-maintained status. Disgraceful material has been produced by many local education authorities: I mention Merton and Hammersmith and Fulham among many authorities that have sought deliberately to mislead parents who are interested in the possibility of grant-maintained status for their schools.
  I cannot do better than to quote a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dated 9 November:
  "I have written to all schools in the country with the very specific assurance that schools accepted for GM status will continue to receive funding that recognises the extra responsibilities they have as GM schools. I make no caveat in the case of authorities spending above their education SSA."
  There it is: it is perfectly clear. My right hon. Friend has made that commitment and I hope that my hon. Friends will go to their schools and local education authorities and make it perfectly clear that the way ahead for grant-maintained status is clear and firm, and that no local education authority must be allowed to peddle the dishonesty that has been peddled in the past. That does no credit to councillors or officials in local education authorities.
  Dr. Tony Wright: Will the Minister say more about this important point, which lay at the heart of all of the responses to the consultation exercise? All those who responded asked whether there would really be an absolutely level playing field as between grant-maintained schools and those maintained by local
  836
  education authorities. Will there be absolute even-handedness and absolute parity? Is the answer yes or no? This is a Second Reading debate, and that matter is a key principle. Now is the moment for the Minister to tell us.
  Mr. Forth: There can never be a level playing field between grant-maintained schools and local education authority maintained schools, because grant-maintained status gives such clear benefits and advantages.
  That brings me to what I would categorise as the Opposition's schizophrenia. It was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) with his usual unerring accuracy.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Forth: I shall certainly not give way after the intervention made by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright).
  On the one hand, Opposition Members seem to exhibit paranoia about what they regard as the threat posed to the establishment and vested interests of local education authorities by the growing grant-maintained sector. Yet, almost in the same breath, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said that, as more schools opt out, the LEAs will lose powers to the funding agency and will eventually be relieved of all their functions. In almost the next breath he said that opting out had been an embarrassing flop. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. Either LEAs are under imminent threat of subversion by the growing grant-maintained sector, or grant-maintained status is a flop. Which is it? We have heard that contradictory message from Opposition Members throughout the debate.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham said that schools opted out only in LEAs with under-funded schools. I can tell him and the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), who tried to peddle the same nonsense, that a cursory look at the list of LEAs spending above SSA and which have a significant number of grant-maintained schools reveals authorities like Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Dorset, Gloucestershire and Hertfordshire. I will not continue with the list. However, having failed to do their homework properly as usual, Opposition Members have asserted that only schools from under-funded LEAs are opting for grant-maintained status and that is wrong.
  Mr. Byers rose—
  Mr. Forth: Because he is bobbing up and down, the hon. Member for Wallsend reminds me that he said that the Government's education policy was Maoist. All I can say to him is, "It takes one to know one."
  Mr. Byers: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forth: No, not at this stage.
  My award for effrontery during the debate goes jointly to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) and for Cannock and Burntwood. The hon. Member for Yardley had the gall yesterday to claim that the problem with education in Birmingham was lack of resources. She referred to classes with more than 30 pupils and went on to say:
  "a work force of frustrated teachers who despair, year after year, at having to make diminishing resources go further and further."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 687.]

  837
  That is right. There are diminishing resources in Birmingham—an authority which in 1991–92 spent £64 million less and in 1992–93, £57 million less than was provided under the SSA. Of course it is a matter of diminishing resources in Birmingham. That is the kind of authority that we are trying to get schools out from under, and I am glad to say that we are doing that very rapidly.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forth: No, I will not give way because I am just warming up about Birmingham.
  While we are referring to Birmingham on education performance, I can do no better than quote The Birmingham Post of 6 November 1992 which stated that Birmingham was in the bottom third on this year's GCSE results with only a quarter passing five or more GCSEs at grades A to C, compared with 30 per cent. of average metropolitan LEA schools and a national figure of 38 per cent. The Birmingham Post states revealingly:
  "Education chiefs in Birmingham are to launch an inquiry into why some secondary schools did so badly in this year's GCSEs."
  That is the authority which the hon. Member for Yardley had the nerve to defend yesterday.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Is the Minister aware of the discrepancy in the capital financing of Birmingham city council compared with its actual expenditure? Will he also comment on the fact that the Conservative opposition have never proposed an increase in the education budget at the budget session? Not only that, but when council members such as myself proposed an increase in the budget, the Conservative opposition sat on their hands and did not support it.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady should have a word with her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) who just the other day said something along the lines of, "If Birmingham council had spent a lot less taxpayers' and chargepayers' money on prestige products, it might have been able to spend a bit more on education."
  In fairness to Opposition Members, they have repeatedly asserted or implied that there are some secretive grant-maintained schools that we have yet to unearth. They implied that there can be no positive demonstration that grant-maintained schools are superior to schools that remain under LEA control. I want to quote once more from a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as I find his letters most revealing and I want to share them with the House. My right hon. Friend said —I should like Opposition Members to listen to this:
  "HMI have observed not only that in GM schools the proportion of lessons judged satisfactory or better is greater than that in maintained schools generally, but also that since becoming grant-maintained the schools have generally deployed their resources to good effect so as to secure continuing improvements; that the demand for places in the majority of schools has increased since the change of status; that pupils' behaviour and attendance in GM schools are generally commendable; and that teachers' morale has improved."
  That is what HMI says about grant-maintained schools. That is the hidden secret that Opposition Members are so keen to unearth. It is now a matter of public record.
  During the debate Opposition Members have claimed that somehow there is a golden partnership between LEAs and schools that we must not seek to undermine. I wonder whether they were referring to Islington, where recently we
  838
  were told that £60,000 has been paid to teachers who no longer work in Islington schools. That happened at a time when the LEA in Islington, presumably as part of its partnership with its schools, had to cut £4 million from its education budget.
  Perhaps Opposition Members had Lambeth in mind. The LEA in Lambeth has paid more than £338,000 to 72 phantom teachers who no longer work for the council. Is that what Opposition Members have in mind when they talk about partnerships? Are they surprised that more parents begin to ask searching questions about what LEAs do, especially those that I have mentioned, and why the option of grant-maintained status is not more attractive to them?
  I shall mention briefly a point made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. I shall trespass slightly on to Welsh territory, but as so many hon. Members who spoke come from Wales, I should nod in their direction. I shall read a brief excerpt from the Western Mail—that Welsh bible—which recently said:
  "The message from Whitehall is that parents should be able to send their children to the school of their choice, shopping round for the one which best meets the requirement of the child. The message from Wales's eight education authorities is, by and large, the negation of that. You send your child to the nearest school, and that's that … Hitherto, opting out has not taken off in Wales. But the current anti-choice culture in Welsh education means that parents and head-teachers will increasingly regard it as a way of liberating their schools from the inflexible grip of county hall. If the counties don't change their ways it could become a stampede."
  That sums up better than I could the ethos of what is happening in Wales.
  In conclusion, I refer to the quotes from The Times which has been mentioned several times in the debate. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Caerphilly and the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), quoted from The Times in July when our White Paper was produced. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly was pushed and invited to examine The Times more recent considered opinion, a certain coyness came over him. Having given time and thought to our White Paper and Bill, The Times recently said:
  "The government deserves congratulation for its attempt yesterday to dislodge the vested interests that control the state schools system"—
  and Opposition Members.
  "Instead it will be accused of excessive centralisation and worse."
  On my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, The Times said
  "Mr. Patten seems sincerely committed to the idea of improving education for the majority of children. Further, he seems to interpret this to mean what most parents understand by it: restoring the importance of knowledge and visible achievement."
  Even my right hon. Friend could not have put it better.
  The Government want quality education for all children. We want choice for parents and decisions made as closely as possible to schools and communities. The Bill provides for that with additional important provisions for children with special educational needs—a matter widely recognised.
  Opposition Members apparently cannot support those aims. They are in thrall to producer interests, the local authorities, trade unions and any group which feels threatened by changed parental powers and the greater demands of higher standards. We are proud of the Bill, we

  839
  can see the way ahead and we trust parents and governors. I ask the House to reject the educational Luddites on the Opposition Benches and to support the Bill.
  Question put. That the Bill be now read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 268.

  Division No. 84]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Alexander, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Day, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Amess, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Dover, Den

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkins, Robert

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bates, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Faber, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forman, Nigel

  Body, Sir Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Booth, Hartley

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  French, Douglas

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fry, Peter

  Bowis, John

  Gale, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gallie, Phil

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gill, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Burns, Simon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorst, John

  Butler, Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Hague, William

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  (Epsom-Ewell)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clappison, James

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coe, Sebastian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Congdon, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Conway, Derek

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cran, James

  Hendry, Charles

  840

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Richards, Rod

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Riddick, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shersby, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Luff, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spring, Richard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sproat, Iain

  MacKay, Andrew

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Streeter, Gary

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Malone, Gerald

  Sykes, John

  Mans, Keith

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Merchant, Piers

  Thurnham, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mills, Iain

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Trend, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Viggers, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walden, George

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ward, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Norris, Steve

  Watts, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wells, Bowen

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Page, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Paice, James

  Widdecombe, Ann

  841

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Ayes

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wood, Timothy

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dewar, Donald

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dixon, Don

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobson, Frank

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Alton, David

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashton, Joe

  Enright, Derek

  Austin-Walker, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Battle, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bayley, Hugh

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fisher, Mark

  Bell, Stuart

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Benton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Betts, Clive

  Galbraith, Sam

  Blair, Tony

  Galloway, George

  Blunkett, David

  Garrett, John

  Boateng, Paul

  George, Bruce

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Boyes, Roland

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bradley, Keith

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

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

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Burden, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Byers, Stephen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hanson, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hardy, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate

  Connarty, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

  Ingram, Adam

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  842

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Alan

  Prescott, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Radice, Giles

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Randall, Stuart

  Leighton, Ron

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Reid, Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Litherland, Robert

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rogers, Allan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooker, Jeff

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rooney, Terry

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAllion, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salmond, Alex

  McCartney, Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKelvey, William

  Short, Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan

  McLeish, Henry

  Skinner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  Madden, Max

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

  Mahon, Alice

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Snape, Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Spellar, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Maxton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meacher, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Meale, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Michael, Alun

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Milburn, Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Miller, Andrew

  Turner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Tyler, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Vaz, Keith

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morley, Elliot

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Warded, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Watson, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Winnick, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Hara, Edward

  Worthington, Tony

  Olner, William

  Wray, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Parry, Robert

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Noes

  Pickthall, Colin

  Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

  Pike, Peter L.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  EDUCATION BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State—

  843

  (a) for making grants to the following bodies established under the Act, that is, the Funding Agency for Schools, the Schools Funding Council for Wales and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority,

  (b) for paying remuneration, allowances and other expenses in respect of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, or any education association, established under the Act,

  (c) for making payments in respect of expenses incurred in connection with the acquisition by any school of grant-maintained status,

  (d) for making grants to the governing body of any grant-maintained school, including a governing body in liquidation, and

  (e) in respect of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act;

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and

  (3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. MacKay.]

  10.15 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I feel it necessary to raise a few matters relating to the money resolution because, by its tone and content, it is a propaganda section of the Bill. The explanatory and financial memorandum contains a section claiming to give the financial effects of the Bill, paragraph 2 of which, under the heading, "Financial effects of the Bill," states:
  "The proposed new funding authorities for schools will take over from the Department for Education and the Welsh Office responsibility for the calculation and payment of recurrent and capital grant to grant-maintained schools under regulations and guidelines made by the Secretary of State."
  It goes on to say later:
  "It is expected that the costs of the funding authorities will be offset over time by savings in the running costs of the Department for Education and the Welsh Office".
  What is the time scale? When the transfer of funding takes place, there will be a gap between the new funding authorities—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. It would be appreciated if hon. Members having meetings would continue them outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Cryer: The money resolution provides for any sums of money required by the Secretary of State. In other words, when the House has passed the resolution, it will not have given authority for money to be spent through the new funding authorities, that money being offset by money that was spent by previous authorities. It will have given authority to the Department to provide for any sums of money that the Secretary of State may require.
  Paragraph 3 states:
  "Local education authorities are currently paying for the upkeep of up to 1·5 million more school places than are required … Clause 14 places a duty on local education authorities and funding authorities to provide the Secretary of State with information".
  Clause 14 places a number of not qualified but absolute duties on local authorities. Those duties will cost money. As the House knows, LEAs, and local authorities in general, are extremely short of money. Will the money being authorised be made available to LEAs to cover the duties that clause 14 places on them?
  It is interesting to note that the money resolution provides for
  "any increase attibutable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act".
  844
  If the Minister does not intend to pay money directly to the Department, what will happen if local authorities can show that the total expenditure that they are undertaking by virtue of the additional duties will result in a reduction in some other area of local authority expenditure? Does the money resolution require the Department to provide an increase in the amount to be paid? That places yet another obligation on the backs of local authorities without, so far, clear provision having been made by central Government to employ people to do the work in providing information about the alleged 1·5 million places that are needed.
  By the way, the money resolution is couched in general terms, as are the "Financial effects of the Bill". I hope that the Minister is aware that local authorities such as Bradford, part of which I represent, do not have an excessive number of school places. Bradford has a shortage of school places because it has an expanding roll of pupils. More money is needed, not for the administrative requirements with which the Bill is riddled but for new schools and extensions to existing schools.
  The Minister is probably aware that some 600 temporary classrooms are in use in Bradford to sustain the education system. I hope that he will bear it in mind that the powers contained under "Financial effects of the Bill" and the authority that he will gain from the money resolution cannot be used only for the grant-dispersing bodies—funding authorities—referred to in the Bill. As the money resolution provides for
  "any sums required by the Secretary of State",
  he could conceivably use the authority in the Bill and the resolution to provide additional educational facilities for local authorities like Bradford, which are very short of money and urgently need extra money for proper educational purposes, such as more classrooms and permanent school extensions.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the provision for payment of local public inquiries when schools are to be closed. What calculation has been made for the cost of those local inquiries? The money resolution provides for the Secretary of State to pay for them. The Government have a lot of experience in financing local public inquiries, particularly in controversial areas such as changing existing roads and introducing new roads. As it happens, the closure of schools is highly controversial and emotive, and local public inquiries could be heated, lengthy, and costly. Based on the Department for Education's experience in undertaking school closures, has the Minister made a rough calculation of how much will be allocated to financing local inquiries?
  Paragraph 5 of the "Financial effects of the Bill" covers the balloting of parents and makes it clear that, under clause 28, the Secretary of State is given
  "a new power to pay grant to local education authority maintained schools in support of the costs associated with their ballots of parents".
  What powers does the Secretary of State have in mind to pay those sums of money? The payment terms are determined by the Secretary of State but nothing is laid down in the Bill. The House is authorising the Secretary of State to spend money, having been given no idea of the extent of that expenditure. For example, it is one thing to provide postage for a single document explaining the parents' case, but it is another thing if the Secretary of State has in mind money to finance a propaganda

  845
  campaign to support the move towards grant-maintained status. That would be entirely different and a great deal more expensive.
  Before we give authority to the Secretary of State to spend money on terms determined entirely by himself, the House should know something about the sums that the Secretary of State has in mind to spend. It would be very unfair if he intended to hand out to parents who want to undertake balloting large sums of cash, simply on a propaganda exercise, without both sides of the argument being presented to those who wish to vote. It seems fair and reasonable to ask the Secretary of State what is to be provided. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is far too much noise in the House. I understand that Madam Speaker has made that point once already.
  Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends on the Bench beside me have been making that very point. It is disturbing, particularly when hon. Members are making serious points about money. The House lets money resolutions go through far too easily.
  I have yet to hear the Minister's reply. It may be that some hon. Members who are beyond the Bar of the House are getting near the door so that they can go home. The more noise that emanates from that area, the more I shall feel bound to call a Division if the Minister's reply is less than satisfactory. On the other hand, if there is rapt, silent attention to my remarks in recognition of the seriousness of the occasion, the Minister may take more time to explain the position and I may be satisfied and may not have to call a Division. I do not want to cause disruption needlessly. As the House knows, that is not my style all the time.
  I am seeking information because we are very concerned. My hon. Friends have been discussing seriously with me the aims of the Secretary of State Truth to tell, the section on the financial effects of the Bill is very bland. We are told that, when expenditure is moved from one area to another, one will offset the other and there will be no cost. That is not good enough.
  The Department should have made guesstimates at the very worst and informed calculations at best. Those should have been placed before the House. We are not asking the Department for information on sums of money by which they will be bound but, as the money resolution is couched in extensive terms, it gives the Secretary of State virtual carte blanche to spend what he likes. That is not good enough. People would not accept that the Government should use taxpayers' money under the balloting provisions for Tory propaganda in support of the Government's cause. That is what it seems like to me. I hope that the Minister will prove me wrong.
  Another point causes me extraordinary concern. On the Tory Benches. we have a collection of merchant bankers, Lloyd's members, estate agents and all the rest [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Some of them may not like to be associated with Lloyd's now, but they did at one time. They are always concerned about public expenditure and say that it should be cut. Yet when it comes to this, they want carte blanche in the amount that they can spend. Given their attitude towards public expenditure, I should have thought that they would not want a general power
  846
  under the money resolution but would want detailed calculations from the Department. The figures could have been brought before the Minister, who could then have presented them, in general terms, to the House, to show what good housekeepers the Government really are—to show that they are not prepared to hand out taxpayers' money for secret propaganda.
  Some of these Tory Members voted last Wednesday because they were worried about the shift of sovereignty from this House to the Common Market. Twenty-six of them went into the Lobbies with us. They should not be prepared to ignore a bland money resolution of this nature, which gives widespread powers to Ministers. It is inconsistent of them to worry about the sovereignty of the House but not to worry about handing over unqualified, unquantified powers to the Secretary of State, to spend as he likes.
  That is why I have raised these issues, against a background of noise emanating from indifferent Conservative Members standing beyond the Bar of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are your hon. Friends?"] I do not need large numbers of Labour Members behind me. They know that I am capable of raising all these issues on my own, with the support of those of my hon. Friends who are sitting beside me.
  I hope that some of the Conservatives here tonight are not here only because they have been told to stay by the Whips in case there is a Division. I hope that they are interested in this subject and that they have not been bribed, arm-twisted or intimidated, as they were last week to give the Government a majority of three. The subject merits attention in its own right.
  10.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Nigel Forman): As one who has been in the House for quite a long time—perhaps not as long as the hon. Gentleman, or perhaps even longer—I can tell my younger colleagues that we have just heard a characteristic speech by the hon. Member for Keighley.
  Hon. Members: He lost it.
  Mr. Cryer: Bradford, South.
  Mr. Forman: Perhaps there is some connection there In any event, these are the sorts of speeches that the hon. Gentleman is used to making, almost in his sleep. Indeed, some of us remember finding opportunities to sleep when he was making them. Nevertheless, I have taken his remarks seriously, and I shall try to answer some of his questions.
  The hon. Gentleman began by referring to the cost implications of the proposed funding agency for schools. The Government intend it to be a very lean and light-touch body, with minimal costs involved. The precise costs will depend on a number of factors—most importantly, the growth in and the number of grant-maintained schools. The body's main functions will relate to the payments of grant to those schools, and the running costs will be offset by savings in the LEAs' and the Department's administrative budgets.
  In the last year for which figures are available, local education authorities' administrative costs totalled about £900 million. The costs associated with the assumption by the funding agency of planning responsibilities will be minimal, as will any start-up costs. The FAS will be, as I

  847
  say, a light-touch body, not a bloated bureaucracy. It will attract people from commerce and industry, who will bring to its management financial skills that will ensure that it operates cost-effectively.
  The costs incurred under clause 14 should be equally modest, if not minimal. The various statements of information required are an extension of the general requirements on LEAs to provide information to the Secretary of State under the 1944 Act. There is nothing new or dramatic about that. The costs should be more than offset by the savings resulting from the removal of surplus places, thanks, inter alia, to the provision of that information.
  Mr. Cryer: What about a local authority such as Bradford which does not have surplus places? If it can justify extra costs incurred as a result of the new obligations in the legislation, will it receive grant aid to meet those costs?
  Mr. Forman: I should have thought that such a local authority might well be interested in new school buildings as well. However, I should prefer to give the hon. Gentleman a considered answer to his precise point by writing to him later.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the administrative expenses of the public inquiries foreshadowed in the Bill. The main additional administrative expense will be cost of the inquiries. The public inquiry procedure is a last resort. The Secretary of State's new powers should concentrate LEA and funding agency minds to bring forward sensible proposals and only when they do not will the Secretary of State need to bring forward his own proposals.
  Therefore, public inquiries will be cost-effective. The end product should be a sensible scheme for the removal of surplus places where the LEA or the funding agency has not offered one. Where major reorganisations are concerned, that can result in significant capital and revenue savings over a number of years. The hon. Gentleman should be assured that any additional tasks flowing from the operation of the public inquiry system can be absorbed within the Department for Education manpower planned provision.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of ballots and their possible cost. Let me try to reassure him. He follows these matters closely and he will know that hostile local education authorities have sought to exploit the substantial resources at their disposal almost to intimidate governing bodies which may be considering grant-maintained status and to undermine their attempts to inform parents properly.
  In contrast, governing bodies have only limited funds at their disposal to present their views about what is best for the future of the school. Therefore, by limiting local authority expenditure and putting modest sums at the disposal of governing bodies for the promotion of grant-maintained status, we intend to redress the balance in order to ensure that there is a balanced debate on the issues. In that way, parents will be given every opportunity to make informed decisions about what is best for the future of their school.
  848
  The grant to the governing body will be sufficient to pay for the cost of producing one leaflet about grant-maintained status. It is as modest as that. When the House considers that individual schools are as David to Goliath when faced with large local education authorities determined to argue the case against, it will see that that is only redressing the balance in a fair and reasonable way.
  The Bill will help us to get better value from our substantial investment in education. It will do that, first, by providing a framework for the expansion of grant-maintained schools. The independent status of grant-maintained schools and the sense of ownership that they enjoy have significantly enhanced their work. Experience has shown that grant-maintained schools can use to very good effect their share of their former LEA's central costs, which is exactly what is passed over to them.
  The Bill will secure better value for money by tackling the scandal of surplus school places. In too many cases, LEAs have failed woefully to take the resolute action required. In consequence, there are now up to 1·5 million surplus school places, the sheer maintenance of which pre-empts an estimated £300 million a year. We need to release as much of that as possible to spend on children's education. Allied to that is the problem of uneconomically small schools which must also be addressed.
  The Bill will tackle the problem of surplus places by giving the Secretary of State the powers to direct local education authorities, and the funding authorities if necessary, to bring foward proposals to remove surplus places. The Bill also gives the Secretary of State powers to bring forward his own proposals for schools reorganisation where he is not satisfied that the LEA's proposals adequately address the problem.
  In all those ways, and as the White Paper explains, our proposals provide a framework for the efficient and effective development of policies that the Government have pursued since 1979. We believe that they will lead to significant increases in value for money and improvements in quality over the years ahead.
  Question put and agreed to.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th August, be approved.
    ARMS AND AMMUNITION
    That the draft Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Poland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association

    849
    between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Hungary) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
    That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 8) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2623), a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.

    DANGEROUS DRUGS
    That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Modification) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    CULTURAL GOODS
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4327/92 and the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of National Heritage on 17th July 1992, relating to the export of cultural goods and the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from a Member State; would support acceptable measures of additional protection for national treasures after the removal of internal frontiers without imposing intolerable administrative and financial burdens; notes that they need to be in proportion to the problem they are designed to solve, that they should not impair the balance of interests of the European Community which is the essence of the United Kingdom policy, and should not involve substantial additional costs whilst introducing damaging uncertainty into the art and antiques trade; and supports the strong recommendation of the First Report of the National Heritage Committee that the Government should seek deferment of a decision unless and until redrafting to take account of the inconsistencies and unacceptable administrative impact of the proposals has been achieved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
    Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Protection and Support of Victims of Child Abuse
  10.41 pm
  Ms. Angela Eagle: I rise to present a petition signed by some 4,420 members of the public from Wallasey and elsewhere. It states:
  We wish to see instigated a programme of support and counselling for the families of the victims of child abuse, That we wish to see convicted abusers of children moved from residences in the vicinity of their victims.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do take steps to achieve these goals.
  And your Petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Business Rents
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Angela Browning: The issue that I raise tonight is crucially important to small businesses, not just in my constituency but throughout the United Kingdom. As all hon. Members know, Britain's small businesses provide the very bone marrow of our economy, and the retail sector alone—from the corner shops, which are the kernel of a local community, to the large retail chains—directly employs well over 2 million people. It is without doubt one of the most important engines for economic growth.
  Britain's small businesses have suffered a number of powerful body blows in the past few years, not just because of the global recession but because of the uniform business rate—particularly in the south-west—and the sky-high real interest rates needed to bring down inflation. Not one of those factors, however, has had such a devastating impact on our small businesses as the antiquated and deeply unjust system of commercial leasehold that exists in this country, uniquely in the European Community.
  The origin of the current crisis—I use the term advisedly—lies in the huge escalation that took place in rents for shops and offices in the late 1980s. As a result of a number of factors, the period between 1985 and 1990 brought huge and, as it subsequently turned out, unsustainable pressure on the demand for what was then a limited resource—prime shopping sites in our high streets. The market mechanism responded accordingly, and as demand increased, rents soared—way above the relatively modest growth in sales that took place even in the boom conditions that existed at the time.
  It is a little known fact, but an extraordinarily potent one, that, between 1984 and 1988, retail sales grew by just 25 per cent., while rents rocketed by no less than 60 per cent. Even more dramatic is the escalation of retail rents between 1985 and 1990—up by 145 per cent., when the increase in RPI was just 33 per cent.
  That was bad enough even before the recession struck, but when it did, demand for sites vanished and customer spending plummeted, unlikely ever to return to the unsustainable levels that it reached in the late 1980s.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the uniform business rate, about which she complained earlier, was directly related to the soaring level of rents? UBR and rate valuation are linked to rents.
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That has exacerbated the position for small businesses.
  While the market mechanism has responded in boom conditions, it has completely failed to respond to recession. In a free and fair market, rents for leasehold premises should have taken account of all the relevant economic factors and fallen accordingly. Instead, they have defied the laws of economic gravity, remaining on top of the outrageously high plateau they had reached in 1990, while the spending power of their customers has been gutted. The market, it appears, is neither free nor fair.
  It is a chilling fact that, if sales grow at an annual level of between 0 per cent. and 4 per cent., in line with the Government's target for inflation, it will take up to 15 years for that growth in sales to catch up with the increased
  852
  rents that most small businesses now pay—provided that there are no further rent increases. Many businesses will not survive for that long.
  There are three roots to what is, essentially, economic dyspepsia. I want to draw each of them briefly to the Minister's attention, since urgent reform is, I believe, essential if any sort of future for hundreds of small businesses in my constituency—and, indeed, countrywide—is to be secured.
  The first is the iniquitous upwards-only clause—a remnant, long overdue for abolition, from the days of double-digit inflation. At a time when one of the main challenges facing the Government is how to adapt to a new age of falling prices and disinflation, it seems utterly ludicrous that rents, unlike any other commodity, and, as we all know, unlike house prices, can move upwards only and are prevented from falling to reconcile demand with supply—the very core of the market mechanism.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: This issue affects small shopkeepers in every high street throughout the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that lawyers should not advise landlords that they have to insist upon using that clause? There is nothing to stop lawyers saying, "Abandon that clause." Instead, lawyers are giving landlords unsound, unhelpful advice.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will forgive me if I press on with some speed, because I have other factors to mention.
  Allied to the blatant negation of the market is the second problem—the dominance of the 20-to-25-year institutional lease, which is virtually unknown outside this country. These long leases mean that tenants are unable to escape unjustified rents. In addition, they also prevent small shops from moving from existing premises to new shopping centres or, in the case of offices, to business parks, when local market conditions dictate. As experience in high streets throughout the country, from large cities to small market towns, demonstrates, consumers are departing from traditional shopping areas, leaving those that they used to shop with trapped by hopelessly unprofitable long-term tenancies.
  The third root of the present problems is the system that is in place to resolve disputes between landlords and their tenants. When a tenant disputes the rent at a review, he or she must appeal to a third party arbitrator against whose decision there is no appeal. To resolve that dispute, the arbitrator summons evidence of the rental levels agreed for "comparable" properties.
  Comparable evidence includes both rent reviews and new lettings, but such a system effectively means that evidence or reviews must be based on the peak of the market. The recession means that there are few new lettings on which to draw. What few new lettings exist are obscured by a miasma of confidentiality clauses concealing the real market rent. There is therefore effectively no way for the true state of the market to influence an arbitrator's valuation.
  Empty shops and offices—an excellent indication of what rental levels ought to be—are not admissible as evidence; nor are other factors, such as the level of unemployment, the rate of inflation, or the balance of supply and demand. Yet again, the market cannot work because a free flow of readily available information—the

  853
  heartbeat of the market mechanism—is totally absent from the system. The cumulative effect of each of these problems is, sadly, all too often bankruptcy.
  The story does not end there, however, for yet another part of our medieval system of retail rents is the horrendous concept of original tenant liability. This system, which the Scots have been clever enough to avoid and which is unique to England and Wales, means that, when a bankruptcy occurs because of a dramatically uplifted rent at review, tenants far back in the lease assignment chain, even if they occupied a property for only a few months decades earlier, can find themselves presented with a liability of nightmarish proportions.
  One bankruptcy swiftly follows another, and produces a great deal of personal anguish. I have known of three such cases since I became Member for Tiverton in. April, one of which led to the couple concerned facing the prospect of having to sell the matrimonial home to discharge the debts of people whom they had never met. The effect that it had on their health was dramatic. They were under permanent medication from their doctor, and it damaged their lives tremendously.
  Dr. Robert Spink: I have experienced similar disgraceful examples in my constituency, as have many other hon. Members, and we must do something to change the law.
  Mrs. Browning: Many hon. Members have experience of constituents being placed in that distressing situation.
  These four burdens—the outdated arbitration system, a complete lack of transparency, upwards-only clauses and original tenant liability—are bravely borne alone by Britain's small businesses. Our punitive system of commercial leasehold exists nowhere else in the European Community, and it is high time that we came into line with the modern market-oriented systems of our competitors.
  Sir David Mitchell: M y hon. Friend has put her finger on the point that is causing grave concern in my constituency and throughout the country. I know that members of the Small Business Bureau are experiencing difficulty with upwards-only clauses in rent reviews and with the awful business whereby, if a company goes bankrupt, there lands on the assignee of the lease a liability from years before to find a high level of rent that it cannot possibly meet.
  Mrs. Browning: I have raised a lot of problems today, and in the short time available in an Adjournment debate I have little opportunity to outline in detail the possible solutions.
  A number of organisations, most notably the Property Market Reform Group, with which I have had a number of interesting discussions, and a group of businesses organised by Sir Desmond Pitcher, are working hard on behalf of Britain's small businesses to establish a consensus for reform and to hammer out practical solutions.
  Among those which seem to be the most interesting are the establishment of a lands tribunal to take over the arbitration of disputes and the setting up of an open register of rents to provide information for those arbitrations. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister urgently to consider a complete review of the legislation
  854
  covering leasehold law. This will he a positive measure by Government to assist small businesses without being a burden on the taxpayer and will be widely welcomed.
  To date, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the various other landlord interests have shown no interest in reforming the system. The previous price of such grievous and indeed callous inaction—mounting unemployment and high streets littered with "To Let" signs falling into decay—is too high. The Government must step in and act in the name of natural justice and to free up the market and safeguard the future of thousands of small businesses from Tiverton to Tyneside.
  10.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I, and I am sure the whole House, are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) for raising the important subject of leasehold premises—shops and offices. She put her case with lucidity and care.
  The Government fully appreciate the concerns of business tenants facing problems with rents and other aspects of their tenancy agreements. The recent report, "Retail Rents: Fair and Free Market?" by Professor Burton, which the Property Market Reform Group commissioned, criticises the so-called institutional leasing system and proposes radical reforms to the operation of the letting market.
  No one can deny that present property market conditions are severe. They are, however, not unprecedented in what, for a long time, has been a cyclical market. Understandably, there are a number of problems facing tenants at the moment, and they arise from a variety of causes.
  Business leases are founded on the package of rights and obligations for tenants and landlords set out in part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which includes security of tenure and the right to renew a lease, and freedom for the parties to negotiate tenancy agreements on the open market.
  The 1954 Act has worked well, providing a well-understood and balanced framework for the commercial property market through all the ups and downs of the past 40 years. We have rightly kept the Act under close consideration. When a review of part II was conducted in the mid-1980s—with particular reference to small businesses—it was concluded that the Act generally strikes a fair balance between landlords and tenants.
  We are currently considering the Law Commission's report, which recommends changes to the working of the Act while leaving its fundamentals unchanged. We continue to look carefully at all the implications, and I have been interested to hear the views expressed by my hon. Friends this evening. The fundamentals of the legislation have endured for 40 years. Clearly, any major reform would require a substantial justification.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I do not intend to give way just yet, because a number of points have been raised and it would be unfair of me not to try to cover them in this short debate.
  Over the years, the United Kingdom economy has benefited from substantial inward investment in business

  855
  property, which, to a degree, has been attracted by the sophisticated property market in this country. Business is the lifeblood of our economy, and we need to have tenants whose businesses are thriving. We also need a healthy commercial property sector nurtured by landlords who invest for the future.
  Successive Governments' policy of non-intervention in business tenancies gives tenants and landlords freedom to negotiate the terms of the lease including the length of lease, rent levels, rent reviews and dispute terms, in the light of current market circumstances, thus avoiding the distortions that invariably result from statutory controls. In exercising his or her business judgment, the tenant will obviously take fluctuations in the marketplace into account. Clearly, an important part of that business judgment is taking appropriate professional advice about the terms of the agreement and market rental levels on commencement.
  Many of the present problems relate to the terms of a private contract. It is entirely a matter for negotiation what terms are included. Upward-only rent reviews, for example, have understandably been mentioned this evening, but they are not covered by a specific statutory provision, being neither prescribed not proscribed by law. It is for contractual negotiation between an individual landlord and tenant at the outset whether such terms are included in a lease.
  Under an upward-only rent review, rents increase to the market levels pertaining at the time of review. If market rent levels are less than the current rent, there is no increase, but no entitlement to a reduction under the lease. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made an important point here: as these are contractual terms entered freely by the parties, which can be freely varied by the parties, it may well be in the best interests of the landlord to agree to other rental levels in the light of current difficult market conditions in order to avert the risk of a vacancy arising if business pressures on the tenant become unsustainable. That is an important point, of which all involved should be well aware.
  Similarly, it is entirely a matter for the parties negotiating the lease to decide what, if any, arbitration clauses are included in the terms of the agreement. On the basis of those terms, rent reviews take place, although in some instances a landlord and tenant may agree to go to arbitration even when that is not specified in the lease. The Government take the straightforward view that landlords and tenants should be free to negotiate agreements in the open market on whatever terms they decide. It is in both their interests that they should have flexibility to agree terms in the light of particular circumstances and not be constrained by statutory provisions.
  The 25-year term, common in institutional leases, has been said by some to handcuff tenants to landlords, but it is a contract term which the parties have freely and voluntarily agreed. There is no statutory obligation to agree this length of lease. Also, it has to be recognised that statutory measures to proscribe such leases could have adverse implications for future investment and ultimately lead to a shortage of premises to let.
  I turn briefly to the report's proposal for the compulsory registration of all the terms of United Kingdom commercial property leases with the Land
  856
  Registry. What happens now is that leases over 21 years are registrable, but, contrary to what is implied in the report, the 1954 Act specifically states that copy leases and copy mortgages are not available as of right under the Act. Professor Burton's proposal would involve changing the law, would be resource-intensive, and would not be favoured by those concerned with commercial confidentiality. Moreover, it is not clear whether such a change involving charging would be warranted, and indeed, whether it would achieve the desired transparency.
  As regards rent dispute procedures, the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, together with the associated recommendation for an enlarged Land Tribunal, have been noted with interest. However, such suggestions have been made before, of course, and raise far wider considerations. That is not a reason why they should not continue to be considered, but one must recognise that there are considerable implications and ramifications if one considers how the state might start to interfere in what has hitherto been freedom of contract between willing and voluntary partners.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Is my hon. Friend aware that upward-only clauses in leases are unlawful in certain European countries?
  Mr. Baldry: Of course, it is perfectly possible for Parliament to decide to do anything that a sovereign Parliament decides to do. The structure of the 1954 Act has endured very well and its framework has lasted for more than 40 years. The framework has been based on parties voluntarily and freely entering into contracts on the basis of informed opinion, judgment, knowledge and professional advice. If Parliament starts to interfere statutorily in those freedoms, sooner or later distortions will arise. That is exactly what happened in the domestic market when Parliament began to interfere with the Rent Acts. We will be living with the consequences of that for some time to come.
  The Government are very conscious of the dangers in regulating and interfering with well established market practices for determining commercial rent levels, whether by index-linking or by any other mechanism. Moreover, if rents are held down by some statutory device, eventually, over time, markets will become distorted, and the supply of commercial premises available for new lettings will decrease as investors turn away from the property market. The last time a rent freeze was tried in the 1970s, it had exactly just such indirect, unintended and undesirable effects.
  The question of unfair lease assignment clauses and privity of contract, graphically highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and reinforced by my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), is the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I can assure the House of the Government's awareness of the understandable concern over this matter. In fact, it was considered by the Law Commission in its report "Privity of Contract and Estates" which examined the present rule, under which a leaseholder remains liable to comply with his obligations under the lease until it ends.
  The Law Commission has recommended a major modification whereby both parties should cease to have any liability when they part with those interests, except in cases where it is objectively reasonable that their liability

  857
  continue. My right hon. and noble Friend is considering the report with care, and hopes to be able to make a statement about it in the near future.
  Retail and office businesses sectors were markedly affected by the revaluation in 1990, because of the large change in the relative values between different sectors of the economy and parts of the country since the 1973 revalution. However, it is important to recognise that, overall, the rates paid by businesses as a whole after 1990 were kept broadly the same in real terms as in the last year of the old rating system.
  For businesses which face increases following the reforms, we introduced generous transitional arrangements to phase in the changes gradually. We believe that, when it comes to the 1995 revaluation, those businesses with the highest values will find that market rents for the type of property that they occupy may well have fallen relative to rents for other types of property. If so, this will be reflected in lower values than would otherwise have been the case. So some businesses which fared badly as result of the 1990 revaluation might well see reductions next time.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The debate tonight is extremely important. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) stressed how many small businesses there are in Britain, from small corner shops to retail chains which employ 2 million people. I know the industry well, as I am a small business man and own a corner shop. I know how important small businesses are to Britain. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is amazing that not one Labour or Liberal Democrat Member is here this evening to listen to the debate?
  Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes his point tellingly. Of course, small and medium-sized businesses make a major contribution to the economy and life blood of Britain.
  We remain of the view that we should retain the uniform business rate without major changes. Small businesses have benefited from the new system. A revaluation was long overdue and was therefore bound to result in large changes of rates burden for some people. However, as I said, those businesses which fared badly as a result of the 1990 revaluation might well see reductions next time.
  858
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton for expressing her anxieties fully and with care. They are clearly echoed by Conservative Members, if not by Members from other parties. It is precisely because we are aware of the difficulties that we recognise the importance of safeguarding the balance of rights and obligations of tenants and landlords contained in part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
  Mr. Steen: I practised at the bar for almost 20 years before I came to the House. I dealt with the 1954 Act, so I am familiar with it, and I am glad to know that the Lord Chancellor is considering certain alterations to the asylum clause. But 300 corner shops have been emptied between Bristol and Penzance because the recession has had such a unique effect on the fortunes of small businesses. That has required and demanded that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton bring the matter to the House. The unique circumstances of the recession, which may continue for another two or three years, have resulted in the anxieties of so many Conservative Members—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Interventions must always be brief, but particularly so in a short Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Baldry: We are well aware of, and by no means insensitive to, the concerns raised in the debate, and we fully appreciate the difficulties that many businesses face. We must consider carefully any suggestions that could upset the balance of rights and obligations for tenants and landlords set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and whether we shall help or hinder by upsetting that balance and interfering with the freedom to negotiate the terms of business leases in the market place.
  My hon. Friends can rest assured that Government Ministers with responsibility for such matters, including my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and others—will take careful note of what my hon. Friends have said. The Law Commission has made several recommendations in a number of areas and will consider those with care. We must recognise that the 1954 Act has endured well for more than 40 years and has provided a framework of rights and obligations which has served the business community extremely well for many years.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the legal aid scheme to ensure that applicants can be fully represented in preparing submissions to the investors compensation scheme.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Those who meet the financial eligibility criteria may already seek legal advice and assistance in preparing their applications to the investors compensation scheme.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what studies he has carried out into sentencing for similar offences in different parts of the country; and what plans he has to deal with disparities in sentencing for similar offences by different courts.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  Information about the sentencing practice of Crown court centres and magistrates courts petty sessional divisions is being published by the Secretary of State, in pursuance of his statutory duty under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to enable persons engaged in the administration of justice to become aware of the financial implications of their decisions. Volume I of an eight-volume publication on costs of the criminal justice system was published on 29 October. It provides information about sentencing including information about sentencing for similar offences, in the Crown court. The remaining volumes will provide information about sentencing in the magistrates courts and will be published shortly. The sentencing profiles revealed in these publications must be read with caution. They cannot reflect what may be underlying differences in the workload and case mix at different courts. Sentencing in individual cases is entirely a matter for the courts in the light of all the circumstances of the offence and subject to the decisions of, and any guidance from, the Court of Appeal. A substantial programme of training on good sentencing practice is provided for both judges and magistrates under the auspices of the Judicial Studies Board.

SCOTLAND

  College Merger
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision he has reached on the formal date for the merger of(a) university of Strathclyde and Jordanhill college and (b) Queen's college and Glasgow polytechnic.
  666
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State and I indicated in our letters approving the two mergers that the necessary steps would be taken to give effect to the mergers in the first half of 1993. My officials are in close touch with each of the institutions concerned about the precise timetable and legislative arrangements for implementing the mergers.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many papers his Department and the Lord Advocate's Department have currently withdrawn from the Public Record Office; if he will list their titles; and when he estimates that they will be returned.

  Mr. Lang
  Neither the Scottish Record Office nor the Lord Advocate's Department has withdrawn papers from the Public Record Office.

  Legal Aid
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average time between legal aid work being carried out by lawyers and legal aid fees being paid to them for(a) criminal and (b) civil legal aid for each of the past 15 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average times, in weeks, taken by the Scottish Legal Aid Board to process accounts for(a) criminal and (b) civil legal aid work in the years 1987–88 to 1991–92 and the situation at September 1992 are set out in the table. Prior to 1987, the payment of accounts for legal aid work in Scotland was the responsibility of the Law Society of Scotland and the figures for previous years are therefore not readily available. The board does not have figures available for 1987–88. The figures shown include periods of time when the board was awaiting responses from lawyers to its inquiries about accounts.

  (a) Criminal

  (b) Civil

  1988–89

  7·55

  13·26

  1989–90

  6·09

  13·39

  1990–91

  5·06

  11·65

  1991–92

  5·59

  15·81

  April-October 1992

  4·44

  9·08

  School Transport
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement in relation to the provision of home-to-school transport following comments received on the consultation paper, "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services", published in November 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland, the majority of home-to-school transport is already provided by the private sector, either under competitive tendering arrangements or through other arrangements such as the issuing of bus passes to children. Taking account of the responses to the consultation paper, I have concluded that compulsory competitive tendering need not at this stage be extended to apply to all home-to-school transport, I will, however, keep this position under review.

  Charities
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many charities, whose gross income does not exceed £25,000 per annum, will have to conform to the regulations specified in the Charities Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 1992; if he will list them; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 November 1992]: As a general rule, all Scottish charities must now prepare annual accounts conforming to the Charities Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 1992.

  Where a charity's annual income is £25,000 or more, the statement of accounts must comprise a balance sheet, and an income and expenditure account, and must include a report of its activities. In cases where the annual income is less than £25,000 charities may elect to prepare simpler accounts.

  No information is held centrally about the annual income of individual Scottish charities.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish for each health board for the current financial year(a) the planned capital and revenue expenditure on mental handicap (learning disabilities) services and (b) the value of assets relevant to mental handicap (learning disabilities) services listed in capital asset registers.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 6 November 1992]: This information is not held centrally.

  Gross Revenue Expenditure on Scottish Water Services

  £ thousands

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Borders

  3,479

  3,606

  5,638

  5,383

  4,652

  Central

  11,448

  11,549

  12,303

  13,624

  12,498

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,718

  5,365

  5,904

  7,271

  8,509

  Fife

  9,207

  9,862

  10,721

  16,426

  13,748

  Grampian

  17,301

  18,484

  20,017

  23,130

  27,695

  Highland

  6,635

  7,199

  7,890

  9,338

  9,924

  Lothian

  21,640

  22,374

  24,259

  27,562

  29,442

  Strathclyde

  63,509

  68,050

  75,053

  76,597

  87,874

  Tayside

  12,663

  13,353

  15,125

  17,477

  19,263

  Orkney

  1,540

  1,412

  1,177

  1,342

  1,607

  Shetland

  1,984

  2,040

  1,561

  1,425

  2,945

  Western Isles

  1,193

  1,336

  1,502

  1,566

  1,877

  Scotland

  155,317

  164,630

  181,150

  201,141

  220,034

  1Estimated.

  Gross revenue expenditure on Scottish sewerage services

  £ thousand

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Borders

  3,191

  3,279

  3,804

  5,873

  4,648

  Central

  9,150

  9,159

  10,186

  11,452

  11,365

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,805

  4,129

  4,744

  5,481

  6,353

  Fife

  6,462

  7,246

  8,180

  12,144

  12,072

  Grampian

  16,551

  18,097

  18,463

  19,807

  23,276

  Highland

  5,667

  6,040

  6,601

  8,126

  8,552

  Lothian

  21,281

  21,438

  24,524

  27,626

  32,528

  Strathclyde

  61,382

  65,867

  71,776

  78,325

  94,496

  Tayside

  9,295

  10,240

  11,505

  13,551

  17,818

  Orkney

  454

  307

  439

  525

  601

  Shetland

  782

  2,776

  545

  400

  975

  Hospital Food
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the minimum amount that may be spent per patient per day in purchasing food for in-patients in hospitals.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: There is no minimum amount. It is for each health board to decide on the amount which it considers appropriate to spend on catering services, including food provisions, to meet patient care needs. The board's decision will be informed by advice from dietitians on the dietary requirements of patients in the different care groups.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are taken by his Department to ensure quality control for meals served to in-patients in hospitals.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: Quality control arrangements for meals served to patients is the responsibility of management teams in hospitals. The standards considered appropriate are specified in catering contracts and management teams are responsible for monitoring performance to ensure the contract specifications are met and maintained.

  Water Services
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure by each regional council on(a) water and (b) sewerage service provision in each of the last five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: Revenue expenditure on water and sewerage services by each regional and islands council is given in the tables.
  669

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Western Isles

  697

  829

  889

  1,391

  995

  Scotland

  138,717

  149,407

  161,656

  184,701

  213,679

  1 Estimated.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in the(a) water and (b) sewerage services in Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The numbers employed in water and sewerage services in Scotland since 1979 are set out in the table.

  Numbers of employees in Scottish Water and Sewerage Services

  Water

  Sewerage

  1979–801

  3,592

  2,674

  1980–811

  3,689

  2,741

  1981–821

  3,631

  2,634

  1982–831

  3,484

  2,577

  1983–84

  3,604

  2,524

  1984–85

  3,564

  2,516

  1985–86

  3,546

  2,506

  1986–87

  3,515

  2,649

  1987–88

  3,577

  2,660

  1988–89

  3,491

  2,659

  1989–90

  3,486

  2,632

  1990–91

  3,579

  2,643

  1 Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles not included.

  Source: The Water Industry—Services and Costs published annually by CIPFA and latterly by CRI.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Forest Clearance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to investigate the schemes on clearing natural forest to develop timber plantations funded by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in Cote d'Ivoire and Thailand; and if he will ensure that future moneys granted by the Overseas Development Administration in overseas aid do not fund the destruction of natural forests.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Before proposed investments are submitted to the Commonwealth Development Corporation's board for approval they are subject to appraisal, which includes explicit assessments of their environmental and social impact. We have no plans to investigate CDC forestry projects in Thailand. As part of our regular evaluation programme we expect to release shortly an evaluation report on the SODEFOR forestry project in Cote d'Ivoire in which CDC is a co-financier with the World bank and the Government of Cote d'Ivoire. We also expect to release shortly an evaluation synthesis report on six forestry projects including SODEFOR. Our policy is to help and encourage developing countries to manage their forests sustainably.

PRIME MINISTER

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's new economic policy including his forecasts for growth in the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's central objective remains to achieve sustainable and non-inflationary growth. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out details of the Government's economic policy in his Mansion House speech of 30 October. He will be announcing the Government's spending plans and publishing a new forecast for the economy in 1993 in the autumn statement.

  Official Statistics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what provisions are made to ensure that Ministers and others in Government service are not permitted to take personal advantage of access to official statistics before they are published.

  The Prime Minister
  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" makes and the civil service code make it clear that both Ministers and civil servants should avoid any conflict of interest between their official duties and private interests. Ministers and civil servants are bound by the provisions of the Companies Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985. Copies of "Questions of Procedure" and the code are in the Library.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 November.

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

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he arranged for the telephone line in his office for views on pit closures to be closed and callers told to write instead; and what arrangements he is making for more telephone lines to his office to enable the public to make calls, the substance of which can be logged for record purposes;

  (2) if he will publish the telephone numbers to his office which members of the public may telephone if they wish to record protests about pit closures and other matters; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I do not propose to change the existing practice.

TRANSPORT

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of radioactive sources or materials that are known to have escaped the official control regime while in transit within the United Kingdom and its territorial waters.

  Mr. Norris
  A database on accidents and incidents occurring in the transport of radioactive materials is maintained by the National Radiological Protection Board. I am placing copies of the relevant reports in the Library of the House.

  Pedestrians
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the advice on grade separation for pedestrians promised in departmental advice note 57/87, published in 1987.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Advice on footbridges is given in departmental standard BD 29/87, and advice on subways TD 2/78 and TD 3/79. The advice on subways is currently being updated and my Department expects to publish a revised standard in 1993.

  I am putting copies of the relevant departmental standards in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, for each class of all-purpose road set out in table 2 of departmental standard TD 20/85, the maximum traffic flow at which he considers it safe for all pedestrians to cross in safety.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Advice on at-grade pedestrian crossings is given in departmental advice note TA 52/87 on the parameters and other factors to be considered when assessing the provision of pelican and zebra crossings.

  A copy of the advice note is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total revenue expenditure in each of the English regions by his Department in the years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Estimates of general Government expenditure on transport by English region for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are not yet available. However, estimates for the two preceeding years—1988–89 and 1989–90—-are given in appendix E of "Public Expenditue Analyses to 1994–95; Statistical Supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement", Cm. 1920. It is not possible to break down the figures between revenue and capital expenditure.

  Road Schemes (Environmental Appraisal)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisation he has consulted or will be consulting on the draft revision of the manual of environmental appraisal for new road schemes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department has consulted, or will be consulting other Government Departments, and 672
  all the statutory organisations with responsibility for the environment—English Nature, English Heritage, National Rivers Authority, and the Countryside Commission—where they have an interest. The standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment will also be consulted.

  Lifeboat Service
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make any contribution towards the extra costs incurred by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution to meet additional responsibilities in areas like the Firth of Forth as described in the Defence Open Government document of October following the closure of RAF search and rescue helicopter bases at Leuchars and elsewhere.

  Mr. Norris
  The Royal National Lifeboat Institution provides an excellent service under its royal charter which is entirely supported by voluntary public subscription. It is a matter for the institution whether it would apply to the Government for any funding.

  Train Drivers
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the statutory authority for the test and authority to drive a locomotive.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are at present no statutory requirements which cover the testing and authorisation of train drivers.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department owns two residential properties in South Yorkshire—one each in the Doncaster borough council and Rotherham borough council areas.

  One property is at 50 School road, Wales, Sheffield. It is a three-bedroom semi-detached house and has been empty since 11 November 1991. The property is in need of substantial structural repairs. Its future use will be decided when proposals to widen the M1 between junctions 28 and 32 are finalised.

  The other property is The Bungalow, Grove avenue, Doncaster. It is a three-bedroom detached property, which the tenant vacated on 28 October 1992. Another tenant is to be sought.

  Tunnels (Lighting)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the lighting in tunnels on trunk roads in Greater London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The only tunnel on a trunk road in Greater London is the Blackwall tunnel. The lighting in the northbound bore of this tunnel was improved earlier this year and is now up to the British Standard.
  673
  A principal inspection of the southbound bore will take place in the spring of 1993. Consideration will be given at that time to the need for improvements to the lighting.

  Local Authority Parking System
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering to the management and provision of services for the new local authority on-street parking enforcement system under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

  Mr. Norris
  In November 1991 the Department of the Environment consulted local authorities nationally about the extension of CCT to further services—"Competing for Quality—A Consultation Paper"—which included the provision and management of services for the new local authority on-street parking enforcement system under part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991. This information was supplemented by further details in the draft traffic management and parking guidance for London issued in March this year for consultation.

  There was general agreement that the services should cover the provision of parking attendants, the clamping and removal, and the release, of vehicles found breaching the new decriminalised controls and the management of such services. Some concern was expressed about the timing of the introduction of CCT to these services. The London local authorities in particular felt that they needed time to assess the levels of enforcement that will be necessary to help them determine specifications for CCT.

  To meet these concerns I have concluded that the services should not be subject to compulsory competitive tendering until 1 April 1995. Outside London, authorities will generally not be given the powers to apply the new parking enforcement system until experience of their operation in London has been gained. It is intended that CCT will also apply in those areas from 1 April 1995.

  The requirement to introduce CCT for these services will be made by order under existing legislation. The order will be subject to formal consultation before coming to Parliament for approval.

  Surveyor General's Organisation
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached following his consideration of the Surveyor General's Organisation as a possible candidate for executive agency status.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have decided that the Surveyor General's Organisation—SGO—should be a candidate for executive agency status. The necessary preparatory work is in hand with a view to the organisation becoming an agency on 1 April 1994. The agency will be called the Marine Safety Agency. I intend shortly to issue a consultation document on the scope for increased private sector participation in the survey and certification work currently done by the SGO.

  Airbags
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the fitting of airbags to cars sold in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The single most effective measure for reducing accident injury is the wearing of a seat belt.674
  This, in conjunction with a well-designed steering wheel, is much more cost effective than the fitting of airbags. While we are not therefore actively encouraging the fitting of airbags, we are participating in discussions on a European standard and are monitoring experience of the fitment of airbags worldwide.

  Nudge Bars
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to ensure the fitting of nudge bars to motor vehicles does not create added danger to pedestrians.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Government are working with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on developing a code of practice on the design of nudge bars. The United Kingdom is also actively pressing within Europe for an EC directive to make the front of cars less harmful to pedestrians. When adopted, this will exercise some control over the fitment of nudge bars.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's estimate of the likely number of jobs that would be created in the United Kingdom by the building of the proposed Jubilee line extension; and when he expects to make an announcement about the future of the project.

  Mr. Norris
  The building of the proposed Jubilee line extension is estimated to create direct employment on-site on civil works for up to 5,000 people and off-site in manufacturing and supply for approximately five times as many more people. Talks are continuing on the promised £400 million contribution from the private sector. I cannot speculate on the timing of any announcement about the future of the project in advance of the conclusion of those talks.

  Emergency Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many inspectors and related officials are presently engaged in the inspection of those emergency or standby vessels which are being assessed in terms of the revised code; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Fifteen marine surveyors are engaged in such duties as part of their overall responsibilities, with some support from other officials.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of building the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency offices in Swansea; and what that cost would be at today's prices.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I shall write to the right hon. Member.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make, before the Edinburgh summit, an estimate of the cost to the European Parliament of having more than one place of work.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We do not possess the information to make such an estimate.

  Debt Write-offs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC to press for European fiscal and other measures to encourage European banks to write off commercial debt.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom, in common with its EC partners, is already encouraging commercial debt reduction through the Brady plan. This international agreement allows the IMF and World bank to devote some of their leading resources to facilitate voluntary debt reduction agreements between banks and debtors. As noted by the most recent International Monetary Fund —International Bank for Reconstruction and Development development committee communiqué, debt and debt service reduction arrangements that account for around 90 per cent. of the bank debt of the major debtor nations have now been reached.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. Lennox-Boyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the ODA have 513 records on loan. To list them all would involve disproportionate cost. Government Departments have a statutory right under the Public Records Acts to recall records temporarily from the Public Record Office for administrative use. Records are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. Goodlad
  None.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  BCCI
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the earliest date at which his Department was alerted to possible connections between Bank of Credit and Commerce International and terrorist organisations.
  676
  Mr. Dorrell
  The Treasury was first made aware of such possible connections in July 1991.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) of 21 October,Official Report, column 315, if he will now make it his policy to establish a study of the cost to be incurred by the loss of income tax, VAT and national insurance contributions and the payment of unemployment and other social security benefits in respect of the closure of the 31 pits originally indicated in the announcement of 13 October, so far as the figure can be assessed.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no means of accurately assessing these costs. To estimate the net cost of closing a pit it would be necessary to establish the costs of alternative courses of action. For example, the cost of subsidising a pit would have to be borne by electricity consumers, taxpayers or by diverting funds from other public expenditure programmes, all of which would have implications for employment elsewhere which are impossible to assess accurately.

  Trinidad Agreement
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to extend the terms of the Trinidad agreement to cover Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Debt relief on Trinidad terms has been extended by the Paris club to a total of 10 of the world's poorest and most heavily indebted countries, including Zambia, but Trinidad terms are not intended for less-indebted, lower-middle income countries such as Zimbabwe.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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.

  Sir John Cope
  Departments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not own any residential property in South Yorkshire.

  Debt
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to increase the proportion of developing country debt eligible for write-off from 50 per cent. to 66 per cent.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government were responsible for the Trinidad initiative to tackle the debt burden of the poorest and most indebted countries, and hopes that Trinidad terms can be developed further in the direction of our original proposals which were for a benchmark figure of two thirds reduction applied immediately to the whole stock of debt.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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.

  Sir John Cope
  Government Departments have a statutory right under the Public Records Acts to retrieve records temporarily from the Public Record Office for their own administrative use. Her Majesty's Treasury currently has 173 records out on loan. To list them all would involve disproportionate cost. Records are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed.

  Trinidad Terms
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what efforts have been undertaken by his Department to persuade other creditor countries to join the Trinidad terms agreement.

  Sir John Cope
  The Government have given a strong lead in tackling the debt burden of the poorest and most indebted countries and was responsible for both the Toronto and the Trinidad initiatives. The Government are committed to the task of persuading its Paris club partners to agree further improvements to the Trinidad terms, including encouraging all creditors, without exception, to implement debt reduction under these agreed terms.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made into the effect of value added tax changes that require payment on account rather than in arrears in Stoke-on-Trent, South; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  It is not possible to analysise by constituency area the effects of the requirement that the largest VAT payers should make payments monthly in arrears rather than quarterly in arrears. Overall, the change brings United Kingdom practice into line with that in most other EC member states, and offsets the cash flow loss to the Exchequer which would otherwise arise as a result of the reintroduction in this financial year of postponed accounting for VAT on acquisitions from other EC countries.

  Savings
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of(a) personal and (b) corporate savings in each of the years 1981 to 1991 inclusive; and what was the total amount of savings represented as a proportion of gross domestic product in each of these years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The figures for savings, before deducting depreciation and stock appreciation, are as follows:

  Personal sector savings £ billion

  Corporate sector savings £ billion

  Total savings as percentage of GDP (A) at market prices

  1981

  22·3

  28·0

  19

  1982

  21·6

  30·8

  18

  1983

  19·9

  39·4

  19

  678

  Personal sector savings £ billion

  Corporate sector savings £ billion

  Total savings as percentage of GDP (A) at market prices

  1984

  24·7

  40·7

  19

  1985

  25·9

  42·7

  19

  1986

  22·8

  46·0

  17

  1987

  19·6

  54·7

  18

  1988

  17·8

  56·4

  18

  1989

  23·5

  54·5

  18

  1990

  31·7

  50·7

  17

  1991

  39·8

  46·5

  15

  North Sea Gas
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on tax revenue(a) in total and (b) in percentage terms, of offsets against petroleum revenue taxation resulting from the project for the offshore transportation of gas from the central North sea via the central area transmission system to Teesside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have made no such estimate.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage change in(a) the retail prices index and (b) the health service prices index between September 1991 and September 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 6 November 1992]: The retail prices index rose by 3·6 per cent. and the health service prices index rose by 4·8 per cent.

  Unlike the retail prices index, the health service prices index measures changes in input costs, whereas it is output costs which bear on the amount of health care delivered. Output costs in the NHS have over long periods moved in line with those in the economy, taking account of efficiency gains.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals for legislation under which auditors of insurance companies would be prohibited from recruiting company directors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I see no reason to do so. Ethical guidance issued by the professional accountancy bodies states that no one should take part in the audit of a company if he has, during the period on which the report is to be made or at any time in the two years prior to the first day of that period, been an officer, other than auditor, or employee of that company. Under part II of the Companies Act 1989, recognised supervisory bodies are required to have adequate rules and practices as to professional integrity and independence.

EDUCATION

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of 18-year-olds are in higher education in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America and (c) Japan.

  Mr. Forman
  The readily available figures are given in the table and represent participation at all ages—generally 18 and over.

  New entrants1 to higher education, 1988

  Country

  (main ages on entry)

  Participation rate2 (percentage)

  Japan3

  18

  37–52

  United Kingdom4

  18–21

  37

  United States of America5

  18

  33–65

  1Includes full-time and part-time students entering higher education for the first time i.e. excluding postgraduate students and others already having a qualification in higher education.

  2To aid comparison and overcome the problem of the varying lengths of courses in different countries, the participation rate is the percentage of all new entrants (defined above) to a derived relevant single year group. The latter is calculated by taking the total populations for the ages providing at least 70 per cent, of the new entrants and dividing by the number of ages involved. For the United Kingdom this is the population of ages 18 to 21 divided by 4. OECD recommend this procedure.

  3 The higher figure shown includes data for advanced special training schools (SENSHU') which may be equivalent to sub-degree higher education.

  4Excludes the private sector and students from abroad. Includes nursing and paramedical students at Health Department establishments.

  5The lower figure excludes students on two-year courses, some of which may not be equivalent to sub-degree higher education.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education 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. Forman
  Government Departments have a statutory right under the Public Records Acts temporarily to retrieve records from the Public Record Office for their own administrative use.

  The Department for Education regularly withdraws records relating to closed voluntary schools to deal with legal issues surrounding the disposal of premises. At present, the Department holds 50 records; of which nine are for those purposes described above. The others are being scrutinised for early release to the public. To list them all would involve disproportionate cost.

  It is unusual for this Department to withdraw records for more than two weeks and all are returned as soon as departmental action is complete.

  Universal Education
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what contribution the United Kingdom is making to the UNESCO-co-ordinated initiative, "Education for All"; and what work his Department is doing towards achieving the objective of basic education for every child and adult around the world.
  680
  Mr. Forman
  The Government support the objective of ensuring universal access to basic education. In the United Kingdom education is compulsory for all children of school age. The Government also recognise the importance of basic education for adults. Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the further education funding councils will be under a duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for literacy and numeracy teaching for adults.

  The Goverment will also continue to promote education in developing countries in collaboration with other aid donors, including UNESCO, UNICEF and the World bank. The Overseas Development Administration aims to identify new projects which will improve the quality, availability and relevance of education in developing countries, with particular reference to promoting literacy for women.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education 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. Forman
  The Department owns no properties in South Yorkshire.

  School Phobia
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research has been undertaken into school phobia; and what advice local education authorities receive in order to deal with this condition.

  Mr. Forth
  The most recent research on school phobia known to the Department is that undertaken by Mr. Nigel Blagg and summarised in his publication "School Phobia and its Treatment", published in 1987. The Department has not issued any guidance on the subject to date.

  Nursery Education
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money has been made available for nursery education under the capital grants system for grant-maintained schools for the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and how much has been allocated for 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  No money has been specifically set aside for nursery education under the capital grants system. All bids for capital grants are considered on their merits in the light of the funds available and the competing needs of all the schools in the grant-maintained sector.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance he has given to chairmen and governors of grant-mainted schools concerning the eligibility of nursery education projects for support funding under the allocation of capital grants to grant-maintained schools for 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  No specific guidance has been issued to cover nursery provision. The guidance offered to schools on capital bids applies throughout the grant-maintained sector, and as such includes nursery projects.

  Workers Educational Association
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current level of funding for the Workers Educational Association; and what is the projected funding for this organisation for the next financial year.

  Mr. Forman
  The Workers Educational Association in England is currently funded by a mixture of direct grant from the Department for Education and education support grant via local education authorities. In 1992–93 DFE grant is £2,266,000, while ESG funding, 70 per cent. of which is also provided by central Government, amounts to £1·3 million.

  From 1993–94, the Further Education Funding Council for England will take over responsibility for the grant currently paid by the Department for Education. It will be for the council to determine the level of that funding in the light of the overall resources available to it. The ESG funding will continue in 1993–94 at the same level as in 1992–93.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what was the total expenditure, in each local education authority, for major discretionary awards in the last available financial year;

  (2) how many local education authorities did not give major discretionary awards to students in the last financial year.

  Mr. Forman
  The available information is shown in the table. Three LEAs—Avon, Berkshire and Sunderland—were unable to provide information; one—Camden—made 149 discretionary awards at 50 to 100 per cent. of the mandatory rate; and two—Trafford and Isles of Scilly—made no such awards.

  Academic year 1990–91

  Discretionary awards paid at 50 to 100 per cent, of mandatory rate total expenditure on fees and maintenance

  Local authority

  Total expenditure £

  City of London

  18,798

  Camden

  n/a

  Greenwich

  353,670

  Hackney

  645,103

  Hammersmith

  307,388

  Islington

  57,013

  Kensington

  363,340

  Lambeth

  984,677

  Lewisham

  807,683

  Southwark

  709,091

  Tower Hamlets

  430,447

  Wandsworth

  2,011,917

  Westminster

  243,983

  ILEA

  6,252,653

  Barking

  248,514

  Barnet

  137,877

  Bexley

  365,139

  Brent

  810,816

  Bromley

  767,568

  Croydon

  515,467

  Ealing

  869,155

  Enfield

  456,151

  Haringey

  105,806

  Harrow

  371,725

  Havering

  439,685

  Hillingdon

  317,122

  Hounslow

  199,896

  682

  Local authority

  Total expenditure £

  Kingston

  434,735

  Merton

  202,681

  Newham

  445,621

  Redbridge

  907,650

  Richmond

  559,539

  Sutton

  259,318

  Waltham Forest

  580,722

  Birmingham

  1,776,135

  Coventry

  248,311

  Dudley

  275,699

  Sandwell

  543,469

  Solihull

  289,691

  Walsall

  1,343,472

  Wolverhampton

  223,502

  Knowsley

  1,179,233

  Liverpool

  2,806,557

  St. Helens

  209,906

  Sefton

  931,970

  Wirral

  1,709,108

  Bolton

  849,613

  Bury

  470,671

  Manchester

  417,897

  Oldham

  281,725

  Rochdale

  364,178

  Salford

  154,132

  Stockport

  352,327

  Tameside

  240,561

  Trafford

  0

  Wigan

  262,426

  Barnsley

  908,022

  Doncaster

  455,264

  Rotherham

  259,742

  Sheffield

  427,225

  Bradford

  1,535,646

  Calderdale

  500,408

  Kirklees

  1,550,050

  Leeds

  1,511,568

  Wakefield

  806,997

  Gateshead

  710,585

  Newcastle

  402,324

  North Tyneside

  571,188

  South Tyneside

  471,657

  Sunderland

  n/a

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Clwyd

  1,354,949

  Dyfed

  434,253

  Gwent

  827,120

  Gwnedd

  40,344

  Mid Glamorgan

  810,978

  Powys

  726,730

  South Glamorgan

  1,401,259

  West Glamorgan

  1,039,103

  Bedfordshire

  755,605

  Buckinghamshire

  1,188,107

  Cambridgeshire

  1,769,427

  Cheshire

  5,361,145

  Cleveland

  1,732,699

  Cornwall

  1,083,959

  Cumbria

  2,577,192

  Derbyshire

  1,169,704

  Devon

  4,739,157

  Dorset

  2,856,554

  Durham

  1,876,144

  Essex

  2,737,523

  Gloucestershire

  2,297,285

  Hampshire

  6,466,014

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,455,101

  Hertfordshire

  1,341,536

  Humberside

  3,772,527

  Isle of Wight

  367,022

  Kent

  4,698,803

  Lancashire

  5,251,306

  Leicestershire

  4,925,489

  Lincolnshire

  1,463,177

  Norfolk

  2,153,400

  North Yorkshire

  8,114,410

  683

  Local authority

  Total expenditure £

  Northamptonshire

  1,186,418

  Northumberland

  655,407

  Nottinghamshire

  2,739,570

  Oxfordshire

  1,230,249

  Shropshire

  1,550,763

  Somerset

  1,573,456

  Staffordshire

  1,510,034

  Suffolk

  2,969,060

  Surrey

  1,305,778

  Warwickshire

  553,503

  West Sussex

  591,123

  Wiltshire

  1,308,156

  Avon

  n/a

  Berkshire

  n/a

  Total

  141,997,949

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what action can be taken by students, in local education authorities where major discretionary awards have been cut or withdrawn, in order to finance non-degree or degree equivalent courses; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure an equitable availability of major discretionary awards between local education authorities.

  Mr. Forman
  It is for each local education authority to determine its own policies and expenditure on discretionary awards in the light of local needs and priorities. The local authority grant settlement for 1992–93 allowed for a substantial increase in overall education spending. Students who are unsuccessful in obtaining discretionary awards may seek help from, for example, their institutions' access funds, sponsors such as employers, educational trusts or other sources.

  Schools
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authority schools were open and functioning in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows, for each year since 1979, the number of LEA-maintained schools in England which were open in January of each year.

  Academic Year Beginning

  1986 0000s

  1987 0000s

  1988 0000s

  1989 0000s

  1990 0000s

  Maintained Schools

  Grammar/Technical

  4·7

  4·6

  4·6

  5·1

  5·8

  Sixth Form College

  6·2

  6·7

  6·4

  7·2

  8·7

  Comprehensive

  20·9

  20·7

  20·8

  22·7

  25·6

  Other Secondary

  0·2

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  0·2

  Total1

  37·5

  37·8

  37·6

  40·8

  46·0

  Independent Schools1

  14·9

  14·7

  15·5

  16·8

  18·6

  FHE Sector1

  8·2

  8·3

  10·1

  11·3

  13·8

  Total1

  60·6

  60·8

  63·3

  69·1

  78·4

  Not Classified1 2

  10·9

  11·9

  11·2

  11·6

  14·1

  Total Acceptances1 2

  71·3

  72·7

  74·4

  80·6

  92·5

  Source: UCCA Statistical Supplements.

  1 Includes acceptances from Scotland.

  2 Incluses acceptances of those who applied direct to UCCA, whether or not they were attending an FHE institution at the time.
  684

  Schools

  1979

  28,085

  1980

  28,006

  1981

  27,747

  1982

  27,323

  1983

  26,974

  1984

  26,479

  1985

  26,110

  1986

  25,800

  1987

  25,593

  1988

  25,389

  1989

  25,158

  1990

  24,999

  1991

  24,759

  11992

  24,449

  1 Provisional

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what level of funding local education authorities receive in order to ensure access to education establishments for disabled persons.

  Mr. Forth
  Local authorities do not receive any grant specifically for this purpose. Central Government support for local authorities is virtually entirely through general grant, which is not hypothecated to particular purposes. Local authorities are thus free to determine their own spending priorities. Information on local education authorities' spending to ensure access to education establishments for disabled persons is not collected centrally.

  University Admissions
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for the last five years, the figures for admission to British universities by type of school of those admitted; and if he will give both the aggregate figure and the figure for each university.

  Mr. Forman
  The number of United Kingdom domiciled candidates in Great Britain accepted through the UCCA scheme for entry to full-time and sandwich first degree courses at United Kingdom universities are shown in the table.
  685
  Information for each institution individually is not published by UCCA.

  School Transport
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he proposes to take with regard to the proposal in the consultation paper "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services" to introduce compulsory competitive tendering for transport centrally organised by local education authorities for journeys between home and school or college.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, remain committed to imposing a rigorous competitive regime on local authorities' provision of vehicles for home to school and home to college transport. In the light of responses to "Competing for Quality", they have concluded that this can best be achieved by imposing on all authorities, not just those running their own transport fleets, a competitive tendering regime compatible with that already required by the Transport Act 1985 in respect of public transport subsidised by local authorities. This will enable authorities to continue to make co-ordinated, cost-effective arrangements for all transport provided from or assisted by public funds, as required by the 1985 Act. It will also mean that local transport operators will work under a single tendering regime.

  The 1985 Act regime needs to be amended to provide for competition between private contractors and authorities' own work forces in accordance with the principles of the compulsory competitive tendering regime laid down in the Local Government Act 1988. This will require primary legislation, which will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Battlefield Sites
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list, by county for the United Kingdom, the initiatives he proposes to introduce to secure the preservation of battlefield sites.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government have invited English Heritage to prepare a register of battlefield sites in England to inform planning decisions which may affect them. The National Army museum is currently undertaking the research for the register on behalf of English Heritage. The register should be available for consultation early next year. Responsibility for the preservation of battlefield sites in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rests with the relevant Secretaries of State.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how the Government intend to proceed on the proposed extension of compulsory competitive tendering to local authority managed arts facilities and public library support services.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government believe that the wider application of competition to the provision of local authority services will bring significant benefits in terms of the quality and value for money for the public.
  686
  Proposals to extend compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) to a range of local authority services, including arts facilities and library support services, were set out in the consultation paper "Competing for Quality", published in November 1991. I have discussed with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales the responses to that document which referred to arts and library services, and we are agreed on the way forward in those areas.

  On arts facilities, my Department received some 180 responses, mostly from local authorities and arts organisations. We are grateful for the helpful comments contained in those responses. In reaching conclusions, I have also taken into account the Audit Commission's report "Local Authorities, Entertainment and the Arts" (January 1991), which identified three principal weaknesses in local authority arts management: lack of policy objectives, absence of monitoring of performance and inadequate financial control.

  On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that there is scope to improve local authority arts provision through the introduction of increased competition. However, I have also concluded from that evidence that there are appreciable differences between the management of arts facilities and that of most of the other services to which the extension of CCT has been set out in a written reply by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Particularly important considerations are the wide diversity between local authorities in the extent and type of arts facilities provided and the very long planning times required in drawing up arts programmes.

  In view of these differences, I propose to commission consultants to undertake further studies in order to determine how competition might best be applied to this area of local authority management. In addition, to assist local authorities in clarifying and monitoring their service objectives, the Audit Commission will be invited to identify and disseminate models of good practice.

  With regard to public library support services, we received 130 responses to the consultation paper from commercial library suppliers, individual librarians and members of the public as well as from local authorities. Many local authority responses drew on experience with existing contracts for library support services or on studies which they had already carried out into the potential for contracting out support work. I am grateful for the helpful way in which respondents dealt with our proposal.

  From this evidence, it is clear to me that competition has already resulted in value for money from library support services and that there is little scope for further cost reductions in the areas covered in the consultation exercise. I have concluded, therefore, that CCT for support services would not necessarily be the best way forward for encouraging greater competition in the public library field.

  However, I do see scope for extending the contracting out of services in the library field, if necessary on a compulsory basis. The consultation exercise showed a need to consider library operations on a wider basis, rather than arbitrarily designating certain aspects in advance as ancillary. I therefore propose a thorough investigation, based upon a series of pilot projects designed to examine the feasibility of contracting out the direct delivery of all or various parts of the library service. These will take place over the next 18 months and, throughout the investigation, I look forward to a close partnership with local authorities

  687
  and other interested organisations including the library suppliers. My Department will establish a steering committee to advise and monitor the investigation.

  Once the investigation is complete, I shall make the results widely available. I intend in so doing to set out a range of competitive options for library authorities to choose between, having regard to their particular circumstances.

  Performances
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the performances of(a) theatre, (b) dance, (c) opera and (d) music which he has attended in an official capacity since taking up his appointment.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since my appointment as Secretary of State for National Heritage I have attended performances of "Three Birds Alighting on a Field" at the Royal Court theatre, the Duenna at Opera North, a memorial concert for Sir Andrzej Panufnik at the Queen Elizabeth hall, a concert given by the Guildhall chamber orchestra and a private concert in honour of the eightieth birthday of Sir Georg Solti. I shall be attending the opening concert of the Scandinavian arts festival at the Barbican and the Royal Ballet's performance of "Mayerling" this week. I have also visited the Yorkshire Sculpture park, and the MENCAP art exhibition.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many regional arts boards he has visited since taking up his appointment.

  Mr. Brooke
  I met the chairman and director of the Yorkshire and Humberside arts board when I visited Yorkshire on 1 October. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has to date also met representatives of the Northern, North West and London arts boards on visits to those regions. In addition, I held a meeting with the chairmen—or their representatives—of all the regional arts boards on 28 October.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Greyhound Racing
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he will take to promote the well-being of greyhound racing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The promotion of greyhound racing is the responsibility of the industry itself. However, when general betting duty was reduced in the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the hope that voluntary arrangements could be made for some of the money to go to greyhound racing. We understand that negotiations between greyhound racing and bookmakers are continuing in an effort to devise suitable arrangements for that purpose.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress with the voluntary agreement between the off-course bookmakers and the greyhound racing industry over the transfer of the 0·25 per cent. reduction in betting duty introduced in April.
  688
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We understand that negotiations between the off-course bookmakers and the greyhound racing industry to devise suitable voluntary arrangements are continuing. We have been kept informed of developments, and hope that the negotiations can be brought to a successful conclusion in the near future.

  Police (Housing)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the numbers and locations of empty service police housing quarters in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office does not hold information about the location of police housing, which is owned and managed by individual police authorities. According to information received from South Yorkshire police authority, eight houses were empty as at 31 March 1992. One of these is due to be re-allocated to a serving policy officer, and five have been identified for sale during the current financial year.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total revenue expenditure in each of the English regions on police, fire and civil defence services in the years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information on net revenue expenditure by English local authorities on these services in 1990–91 and 1991–92 is given in the table. Expenditure on these services is not aggregated on any regional basis.

  Police

  Net current expenditure supported by Home Office specific grant (excluding loan charges)

  £000s

  Police Authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Avon and Somerset

  102,351

  111,509

  Bedfordshire

  35,599

  39,148

  Cambridgeshire

  42,364

  47,116

  Cheshire

  62,370

  66,960

  Cleveland

  50,246

  54,802

  Cumbria

  39,612

  45,001

  Derbyshire

  61,261

  66,048

  Devon and Cornwall

  105,660

  117,649

  Dorset

  49,024

  52,006

  Durham

  44,964

  48,589

  Essex

  104,703

  115,540

  Gloucestershire

  40,236

  44,611

  Hampshire

  111,152

  124,869

  Hertfordshire

  58,743

  62,868

  Humberside

  69,697

  77,396

  Kent

  109,013

  128,734

  Lancashire

  108,135

  121,946

  Leicestershire

  61,274

  67,196

  Lincolnshire

  41,597

  47,235

  Norfolk

  48,115

  54,100

  Northamptonshire

  40,084

  45,498

  North Yorkshire

  47,396

  51,679

  Nottinghamshire

  75,709

  82,629

  Staffordshire

  74,272

  82,163

  Suffolk

  43,008

  48,042

  Surrey

  57,125

  63,421

  Sussex

  92,991

  105,647

  Thames Valley

  134,225

  149,414

  Warwickshire

  36,082

  39,842

  West Mercia

  68,707

  77,230

  Wiltshire

  40,885

  46,215

  Greater Manchester

  228,550

  248,807

  689

  Police Authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Merseyside

  160,697

  178,881

  Northumbria

  121,364

  131,161

  South Yorkshire

  94,778

  103,165

  West Midlands

  229,256

  250,816

  West Yorkshire

  181,186

  197,226

  City of London

  37,074

  40,820

  Metropolitan Police Department

  1,197,618

  1,341,318

  Total

  4,307,123

  4,777,296

  Fire Service net expenditure

  (£000s)

  Net expenditure

  County councils

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Avon

  17,562

  119,411

  Bedfordshire

  9,307

  19,734

  Berkshire

  13,546

  113,586

  Buckinghamshire

  10,206

  110,700

  Cambridgeshire

  10,485

  111,160

  Cheshire

  18,155

  18,642

  Cleveland

  16,761

  117,270

  Cornwall

  8,648

  8,801

  Cumbria

  10,176

  110,079

  Derbyshire

  15,954

  16,320

  Devon

  19,326

  18,971

  Dorset

  10,229

  111,455

  Durham

  12,260

  112,287

  East Sussex

  13,319

  14,476

  Essex

  28,965

  29,994

  Gloucestershire

  7,866

  18,988

  Hampshire

  23,462

  124,763

  Hereford and Worcester

  10,933

  111,286

  Hertfordshire

  16,342

  117,039

  Humberside

  20,896

  20,985

  Isle of Wight

  2,699

  2,885

  Kent

  27,778

  131,839

  Lancashire

  28,197

  129,863

  Leicestershire

  12,240

  113,610

  Lincolnshire

  9,387

  9,491

  Norfolk

  12,047

  12,538

  Northamptonshire

  9,064

  9,827

  Northumberland

  7,589

  8,294

  North Yorkshire

  13,165

  113,129

  Nottinghamshire

  17,769

  118,642

  Oxfordshire

  8,737

  19,628

  Shropshire

  6,896

  17,193

  Somerset

  7,329

  17,684

  Staffordshire

  17,901

  118,087

  Suffolk

  10,831

  111,163

  Surrey

  21,974

  21,948

  Warwickshire

  10,552

  110,138

  West Sussex

  12,035

  13,095

  Wiltshire

  9,105

  19,007

  Fire and civil defence authorities

  London

  215,031

  1221,533

  Greater Manchester

  56,303

  58,993

  Merseyside

  39,869

  142,348

  South Yorkshire

  28,070

  127,900

  Tyne and Wear

  28,577

  28,724

  West Midlands

  53,580

  55,783

  West Yorkshire

  47,087

  148,588

  Isles of Scilly

  86

  193

  England Total

  1,008,296

  1,047,970

  1 Outturn expenditure not available. Figures shown are local authority budget estimates.

  690

  Civil Defence

  Net current expenditure supported by Home Office specific grant

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  (i) County councils

  Avon

  289

  321

  Bedfordshire

  208

  238

  Berkshire

  403

  479

  Buckinghamshire

  362

  412

  Cambridgeshire

  384

  416

  Cheshire

  501

  573

  Cleveland

  212

  240

  Cornwall

  320

  350

  Cumbria

  379

  435

  Derbyshire

  226

  259

  Devon

  624

  663

  Dorset

  321

  355

  Durham

  241

  241

  East Sussex

  319

  367

  Essex

  482

  514

  Gloucestershire

  290

  295

  Hampshire

  356

  426

  Hereford and Worcester

  240

  285

  Hertfordshire

  443

  497

  Humberside

  351

  345

  Isle of Wight

  273

  297

  Kent

  488

  550

  Lancashire

  314

  311

  Leicestershire

  225

  248

  Lincolnshire

  391

  374

  Norfolk

  421

  468

  Northamptonshire

  268

  293

  Northumberland

  308

  287

  North Yorkshire

  334

  364

  Nottinghamshire

  310

  349

  Oxfordshire

  403

  424

  Shropshire

  223

  276

  Somerset

  322

  353

  Staffordshire

  289

  309

  Suffolk

  298

  323

  Surrey

  392

  384

  Warwickshire

  297

  321

  West Sussex

  322

  340

  Wiltshire

  339

  340

  (ii) Fire and civil defence authorities

  London

  1,638

  1,812

  Greater Manchester

  524

  574

  Merseyside

  532

  628

  South Yorkshire

  436

  507

  Tyne and Wear

  431

  479

  West Midlands

  455

  495

  West Yorkshire

  454

  453

  (iii) Police authorities

  Avon-Somerset

  3

  5

  Greater Manchester

  4

  3

  Merseyside

  7

  6

  Northumbria

  11

  14

  Thames Valley

  12

  3

  West Mercia

  0

  3

  West Midlands

  6

  3

  (iv) London boroughs and City of London

  129

  94

  Total

  17,810

  19,398

  Mr. A. Alexandrowicz
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the case of Anthony Alexandrowicz is to be considered by the Parole Board.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Alexandrowicz is one of some 300 discretionary life prisoners who are now eligible for review
  691
  under new procedures introduced as a result of section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It is for the Parole Board to decide the order in which these cases are heard. To assist in this task, the board is provided with a list of those eligible in each prison establishment. These lists are compiled in accordance with the criteria announced in the Secretary of State's written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on 9 March 1992, at column 396. Mr. Alexandrowicz will be notified as soon as his case is listed for hearing.

  Primary Purpose Rule
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in trends have occurred since his announcement to adjust primary purpose guidance to allow entry to those spouses who can prove five years of marriage and supply evidence of devotion in this period.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 4 November 1992, at columns 221–22.

  Leave to Remain Status
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what categories of status equivalent to exceptional leave to remain are operative in other EC countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 3 November, at column 125.

  Disclosure to Defendants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the consequences for police operational efficiency of the ruling in the Guinness case requiring greater disclosure to defendants.

  Mr. Jack
  We have received no representations from members of the public, but the implications of this judgment have been discussed with the Crown prosecution service, the Association of Chief Police Officers and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many candidates have been interviewed for the post of chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Five.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of experimental procedures involving animals in 1991.

  Thousands

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Non-EC nationals admitted to the United Kingdom as visitors

  4,480

  5,080

  5,900

  6,570

  5,350

  5,730

  5,670

  6,220

  6,720

  5,690

  Non-EC nationals refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom

  12,234

  13,981

  17,355

  17,925

  23,110

  17,876

  19,217

  22,536

  19,035

  18,182

  Persons refused an entry clearance other than for settlement1, at posts abroad

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  68,210

  77,380

  692
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on the number of scientific procedures involving living animals started in 1991 is contained in table 1 of the Command Paper "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 1991", Cm 2023, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) against the Asylum and Immigration Bill.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the period between the publication of the Bill on 22 October and 6 November three representations were received in the asylum division expressing support for the legislation and 10 expressing concern about, or opposition to, one or more elements of the legislation.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made by the Malins Committee into the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that the planning group chaired by Mr. Humfrey Malins has sent a consultation letter to those individuals and organisations identified as having a particular interest in the future arrangements for immigration advice and representation. Mr. Malins has agreed that a copy of that letter may be placed in the Library of the House. The group has asked for comments by the end of November and hopes to publish its report by the end of the year.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors have applied to enter and settle in the United Kingdom; how many applications have been granted; how many have had their applications refused; and how many have appealed against their refusal, giving the figures in each case since 1982, by year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: The immigration rules make no provision for a person simultaneously to seek entry as a visitor and as a person coming for settlement; by definition a visitor is a person who intends to return to his or her own country after a stay of at most six months in the United Kingdom. The available information in respect of visitors is given in the table. It is likely that most of the persons refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom, or refused an entry clearance other than for settlement, were visitors. Visitors are also thought to comprise well over half of those appealing against a refusal of leave to enter or of entry clearance for temporary purposes.
  693

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Appeals received by the appellate authorities in respect of persons refused leave to enter or refused entry clearance for temporary purposes

  2—

  2—

  2,404

  1,994

  2,535

  3,848

  7,909

  8,764

  12,454

  14,036

  1 That is, all persons excluding spouses, fiance(e)s, children and other dependent relations seeking settlement.

  2 Not available.

  Drugs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing for each police area in England and Wales for each of the last three years the number of seizures of controlled drugs and the specific number in each of the following categories(a) heroin, (b) cocaine, (c) crack, (d) MDMA, (e) amphetamines and (f) cannabis.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested with regard to those drugs, with the exception of "crack", is contained in table A1.3 of the Home Office statistical bulletins "Statistics of the misuse of drugs—seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1989, 1990, and 1991—area tables"—copies of which are in the Library. Information regarding MDMA is available only from 1990 onwards.

  The table shows the number of seizures of "crack" by police force area in England and Wales in 1990 and 1991.

  Seizures of "crack" by police force area, 1990 and 1991

  England and Wales

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  England

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  11

  Bedfordshire

  —

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  11

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  5

  6

  Hampshire

  1

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  5

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  2

  7

  City of London

  —

  2

  Metropolitan Police

  275

  516

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  1

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  5

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  Surrey

  1

  —

  Sussex

  1

  1

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  1

  West Midlands

  2

  10

  West Yorkshire

  9

  10

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  694

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  England—other

  1

  —

  All English police forces

  315

  578

  Wales

  Dyfed and Powys

  —

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  3

  All Welsh police forces

  —

  3

  Total—England and Wales

  315

  581

  Wolds Remand Centre
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are being held at Wolds remand centre at the latest available date; when he expects that it will reach full capacity; and what plans he has to widen its catchment area or take in other categories of prisoner.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On Monday 9 November 1992, a total of 233 prisoners were unlocked at Wolds remand prison. It had been expected that its present catchment area would fill it to capacity. This has proved not to be the case and the prison service is now considering how best to make up the shortfall.

  Prison Service Uniforms
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of items and the value of the prison service uniforms for which contracts to purchase were placed in the last year for which figures are available; if he will give a breakdown of those figures according to whether the product was(a) made and finished in the United Kingdom from fabric produced in the United Kingdom, (b) finished in the United Kingdom from imported fabric and (c) finished in the United Kingdom but made abroad; if he will give similar information for other major clothing contracts for which he is responsible; and if he will make a statement of his purchasing policy in such matters.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For the period 1 October 1991 to 30 September 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, the total number of items and the value of contracts to purchase Prison Service uniforms and of other major clothing contracts, where the information required is known, are shown in the table, in the form requested.

  Her Majesty's Treasury is responsible for setting public purchasing policy. All Government procurement is based on value for money—that is, quality, fitness for purpose, and delivery against price. The European Community supplies directive requires member states to advertise major public contracts throughout the community. It also

  695
  requires supplier and product selection to be based on objective criteria intended to prevent a bias towards national interests.

  Uniform:

  (a) Products made and finished in the United Kingdom from fabric produced in the United Kingdom—16 items purchased to the value of approximately £1·4 million.

  (b) Products finished in the United Kingdom from imported fabric—13 items purchased to the value of approximately £860K.

  (c) Products finished in the United Kingdom but made abroad—Two items purchased to the value of approximately £172K.

  Other major clothing contracts:

  (a) Products made and finished in the United Kingdom from fabric produced in the United Kingdom—Three items purchased to the value of approximately £47K.

  (b) Products finished in the United Kingdom from imported fabric—Two items purchased to the value of approximately £130K.

  (c) Products finished in the United Kingdom but made abroad—Three items purchased to the value of approximately £308K.

  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the working of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 with particular reference to the exceptions from the Act.

  Mr. Jack
  There are no plans to review the working of the Act itself. However, it is intended that the number and range of exceptions to the Act should be re-examined as part of the review of the arrangements for the disclosure of information from criminal records which will be undertaken in advance of the computerisation of the national collection of criminal records.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish the report by Richard Kornicki on the future of police funding; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Richard Kornicki is one of several Home Office officials who have been working on the future of police funding and are continuing to do so. His review was a working document, which was prepared as advice by officials to Ministers. It would be inappropriate to publish such internal advice.

  Prison Escapes
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners escaped(a) from prison and (b) whilst being escorted to and from court, in each of the last five years; and how many of them were recaptured in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information available relates to prisoners who escaped from prison, or while being escorted outside prison, or were recaptured, between 20 June 1988 and 8 November 1992. Information was not collected centrally prior to June 1988.

  Escapers from prison

  Escapers from escort

  Recaptured1

  20 June 1988 to 31 December 1988

  104

  61

  156

  1989

  163

  118

  260

  1990

  195

  119

  303

  696

  Escapers from prison

  Escapers from escort

  Recaptured1

  1991

  304

  144

  424

  1 January 1992 to 8 November 1992

  220

  117

  271

  1 Includes four prisoners who died while unlawfully at large.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has responsibility for keeping and updating the central list of all escaped prisoners; and how often the list is updated.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The incident management support unit in prison headquarters is responsible, among other matters, for keeping a list of all prisoners who have escaped from Prison Service custody in England and Wales. The list is updated monthly to take account of those who have been recaptured.

  Polling Stations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if grant-maintained schools will supply facilities for polling stations in the same manner as local education authority schools, free of charge to the local authority.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A returning officer at both parliamentary and at local government elections is entitled to use, free of charge, as a polling station a room in a local education authority maintained or assisted school or in a grant-maintained school.

  Local Authority Services
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his conclusions on the responses to proposals to extend competition to a wider range of local authority services set out in the consultation paper "Competing for Quality", published in November 1991, as it will affect the police and fire service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  As my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment has today announced, the Government have come to the conclusion that, while some amendments to the original proposals are necessary, compulsory competition is the best way of securing greater efficiency and cost savings in the provision of local authority services, while guaranteeing a high standard of services to the local taxpayers. The police and fire services will be playing a part in the process.

  The fire service has unique front-line vehicles which carry specialist pumping, hydraulic and mechanical equipment. The maintenance and repair of vehicles and equipment is synchronised in order to ensure operational efficiency. I take the view that they should remain exempt from compulsory competitive tendering for the present, but, in order to encourage wider competition, I intend that all brigades, with the exception of those whose maintenance staff also have firefighting duties should be required to market test vehicle and equipment maintenance over the next three years. The whole of each brigade's vehicle fleet will be included in order to provide a realistic assessment and to identify those contractors best placed to offer the comprehensive range of services

  697
  required. I intend to discuss with the fire authorities how this can best be taken forward to ensure that operational efficiency is maintained and in 12 months I intend to announce targets in this area.

  The support services for the fire service which are provided by the fire authority will, of course, fall to be considered within the framework of the arrangements for construction-related and corporate services set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  We have consulted widely within the police service and local authority associations about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to police vehicle maintenance and the cleaning of police buildings. We have received a number of constructive replies outlining concerns over security and quality of service.

  I have taken these concerns seriously. I wish to ensure the widest possible application of compulsory competitive tendering that is consistent with operational efficiency and security requirements. An order will be made under the Local Government Act 1988 extending the application of compulsory competitive tendering to 40 per cent. of the annual value of police vehicle maintenance and repair. A
  698
  period of three years will be allowed to evaluate the effects of this provision, after which I shall decide on further progress. An order will also be made extending compulsory competitive tendering to 90 per cent. of the annual value of cleaning police buildings. I anticipate that the first tenders will be sought in 1994–95.

  I also intend to extend compulsory competive tendering to corporate and construction-related police support services. I intend to engage in further consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and the local authority associations on the detailed implementation of these proposals and the introduction of a new accounting framework.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be introducing similar provisions for maintenance and repair of fire service vehicles, for maintenance of police vehicles and for cleaning of police buildings in Scotland. He will also consult on extension of compulsory competitive tendering to corporate and construction-related support services and on a new accounting framework.

  Prison Catering
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 October,Official Report, column 453, if he will list the budgets under which the prison catering contracts were let and administered together with the value of each contract.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 6 November 1992]: The budgets under which the prison catering contracts were let and administered are as follows:—

  E(1)—Directorate of Inmate Administration running costs.

  F(1)—Directorate of Inmate Programmes running costs.

  G(1)—Direcorate of Custody running costs.

  The value of individual contracts is regarded as commercial in confidence. Prison catering contracts were awarded in the range from £268,856·00 to £404,988·00.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area

  Violence against the person

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  4,330

  5,170

  5,537

  5,321

  Bedfordshire

  2,009

  2,062

  2,102

  1,804

  Cambridgeshire

  1,773

  2,326

  2,431

  2,628

  Cheshire

  2,546

  2,513

  2,496

  2,641

  Cleveland

  2,493

  2,535

  2,747

  2,664

  Cumbria

  1,617

  1,794

  1,963

  1,873

  Derbyshire

  3,136

  3,379

  3,708

  3,958

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,719

  3,729

  3,621

  3,809

  Dorset

  1,297

  1,460

  1,566

  1,480

  Durham

  2,317

  2,416

  2,065

  2,345

  Essex

  4,017

  3,940

  3,929

  4,201

  Gloucestershire

  1,225

  1,362

  1,566

  1,570

  Greater Manchester

  9,549

  9,160

  8,879

  9,914

  Hampshire

  3,858

  4,293

  4,193

  5,186

  Hertfordshire

  1,856

  1,773

  1,727

  1,892

  Humberside

  5,590

  5,541

  5,031

  5,141

  Kent

  3,548

  3,754

  3,839

  5,129

  Lancashire

  3,041

  3,131

  2,966

  3,198

  Leicestershire

  2,664

  3,015

  3,163

  3,572

  Lincolnshire

  1,639

  2,007

  2,135

  2,099

  City of London

  211

  223

  173

  226

  Merseyside

  5,185

  5,114

  5,542

  6,811

  Metropolitan Police District

  29,017

  33,710

  36,947

  38,503

  Norfolk

  1,805

  1,862

  1,956

  1,854

  Northamptonshire

  2,180

  2,111

  2,001

  2,212

  Northumbria

  5,241

  5,413

  5,712

  6,023

  North Yorkshire

  1,702

  1,892

  2,095

  2,115

  Nottinghamshire

  6,600

  7,558

  7,542

  7,994

  South Yorkshire

  4,674

  4,933

  4,720

  4,776

  Staffordshire

  4,983

  5,263

  5,367

  5,683

  Suffolk

  1,663

  1,724

  1,785

  1,974

  Surrey

  1,762

  1,640

  1,845

  1,882

  Sussex

  2,982

  3,346

  3,240

  3,237

  Thames Valley

  4,429

  4,471

  4,451

  4,754

  Warwickshire

  1,141

  1,116

  1,091

  1,278

  West Mercia

  2,919

  3,439

  3,144

  3,259

  West Midlands

  9,050

  9,767

  10,435

  11,415

  West Yorkshire

  8,708

  8,949

  9,692

  10,038

  Wiltshire

  1,795

  2,138

  2,118

  2,488

  England

  158,271

  170,029

  175,520

  186,947

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,375

  1,574

  1,955

  2,107

  Gwent

  1,963

  2,131

  2,022

  2,323

  North Wales

  2,263

  2,278

  2,401

  2,608

  South Wales

  4,218

  4,496

  4,537

  5,519

  Wales

  9,819

  10,479

  10,915

  12,557

  England and Wales

  168,090

  180,508

  186,435

  199,504

  Crime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing(a) the number of recorded crimes and (b) the number of crimes committed by category for England and Wales and for each police force area in each 12-month period from June 1988.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: The information is available for recorded crimes only and is contained in the following tables.

  Figures are not available for crimes committed in these periods, but estimates for England and Wales covering the calendar year 1991 are provided in the British crime survey. First results of the British crime survey are published in "Home Office Research Findings No. 2", which is available in the Library.
  701

  Sexual offences

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  633

  702

  743

  614

  Bedfordshire

  330

  308

  331

  278

  Cambridgeshire

  386

  358

  400

  432

  Cheshire

  379

  346

  415

  492

  Cleveland

  323

  360

  264

  316

  Cumbria

  206

  231

  256

  215

  Derbyshire

  516

  562

  492

  429

  Devon and Cornwall

  643

  796

  791

  719

  Dorset

  284

  228

  300

  391

  Durham

  381

  425

  417

  443

  Essex

  597

  594

  603

  573

  Gloucestershire

  228

  249

  295

  309

  Greater Manchester

  1,482

  1,394

  1,422

  1,465

  Hampshire

  1,007

  948

  996

  1,158

  Hertfordshire

  431

  336

  371

  351

  Humberside

  891

  874

  882

  836

  Kent

  823

  909

  699

  1,097

  Lancashire

  656

  632

  634

  524

  Leicestershire

  364

  359

  400

  392

  Lincolnshire

  329

  380

  434

  291

  City of London

  29

  31

  18

  41

  Merseyside

  601

  726

  701

  759

  Metropolitan Police District

  4,287

  5,186

  5,437

  5,538

  Norfolk

  345

  367

  419

  387

  Northamptonshire

  303

  313

  264

  256

  Northumbria

  698

  683

  669

  720

  North Yorkshire

  257

  258

  260

  224

  Nottinghamshire

  1,210

  1,216

  1,135

  1,102

  South Yorkshire

  655

  716

  618

  627

  Staffordshire

  516

  473

  477

  487

  Suffolk

  322

  400

  401

  433

  Surrey

  329

  349

  383

  429

  Sussex

  772

  961

  733

  800

  Thames Valley

  1,162

  952

  855

  946

  Warwickshire

  201

  194

  192

  178

  West Mercia

  464

  477

  470

  498

  West Midlands

  1,499

  1,557

  1,533

  1,586

  West Yorkshire

  1,412

  1,595

  1,657

  1,506

  Wiltshire

  367

  365

  433

  389

  England

  26,318

  27,810

  27,800

  28,231

  Dyfed-Powys

  282

  283

  338

  363

  Gwent

  338

  323

  306

  271

  North Wales

  542

  284

  378

  361

  South Wales

  535

  526

  500

  518

  Wales

  1,697

  1,416

  1,522

  1,513

  England and Wales

  28,015

  29,226

  29,322

  29,744

  Robbery

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  625

  869

  1,204

  1,157

  Bedfordshire

  262

  303

  585

  558

  Cambridgeshire

  100

  152

  201

  271

  Cheshire

  115

  137

  163

  299

  Cleveland

  139

  129

  149

  238

  Cumbria

  52

  52

  55

  100

  Derbyshire

  120

  183

  205

  298

  Devon and Cornwall

  191

  191

  204

  294

  Dorset

  62

  109

  139

  140

  Durham

  78

  114

  113

  156

  Essex

  334

  319

  389

  454

  Gloucestershire

  104

  112

  192

  302

  Greater Manchester

  2,041

  2,083

  2,707

  3,882

  Hampshire

  250

  357

  407

  509

  Hertfordshire

  159

  143

  238

  278

  Humberside

  252

  238

  245

  330

  Kent

  230

  312

  424

  548

  702 703

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Lancashire

  249

  288

  342

  470

  Leicestershire

  522

  527

  505

  756

  Lincolnshire

  46

  70

  64

  82

  City of London

  60

  68

  57

  65

  Merseyside

  1,575

  1,517

  1,705

  1,983

  Metropolitan Police District

  17,409

  17,231

  19,804

  22,970

  Norfolk

  146

  140

  153

  226

  Northamptonshire

  163

  177

  210

  317

  Northumbria

  503

  639

  621

  941

  North Yorkshire

  76

  76

  84

  135

  Nottinghamshire

  506

  651

  775

  939

  South Yorkshire

  415

  455

  476

  616

  Staffordshire

  189

  213

  237

  354

  Suffolk

  79

  133

  106

  138

  Surrey

  112

  139

  138

  216

  Sussex

  316

  433

  458

  490

  Thames Valley

  470

  650

  719

  941

  Warwickshire

  61

  57

  97

  133

  West Mercia

  113

  154

  172

  209

  West Midlands

  2,675

  2,921

  3,387

  4,531

  West Yorkshire

  872

  996

  1,439

  2,386

  Wiltshire

  70

  91

  116

  114

  England

  31,741

  33,429

  39,285

  48,806

  Dyfed-Powys

  17

  22

  38

  121

  Gwent

  60

  95

  97

  48

  North Wales

  71

  66

  99

  102

  South Wales

  231

  239

  266

  375

  Wales

  379

  422

  500

  646

  England and Wales

  32,120

  33,851

  39,785

  49,452

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area

  Burglary

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  17,096

  20,764

  31,351

  33,679

  Bedfordshire

  7,366

  8,602

  12,605

  14,110

  Cambridgeshire

  6,151

  7,675

  9,668

  13,125

  Cheshire

  10,424

  11,709

  14,743

  19,001

  Cleveland

  14,586

  15,037

  16,496

  19,757

  Cumbria

  6,341

  6,804

  9,011

  11,563

  Derbyshire

  8,737

  10,641

  15,892

  20,252

  Devon and Cornwall

  14,927

  17,778

  24,709

  26,922

  Dorset

  5,318

  6,967

  8,500

  9,631

  Durham

  9,265

  10,092

  12,696

  13,462

  Essex

  13,965

  16,620

  22,461

  26,410

  Gloucestershire

  7,668

  8,650

  10,906

  14,432

  Greater Manchester

  73,686

  78,605

  93,405

  100,720

  Hampshire

  17,991

  22,494

  29,208

  32,963

  Hertfordshire

  6,086

  7,135

  10,254

  11,548

  Humberside

  20,333

  26,328

  29,238

  34,538

  Kent

  13,446

  16,847

  23,507

  29,126

  Lancashire

  16,762

  19,796

  23,036

  26,263

  Leicestershire

  10,261

  13,830

  18,943

  22,262

  Lincolnshire

  6,094

  7,361

  8,547

  10,150

  City of London

  758

  968

  1,077

  1,000

  Merseyside

  38,650

  34,833

  33,799

  33,742

  Metropolitan Police District

  142,140

  160,062

  182,485

  194,338

  Norfolk

  9,836

  11,496

  13,510

  16,225

  Northamptonshire

  6,198

  7,438

  11,007

  12,401

  Northumbria

  47,001

  52,319

  58,995

  68,385

  North Yorkshire

  8,141

  8,326

  10,836

  13,804

  Nottinghamshire

  16,686

  20,951

  27,735

  33,121

  South Yorkshire

  21,030

  24,778

  31,035

  38,076

  Staffordshire

  13,539

  15,281

  21,612

  25,318

  Suffolk

  5,870

  6,396

  7,417

  8,403

  Surrey

  6,938

  7,816

  11,253

  11,521

  Sussex

  14,964

  19,027

  24,637

  27,340

  Thames Valley

  18,460

  23,704

  31,101

  36,174

  704 705

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Warwickshire

  5,362

  6,097

  8,386

  11,956

  West Mercia

  8,672

  9,933

  12,095

  16,102

  West Midlands

  58,277

  63,499

  74,163

  92,394

  West Yorkshire

  42,680

  50,381

  68,126

  85,108

  Wiltshire

  5,044

  5,816

  7,257

  8,595

  England

  756,749

  862,856

  1,061,702

  1,223,917

  Dyfed-Powys

  2,779

  2,866

  4,428

  4,999

  Gwent

  3,989

  4,233

  6,328

  8,146

  North Wales

  8,022

  7,647

  8,872

  12,093

  South Wales

  24,601

  26,268

  32,475

  37,554

  Wales

  39,391

  41,014

  52,103

  62,792

  England and Wales

  796,140

  903,870

  1,113,805

  1,286,709

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Numbers of offences

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  53,541

  59,197

  80,350

  85,086

  Bedfordshire

  19,801

  25,390

  32,116

  29,524

  Cambridgeshire

  19,957

  23,761

  30,316

  36,512

  Cheshire

  23,633

  26,046

  29,392

  36,854

  Cleveland

  30,307

  35,894

  41,740

  45,018

  Cumbria

  13,280

  14,865

  20,503

  21,992

  Derbyshire

  23,113

  27,700

  34,448

  43,352

  Devon and Cornwall

  39,956

  43,978

  53,648

  58,403

  Dorset

  21,162

  26,062

  31,138

  29,187

  Durham

  21,048

  23,984

  30,714

  33,843

  Essex

  39,571

  46,310

  57,202

  61,954

  Gloucestershire

  18,176

  22,132

  26,280

  36,670

  Greater Manchester

  143,981

  153,516

  184,125

  191,642

  Hampshire

  50,412

  60,441

  73,752

  83,961

  Hertfordshire

  21,843

  23,754

  28,417

  33,262

  Humberside

  41,140

  48,087

  54,725

  59,696

  Kent

  43,719

  52,224

  69,297

  86,190

  Lancashire

  43,875

  50,469

  59,323

  68,388

  Leicestershire

  27,387

  34,333

  44,860

  49,843

  Lincolnshire

  18,201

  20,348

  24,146

  24,927

  City of London

  4,364

  5,009

  5,133

  4,954

  Merseyside

  66,749

  68,042

  73,480

  78,131

  Metropolitan Police District

  371,314

  400,059

  434,816

  465,768

  Norfolk

  22,839

  27,577

  32,961

  37,097

  Northamptonshire

  20,715

  23,374

  28,710

  30,319

  Northumbria

  85,305

  94,949

  99,992

  96,144

  North Yorkshire

  18,036

  22,783

  29,256

  30,453

  Nottinghamshire

  53,775

  66,273

  80,910

  87,047

  South Yorkshire

  47,033

  52,103

  57,963

  65,225

  Staffordshire

  27,352

  31,716

  37,975

  43,555

  Suffolk

  15,358

  17,422

  20,745

  23,625

  Surrey

  16,117

  19,755

  25,606

  29,480

  Sussex

  38,685

  46,069

  58,459

  65,585

  Thames Valley

  66,136

  78,971

  101,034

  118,464

  Warwickshire

  12,521

  16,286

  20,807

  22,577

  West Mercia

  25,727

  31,616

  37,954

  44,685

  West Midlands

  115,942

  124,872

  142,192

  150,562

  West Yorkshire

  89,345

  108,003

  138,419

  151,597

  Wiltshire

  13,722

  15,450

  19,804

  21,436

  England

  1,825,138

  2,068,820

  2,452,708

  2,683,008

  Dyfed-Powys

  8,429

  8,618

  11,619

  14,753

  Gwent

  13,389

  14,304

  19,362

  22,291

  North Wales

  15,631

  16,782

  20,473

  23,094

  South Wales

  63,315

  67,030

  79,157

  82,789

  Wales

  100,764

  106,734

  130,611

  142,927

  England and Wales

  1,925,902

  2,175,554

  2,583,319

  2,825,935

  706 707

  Fraud and forgery

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  5,888

  6,796

  7,247

  6,248

  Bedfordshire

  2,218

  2,600

  2,357

  2,252

  Cambridgeshire

  1,082

  1,343

  1,654

  1,712

  Cheshire

  1,813

  1,739

  1,754

  2,330

  Cleveland

  2,246

  2,055

  1,992

  1,743

  Cumbria

  930

  829

  901

  949

  Derbyshire

  1,005

  1,201

  1,150

  1,330

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,536

  3,430

  4,085

  3,627

  Dorset

  3,128

  3,311

  3,353

  3,885

  Durham

  1,635

  2,048

  2,071

  2,429

  Essex

  1,955

  2,192

  3,088

  3,673

  Gloucestershire

  1,342

  1,282

  1,678

  2,230

  Greater Manchester

  9,977

  10,397

  11,624

  12,227

  Hampshire

  3,770

  3,931

  5,518

  5,403

  Hertfordshire

  2,566

  2,054

  1,531

  1,560

  Humberside

  2,625

  2,915

  3,166

  3,208

  Kent

  1,913

  2,256

  3,071

  4,071

  Lancashire

  5,235

  3,759

  3,310

  3,665

  Leicestershire

  1,890

  1,941

  2,577

  2,984

  Lincolnshire

  960

  973

  1,137

  1,363

  City of London

  420

  491

  643

  526

  Merseyside

  3,791

  3,860

  4,629

  5,489

  Metropolitan Police District

  29,991

  32,812

  42,129

  42,623

  Norfolk

  1,245

  1,383

  1,551

  1,838

  Northamptonshire

  1,103

  1,114

  1,431

  1,589

  Northumbria

  2,349

  3,475

  3,418

  3,632

  North Yorkshire

  956

  987

  1,009

  1,203

  Nottinghamshire

  2,439

  2,884

  3,547

  3,898

  South Yorkshire

  1,584

  1,875

  1,998

  2,059

  Staffordshire

  1,416

  1,566

  1,802

  2,106

  Suffolk

  1,274

  1,614

  1,943

  1,997

  Surrey

  1,289

  1,369

  2,014

  2,134

  Sussex

  2,443

  2,835

  3,934

  4,406

  Thames Valley

  3,938

  5,087

  6,364

  7,776

  Warwickshire

  669

  685

  1,058

  1,256

  West Mercia

  1,015

  1,131

  1,410

  1,405

  West Midlands

  5,318

  6,075

  6,878

  7,903

  West Yorkshire

  4,767

  4,868

  6,530

  6,768

  Wiltshire

  873

  1,086

  1,637

  1,758

  England

  122,594

  132,249

  157,189

  167,255

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,211

  1,164

  1,318

  1,184

  Gwent

  1,045

  1,092

  1,130

  1,093

  North Wales

  1,879

  1,360

  1,230

  1,417

  South Wales

  2,546

  2,833

  3,344

  3,640

  Wales

  6,681

  6,449

  7,022

  7,334

  England and Wales

  129,275

  138,698

  164,211

  174,589

  Criminal damage

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  13,542

  15,492

  18,761

  18,470

  Bedfordshire

  6,329

  7,062

  7,525

  8,078

  Cambridgeshire

  4,429

  4,979

  5,912

  6,851

  Cheshire

  7,602

  8,040

  8,874

  10,051

  Cleveland

  9,318

  10,242

  11,586

  12,900

  Cumbria

  4,431

  5,194

  6,606

  7,912

  Derbyshire

  8,178

  9,887

  11,302

  13,471

  Devon and Cornwall

  10,586

  12,071

  13,874

  15,164

  Dorset

  4,438

  5,162

  5,366

  5,644

  Durham

  9,387

  10,605

  12,095

  13,134

  Essex

  12,440

  13,274

  14,812

  16,709

  Gloucestershire

  4,267

  4,500

  5,382

  5,439

  Greater Manchester

  49,522

  53,063

  61,798

  63,931

  Hampshire

  15,389

  16,022

  17,605

  20,693

  Hertfordshire

  7,313

  7,661

  8,199

  8,989

  Humberside

  13,968

  16,295

  16,359

  18,223

  Kent

  13,519

  15,617

  19,397

  23,650

  708 709

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Lancashire

  20,237

  22,517

  24,020

  23,932

  Leicestershire

  7,301

  9,335

  11,614

  12,408

  Lincolnshire

  4,970

  5,731

  5,952

  6,925

  City of London

  400

  427

  441

  414

  Merseyside

  19,861

  20,294

  22,689

  23,903

  Metropolitan Police District

  122,490

  135,196

  152,823

  166,476

  Norfolk

  5,657

  6,722

  7,617

  8,531

  Northamptonshire

  6,797

  8,375

  10,005

  11,691

  Northumbria

  27,477

  36,471

  44,974

  48,994

  North Yorkshire

  4,789

  5,272

  5,177

  5,726

  Nottinghamshire

  17,579

  18,499

  21,564

  23,654

  South Yorkshire

  14,156

  15,471

  17,552

  19,935

  Staffordshire

  9,187

  10,379

  11,647

  12,982

  Suffolk

  5,127

  6,046

  6,228

  6,029

  Surrey

  4,622

  5,095

  6,108

  6,724

  Sussex

  9,187

  10,451

  12,019

  13,471

  Thames Valley

  16,327

  18,024

  23,634

  27,432

  Warwickshire

  3,411

  4,374

  4,873

  5,300

  West Mercia

  9,245

  10,726

  11,491

  11,395

  West Midlands

  33,249

  37,405

  39,922

  47,426

  West Yorkshire

  29,925

  33,783

  39,561

  44,571

  Wiltshire

  4,500

  5,096

  5,329

  5,849

  England

  571,152

  640,885

  730,693

  803,077

  Dyfed-Powys

  3,532

  3,406

  4,315

  5,257

  Gwent

  4,127

  4,927

  5,897

  6,057

  North Wales

  5,738

  6,671

  7,294

  7,742

  South Wales

  20,706

  25,435

  30,785

  33,843

  Wales

  34,103

  40,439

  48,291

  52,899

  England and Wales

  605,255

  681,294

  778,984

  855,976

  Other offences

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  603

  756

  752

  692

  Bedfordshire

  226

  235

  289

  214

  Cambridgeshire

  155

  306

  288

  301

  Cheshire

  526

  632

  1,001

  1,175

  Cleveland

  168

  227

  329

  283

  Cumbria

  153

  132

  208

  326

  Derbyshire

  423

  450

  459

  571

  Devon and Cornwall

  430

  457

  434

  629

  Dorset

  465

  667

  656

  717

  Durham

  218

  331

  318

  445

  Essex

  481

  582

  670

  653

  Gloucestershire

  170

  197

  270

  395

  Greater Manchester

  1,554

  1,868

  2,210

  2,594

  Hampshire

  559

  643

  890

  1,106

  Hertfordshire

  329

  417

  404

  415

  Humberside

  268

  303

  378

  539

  Kent

  811

  866

  874

  1,329

  Lancashire

  759

  846

  1,003

  1,180

  Leicestershire

  288

  279

  325

  471

  Lincolnshire

  209

  288

  425

  485

  City of London

  58

  73

  79

  70

  Merseyside

  1,089

  1,414

  1,637

  1,853

  Metropolitan Police District

  5,845

  7,232

  6,819

  6,842

  Norfolk

  228

  314

  361

  467

  Northamptonshire

  182

  239

  290

  348

  Northumbria

  574

  738

  736

  810

  North Yorkshire

  215

  263

  320

  413

  Nottinghamshire

  471

  701

  665

  566

  South Yorkshire

  508

  670

  786

  1,157

  Staffordshire

  290

  332

  353

  375

  Suffolk

  355

  489

  523

  562

  Surrey

  204

  301

  292

  278

  Sussex

  859

  1,026

  1,145

  1,235

  Thames Valley

  727

  1,006

  959

  1,082

  Warwickshire

  120

  147

  193

  253

  710 711

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  West Mercia

  345

  476

  489

  498

  West Midlands

  1,043

  1,433

  1,551

  1,690

  West Yorkshire

  958

  1,279

  1,627

  2,380

  Wiltshire

  159

  217

  295

  424

  England

  23,025

  28,832

  31,303

  35,823

  Dyfed-Powys

  216

  184

  228

  258

  Gwent

  150

  171

  278

  299

  North Wales

  215

  264

  279

  353

  South Wales

  501

  613

  727

  737

  Wales

  1,082

  1,232

  1,512

  1,647

  England and Wales

  24,107

  30,064

  32,815

  37,470

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area

  All Offences

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  July 1988 to June 1989

  July 1989 to June 1990

  July 1990 to June 1991

  July 1991 to June 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  96,258

  109,746

  145,945

  151,267

  Bedfordshire

  38,541

  46,562

  57,910

  56,818

  Cambridgeshire

  34,033

  40,900

  50,870

  61,832

  Cheshire

  47,038

  51,162

  58,838

  72,843

  Cleveland

  59,580

  66,479

  75,303

  82,919

  Cumbria

  27,010

  29,901

  39,503

  44,930

  Derbyshire

  45,228

  54,003

  67,656

  83,661

  Devon and Cornwall

  73,988

  82,430

  101,366

  109,567

  Dorset

  36,154

  43,966

  51018

  51,075

  Durham

  44,329

  50,015

  60,489

  66,257

  Essex

  73,360

  83,831

  103,154

  114,627

  Gloucestershire

  33,180

  38,484

  46,569

  61,347

  Greater Manchester

  291,792

  310,086

  366,170

  386,375

  Hampshire

  93,236

  109,129

  132,569

  150,979

  Hertfordshire

  40,583

  43,273

  51,141

  58,295

  Humberside

  85,067

  100,581

  110,024

  122,511

  Kent

  78,009

  92,785

  121,108

  151,140

  Lancashire

  90,814

  101,438

  114,634

  127,620

  Leicestershire

  50,677

  63,619

  82,387

  92,688

  Lincolnshire

  32,448

  37,158

  42,840

  46,322

  City of London

  6,300

  7,290

  7,621

  7,296

  Merseyside

  137,501

  135,800

  144,182

  152,651

  Metropolitan Police District

  722,493

  791,488

  881,260

  943,058

  Norfolk

  42,101

  49,861

  58,528

  66,625

  Northamptonshire

  37,641

  43,141

  53,918

  59,133

  Northumbria

  169,148

  194,687

  215,117

  225,649

  North Yorkshire

  34,172

  39,857

  49,037

  54,073

  Nottinghamshire

  99,266

  118,733

  143,873

  158,321

  South Yorkshire

  90,055

  101,001

  115,148

  132,471

  Staffordshire

  57,472

  65,223

  79,470

  90,860

  Suffolk

  30,048

  34,224

  39,148

  43,161

  Surrey

  31,373

  36,464

  47,639

  52,664

  Sussex

  70,208

  84,148

  104,625

  116,564

  Thames Valley

  111,649

  132,865

  169,117

  197,569

  Warwickshire

  23,486

  28,956

  36,697

  42,931

  West Mercia

  48,500

  57,952

  67,225

  78,051

  West Midlands

  227,053

  247,529

  280,061

  317,507

  West Yorkshire

  178,667

  209,854

  267,051

  304,354

  Wiltshire

  26,530

  30,259

  36,989

  41,053

  England

  3,514,988

  3,964,880

  4,676,200

  5,177,064

  Dyfed-Powys

  17,841

  18,117

  24,239

  28,969

  Gwent

  25,061

  27,276

  35,420

  40,601

  North Wales

  34,361

  35,352

  41,026

  47,770

  South Wales

  116,653

  127,440

  151,791

  164,975

  Wales

  193,916

  208,185

  252,476

  282,315

  England and Wales

  3,708,904

  4,173,065

  4,928,676

  5,459,379

  712

  Muslim Priests
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Muslim priests normally resident in Pakistan but visiting the United Kingdom on a visitor's visa, have applied during the past year, while in the United Kingdom, for rights of residence in order to be employed as a priest in the United Kingdom; how many such applications were granted(a) immediately, (b) after appeal and (c) on being reviewed outside the immigration rules; and how many such applicants were told to return to Pakistan.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: People wishing to work in the United Kingdom as ministers of religion are normally required to obtain entry clearance before coming here. Our records show that in 1991, five citizens of Pakistan who were here as visitors were granted extensions of stay as ministers of religion outside the immigration rules. The other information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Unused land
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to end all schemes whereby farm owners may receive grants in respect of unused land.

  Mr. Curry
  Ministry grants are paid only on land which is appropriately managed to meet agricultural or environmental objectives. We have no plans to end such schemes.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how his departmental Green Minister has promoted protection of the ozone layer with specific policy measures; which possible measures have been considered and rejected; and on what grounds.

  Mr. Curry
  The policy of the Department is not to purchase new materials that are known to be harmful to the ozone layer as set out in the Montreal protocol and its revisions. Where existing equipment containing substances harmful to the ozone layer is to be renewed or subject to major maintenance it will be replaced by equipment which is understood to be ozone friendly. The Department considered but rejected replacing all sound equipment containing materials harmful to the ozone layer because on balance there was seen to be no significant environmental advantage in doing this before the end of its natural life span.

  Live Horses (Exports)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement setting out the progress that has been made in developing policy to prevent the export of live horses for consumption as food.

  Mr. Soames
  European Community directive 91/628 establishes welfare standards for the transport of animals in the Community from 1 January 1993. The directive 714
  provides that national rules may remain applicable for horses and our national arrangements will continue to apply. The Council has agreed to return to this issue at a later stage with a view to setting additional welfare safeguards for all transport of horses in the Community.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those United Kingdom airports where the administration of animal quarantine regulations are not the responsibility of a principal local authority in whose area part or all of the airport is located.

  Mr. Soames
  Heathrow airport is the only airport in Great Britain where the responsibility for enforcement of animal import regulations at the airport is not vested in the local authority in which the airport is situated. This is provided for under section 50 of the Animal Health Act 1981, which lays down that the common council of the City of London shall be the local authority for the City of London and for the whole of Greater London for the purposes of the provisions of the Act relating to imported animals, and the Designation of Local Authority (Heathrow Airport—London) Order 1976—SI 1976 No. 2101—which makes the City of London the responsible local authority in respect of that part of Heathrow airport which lies within the county of Surrey.

  Enforcement of animal import controls at Northern Ireland airports is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  Mink
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish the responses received by his Department on the Review of the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987.

  Mr. Gummer
  Responses to the consultation exercise will be made available from the Ministry's main library when a decision has been taken on the arrangements which are to apply in future. This decision will be taken shortly.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of(a) British and (b) other EC national hauliers and handlers prosecuted in each year since 1985 for breaking welfare standards whilst transporting livestock.

  Mr. Gummer
  Information is not collected in the format requested. Since 1988 the number of prosecutions undertaken by local authorities has been laid before the House, in the return of expenditure and proceedings taken under the Animal Health Act 1981. Information on prosecutions in other member states is not available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of inspections carried out by Ministry verterinary staff specifically to assess welfare standards in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 11 June 1992,Official Report, column 273.

WALES

  Household Statistics
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of households in Wales at present; and if he will publish an estimated figure for the number of households in the year 2011.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total number of households in Wales in 1991 according to the 1989 based household projections is 1,095,000; the figure for 2011 from the same source is 1,237,000.

  Housing
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set an annual target figure for the development of new-build affordable homes in Wales.

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

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the role of inter-authority co-operation within the context of his Department's local government reform package for Wales;

  (2) if he will outline how the current strategic planning functions carried out by county councils will be fulfilled by the new unitary authorities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  These matters will be dealt with in the White Paper that I will be publishing in due course.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration has been given by his Department to the effect of local government reform in Wales upon applications from local authorities for planning consent for their own projects.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Under the present law a local planning authority may grant itself planning permission to develop its own land within its area. Under the new structure I expect the new councils, as local planning authorities, to have the same powers.

  Minerals
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received stating objections to some or all of the guidelines included in planning policy guidance note 3 on mineral extraction.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No comprehensive record exists, but in response to a monitoring exercise which the Government undertook last March, four organisations in Wales wrote calling for revision of minerals planning policy guidance note 3. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 15 July the Government's intention to bring forward for public consultation draft revised planning guidelines on coal extraction generally.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action is currently undertaken by his Department to apply the polluter pays principle to the mineral sector in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In determining those minerals planning applications and appeals that come before my 716
  right hon. Friend and his inspectors, consideration is given to the need to achieve acceptable environmental standards through the imposition of appropriate conditions designed to control the working of the site and its restoration to an acceptable after-use. Certain mineral sector processes in Wales are also subject to pollution control by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The cost of meeting acceptable environmental standards falls on the industry in line with the polluter pays principle.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of resources has been granted by his Department to mineral planning authorities in Wales in each year of the last 10 years; and what plans he has to increase the level of resources.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Mineral planning is one of the services for which county councils in Wales are responsible. Resource requirements for mineral planning are taken into account in setting standard spending assessments for county councils as part of the annual local government settlement. Proposals for the 1993–94 local government revenue settlement will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what account has been taken by his Department of the implications of local government reform in Wales upon(a) strategic mineral planning policies (b) the review and upgrading of old minerals permissions and (c) the resourcing of such a review and upgrading.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Matters relating to minerals planning have been considered by the planning and economic development sub-group established under the auspices of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government. I am now considering the reports submitted by that and other sub-groups.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish his Department's definition of sustainable development; and if he will make a statement on the application of this concept to the work of his Department;

  (2) if he will amend the planning policy guidance notes produced by his Department so as to include references on the importance of an environmentally sustainable approach to the development of the Welsh coastline;

  (3) if he will issue guidelines to planning authorities in Wales on the application of environmental sustainability within the planning process.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Brundtland commission, in its report "Our Common Future" published 1987 stated:"Humanity has the opportunity to make development sustainable—to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
  In their environment White Papers, starting with "This Common Inheritance", the Government have made clear their intention to work towards ensuring that development and growth are sustainable. The concept of sustainable development is a global one, and it is for the Government to develop policies consistent with that concept, which can be reflected in local decisions. The planning system, and the preparation of development plans in particular, can play an important part in ensuring that development as a

  717
  whole is sustainable. The sum total of decisions in the planning field, as elsewhere, should not deny future generations the best of today's environment. The need to reflect the principle of sustainable development lies behind the revision of the range of planning policy guidance notes, currently well under way.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the chairmen of the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales to encourage them to integrate their statutory objectives in the interest of formulating a sustainable development plan for the coastal areas of Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There is regular liaison between the two agencies on rural development matters as on all matters of common interest and each agency is represented on the board of the other.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to monitor air quality on a continuous basis around opencast coal mining sites; which sites have been selected for such air monitoring; and if he will make it his policy to make such monitoring data available to the general public.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The position on air monitoring around opencast coal-mining sites is described in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Government's response to the second report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 1990–91 "The Future of Opencast Coalmining in Wales", Cm 1652, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Environment Guide
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of "The Welsh Environment; a Guide to your Rights and Responsibilities" have been(a) produced and (b) distributed by his Department; and if he will list the main outlets for distribution.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of 60,000 copies of "The Welsh Environment: A Guide to your Rights and Responsibilities" were produced for the Welsh Office. To date 59,700 have been distributed, largely through county and district councils, main libraries and citizens advice bureaux in Wales.

  Supermarket Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the occasions during each of the last five years where coastal sites have been utilised for supermarket development in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  EC Environment Directive
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the organisations consulted by his Department on the implementation of the EC directive on the freedom of access to information on the environment;

  (2) if he will issue guidelines to local authorities in Wales defining in detail the new procedures to be
  718
  undertaken in connection with the implementation of the EC directive on freedom of access of information on the environment.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  On 29 October the Department of the Environment published for consultation with local authorities and other organisations in Great Britain, draft regulations and guidance on the implementation of the EC directive on freedom of access of information on the environment. The organisations in Wales that are being consulted are as follows:

  Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales

  The All Wales Chief Environmental Health Officers' Panel

  Assembly of Welsh Counties

  Brecon Beacons National Park

  Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Council of Welsh Districts

  Country Landowners Association (Wales Regional Office)

  Countryside Council for Wales

  County and District Councils in Wales

  The Development Board for Rural Wales

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Friends of the Earth Cymru

  Land Authority for Wales

  National Farmers Union, Wales

  North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

  Pembrokeshire Coast National Park

  Prince of Wales Committee

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Wales

  Snowdonia National Park

  South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

  The Associated Law Society in Wales

  Wales Tourist Board

  Wales Wildlife and Countryside Link

  Welsh Association of Community and Town Councils

  Welsh Development Agency

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a comprehensive community health study in areas affected by opencast mining developments in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have no plans for such a study.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the amount specifically allocated through the transport supplementary grant for local safety schemes proposed by local authorities in Wales in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As agreed with local authority associations only projects costing over £5 million can attract transport grant. Authorities finance local safety schemes from unhypothecated resources.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings of the Council of Ministers he has attended during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Council of Ministers.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Although it is not the practice for territorial Ministers to attend the majority of Council Ministers meetings, the United Kingdom's position at Councils represents the collective view reached following ministerial discussions in which I fully participate. I have also this year had the pleasure of hosting a gathering of Ministers as part of the EC informal Council on Social Affairs which met in Wales in October.

  Railways
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the rail network in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  British Rail constantly reviews the performance of its services in Wales and in particular the quality of the service it provides in accordance with the objectives of the passengers charter.

  I am pleased to see the latest expansion of services on the Maesteg to Cardiff line supported by Mid Glamorgan county council with the benefit of supplementary credit approvals from the Department.

  Car Sharing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what study he has made of the benefits to the environment in Wales that could arise from the introduction of incentives to establish car sharing schemes in(a) urban areas (b) rural areas.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have made no such study, but the Government introduced substantial changes to insurance regulations several years ago to encourage car sharing.

  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the total numbers of(a) hotels, (b) guest houses and (c) catering establishments which have closed down in Wales during each of the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available centrally.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each training and enterprise council the number of training weeks contracted for under employment training(a) in 1991–92 and (b) in 1992–93; and what was the percentage difference between those years in each TEC.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Employment training—training weeks

  TEC

  1991–92 actual

  1992–93 budget

  1991–92 to 1992–93 percentage change

  Gwent

  88,284

  82,250

  -6·83

  Mid Glamorgan

  99,629

  89,000

  -10·67

  North East Wales

  37,758

  39,000

  3·29

  North West Wales

  48,084

  50,965

  5·99

  Powys

  17,174

  15,000

  -12·66

  South Glamorgan

  63,140

  65,550

  3·82

  West Wales

  139,283

  135,000

  -3·08

  Total Wales

  493,352

  476,765

  -3·36

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each training and enterprise council the budget made available from his Department for the provision of youth training places for 1991–92 and 1992–93(a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  720

  Youth training budgets

  (a) At current prices

  £ million

  TEC

  1991–92 actual expenditure

  1992–93 budget

  1991–92 to 1992–93 percentage change

  Gwent

  8·310

  7·924

  -4·65

  Mid Glamorgan

  10·154

  9·764

  -3·84

  North East Wales

  5·526

  5·115

  -7·44

  North West Wales

  6·493

  6·007

  -7·48

  Powys

  1·778

  1·785

  0·39

  South Glamorgan

  4·400

  4·786

  8·77

  West Wales

  12·082

  11·257

  -6·83

  Total Wales

  48·743

  46·638

  -4·32

  (b) At 1992–93 prices

  £ million

  TEC

  1991–92 actual expenditure

  1992–93 budget

  1991–92 to 1992–93 percentage change

  Gwent

  8·684

  7·924

  -8·75

  Mid Glamorgan

  10·611

  9·764

  -7·98

  North East Wales

  5·775

  5·115

  -11·42

  North West Wales

  6·785

  6·007

  -11·47

  Powys

  1·858

  1·785

  -3·93

  South Glamorgan

  4·598

  4·786

  4·09

  West Wales

  12·020

  11·257

  -10·84

  Total Wales

  50·936

  46·638

  -8·44

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each training and enterprise council the budget made available from his Department for 1991–92 and 1992–93(a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  TEC Budgets (a) at current prices

  £ million

  TEC

  1991–92 actual expenditure

  1992–93 Budget

  1991–92 to 1992–93 percentage change

  Gwent

  17·390

  17·909

  2·98

  Mid Glamorgan

  20·039

  20·561

  2·60

  North East Wales

  11·363

  11·149

  -1·88

  North West Wales

  12·883

  14·163

  9·94

  Powys

  4·352

  4·415

  1·45

  South Glamorgan

  11·670

  13·066

  11·96

  West Wales

  29·294

  27·911

  -4·72

  Total Wales

  106·991

  109·174

  2·04

  (b) at 1992–93 prices

  £ million

  TEC

  1991–92 actual expenditure

  1992–93 Budget

  1991–92 to 1992–93 percentage change

  Gwent

  18·173

  17·909

  -1·45

  Mid Glamorgan

  20·941

  20·561

  -1·81

  North East Wales

  11·874

  11·149

  -6·11

  North West Wales

  13·463

  14·163

  5·20

  Powys

  4·548

  4·415

  -2·92

  South Glamorgan

  12·195

  13·066

  7·14

  West Wales

  30·612

  27·911

  -8·82

  Total Wales

  111·806

  109·174

  -2·35

  721
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each training and enterprise council the number of training weeks contracted for under youth training in(a) 1991–92 and (b) in 1992–93; and what was the percentage difference between those years in each TEC.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Youth training training weeks

  TEC

  1991–92 Actual

  1992–93 Budget

  1991–92 to 1992–93 percentage change

  Gwent

  164,755

  170,000

  3·18

  Mid Glamorgan

  190,292

  198,000

  4·05

  North East Wales

  93,591

  87,000

  -7·04

  North West Wales

  114,682

  125,000

  9·00

  Powys

  35,810

  37,000

  3·32

  South Glamorgan

  94,810

  105,000

  10·75

  West Wales

  228,553

  227,240

  -0·57

  Total Wales

  922,493

  949,240

  2·90

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each training and enterprise council the budget made available from his Department for the provision of employment training places for 1991–92 and 1992–93(a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Employment training budget

  (a) at current prices

  £ million

  TEC

  1991–92 actual expenditure

  1992–93 budget

  1991–92 to 1992–93 percentage change

  Gwent

  4·399

  4·227

  -3·91

  Mid Glamorgan

  4·680

  4·767

  1·86

  North East Wales

  2·520

  2·081

  -17·42

  North West Wales

  2·565

  2·857

  11·38

  Powys

  0·837

  0·885

  5·73

  South Glamorgan

  3·274

  3·426

  4·64

  West Wales

  8·239

  6·661

  -19·15

  Total Wales

  26·514

  24·904

  -6·07

  (b) at 1992–93 prices

  £ million

  TEC

  1991–92 actual expenditure

  1992–93 budget

  1991–92 to 1992–93 percentage change

  Gwent

  4·597

  4·227

  -8·05

  Mid Glamorgan

  4·891

  4·767

  -2·53

  North East Wales

  2·633

  2·081

  -20·98

  North West Wales

  2·680

  2·857

  6·59

  Powys

  0·875

  0·885

  1·18

  South Glamorgan

  3·421

  3·426

  0·14

  West Wales

  8·610

  6·661

  -22·63

  Total Wales

  27·707

  24·904

  -10·12

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy towards the voluntary sector in the social services.
  722
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government believe that local authorities should secure a mixture of social care provision by statutory, voluntary and private organisations, in order to increase the available range of options and to provide wider consumer choice.

  Social services departments in Wales, as the lead agencies in social care planning, are expected to involve fully the voluntary sector as partners in the process. Specific grant schemes, unique to Wales, have been introduced to foster and develop the voluntary sector contribution.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he gives to county and district authorities to assist voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for local authorities to decide which voluntary organisations they wish to assist and to what extent. It is not for central Government to tell authorities how they should manage their relationships with the voluntary sector, although my right hon. Friend and I do encourage close working relations between the two.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the amount of financial support he gives in(a)Clwyd and (b) Wales to voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest figures available indicate that grants paid directly by the Welsh Office to voluntary organisations in Wales totalled £8·8 million in 1990–91. The figure excludes indirect grants paid to housing associations—£131·4 million—and those paid through intermediaries, for example, local or health authorities, under such schemes as the urban programme—£3·1 million.

  Figures for Clwyd are not readily available.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he will take to encourage partnerships between voluntary organisations and local authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I will continue, through the various grant scheme mechanisms operated by the Department, to encourage local authorities to examine the scope for involving voluntary organisations widely in the planning and delivery of their services.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those voluntary organisations he has met in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount of financial support given to voluntary organisations in each of(a) the counties and (b)the districts in Wales; and giving a per capita figure.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not held by the Department. The hon. Gentleman would need to write to all voluntary organisations in Wales if he wishes to know the amount of financial support they receive and the geographical distribution of their expenditure.

  Health Authority Targets
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each health authority in Wales the specific waiting list and performance targets and how each health authority has performed against those targets at(a) 31 March, (b) 30 June and (c) 31 August.

  DHA waiting lists against agenda for action and patient's charter targets (a) Performance at March 1992: Total specialties

  DHA

  Out-patients waiting over three months

  Urgent in-patients waiting over one month

  Urgent day-cases waiting over one month

  In-patients waiting over one year

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Agenda for Action

  Clwyd

  22·3

  1·7

  2·9

  13·9

  East Dyfed

  28·0

  0·0

  0·0

  17·7

  Gwent

  37·1

  1·5

  0·0

  17·6

  Gwynedd

  22·8

  0·0

  0·0

  20·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  35·4

  2·3

  0·1

  15·2

  Pembrokeshire

  44·0

  0·0

  0·0

  22·6

  Powys

  35·0

  0·0

  0·0

  6·1

  South Glamorgan

  43·5

  0·9

  6·2

  12·8

  West Glamorgan

  56·0

  0·6

  0·0

  19·2

  Wales

  38·2

  1·1

  1·5

  16·3

  Target 1991·92

  28·0

  0·0

  0·0

  19·0

  DHA waiting lists against Agenda for Action and Patients Charter targets (b) Performance at June 1992: Total specialties

  DHA

  Out-patients waiting over three months Per cent.

  Urgent in-patients waiting over one month Per cent.

  Urgent day-cases waiting over one month Per cent.

  In-patients waiting over one year Per cent.

  Day-cases waiting over one year Per cent.

  In-patients waiting over two years Per cent.

  Day cases waiting over two years Percent.

  Agenda for Action

  Patient's Charter

  Clwyd

  27·7

  16·9

  2·1

  13·5

  5·1

  1·8

  0·4

  East Dyfed

  31·6

  0·0

  0·0

  17·5

  4·2

  0·0

  0·0

  Gwent

  44·1

  0·9

  0·1

  22·9

  3·9

  4·1

  1·7

  Gwynedd

  40·0

  0·0

  0·0

  15·9

  5·4

  5·8

  0·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  27·9

  1·4

  0·0

  20·5

  1·8

  8·6

  4·4

  Pembrokeshire

  36·2

  0·0

  0·0

  12·0

  7·6

  8·0

  2·3

  Powys

  34·1

  0·0

  0·0

  8·0

  3·3

  0·0

  0·0

  South Glamorgan

  50·0

  2·3

  12·4

  16·8

  18·1

  3·9

  5·5

  West Glamorgan

  55·5

  0·7

  0·0

  17·4

  2·9

  3·8

  0·0

  Wales

  40·9

  1·0

  2·2

  15·7

  6·6

  4·5

  1·8

  Target 1992–93

  23·0

  nil

  nil

  15·0

  15·0

  nil

  nil

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he intends to take against health authorities who do not meet "Agenda for Action" targets on waiting lists and performance.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: All health authorities are committed to achieving patients charter guarantees by the end of the financial year and are collectively on course to achieve the "Agenda for Action" target that by the end of this financial year no more than 15 per cent. of in-patients and day cases will have to wait over one year for non-urgent treatment.

  Performance against targets is monitored very closely and has been discussed in great detail at the recent round of annual review meetings.
  724
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: Information on waiting times is collected on a quarterly basis; the latest available figures are for 30 June 1992.

  "Agenda for Action" targets are set for the year end. Health authorities are committed to achieving these targets.

  Performance against both "Agenda for Action" and patients charter targets for March and June is given in the tables.

  All authorities are addressing as a matter of priority, the issue of out-patient waiting times, for it is widely recognised that performance here is currently furthest away from target.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the predicted profits available from the sale of coal reserves known to exist in the 31 pits he announced would close against the loss of income tax, national insurance and indirect tax payments from coal miners made redundant, on the assumption of the maximum calculated length of operation of each pit to technical exhaustion.
  725
  Mr. Eggar
  We do not have the information requested on the predicted profits from the sale of coal reserves.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the meetings in September and October between his Department and(a) representatives of the Colombian Government and (b) Carbocol, the Colombian state coal company; and if he will make a statement;

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) on what dates he, his ministerial colleagues, or his officials, met Ministers or officials, representing the Government of Colombia, to discuss the sale and supply of Colombian coal to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when the intergovernmental committee between Her Majesty's Government and Colombia was established; how many meetings, to date, of the committee have taken place; when the next meeting is scheduled; and what matters are due to be discussed.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday 2 November, Official Report, column 32. The next meeting of the trade facilitation group is expected to be in Colombia in February. There have been no intergovernmental meetings to discuss the sale and supply of Colombian coal to the United Kingdom. The Minister for Trade met the Colombian Foreign Trade Minister on 30 September to discuss bilateral trade issues. No meetings took place with Carbocol.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out his current timetable for the privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: Decisions have yet to be taken on the timing of privatisation. Decisions on the timetable will need to take account of the coal review which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has announced.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants are involved in conducting his review into the coal industry; and if he will list for each of them their grade and previous responsibility within his Department or other Government Departments.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The Department's coal review team is headed by Peter Loughead, a grade 3 civil servant, who previously worked on financial services in the DTI and then in Her Majesty's Treasury. It comprises in addition one grade 5, three grade 7s, one higher executive officer (Development), two higher executive officers and two executive officers. They have had a range of previous responsibilities within the Department of Trade and Industry. There are, in addition, seven clerical and secretarial staff. It is likely that further people will join the review team in due course.

  Plutonium and Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current cost for the storage of separated plutonium at(a) Sellafield and (b) Dounreay; and what is the expected future cost for storage of plutonium separated from irradiated nuclear fuel already contracted to each respective reprocessing plant.
  726
  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for the owners of the sites in question and their customers as owners of the separated plutonium.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost to date incurred by the requirement to store depleted uranium at(a) Sellafield and (b) Chapelcross nuclear facilities, arising from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

  Mr. Eggar
  Uranium recovered from reprocessing by British Nuclear Fuels plc is stored on behalf of its customers as owners of the material until they decide to recycle it as new reactor fuel. The cost of storage is a commercial matter for the parties involved. I understand that to date some 15,000 tonnes of uranium arising from reprocessing have been recycled in the United Kingdom as reactor fuel to generate electricity.

  EC Energy Programmes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the budgetary allocations for 1993 to the European Community energy programmes(a) Save, (b) Altener, (c) Thermie and (d) Euratom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of the Commission's spending proposals for 1993 are given in its preliminary draft budget —COM(92)140-EN—published on 15 June 1992. Copies of this document have been deposited in the Library of the House. It should be noted that Euratom is a treaty and not a single programme, as the other three are. The Government's contribution to these programmes is not separately identifiable as it forms part of the United Kingdom's general contribution to the European Community budget.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. Eggar
  Government Departments have a statutory right under the Public Records Acts to retrieve records temporarily from the Public Record Office for their own administrative use. The Department of Trade and Industry currently has 55 records out on loan and these are listed. Records are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed.

  Class No.

  Piece No.

  Title

  BT11

  38

  International Order Commission: jurisdiction

  BT11

  38

  Imperial preference: East African coffee shipped on optional bills of lading

  BT11

  38

  International convention for abolition of import and export prohibitions: Ratification

  BT11

  38

  Anglo-Turkish agreement: travellers samples 1912–1929

  BT11

  190

  Convention on the abolition of export and import prohibitions. Question of withdrawal by the United Kingdom and other states

  BT11

  41 B

  Anglo-Soviet commercial treaty

  BT11

  41 B

  Merchandise Marks Act: Nicaraguan registration of initiation of British trade mark

  727

  Class No.

  Piece No.

  Title

  BT11

  41 B

  Germany-Haiti commercial treaty and Anglo-Haitian trealy

  BT11

  41 B

  Oil concessions in British Empire— Government control of companies

  BT11

  41 B

  Ceylon income tax effect on life assurance companies

  BT11

  41 B

  Merchandise Marks Act—hall marks— registration of in USA

  BT11

  41 B

  Portugal: Colonial Act draft—articles detrimental to British interests

  BT11

  41 B

  Convention for abolition of import and export restriction Government attitude

  BT11

  41 B

  Roumania—trade difficulties under new tariff

  BT11

  41 B

  USA—entry of British colonials into

  BT11

  685

  Convention for the abolition of import and export prohibition

  DSIR 26

  3

  Functions of local government board and government laboratory

  DSIR 26

  4

  Stationery Office: inquiry into work carried out by department

  DSIR 26

  25

  Committee on Scientific Staffs in Government Department: minutes

  DSIR 26

  26

  Committee on Scientific Staffs in Government Department: miscellaneous papers

  DSIR 26

  27

  Committee on Scientific Staffs in Government Department: report papers 1–23, 27–28 and 30–32

  DSIR 26

  76

  Power alcohol denaturants

  DSIR 26

  83

  Nose-opening rays—effect of infra-red radiation on breathing—report by DSIR and Medical Research Council

  DSIR 26

  113

  Collection of papers including Adam Hilgar photogravure of spectrogram

  DSIR 26

  114

  Procedures and methods: notes on preparation and correspondence, including Adam Hilgar ultra-violet spectroscope

  DSIR 26

  120

  Food and Drugs Act 1876—reference court cases

  DSIR 26

  121

  Food and Drugs Act 1876—reference court cases

  DSIR 26

  122

  Food and Drugs Act 1876—reference court cases

  DSIR 26

  189

  Analyses—general

  DSIR 26

  199

  —Index of analysis methods

  Workbooks as below:

  DSIR 26

  202

  H. J. Helm

  DSIR 26

  203

  H. J. Helm

  DSIR 26

  204

  H. J. Helm: Index to analytical work giving file reference

  DSIR 26

  210

  J. H. Holmes

  DSIR 26

  212

  C. H. Burge and E. Young

  DSIR 26

  213

  C. H. Burge

  DSIR 26

  215

  C. H. Burge subject index

  DSIR 26

  216

  R. Bannister

  DSIR 26

  219

  G. N. Stoker

  DSIR 26

  236

  W. G. Scott

  DSIR 26

  237

  W. G. Scott

  DSIR 26

  238

  W. G. Scott

  DSIR 26

  240

  W. G. Scott

  DSIR 26

  241

  W. G. Scott

  DSIR 26

  252

  Press cuttings—customer general order books

  DSIR 26

  256

  Book of Signatures

  DSIR 26

  338

  Registered Laboratory Files— Miscellaneous analyses and investigations

  BT31

  1

  National Savings Bank Association Ltd

  BT31

  682

  Consolidated Assurance Company

  BT31

  1161

  Industrial Newspaper Company Ltd

  BT58

  419

  Companies Department: correspondence and Papers COS 6585

  BT58

  423

  Ditto 256/1

  BT58

  425

  Ditto 623/4

  BT 226

  4978

  A. E. Francis

  POWE 33

  1746

  Petroleum: Libya development

  Plutonium Shipments
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate in tonnes the amount of plutonium to be shipped annually between Japan and the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield between 1992 and the year 2000.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter between British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customers.

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many auditing firms are registered with each of the recognised supervisory bodies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of auditing firms—including sole practitioners—registered as eligible for appointment as company auditor under the rules of each of the recognised supervisory bodies on 27 October is shown in the table.

  Supervisory body

  Number of registered firms

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  9,225

  Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

  730

  Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ireland

  344

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  5,859

  Association of Authorised Public Accountants

  505

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the instances of audit failures which he has referred to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department routinely refers to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales complaints received, and reports from statutory investigations, on accounts that have been audited by auditors registered eligible for appointment as company auditors under the rules of the institute. Since the inception of the new regulatory regime for auditors under part II of the Companies Act 1989 on 1 October 1991, some 60 such cases have been referred. The most comon type of referral involved infringements of the accounting requirements of the Companies Act 1985 by small private companies. Most other complaints involved auditors' non-compliance with the auditing standard "The Audit Report" and auditors' provision of a special report that a company is entitled to the reporting exemptions available to small or medium-sized companies when the company was not in fact so entitled.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will establish a body similar to the Dearing committee to investigate the setting of auditing standards in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names of auditing firms who have been criticised in his Department's reports relating to banks and insurance companies published since 1979.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Since 1979 there have been four published reports of investigations under the Companies
  729
  Act into the affairs of companies connected with banking and insurance which have included criticism of auditors as follows:

  Company

  Auditor

  Ashbourne Investments Ltd.

  Wright Stevens and Lloyd

  Ramor Investments Ltd.

  Price Waterhouse

  Minet Holdings plc

  Black Geoghegan and Till Josolyne Layton-Bennett and Co.

  WMD Underwriting Agencies Ltd.

  Arthur Young McClelland Moores and Co.

  Alexander Howden Holdings plc

  de Paula Turner Laker and Co. Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co.

  Josolyne Layton-Bennett and Co.

  Arthur Young McClelland Moores and Co.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce proposals to prevent auditors of insurance companies from recruiting company directors.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I see no reason to do so. Ethical guidance issued by the professional accountancy bodies states that no one should take part in the audit of a company if he has, during the period on which the report is to be made or at any time in the two years prior to the first day of that period, been an officer—other than an auditor—or employee of that company. Under part II of the Companies Act 1989, recognised supervisory bodies are required to have adequate rules and practices as to professional integrity and independence.

  Directors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward proposals under which the directors of a public limited company would be required to state in the directors' report the number of shares bought and sold by them during a year.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. The Companies Act requires disclosure in either the directors' report of the notes to the accounts of directors' interests in shares at the beginning and end of the financial year. It also requires the company to keep a register of directors' interests in the company's shares which is open for inspection to shareholders and —for a fee—the public; copies may be obtained for a fee.

  Astra plc
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on which date inspectors were appointed to inquire into the affairs of Astra plc; which matters were referred for the examination of the inspectors at the outset; which matters were subsequently referred to them; and when he expects to receive their report.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer to the answer which my predecessor gave to the hon. Member on 19 November 1991,Official Report, column 118. The inspectors are now in the final stages of their investigation, but I cannot say when it will be completed.

  Environmental Technology Innovation Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many projects and total sums have been committed in the current year so far under his Department's environmental technology innovation scheme nationally and in each region; and if he will provide information on a similar basis for the Euroenviron programme of the EC.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following commitments have been made under the schemes during 1992:

  Environmental technology innovation scheme—jointly managed by DTI and DOE.

  Region

  Number

  Sums Committed £

  (a) DTI Approved Projects

  West midlands

  4

  818,875

  South-east

  2

  388,450

  6

  1,207,325

  (b) DOE Approved Projects

  North-west

  5

  469,270

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  202,789

  East midlands

  1

  80,000

  South-east

  3

  553,374

  East

  2

  303,450

  12

  1,608,883

  Euroenviron

  Scotland

  2

  511,400

  South-east

  2

  149,812

  South-west

  1

  19,878

  5

  681,090

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total revenue expenditure in each of the English regions by his Department in the years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Revenue expenditure by region on the enterprise initiative: consultancy assistance is given in the table.

  Enterprise initiative: consultancy assistance

  Region

  Expenditure 1990–91 £'000s

  Expenditure 1991–92 £'000s

  Scotland

  3,440

  5,070

  Wales

  2,644

  3,591

  North East

  2,505

  3,536

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,150

  6,888

  East Midlands

  2,940

  4,246

  East

  2,750

  3,639

  South East

  9,102

  13,441

  South West

  3,420

  4,476

  West Midlands

  5,500

  7,886

  731

  Region

  Expenditure 1990–91 £'000s

  Expenditure 1991–92 £'000s

  North West

  7,524

  8,247

  Departmental Expenditure

    Regional enterprise grants
    Information on regional enterprise grants—innovation grants—by region is regularly published in the Industrial Development Act (1982) annual report, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.
    The figures for other revenue expenditure are either not broken down regionally, or could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tonnes of orimulsion have been imported into the United Kingdom in 1990, 1991 and to date in 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  Imports of orimulsion in 1990, 1991 and 1992 to date were:

  Thousand tonnes

  1990

  156

  1991

  465

  11992

  1,039

  1January to October.

  Gas-fired generating stations granted permission prior to section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 coming into effect

  Station

  Location

  Proposer

  Capacity

  Commissioned

  Killingholme (1st unit)

  South Humberside

  PowerGen plc

  450MW

  Roosecote

  Cumbria

  Lakeland Power Ltd.

  230 MW

  Under construction

  Brigg

  South Humberside

  Regional Power Generators

  240 MW

  Calder Hall

  Cumbria

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

  160 MW

  Corby

  Northants

  Corby Power Ltd.

  350 MW

  Killingholme (2nd unit)

  South Humberside

  PowerGen plc

  450 MW

  Peterborough

  Cambridgeshire

  Peterborough Power

  355 MW

  Permission given but construction not yet started

  Shotton

  Clwyd

  Shotton Paper Co.

  200 MW

  Gas-fired generating stations granted consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989

  Station

  Location

  Proposer

  Capacity

  Under construction

  Barking

  London

  Barking Power Ltd.

  1,000 MW

  Keadby 1

  Near Scunthorpe

  Keady Power Ltd.

  680 MW

  Killingholme "A" (phase 1)

  South Humberside

  National Power plc

  650 MW

  Rye House

  Hertfordshire

  PowerGen plc

  680 MW

  Wilton

  Teesside

  Teesside Power Ltd.

  1,750 MW

  Consent granted but construction not yet started

  Angle Bay

  Dyfed

  Texaco Ltd.

  1,280 MW

  Charterhouse Street

  City of London

  Citigen Ltd.

  90 MW

  Coryton

  Essex

  Coryton Cogeneration Ltd.

  460 MW

  Deeside

  Clwyd

  Deeside Power Development Co. Ltd.

  450 MW

  Killingholme "A" (phase 2)

  South Humberside

  National Power plc

  370 MW

  King's Lynn

  Lincolnshire

  Energy Supply Co.

  110 MW

  Little Barford

  Bedfordshire

  National Power plc

  680 MW

  Medway

  Kent

  Medway Power Ltd.

  660 MW

  Shoreham

  West Sussex

  South Coast Power Ltd.

  500 MW

  Spondon

  Near Derby

  Derwent Cogeneration

  318 MW

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will meet a delegation of creditors, depositors and ex-employees of BCCI.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so. Creditors and ex-employees met the previous Secretary of State and have since had several meetings with officials in my Department.

  Liquidators
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines he proposes to introduce as a result of representations he has received concerning the costs of liquidators.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There are no such proposals. The remuneration of liquidators is a matter for the creditors whose money is at stake. Where there is a dispute as to the sums claimed recourse may be had to the courts.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the licences which have been granted for the establishment of gas-fired power stations since 1987 and the number of applications for such licences which have not yet been determined.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following is the information requested.
  733

  Station

  Location

  Proposer

  Capacity

  Stallingborough

  South Humberside

  Humber Power Ltd.

  1,100 MW

  Sutton Bridge

  Lincolnshire

  Independent Power Generators Ltd.

  700 MW

  There are 12 applications made under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for gas-fired generating stations with a capacity greater than 50 MW which have not yet been determined.

  Power stations with a capacity of 50 MW or less are dealt with under the Town and Country Planning Acts and my Department does not have information on such stations.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account is taken of the offset against oil taxation of the cost to the consortium of offshore transportation of gas from off Aberdeen, through the central area transmission system, in Government comparisons of the relative costs of gas and coal-fired electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  As I announced on 26 October, my Department's review of the prospects for the 21 pits proposed for closure by British Coal, but not subject to the current statutory consultation, will consider the consequences of the switch to gas in power generation and the relative costs of gas and coal-fired generation. All relevant elements contributing to these costs will be taken into account.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has responded to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the service provided by the AEA; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have today placed in the Library of the House the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's initial response to the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) which was published in May 1992.

  I am grateful to the commission for the comprehensive review they carried out. The commission recognised that the AEA is an organisation undergoing fundamental change, that it could continue to make efficiency and quality improvements and could generate higher net revenue. The Commission made 58 recommendations for improving the AEA's performance. It was none the less impressed by the expertise, enthusiasm and dedication of the AEA's staff and recognised the substantial progress they have already made with a radical change in culture. I endorse the commission's recognition of the progress made so far.

  I also welcome the AEA's positive response to the commission's report. The AEA has accepted all but one of the commission's recommendations. It has accepted much of the spirit of the remaining recommendation (51) on inter-business charging, and will review the position after a year. The AEA's response clearly demonstrates its determination to achieve further improvements in its
  734
  management practices and I am pleased that many of the commission's recommendations have already been implemented.

  The commission made a number of recommendations to the Government. In response to recommendation 2, we will consider with the AEA the setting of efficiency and quality of service performance targets for the AEA. We will take recommendations 3, board bonus scheme, 9, return on capital employed target, and 33, restructuring, into account at the appropriate time.

  We will continue to monitor the AEA's progress in implementing the recommendations and I will report progress to the House in due course.

  EC Partnerships Directive
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in implementing the EC partnerships directive, 90/605/EEC.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have today published a consultative document and draft regulations on the implementation of this EC directive requiring the preparation and publication of accounts for some partnerships between limited companies.

  The directive will not affect the majority of partnerships in the United Kingdom which are formed between people rather than companies. It applies only where all the partners—or general partners for limited partnerships—are limited companies.

  The consultative document explains that the majority of companies that form partnerships will already cover them in their own annual accounts. Where this is not done, the companies concerned must publish the partnership accounts with their own. If all the partner companies are abroad then, in certain circumstances, the partnership must make its accounts available on demand at its main office.

  The draft regulations also provide that companies which are members of partnerships and unlimited companies covered by this directive must disclose information about them and that such unlimited companies must publish their accounts.

  A copy of the consultative document and the draft regulations has been placed in the Library of the House. Comments should be made to my Department by 22 January 1993.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had about pit closures from the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 29 October 1992]: My right hon. Friend has received and replied to two letters from the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress on this matter. It is not his usual practice to make public the content of such replies.

  EC Funding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the United Kingdom's working population live in areas which currently qualify for(a) assisted areas funding and (b) EC regional development funding.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: The assisted areas currently cover approximately 32·6 per cent. of the United Kingdom's working population.

  Working population figures eligible for EC regional development funding are not available. This is because reliable working population figures are only available at travel-to-work area (TTWA) level and many eligible areas are not complete TTWAs. The total population covered, however, is some 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom population.

  EC Structural Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the European Commission's proposals for the review of Community structural fund regulations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 2 November 1992]: The Commission is expected to table its proposals after the Edinburgh European Council which is due to decide on the future size of the funds.

  Fact-finding Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for the last 12 months, the fact-finding visits made by(a) the chief executive of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, (b) the head of division of the business task force 1, (c) the Inspector of Companies, (d) the head of the competition policy division, (g) the head of the manufacturing technology division and (h) the head of the telecommunications and posts division; what were the findings in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Senior officials in my Department, including those listed, undertake a wide range of visits and other meetings in the United Kingdom and overseas in the course of their work. It would be inappropriate to provide details of all such visits, some of which are commercially confidential.

  Following the reorganisation of my Department, the business task force I has been disbanded and its work reallocated and responsibility for the financial services division has been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rents
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received from the Housing Corporation a report entitled "Rents and Affordability": and if he will make a copy available in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  We received a paper on this topic from the Housing Corporation in early October. It proposes to publish its work shortly. I will then arrange for a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library.
  736
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has made of the difference between rents charged by local authorities and housing associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  A table comparing local authority rents with private sector rents, including those of housing associations, can be found in the Department's annual report 1992, page 93.

  The Department collects information on local authority rents and housing association rents regularly.

  Information on assured housing association rents is contained in the National Federation of Housing Association's continuous recording (core) quarterly bulletins. Information on registered housing association rents is collected by rent officers and published by the Department of the Environment on a quarterly basis in a series of statistical bulletins.

  Data on local authority rents are collected annually. Average weekly local authority rents at April each year appear in table 11.1 of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1981–1991".

  Copies of all these publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Buildings (Fuel Efficiency)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue a consultation paper on part L of the Building Regulations (conservation of fuel and power); and what percentage improvement in the fuel efficiency of buildings, especially of dwellings, will be sought thereby.

  Mr. Baldry
  I hope that it will be possible to issue a consultation paper on part L of the Building Regulations 1991 by the end of next month. The aim with our proposals will be to achieve a 20 per cent. improvement in the energy efficiency of the space and water heating systems in dwellings compared with the current requirements of the regulations.

  Rentals
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new homes for renting have been made available by housing associations in Greater London during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Housing Corporation has funded 3,755 new units for rent by housing associations in Greater London, during the period 1 September 1991 to 31 August 1992.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 537, how many representations on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant his Department has received; and how many came from abroad.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has received about 30,000 representations about THORP from members of the public some of which contain petitions; 98 per cent. have come from abroad.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information he has about the extent of acid rain damage to Britain's trees.

  Mr. Maclean
  Recent studies suggest that tree health can be affected by a variety of stresses such as drought, frost, high winds and pest infection and that exposure to air pollution, including, acid rain, can increase the sensitivity of trees to these, as well as exercising a probably modest direct effect. It is not yet possible to quantify the contribution of these various factors, individually or in combination, though the hot dry summers and autumn gales of some recent years will certainly have placed exceptional stresses on British trees.

  EC Environment Programmes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions on the allocation of the 1993 budget for environment programmes have been taken at the Environment Council during his presidency of the Ministerial Environment Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. Environmental allocations are considered at the Budget Council as part of the general budget setting process.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the financial implications faced by local authorities being called upon to produce environmental impact assessments in connection with the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow airport; and what financial compensation he proposes to pay to local authorities for this.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the procedures set out in the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, it is for an applicant for planning permission to prepare and submit an environmental statement for any project that requires environmental assessment under the regulations. The local planning authority must then send the statement as well as the planning application to the statutory consultees and publicise it, and take the information provided in the statement and in comments made on it into account when determining the planning application. The functions of the authority in relation to planning applications which are accompanied by environmental statements are thus not essentially different from those which they discharge in determining all other planning applications. The expenditure likely to be incurred by authorities in determining planning applications is taken into account in the annual settlement along with other burdens, the potential for savings and, more generally, what the country can afford.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed by local authorities in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information for England is listed in the table. Staffing levels of local authorities in Wales and Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland.
  738

  Number of people employed by local authorities at June of each year

  Year

  Full-Time (000's)

  Part-Time (000's)

  Total (000's)

  1975

  1,608

  862

  2,470

  1976

  1,625

  857

  2,482

  1977

  1,606

  853

  2,459

  1978

  1,600

  869

  2,469

  1979

  1,626

  886

  2,512

  1980

  1,609

  866

  2,475

  1981

  1,578

  843

  2,421

  1982

  1,552

  841

  2,393

  1983

  1,554

  852

  2,406

  1984

  1,551

  858

  2,409

  1985

  1,545

  874

  2,419

  1986

  1,545

  904

  2,449

  1987

  1,550

  941

  2,491

  1988

  1,548

  966

  2,514

  1989

  1,506

  948

  2,454

  1990

  1,512

  968

  2,480

  1991

  1,493

  961

  2,454

  1992

  1,460

  949

  2,409

  Source: Joint Stalling Watch for England

  Note: Three major events caused significant losses from the local authority sector during the period covered by this table. The numbers involved are:

  (1) Approximately 6,300 full-time equivalents (ftes) due to the abolition of the GLC and the Metropolitan County Councils in 1986.

  (2) Around 14,500 ftes due to the change in status of the local authority bus and municipal airport staff in 1986 and 1987.

  (3) Around 39,000 ftes when polytechnics and higher education institutions transferred from the public to the personal sector in 1989.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the reduction in the level of sulphur dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom which will be required in order to stabilise soil acidity levels.

  Mr. Maclean
  The sensitivity of soils to acid deposition varies greatly in different parts of the United Kingdom as a result of geological and other factors. Under current policies, annual United Kingdom emissions of sulphur dioxide are expected to fall by around 60 per cent. between 1980 and 2005. On present estimates, only about 8 per cent. of the surface area of Great Britain should then be subject to rates of acid deposition which will result in further soil acidification.

  The Government are taking part in discussions in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe which it is hoped will lead to a new international agreement on SO2 emissions by the end of 1993. However to eliminate soil acidification altogether would necessitate sulphur dioxide reductions of over 95 per cent and parallel action on other pollutants. This is not considered a realistic objective either for the United Kingdom or for the remainder of the UNECE region for the foreseeable future.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the reports published by the Local Government Boundary Commission regarding the boundaries of local authorities within the area of the Wanstead and Woodford parliamentary constituency, including the date by which comments were to be received and the date of publication of final reports.
  739
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Local Government Boundary Commission deals with local authority boundaries, not parliamentary boundaries. But the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England takes account of county and London borough boundaries.

  Reports of the Local Government Boundary Commission relating to county and London borough boundaries affecting Wanstead and Woodford are listed in the table.

  Name of report

  Closing date for comments

  Date of final report

  Redbridge/ Epping Forest/ Waltham Forest

  26 July 1989 and 15 February 1991

  12 May 1992

  Newham/Redbridge/ Waltham Forest

  26 March 1990 and 25 June 1991

  29 June 1992

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Oakes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to make public its report into the incident at Ince B power station last autumn arising from the trial burning of orimulsion.

  Mr. Maclean
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is not aware of any incident at Ince B power station last autumn arising from the trial burning of orimulsion.

  Leicester
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to visit Leicester.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Banham Commission
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the budget of the Banham commission on local government.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the amount of grant to the Housing Corporation in each year since its establishment; and what plans he has to increase it.

  Mr. Baldry
  The main element of the Housing Corporation's expenditure is its approved development programme—ADP—which is funded by grant and loans from the Government, as well as the corporation's receipts. Gross capital expenditure on the ADP in England since 1978–79 has been as follows:

  £ million

  1978–79

  327

  1979–80

  400

  1980–81

  508

  1981–82

  521

  1982–83

  755

  1983–84

  734

  740

  £ million

  1984–85

  697

  1985–86

  711

  1986–87

  715

  1987–88

  752

  1988–89

  777

  1989–90

  935

  1990–91

  1,063

  1991–92

  1,586

  1992–93

  11,770

  1 Estimated outturn

  Information about earlier years and figures for the total of grants paid to the Corporation cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  The Government's future plans will be announced by the Chancellor in his autumn statement.

  Departmental Relocation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet reached a conclusion on the proposed move of his Department to docklands; on what grounds he proposes to take the decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I will make an announcement shortly. As I told the House on 2 June,Official Report, column 707, the decision will be taken on the basis of giving value for money to the taxpayer.

  Green House Programme
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of the Green House programme.

  Mr. Baldry
  The two-year Green House programme was launched in 1990 by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning as an important element of the Government's policies to combat global warming through increased energy efficiency. Its aim was to establish a national network of replicable energy efficiency demonstration projects in council housing. All the available resources have been allocated to or earmarked for 155 individual projects in 121 authorities, following a competitive bidding exercise to identify the most cost-effective schemes. The preliminary results are very encouraging. Overall, schemes are expected to deliver carbon dioxide savings of some 50 per cent. over current levels, with a 40 per cent. reduction in energy consumption. In addition to environmental benefits, these improvements are expected to reduce future management and maintenance costs of the houses concerned and bring major benefits to tenants from reduced fuel bills. My Department continues to monitor the performance of key projects and will publish further information in due course. At present about one quarter of authorities' annual expenditure on mainstream repair and improvement of their stock is devoted to energy-related measures.

  The Green House programme suggests that, if best practice were followed, authorities could achieve higher output from this investment. The Government have therefore decided to follow up the programme by actively promoting the application of its positive lessons by all housing authorities. From next year, we will expect authorities to take fuller account in their housing

  741
  investment decisions of the need to improve the energy efficiency of their stock and to reflect this in their annual housing investment programme submissions. To assist them, my Department will be issuing guidance on the lessons of the Programme, and on the steps authorities can take to ensure that energy efficiency is an integral part of their housing strategies.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish a staff commission to advise on the staffing issues arising from the reorganisation of local government in the shire counties in England.

  Mr. Howard
  I have decided to use my powers under section 23 of the Local Government Act 1991 to set up a small staff commission to advise me on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of staff affected by local government reorganisation in England. I intend to ask the staff commission to advise me in particular on arrangements for staff transfers; on any particular redundancy and compensation arrangements that may be necessary; and on whether there should be arrangements to give staff whose posts are lost in reorganisation prior consideration for jobs in new authorities. I intend that the staff commission should be set up next year, in time to deal with questions relating to the outcome of the first tranche of the local government commission's reviews.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will announce their conclusion on the responses to proposals for a clearer framework for compulsory competitive tendering and to extend competition to local authorities' construction-rated and corporate services set out in the consultation paper, "Competing for Quality: Competition in the Provision of Local Services", published in November 1991.

  Mr. Howard
  The citizens charter sets out the Government's commitment to improving the quality and accountability of local authority services through the wider application of competition, to the benefit of the local taxpayer and consumer.

  The Government received more than 650 responses to the consultation paper. Respondents made many helpful comments and offered constructive criticism. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government told the House on 20 May, Official Report, column 144, of our intention to bring forward regulations to secure a clearer framework for compulsory competitive tendering. We have consulted local authorities on our detailed proposals and intend to bring forward regulations shortly.

  I have considered responses to our proposals to extend competition with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. We have come to the conclusion that, while some amendment to the original proposals is necessary, a rigorous requirement to seek greater competition is the best way of securing greater efficiency and cost savings in the provision of construction-related services, while guaranteeing a high standard of service to local taxpayers.

  We therefore intend to require local authorities to subject to competitive tendering a specific percentage, by
  742
  cash value, of each of these activities. For construction-related services, we intend that 90 per cent. of work be subject to a competitive requirement, for corporate services the requirement will be broadly in line with proposals made in the consultation paper. It will be for individual local authorities to decide which elements of each service should be market tested in order to achieve this requirement. They will also be free to organise the delivery of these services in the manner most suited to their own needs, and authorities will not be prevented from adopting innovative approaches to service delivery.

  We do not intend to introduce a procedure for the separate evaluation of quality for construction-related services, but will allow local authorities to make their own judgments about the trade-off between quality and cost. Nevertheless, we expect authorities to introduce their own procedures to ensure that the evaluation is fair and even-handed, and is seen to be so.

  We also intend to make regulations requiring all local authorities to establish an internal accounting framework to identify the true costs of both corporate and construction-related services. This will bring transparency to the cost structure of these services, facilitate the challenging of these costs by internal customers and encourage the development of an internal market, all of which will add to the pressures imposed by competitive tendering.

  We intend to require these accounts to be kept from as early a date as possible, but no earlier than April 1994, and to prepare a programme for the early introduction of competitive tendering for construction-related and corporate services. Consideration of the timetable for these changes will take account of preparation time as well as the programme of the local government commission in England and the timetable of changes to local government structure proposed in Scotland and Wales.

  The consultation paper also put forward proposals for extending CCT to a number of local authority manual and direct services. My right hon. Friends will be making separate announcements on how these are to be taken forward.

  Department of the Environment, Scottish and Welsh Office officials will shortly begin discussions with the local authority associations and representatives of other interested parties on the practical details of the regime I have outlined. I hope that we will be able to work with local government to ensure that efficient, effective competition can lead to a high quality of services for local taxpayers.

  Birmingham City Council
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the difference between the spending of Birmingham city council on debt financing and his standard spending assessment for the same component of the council's spending for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 9 November 1992]: The table shows the spending of Birmingham City Council on debt financing, the standard spending assessment for the same component of the council's spending and the difference between them for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.
  743

  1990–91 £ million

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  Estimated expenditure on debt financing

  92

  106

  108

  Debt charges element of Birmingham's SSA

  51

  65

  59

  Difference

  41

  41

  49

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Care Grants
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of applications for community care grants in the Sheffield area are successful.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available is in the Library.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Government Departments have a statutory right under the Public Record Acts to retrieve material, temporarily, from the Public Record Office for their own administrative use. The number of items and frequency of such retrievals vary considerably. At 5 November 1992, the Department of Social Security had 17 files out on loan which are listed in the table.

  Such material is returned to the Public Record Office as soon as departmental action has been completed.

  DSS: Files on loan from Public Record Office, as at 5 November 1992

  Pro piece ref no.

  Piece/subject title

  PIN 7/514

  Duration of unemployment benefit (1955–67)

  PIN 7/515

  Earnings related short term benefit: transitional arrangements for provisions of standard flat rate (1965–1966)

  Requisitioning Branch: SS(B)1A

  PIN 15/3740

  Air raid victims of 1914–1918 War: payment of compensation by Ministry of Health (1946–1968)

  Requisitioning Branch: SS(A)1

  PIN 59/10

  War pensions policy: Third party compensation (1942–1970)

  Requisitioning Branch SS(A)1

  PIN 15/2232

  Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939: Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme Amendment Order 1940: revised instructions to Assistance Board Officers (1939–1941)

  Requisitioning Branch SS(A)1

  PIN 15/3834

  Cadet Forces: award of pension: regulation amendment (1952–1980)

  Requisitioning Branch SS(A)1

  PIN 15/2770

  Compensation for army cadets: Regulations for the Army Cadet Force 1945 (1942–1964)

  Requisitioning Branch SS(A)1

  744

  Pro piece ref no.

  Piece/subject title

  PIN 34/163

  New scheme pensions: persons residing or employed overseas (1968–1970)

  Requisitioning Branch SS/1R(D)AD1

  PIN 15/2350

  War Pensions and detention allowances (Naval Auxiliary Personnel) Scheme 1940 (1939–1941)

  Requisitioning Branch: W4C2 NX

  PIN 15/2351

  War Pensions and detention allowances (Naval Auxiliary Personnel) Scheme 1940 (1941–1944)

  PIN 15/2822

  War Pensions and detention allowances (Naval Auxiliary Personnel) Scheme 1940 (1945–1961)

  PIN 15/1433

  South African Contingent: pension charges etc. taken over by the Union Government of South Africa (1917–1918)

  PIN 15/1434

  South African Contingent: pension charges etc. taken over by the Union Government of South Africa (1918–1920)

  PIN 15/1435

  South African Contingent: pension charges etc. taken over by the Union Government of South Africa (1919–1920)

  PIN 15/1436

  South African Contingent: pension chrges etc. taken over by the Union Government of South Africa (1919–1920)

  PIN 15/1437

  South African Contingent: pension charges etc. taken over by the Union Government of South Africa (1920–1921)

  PIN 15/1438

  South African Contingent: pension charges etc. taken over by the Union Government of South Africa (1921–1944)

  Requisitioning Branch W4C3 NX

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is only one property on the Department's estate in the South Yorkshire area which could be described as residential property. This is the Woodhouse resettlement unit in Sheffield and it is fully occupied at the present time.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to publish a citizens charter for people with disabilities; and if he will specify the standards of service that recipients of disability living allowance should expect.

  Mr. Scott
  There are no such plans. The citizens charter is about setting standards and improving service for all customers taking account, where appropriate of those with special needs.

  The standards of service that recipients of disability living allowance should expect are published in the Benefits Agency business plan and will be included in the disability allowance unit statement of service to be published by the end of January 1993.

  Lost Files
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many temporary staff are currently employed by the Benefits Agency to track down lost or missing files of applicants for benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the report by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on the recognition of bronchitis and emphysema as an industrial injury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have had a number of enquires about publication of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report on chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The report will be published in the normal way by the end of November.

DEFENCE

  Ceremonial Uniforms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of ceremonial uniforms in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The total cost of ceremonial uniforms, including swords and scabbards, in each of the past five years was:

  £

  1987–88

  936,797

  1988–89

  1,106,216

  1989–90

  1,411,311

  1990–91

  1,286,974

  1991–92

  1,283,720

  Police (Special Escort Group)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role and function of the special escort group of the Ministry of Defence police; how many personnel are assigned to it; and what is its annual budget.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The special escort group is an element within the MOD police responsible for those escort duties necessary to meet safety and security requirements when moves of sensitive material are made. Its costs are contained within the overall MDP budget. For security reasons it is not our policy to comment on numbers of personnel nor their methods of operation.

  Lupina C
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the incident which took place in September involving the fishing vessel Lupina C and the United States Navy submarine Sturgeon; and if he will make a statement.
  746
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of letters from hon. Members, fishermen's representatives and interested individuals have been received. The United States navy is conducting a full investigation into this incident. When its findings are available, I will consider whether there is any need for further measures to improve the safety of submarine operations in waters that are used by fishing vessels, in addition to those already discussed with the fishing industry.

  Nuclear Tests
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to conduct further nuclear tests at Nevada; and for what purposes those tests would be conducted.

  Mr. Aitken
  United States legislation provides for the United Kingdom to conduct three nuclear tests at the Nevada test site between 1 July 1993 and 30 September 1996. It is not our practice to comment in detail on the purpose of individual tests, but all United Kingdom nuclear tests are designed to ensure the safety and credibility of our nuclear deterrent.

  Service Uniforms
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total number of items and the value of the service uniforms for which contracts to purchase were placed in the last year for which figures are available; if he will give a breakdown of those figures according to whether the product was(a) made and finished in the United Kingdom from fabric produced in the United Kingdom, (b) made and finished in the United Kingdom from imported fabric and (c) finished in the United Kingdom but made abroad; and if he will make a statement of his purchasing policy in such matters.

  Mr. Aitken
  Contracts to the value of £89·9 million have been placed for service uniforms in the past year. These contracts covered some 700 individual items.

  It is our policy to seek the best value for money when purchasing uniforms. We therefore pursue open competition and no restrictions are imposed on grounds of nationality or origin of supplies. Because of the large number of contractors and sub-contractors involved, it would not be practicable to maintain records of the origin of the materials used in uniforms.

  Amphibious Warfare Vessels
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for(a) development of auxiliary amphibious warfare vessels and (b) developing a tactical air-to-surface missile; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We intend to refurbish the Navy's three older landing ships logistic to enable them to continue in service into the next century. On current plans we expect work on the programme to begin in the summer of 1993.

  We are continuing to study a range of options for the eventual replacement of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb. No decision has yet been taken.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide a breakdown of the costs to date incurred in the promotion and publication of the citizens charter, all subsequent charters and the chartermark award scheme.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The promotion, publication and distribution of the citizens charter White Paper, popular version, ethnic minority versions and audio version for the partially sighted cost £930,000.

  The costs of the promotion, publication and distribution of subsequent charters is approximately:

  £

  British Rail

  250,000

  HM Customs & Excise

  12,000

  Employment Department

  630,000

  Department For Education

  2,000,000

  Department of the Environment

  300,000

  Department of Health

  2,000,000

  Inland Revenue

  12,000

  London Underground

  110,000

  Northern Ireland

  417,400

  Scottish Office

  342,000

  Department of Social Security

  43,500

  Welsh Office

  535,000

  The Chartermark award scheme 1992 cost £810,000. This includes publication, distribution and advertising costs as well as the cost of the awards ceremony and the separate design competition for schools.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how many different languages the citizens charter White Paper CM 1599 is currently available in; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The citizens charter White Paper (Cm. 1599) was published in English.

  The "Guide to the Citizen's Charter", which provides a summary of the policies and initiatives set out in the charter, is available in English, Welsh, Bengali, Gujariti, Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu, Chinese, Vietnamese, Greek and Turkish.

  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans the Government have to separate the funding of international projects from the rest of the Science and Engineering Research Council's budget.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Government have no such plans at present.

  The question of the most appropriate way of funding international projects has however featured in a number of contributions to the consultation process on the forthcoming White Paper on Science and Technology which my right hon. Friend has initiated. We shall be considering carefully these and other proposals for change that have been made.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what effect the devaluation of sterling will have on the funding of projects other than CERN by the Science and Engineering Research Council.
  748
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The fall in the value of sterling relative to the franc will affect the cost to the SERC of its fixed percentage contributions to the European synchrotron radiation facility (ESRF), and the Institut Laue Langevin (ILL). There will also be minor adjustments to the cost in sterling of SERC's contribution to the European incoherent scatter facility (EISCAT), paid in Swedish krona, and to the Anglo-Australian telescope facility (paid in Australian dollars). SERC's contribution to the European Space Agency's space science programme, which is paid in ecus, will also be affected, although the funding formula here also takes account of relative GDP of member states, adjusted retroactively.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what effect the devaluation of sterling will have on contributions made by the Science and Engineering Research Council to CERN.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Member states' contributions to CERN are based on a formula which takes account of relative GDP. The increased cost to SERC due to the devaluation of sterling relative to the Swiss franc will, over a period of time, be offset to a large degree by this self-correcting formula.

  There will be no significant effect in financial year 1992–93 as the bulk of payments due to CERN for this period were made prior to the mid-September devaluation.

  There will be an additional cost in financial year 1993–94 but, after that, this will reduce as the relative GDP formula takes effect.

  Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. Waldegrave
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the following agency chief executives: Mr. Mike Devereau, Central Office of Information; Miss Marianne Neville-Rolfe, Civil Service College; Mr. Paul Freeman, Her Majesty's Stationery Office; Dr. George Sorrie, Occupational Health Service and Mr. Michael Geddes, Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member. Copies of their replies will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Miss Marianne Neville-Rolfe to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 9 November 1992

  You asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he would 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.

  I am replying to you in respect of the Civil Service College. The information you have asked for is set out in the attached table.

  Civil service college sunningdale statement of average numbers and staff costs

  Grade

  1991–92 average numbers employed

  1992–93 average numbers employed/planned

  3

  1

  1

  5

  3

  2·50

  6

  12·25

  15

  7

  60·75

  61

  Senior Executive Officer

  18

  13·75

  749

  Grade

  1991–92 average numbers employed

  1992–93 average numbers employed/planned

  Senior Librarian

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  15·50

  15·50

  Executive Officer

  28·25

  29

  Assistant Librarian

  1·50

  1·50

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  1·50

  Professional and Technology Officer

  0·50

  1

  Administrative Officer

  55·75

  60·50

  Administrative Assistant

  7·25

  6·50

  Personal Secretary

  5·25

  6·50

  Typing Manager

  1

  —

  Typist

  2·25

  0·50

  Support Grade Band 1

  2·50

  3

  Support Grade Band 2

  7·25

  8·25

  Total

  224

  228

  Casuals employed in year

  4·50

  5·50

  Grand Total

  228·50

  233·50

  Total staff costs (including ERNIC)

  £4,952,000

  £5,382,000

  Notes:

  1. Staff Numbers include part-time employees who are counted as 0·50, hence the 0·25 on averaging.

  2. Average is between 1st April and 31st March numbers.

  3. Costs are total employee costs inclusive of Earnings Related National Insurance Contributions.

  Letters from Mr. Michael D. Geddes to Mr. Martin
  Redmond, dated 2 November 1992.

  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply for Recruitment and Assessment Services to your Question 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 for RAS is set out in the table annexed to this letter.

  RAS Staff 1991–92 and 1992–93

  Average for 1991–92

  Current 1992–93

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  Grade 5

  1·5

  1

  Grade 6

  4·5

  4

  Grade 7

  18·25

  16

  Senior Executive Officer

  8

  7

  Senior Information Officer

  0·5

  1

  Senior Psychologist

  2·5

  3

  Higher Executive Officer

  13

  10

  Information Officer

  0·75

  1

  Higher Psychologist

  1

  2

  Executive Officer

  36·25

  29

  Psychologist

  1·25

  0

  Assistant Information Officer

  1·25

  1

  Administrative Officer

  56·5

  51

  Administrative Assistant

  34

  25

  Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  2

  Personal Secretary

  5·5

  1·5

  Typist

  12·25

  9

  Support Manager Grade 2

  1

  1

  Support Manager Grade 3

  1

  1

  Support Grade 1

  12·5

  10

  Support Grade 2

  22

  15·5

  236·5

  193

  750

  Average for 1991;92

  Current 1992;93

  Cost:

  £

  £

  Salaries

  3,613,282

  3,198,000

  Superannuation

  570,408

  498,000

  Casuals

  35,879

  37,000

  TOTAL

  4,219,569

  3,733,000

  Letter from Dr. George Sorrie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 November 1992.

  I have been asked by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to reply to your question about the numbers of staff and their costs in the Civil Service Occupational Health Service Executive Agency.

  I attach a table which shows the number of staff by grade as at 30 September 1991 and 1992. We also employ staff from time to time on a fee paid basis.

  In 1991–92 staff costs for permanent staff were £2·671 million. A further £0·113 million was spent on staff loaned from other Government departments and on staff overtime and £0·249 million on fee paid sessional staff and agency staff. Business Plan forecasts for the current financial year are £2,990 million, £0·140 million and £0·240 million respectively.

  Civil Service Occupational Health Service

  Number of Staff1 1991–92

  Number of Staff1 1992–93

  Grade

  3

  1

  1

  4

  2

  2

  5

  8

  8

  6

  8

  8

  7

  3

  4

  Senior Executive Officer (SEO)

  2

  2

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer (SPTO)

  2

  2

  Higher Executive Officer (HEO)

  2

  2

  Executive Officer (EO)

  3

  4

  Administrative Officer (AO)

  15

  15

  Personal Secretary (PS)

  6

  6

  Administrative Assistant (AO)

  6

  5

  Typist

  6

  8

  Senior Occupational Health Adviser (SOHA)

  6

  7

  Occupational Health Adviser (OHA)

  13

  20

  Occupational Health Practitioner (OHP)

  14

  13

  Occupational Health Nurse (OHN)

  17

  21

  114

  128

  1 Numbers of staff in post as at 30 September includes part-time staff and staff on short-term contracts.

  Letter from Mr. Paul Freeman to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1992.

  I am responding in respect of HMSO to your Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about staff numbers and costs, which has been referred to Chief Executives.

  I should explain first that HMSO does not follow the traditional financial year of April to March, but operates on a calendar year basis. Total staff costs in 1991 were £63·9 million and the 1992 outturn is expected to be around £67·7 million. Both figures cover permanent, casual and agency staff, and include basic pay, national insurance, superannuation, bonus and overtime, and some redundancy and early retirement costs.
  751
  HMSO is also an exception to the standard Civil Service grading arrangements. Apart from my own, all posts were reclassified in 1991 under an analytical job evaluation system based on pay bands. The attached list shows the average numbers employed in each pay band in 1991 and 1992.

  1991

  1992

  Grade 2

  1

  1

  Pay Band 20

  2

  2

  19

  —

  —

  18

  4

  4

  17

  4

  3

  16

  5

  6

  15

  7

  6

  14

  12

  12

  13

  36

  36

  12

  18

  17

  11

  55

  56

  10

  94

  94

  9

  162

  166

  8

  221

  221

  7

  410

  419

  6

  172

  163

  5

  272

  270

  4

  414

  393

  3

  184

  175

  2

  81

  66

  1

  45

  37

  Industrial Staff

  1,169

  1,103

  Totals

  3,368

  3,250

  Letter from Mr. Mike Devereau to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 November 1992.

  I am replying to your question about staff numbers and costs.

  For 1991–92 our total paybill, excluding accrued early retirement liabilities, was £16·3m. I expect the figure for 1992–93 to be in the region of £15·7m.

  The average number of staff employed during 1991–92 was 709 of which 685 were permanent employees and 24 casual. In 1992–93 I expect the average to be in the region of 645 of which 625 would be permanent employees and 20 casual. A breakdown of average staff numbers by grade for 1991–92 and projected average staff numbers for 1992–93 is attached.

  Average staff numbers

  1991–92 actual

  1992–93 estimated

  Permanent staff

  Chief Executive (G3)

  1

  1

  Deputy Director General (G5)

  1

  1

  Grade 5

  5

  5

  Grade 6

  12

  10

  Grade 7

  35

  35

  Supervisory Engineer

  1

  1

  Senior Executive Officer

  13

  12

  Senior Information Officer

  112

  111

  Senior Engineer

  2

  1

  Engineer

  4

  5

  Chief Typing Manager

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  26

  25

  Information Officer

  164

  146

  Librarian

  1

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  Typing Manager

  3

  1

  Assistant Information Officer

  36

  29

  Executive Officer

  43

  42

  Personal Secretary

  14

  14

  Vault Keeper

  2

  2

  Assistant Librarian

  3

  3

  Support Manager 3

  4

  4

  Typist

  23

  16

  Administration Officer

  106

  94

  Support Grade Band 1

  19

  17

  Studio Assistant

  2

  1

  752

  1991–92 actual

  1992–93 estimated

  Carpenter

  1

  1

  Support Grade Band 2

  27

  25

  Administrative Assistant

  23

  20

  Sub-total

  685

  625

  Casual staff

  Information Officer

  2

  1

  Assistant Information Officer

  2

  0

  Administration Officer

  13

  12

  Administration Assistant

  4

  4

  Support Grade Band 2

  2

  2

  Typist

  1

  0

  Sub-Total

  24

  19

  Total

  709

  644

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers employed in the construction industry in the north-wast standard region in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is shown in the table following.

  Employees in employment in the construction industry in the north west standard region

  June of each year

  (000's)

  1979

  134

  1980

  134

  1981

  122

  1982

  116

  1983

  114

  1984

  114

  1985

  111

  1986

  106

  1987

  107

  1988

  110

  1989

  114

  1990

  113

  1991

  101

  1992

  89

  Earnings Statistics
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of(a) manual and (b) non-manual workers currently earn less than (i) £147·85, (ii) £197·30 and (iii) £207.13 excluding overtime payments; and what are the proportions separately for men and women.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information closest to that requested is published in table 24 of part A of the 1992 "New Earnings Survey" report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average pay of those aged under 18 years as a percentage of earning of those (i) aged 18 to 21 years and (ii) aged 21 years and over, in each year since 1979, in(a) Greater London and (b) Great Britain.
  753
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information closest to, that requested is given in the following table.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full time employees whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence.

  Earnings of those aged under 18 years as a percentage of those aged:

  Greater London

  Great Britain

  18–20

  21+

  18–20

  21+

  1979

  75·0

  43·5

  69·5

  42·2

  1980

  —

  —

  68·8

  41·6

  1981

  72·3

  41·9

  70·2

  41·4

  1982

  72·7

  41·3

  70·6

  41·0

  1983

  66·5

  37·2

  67·7

  38·7

  1984

  70·0

  38·5

  66·9

  37·5

  1985

  71·1

  38·4

  69·1

  38·4

  1986

  72·1

  38·8

  70·1

  38·3

  1987

  72·8

  38·

  71·7

  38·7

  1988

  75·5

  40·0

  73·2

  39·4

  1989

  77·2

  40·9

  72·0

  38·7

  1990

  75·7

  40·3

  71·5

  38·3

  1991

  72·8

  38·7

  70·1

  37·4

  1992

  73·3

  36·7

  69·9

  36·1

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Note:" —" denotes sample number too small or standard error too large for reliable estimate.

  Women Workers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women working(a) full-time and (b) part-time are covered by wages councils in London.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is estimated that some two-thirds of all workers covered by the wages councils are women and that about two-thirds of all wages council workers are part-timers. I regret there are no separate estimates for London.

  Health and Safety (Local Authorities)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) prohibition notices and (b) improvement notices were issued on local authorities by the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1974.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is available only for the period after 1 April 1988; enforcement statistics before that date do not separately identify local authorities. The following table shows the total number of prohibition and improvement notices issued to local authorities by relevant HSE inspectorates for each year since then.

  Enforcement notices issued against local authorities1 by HSE's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates, 1988–89 to 1990–91

  Type of Notice

  Date of Issue2

  Improvement

  Deferred Prohibition

  Immediate Prohibition

  Total

  1988–89

  54

  1

  31

  86

  1989–90

  52

  2

  20

  74

  1990–91

  89

  2

  29

  120

  1 Offences or breaches of legislation occurring in premises, or arising from activities, controlled by local authorities.

  2 Years commencing 1 April.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the total number of
  754
  prosecutions and (b) the average fine against local authorities by the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act in each year since 1974.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is available only for the period after 1 April 1988; enforcement statistics before that date do not separately identify local authorities. The following table shows the number of informations laid against local authorities by relevant HSE inspectorates since then.

  Prosecution action1 taken against local authorities,2 by HSE's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates, 1988–89 to 1990–91

  Date of Hearing3

  Number of Informations laid

  of which Convictions

  Average fine per conviction (£)

  1988–89

  22

  22

  594

  1989–90

  39

  31

  1,435

  1990–91

  41

  39

  953

  1 All action taken under the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974, subordinate regulations and other related legislation.

  2 Offences or breaches of legislation occurring in premises, or arising from activities, controlled by local authorities.

  3 Years commencing 1 April.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the total number of prosecutions against local authority directors and (b) the average fines under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in each year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is available only after 1 April 1988; enforcement statistics before that date do not separately identify local authorities. HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates enforce health and safety legislation as it applies to local authority premises and activities. Since then there have been no prosecutions of local authority directors.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were(a) killed and (b) seriously injured in local authority employment in each year since 1974.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Occupational injuries to workers' occurring in premises owned by, or arising from activities controlled by, local authorities, and reported to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates for years between 1988–89 and 1990–91 are provided in the following table. Prior to 1 April 1988 such injuries were not separately identified.

  Year2

  Fatal

  Major3

  Over three day4

  Total

  1988–89

  11

  2,553

  33,689

  36,253

  1989–90

  12

  2,539

  32,224

  34,775

  51990–91

  12

  2,571

  30,031

  32,614

  1 Injuries to employees and self-employed persons reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR).

  2 Years commencing 1 April.

  3 As denned under RIDDOR.

  4 An injury causing incapacity for normal work for more than three days.

  5 Includes reports made to the HSE's Quarries Inspectorates.

  Regional Expenditure
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total revenue expenditure in each of the English regions by her Department in the years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Wages Policy
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what regard is paid to the existence or level of other household earnings in determining government policy on(a) wages council rates and (b) pay agreements negotiated for public employees.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Wages councils are independent statutory bodies and Ministers have no power to intervene in their decisions about minimum rates of pay. Pay should reflect individual performance and what is necessary to recruit and retain the right staff, within what can be realistically afforded.

  Wages Councils
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees from black and ethnic minority communities working within establishments in London are covered by wages councils.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) establishments and (b) employees were covered by the wages councils in London in (i) 1979, (ii) 1986, (iii) 1989 and (iv) 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no detailed figures on the number of establishments and employees covered by wages councils in London, but the following table gives broad estimates:

  Number of establishments

  Numbers of workers

  1979

  46,000

  326,000

  1986

  45,000

  327,000

  1989

  56,000

  367,000

  1991

  51,000

  317,000

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many checks were carried out by wages councils in London on underpaying in the last year for which figures are available, and what number and proportion were found to be underpaying.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of checks by all methods carried out in 1991 by the wages inspectorate in its London division was 5,299.

  The number of establishments found under paying was 294, 5·5 per cent. of those inspected.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees covered by wages councils are the principal source of their household's income.
  756
  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her oral answer of 3 November to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam),Official Report, column 139, if she will give details of the survey resulting in the figure given in her answer for the percentage of wages council workers who are in households with two or more wage earners.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The figure referred to by the hon. Member is based on information about the main wages council industries recorded in the April 1991 "Labour Force Survey". This is a sample survey of the members of around 60,000 households in Great Britain.

  Crown Indemnity
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she expects the Health and Safety Commission to consider the review of current procedures and to put its proposals to Ministers concerning the removal of Crown indemnity in respect of infringements of the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Commission currently plans to consider the review in December and, if appropriate, will make recommendations early in the new year.

  Training
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what percentage of the working population were on work-related Government training programmes in each region in each year since 1979;

  (2) how many people were on work-related Government training programmes in each year since 1979, in each region.

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

  Wages
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list for each jobcentre in the Doncaster area, for the latest date she has available, the number of current accepted vacanies from employers where the wages offered fall below the relevant wages council minimum; and what percentage this is of the total number of vacancies on offer at each jobcentre.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated November 1992:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the number of current vacancies accepted by Jobcentres in the Doncaster area where the wages offered fall below the relevant Wages Council minimum and what percentage this is of the total number of vacancies on offer at each Jobcentre. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  757
  There are no vacancies at Doncaster or Thorne Jobcentres which fall below Wages Council minumum rates. Jobcentres have comprehensive instructions giving guidance to staff on the action to be taken when a vacancy covered by a Wages Council Order is notified. If the employer is unwilling to pay the Wages Council minimum then my people are instructed not to accept the vacancy and to refer the case to the Department of Employment Wages Inspectorate.

  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Accident Hazard Regulations
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines she intends to issue to local authorities as to the charges they may make to industrial site operators for work done under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has no plans to issue guidelines on the charges local authorities may make. The Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 contain specific details of what local authorities may charge for in preparing off-site emergency plans and how these charges must be calculated. Guidance on these legal requirements is given in the Health and Safety Executive's revised booklet "A Guide to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984", published by HMSO in 1990, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Workfare
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration she has given to the introduction of workfare to help solve the problem of rising unemployment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As my hon. Friend is aware, we have no plans for a compulsory work programme for unemployed people. Our priority remains to help unemployed people back into work through our employment and training programmes.

  Proposed redundancies in the period 1 August 1992 to 31 October 1992

  SIC Number

  SIC Number Description

  Number of Establishments

  Number of Employees

  Per cent, of Total Redundancies Notified

  11

  Coal extraction and solid fuels

  11

  3,358

  20·49

  32

  Mechanical engineering

  47

  2,125

  12·97

  35

  Manufacturer of motor vehicles and parts

  24

  1,465

  8·94

  50

  Construction

  27

  1,141

  6·96

  34

  Electrical and electronic engineering

  23

  949

  5·79

  24

  Manufacturer of non-metal mineral products

  20

  673

  4·11

  83

  Other business services and central offices

  19

  658

  4·02

  91

  Local and national government services

  7

  652

  3·98

  31

  Manufacture of other metal goods

  13

  505

  3·08

  41

  Food/groceries/dairy products

  13

  505

  3·08

  96

  Social work/charitable services

  1

  396

  2·42

  42

  Drinks, animal foods and tobacco

  4

  354

  2·16

  66

  Hotels and catering

  8

  352

  2·15

  22

  Metal manufacturing

  11

  337

  2·06

  49

  Other manufacturing industries

  8

  317

  1·93

  92

  Other services

  7

  303

  1·85

  64

  Retail distribution

  7

  284

  1·73

  48

  Processing rubber and plastics

  9

  277

  1·69

  36

  Manufacturing other transport equipment

  2

  209

  1·28

  81

  Banking financial services

  3

  204

  1·25

  37

  Instrument engineering

  2

  155

  0·95

  46

  Wooden furniture industries

  6

  136

  0·83

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

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Government Departments have a statutory right under the Public Record Acts to retrieve records temporarily from the Public Record Office for their own administrative use. The Employment Department has 39 records out on loan. To list them all would involve disproportionate costs.

  Records are returned as soon as departmental action has been completed.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list, for each local authority area in south Yorkshire, how many residential properties are currently owned by her Department; and if she 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. McLoughlin
  The Department does not own any residential properties in south Yorkshire.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of redundancies in the west midlands area for the last available quarter broken down by sector.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Figures are available for the numbers of proposed redundancies notified under the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for the quarter to 31 October. The table gives information by standard industrial classification.
  759

  SIC Number

  SIC Number Description

  Number of Establishments

  Number of Employees

  Per cent, of Total Redundancies Notified

  97

  Recreational/cultural services

  1

  128

  0·78

  77

  Other transport/storage services

  4

  93

  0·57

  1

  Agriculture and horticulture

  2

  90

  0·55

  65

  Retail distribution

  4

  85

  0·52

  47

  Paper manufacturing, printing and publishing

  5

  75

  0·46

  94

  Research and development services

  3

  72

  0·44

  95

  Medical, dental and veterinary services

  2

  68

  0·42

  17

  Water supply industry

  3

  67

  0·41

  79

  Postal and telecommunication services

  1

  60

  0·37

  43

  Textile industries

  2

  49

  0·30

  44

  Manufacture of leather and leather goods

  1

  46

  0·28

  45

  Footwear and clothing industries

  2

  45

  0·27

  67

  Vehicle and consumer goods repair

  1

  39

  0·24

  21

  Metal ores extraction/preparation

  1

  29

  0·18

  82

  Insurance

  1

  26

  0·16

  84

  Renting of movables

  1

  18

  0·11

  72

  Other inland transport

  1

  18

  0·11

  85

  Property owning and managing

  1

  12

  0·07

  76

  Transport support service

  1

  10

  0·06

  75

  Air transport

  0

  0

  0·00

  33

  Manufacture of office machines

  0

  0

  0·00

  93

  Education

  0

  0

  0·00

  61

  Wholesale distribution

  0

  0

  0·00

  30

  Shipbuilding and repair

  0

  0

  0·00

  26

  Production of man-made fibres

  0

  0

  0·00

  25

  Chemical industry

  0

  0

  0·00

  62

  Dealing in other industrial materials

  0

  0

  0·00

  23

  Extracting minerals not elsewhere specified

  0

  0

  0·00

  98

  Personal services

  0

  0

  0·00

  74

  Sea transport

  0

  0

  0·00

  71

  Railways

  0

  0

  0·00

  16

  Electricity, gas and other products distribution

  0

  0

  0·00

  15

  Nuclear fuel production

  0

  0

  0·00

  14

  Mineral oil processing

  0

  0

  0·00

  13

  Oil extraction and natural gases

  0

  0

  0·00

  12

  Coke ovens

  0

  0

  0·00

  99

  Private domestic service

  0

  0

  0·00

  3

  Fishing

  0

  0

  0·00

  2

  Forestry

  0

  0

  0·00

  63

  Commission agents

  0

  0

  0·00

  309

  16,385

  Occupational Ill Health
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate she has made of the annual cost of occupational ill health; and what action she proposes to take to lessen this.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Reliable estimates of the annual cost of occupational ill health are not presently available. Health and Safety Executive economists are carrying out research into the cost of occupational ill health and expect to publish the results of this work early next year.

  Improving the level of occupational health is a main priority for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. Details of their current activities and plans for action are set out in the Commission's annual reports and plans of work. These include the preparation of a comprehensive framework of regulations under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 covering the main categories of workplace health risks, practical guidance and campaigns, and an extensive programme of research and surveys of the scale and pattern of occupational ill health.

  Water Quality
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will introduce legislation to extend the health and safety legislation requiring drinking water and running water for washing to be provided at conveniently accessible places, to apply to all working locations, including domestic houses and flats.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We are currently considering the Health and Safety Commission proposals for regulations which implement European Community directive No. 89/654/EEC (the workplace directive). The proposed regulations would extend the current requirements in health and safety legislation on drinking water and running water for washing to all workplaces. However, they apply only to"any premises or part of premises which are not domestic premises and are made available to any person as a place of work".

  Domestic houses and flats are therefore outside the scope of the proposed regulations. They are, however, required to have such facilities under the Building Regulations (England and Wales) which are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when Mr. E. D. Coote of Linden, Mount Pleasant road, Brixham (NI No. ZL 46 46 75 C) will be notified of the result of his appeal to the Department of Employment, Newcastle, regarding loss of invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  The administration of invalidity benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. As the appeal is a personal and confidential matter, he will reply direct to the hon. Member.

HEALTH

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports she has received about the use of laser treatment for glaucoma; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The use of lasers has revolutionised the treatment of glaucoma and other diseases of the eye. I understand that many patients who would previously have been treated as in-patients are now being successfully treated in out-patient clinics.

  Smoking
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received regarding danger to health from smoking and passive smoking.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The consequences of smoking and passive smoking have been the subject of many representations received in the Department. Most recently the Health Education Authority's publication called "The Smoking Epidemic—A Manifesto for Action" locked at the life expectancy of smokers, passive smoking and the costs to the national health service.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the plans for health service expenditure for the current public expenditure planning period.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making his autumn statement to the House on Thursday 12 November.

  Departmental Information
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy for increasing the amount of information made available to the general public from her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department aims to provide the general public with a wide range of information relating to legislation, policy, patients' rights and other health advice. The Department is also playing a full part In the cross-departmental initiative on open government.

  Furthermore, the Department is engaged in a number of initiatives to promote greater access to information by
  762
  national health service patients—including information on performance against patients charter standards, regional health information services and legislation to give patients access to health records held on them. The Department is currently consulting on draft guidance on freedom of speech for national health service employees.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the average number of patients on each general practitioner's list since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am pleased to be able to report that the average number of patients on general medical practitioner lists in England has fallen by 18 per cent., from 2,286 at 1 October 1979 to 1,932 at 1 April 1992.

  Standish Hospital, Gloucestershire
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the effect of the proposed closure of Standish hospital. Gloucestershire on provision of specialist services.

  Mr. Sackville
  Gloucestershire health authority is currently consulting publicly on this proposal. If the closure is opposed by the local community health council the matter will be referred to Ministers, via the South Western regional health authority, for a full decision.

  Tomlinson Report
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of possible job losses as a result of the implementation of the Tomlinson report.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Sir Bernard Tomlinson's recommendations point the way to a better health service for London and Londoners. We are currently consulting widely on them. As part of this, we will take in the views of staff and the implications of change for staff. We will set out a detailed response in the new year.

  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect of the implementation of the Tomlinson recommendations on waiting lists in London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The report notes that significant progress has been made in reducing waiting times in London. We will ensure that the proposals arising from the report continue this trend.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from the people of London concerning the Tomlinson report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Tomlinson report has only just been published, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health welcomes an open debate on the issues it raises. We will listen carefully to the views expressed before setting out our detailed proposals for change in the new year.

  Occupational Health
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to increase the amount of time medical students spend on occupational health issues during their training.
  763
  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) earlier today.

  Cost Improvement Programme
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the workings of the cost improvement programme from hospital authorities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Sackville
  No formal representations have been made. However each year the management executive agrees with an individual region an efficiency target as part of the management process.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will establish an urgent inquiry into the London ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The hon. Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made a statement to the House on 28 October about the London ambulance service.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to ensure that ambulance response times in London meet the guidelines set out in the citizens charter.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health announced to the House on 28 October an urgent external enquiry into the operation of the computer aided dispatch system and the circumstances surrounding its failure on 26 and 27 October. This inquiry will also identify the lessons to be learned for the operation and management of the London ambulance service.

  The terms of reference were announced in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) on 6 November at columns 445–46.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of people in London who have died in the current year as a consequence of ambulance delays.

  Mr. Sackville
  There has been widespread public concern about the delays in the response and arrival times of emergency ambulances and allegations of people dying as a consequence. Every case of alleged delay is fully investigated by the London ambulance service board.

  It is however, difficult to estimate the extent to which delays in the ambulance service may have contributed to the death of seriously ill patients.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from ISL Consultancy following its visit to the London ambulance service control on standards of organisation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced to the House on 6 November the terms of reference for the independent inquiry into the operation and procurement of the computer aided dispatch (CAD) system for the London ambulance service. She has received a letter from ISL Consultancy which will be directed to the inquiry.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population is currently served by a general practitioner fundholder; and how she expects this percentage to change in the future.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fundholders currently serve 14 per cent. of the population. The figure is expected to rise to around 25 per cent. in April of next year, when the third wave of fundholders comes on stream.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make NHS trusts more accountable to local people; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service trusts are more accountable now than national health service provider units were under health authority management. They are required to hold an annual public meeting, and their business plans and annual reports are available to the public, as are the service contracts they make with health authorities. Each trust's local community health council has rights of access to it.

  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names of those people appointed to be chairmen and non-executive directors of the third wave of national health service trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have placed a list of the chairmen and non-executive directors of third wave trusts which I have announced today in the Library.

  NHS trusts have shown their worth. In their first year of operation, first wave trusts treated 8 per cent. more patients than in their previous year as directly managed hospitals. Such a figure clearly demonstrates that we now have a NHS which is better managed and able to treat more patients for the same level of resources. Trusts have made a key contribution to this improvement.

  The third wave of trusts cannot come a moment too soon. But if they are to bring the benefits to patients and improvements in services which have become the hallmark of self-governing hospitals, then they must be properly led. The appointment of the right person as chairman is a crucial factor. He or she must also be supported by an imaginative team of non-executive directors able to contribute fresh insights into the running of the trust. The names I have announced today fit the bill. These chairmen and non-executive trust directors will bring a wealth of expertise and experience from outside the NHS which will have a direct impact on improving patient services.

  A significantly higher number of women have been appointed to these posts. Forty per cent. of these new appointments are women, compared with 31 per cent. in the first and second waves. This enables us to make progress towards meeting our commitment under Opportunity 2000 to increase the number of women as members of health authorities and trusts to 35 per cent. by 1994.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations she has had from organisations responsible for providing care in the community.
  765
  Mr. Yeo
  We regularly receive correspondence from organisations making representations about or seeking clarification of the details of our new community care arrangements.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  'To ask the Secretary of Slate for Health what monitoring is being carried out by her Department of local arrangements for care in the community; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Community care implementation has been monitored by the social services inspectorate/regional health authorities at six monthly intervals in September 1991, April 1992 and September 1992. We have recently received a report on the latest round of monitoring.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the availability of dental services within the NHS.

  Dr Mawhinney
  In general, dental treatment under the national health service is readily available throughout England and Wales. If patients have difficulty in finding a national health service dentist, they will be helped by their family health services authority (FHSA) to obtain treatment. We have urged dentists to think long and hard before taking any steps that would effect their patients or practices.

  Domiciliary Care Agencies (Registration)
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce legislation to make the registration of domiciliary care agencies compulsory.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 22 October at column 371.

  GP Cover
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will discuss with representatives of family doctors ways of maintaining 24-hour general practitioner cover.

  Dr Mawhinney
  We have already said that we should be prepared to look constructively with representatives of the medical profession at the scope for developing improved or more flexible arrangements for out-of-hours cover. But we would need to be clearly satisfied that any proposals for change would safeguard and, if possible, improve the services available to patients.

  Geopathic Stress
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department is currently carrying out into geopathic stress; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr Mawhinney
  The term "geopathic stress" is I understand used to refer to the effects of depletion of the ozone layer on flora and fauna. The Department does not undertake any research into such matters which are not associated with human health.

  Skin Cancer
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the known incidence of non-melanoma skin cancer for each of the past five years.
  766
  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table (1987 is the latest year for which information is available).

  Registrations of newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasms of the skin (non-melanoma) ICD* 173, England and Wales 1983–1987.

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1983

  11,317

  10,419

  21,736

  1984

  11,678

  10,576

  22,254

  1985

  12,597

  10,746

  23,343

  1986

  14,152

  12,615

  26,767

  1987

  13,661

  12,585

  26,246

  * International Classification of Diseases; ninth revision.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make national health service records available throughout EC member countries for United Kingdom citizens living abroad; and what information she has on how many previously United Kingdom registered patients requested a precis of their medical records whilst living abroad during the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Medical records are the property of the national health service and are retained in this country for NHS purposes including the possible future care and treatment of the patient. Patients who plan to live abroad may approach their general practitioner to obtain a precis of their medical history or a copy of their medical records to give to any practitioner in the new country of residence.

  Information is not collected on requests for medical records from United Kingdom registered patients living abroad.

  Secure Places
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to review the need for, and extend the provision of, local authority secure places.

  Mr. Yeo
  The need to provide additional local authority secure places to implement the new juvenile remand arrangements in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 has been considered by a multi-agency national steering group. We are discussing with local authorities how the additional secure places identified by the group might most effectively be provided.

  Benzodiazepines
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been provided by her Department in 1992–93 specifically to help people withdraw from benzodiazepines prescribed by general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. Specific commitment to action in this area is made in the White Paper "The Health of the Nation". The resulting improvement in the education of primary care teams in the gradual withdrawal of benzodiazepines in chronic users and the promotion of good professional practice will help people overcome this problem.

  Maternity Services
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will set up a full review of the maternity services in those areas affected by the Tomlinson proposals on London teaching hospitals;

  (2) if she will meet representatives of midwives in London hospitals to reassure them on future numbers of midwife posts following the Tomlinson proposals;

  (3) what steps she will take to ensure that those pregnant women who will be directly affected by the Tomlinson proposals for London teaching hospitals will receive locally based maternity care.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Tomlinson report does not recommend a review of maternity services, but as the Government's main aim is to continue to provide high quality services for Londoners we shall ensure that any proposals for change take into account the full range of services. Access to local services will also be one of the considerations we will take into account when assessing proposals.

  I have already made it clear that I will be listening carefully to the views of patients and staff before making a response to Tomlinson's recommendations. Accordingly, I will meet the Royal College of Midwives, representing midwives in London, in the near future.

  Suicides (Unemployed)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women aged (i) 18 years and over and (ii) 45 to 65 years were recorded in each standard region and the whole United Kingdom as suicides or attempted suicides in each year since 1979; and what number and proportion in each case were known to be unemployed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The exact information requested is not available. A table derived from death registrations shows the number of deaths with a verdict of suicide ICD E950–E959 over the period requested has been placed in the Library.

  Hospital Closures
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have closed since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ambulance Service, Coventry
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the response time records for emergencies attended by the ambulance service in Coventry for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the chairman of West Midlands regional health authority for details.

  Expenditure
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of public spending on health was in(a) 1980 and (b) 1989–90.
  768
  Mr. Sackville
  The percentage of total public expenditure spent on health in the United Kingdom was 12·1 per cent. in 1979–80 and 13·8 per cent. in 1989–90. The latest available figure, for 1991–92, is 14·4 per cent.

  Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds were available to the national health service in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1989 there were 283,000 beds in national health service hospitals in England, compared with 362,000 beds in 1979. Over the same period the number of hospital in-patient cases treated annually rose from 5·4 million to 6·6 million.

  Community Grant
  Mr. Peter Butter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what response she proposes to make to representations she has received on her proposals for a special transitional grant for community care.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have been consulting the local authority associations and others on the detail of the announcements which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on 2 October. In the light of the comments made we think it right to adjust the requirement that in 1993–94 75 per cent. of the special transitional grant be spent in the independent sector. The proportion will now be set at 85 per cent. of the transfer element of the grant. This change recognises that the strength of the independent sector varies across the country whilst ensuring that the overwhelming majority of the funds transferred from the Department of Social Security continue to be spent on independent sector care.

  This announcement demonstrates the Government's firm and fair approach in discussing the implemention and funding of community care with the local authority associations.

  Diagnostic Assessment
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each health region have been funded to receive diagnostic assessment outside their own health authority area.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Hepatitis B
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new cases of hepatitis B were reported to public health laboratories in England in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total number of laboratory reports of acute hepatitis B infection to the public health laboratory service's communicable disease surveillance centre for England and Wales (by the year in which the specimen was taken) is as follows:

  Date

  Number

  1980

  1,007

  1981

  1,197

  1982

  1,237

  1983

  1,274

  769

  Date

  Number

  1984

  1,937

  1985

  1,771

  1986

  1,312

  1987

  774

  1988

  636

  1989

  590

  1990

  564

  11991

  520

  1(Provisional)

  The availability of immunisation, together with behavioural changes in certain "at risk" groups, are believed to have contributed to this decrease.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been given to each local social services authority to help with the implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Yeo
  In 1992–93, the first full year of the Act, the England component of total standard spending for services for children was set at £1,654 million—over 27 per cent. (14 per cent. in real terms) higher than in 1990–91 (£1,301 million), reflecting the Government's commitment to the Act. For each authority, the overall standard spending assessment represents the Government's view of the appropriate level of spending required to achieve a standard level of service. It is for individual authorities to determine appropriate levels of services based on their judgment of the resources available to them and. local needs and priorities, as well as legislative duties. Local authorities receive support from central Government through the revenue support grant, business rates and specific grants, and from their own sources from the community charge and charges set by them for the services they provide.

  Doctors' Working Hours
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the number of junior doctors who work more than 83 hours per week; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional task force reports, current at 31 August 1992, indicate that 3,234 junior doctors, out of a total of over 25,000, are contracted for a maximum average of more than 83 hours a week. This represents a fall of 2,041 since the last returns in February and, since September 1990, a fall of more than 10,000.

  Hospital Buildings
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of national health service hospitals were built(a) before 1890 and (b) before 1918.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. The Government are committed to modernising the national health service estate and have invested over £6 billion on more than 650 major building schemes across the country over the last 10 years.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the earliest date on which financial and statistical information about community care arrangements by social services authorities will be available following community care implementation on 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Yeo
  Budgetary information for the financial year 1993–94 should be available from local authorities by the end of May 1993.

  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements for monitoring and evaluating community care arrangements by health and social services authorities after 1 April 1993 she intends to put into place;

  (2) how she will monitor the development by social services authorities of day and domiciliary services after 1 April 1993; and if she will make it her policy that adequate special transitional grant for community care will be available for this purpose;

  (3) what steps she will take to monitor the involvement of users and carers in assessment of need for community care; and if she will make it her policy to make additional resources available for this purpose if necessary in the light of monitoring current arrangements.

  Mr. Yeo
  Monitoring of authorities' implementation of new community care arrangements will be carried out by a variety of means, including the work of regional health authorities and the social services inspectorate, routine financial and statistical returns and other sources of information. The need for additional resources for community care will be considered as part of the public expenditure process in the normal way.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she intends to give social services authorities on their duty to meet the assessed needs of individuals for community care services; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Authorities duties are set out in legislation. We have issued practice guidance on assessment procedures, and we are considering whether to issue further guidance on certain aspects of those procedures.

  Healthtrac
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to report on the operation of the Healthtrac contract within the West Midlands regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand the statutory auditor appointed by the Audit Commission is currently reviewing the management of the Healthtrac contract and will be reporting his findings to West Midlands regional health authority in due course.

  Private Sector Providers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she proposes to direct social services authorities to consult representatives of independent sector providers in their area; and how she will satisfy herself of the effectiveness of the arrangements she proposes.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 4 November 1992 at columns 293–94.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will dismiss Sir James Ackers as chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on 5 November at column 348.

  AIDS
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the results of the anonymised screening programme for HIV.

  Mr. Sackville
  Some preliminary results, relating to genitourinary and ante-natal clinic attenders in England and Wales, were published in May 1991. Further details, including results for injecting drug misusers, were published in the public health laboratory service communicable disease report in June 1991. The ante-natal clinic results were updated in November 1991. The studies

  Nurses and Midwives—Entrants to Training

  Region

  Year ending March 1990 Nurses

  Midwives

  Year ending March 1991 Nurses

  Midwives

  Year ending March 1992 Nurses

  Midwives

  Northern

  1,284

  144

  1,315

  136

  1,310

  120

  Yorkshire

  1,492

  198

  1,631

  204

  1,880

  130

  Trent

  1,888

  248

  2,058

  207

  1,880

  200

  East Anglian

  715

  101

  687

  86

  810

  90

  North West Thames

  1,459

  208

  1,535

  230

  1,890

  220

  North East Thames

  2,582

  220

  2,337

  204

  2,880

  200

  South East Thames

  1,886

  237

  1,900

  244

  1,810

  210

  South West Thames

  1,193

  148

  1,292

  142

  1,320

  100

  Wessex

  1,250

  190

  1,238

  181

  1,400

  160

  Oxford

  798

  103

  773

  120

  1,040

  130

  South Western

  1,315

  157

  1,251

  146

  1,380

  140

  West Midlands

  2,102

  315

  2,313

  276

  2,300

  310

  Mersey

  1,116

  121

  1,100

  133

  1,220

  100

  North Western

  1,805

  205

  1,775

  187

  2,300

  190

  ENGLAND

  20,885

  2,595

  21,205

  2,496

  23,420

  2,300

  Data from: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Notes: 1991–92 figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  1. The numbers of nursing and midwifery training places commissioned for 1992 and 1993 for staff to commence training programmes is taken from the Working Paper 10 Regional Balance Sheets dated 15 October 1992.

  2. Figures do not include nurses and midwives who are being funded by the Department for Education.

  3. Regional figures for commissioned places in 1993 are still being refined. However, we are able to provide an estimated aggregate figure for England from data available to date.

  Nurses and midwives—training commissions Working Paper 10 figures

  Region

  Year ending March 1993 Nurses

  Midwives

  Year ending March 1994 Nurses

  Midwives

  Northern

  1,059

  145

  Yorkshire

  1,436

  137

  Trent

  1,505

  219

  East Anglian

  495

  92

  North West Region

  1,210

  155

  North East Thames

  2,116

  237

  South East Thames

  1,549

  303

  South West Thames

  964

  62

  Wessex

  1,028

  167

  Oxford

  727

  96

  South Western

  913

  116

  West Midlands

  1,332

  485

  Mersey

  724

  70

  North Western

  1,488

  196

  England

  16,546

  2,480

  14,275

  1,945

  772
  been expanded and it is intended to publish further results in the near future. I will consider carefully the implication of these for the development of our HIV and AIDS strategy.

  Nursing and Midwifery Students
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and midwifery students took up places in each region in England in each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement on the likely level for 1993, assuming both volume and percentage changes.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 6 November 1992]: The tables show a reduction in student numbers which has resulted from improved planning and better strategies for the retention of staff. This helps ensure that the numbers of student nurses and midwives being trained matches more closely the numbers of posts available for qualifying students. The demand for places is assessed locally in consultation with clinical directors, professional heads and service managers.
  773

  Nurses and midwives—entrants to training and training commissions

  Percent

  Percentage change 1989–90 to 1990–91

  Percentage change 1990–91 to 1991–92

  Percentage change 1991–92 to 1992–93

  Region

  Nurses

  Midwives

  Nurses

  Midwives

  Nurses

  Midwives

  Northern

  2·4

  -5·6

  -0·4

  -11·8

  -19·2

  20·8

  Yorkshire

  9·3

  3·0

  15·3

  -36·3

  -23·6

  5·4

  Trent

  9·0

  -16·5

  -8·6

  -3·4

  -19·9

  9·5

  East Anglian

  -3·9

  -14·9

  17·9

  4·7

  -38·9

  2·2

  North West Thames

  5·2

  10·6

  23·1

  -4·3

  -36·0

  -29·5

  North East Thames

  -9·5

  -7·3

  23·2

  -2·0

  -26·5

  18·5

  South East Thames

  0·7

  3·0

  -4·7

  -13·9

  -14·4

  44·3

  South West Thames

  8·3

  -4·1

  2·2

  -29·6

  -27·0

  -38·0

  Wessex

  -1·0

  -4·7

  13·1

  -11·6

  -26·6

  4·4

  Oxford

  -3·1

  16·5

  34·5

  8·3

  -30·1

  -26·2

  South Western

  -4·9

  -7·0

  10·3

  -4·1

  -33·8

  -17·1

  West Midlands

  10·0

  -12·4

  -0·6

  12·3

  -42·1

  56·5

  Mersey

  -1·4

  9·9

  10·9

  -24·8

  -40·7

  -30·0

  North Western

  -1·7

  -8·8

  29·6

  1·6

  -35·3

  3·2

  England

  1·5

  -3·8

  10·4

  -7·9

  -29·4

  7·8

  1992–93 to 1993–94

  Per cent.

  Region

  Nurses

  Midwives

  Northern

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  —

  —

  Trent

  —

  —

  East Anglian

  —

  —

  North West Thames

  —

  —

  North East Thames

  —

  —

  South East Thames

  —

  —

  774

  Region

  Nurses

  Midwives

  South West Thames

  —

  —

  Wessex

  —

  —

  Oxford

  —

  —

  South Western

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  Mersey

  —

  —

  North Western

  —

  —

  England

  -13·7

  -21·6

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

The Highland Midge
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the introduction and distribution in the West Highlands of the red mite and natterer's bat, in order to reduce the numbers of the Highland midge.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, regrettably it is doubtful if such a measure would have the desired effect. Claims last summer of a new mite, parasitic to midges, have not been substantiated so far as we are aware. We do not propose to initiate or encourage releases of natterer's bats which already occur in the wild in Scotland. It is likely that this species of bat would already have increased its range and numbers in the West Highlands if the midge was a good food source for it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Highland midges bite ferociously and repeatedly, bringing human activity to a halt, as many noble Lords may be painfully aware. Should not their natural enemies—more effective than those suggested—be put to work to assist residents and local tourism?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, yes. The misfortune is that although it was thought that both of these enemies might be real ones, it has so far proved difficult to establish that. I fear that the natterer's bat would probably have to consume a considerable number of midges before it had a substantial high tea. Nevertheless, it is appreciated that this is a problem that afflicts tourism, and I should like to reassure my noble friend that the Government are not standing idly by. Through funding from the Agricultural and Food Research Council, Aberdeen University and the Institute of Animal Health are seeking to identify ways whereby the midges might be attacked and diminished.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say whether the natterer's bat and the red mite might be able to help us in Dorset to eliminate the Blandford fly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, regrettably, the red mite is proving a mite elusive. We are not sure whether it exists. There were accounts last summer that the red mite had been identified. But perhaps I may make a plea on behalf of the Department of Zoology at Aberdeen University: if anybody knows anything about the red mite, would they please advise
82
the department? If it is of any assistance with regard to the Blandford fly, I have no doubt that that information will also be communicated.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to define the Highland midge? Is it called the Highland midge because it comes from the Highlands or because it has settled in the Highlands?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. It is certainly no white settler. It is known colloquially as the Highland midge. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was somewhat unfair to it. Not all midges bite—only the female when she is pregnant.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, anyone who has been involved in the question of the West Highland midge will be aware that almost the same answers as those that have been given today by the noble and learned Lord—but perhaps he has put a bit more science on it—were given by Tom Johnston way back in the mid 1940s. I wonder whether all our science cannot do something about this. A great deal of effort has been put into it. I understand that one of the problems with natterer's bats is that the midges are around for only part of the year and that the bats would therefore find it difficult to acquire food during the other part of the year. This probably happens with all ecological attempts to get rid of the midges. However, I hope that serious research is still being conducted. The Minister's comments about the Department of Zoology at Aberdeen University certainly seem a wee bit more hopeful.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I appreciate that the "nattering bat" sounds something like a refugee from a mother-in-law joke. From what is known of what it eats, the trouble is that it tends to eat rather larger insects than the Highland midge. The work that is taking place follows the work at Edinburgh University as far back as 1952, which is perhaps the matter to which the noble Lord refers. Work is going on at the University of Aberdeen to identify the pheromones involved in the mating behaviour of the Highland midge. The potential for their use in traps is the matter under research and study.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there are hazards with biological control—witness the rabbits in Australia which were controlled eventually by myxomatosis? What are the red mite and the natterer's bat going to eat when they are not eating midges?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, maybe the red mite does not eat anything because it does not exist. That is the scientific matter that must be established before there is any prospect of any serious research. However, I take the noble Earl's more serious point. The natterer's bat has a fairly natural range. It is to be found in the Highlands of Scotland; but one would not want to introduce it artificially if there were not to be an ample food supply for it throughout the year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, since doubt has been thrown upon the existence of the red mite, will

83
my noble and learned friend or his office get in touch with Professor Angus Stuart, who is reported not only to have discovered it but to have determined that it has the useful ability of being able to kill the midge?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving a name and a possible source of information. I conclude this deeply serious matter by telling the House that we would love to campaign for tourists in Scotland with the saying, "The red mite at night is the tourist's delight".
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, has the Minister had consultations on this matter with the conservation bodies in Scotland? Will he accept from me that my efforts to find out something about these creatures in the past week have met with no success at all? Scottish Natural Heritage seemed to know very little about it. Therefore, the Minister has my greatest sympathy if he was looking for briefing on this subject.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that a pair of natterer's bats were found in a loft in a house in Lochaber. Because of their presence, there was a throwaway line at the time that perhaps the natterer's bat might assist in the reduction of the midge population of Scotland. I do not think that that assertion was made with any scientific basis; but, if it can be established, we shall do so.

Shot-guns
2.45 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many shot-guns are estimated to exist in the United Kingdom and how many (a) shot-gun licences and (b) game licences there are presently issued.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, about 1.5 million shot-guns are held with certificates. We do not know how many shot-guns are held illegally.
At the end of 1991, there were 724,556 valid shot-gun certificates on issue in England and Wales and 75,529 in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, the possession of any firearm, including a shot-gun, requires a firearm certificate. At the end of September 1992 there were 87,302 firearm certificates on issue there. About 46,700 game licences were issued in the United Kingdom in 1991–92.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that very informative Answer. I acknowledge that there are many shot-gun owners who do not require gun licences—for instance, clay pigeon shooters—but does he not agree that there still appears to exist a very wide deficiency in the number of game licences issued? Given that at present a game shooter has to apply both to the police and to the post office separately, would it not save a great deal of administration and cost, and almost certainly increase revenue through more game licences being issued, if shot-gun licence application forms contained an
84
additional section whereby the applicant could apply and pay for a three-year game licence at the same time?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that sounds an ingenious and attractive idea but there are very good reasons why that is not possible. First, it would place some additional work on the police which is not of a policing nature. It would need a change in the law because the power to issue game licences rests with local authorities. The game laws would also need to be amended to allow a game licence to run for three years. Shot-gun and firearm certificates are a method of controlling dangerous weapons for which a fee is charged. Game laws and game licensing date back to the Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860. The game licence is an excise duty.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Home Office recently refused to give details of the number of people under 16 holding shot-gun licences because it claimed that that information was too expensive to collect? Can the noble Earl give the House an estimate of what it would cost to collect?
Earl Ferrers: More than would be justifiable, my Lords.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, if the game licence is subscribed to by so few, is it really worth collecting? If it is worth collecting, should not the Government do something more about it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend can decide not to get any licence which he desires not to get. If he does not get such a licence, and he is found out, he will be committing a criminal offence. The game licence was introduced as a method of controlling poaching and of controlling those who kill game and deal in it. That is an entirely suitable matter for licensing. If my noble friend does not have a licence, I advise him to get one.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he made the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Geddes sound very intricate? In point of fact it could be brought about with a reasonably modest Bill. Is it not a fact that if the intention were there it would not be quite as intricate and difficult as my noble friend appeared to suggest in his answer?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not mean to make it more intricate or difficult than in fact it is. I was trying to explain to my noble friend that shot-gun and firearm certificates are a method of controlling dangerous weapons, which it is quite right for the police to do. The operation of a game licence has nothing to do with the police. It is an excise duty. Of course it is perfectly possible to change the law on anything, but your Lordships are aware of the number of problems requiring legislation and I am bound to tell my noble friend that this is not of the highest priority.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how much revenue has been raised by

85
the game licence, how many people have been prosecuted for not having one and how much poaching has been stopped by game licences?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as to the last question, my noble friend will know perfectly well that I cannot possibly answer it—and neither could he if he were standing here. With regard to the first, local authorities receive a revenue of about £240,000. In 1990, 1,600 game-law offences went through the courts.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Earl was asked a legitimate question about the cost incurred in providing information. In my view, it is quite unfair simply to say that the cost would be greater than is justifiable. Cannot the Minister do better than that? Can he give my noble friend some idea of the cost and then let the House judge whether the cost is justifiable?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords; I cannot give the noble Lord the answer because I do not know what it is. Had I known, I would have told your Lordships. However, I shall certainly try to find out. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will know that there are limits to the amount of expenditure to which government departments can go in order to find out the answers to certain questions. Some statistics are easily available, while others are not.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that answer. I await his letter with great interest.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the control of guns and game applies only to people who are shooting legitimately and that no poachers, or people who should not have guns, apply for either?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the reasons why we have the laws and the licences.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree, as a generality, that "where there's a will there's a way"? Further, does he have sympathy with me when I say that his answer to my supplementary question was frankly very disappointing? I understand that there are two laws and that they would have to be changed. I was endeavouring to save administration and cost, and also increase revenue to the Exchequer.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry if my reply was disappointing to my noble friend. Of course, I realised he was pursuing a perfectly legitimate point and trying to be helpful. However, I was merely trying to point to him in turn that there are certain difficulties. One need only consider the amount of legislation which passes through your Lordships' House. It would mean having to put extra burdens on the police and altering other sections of the law, which would in fact give the police an obligation to carry out an excise duty. I do not think that the chances of that are likely to be forthcoming. I did not want to mislead my noble friend.

London Taxis and Minicabs
2.52 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
When their decision on the report of the working party on the safety of users of taxis and minicabs in London will be announced; and whether they will publish a White Paper on the matter or introduce primary legislation at an early date.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London is studying the working party report carefully and meeting interested parties with a view to reaching a conclusion which is in the public interest and fair to both taxi and minicab trades. He hopes to make an announcement by the end of the year. It is unlikely to take the form of a White Paper. If primary legislation is required, it will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time is available.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. However, does he appreciate, as revealed in our debate on 21st October, that there is considerable concern about the matter and a demand for action? Have the Government accepted the principle that there should be some form of regulation? If so, how will they determine not only a timetable but also how any regulations will be introduced? Further, have the Government considered the suggestion of the CBI that a working party should be set up to work out an exact timetable and how regulations should be achieved?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government accept that something should be done. As I said in my original Answer, my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London is meeting interested parties and taking all views into consideration, including those expressed by your Lordships. He intends to announce his proposals by the end of the year; I should not like to pre-empt them.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, as one who piloted through the other place the first Bill to control minicabs and who acted as adviser to the London cab trade for 10 years, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he accepts that all informed opinion in London, tired of the length of time that cab legislation takes to go through both Houses whatever the government in power, wants a one-tier board and the raising, not lowering, of standards?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are advantages and disadvantages to all the main proposals to regulate minicabs and taxicabs in London. The Government do not wish to do anything that would attack the licensed cab trade in any way.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is quite unfair that the ordinary taxicab is subject to so many regulations whereas the minicab is not? Is it not high time that regulations were synonymous?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the licensed taxi driver has to pass the "knowledge" examination and,

87
indeed, drive a suitable vehicle. Those regulations put a burden on the licensed taxi driver and enable him to be in a different position from the minicab driver. If there is to be a change in that situation, it will be announced by my honourable friend.

GATT:State of Negotiations
2.56 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current position of negotiations to conclude the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, since I reported to your Lordships' House on 5th November, both the European Commission and the United States have made it clear that they want negotiations in the Uruguay Round to resume as soon as possible. That aim was endorsed at a meeting between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission on Friday, at an informal meeting of trade Ministers over the weekend, and at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, can she add to it by indicating whether anything at all has happened since that last meeting? If not, can she say whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to secure that this vital agreement is obtained whatever the President of the Commission, or anyone else, may say?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can confirm that the Government's aim is to get people back to the negotiating table as soon as possible. The last discussion took place at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday where common agreement on this was reached.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the President of the Commission, M. Jacques Delors, has now admitted that he interfered in negotiations on the GATT round between the EC and the United States to the extent that the negotiating commissioner resigned, will the British Government be demanding the resignation of M. Jacques Delors?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have a more direct line in such matters.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, my Lords; I just read the newspapers.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, just reading the newspapers would not, I think, enable me to stand up here and reply. As I said, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and M. Delors had a meeting on Friday. It is confirmed that everyone wants the negotiations to reach a successful conclusion just as soon as possible.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if there is a failure of these negotiations and sanctions are applied by the United States of America on the European Community, will it not be the case that we shall have a major crisis of loyalty between our own trading interests (which are in free trade) and those of French farmers? If that ghastly scenario should come about, what are the Government's contingency plans?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we continue to believe that our best efforts should be directed towards finding a solution to the negotiations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply to her noble friend, will she give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will veto any endeavour to save anyone's political skin on the other side of the Channel and that they will veto any question of sanctions against the United States?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the House showed on 5th November, and, I believe, would agree again today, that retaliatory action is the least constructive move we could make.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, bearing in mind that Commissioner MacSharry was negotiating on behalf of the whole European Community, including this country, can the Government give any opinion about the reason for his resignation? Was it that he disapproved of the instructions that he was receiving from the President of the Commission or was it connected with the fact that there is to be a general election in Ireland, in which country Mr. MacSharry might have ambitions?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is not for me to explain Mr. MacSharry's motives. He resigned from the negotiations, and that is much to be regretted.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was the French farmers' clout before UK accession that brought the European Community to the verge of collapse on no less than three or four occasions and that since our accession, that lobby, or, as one understands it, political force, has embarrassed not just this country but other member states? Now that the crunch is coming, what attitude will Her Majesty's Government take?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I point out that France stands to gain as much as anyone from the agreement; for example, it is the world's second biggest exporter of services. President Mitterrand supported fully the Birmingham summit declaration which called for agreement by the end of the year. All our efforts from now on should be directed towards finding a successful solution.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister accept from our side that we have always supported the achievement of the Uruguay Round and will continue to support it? It is desperately important. Does she also accept that at the beginning of the British presidency the Prime Minister explicitly

89
said that he would be responsible for driving through the GATT agreement and would ensure that that was done? Is not the problem that the British presidency, after the events of the past few weeks, is in such a state of shambles that anyone—Mr. Delors or anyone else for that matter—can do and say whatever he pleases, having regard to his own domestic political ambition?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his support of our aims of ensuring that there is a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round. It is important. It is worth so much to the whole world, not just the developed world but the developing countries. The European Community and the United States have confirmed that they are still working towards an early agreement; that is, before the end of the year. Obviously, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's comments about our presidency. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary successfully chaired the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday: the outcome received total agreement from the Community.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that not only has the Prime Minister been giving the main leadership on this point but also that the Commission has, on the whole, been completely behind us and against France? Is she aware that there are a great many people in this country who would be pleased to see sanctions introduced by us against France if it remains as intransigent as it is?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I endorse wholeheartedly my noble friend's opening remarks. Her closing remarks must be her personal opinion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister now reply to my question? In the event of an endeavour to apply sanctions against the United States, will she undertake that Her Majesty's Government will veto that proposal?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question. At this stage, we shall continue to work to try to solve the problem and to succeed in the negotiations.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that if the wish, which I share entirely, is to obtain a successful deal with the United States, it is highly desirable that this country and this House should live in a world of reality and not of fantasy? Will she note, for instance, that although I disagree with the French Government's attitude, it was supported by no fewer than four other member states yesterday, and that the crucial factor in dealing with the matter is the German Government's attitude? When the French Government are being difficult, the only way to deal with them is to get the German Government, representing broadly the free trade outer looking area, to have an effect upon them. Will she do no such foolish thing as to urge the British Government, having supported, to the surprise of some people, the renomination of the said Delors a year ago, suddenly to demand his resignation? That, in present circumstances, would have about as much
90
of a counter-effect as the Prime Minister's claims that on no account would he accept the resignation of Mr. Mellor or contemplate the resignation of Mr. Lamont.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, certain parts of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, seem to be wide of the Question. The German Government's role in this matter is crucial. It is perhaps appropriate and fortunate that the Anglo-German summit to be held tomorrow will be able to discuss the issue.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, what does the Minister consider to be a successful conclusion—giving America carte blanche to flood this country and Europe with cheap grain?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, first, I stress that we are not the negotiator in this matter; the Community is the negotiator. Were there easy solutions such as that suggested by the noble Lord, the matter would have been concluded a long time ago.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Matrix Churchill.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Modification) Order 1992 and the Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992 will be taken.

Clean Air Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Clean Air Acts 1956 and 1968 and certain related enactments, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Criminal Justice Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 31,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 32 to 37,

Schedule 2,

91

Clauses 38 to 48,

Schedule 3,

Schedule 4.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Your Lordships will recall that the proposal to establish a Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee originated in the report of the Jellicoe Committee. That was subsequently endorsed by the Procedure Committee, whose report was agreed to by the House on 9th July. The committee will be established on an experimental basis and the experiment assessed at the end of the current Session.
If your Lordships agree to this Motion today, the Committee of Selection will meet early next week to discuss the composition of the committee and its report will he put to the House. Once established, the committee will have as its first task the establishment of criteria to help it judge the appropriateness and the degree of parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to report whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power; or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny. —(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Licensing of fishing boats]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert:
("() In subsection (I), leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the first amendment is simple. It is to lay an obligation on the Government or future governments to license all commercial fishing vessels. To date, those under 10 metres in length have been largely if not completely ignored. That does not adequately take account of the potential of ships of that size or indeed their number. We are dealing with the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill and it seems ridiculous that it should be left at the behest of governments to decide whether or not they license all ships.
It is my suggestion that governments must do so unless we are just playing with words. To go into a sensible scheme of whatever kind without taking notice of the smaller vessels would be rather like going into a boxing match with one hand tied behind one's back. There are plenty of precedents, or at least one salient precedent, to show that the fact that smaller vessels are not licensed has been detrimental to sea fish conservation. I refer to an earlier decommissioning scheme of which one fault was that the bigger ships could be decommissioned. The owners, having taken their money, were able to purchase a number of ships of under 10 metres and continue trading as before, having put a sum of money into their pockets. At least, that is how I understand it.
I make that one of the main planks to support the amendment because, as the Committee will know from the Second Reading, decommissioning must eventually be the answer to dealing with this rather difficult situation of sea fish disappearing. Eventually, if that happens, fishing communities will go down the same road.
The force of the Bill is to limit fishing by tying up. As the Committee will remember from the Second Reading, this was unpopular or very unpopular indeed. But it also seems to me that, if we reach a situation of having to tie up vessels to reduce the fishing effort, by the same token as decommissioning, it is unfair on vessels over 10 metres to have to tie up if the potential for catching fish is left with the smaller vessels. Possibly, the same difficulties might arise as with a previous decommissioning scheme.
This is a simple matter and I end by repeating that it seems ridiculous to deal with any Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill without knowing what is going on so that we can organise matters. That seems wrong. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased to know that the Government have already announced their intention to extend fishing licences to vessels of 10 metres and under so that this sector of the fleet cannot extend further. This step has been widely welcomed by the fishing industry. It was part of the package of measures which we announced earlier this year, with the aim of reducing effort and capacity in the UK fleet. We are now finalising the details of the new licensing system and hope to make an announcement soon.
Once the Sea Fish Licensing Order is amended, the licensing regime will apply to all vessels wishing to fish for sea fish (except salmon and migratory trout) for profit in domestic waters. There is no need to amend the primary legislation to achieve the aim of extending licensing to cover the 10 metre or under fleet. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: I am content. I was not absolutely clear what was the Government's position regarding the licensing of smaller vessels. It still seems strange that it should be left to the discretion of future governments whether or not they license, and that is

93
how I understand the matter stands under the 1967 Act. I cannot remember the precise clause under which licensing is permitted.
It is encouraging to hear that it is the proper intention of the Government to carry out licensing and that we shall hear further details soon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No.2:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert:
("() After subsection (2) (which provides for limitations concerning the type of fish, method, season or period) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) An order made under this section in respect of fishing in an area may make provision for controlling fishing in Specified Areas being areas delineated by the Ministers following advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the effects of fishing on the marine environment." ").
The noble Lord said:This amendment has not been put forward in the hope of reducing fishing effort, indeed it does not tackle the rather sticky and controversial issue of tie-up or decommissioning. It looks at the other aspect of the Bill—conservation.
The idea of the amendment is to introduce areas or boxes in which fish stocks or certain types of fish can be protected and therefore restock the whole environment. I wish to give an example of one area where boxing has worked. Sand eels have been protected around the Scottish coast under legislation which can be removed. As they are at the bottom of the food chain, with most other stocks of fish eating them, that can only benefit the long-term future of the fish industry.
The fishing industry is in such straits because of the over-fishing that has taken place. One of the areas lacking is that there has not been enough research over a long period into fish stocks and what fishing will do to sensitive members of the marine eco-system such as sharks, sand eels or other elements apart from the main staple stocks.
The idea of the boxes would be to protect more vulnerable members of the marine eco-system and also areas in which breeding stocks of fish could be maintained. The proposal is that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee should look into this aspect of the amendment and see where the boxes ought to be set up. The amendment concerns the future of the fishing industry. No one here will deny that many groups of fish are under threat due to over-fishing or will be threatened in the future.
I wish to put forward a recommendation by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities common fisheries policy which recommends that:
"more use should be made of closed boxes and marine protected areas".
Such boxes are a vital, essential management measure of the goal of a fishing policy. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: On this side of the House, we have some sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, particularly as he is able to pray in aid the observations of your Lordships'
94
Select Committee in the report on the common fisheries policy. We are also familiar with the position regarding sand eels because it is frequently the subject of Questions in your Lordships' House.
Our anxiety as regards the amendment, however, is based on its practicality. It is certainly in line with conservation aims, but I wonder whether, when the noble Lord replies on behalf of the Government, he will be able to tell us, on their assessment of its terms, that it is a practical amendment from the enforcement angle and whether, if enforced, it would not unduly restrict those who must fish in the areas in which they are entitled to fish without the imposition of boxes where they are not allowed to fish. If, for example, in order to protect fish, boxes were created where catchable fish were not allowed to be caught because they were in the box, what effect would all that have on TACs which already concern fishermen under the provisions of this Bill? We have sympathy for the proposition but we are hoping for clarification from the Minister.
The Earl of Selborne: While I agree that the proposal is a highly admirable objective I rather wonder whether the clause under discussion is the appropriate place to try to achieve such ends. It seems to me that unless one puts these closed boxes and marine protected areas into the common fisheries policy, as opposed to a national fisheries policy, one is discriminating against one's own fisheries industry. I should declare an interest as chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Nothing would delight the committee more than to try to help to establish marine protected areas. I believe, however, that the amendment is not the appropriate vehicle for achieving those commendable aims. I hope that when the common fisheries policy is reviewed next month the Council of Ministers will bear in mind the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has made a powerful case and it is a case with which the Government have a good deal of sympathy. I understood from the general tenor of his remarks that this may be a probing amendment to ascertain what action the Government intend to take in the environmental field and specifically what action the Government intend to take to meet their obligations under the European Community habitats directive so far as this relates to sea fishing. I am glad to have the opportunity to put the Government's position on record.
The Government recognise that fishing practices can have an adverse effect on the marine environment. That is why we supported the passage earlier this year of the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act. That requires fisheries regulators, including Ministers, in discharging their functions in relation to sea fishing, to have regard to the conservation of marine flora and fauna and to balance that consideration with others which they are required to take into account.
We recognise that additional measures will be required to implement the provision in the habitats directive for Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), which may include areas of sea. However, we need to

95
consider carefully how this should be done in consultation with interested parties, including the fishing and environmental interests. Separate primary legislation may well be required and we propose to issue a consultation paper on this next year.
The noble Lord's amendment would pre-empt that process. I hope that he will recognise, as the Government do, that this is not a matter which can be dealt with appropriately by an amendment to an Act concerned with the regulation of fishing rather than with the marine environment. That is an area that is not really covered by the Bill. However, I should tell the noble Lord that the mid-term review of fisheries that is currently under way will support the maintenance of the Shetland box which is an important ingredient of the common fisheries policy. As I said, the amendment would pre-empt the process of wide consultation that I have outlined. I have tried to be reassuring about the general point of principle here, and I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for those comments and for informing me that the Government are looking closely at this issue. I look forward to seeing the legislation when it appears. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("which restriction shall be no greater than that imposed on any vessel of any other Member State of the Community having an entitlement to fish the stocks which are fished in common with any vessel which may be restricted in terms of this paragraph." ").
The noble Lady said:The intention of the Bill, it is understood, is to ensure that a reduction in effort leads, first, to a reduction in the capacity of the fleet and, secondly, to making more difficult the possibility of quotas being exceeded. Ministers have undertaken that a reduction below the 1991 level of effort, which is to apply in 1993, will not be introduced unless they are satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks have taken effective steps to meet their own multi-annual guidance programme targets. Those "effective steps" are not defined.
The purpose of the amendment is therefore to ensure that the effective steps are the same as those being taken in the United Kingdom and no less restrictive. Our Ministers may argue that a member state with a fully fledged decommissioning scheme is taking effective steps. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, on Second Reading of the Bill at cols. 980 to 981 of Hansard of 26th October, said that although the decommissioning schemes,
"may help to rationalise the structure of the internal fishing industry of any particular country, they have not reduced fishing effort".
Ministers should understand therefore that the introduction of expansive decommissioning schemes in other member states of the Community can never be regarded as the equivalent of days at sea restrictions imposed in the United Kingdom. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie,
96
has virtually said that. It is essential to ensure that United Kingdom vessels are not operating at a commercial disadvantage compared with their competitors in other member states. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I rise to support this amendment to which my name is added. It is a simple case. Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber know of the depth of feeling and fear aroused among many fishermen as regards this issue. It is essential that the Government are able to show they have a level playing field. All of us here and indeed the Government know of cases of what is termed "quota hopping", or some such phrase, which means that foreign vessels which are registered in this country and land their fish elsewhere register doubtful counts against their quotas. For this enormously unpopular and draconian measure to be accepted, the fishermen of this country must know they are not being penalised unfairly while fishermen elsewhere are not faced with the same restriction.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The amendment raises quite an important point regarding protection of our fishing industry. I wholly agree with what the noble Lady said about the necessity of securing that restrictions should be no tougher than those imposed by other countries. However, I am a little puzzled by the fact that Members of the Committee opposite whose names are attached to the amendment limit its wording to,
"any other Member State of the Community".
It is at least possible that states which are not members of the Community will impose restrictions. It is surely the case that we want to make sure that our restrictions are no more severe on our people than those imposed by any foreign state, whether a member of the Community or not.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I, too, support the amendment to which my name is attached. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 3A as it tries to achieve the same purpose but in a different way. The remarks of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, are supportable. Indeed, if the Government are right in their arguments that future conservation can only be achieved by this method of time at sea—the measure will apply not just to British fishermen but to fishermen in the whole of Europe—they should be pursuing with all active power at their elbow ways to persuade other countries to adopt the measure.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, rightly says that British fishermen, who at the moment are deeply worried about their future viability, their businesses and their bank loans, should be given the comfort that this provision will only be applied if other countries within the European Community follow suit. Leaving aside for the moment the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which is a very good point, I believe that at present it should be restricted to Community members.
I am sure that none of us disagrees that the issue of conservation is vital for the future and that any encouragement which the Government can give, not only to our industry but for the future of European fishing, will be welcome.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: We on this side of the Committee support the amendment. For that reason I added my name to it. It is an important amendment because it goes to the heart of the problem of our participation in the common fisheries policy. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised the wider issue, and quite rightly so. Perhaps in framing the amendment we have been too limited in our vision and too narrow in our objectives.
The nature of TACs is such, as we know from our experience of quota hopping, that they are not really the province of the member state. The member state admittedly administers the quotas, but other countries in membership of the Community may, under certain conditions, take their share of the fish covered by the quotas. Provided the regulations are observed, at present there can be no objection to that. British fishermen have always lived, somewhat unhappily, with that position. In legislation relating to marine transport the British Government attempted to place some restrictions on foreign vessels from other member states fishing here, but in the event an adverse ruling by the European Court of Justice meant that the relevant clause of the Act in question was no longer sustainable.
Therefore, in a situation in which a Bill of this kind, with the tougher penalties which it imposes and its modest attempt to introduce a decommissioning scheme, is necessary, while conditions for the moment are unlikely to be worse under the Bill than they were in 1991, it behoves the Committee to consider the future. That is the purpose of the amendment. I believe that it is fair and reasonable to ask the Government to make that, if not an article of faith, then at least an objective of policy. If that were done I believe it would satisfy all parts of the Chamber. It would certainly be welcomed by the fishing industry and it might give cause for some satisfaction that the Bill in its totality will not be as harmful as fishermen believe it to be at present.
The Earl of Selborne: I have some difficulty with the amendment and with the debate so far. We do not seem to have recognised that in 1991 one of the problems was that we were one of the countries which had failed to bring its capacity into line with the required multi-annual guidance programmes. I believe that, if we are to consider the matter on a European basis, as the amendment suggests, we should at least acknowledge in this debate that we are well out of line with a number of other countries in trying to bring our capacity into line with that proposed in the common fisheries policy. I draw the Committee's attention to page 61 of the European Communities Committee's report, which sets out those countries which were in default, of which we were one of the major offenders. A number of countries which are often alleged to be encroaching on our fisheries, such as Spain, Ireland and the like, are not in default. That point should at least be acknowledged.
However, I do not believe that quota hopping is particularly relevant. It is a separate issue, and a serious one, but I do not believe that it is applicable to
98
this particular amendment. If a boat from another national fleet joins our fleet, thereby quota hopping, it has to abide by our own regulations. Therefore, that issue is not relevant to the present situation.
I believe that we have to consider the issue in the context of total allowable catches (TACs). That is the basis of how the fishery effort is divided. As Members of the Committee know, that in turn allows national quotas to be determined. Those national quotas are then allotted by species for each fisheries area. Therefore it has to be recognised that tying-up does not reduce the national quota or total allowable catch. However, if one has failed, as we lamentably have, to match one's capacity to one's quotas, then one simply has to do something else. Sub-Committee D and almost every speaker at Second Reading agreed that it would be much better if we could achieve a balance between capacity and effort so that tying-up would not be necessary.
We cannot ignore the fact that we have failed lamentably in our responsibilities under the common fisheries policy. It would appear that until we have achieved a balance we have to consider tying-up as an alternative.
The Earl of Radnor: I should like to endorse what my noble friend has just said. It seems to be almost impossible to figure out what a level playing field will be because as a country we did not enter into the multi-annual guidance programme. Therefore, we did not decommission vessels on the same scale as the rest of Europe. Also, we did not take the bonus that would have resulted from doing so to provide for the modernisation of the fleet. That is another complication. We went down a different route altogether. It will be impossible to say whether or not there is a level playing field.
There appears to be a good argument in favour of us now turning quite vigorously towards decommissioning and away from tying-up so that at least we can start to operate on the same level as our partners in Europe. Then we can begin to compare our position and see whether or not we are being done down.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I had not intended to intervene in this debate. I see the point of the amendment. However, there is one point relating to negotiations with the other member states which concerns me. I believe that it ought to be borne in mind that over the past few years we have been able to benefit from the Hague Preference, which allows us to have a greater TAC for haddock in the North Sea than would otherwise be possible. I hope that in any negotiations with Europe my noble friend the Minister will not endanger the Hague Preference, which has been so valuable, particularly to Scottish fishermen, in the case of haddock.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned quota hopping and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, spoke of the reference to the European Court in relation to the same subject. I should like to say a little more on the subject than my

99
noble friend Lord Selborne, who pointed out that that is a completely different problem. It must be dissociated from the matter we are discussing.
I have raised that issue at Question Time and during debates, as Members of the Committee will remember. Quota hopping is a problem which relates entirely to Spanish vessels which are registered at British ports. They do all they can to employ a percentage of British crews. About two years ago we adopted an Act of Parliament introducing a new register. That would have made it very difficult for Spanish vessels to get on to the register and qualify for the British quota. Subsequently cases were referred to the European Court. Everything is now held up while we await further legal proceedings.
I have pointed out that that is a weakness in the EC policy. Within individual fisheries, quotas are allotted among EC members entirely according to nationality. On the other hand, another part of the EC Commission is doing its best to try to bring the nations together and do away with differences between nationalities. It is that aspect which has commended itself to the European Court and which was the reason for its judgment so far. As long as quotas are allotted according to nationalities and as long as the European Court takes the view that difference of nationality should not be allowed to stop Spanish boats fishing for our quotas, we are in a cul-de-sac.
However, that is a separate question. As I see it, the Spanish boats which succeed in qualifying to fish for our quota, and establish themselves as British boats operating from British ports, will be subject to exactly the same conditions as our own British boats. Our fishermen are always quite rightly annoyed about it because theoretically it increases the British fishing fleet who have to fish for the limited British quotas, but that is a separate question. I would ask my noble friend Lord Howe to confirm in his reply that quota hopping does not arise here because those Spanish boats that are qualifying at the moment will be subject to exactly the same regulations as British boats.
Lord Moyne: I suggest that we look at the wording of the amendment, which does not have much to do with national quotas but is concerned with individual vessels. It seems to me to be exceedingly unfair if it is possible for an individual British vessel to be penalised to a greater extent than an individual foreign vessel. It seems to me that that is the point of the amendment. That is why I support it and hope it will go through.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: In relation to quota hopping, our fishermen are deeply suspicious that registration of fish landed at a Spanish port under the British quota may be erratic, to put it mildly. Another point is that in the negotiations over the common fisheries policy and the MAGP, only three states were in line at the time. I do not think that that point will stand examination.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The point is that those vessels would be subject to the tying-up scheme in
100
British ports. If this Bill and the scheme go through, boats that are Spanish but manage to register as British will be tied up in British ports.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The point I was trying to make was that our fishermen fear that in their time at sea those vessels might well be able to exceed their quota through landing it elsewhere. We have a fishery policy; and the Norwegians, for example, adhere to their waters and protect them and adhere to the rules as regards ours. I believe it is up to the Government to give us the arguments against it; but the main thrust of the point is that a sense of unfairness will not make the regulations work well.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I, like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about this. There is no question but that the amendment relates to the letters we have all had from fishermen all over the country who are extremely worried about the effects of the Bill, probably not as it stands at the moment but how it might be in the future.
I do not know whether the Minister would agree, but the solution suggested in the amendment could not really work from what we discovered on Sub-committee D, which looked at the whole problem. It would be very difficult to know precisely what was happening in some of the other countries. It would be ideal if one could. Quite apart from the legal problems to which my noble friend Lord Sanderson referred, it would be difficult to find out. The problem is not quite as clear-cut as we would like it to be. To depend on finding out what the people who were doing least or getting round the questions the slowest were doing before we did anything would be very damaging to our fishermen.
As I am sure will be revealed as we go along to those who have not looked into the matter in any detail, the Bill is as much about protecting our fishermen from what others of their number are doing as it is about protecting them from fishermen in other countries. It seems to me that this particular solution would be very difficult to implement and could not work. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says and, if possible, what the Government are going to do to make sure that Community policy ensures that our fishermen are on as level a playing field as possible. That is what is behind all the fears.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Moyne: Is the noble Baroness not confusing that which foreign fishermen are entitled to do with that which they are doing? People can always break regulations, but what is important is that legally there should be a playing field and it should be ensured that administratively the playing field is level. But I suggest that legally it must be made level by this Parliament.
Earl Howe: We have listened to a number of powerful speeches reflecting many of the concerns expressed at Second Reading and the depth of feeling that I know exists in the fishing industry. I intend to respond in some detail.

101
Perhaps I could start by asking all noble Lords, including some of my noble friends who may entertain doubts about the Bill, to listen to what I shall be saying in its justification and to accept that this is not some hasty or ill-considered government measure but one designed to help our fishing industry and one which I believe the industry can adopt and implement successfully.
I understand the concern that lies behind the amendment; namely the wish to ensure that United Kingdom fishermen are not treated more harshly than their European counterparts in national and Community efforts to conserve fish stocks. But I must make it clear at the outset that the amendment, which goes to the heart of the Bill, is in substance and consequence a wrecking amendment and can in no circumstances be accepted by the Government. It is a wrecking amendment because it prevents the United Kingdom from using effort control to meet our MAGP targets if any other member state chooses not to do so. That means all other member states must introduce effort control before we can. This is simply unacceptable. We cannot allow our whole conservation policy, upon which the future of our industry depends, to hang upon detailed rules generated in other member states. Even if the point of principle were not so offensive, the amendment could mean that in practice we might never be able to implement this part of the Bill.
Why is it so important for the United Kingdom to introduce effort controls? Noble Lords opposite would like a larger decommissioning scheme and to place greater reliance on technical measures. Even in conjunction, these will not do. Technical measures, though valuable and important, cannot, as I explained at Second Reading, be appropriate for mixed fisheries, nor can they prevent excessive fishing. As the Government have acknowledged, decommissioning has a part to play, but the good done by decommissioning can be undone at a stroke by allowing those vessels which remain in the fleet to increase their fishing effort either by increased time at sea or by adopting technological improvements.
The advice of scientists—international scientists as well as our own—is that the remaining necessary measure if we are to control our fish stocks successfully is effort control. Noble Lords have questioned why we intend to impose days at sea restrictions on our fleet when other member states may not see fit to do so. My answer to that is to question the need to draw international comparisons when what we are trying to protect is our own industry.
The United Kingdom fleet accounts for 89 per cent. of the haddock quota in the North Sea, 52 per cent. of the whiting quota and 46 per cent. of the cod quota. In comparison with other member states, the United Kingdom's share of fish stocks around our coasts is very substantial. Yet it is these stocks which in some cases have reached critical levels. If we are serious about conservation it is up to us above all to take the necessary steps to conserve. No other member state will protect our industry for us. It is no good our saying that effort control is not a perfect instrument or
102
that we should move at the pace of the slowest; the problem needs to be addressed now. If not, the stocks will disappear and with them our fishing industry. Other member states will have their MAGP targets and they too will have their annual entitlements of fish. Those entitlements will not be increased simply because the United Kingdom is introducing effort control.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned the so-called quota hoppers. I do not want to belittle the concern and resentment generated by the problem of quota hoppers but I do not think we ought to over-emphasise the size of that problem in relation to our conservation difficulties as a whole. Quota hoppers are registered and licensed in the UK and will be subject to the provisions of the Bill, as my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord Selborne rightly pointed out. I remind the Committee that this Bill has teeth in the form of substantially increased penalties for the infringement of a licence condition. There are also a number of ways in which our ability to police the quota hoppers can be tightened.
Let me clear up another point of confusion. The effort control measures to be brought in under the Bill are not in the least intended to prevent fishermen from catching their full entitlement of quota. We are not out to curtail fishermen's income from legitimate fishing. What effort control does aim to curtail is the discarding and the black fishing which unrestricted days at sea make easy for some vessel owners. Black fishing, illegal fishing above quota entitlements, is a serious problem in some sections of the fleet, and it is that problem on which the days at sea restriction should make an impact.
In the first instance we intend to freeze fishing effort at last year's levels. That should not cause fishermen undue difficulties. After that, we may decide that it is necessary to reduce days at sea to a lower level. But if we do, we shall come to both Chambers, as I shall be explaining in a later amendment, with an affirmative resolution order, which we shall not make unless we are satisfied that other member states are taking effective steps to meet their MAGP targets. That is a commitment previously given by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Curry, and I am happy to confirm that, when any such affirmative resolution is debated we shall provide the Chamber with an account of the actions of other member states.
I hope that Members opposite will feel that that undertaking meets the essence of their concerns in this amendment and that the noble Lady will not press it. As I said, the United Kingdom must be left free to take the action which it thinks necessary to conserve the stocks on which the livelihood of our fishermen depend. We cannot allow our hands to be tied by other member states, as this amendment proposes. For many other member states fishing is a much more marginal activity than it is for ourselves. They have different conditions and different targets. Our targets will be all the more important for us to meet because the stocks we need to conserve are predominantly ours. Without effort control, the other measures that

103
we take will be in vain and public money spent on decommissioning will be wasted. I urge the Committee not to be deflected from that central truth.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps he could answer a question. I am a little puzzled by what he said. Is he saying that decommissioning is ineffective unless there is also restriction of days at sea? If so, what is wrong with the philosophy of the amendment which, as I understand it, wants other countries to restrict their days at sea in a like manner to British fishermen? Or have I misunderstood him?
Earl Howe: My noble friend has misunderstood me. As I tried to explain, the circumstances of each member state vary tremendously. We have a large fishing industry which accounts for very substantial proportions of the quota, especially in the North Sea. It is up to us to address that problem as best we may. It is no part of our business to look over our shoulder to see what our partners across the Channel may or may not be doing and to allow those actions to influence what happens as a result of this Bill. That is my point of objection to this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Surely the Minister must see that we are not objecting on behalf of the fishermen to efforts to control the stocks and keep the stocks there. We agree that that is absolutely vital and that strong measures have to be taken. But the whole point about the amendment is that although we must control our own stocks, we do not have the ability to control the other people involved who have a substantial portion. If they do not control their 50 per cent., or whatever it is, our efforts will be frustrated. That is why we urge Her Majesty's Government to make every effort to ensure that the restrictive measures, whatever they may be, of our partners—it is equally important for them to preserve the stocks—are at least equal to ours, although they may not be the same.
Earl Howe: With respect, I do not think that is what the amendment provides. The amendment is much more draconian than that. I wanted to address the central concern of the amendment in my remarks about the government amendment which immediately follows it. That amendment fulfils a pledge made in another place which arose from exactly the same kind of concern as those just expressed. We agreed that before reducing days at sea below the levels fixed for 1991 we would come back to both Chambers and demonstrate that other member states were taking effective measures to meet their MAGP targets; and that is what we shall do.
Lord Gallacher: The point has been made that, in a sense, the problem is of our own creation. The noble Lord, Lord Selborne, pointed out that the fleet is too large for the amount of fish that we are entitled to catch. The blame for that surely cannot be laid at the door of fishermen who need licences to fish. The Government have to reckon with the fact that in the past, having regard to the growing problem of TACs,
104
they have been too liberal in licensing British vessels. That is acknowledged, if not openly, certainly in the context of this Bill.
There is another point that I should like to raise with the noble Earl. He mentioned—conveniently for him and his case—the two stocks where the United Kingdom have the highest share in the Community. Looking at other species and other sea areas, the United Kingdom has only a small share—of cod, for example—in the English Channel. The United Kingdom share is 8 per cent. One has to view the amendment and the problem in the round and not simply be selective in the statistics one uses.
Lord Grimond: I had intended to view this amendment with some doubt because I felt that it would be extremely difficult to implement. For that matter, the whole Bill would be almost impossible to implement. What has converted me entirely to the amendment is the argument that it is a wrecking amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment. It may be a wrong amendment, a foolish amendment or an unintelligible amendment; but it is not wrecking a Bill to say that this shall not happen unless certain things are done.
Secondly, we may control a very big proportion of the European fish stocks at sea, but the fishing industry is nothing like so important to this country as it is to Norway. Norway has the biggest interest in maintaining a fish industry which will enable it to employ its people. For us it is a small matter compared with what it means to some of the Scandinavians.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said that I was selective in my figures. I think that he was selective in his figures. Taking just about any of the quotas west of Scotland, we have 60 per cent. of the herring quota, 51 per cent. of the cod, 79 per cent. of the haddock, 64 per cent. of the whiting, 60 per cent. of the plaice and so on. Those are high figures. I do not feel that the point I made was unfair.
The noble Lord said that in the past the Government may have been guilty of too liberal a licensing regime. Doubtless we could have a debate about that. The point of the Bill is to address the problems that we have now. It is our view that decommissioning with effort control will be more effective than decommissioning on its own. It so happens that many member states have relied heavily on decommissioning in the past. Some member states already share our view about effort control and we naturally hope that that view will gain ground. It is a view that we push at every opportunity. But it is not realistic to expect in the Community that we can convert others to our views all at once. At the same time we should not refrain for that reason from doing what we think is right.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend clear up one point which I failed to identify in his speech? If he dealt with it, I apologise. If the Bill goes through without amendment, and if subsequently it turns out that our European friends allow to their fishing fleet longer hours of fishing than the Bill allows to our

105
fishing fleet, and it appears that several of the major fishing fleets of our European friends will have longer hours, will the Government amend the Bill?
Earl Howe: We do not expect all other member states to introduce a days at sea regime. We have said that we shall look at the way in which other member states are tackling their MAGP targets and use that as the justification for coming to both Houses with any proposals to reduce the days at sea regime that applies under the Bill.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Will the Minister clarify one point? As I understand it, the Hague Preference so carefully negotiated in 1983 was a permissive order which allowed British fishermen to obtain more of the haddock quota than they would otherwise receive. My noble friend indicated that the haddock quota, which is so important to Scottish fishermen, is 89 per cent. of the total European catch in the North Sea. Will he indicate what that figure would be without the Hague Preference? As I understand it, if the figure has to be renegotiated with the Council of Ministers there is no guarantee whatsoever that the Hague Preference would be implemented. That is a serious position for British fishermen.
Earl Howe: I agree entirely with my noble friend that the Hague Preference is an important measure. At present I do not have an answer. I shall find one and write to him.
The Earl of Selborne: If we assume that there will be justice only if each member state has equal numbers of days at sea, that seems to deny the premise which noble Lords, including myself, made earlier—that some national countries have not addressed the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, is right. We should have addressed the multi-annual guidance programme years ago, when it began in 1985–86. We did not do so. We kept the larger capacity. Therefore, if one tailors capacity to the national quota one has to get on with decommissioning; and also limit access to the sea.
It is no good saying that that means other countries will have more days at sea than we do. Those countries simply have their act more in balance. They have fewer ships fishing for the national quota. It is quotas which ultimately will limit the ability to take fish. My noble friend on the Front Bench puts it clearly. We are seeking to ensure that we do not go for discards and black fisheries, all of which are a terrible blight on our fishing industry at present. We cannot be complacent and say that we are in no position to reduce our days at sea until everyone else does the same. The problem is not a level playing field and that is partly our own fault.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: We have had an interesting debate. This was not intended to be a wrecking amendment but to ensure that effort limitation was not confined to ourselves. I have listened with great interest to what noble Lords have said, in particular the noble Earl. I shall read the noble
106
Earl's speech, and others, and then consider whether to return with a different amendment at Report stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Matrix Churchill
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to repeat a Statement which my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has made today in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will be aware counsel for the prosecution in the Matrix Churchill case informed the court yesterday that, in the light of the evidence given by Mr. Alan Clark in cross-examination, he had concluded that it would no longer be right to seek a conviction in the case; and that the prosecuting authority, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, had accepted that conclusion. Both he and the commissioners were satisfied that during the course of cross-examination Mr. Clark had given evidence which was inconsistent with a written statement he had made in 1991 and with what he had said in an interview with an officer of Customs and Excise in September 1992.
"The case raises important questions about the operation of export licensing policy in relation to Iraq during the period to which the events related. The Government will ensure that a full and independent inquiry into these events is undertaken by a judge. This will encompass the operations of all relevant departments and agencies. I am glad to tell the House that Lord Justice Scott has agreed to undertake this task. The precise terms of reference will be discussed with the judge. It is hoped to make them available to the House later this week. The judge will have access to all relevant papers and will be able to invite evidence from anyone he thinks fit. It will be for him to decide the extent to which he sits in public. His report and evidence will be published except in so far as, in the light of his advice, publication is contrary to the public interest.
"This inquiry will be set up and conducted as speedily as possible, having regard to the need not to prejudice any further criminal inquiries or proceedings. On this aspect, I should say that the commissioners have referred the papers in the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Any further action is a matter for them.
"Finally, it has been alleged that Ministers by signing public interest immunity certificates gave orders that departmental papers should be kept from defence lawyers in an attempt at a cover up. This is a complete misunderstanding of the law in this area and thus a distortion of the truth. It is the

107
law expressly enunciated by the courts that Ministers have a duty to claim public interest immunity either in respect of specific documents or recognised classes of document the production of which would in principle be contrary to the public interest. This duty cannot be waived. Once a proper claim has been made it is for the court to look at the papers if it thinks fit, to balance the competing public interests and to determine whether the interests of justice in the particular case require disclosure of some or all of the documents in issue. Such a claim must be made irrespective of whether it is embarrassing to the Government either to reveal or to withhold. In this case it was at the express invitation of prosecuting counsel that the judge looked at all the material before he made his ruling."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. It is clear that the matter is one of the utmost gravity. We welcome the Government's proposal to set up a full and independent inquiry—a course which we have been advising—and that Lord Justice Scott has agreed to perform that important task. We note that the judge will decide whether there are to be public sittings of the inquiry. It may well be in the public interest that as much of the evidence as possible is heard in public. In view of what we have already heard of the affair it seems desirable that there should be as much disclosure as possible.
The Statement indicates that the inquiry will be conducted speedily so as not to prejudice any further criminal inquiries or proceedings. We note that papers have been referred to the DPP and we fully support that action. However, given that the court had already sat for four weeks on the case why did the Ministers concerned not intervene much earlier? That is very difficult to understand, especially in view of the fact that if the matter had gone further it is not impossible that three innocent men might have been sent to prison.
The Statement refers to the allegation that by signing public interest immunity certificates Ministers kept departmental papers from defence lawyers. We know that Ministers have that duty in certain cases. However, will the noble and learned Lord bear in mind that there is anxiety about the increasing propensity of senior government Ministers to claim public interest immunity in criminal trials? We hope that the inquiry will look at that aspect of the matter.
Furthermore, did the four Ministers concerned in the case agree between them that the certificates should be issued? There was a time when such a question was decided by Cabinet committees. That is not now the case but it is important that Ministers know what is going on; indeed, the Cabinet should be aware of what is going on. I should like to be certain that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were aware that the certificates were to be issued in this case.
108
The Statement indicates that the judge will be able to invite evidence from anyone he thinks fit. Does that mean that he can summon anyone he wishes and require him or her to give evidence on oath? That is an important matter. Finally, will the terms of reference cover the conduct of Ministers as well as matters of policy? It is essential that the judge should have the right and the facility to look into every aspect of this affair without let or hindrance.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches regard the inquiry as essential. One or two aspects of the noble and learned Lord's Statement puzzle me, in particular the implication that the four Ministers concerned had a duty to withhold the papers where production would in principle be contrary to the public interest. The inquiry will ask carefully what the public interest was. At that time the war had ended and Mr. Henderson was no longer employed by MI6. What was the public interest involved other than the need to protect the reputations of the Ministers concerned?
Am I right in assuming that the terms of reference will refer only to Matrix Churchill and not to other firms about which similar suspicions have been voiced? I also wish to inquire into the express invitation of the prosecuting counsel that the judge look at all the material before making his ruling. I read that the prosecuting counsel argued that the documents disclosed would not help the defence. Is that so? If so it conflicts to a startling degree with the final sentence of the Statement.
Obviously, we must wait for the inquiry's report. In the meantime, thanks to the trial, certain facts are already incontrovertible. And they are barely credible. For three years up to the outbreak of war senior Ministers declared repeatedly and publicly that we were not helping to arm Saddam Hussein. At the same time in the utmost secrecy they pursued precisely the opposite policy. They helped to arm an aggressor and probably, almost inevitably, thereby encouraged him to take his chance. As the truth leaked out, and as was shown in the trial and is incontrovertible, Ministers resorted to increasingly desperate measures to cover up the truth. The climax was the signing of the certificates, which I am certain that the inquiry will wish to investigate. But for those papers being disclosed, and but for the decisiveness of the judge, these innocent men might have suffered a terrible injustice—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am sorry to say that we are used to incompetence on the part of the Government; for instance, Maastricht, coal and the ERM. But here, in the new scandal, we are faced not with the gross incompetence of Ministers but with their gross misconduct.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about public sittings of the inquiry. That will be a matter for Lord Justice Scott; I am sure that he will take into account the kind of matters which the noble Lord raised. However, it is a matter for him. The noble Lord asked why nothing

109
was done at an earlier stage. I understand that what happened during the trial arose out of the specific evidence of Mr. Clark. As was explained in the Statement, that evidence differed from what had been said on two previous occasions. As a result, independent prosecuting counsel, and on his advice independent commissioners, then took the view that nothing further should be done and that the case should not be proceeded with. I understand that there was no reason to intervene at an earlier stage.
The question of the public interest immunity certificate has been dealt with by the courts and by your Lordships' House acting in its judicial capacity. In the light of the rulings of the courts the view has been taken that Ministers have a duty to take a point on public interest immunity where they consider that to be appropriate; for example, it is generally regarded that it would be against the public interest to reveal certain classes of documents. Decisions on such matters are taken and were taken in this case fully in the knowledge that in the light of case law which has been laid down by the courts they can be reviewed by the courts. It was not as if decisions in this case were taken and were thought in some way to be a final gag. They were taken fully in the knowledge that the matter could be raised in the trial court, as indeed happened. I do not know whether there was any degree of consultation among Ministers but I understand that decisions on the particular certificates would have been taken by individual departmental Ministers on the advice of their officials.
The inquiry is of the same general type as that of Lord Justice Bingham in respect of BCCI. Just as that inquiry was able to get to the bottom of those issues it is equally clear that this inquiry will have similar powers thereby ensuring that a full inquiry is carried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked what was the public interest. I have explained already that the public interest can arise in various ways, either as to the particular content or the class of a document. A decision on that matter is taken in the full knowledge that, at the end of the day, a judge will decide whether the interests of the defence, the conduct of the trial and of justice would, in a particular case, outweigh the claim for public interest.
AS regards the terms of reference, noble Lords must wait until they are published. I understand that they will be wide terms of reference. Whether or not they will cover matters outside the Matrix Churchill case, I cannot at this stage inform your Lordships.
I believe that there is a misunderstanding as to what is implied in the last sentence of the Statement. The position was, as I understand it, that prosecuting counsel said something to the effect that he did not believe that certain aspects of the documents would be of particular assistance to the defence. He was entitled to say that, but that was in the context of his submission that it was for the judge to look at the whole situation and to rule on the matter. I have already given the reasons as to why the prosecution was dropped at the end of the day.
As regards the noble Lord's concluding remarks, I hear what he says but I refute completely any idea that
110
Ministers were in any way engaged in increasingly desperate measures, or any other kind of measures, to cover up wrongdoing on their part. All such matters will be for the consideration of the inquiry of Lord Justice Scott, and it is better for that independent forum to make the decisions.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a very short question: short because my noble and learned friend may agree with me that in the light of the wide inquiry proposed it is unwise to make further comments on the merits of the inquiry.
What is the exact constitutional position of the inquiry which is proposed? Lord Justice Scott is obviously a very well respected judge, but what powers will he have? Am I right in thinking that my noble and learned friend indicated that the inquiry would not be held under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act? If so, what powers will the judge have to compel evidence and the production of documents? Will he be able to issue a subpoena and will he have disciplinary powers against those who refuse to give evidence? How far will the rule against self-incrimination be applicable?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the inquiry will not be conducted under the 1921 Act. I do not believe that the precise formula of the inquiry is yet settled. That must be determined. Therefore, I cannot give my noble and learned friend all the details for which he has asked. The model being considered is the inquiry used in the case of BCCI. That proved effectual. One expects that all people and papers from the Government will be made available to the inquiry.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, irrespective of this case, is it the practice of the Government that ordinary Ministers should always be advised as to what is in the public interest and what is in the interests of the Government?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in the light of advice received and having regard to the law of the land and everything else, Ministers must consider what is a proper basis for giving such a certificate. That matter is what comes under the heading of public interest.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend four questions from these Back Benches. I ask them not as a Conservative, which I am, but as an ordinary lawyer who has seen a little service with the Armed Forces. First, is it right that, within a few days of the inception of the Gulf conflict, sophisticated weaponry was sent from this country? That was a conflict in which relations of mine certainly fought and in which even I, although fortunately the offer was refused, offered to serve.
Secondly, is it right to prosecute people who implemented government policy, if it was government policy? Thirdly, is it right for the Cabinet, the Government, or whoever it is, to fail to inform the Attorney General of the true position, which resulted in an abortive trial? Thank Heavens for the judiciary

111
of our country which ensured that, in the end, justice was done. There is an explanation to be given; it is not a question of a judicial inquiry. That explanation should be given now.
Fourthly, was it right for the Government, whom I support or try to support, to continue that trial by withholding essential evidence on public interest affidavits held by the judge to be spurious, which could only have secured an acquittal?
There is a certain revulsion—and this is not a question —on the part of an ordinary lawyer like myself at what has happened in this case. What is the answer? I should like to have an answer now. What is the answer in regard to those Ministers of the Crown who swore those affidavits? I should like an answer to that question now.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as to my noble friend's first question, I cannot give him information as to precisely what happened within a few days of the Gulf conflict breaking out. All questions which are relevant to that issue and to the issue to be determined will be matters for the inquiry to consider. Therefore, as I have already said, I do not believe that it would be proper to go further than that.
As to whether it was correct to prosecute people who implemented government policy, the question is whether or not, on the information available to independent prosecuting counsel, the decision to prosecute and to continue the prosecution until it was discontinued, was correct. Again, that may be a matter which the inquiry will look into. I have explained the position as I understand it to be.
As regards the true position, I have explained that what happened in this case, and in particular what led to it being discontinued, was that certain evidence that was given by Mr. Clark, which cast a new light on the circumstances, was not known to the Government or to the independent prosecutor before that change was made.
Whether or not it was right to continue the trial was a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities. My understanding is that it is not true to say that those certificates were universally held to be unfounded, or overruled by the judge. I understand that to some extent, at any rate, he upheld the contention for public interest immunity where he thought that was justified. With reference to the law on this matter, I have explained already that the Ministers concerned had a duty to take that point but did so in the full knowledge that the matter would be explored by the courts.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind some bleak, implacable facts? Those defendants have been in danger of ruination and certain imprisonment for month upon month, year on year, when it is more likely than not that government departments had in their hands documents which would have pointed to their innocence—and all this in England in 1992.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that these defendants might have been saved from suffering injustice. They have already suffered it. Is it not unjust to be burdened by this weight in these circumstances?
112
Will there be any thought of apology, compensation or—a word atrophied through disuse—resignations? Will the terms of reference be sufficient to guide Lord Justice Scott specifically to the conduct of senior Ministers and not senior civil servants? Will the defendants be allowed representation? Finally, will it be for Lord Justice Scott and for him alone to decide what is to be published?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it was more likely than not that documents which pointed to innocence were available to government departments. That is a matter of assertion. That question and others relating to the merits of this matter are, as I said, a matter for Lord Justice Scott and not a matter for comment on this occasion in the House.
The terms of reference will be wide and such as to allow a full and proper inquiry to be made into the actions of those who have played a part in the matter. Whether or not representation will be permitted may be a matter to some extent for Lord Justice Scott in the light of how he chooses to conduct his inquiry. I have already explained in the Statement how the matter of publication will be dealt with: that is to say, it will be judged in the light of the advice of Lord Justice Scott. I leave it at that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord one further question? It was put first by my noble friend Lord Mayhew and also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. They asked whether in fact a witness could be compelled to give evidence. The noble and learned Lord referred to the Bingham inquiry. As he will be aware, no one could be compelled to give evidence at that inquiry. Is he therefore saying that we are going to have a situation where some witnesses could refuse to give evidence?
My second point refers to the security services. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of the matters which Lord Justice Scott will look into concern a number of operational decisions taken by MI5 and MI6? Is it not almost certain, would he not agree, that these matters will not be dealt with fully in Lord Justice Scott's report, for rather obvious reasons? Can I also ask whether the Opposition parties in Parliament will be shown those sections of the report on a Privy Councillor basis?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I do not think I really can go further on the question of the machinery of Lord Justice Scott's inquiry because the matter has not been determined. I cannot really give any assurance or otherwise on the question of compulsion. I would merely add that the inquiry of Lord Justice Bingham did indeed prove fruitful, and I think that in the same sort of way this inquiry should be able to deal with the issues which are involved. On the other matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I think one would need to wait and see what was in Lord Justice Scott's report that related to the security services. A decision as to what is to be done with the publication of those matters will have to wait until that stage is reached.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is in his place and as he has special knowledge of this matter he might feel disposed to assist your Lordships in the matter if he were so minded?
Lord Monson: My Lords, one can agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that it is a very great pity that Ministers did not intervene much earlier so as to save the taxpayer a very large sum of money and also to spare three innocent men being put on trial on a very serious criminal charge. Having said that, would the Minister not agree that it is all very easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to say now that it has been obvious all along that Saddam Hussein is an evil man and that Iraq has always been our enemy number one in the Middle East? However, that is not how it seemed less than three years ago. At that time it was Iran which appeared to be enemy number one: Iran, with its fanatical ayatollahs, with their fatwahs and their mass hostage taking. On that basis, it must have seemed only prudent to let Iraq have a limited amount of low-grade non-nuclear weaponry which would help keep the Iranians at bay.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way?
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I do not think I can go into the substance of what has been said. On the matter of the intervention of Ministers, I have to remind your Lordships that we are dealing here with a prosecution in the courts. It is a proud part of our tradition, which is jealously guarded, that Ministers do not intervene in prosecutions. That is a matter which would raise the most profound issues. The independence of our prosecution system is one of the most important principles that we have.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give two assurances to the House? Will he assure us that the four Ministers who signed these documents will have no hand in determining what the terms of reference are going to be? Secondly, will he give an assurance that if they are invited by Lord Justice Scott to give evidence, or "summoned"—a word used latterly in another place—they will accept that invitation?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, on the first point, I do not know exactly what the machinery will be for determining the terms of reference but, as I pointed out in repeating the Statement, the terms of reference will be discussed with Lord Justice Scott. I am sure he will make sure that the terms of reference will be what he considers suitable to allow him to carry out an effective inquiry. On the second point, I am perfectly certain that if Ministers are asked to co-operate with the inquiry they will do so.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, in case it should transpire that this prosecution turns out to have been totally unjustified right from the beginning and has led directly to a well-known company being forced into
114
liquidation, will the noble and learned Lord use his influence to see that the terms of reference enable the tribunal to award such compensation as is appropriate?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I think that that would be rather an unusual power to give to a tribunal of this kind. The terms of reference will be a matter for consideration by Lord Justice Scott, and I do not think I want to go further than that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does this affair not have the stench of arrogance and corruption of a government that has sat for too long and of a party that has governed for too long? Will the noble and learned Lord answer the question which was put to him by my noble friend Lord Williams about who will decide about the publication of the report when it is finally ready? Will it be Lord Justice Scott, or will the Government decide what is to be published? Regarding the Ministers involved, will resignations not be enough and if in fact something more serious is proved against these Ministers, will they be indicted or impeached?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I simply say of these matters that so far as publication is concerned I cannot and will not go further than what was said by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General in his Statement: that is, that the matter will be considered in the light of the advice of Lord Justice Scott. As for matters of resignation, and so on, I think all that is rather premature. We have to await the outcome of the inquiry.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be reasonable for someone who could never be described as anything to do with the law just to say a word as far as your Lordships' House is concerned. Equally, your Lordships will understand, someone like me is deeply hurt and upset by the incidents that we have been told about. Obviously, they have to be seriously investigated, and I understand that they are to be. I wonder whether it is really wise for your Lordships' House to continue a debate in which many harsh things will be said before the opportunity of the inquiry has been able to be fulfilled. I feel myself that we would do ourselves better—
Noble Lords: There are only two minutes left.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, maybe there are, but I still want to make the point that I was making. At least if I succeed in stopping it, I shall be very pleased indeed.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I would concur. As I have said, a lot of these matters are for Lord Justice Scott's report and it really would be wrong for your Lordships to trespass on them.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this inquiry was welcomed on this side of the House by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and I understand the spirit in which the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, made his remarks. However, has it not now become clear that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate cannot even tell us the form of the inquiry,

115
this Statement is a panic device by the Government to block public discussion of a very serious affair affecting the lives of three individuals, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Williams? Perhaps I may ask one more question. The judge was asked to look at the documents in this case. Did the Attorney-General have any part to play in making that decision or was that decision made purely by prosecuting counsel on his own initiative?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, on the first point, perhaps I may say that if the Attorney-General had come to the House today and had not offered an inquiry, I am perfectly certain that those on the other side would have been making a greater complaint and insisting on having an inquiry. On the second matter, as I understand it, the question of looking at the documents was a matter that was put forward to the judge by prosecuting counsel on his responsibility. One would not normally expect the Attorney-General to get involved in the detail of such a matter. Indeed, I understand that he did not in this particular case.

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill
4.42 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 3A not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("(6C) The Ministers shall by order make provision as to the principles on which the time which vessels may spend at sea is to be arrived at for the purposes of any condition included in a licence by virtue of subsection (6) (c) above." ").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 20, 36 and 41. In tabling this group of amendments today I am fulfilling a commitment made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which I reiterated on Second Reading. I also referred to it in our previous debate on Amendment No. 3. My honourable friend undertook that:
"Ministers should be obliged to seek an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament before they use their powers to reduce effort below the level set for 1993".
He also undertook that:
"We should not introduce such a resolution"—
that is, to reduce days at sea—
"unless we are satisfied that member states which share our fishery stocks are taking effective steps to meet their multi-annual guidance programme targets".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/92; col. 1027.]
The wording of the amendments, I am well aware, is opaque and somewhat confusing and I shall try to explain precisely how they achieve the desired result. This group of amendments provides for two things: first, for the principles governing the time which licensed vessels may spend at sea, that is to say the general principles upon which days at sea calculations are to be made, to be laid down in negative resolution orders; and secondly, for principles involving a reduction in time at sea allocations for all vessels, that
116
is to say specific rules for specific vessels or for groups of vessels, to be laid down in an affirmative resolution order.
In this way, the Government will be required not only to set down in regulations the basic principles on which time at sea allocations will be based but also to make an affirmative resolution order on each occasion on which they wish to make a reduction in allocations for all vessels or for any specified group of vessels. By requiring an affirmative resolution order each time the Government wish to make overall reductions, Parliament will be given an opportunity to debate the size and nature of those reductions.
The amendment to Clause 1 inserts a requirement for Ministers to make orders specifying the principles on which time at sea allocations will be based. There are, as I say, the general rules governing the way in which calculations are to be made. This requirement was formerly in the clause dealing with the tribunal (Clause 2). These orders will be subject to the negative resolution parliamentary procedure.
The amendment to Clause 2 removes the enabling power in respect of principles from that clause.
The new clause amends Section 20 of the 1967 Act, which is the section concerning orders made under the Act. The new clause makes a distinction between two types of orders which can contain principles on which days at sea will be based. The first type of order will contain the basic principles. The second type of order will contain principles which involve a reduction in the time all vessels or specified groups of vessels may be spent at sea. New subsection (5A) makes the distinction by providing that any principles involving overall reductions in time at sea must be excluded from orders containing basic principles and must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The new subsection (5B) describes the reduction principles in general terms—that is, principles containing reductions in time at sea allocations in comparison with previous allocations applying to all vessels or specified groups of vessels.
Finally, the amendment to Clause 7 provides for the order-making powers in Clause 1 to come into force on Royal Assent.
Turning to the actions of other member states and whether they are taking effective action to meet their capacity targets, I recognise that this is a matter which reflects deep concern, as expressed by noble Lords in this Committee and by honourable Members in another place. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee earlier, the Government will stand by the commitment made by my honourable friend in another place on this matter. We will deal with the issue when we debate the affirmative resolution orders which are the subject of this amendment. It will be for the House—for both Houses—to decide at that time whether effective action has, indeed, been taken by other member states and it will be for the Government to present the relevant information on which Parliament can make a judgment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: These amendments carry out the undertaking that was given by the Government in another place when the Bill was passing through that other place. They were repeated

117
by my noble friend in his Second Reading speech. In my speech on that occasion I welcomed what he said. I believe that this will be an important addition to the Bill (if the Committee approves it) because it provides the assurance that both Houses of Parliament can consider—I hope quickly—any changes which could be painful or injurious to the British fishing industry. I hope therefore that the Committee will accept these amendments.
Lord Gallacher: We are grateful to the Minister for the amendments that he has tabled in fulfilment of the promise made on Second Reading. He began his moving of them by saying that they were somewhat "opaque", but they were considerably less opaque by the time he sat down than they were when I attempted to decide their import myself in relation to the Bill. We welcome the affirmative procedure where it is to be used. We shall look again at what the Minister said in relation to those areas where the negative procedure will continue to apply. But, in general, I think that the industry and those of us who have been concerned about the Bill will be gratified that the Government have had second thoughts about this aspect since the Bill left another place. We therefore support the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: Although one supports my noble friend in bringing forward these amendments and carrying out his undertaking, there is a weakness in that, although the order is brought before both Houses, it cannot be amended. It has to be accepted or thrown out. Therefore I hope that my noble friend can reply now and say that, in view of that, there will be the fullest co-operation and consultation with the industry in drawing up these very important principles. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that. I have tabled an amendment which will put such a requirement on the face of the Bill.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend on that point. We shall be coming to it later on, as he rightly said, but I believe I shall be able to give him reassuring answers at that time about the question of consultation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I too had some difficulty in deciphering exactly what the Government's amendments mean. My noble friend said that this would always happen when the number of days at sea was being decreased. What will happen if the number is being increased? The industry may be interested to know whether that will be discussed by Parliament because many conservationists may object to that. Will it apply only when the number of days is decreased?
Earl Howe: It will apply when there is any change to the days at sea that have been allocated.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6B), any day or part of a day during which a vessel sails from port for a purpose other than fishing shall not count as time at sea." ").
The noble Earl said: It is my honour and duty to move this probing amendment. Its purpose is simple and I am sure that my noble friends will give it their support. As a member of the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen, one knows very well how generous fishermen are in supporting charities at weekends and in the summer to raise money for distressed fishermen. There are many occasions when boats go out to sea for trawler races, sea festivals and so on. They go out for rescue work as well and even to perform guard duties around our oil installations. Those are non-fishing activities. I hope that in the principles that are to be announced my noble friend will make it very clear that those fishermen will not be subject to penalties in carrying out those duties. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: I hope that included in the idea of not penalising vessels when they go out of harbour for non-fishing purposes is the possibility of allowing them to take out parties of sport fishermen, who after all do not catch that many fish. They can hardly be considered to be engaged in commercial fishing. If Members of the Committee want another example, perhaps I may refer to the fishermen of Folkestone harbour, who spend quite a lot of time in the summer escorting Channel swimmers from Cap Gris Nez to St. Margaret's Bay and back again. Perhaps that too can be taken into consideration.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: They also take out parties of tourists in the summer. That is important and useful.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I wonder whether this covers the kind of episode which was mentioned in another place on one occasion. Let us say that a boat's home port is at Buckie but it unloads fish at Macduff and then goes home for the weekend to berth at Buckie. There have been occasions when the trip from Macduff to Buckie was counted as a fishing day at sea. I gather that there was some indignation—un-derstandable indignation—about that. In addition, even when a boat had to go elsewhere to get an engine repaired, it was counted as being at sea. Will relief be given in future on that kind of episode?
Earl Howe: I understand the concern of fishermen who may believe that days at sea restrictions will prevent them from carrying out other legitimate economic activities at sea. However, I can reassure them now that that is not the case. When fisheries departments come to issue days at sea allocations to individual vessel owners they will make an allowance within that allocation for such non-fishing activities. For example, where a vessel is known regularly to collect white weed, this could be included in the vessel owner's allocations. I have every reason to think that the other activities mentioned by noble Lords—trawler races, charity events and tourist trips—will be included in the definition of non-fishing activities. Departments may also consider other mechanisms such as licence suspensions for dealing with vessels which will be carrying out non-fishing activities over

119
longer blocks of time. If individuals are not satisfied with their allocation in respect of non-fishing, they can of course appeal to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal.
The reason we are treating non-fishing activity in this way is that it would simply not be possible to enforce the days at sea regime if non-fishing activity was not included in the allocation. Fisheries inspectors would never know for what purpose a vessel had set to sea and whether therefore the time was counting towards his allocation. The whole system would be wide open to abuse. So I can assure Members of the Committee that we do not intend to prevent fishermen carrying out non-fishing activities but we must include those activities at the outset within their days at sea allocation to ensure proper enforcement. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I am grateful for that reassurance. I hope that the allowance when granted will be generous because there are many activities—not only the ones mentioned but others as well—which will cause problems if the allowance is not generous. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6B), any day or part of a day which a vessel spends in port while the fishing gear pertaining to that vessel is laid at sea for the purpose of fishing shall count as time at sea." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to find out whether the Government have considered all the points at issue. A trawlerman going out to sea takes his trawl. He cannot fish without it. A day at sea is therefore more easily recognised. But there are fishing methods whereby nets are set, creels are laid and so on. How will this be assessed? If the weather has been bad and the fishermen cannot get back to his nets, will those days be counted as days at sea? How will this be done? It is an illustration of the difficulties faced when trying to regulate a very complicated and complex industry. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say because it is a very fair point. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I readily acknowledge that this amendment identifies a potential problem area for fishermen using static gear; days at sea restrictions are not a perfect mechanism for controlling their activities. Our scientists do nevertheless advise that even in this sector days at sea controls have some effect in restricting fishing effort.
This is a problem which we intend to address but we do not believe that we can do it by altering the days at sea regime. It would, quite simply, be impossible to enforce. The amendment would require us to check not only on fishing vessels' activities and where they were but also on where their fishing nets and pots were as well. I hope the Committee will acknowledge that this could lead to chaos.
The noble Lord may be aware that the European Commission is also considering the problem and intends to produce a report with recommendations on
120
this subject. We do not wish to pre-empt any ideas that the Commission may have. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that it is a matter which requires a good deal more thought. On that basis, I hope he will be content to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I certainly agree with the noble Earl that the matter requires more thought. But, what is to happen in the meantime? How does he propose to deal with those boats? Will they not come within the restriction? If that is so, for their sakes I should be happy to hear about it. However, it raises questions in the minds of the trawler fishermen.
Earl Howe: I can only point out to the noble Lord that there are various options which we can adopt, such as limits on the number of pots, on the length and the depth of nets and on the frequency of visits to such gear. All such restrictions would pose major enforcement problems and would undoubtedly run us into further criticism. I do not want to labour the point. I take the noble Lord's argument very seriously. We are thinking about the matter and we hope to be able to consider the Commission's proposals very soon.
If I am in order, I should like to make a small correction regarding something that I said earlier to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I said that the affirmative resolution orders which applied to principles will be made whenever there is a change. I was wrong. They will be made only when there are reductions in time at sea and not when there are increases in time at sea. I apologise for misleading the Committee.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: On the basis, as I understand it, that the boats will not be under restriction at present, and that thought has been given to the matter, we shall also reconsider the amendment and perhaps return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Amherst of Hackney Lord Amherst of Hackney moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("() Gale force conditions shall be excluded from any restrictions on permitted time at sea for fishing vessels whose voyage duration is in excess of 24 hours and who are at sea in such conditions.
() The existence of gale force conditions (mean wind speeds in excess of 34 knots) shall be proven by the submission of weather facsimiles depicting gale conditions for the relevant area and time issued by the Meteorological Office, Bracknell." ").
The noble Lord said: I believe that noble Lords will have received numerous letters from fishermen's wives expressing their concerns that the provisions of the Bill could place the lives of their husbands seriously at risk by necessitating their engaging in fishing operations in dangerous conditions with tired crews and equipment pared to the minimum. While the restriction on sea time will result in burdening all the fishermen with great financial hardship, inshore fishermen will at least be able to decide from the latest weather information available whether or not to

121
utilise a precious day of permitted sea time. On the other hand, offshore fishermen will be unable to take any view on the weather they are likely to encounter over an extended period at sea. Their precious sea time will be ticking away so long as they are at sea, regardless of conditions. The financial pressures are likely to be even greater due to the greater size of the investment.
The weather is no respecter of averages as we have seen in the recent record drought; neither does it distribute its disfavours equitably. Our fishermen and their lives should surely be protected from its vagaries. The fact that it is so simple and foolproof to establish from weather facsimiles, issued and recorded by the Meteorological Office, whether gale conditions did or did not exist in a specific sea area on a particular day surely makes it impossible to justify the blanket inclusion of gale force conditions in permitted time at sea for offshore fishermen, and the consequential risk to life and limb that will inevitably ensue. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: The amendment before the Committee is most important, as was mentioned on Second Reading. My first point is that it should extend to all fishermen. It is quite true that it will primarily affect offshore fishermen, but inshore fishermen are also liable to be caught in gales and should be encouraged to return to port rather than attempt to continue in dangerous conditions. Further, this and previous amendments once again raise in my mind the whole method of the Bill. At its best, it is a very draconian measure. It takes away people's livelihood in a way which is very seldom, if ever, done in this country. It then appears to hand over to officials all sorts of decisions as to what is to count as time at sea; for example, whether gale force conditions will be excused, and so on. Again, that seems to me to be undesirable.
If Parliament is able—I do not know whether it can; personally I think that it is a pretty unworkable Bill—it should ensure that the Bill states exactly what is to count as time at sea, what the hours are and what conditions are to be taken into account. If that cannot be done, I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in greater detail how such decisions will be made and, if gales do arise (as they do very quickly and, unfortunately, very violently, certainly in the north of Scotland) who is to decide whether or not the time at sea is to be wiped out. If it is not to be wiped out, how can we expect vessels—fairly small vessels at that—to continue at sea in conditions which may well be dangerous?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: On the face of it, there is a great deal to be said for the amendment. I say that because, if a fishing vessel is caught in stormy conditions and is unable to fish, it seems unfair that it should all the same be using up its permitted time and that that should be treated as time at sea. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the matter.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, very clearly explained the purpose behind the amendment.
122
I should like to say, first, that I fully understand that fishermen may feel worried that if they are prevented from fishing by gale force winds they will not have sufficient days at sea left in which to catch their full fish entitlement for any year. Nevertheless, I believe that their fears are groundless. I shall explain why.
Each vessel's track record will be based on its activities in the base year; that is to say, 1991. It is safe to assume that trips undertaken in that year—taken together and analysed—will be no different from trips undertaken next year: on some occasions in 1991 fishermen will have been prevented from fishing during a trip of more than 24 hours by gale force winds. In other words, the vessel's track record for 1991 will already have included within it time when that vessel was at sea but was prevented from fishing by bad weather. Skippers are professional men: they know the weather and they must make a judgment as to when it is safe to go to sea or to stay at sea. One thing we should not forget is that 1991 was itself a year when many vessels were subject to a compulsory tie-up scheme under EC rules—a scheme which was in many ways more restrictive than the one which the Government are now proposing. There is no evidence to suggest that during that year the judgment of skippers (as to whether or not to go to sea or stay at sea) was applied in anything but a sensible and professional way. We believe that that will continue.
I put it to the noble Lord, therefore, that there is no need for the amendment. An allowance for abortive trips will already have been taken account of in the time at sea allocation and does not need a special provision. I hope that the noble Lord will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend can go a little further. It is all very well to say that skippers are experienced seamen and will, therefore, be able to foresee the weather. It suggests that they are apparently rather better at the task than the Meteorological Office has recently shown itself to be. When a boat is going out fishing for some days I wonder whether it is really fair to say that time should continue to run against it if at that time it runs into a wholly unforeseeable gale and is unable to fish. I do not think that my noble friend's answer was very satisfactory.
Earl Howe: I was not saying that skippers could foresee the weather; I was saying that, if they go out to sea and then they find a storm descending upon them, they are sufficiently professional not to let their judgment as to whether to stay at sea be compromised by the storm. Their allocation of days at sea will already have taken account of such incidents which will have occurred in the base year of 1991.
Lord Mottistone: Does that mean that my noble friend is saying that the gales in 1991 were typical of gales always? From my experience of many years at sea there are particular years during which there are many gales and other years when there are not so many. Last winter I believe that we had fewer gales in the waters around the United Kingdom than has been the case this year and in many others. One can only

123
rely on an average of five or six years for gales. My noble friend should reconsider how this problem should be dealt with and make the allowances that I have suggested.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I echo that plea. My noble friend serves the interests not just of fishing but of farming. I am surprised to hear my noble friend rely on what he called the "track record". Farming is not nearly as precarious as fishing, but no farmer dares rely upon the track record of one harvest which was good five years previously to say that it will therefore be good five years hence. One goes up and down and in and out. One knows how precarious it is. I beg my noble friend to reconsider this matter. Trying to turn dangers at sea into bureaucratic terms is not the right thing to do.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I may be mistaken, but I thought I understood the Minister to suggest that, if a skipper found himself caught at sea in a storm, he should run for his home port or the nearest port. There are occasions when it is unsafe to run to port and one has to ride out the storm at sea. Will the Minister clarify that point because it is something that needs to be taken into consideration?
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may answer the noble Lady's point first. I was not suggesting that a skipper should head for port in all circumstances. I say that it is up to his judgment whether to do so. Over the year as a whole—we are looking at 1991—there will be occasions when the skipper will have made a dash for port and others when he will have stayed at sea.
As to whether 1991 was a good or bad year for storms, I shall study that point because it is something of which we should be aware. My noble friend Lord Stodart was a little cheeky in comparing these circumstances with those of a farmer. Farmers have to harvest at definite times of the year. I was seeking to say earlier that over the year as a whole there will be statistically an average number of days when the weather is less than clement. Those days will be built into the allocation that vessel owners will receive.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It is an ingenious argument to say that in 1991 so many days were lost. That might be so. This legislation contemplates a further cut in time at sea into which the same number of storm-damage days will eat much more deeply.
Earl Howe: I take the noble Lord's point, but I do not believe that the days at sea limitation will prove to be the limiting factor for fishermen. It is not days at sea but quotas which will prove to be the limiting factor. As the noble Lord is aware, this year there are vessels tied up in port two months before the year end because their quotas have been exhausted. I do not see this as being a problem.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: That is the whole point of the Bill.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: Would it not be more rational to accept the approach suggested in the
124
amendment and remove the gale days from the 1991 experience? Then one would merely act on what had happened in the year about which one is talking.
Earl Howe: Then there will be grave enforcement problems when it comes to monitoring days at sea when the regime is introduced.
Lord Blease: The discussion has taken place based upon days at sea and days upon which gales occur. Gales do not occur to a regular pattern all over the United Kingdom. The Irish Sea may be different from Scottish waters or the North Sea. Will an appeal system be included in relation to the monitoring of days at sea?
Earl Howe: As the noble Lord is aware, the Bill provides for the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal. It will be able to hear appeals when a vessel owner feels that storms or other factors have not been taken sufficiently into account in the allocation. The allocations will be made vessel by vessel. Each vessel operates in a different area of our waters. The allocation will be based upon the track record of individual vessels. The noble Lord is right to point out that some areas will have a different history of storms or inclement weather from other areas. Those factors will be taken into account when the allocations are made.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: I thank the Minister for his helpful comments. As I understood it, this summer brought about the termination of the driest period since records began. I mentioned that earlier. What is to stop the winter of 1994–95 being the most violent winter since records began?
We are not talking about the type of fishing boat that can turn back to seek a port of refuge. I was referring more to the 40-metre trawler which would be four or five days from its home port and would not have shelter available. Even if it did have shelter available, it would not be in its home port. It would be seeking refuge off some coastline and so it would still be deemed to be using up sea time.
The wives are worried that the skippers, urged on by the whole crew, could be persuaded or feel themselves pushed into fishing in conditions which were downright dangerous merely because they were becoming short of permitted sea days perhaps because they had already lost a substantial number due to bad weather. It is dangerous to put skippers and their crews into a position where they could feel forced, for financial reasons, to take decisions which should be governed entirely by seamanship.
Earl Howe: I take the noble Lord's points. I have tried to answer them as best I can. There is a whole range of factors which could compromise a skipper's judgment. The fact that he has a high overdraft at the bank could lead him to go to sea when it might be safer not to, but, as I said, skippers do not act in that way. They are not the type of people who endanger the lives of their crews. While there is a serious point underlying the amendment, I do not believe that it will prove to be a problem in practice.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: I again thank the Minister. I am referring to circumstances in which the skipper would have no possible advantage from deciding to go to sea in storm conditions. There may be a three or four-day passage to a fishing ground. I am sure that the meteorological service has let your Lordships down a number of times with a 24-hour forecast, let alone a three or four-day forecast. After three or four days it would be hoped that the boat would have arrived at the ground and started to fish. Will the Minister give us some assurance that that is a factor that will be studied and that some further wording may be considered.
Earl Howe: I cannot do that, but what I can say is that the scenario the noble Lord has just painted is exactly the kind of situation a skipper would have faced in 1991 if he had not changed his fishing practice in the interim. I repeat that his allocation will reflect exactly that situation; so he should have no cause for worry.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("(6D) A licence condition or variation of a licence condition, imposed under subsection (6) (c) shall not be valid for any year or part of a year unless notification thereof is given to the master, charterer or owner of the vessel named in the licence before 1st October in the preceding year." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment follows on, in some senses, from what we were discussing in Amendment No. 7. Its purpose is to establish in the Bill a period of time which owners must be given in order to deal with the condition or variation of a licence imposed under subsection (6) (c). It goes so far as to say that in order for such variation or condition to be valid for any year or part of a year, notice of the variation must be,
"given to the master, charterer or owner of the vessel named in the licence before 1st October in the preceding year".
Having regard to the fact that fishing conditions in 1993 will be different from those which applied in 1991—even though the number of gales may be similar—and are likely to be still more different in subsequent years, it is important that fishermen should receive as much notice as possible of the restriction to which they are subject to enable them, for example, to raise and have decided any appeal they may wish to make; to plan their fishing year or even to plan in as orderly a fashion as possible the disposal of their business, including applying for decommissioning.
We believe that in such circumstances three months is surely the minimum requirement in any of these situations. Those Members of the Committee who have had experience of contraction of a business will know that in many ways it is much more difficult than expanding a business. It is a sensitive time for all concerned and in fishing particularly so, having regard to peculiar circumstances such as the share fishing system which applies widely. In this context, if decommissioning is being contemplated, the wives and families of the fishermen come into the matter as well.
The purpose of the amendment is to acquaint the Minister with the nature of the problem and to ask him for a response on the basis of the human side of this aspect of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I have some sympathy with the amendment for the simple reason that, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, pointed out, things have to be done in a relatively short space of time. I am quite concerned, however, because the whole question of days at sea is tied up with total allowable catches. Scientific evidence seems to come later and later in the year and we get nearer and nearer Christmas before a Council of Ministers decides what the total allowable catches are.
Will my noble friend the Minister consider at any stage that the start of the fishing year might be looked at in relation to a sensible and orderly way of dealing with the matter? I feel that the fishermen—skippers in particular—have a real point when trying to plan their year. They cannot do so because they do not know what the situation will be until the last moment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This problem also applies in farming. Decisions are made late or not at all and farmers are faced with an inability to plan forward because they do not know what will be the price or the restrictions. In this case it must be much the same. I have now said my piece!
The Earl of Kinnoull: While my noble friend is gathering his papers for his reply, perhaps I may say that the amendment deals with notice of the licence. I do not believe there are any amendments down for the Committee stage on how long the licence will last, whether it is for a year, two years or three years. Further, we have no indication, if the recipient of the licence does not like the conditions and appeals, as to whether he is allowed to fish during that period. Of course, the appeal may take from three to six months to materialise. I hope that my noble friend will be able to expand on these issues either now or at a later stage.
Earl Howe: I understand the concerns which have led to the tabling of this amendment, but I hope that in the light of what I am about to say, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will think it right to withdraw it. I say this, not because the thought behind the amendment is not a reasonable one, for the reasons that he stated—indeed, on the face of it, it is perfectly reasonable—but because there are very real practical difficulties with it. If it is carried, far from assisting fishermen, as noble Lords intend, I have to say that it could have the very opposite effect.
So far as the initial days at sea allocation is concerned, fishermen already know that the Government's intention is to freeze it at 1991 levels. I take it from the noble Lord's remarks that his concerns relate to what happens after the initial allocation.
In subsequent years I can say that fisheries departments will be able to give a general indication of likely changes some time in advance. However, before they can decide on any specific reductions in days at sea allocations, they will need to bring together scientific data on the up-to-date state of stocks and to

127
link this with the effectiveness of other measures in the conservation package. These data will not, of their very nature, be available until late in the year and decisions on possible reductions in days at sea therefore cannot be made until late November at the earliest.
For that reason, it would simply not be possible to give fishermen an accurate picture by 1st October of the likely size of any reduction. To try to do so would be no more than guesswork and could be highly misleading. Furthermore, the consequence would be that in the absence of any firm data at that stage of the year, departments would necessarily have to err on the side of caution and the resulting reductions might, as a result, be higher than they would be if they were set later in the year. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this would be highly undesirable.
However, as I said—and I intend this to be of some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher—fishermen will receive an indication of the scale of any proposed reductions as and when the Government table their affirmative resolution order. In practice, this will give them between four and six weeks' notice of the Government's intentions. I believe that most fishermen will find that adequate and I hope that the noble Lord will see that in practical terms it is the only sensible course to adopt. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, made a very interesting suggestion about changing the date of the fishing year. Would the noble Earl care to comment on that? It seems to me that it might possibly be the solution.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: There is a further point. I see no reason why the scientists and politicians should not get together earlier. There is no reason at all for them to wait until November before they make a decision. That is surely more logical than the poor fishermen, who go to sea in a difficult and dangerous occupation, not having the information. Let us assemble the scientists and politicians earlier. Would that not be possible?
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. The politicians and scientists, I may say, are talking all the year round. It is simply that we wish to make an accurate assessment of the state of the stocks as late in the year as we can so that any reductions that we have to make to the days at sea allocation can be justified.
The question was raised about the start of the fishing year. Under Community rules, TACs and quotas are managed in terms of calendar years and the issue of licences (which, incidentally, are renewable annually) is linked to that. So I cannot see much scope for changing the fishing year as proposed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Perhaps the European Community could be persuaded to change the fishing year.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: That is an interesting suggestion. I shall bear it in mind and take it away with me.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I suspect that many fishermen will rely on the tribunals to come up with some kind of support. I asked my noble friend whether he could give any indication of how long these hearings may take and whether, after year one, a fisherman may continue to fish on the existing lease even if it has been reduced, subject to appeal.
Earl Howe: I do not think I can give my noble friend a straightforward answer to that point at the moment. I shall consult on that matter and write to my noble friend.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the reply he gave us. I think we are beginning to get the first indication that any date and year, however chosen, is likely with the passage of time to be flawed. I have yet to experience in any walk of life a situation where that does not apply. Nevertheless there has to be a starting point and 1991, so far as this Bill is concerned, is it. The noble Earl said that he hoped a general indication would be given about prospects in advance. We are grateful for that. But he went on to say that scientific data will usually be available late. Of course the later that is available the better it is in the sense of the validity of the advice the scientists are giving. Of course, if scientists were compelled to give an earlier forecast, they would err on the side of caution and in consequence the reductions might be higher than they otherwise would be if they had been allowed more time.
Nevertheless in the supporting speeches, for which I am grateful, a number of avenues have been opened up—notably the question of the date from which the Community fishing year was to run. I am well aware that at the moment it is a calendar year and I know from the days when I had something to do with this matter as a member of Sub-Committee D that the late announcement of TACs was always of great concern to fishermen. It may be that the prospect of inviting the Community to look, in the overall review of the CFP which is now about to take place, at what the fishing year should be is one avenue that should be explored. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will do that. Taking account of all that has been said and acknowledging the difficulties inherent in this matter, although I believe the problem still remains, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("() In considering what action to take under subsection (6) (c) above, the Ministers shall first give due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning." ").
The noble Earl said: This is a very mildly worded amendment but it goes right to the centre of my disagreement, and indeed that of fishermen, as regards this Bill. The amendment states that the Government should keep in their sights the whole time, every time they review this situation, the whole matter of decommissioning. If I had worded the amendment a

129
little more carefully, I would have added the words "properly funded decommissioning", because the present scheme's provision of £25 million stretched over a certain period is most certainly inadequate, since it is expected only to take out 5 per cent. of fishing effort, whereas the need is to take out probably 25 or 30 per cent.
Without making a Second Reading speech, I believe it is fair to consider the slightly broader difficulties which attach to the tying-up process and to consider the fears that the fishermen themselves have. There are two main fears, or perhaps three. Some fishermen think, probably quite rightly, that they will be placed in a dangerous position and that they will be forced to tie up for such a period that when they go to sea they will have to fish for longer hours, possibly with smaller crews. I am sure that other Members of the Committee have, like myself, received many letters on this matter.
Further, there is a burning resentment that fishermen feel that this tying-up procedure is a decommissioning scheme by the back door. There is no compensation such as farmers receive for their set-aside land. On the other hand, a scheme of decommissioning may cost some money but it would be far easier to police. The argument which my noble friend has used before—I shall mention it before he does—that such a scheme would not work because those who remain will merely fish harder with more efficient equipment must be completely false from a mathematical point of view because one can obviously decommission down to such a point that that cannot possibly happen.
I also believe it is completely wrong to have an enormous amount of high technology, expensive fishing machinery tied up. In any business where one has to buy expensive machinery one tries to use that machinery effectively for as long as possible. Fundamentally the economics of the situation are wrong too. Finally, I believe that a proper decommissioning scheme with owners paid off, combined, as we now know, with the licensing of vessels under 10 metres, will at the end of the day constitute a far better provision for fishing com-munities than what is now on the face of this Bill. I hope that one day soon the Government will realise that they must enter—as other countries have done long ago—a proper decommissioning scheme. If they must pursue the idea of tying-up, I hope they will treat it as a temporary measure leading them towards that end. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that a properly worked out decommissioning scheme would result in a sizeable reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet. I understand that that has happened in other countries. I was certainly under the impression that one of the Government's reasons for refusing to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 3 was that decommissioning schemes were proving so successful in other countries that it was possibly not necessary for them to have tie-up days.
On the other hand Ministers argue against the schemes. I have heard many arguments made against
130
decommissioning schemes in the past. I have heard Ministers say they do not believe the schemes represent value for money because they would not necessarily secure the withdrawal of the right vessels. If that is the case, I cannot understand why the Government are prepared to waste—for if that argument is valid, waste it must be—£25 million on the decommissioning scheme they propose. Surely it would be better to use the money to compensate fishermen for tie-up days? Ironically of course they are right to argue against such schemes because the decommissioning scheme they are proposing is useless and will be a waste of taxpayers' money. It will reduce the capacity of the fishing fleet by approximately 5 per cent. only. That scarcely seems to be worth doing.
In September before last the Scottish Fishermen's Federation proposed to government Ministers an alternative decommissioning scheme. I have read the federation's proposals and to me they seem eminently sensible and workable. They are to be found on pages 36 to 39 of the evidence in the report of Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee, published last June. I understand that the European Commission would be prepared to pay grants towards the cost of the scheme. Can the noble Earl say whether the Ministry has considered the scheme in depth? If not, will it please do so? Either decommissioning will help or it will not, but what is quite certain is that the scheme which the Government propose will not because it will not take nearly enough capacity out of the fishing fleet.
It is also quite certain that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation scheme would cost more than £25 million. However, I ask the Government to set against that the financial advantages of a healthy, profitable industry manned by taxpayers who spend money in the high street. That would be preferable to an industry in the doldrums with large numbers unemployed or going bankrupt and the consequent increase in social security benefits which would have to be paid.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: The noble Lady and my noble friend will not be surprised, after what I said at Second Reading, that I wholly support the amendment. In the report of Sub-Committee D we stated firmly that, while there was a place for tying-up, we regarded that as essentially secondary to a decommissioning scheme.
That is a view which is not shared by the Government for reasons which I have never found clear. My noble friend on the Front Bench has an excellent opportunity to explain with all the lucidity of which he is capable, not only to me but to the fishing industry, which will read his words avidly, the Government's objection to decommissioning.
The fishermen want it. That is not the best of reasons. My noble friend accused me this afternoon of being cheeky. I venture to say that I thought that Mr. Curry's comment that anybody would want a decommissioning scheme if the taxpayer was going to pay for it was a slightly cheeky remark to an industry which takes the matter extremely seriously.
Practically every other country, with the exception of Ireland, has opted for decommissioning. At Second Reading, echoing reasons which were given

131
previously, my noble friend said that decommissioning would not reduce effort. I should like to put this simple proposition in place of the admitted complications, the bookkeeping and the monitoring involved in a tying-up scheme. I shall use hypothetical figures. Suppose that the total catch is 100,000 tonnes and at the moment that is being caught by 1,000 boats. The quotas and TACs would be maintained and boats would be licensed, but instead of having 1,000 boats the total could be reduced to 800. Unless the quotas were altered the catch would be divided among a smaller number of boats, which would thus become more profitable. What is the objection to that?
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Radnor said. I hope that the Government will look at decommissioning positively. I recognise that, while the report of Sub-Committee D was on the whole received favourably by the Government, they felt that on the decommissioning issue we were wrong. They told us time and time again—and it must be recognised—that last time decommissioning did not work well. That is quite true. The reason it did not work well was that there was no licensing to identify those who broke the rules. That problem has now been taken care of under the Bill. There would not be the absurd situation which occurred last time round in which someone was paid a considerable sum of money to decommission his ship and was then able to buy a smaller but very much more effective ship with new technology which could produce an increased effort. That was clearly an inefficient way of operating a decommissioning scheme. However, that problem has been dealt with.
The second issue of which the Government have, quite correctly, reminded us time and time again is that the first thing that happens when one operates a decommissioning scheme is that people come forward with ships which will go out of commission anyway whether or not the owners are paid. The owners are delighted. They collect their money thinking that Christmas has come early. That is true, but it is not an argument for abandoning decommissioning; it is a reason to avoid a small scheme. Such a scheme cannot be operated on a small sum of money, and I fear that in this context £25 million is a small sum of money. One either has to have confidence in the objective of reducing capacity or one might as well not bother. I fear that the Government are falling into a trap and that lack of commitment to the principle of decommissioning and a sorry experience in the past have allowed this country to fall behind our competitors in Europe.
The reason I support the Government's efforts to limit days at sea is that I recognise, as many of us do, that we really cannot say to those countries which have made a serious attempt at and succeeded in reducing their capacity that they now have to operate on the same number of days at sea as us because we have not reduced our capacity and we do not want them to derive any benefit from the actions they have taken in the past. That is an untenable situation.
132
I recognise that decommissioning will be more expensive than the Treasury would wish. I recognise that any scheme which will cost the taxpayer large sums of money will be unwelcome to any government. However, bearing in mind the sorry state of fishery stocks and the inevitability of capacity having to match the available stocks, I believe that the only long-term solution is through a decommissioning scheme. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give us some assurance that in the long term the Government will consider that as the ultimate solution.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I shall not repeat the excellent arguments that have already been put. However, I hope that the Government are not looking for a decommissioning scheme through bankruptcy. It is quite obvious from the figures mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, that if capacity is reduced by 80 per cent. some boats will go bankrupt. In order to give fishermen confidence, quite apart from all the other arguments, I believe that the Government should give an indication that they will seriously consider a decommissioning scheme.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I also support my noble friend. It is obvious from the excellent Select Committee report that conservation of our fish stocks for the future involves a combination of a host of different measures. This is the first conservation Bill that we have had for 25 years and the British Government appear to be trying to give a lead to our fellow members of the Community. Yet all we have is a short enabling Bill. It is a great shame that the Government do not grasp some of the other issues at the same time. Industrial fishing and black fish are key issues. I believe that something on those issues could be written into the Bill, and also on decommissioning.
Whatever the Government say, there must be a suspicion that behind the Government is the Treasury, which is keen not to increase the budget which has already been extracted for 1993.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Following on from what my noble friend said, if the problem lay with the Treasury that would be understandable. It has already been stated in the debate that any decommissioning scheme would have to be a substantial one if it were to have any effect on conservation.
Did my noble friend on the Front Bench notice the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Selborne—which I believe was his personal suggestion and was not mentioned in the Select Committee report—in the Second Reading debate that if a charge was made for licences it would be possible not only to pay for the licence scheme, which would in itself be expensive, but the licence fee would contribute to the cost of decommissioning? If the industry can contribute some of its earnings to decommissioning it may make that possible. In view of the difficult times facing public expenditure the industry may see the point of it. Perhaps my noble friend could respond to that?
Earl Howe: I hope that I can reassure my noble friend about his concerns. The days at sea restriction proposed under the Bill should not be looked at in

133
isolation but seen as an integral part of the package of conservation measures announced by the Government earlier in the year. That package included technical measures, such as minimum net size for certain fisheries; proposals to enable vessel owners to transfer or aggregate licences more freely; capacity penalties to apply to such transfers or aggregations; and the announcement of a cash-limited decommissioning scheme to the value of £25 million to assist that process of rationalisation. The extent to which we shall need to tighten effort control will depend on the degree to which other measures in the conservation package are having the desired effect on our fleet capacity and stocks. As my noble friend is proposing in the amendment we shall have regard to our scheme of decommissioning before we further restrict days at sea.
My noble friend would like us to consider a larger decommissioning scheme. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to the schemes of other member states. It is true that other member states may have spent more but there is no evidence that this has achieved the desired result in helping to conserve fish stocks. On the contrary. We have a duty to maximise value for money. I remind my noble friend that a previous United Kingdom decommissioning scheme was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for being poor value for money. More money does not necessarily mean better value; it could mean quite the opposite.
My noble friend Lord Stodart asked a number of questions. Decommissioning is one part of the Government's package. The fishing industry pressed us strongly for a decommissioning scheme and we have responded to those requests. The Government do not take the view that a decommissioning scheme is completely ineffective; I dissent from the tenor of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Selborne. We believe that it cannot he guaranteed to have the effect of reducing total pressure on fish stocks without restrictions on fishing effort. A scheme to pay fishermen to tie up temporarily, to which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred, seems certain to have less effect than the form of decommissioning and payment for permanent withdrawal of boats which the Government are proposing to introduce. The noble Lady also said that she regarded the Government's decommissioning scheme as a waste of money. I would agree with her if there was ever a decommissioning scheme which was not also accompanied by effort control. My noble friend Lord Stodart asked why our decommissioning scheme could not be increased. I have already explained some of the reasons for that. It cannot be for the taxpayer to shoulder the entire burden of rationalising the capacity of our fleet. Fishermen must address that imperative and play their part.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked about the possibility of charging for licences to pay for more decommissioning. That is a very interesting suggestion which on the face of it would not go down well with the industry. However, if the industry has some proposals it would like to put to the Government on those lines we would be very pleased to look at them.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: Perhaps I may say with regret and sorrow that my noble friend has not answered as I thought he would the proposition I put to him, namely, that a decommissioning scheme would reduce the number of vessels and share out the existing catch—keeping the quota and everything else—among a smaller number of vessels which, other than those that might go bankrupt, would be more profitable. What is the objection? Is it basically cost?
Earl Howe: I will not disguise from my noble friend that there is no prospect of increasing the value of the decommissioning package beyond the levels already announced. I am sure I have no need to tell him that public expenditure constraints are very severe. I would ask him to look at the package of measures that the Government are proposing. There are market mechanisms (if I may refer to them in that way) that will assist in the process of rationalising the fleet. I referred to the ability of vessel owners to transfer and aggregate licences more freely. That will enable the more efficient fishing vessel owners to address any reductions in days at sea imposed upon them. The fleet should contract in a natural way through mechanisms of that kind. Decommissioning certainly has a part to play as the Government have recognised. We estimate that the scheme proposed should account for approximately 5 per cent., and the other market mechanisms the order of 2 or 3 per cent., of the fleet, leaving effort control to take account of the remainder of the reduction that we seek to achieve under whatever MAGP targets the Commission sets us.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: Does not the Minister think he is getting himself into a certain amount of difficulty on procedural grounds? What is wrong with the words he is asked to accept? He says he has some interest in a decommissioning scheme and that he already has one, though not a brilliant one. All my noble friend is asking him to do is to give due consideration to a scheme. I am surprised he has not said that he is against putting extra words into the Bill. I cannot see what harm it would do him to accept the amendment.
Earlier, we discussed the question of a level playing field. There is the danger, I believe, of the Minister coming back to the House saying that other countries have gone into decommissioning schemes that have proved successful in reducing their effort and seeking to persuade us that that works fine for them but not for us. I do not know by what criteria he intends to judge the reduction in effort by other countries. If he has no idea of those criteria I suggest that he will be in great difficulty when he comes to get his Order in Council, unless the Government resort to putting it on at 2 o'clock in the morning at the end of a heavy debate on some other issue, which is not totally unknown.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, must be taken into account by the Minister. As I understand it, the only other country with restrictions on going to sea is Holland. What he is saying is that all the other schemes within the common fisheries policy area are

135
ineffective. That appears to me to be a grave reflection on the idea of a level playing field. If he is looking at that he should also look at the licensing fee. The industry proposed a licensing fee some years ago.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps my noble friend the Minister ought to have another look at the particular amendment about "due consideration". Various facts have arisen in this debate and there is some controversy as to whether or not the industry would subscribe to some scheme. I believe that that needs to be looked into. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that he takes the amendment away, has another look at it and gives us some assurance that it is not completely out of court to give due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning in this way.
6 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I apologise to the Minister for not having been present during all of the debate but I had to leave the Committee for a little while. The proceedings are at an early stage and I hope that he will agree to look again at this point. It has been reasonably argued by all Members whom I have heard speak and I hope that he will reconsider it.
There is no doubt that there is a tremendous amount of feeling for the fishing industry. In recent weeks we have experienced the sort of sympathy that exists for the mining industry. I can assure my noble friend that those of us who come from areas with a lot of fishermen, whom we frequently meet, know that there is equal sympathy for that industry.
I heard suggested earlier this afternoon that the fishing industry must be prepared to look after itself. I can assure my noble friend that there is no industry which is more self-reliant than the fishing industry. From skippers down to the crew, they have all made personal investments in the industry. They put their money where their mouths are. They are now seeing their very livelihood eroded. I hope that, in view of what has been said tonight, my noble friend will consider looking again at this issue. All we ask him to do is to consider it. We hope that by Report stage he may be a little more sympathetic.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I intervene to give my noble friend a few more minutes to think about the matter. This is not a difficult amendment. My noble friend refuses to accept its very moderate intention. Fishermen and Members of the Committee may perhaps feel that he is being somewhat intransigent. I hope he will think carefully and perhaps give my noble friend Lord Radnor some assurance.
Earl Howe: I have tried to be as reassuring as I can in my remarks. I said that the 1981 Fisheries Act clearly provides that we can run a decommissioning scheme. What I cannot do is to accept the point behind the amendment; namely, that the Government should look again at a decommissioning scheme larger than the one that we have already proposed. There is no prospect of our doing that.
However, I can assure the Committee that we shall
136
have regard to our scheme of decommissioning before we restrict days at sea below the 1991 level. That is as far as I can go. I have tried to be helpful and I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw the amendment in the knowledge that all the comments made in this debate will be studied very carefully.
The Earl of Radnor: It is no good pretending that I am not very disappointed with many of the answers that have been forthcoming. They have been those we have always heard before: that it has to be a mixed bag to deal with the shortage of fish and, although we know the trouble that the fishing community is in, the effort has to be cut. It is as though decommissioning were not a cut in effort. Of course it is and it is also the most effective one.
I shall not repeat any of the arguments that I have put forward before. I started off by saying that the amendment was a mild one. In my opinion it is too mild. The last remark made by my noble friend on the Front Bench, to the effect that he could not hold out any hope of a much larger decommissioning scheme (if I understood him rightly), is more than a little disappointing. I intimated that I hoped that the other measures would lead on to decommissioning as the main prop to the whole business of sea fish conservation and therefore conservation of fishing communities.
I shall not press the amendment now, though I am tempted to do so. The reason is that I shall bring back the amendment on Report, probably with the wording that I produced at the start of my remarks. I feel that the Government would get away with murder if they accepted this amendment, which merely allows them to look at the issue. I shall compose the next amendment with considerably more care. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 10 to 14:
Page 1, line 22, after ("of") insert ("section 1(5) of").
Page 1, line 24, after ("kept") insert ("or purported to be kept").
Page 1, line 27, after ("made") insert ("or purported to be made").
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("required") and insert ("provided or purported").
Page 2, line 5, after ("(ii)") insert ("a requirement under").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 10 can conveniently be considered with Amendment No. 31. They both apply to Scotland only. Both are purely technical and simply correct an omission in the original wording. They now make clear that the evidential provisions of the Bill will have effect one month after Royal Assent rather than having immediate effect.
With the Committee's permission, I shall deal also with Amendments Nos. 11 to 14, which deal with these evidential provisions. They fall to be considered along with Amendments Nos. 32 to 34. Again they introduce minor technical amendments to Clause 1(3); the later amendments refer to Clause 3(3) of the Bill.
The subsections provide that documents and information which vessel masters and their agents are

137
legally obliged to produce—such things as log sheets and landing declarations—can be used as evidence in Scottish courts without being sworn to by any witness. In other words, the documents will provide sufficient evidence of the information they contain unless—and this is important—the contrary is proved. Effective enforcement is essential if we are to operate an effective conservation policy. I say that not just in relation to the proposed days at sea provision but also and more widely across the whole range of quota management arrangements. An essential feature of effective enforcement is the ability to bring cases efficiently before the courts.
The documents referred to in the clauses are fundamental to the regulation of our fisheries. They are often the only sources of information on, for example, where a vessel has been fishing and what species and quantities of fish have been taken. Vessel skippers and their agents are already under a legal obligation to complete the documents and complete them accurately.
I turn to the specific amendments before the Committee. I have already explained that the original provisions are designed to improve the efficiency of prosecutions by ensuring that the court can consider that information, which is statutorily required. These further amendments will ensure that the Crown does not have to bring witnesses to court to give purely formal evidence that the log books and landing declarations bearing the name of a particular skipper or vessel in fact relate to that vessel.
The Committee will know that the original provision and the amendment before us merely mean that the Scottish courts can consider these classes of evidence. Inaccuracies in the records can still be corrected through the defence or, as the case may be, the Crown leading evidence to the opposite effect. The only change will be that the information contained in the documents will be taken as accurate unless the contrary is proved by either the defence or the Crown.
With that explanation, and with the permission of the Committee, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10 to 14 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Gallacher: I wish to oppose the proposal that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I do so for a simple reason. The Bill is defective in a major way. It makes no provision for the licensing of fish buyers. However, when I attempted to draft an amendment the best possible advice I received was that such an amendment would not be acceptable and that if I were to press it the Committee would be advised that it was not in order. At the same time I was told that if I chose the procedure which I now follow, it would be possible to raise the matter on the Question of whether the clause shall stand part. That is what I now do.
The objection stems from the fact that the parent Act refers in licensing terms exclusively to fishing boats. Consequently fishing buyers are outwith the scope of the Bill, as we would say in Scotland. There is now growing evidence in the media and elsewhere that the selling of black market fish is on the increase.
138
I do not wish to particularise as to which place or which section of the media I refer to. But the interest in the subject is such that I have already received a few telephone calls from people who would like to know more about black fish and the part played by fish buyers in sustaining the black fish market.
If the Government's package of measures, about which the noble Earl has quite rightly said much today, is to take effect, then one must consider the matter fairly broadly. To do so without considering the subject of fish buyers narrows the scope of the Bill and may leave open a channel which will undermine the conservation objectives of the Bill.
Since the Select Committee on European Communities supported me in the matter, I should be the first to quote chapter and verse of its recommendations. However, in paragraphs 1.08 and 1.09 of its report it took the view that fish buyers should not be licensed. With respect, I believe that that view was wrong and if the committee were now to re-examine the question it might reach a different conclusion. The media have much to say on the subject. One must take note of the growing concern about black fish.
Market trends in the fishing industry are difficult to ascertain. When we pressed the Minister in bygone years about reductions in the total catch, we were often told that that was compensated for by increases in the value of the catch. That seems to be an example of the operation of the law of supply and demand. However, through the good offices of the Scottish Office I receive information which is circulated in Scotland on fish and farming matters. Advice dated 4th November states that:
"The value of fish landed into Scotland by UK vessels during the period January to September 1992 was £189.8 million, 6 per cent. less than in 1991. Average prices were eight per cent. down on the same period last year. Haddock prices were down by 33 per cent. and those for saithe, whiting and cod fell by 15, 13 and two per cent. respectively".
That appears to contradict the laws of supply and demand, although I recognise that the fishing industry does not necessarily follow the normal rules on prices and availability.
In time the clause will impose much larger fines on fishermen. In some ways they are penal fines, from £5,000 to £50,000. It introduces restrictions on days at sea. Those combined factors place a heavy responsibility on the Government to ensure effective enforcement. As the trend towards heavier penalties and the necessity for better enforcement grows, the incentive to break the law will become that much greater. If indeed the law is currently being broken, as I believe it is, the deterrents in the Bill will not be sufficient to eliminate the problem of black fish. The sale of black fish is only possible through the availability of black fish buyers.
I have no particular suggestion to make about the timescale of a licensing scheme. However, if such a licensing scheme were devised, the penalty on the fish buyers of losing a licence as well as fines on the submission of evidence of illegal dealings, would contribute in a major way towards the elimination of the problem.

139
For those reasons, and in order to have a reaction from the noble Earl to the proposition of licensing of fish buyers, I beg to oppose the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Grimond: First, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on introducing the subject of fish farms into the Bill. It shows ingenuity worthy of the fishing industry at its best. Were he not such a distinguished lawyer, I would not have believed that it could have been done.
I have only this to say on fish farms. When dealing with them I hope that the noble Lord will remember the immemorial udal rights of the Orkneys and Shetlanders which have caused problems before with these farms.
I agree that there is need for control. Possibly the way to control the farms is through local planning. However, at present the fish farms are in a dicky position, so it may not be quite so necessary.
However, I rise on a rather different matter, which links up with what the noble Lord said about black fish, and that is discards. We are all agreed that discards are one of the most shameful uses to which fish are put. Does the Minister hold out any hope that the Bill will decrease the number of discards? It may increase the total number of fish caught, but is any proposal expressly aimed at the problem of fish discards?
Secondly, I ask a simple question—it is so simple that no doubt I ought to have known the answer long ago. I am still vague as to how the Bill will operate. Let us say that in 1993 it becomes apparent that there is a grave shortage of haddock; and there is overfishing of haddock. As I understand what the Minister says, the base date will be 1991—that is, two years earlier. Have I interpreted that correctly? I understand that he would then ask for a return of haddock quotas. If the shortage is in the North Sea, he would exclude from his consideration any boats fishing for haddock in the Channel, the Bristol Channel and off Northern Ireland. He would consider only the track record of boats fishing in the North Sea. I am deeply suspicious of drawing any inference from the track record of fishing boats. But still I understand that that is what the Minister will do. Presumably he would pick out those boats which landed a great many haddock in 1991, leaving aside discards, whiting, cod and other fish. He would then limit the days at sea of those boats.
I can hardly believe that I have this right. I do not believe that it is possible to do that. But let us assume that I am right. The fishermen will then say, "This year we are not fishing for haddock. We know about the shortage of haddock so we have transferred our fishing effort to other species". I agree that they cannot do that entirely; they will still have discards and so on. But they can do it to some purpose. Many fishing boats have certainly changed their type of fishing.
I must emphasise that fishing is a hunting operation. It is not like farming. The fishermen do not
140
control the crop. It is like fox-hunting—although that is not approved of in England. Fishing is not an agricultural occupation.
We now say to those people who were fishing for haddock but are now fishing for whiting, cod or other fish, "You must tie up". We shall come later to compensation. I do not wish to repeat what has been said about the difficulties of tying up fishing boats. Of course expenses continue. Of course people will want to use the capital that they have acquired. A boat is expensive to keep. People do not wish to see it tied up in port. As regards share fishermen, the income of the crew is knocked on the head if they cannot go to sea. They are paid only from the profits on the catches.
I cannot believe that my exposition of what will happen is right. I do not always hold in high regard the actions of governments but I cannot believe that this Government are as stupid as they appear. How will they decide the matter? Let us suppose that there is a shortage of a particular fish in 1993. How will they decide which boats to tie up? Will many boats be tied up each for a short time or will one or two boats be told to tie up for a long time? Is the decision to be left to local inspectors or will it be made in Whitehall or St. Andrew's House?
I ask those questions because, after all, we are supposed to be passing legislation which ordinary people can understand in their ordinary lives, without lawyers and without reading debates. The fishermen are entitled to be told exactly how the scheme will work because if in 1993 there is a shortage of fish the Government may turn to this instrument in order to restore the balance.
The Earl of Selborne: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, was right about decommissioning but, sadly, he has entirely wrong the idea about licensing all links in the food or fish chain. The measure would be one of appalling bureaucratic complication. That is not to say that there is not a real problem about black fish. There is a clear problem which must be addressed in some way. However, the idea of licensing each buyer and transporter of fish, and everyone in the processing link, all of whom must show that the fish are the opposite of black fish (which I hasten to say are not white fish) would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
There will be a cost to the industry and I realise that those who supervise will be a charge on the taxpayer. However, the operation of such a bureaucracy would be a cost to the industry and to the taxpayer. If we are to spend such amounts of money I should prefer them to be spent on decommissioning schemes. I believe that a moment's thought about a proposal such as this would persuade the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that Sub-committee D is unlikely to change its mind. Nothing could be calculated to cause greater consternation and discrimination against the fishing industry than his suggestion.
Lord Gray of Contin: I take a different view from that held by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, because I support the inclusion of Clause 1 in the Bill. We must be pragmatic. We must realise that the Bill will go through Parliament and that the Government will get

141
their legislation. To try to remove Clause 1 in Committee would unquestionably wreck the Bill. I wish to keep Clause 1 because I am hopeful that as time passes the Minister will be persuaded towards some of the suggestions which have been put to him tonight.
The debates on the amendments to Clause 1 highlighted the fact that the main fear of our fishing industry is that it will be treated less favourably than those of certain of our European partners. The industry feels most strongly about that matter. As I said previously, the fishermen have made a huge investment in their industry. I accept that there has been substantial government aid in grants of one kind or another. However, one must not forget that the investment which the fishermen have made in their industry has been enormous and all of it must be repaid. Loans have been subject to high interest rates, which has been a source of great embarrassment to many people in the fishing industry. They have just about managed to weather that difficulty but now, as a result of the tie-up proposals, they see their future in great danger.
I fully accept that negotiations with the Treasury must be far from easy. I realise that that is largely responsible for the disinclination on the part of the Government to offer an improvement on the decommissioning scheme. It would be difficult to argue about that point because there are priorities within Government and one does not know where in the batting order the fishing industry lies. However, we know that those who earn their livelihoods from fishing in our seas are most worried about their future.
I do not wish to say more at this moment but merely tell the Minister that I support him. I hope that Clause 1 will remain part of the Bill, that he will be sympathetic to the suggestions that we put to him and that we shall see the benefit of his sympathy at the Report stage.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: I thank my noble friend Lord Selborne. I am a warden of the Fishmongers Company, which controls Billingsgate Market. That is not a happy place at present because it has problems in dealing with the EC. I wish merely to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that what was said by my noble friend Lord Selborne was manifestly right. It would be a major undertaking to license all the fish buyers and all the merchants.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has indicated why he believes that the clause is inadequate as it stands. I hope that he does not intend to divide the Committee. If he succeeded in removing Clause 1 he would cause immense damage to the Bill, risk the conservation of our fish stocks and in turn the future of our fishing industry. I am grateful for the supportive remarks of my noble friend Lord Gray.
When debating an earlier amendment we explained why the Government believe that effort control is an absolutely essential adjunct to the other conservation measures announced earlier this year. Decommissioning and technical measures will be insufficient to stop over-fishing, especially the discarding and the black fishing so rightly mentioned
142
by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. It contributes seriously to the depletion of our important fishing stocks. Not only is effort control an essential adjunct, it is an indissoluble one in the context of the package that the Government are proposing. If the Committee is persuaded to remove the clause from the Bill it will deprive the industry of its decommissioning scheme. I cannot believe that that is what Members of the Committee or the industry want.
The clause does more than introduce effort control; it empowers Ministers to require licence holders to provide the information that we need to administer and enforce the licence system, not least for the so-called quota hoppers. The clause covers evidential provisions for criminal proceedings in Scotland. The prosecution of offenders will form an essential part of the process of ensuring compliance with fish conservation measures. Certain documents, such as EC log books which vessel skippers are under a legal obligation to complete, provide vital evidence for such prosecutions. They contain information about the days spent at sea and the catches taken. The clause also covers the extension of Ministerial powers to revoke or to suspend the licences of fishermen who have breached licence conditions. The industry itself has requested that provision. It will enable us to take action in the case of persistent offenders who, by blatantly disregarding the law, are putting fish stocks and the livelihoods of law-abiding fishermen at stake.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked whether the Government had considered the licensing of fish buyers. I share his anxiety about black fish and we are considering various solutions to the problem. The licensing of buyers could well be helpful but we believe that it could also be bureaucratic and inflexible. That is why we have preferred to focus on fishing vessels.
The noble Lord questioned why prices should have gone down in the fish market and made certain remarks about the possible increase of black fishing, which I cannot positively confirm. However, I put it to him that those two matters may well be linked. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also made some supportive remarks about the need for better enforcement. I welcome that. This clause tackles extremely important aspects of enforcement.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked how the Bill will deal with black fishing and discarding. The easiest way to answer that is to say that the effort controls which the Bill will introduce will oblige fishermen to concentrate their effort on fishing for legitimate quotas. He asked also how the provisions of the Bill will work. We do not intend that the provisions should affect the ability of fishermen to take their full quota entitlement. The TAC and quota regime should be looked at quite separately from the Bill's provisions. Vessel owners will be quite free to manage and utilise their days at sea allocation with maximum flexibility.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that discards are a serious problem. That was a point highlighted by the committee chaired so ably by my noble friend Lord Selborne. Ministers have highlight-ed that too in the Community discussions which we have had. We are waiting for the Commission to produce proposals to reduce at Community level the

143
present extent of discards. Meanwhile, I hope that restrictions on days at sea based on this Bill will reduce overfishing, black fishing and the taking and discarding of fish at sea. I hope that it will bring actual catches more closely into line with fishermen's quotas.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will think better of his opposition to the clause.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Earl said that black fishing may have had an adverse effect on the price of fish; it may have lowered the price. Does he not agree that the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on fish farming may well have a great deal to do with the fall in fish prices? There has been an enormous increase in Norwegian farmed salmon which, in many cases, has reduced the price of salmon in the shops to below that of haddock. In fact, it may be quite relevant to license fish farming.
Earl Howe: I agree that there is an underlying truth here. Certainly as regards salmon we have seen an effect on prices as a result of fish farming. I should like to consider the point made by the noble Lord on fish farms and I shall write to him about it.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for the fact that I judge from his remarks that his mind is not closed as regards the possibility of licensing fish buyers. I should have made it clear that I was thinking of wholesale buyers of fish rather than retailers. Members of the Committee may not have understood me on that. I did not raise the question of fish farms and that is no part of my submission this evening. I have no intention of further opposing the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation

.—(1) The Ministers shall pay to the master, owner or charterer of a vessel named in a licence containing a condition imposed under section 4(6) (c) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, a sum in compensation for any restriction upon time spent at sea by that vessel, calculated in accordance with regulations to be made by Ministers after consultation with appropriate industry bodies.

(2) Any master, owner or charterer who is dissatisfied by the award of compensation under subsection (1) above may make application for a review of said award to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal which Tribunal shall have the power to vary or revoke the award.").

The noble Lady said: By the introduction of a decommissioning scheme, albeit modest, to put it mildly, Ministers have recognised that there is a right to compensation for vessels being taken out of fishing. A right to compensation, where an arbitrary restriction on the right to make money is imposed, should be accepted also by the Government.
That is recognised by Her Majesty's Government in that agricultural producers whose effort is restricted are compensated under the set-aside scheme. Is it not equitable that compensation should be made available to those in the fishing industry who are affected by
144
effort restrictions? While admittedly it is not as large as the agricultural industry, the fishing industry is not negligible. An industry which directly employs over 19,000 people in this country, and on which many times that number depend for employment in ancillary industries, is scarcely negligible even if it does not command quite as many votes as agriculture.
That claim is reinforced by the fact that the principle of compensation for periods of lay-off is established under Community structures policy, which was put in place during the last United Kingdom presidency of the Council in 1986. No details of a compensation scheme have been proposed in this amendment as the basis of calculation would be complicated. However, were the Government prepared to accept the amendment, I understand that the industry would be willing to co-operate fully in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable formula.
Subsection (2) gives the right of appeal to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal to anyone aggrieved by the proposed award of compensation. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Simply for the ease of the Committee later on, do I understand that the noble Lady is speaking also to Amendment No. 35?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Yes, because Amendment No. 35 is consequential on Amendment No. 15.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I support the noble Lady. This is an extremely important principle to be introduced into the Bill and is a matter of almost natural justice. Large companies which have invested great amounts may find that their businesses have been badly affected. They should have some comfort from knowing that they can appeal to a tribunal for compensation.
One wonders why the Government do not believe that to be just. After all, the Ministry of Agriculture has long experience of compensation to farmers, particularly under the set-aside scheme where an identical situation has come about; that is, where capacity has to be reduced through no fault of the farmer. Reduction in fishing may not necessarily be the fault of the fisherman, but may be in the interests of the conservation of the fish stocks of the world.
There is a strong case for the principle of compensation to be included in the Bill. This may not be the right amendment but I am convinced in my own mind that there is a case for it, having regard in particular to large investors. As my noble friend Lord Gray said, they may now be faced with considerable mortgage interest to pay and may suddenly find that they cannot meet those commitments because of the restrictions. Therefore, there must be a case for compensation.
The Earl of Selborne: We all recognise that the common agricultural policy is full of strange anomalies and sets an appalling precedent for any system of support for any industry. We are in desperate trouble if we are now praying in aid payment aid and set-aside as a compensation for the fishing industry.

145
Let us think what we are trying to do. We are trying to recognise that there are fewer fish in the sea than there are fishermen who wish to catch them. We are saying that there are national quotas and unless we reduce our capacity we shall find that discarding and black fishing will increase. The quotas will not increase because they are limited by total allowable catches, and are quite irrelevant. The total allowable catches will determine how much fishermen can take and therefore, the return on the investment of those large ships in which, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull reminds us, there has been considerable investment.
Does the Committee think it sensible, having agreed that there is overcapacity, to say, "As there are no fish in the sea, we shall pay you for not fishing them". I believe that the taxpayers' money should be spent on decommissioning and removing, once and for all, that surplus capacity. By paying people not to fish, we shall merely keep that overcapacity in existence. I believe that all Members of the Committee will agree that that is the last thing that we should do.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Of course the noble Earl is absolutely right. However, this amendment shows quite clearly the need for a proper decommissioning scheme. The Government have rejected extremely reasonable amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. The evidence is piling up and they should now think again.
Earl Howe: In responding to this amendment, I think I ought to make two points quite clear. The first is that unless fishermen are prepared to accept and shoulder some of the responsibility for the over-fishing of stocks, conservation will become simply an empty word. The fish in the sea do not belong, as land does, to anyone in particular. I do not accept the analogy with set-aside, which is a scheme to compensate landowners for keeping their own land out of production and in good heart. Fish in the sea are a common resource, to be respected or exploited by the fishermen who fish. If there are too many fishermen fishing that resource, as my noble friend has just said, the industry must recognise that it is they, collectively, who are causing the problem. Fishermen must, as a consequence, share the burden of reducing fishing effort and fishing capacity.
The Government accept that they should assist this process and the decommissioning scheme we have announced is an important part of the package of measures. But the taxpayer cannot be expected to foot the entire bill for the excesses for which the industry itself is to blame. That is a point of principle I do not accept. Conservation is in the fishermen's interests and it is therefore in their interests to be prepared to show restraint in order to safeguard their own long-term future.
Initially, as I have already said, fishing effort will be frozen at last year's levels. This should not affect a fisherman's ability to take up his full entitlement of fish and to meet his full earning potential within the quota system. Any reductions in days at sea which follow are likely, as I have said, to be of modest proportions year by year. There will be nothing in the regulations to prevent any fisherman from continuing
146
to catch his full quota entitlement. Effort control is targeted at reducing discards and black fishing, not legitimate income.
Secondly, as a purely practical point, if we are to spend public money, and a finite pot of public money, it must be better to spend it on taking vessels permanently out of the fleet: that is, on decommission-ing—and I agree with the comment made by my noble friend—rather than to spend it on compensation. To spend it on compensation might actually be used to increase fishing effort; for example, if a fisherman uses that money to upgrade or re-engine his vessel. I do not believe that noble Lords would want to see that happen. It would be an extremely irresponsible use of public funds, even if public funds were unlimited.
Therefore, I repeat that effort control is in the fishermen's long-term interests and they must share the financial burden of conserving fish stocks. They must also choose between compensation and decommissioning: they cannot have both. I stress that if this amendment is pressed and, unfortunately, carried there can be no decommissioning scheme because the two are inextricably linked. I therefore strongly urge the noble Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am fascinated by my noble friend's argument. He is saying that he would much prefer decommissioning to this amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Selborne and I agree with him. Why then did not my noble friend look more sympathetically on the amendment on decommissioning put forward by my noble friend Lord Radnor?
Earl Howe: I am simply saying that there is a finite pot of public money—namely, £25 million—which the Government have earmarked for the decommissioning scheme. I am also pointing out that if we are looking for value for money then we shall achieve it more effectively by means of the decommissioning scheme rather than frittering it away on compensation, which may be used for purposes other than those preferred by, I am sure, all noble Lords.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is the noble Earl saying that the Government have earmarked £25 million in addition to the money which will come from the EC?
6.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: The proportion of the £25 million that has been earmarked, which is accounted for by the Exchequer—I believe I am right in saying this, although I am subject to correction—is approximately 80 per cent. The remainder comes from EC funds.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My noble friend made an important statement in saying that there would be only modest reductions over the foreseeable future in the amounts that would be put into licensing. I wonder whether he can give the Committee a little more comfort, because his department must have worked out those reductions. Can he say whether it might be 5 per cent. a year as a maximum? That would be of some comfort to those planning for the future.
Earl Howe: Yes, perhaps I may address that concern in a little more detail. I cannot anticipate the final outcome, but all the indications are that for those vessels affected by the highest rate of effort restriction days at sea will have to be reduced by about 5 per cent. a year over three years. In other words, a vessel spending 200 days at sea in 1991 would still be able to spend approximately 170 days at sea in 1996. I recognise that even this restriction will be unwelcome, but it is a far cry—this is a good opportunity for me to put this on the record—from the 30 per cent. which has been mentioned at various times. It is surely worth having such a measure to safeguard our stocks.
For other vessels the reductions will be even less than that. In some cases there will be a freeze at the 1991 level: that is, 200 days in this example. That may well be sufficient. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Am I right in thinking that the financial worry for fishermen is whether they are going to have enough fishing days to catch their quota? If they can catch their quota and sell it, they have done all they can do anyway, so that to suggest that they should get financial compensation for fishing days lost, which might be lost when the quota has been caught and they would not be fishing anyway, would not be justified. Is that correct, or have I got it wrong?
Earl Howe: As I said earlier, I do not expect days at sea to be the limiting factor for vessel owners. The limiting factor will be their quotas. I think that point was made earlier and I hope it answers my noble friend.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Of course I entirely agree with all noble Lords and the noble Earl who have said that decommissioning is infinitely preferable to compensation. It was only because the Government refused to accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that I gave this one a whirl. If the Government could produce a properly-funded decommissioning scheme which would take a great deal more than 5 per cent. out of the fleet, or possibly if they would consider putting in £25 million every year until a sizeable reduction was effected, then of course that would be very much better. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Restrictions on time spent at sea—appeals]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert:
("(2A) If—

(a) a licence under section 4 of this Act contains a condition restricting the time which a vessel may spend at sea, and

(b) a licence containing such a condition has previously been granted in respect of that vessel,

the person to whom the licence is granted may make an application to the tribunal requesting it to review the time which, according to the condition, the vessel may spend at sea, provided that the application relates solely to the refusal of Ministers to add to the number of days which a vessel is entitled to spend at sea in any year the whole or part of the number of days on which the vessel was entitled, in terms of this Act, to proceed to sea but was unable to do so.").
The noble Lord said: Again, this amendment is a simple attempt to perhaps remove some of the anomalies which would be caused to various skippers and vessel owners by the scheme. What we are really trying to point out is that in normal circumstances when something goes wrong with a boat —if it has the misfortune to have a collision, breaks down, needs a new engine, or if the owner is ill—the owner will of course make up his time as best he can by fishing more at a later date and trying to make up his quota. Of course, when he is severely restricted he cannot do that, so we are suggesting that it would be reasonably easy to appeal to the tribunal for more days, giving the circumstances which had knocked off the days he should have been fishing. Although the noble Earl keeps saying that it is the quota that is to apply, this Bill is about days at sea. We therefore think that, in these circumstances, the amendment is reasonable and will ensure that we shall not penalise individual fishermen and restrict them exploiting their legitimate fishing opportunities.
Days lost for reasons beyond the fisherman's control could well be considered by the tribunal on an appeal. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about this very reasonable amendment, which seeks to remove an injustice from many fishermen who are extremely hard pressed because of, as your Lordships know, the price of the boats, of interest and everything else. I think that it is a reasonable thing to ask for. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: There is another reason why I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in this amendment. If fishermen can carry over unused days from the previous year to the following one, I believe that there will be very much less pressure on them to go out in very bad conditions in order to make sure of catching their whole quota. I think, therefore, that this amendment is very much in the interests of the safety not only of the fishermen, but also of those who might have to risk their lives going out to rescue them if they do get into difficulties. For that reason alone, I should like to support the amendment.
Earl Howe: From the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I believe that this amendment may be based on a misunderstanding of how days-at-sea allocations will be made each year. It may help if I explain a little further.
Fishermen will be issued with their days-at-sea allocations annually as part of their fishing licences. The first allocation will be based on the 1991 track record of each vessel, subject to any determination by the tribunal after an appeal. Thereafter it is this figure which will be used as the basis for any changes that are made. Changes will only be made to reflect the needs of fish conservation and the need to meet MAGP targets. They will not take into account whether or not fishermen use up their allocations in any one year. It would clearly not make sense—and I am a little surprised that noble Lords think that it should—for fishermen to be allowed to carry over unused allocation from one year to the next. Each year's

149
entitlement reflects the need to conserve fish stocks, and this must not be distorted by carry-over from the previous year.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, raised a further point. He asked whether the days at sea were likely to be sufficient to enable fishermen to catch their quotas. If effort control prevented important quotas from being taken across sections of the fleet—an unlikely event, as I stressed to my noble friend a moment ago—we could discuss corrective action with the industry and with the Commission. That action might well include relaxing the days-at-sea restrictions if that proved necessary. I hope that those remarks have been of some help and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton: I am sorry that the Minister has not said anything in his reply about the safety factor. I should have thought that that was a very important element in the whole question raised by the amendment. If he is going to say anything more, can he also say how the quotas are to be broken down between one species of fish and another? Are we going to have the same restriction on days for the whole of the United Kingdom? The situation in Cornwall may well be totally different from that in the Orkney Islands, Northern Ireland or somewhere else. I feel that a good deal more explanation is needed.
Earl Howe: We debated the safety factor at some length earlier this afternoon and I feel that that subject has had a very good airing. The noble Lord has just asked me how the Bill will address quotas as between the various species. With very great respect, this has nothing to do with the amendment that we are discussing.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: As I understood the Minister, he said that, where the quota had not been fulfilled, the Government would be prepared to discuss the question of extra days at sea. The quota applies to individual vessels because it is split by the fishing organisations down to individual vessels. Would the Minister be prepared to consider that provision applying to an individual vessel which had suffered some great disaster either to the skipper or to the boat and thereby lost a great deal of time at sea?
Earl Howe: I do not think that we could look at it vessel by vessel. It would be much too cumbersome. I was seeking to say that, if across substantial sections of the fleet this was proving to be a problem and important quota stocks were not being taken by virtue of the days-at-sea regime, clearly we would have to look at that very carefully and approach the Commission with whatever proposals we thought appropriate.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: That is a more satisfactory reply than some that we have had from the Minister. For the present, although I shall withdraw my amendment, I shall look at what the Minister has said and hold further consultations. In view of the importance of this to individuals, I might bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 33, leave out from ("made") to end of line 35.
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 40, leave out from ("principles") to ("may") in line 41 and insert ("set out in any order made under section 4(6C) of this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("() In determining any application made by any person to whom the licence is granted who is the master, owner or charterer of a vessel being either a vessel—

(a) acquired by the master, owner or charterer thereof between 1 January 1991 and the coming into force of this Act, or

(b) registered by the owner thereof as first registration thereof in terms of Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988,

then the tribunal shall be entitled to take into account the average time spent at sea by other vessels of a similar type engaged in similar fishing operations.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment tries to deal with the situation in which either ownership changes or new vessels come along. It relates specifically to the award of days-at-sea entitlement in respect of someone who has acquired a vessel during the reference period and has brought a vessel on to the United Kingdom fishing register after the Act comes into force. I am told that there are a substantial number of cases known where vessels have been acquired from a completely different fishery from that into which they have been introduced. Quite often, such a vessel was employing, in its previous ownership, a very different fishing method, requiring a different number of days at sea. The present owner of the vessel will be unable to appeal to the tribunal on that basis alone. We think, therefore, that it is essential that the tribunal should have the power to examine the days expended by vessels among which such a vessel is currently fishing in order to establish a reasonable number of days for that vessel in the new fishery.
The other category is in respect of a vessel brought on to the register which does not have any days-at-sea record whatsoever. I noted from a Written Answer in the other place a day or two ago that there are awaiting registration some 14 vessels which I presume would fall into this category. These are vessels which are British registered, but not British owned, for example. As I understand it, the industry has been advised by Ministers that in such cases Ministers will make an award of days. Ministers have the power to do that under Clause 1(3). However, if the owner is dissatisfied with the award, he has no basis for an appeal, having no previous track record on which to form a basis for appeal. We believe that it is essential in such circumstances that the tribunal can hear evidence as to the average time spent by vessels of similar type in a similar fishery.
I suppose that one could describe this as a probing amendment which is intended either to give the

151
Government an opportunity to clear up the problem or to give us an indication that these problems are not likely to arise because they have already been taken care of. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Earl Howe: The amendment puts forward what I would define—and what the Bill would define—as a principle on which days at sea should be based. In this case it is suggested that where vessels do not have full track records for 1991 the tribunal should use average figures for similar types of vessel engaged in similar types of fishing. While I accept that this is a matter which should be considered when the principles are drawn up—we shall certainly consider it—I must say that the proper place for such a principle is the order which the Bill requires Ministers to make laying down how the time which vessels may spend at sea is to be arrived at. It should not appear on the face of the Bill itself.
There is already provision in the Bill for principles to be drawn up. It would, I think, be inappropriate to give undue weight to one of those principles by singling it out on the face of the Bill. I shall take the noble Lord's suggestions back with me. I hope I have been reassuring in what I have said and that, on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said in respect of Amendment No. 21. He has pointed me where I suppose I ought to have looked in the first instance and he has said that the order is the proper place to deal with this. He has also, as I understand it, given me the added bonus that he will look at what I have had to say. On the basis of that mutual compatibility and agreement, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("() In considering an application under subsection (2) above the tribunal shall have regard to the economic effects of restricting the time which the vessel may spend at sea.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to give the tribunal an additional power. As we are in the land of the Treaty of Rome, the common fisheries policy and the jargon of Brussels, I suppose the amendment is concerned with socio-economic issues. Provided no one asks me to define what "socio-economic issues" are, I shall be happy to say that those are what the amendment is about.
The amendment would allow the tribunal, in considering an application under subsection (2), to have regard,
"to the economic effects of restricting the time which the vessel may spend at sea".
That would in effect allow the tribunal to look rather further that it has powers to do at the moment where a case is advanced that restrictions are of such a character that they would seriously depress the standard of living of the fishermen in question. It would allow the tribunal in those circumstances to deal with the matter in that way rather than simply to
152
concern itself with a strict factual argument as to the number of days at sea which would be allocated. This would give the tribunal an element of flexibility to deal with issues which go beyond those already in the Bill.
The need for this power may arise. I should not like to tempt case histories in anticipation or anything of that kind, but we believe that such a power would be useful to the tribunal. I should like to hear what the Minister feels about it in the light of the obvious desire of the industry for a concession of this kind. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has put forward an amendment which on reflection I hope he will think better of. He is suggesting that, in considering an appeal on a days-at-sea allocation, the tribunal should take into account the economic effect on a fisherman of imposing a restriction on his fishing effort. The tribunal's role will be to consider appeals on the basis of the facts: how many days a vessel spent at sea in 1991; and how many days it was prevented from doing so by force of circumstance. A fisherman, for example, could appeal against his allocation on the basis that he had been sick during much of 1991. In that event he would need to produce a doctor's certificate to support his claim.
But the noble Lord is suggesting that the tribunal should also take into account a range of considerations which are not only somewhat ill-defined but could also require judgments which are a great deal more subjective. What kind of economic effects are we talking about? If I may be somewhat flippant, we might be talking about the economic effects on the UK Exchequer of policing the days at sea regime. We might be talking about the economic effect on the fisherman himself, as I am sure the noble Lord intends. But this could lead to gross anomalies: a fisherman with a large family or a large mortgage might be given more days at sea than a fisherman with a small family or a small mortgage.
We should not lose sight of an important point. It is not our intention that time-at-sea restrictions should prevent a fisherman from catching his quota. The economic effects of restricting time at sea in terms of loss of profit to the law-abiding fisherman will be minimal: the people on whom it will bite will be those who are breaking the law, the people who are black fishing. For those people, a days-at-sea restriction will concentrate fishing effort where it should be concentrated; namely, on catching legitimate quota entitlements.
I hope the noble Lord will agree that, carried to its logical conclusion, the amendment does not make much sense. I trust that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Gallacher: I had a feeling that, after our delightful experience with Amendment No. 21, rigidity would be in the air over Amendment No. 22; and so it has proved. I tried to suggest that the jargon of "socio-economic" was not unknown in the Treaty of Rome or in the institutions of the Community. I spent some five or six years on the economic and social committee, where it was used almost every hour on the hour, like a meteorological observation. In all those

153
years I never discovered what it really means. I was hoping that by throwing myself at the mercy of the Minister he might define it for me.
I was also hoping that, if the power existed in the Bill for the tribunal to take this view of certain cases, the Ministry itself, being aware of the power, might in turn be influenced by such a consideration. That is not, however, the case. If the Committee stage had been taken nearer Christmas the Minister might have been in a more sympathetic mood. He is not. I accept the line he has taken. I shall study what he has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:

("(4A) Subject to subsection (4B) below the tribunal shall publish a written statement of the reasons for its decision on an application.

(4B) The statement may be refused or the specification of its reasons may be restricted on grounds of national security; and the tribunal may refuse to furnish a statement to a person not primarily concerned with the decision if the tribunal is of the opinion that to furnish it would be contrary to the interest of any person primarily concerned.

(4C) If any party to proceedings before the tribunal is dissatisfied on a point of law with the decision of the tribunal he may either appeal to the High Court (with the leave of the court) or require the tribunal to state a case for the opinion of the High Court (and in Scotland of the Court of Session) with the right of appeal from the High Court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in the case of Scotland from the Court of Session, with the leave of the court, to the House of Lords.

(4D) An applicant to a tribunal shall be entitled, if he so requires, to legal representation by either a barrister, advocate or solicitor.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to give simple natural justice to an applicant who considers himself badly used by the tribunal. It is only right that he should receive a statement as to the reasons for the decision. Tribunals will have to take decisions based on law, fact, or a mixture of these. If the decision includes a decision on a point of law, it goes without saying that, as the result will have a bearing on the ability of the applicant to earn a livelihood, an appeal should lie to the appropriate appellate court. Legal representation, it is assumed, will be allowed but the Government might well confirm that.
Having read out my little brief, I do believe I shall get a sympathetic reply from the Minister in this case because it is purely a question of natural justice. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: To my great satisfaction, I believe that I can reassure the noble Lord on all his points of concern. By virtue of Clause 6 of the Bill, the tribunal is under a duty to give a written statement, and the reasons for its decision, if requested to do so. Further, that statement may be refused or the specification of the reasons for the decision restricted on grounds of national security. The tribunal can refuse to furnish a statement of reasons to a person not primarily concerned with the decision where publication would, in the tribunal's opinion, be contrary to the interests of persons primarily concerned with the decision. As all
154
those matters already apply to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal by virtue of Clause 6 to the Bill, I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: To tell the truth, I am not sure whether the noble Earl has said enough to satisfy me.
Earl Howe: I am sorry. I apologise to Members of the Committee. I believe that I should go further. I think that appeals from the tribunal to the High Court on a point of law are addressed by the amendment. The amendment that I shall move later this evening (which will amend Section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992) has precisely the effect of the noble Lord's amendment in subsection (4C). I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that part of his amendment can be withdrawn.
Finally, the amendment seeks provision for applicants to the tribunal to have legal representation. We have no objection to applicants having legal representation. I believe, however, that that is a matter which is best dealt with in the rules of procedure of the tribunal and not on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with an assurance that we shall include the provision in the procedural rules of the tribunal when they are drawn up. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I thank the Minister for that response. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to study his reply and take further advice upon it. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("if) to first ("the") in line 2 and insert ("a determination that the licence should be varied is made by, or on appeal from, the tribunal,").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. The duties and conditions attached to membership of certain non-departmental public bodies are often such as to create potential conflicts of interest for those who are also MPs or Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is therefore necessary when creating new public appointments to consider whether such conflicts might arise and to do so in accordance with a standard set of Cabinet Office guidelines.
We have considered whether members of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal should be disqualified from membership of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Assembly and have concluded that they should be for the following reasons. The office is an office of profit and individual members could attract salaries above the current de minimis limit. The tribunal is also likely to be working very intensively during the autumn of 1993 at coastal locations throughout the United Kingdom. We have concluded that that would prevent members from fulfilling parliamentary duties satisfactorily.
Therefore, the amendment disqualifies all members of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal from membership of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland

155
Assembly. It does so by inserting the tribunal into Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and into Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert:
("() In making appointments to the tribunal, the Ministers shall invite such organisations as seem to them to be representative of producer organisations to submit names of persons for consideration for appointment.").
The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move the amendment to which my name is attached. The fact that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made comments about the composition of the tribunal and the exclusion of certain people makes it easier for me to make some suggestions. The amendment proposes that there should be representatives of "producer organisations". By that, I mean actual fishermen's organisations. I have already expressed the view—although I am not sure that the Minister was present when we previously discussed the matter—that I believe the Government have lost at least the first round in the battle concerning the argument on fishing and tying up. They require a fair amount of goodwill from the fishing community, from all those who are interested in the fishing community and, perhaps, even from the public in general.
It seems to me that if the Government wish to help to build bridges—from all the representations that I and colleagues receive, such bridges are badly needed—it would be a good idea if they asked representatives of the fishermen's and producer organisations to submit names from which the Government would be able to pick their people.
On the other hand, if it happens that the Government make a selection of the great and the good, we shall be back to where we started. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, with whom I had many interesting anti-government battles on other Bills, I do not mean members of the Fishmongers Company. I do not think that that would go down all that well in Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Buckie. I am sure that the Minister has got the drift of my remarks. There should be some real fishermen on the tribunal. I hope that he will give the matter some consideration, even if it is only a change of words. I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: There is nothing in Clause 2 about the composition, the size, the quorum, or the procedure of the tribunal. It is possible that that is governed by the reference in Clause 6 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. For all I know—and perhaps my noble friend will tell me—that dictates the size, the composition, and so on, of an appeals tribunal. I certainly support the noble Lord in the suggestion he made that there should be a representative, or representatives, of the industry at some level.
156
My mind went back to what seems to me an analogous case. I refer to the time when milk quotas were introduced for farmers. There was a set-up of appeals by farmers who thought either that they had not received enough or, very rarely, had been awarded too much. Panels were set up for the purpose. In at least two cases they were presided over by a farmer. Therefore, one might say that the panel was presided over by a very interested party. I am not suggesting that that should necessarily follow. But if that was to be used as a comparison, then I think that the case for having a representative of the industry on the tribunal would be very hard to resist.
Earl Howe: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it clear during the passage of the Bill in another place that individual tribunals which will be sitting as part of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal will comprise three members: a chairman, who must be a qualified lawyer; a lay person; and, a person with expert knowledge of fisheries. So, we have made clear our intention to ensure that the interests of the fishery sector are represented on the tribunal. We shall be happy to seek the industry's views on potential members with knowledge of fisheries. I hope that that is some reassurance to the noble Lord. However, I am advised that the tribunal's independence could be put into question if the Bill were to provide that one of the constituent parts of the tribunal should have a specific influence over the membership. That would also be a most unusual provision in legislation. As we intend to have someone on each tribunal with a knowledge of fisheries, and as we are prepared to discuss potential candidates for those posts within the industry, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured enough to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. We all understand the problem of representation and the difficulty that might arise if someone appointed to a tribunal is not independent. I hope the Minister realises that I was genuinely trying to be helpful. The impression is that the Government's attitude—it might also be the attitude of a Labour Government—might not be as helpful as it should be and, therefore, as I said earlier, the greater rapport we achieve the better. The Minister's reply was good and we shall wait with great expectation to see the lists to discover who has won the Minister's approval. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("and the applicant").
The noble Earl said: I am sure that the Committee will agree that my noble friend has dealt with the proceedings today with great skill and courtesy. I hope that when he replies to the amendment he will show a wee drop of generosity. The amendment does not seek much. It relates to the Minister making provision for the remuneration of members of the tribunal, its staff and accommodation costs. It then provides:
"and any expenses reasonably incurred by the tribunal".
The amendment seeks to add, "and the applicant".
I am seeking only a modest contribution. It may be, for instance, subsistence or travel, but it should be something. When the industry is faced with a new cost such as a tribunal hearing, it would be a small, modest but welcome addition if my noble friend were to say that he accepts the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: Much as I would like to display a wee drop of generosity, I fear that I cannot accept the amendment. The expenses of those appealing to a tribunal are not normally reimbursed, and, moreover, to do so in this case would be unwarranted. Fisheries departments will be going out of their way to minimise the cost to fishermen of going to the tribunal. They will be making arrangements for tribunal hearings to take place in all the major coastal ports. They will also use flexibility in arranging the timing of hearings so that wherever possible fishermen can attend on a day when they would not have planned to be at sea.
There is no reason, therefore, why the fishermen's costs should be reimbursed. If fishermen make applications to the tribunal, then in accordance with the general rule they must bear the cost of so doing. If the Government were to pay such expenses it would also mean that the money available for decommissioning would be that much less. I do not believe that that is something which the fishermen's organisations would welcome. I hope that my noble friend will understand the point that I have made and will be content, if somewhat reluctantly, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Before the Minister sits down, is he suggesting that the tribunal might behave like the Scottish Land Court and travel to the port where the fisherman resides rather than make him travel elsewhere?
Earl Howe: We shall be at pains to minimise expenses. We estimate that 80 per cent. of fishermen will have to travel less than 40 miles for their hearing. I hope that that answers the noble Lord.
The Earl of Kinnoull: It is of course a disappointing answer, but if between now and the next stage of the Bill I find an example I should like to bring back the amendment for my noble friend's attention. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert:
("() The tribunal shall report annually on its work to both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment merely places upon the tribunal the obligation to report annually on its work to both Houses of Parliament. The justification for that lies in the tribunal's novelty. As we are aware, it made its appearance at a fairly late stage in the Bill's progress in another place. It is an important body for the fishing industry. It is also an important body for both Houses of Parliament. In the circumstances, it would not be imposing too onerous a duty upon the tribunal or tribunals—I am not sure whether it should be singular or plural; the Bill refers
158
to the body in the singular—that it should report to Parliament, thus giving us an opportunity to look at its work and some indication of the manner in which it is functioning. In that way, we shall all be better informed about what the tribunal has been doing and is capable of doing in respect of conservation. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has made a persuasive case here. In the light of what he has said, I should like him to know that we accept the principle that the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal should be required to report on its work annually to both Houses of Parliament. What I propose to him is that I should bring forward an amendment at a later stage of the Bill to achieve that end, as I am advised that the drafting of the amendment is deficient. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: On that basis I readily withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for that concession. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): The words to which Amendment No. 29 relates, and without which Amendment No. 29 would not make sense, will be left out if Amendment No. 28 is passed. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are interdependent.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 17, leave out from ("to") to end of line 19 and insert ("the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament."").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 28 with my fingers crossed. I am also down to move Amendment No. 29, but let us proceed with Amendment No. 28 and assume that I am speaking also to Amendment No. 29. When the Minister replies and tells me what he thinks about Amendment No. 28, perhaps I can then decide what to do in the light of what we have just heard from the Chair.
The amendment relates to the old question of orders and whether they should be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure. With Amendment No. 28, we believe that the orders relate to matters of sufficient importance to warrant using the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. Again, I plead that we are in new territory in the Bill. In the light of that, rather than put both Houses of Parliament to the chore—if it can be so described—of praying against orders under the negative procedure, it would be better to go for the affirmative procedure, and that is the object of the amendment.
The risks inherent in the affirmative procedure in this Chamber are minimal, as the Minister will realise, because there is a long-standing tradition that, although we may say things, at the end of the day we cheerfully accept what is before us. With that half assurance, and the plea that I have made, I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I have some difficulty with the amendment. If, as the noble Lord indicated, the purpose of the amendment is to provide an affirmative

159
resolution procedure for the order which will set out the principles on which days at sea will be based, that order-making power has now been moved to Clause 1, which we debated earlier. We referred earlier to the negative resolution procedure for those principles. To the extent that it applies to principles for reducing time at sea, the amendment is unnecessary because the Bill, as amended, already provides for the affirmative resolution procedure in that instance.
I am advised that it would be most unusual for the parliamentary procedure for orders setting out, for example, rules of procedure for the tribunal to be other than the negative resolution procedure. I do not think that it would be wise for us to employ parliamentary time in rehearsing broad matters of principle which have already been the subject of extensive debate during the passage of the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord will understand why we have come to that conclusion, despite the arguments that he has put forward, and that he will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("except regulations made under subsection (3) which shall be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: I am down to move this amendment and do so formally in order to listen to the Minister's reply.
Earl Howe: We could have a very interesting debate on Amendment No. 29 but the substance has already been addressed in our debate on Amendment No. 28. I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw this amendment as well.
Lord Gallacher: In the light of what the noble Earl has had to say to me, I shall note carefully his remarks and reserve my right to come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Licensing of vessels receiving trans-shipped fish]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 34:
Page 3, line 28, after ("of") insert ("section 3 of").
Page 3, line 30, after ("made") insert ("or purported to be made").
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("required") and insert ("provided or purported").
Page 3, line 36, after ("(ii)") insert ("a requirement under").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Supplementary regulations]:
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 4, line 3, after ("may") insert (", after full consultation with bodies representing the industry,").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked me to move this amendment on his behalf in his absence. It is completely self-explanatory. I feel sure that as the Minister has talked on many occasions about the extensive consultations he intends to undertake, he will be happy to see what is proposed written on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: As I am sure my noble friend will be aware, none of the other powers to make orders or regulations in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 requires Ministers to consult before exercising those powers. Acceptance of my noble friend's amendment would therefore involve departure from the legislative norm. However, I am sure that he will be pleased to know that it is normal practice for the Government to consult the industry before they exercise the powers in the Act to make regulations where they would involve a change of policy. It is, therefore, the Government's intention to consult the industry before exercising the powers in Clause 4. In the light of that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: It is clear that the Government have wholly virtuous intentions, and we shall have to see that the noble Earl lives up to them. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Orders

(" .—(1) Section 20 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (orders) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (5) for the words "subsection (6)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (5A) or (6)".

(3) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—

"(5A) A principle of the kind to which subsection (5B) below applies shall not be included in any order under section 4(6C) of this Act which makes provision for principles of any other kind; but any statutory instrument containing a separate order providing for a principle of that kind shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(5B) This subsection applies to a principle providing for a reduction in the time which all vessels, or all vessels of any specified description, may spend at sea during any period by comparison with the time which they, or vessels of that description, were permitted to spend (or spent or were treated as spending) during a specified previous period (making any necessary adjustment where the periods are of different lengths); and for this purpose "description" means description framed by reference to size of vessel, method or area of fishing or description of fish." ").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Parliamentary disqualification
(" .—(1) In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
"The Sea Fish Licence Tribunal".
(2) The same entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.").
The noble Earl said: I am in some difficulty with this amendment, even though it is a government amendment. I have an apology to make to the Committee. Owing to an inexcusable muddle on my part and perhaps more than usually opaque wording that the parliamentary draftsman has devised for us, when I spoke to Amendment No. 24 and directed my remarks towards the exclusion of the members of non-departmental public bodies from membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly, I should have reserved those remarks for Amendment No. 37. They did not relate to Amendment No. 24.
I now find myself in some difficulty as I have not spoken properly to Amendment No. 24. I should like to take the guidance of the Committee on what I should do about putting on the record the Government's remarks about it. With the leave of the House, I shall go ahead, if I may, and address the substance of Amendment No. 24, the points relating to Amendment No. 37 being already on the record.
Amendment No. 24, to which I should have spoken properly, rectifies a minor omission in the provisions of the Bill dealing with the tribunal which I feel sure the Committee will welcome. The Sea Fish Licence Tribunal is added to the tribunals listed in Section 11(1) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. A right of appeal is provided from that tribunal to the High Court on a point of law and a further appeal, with leave, to the Court of Appeal. In relation to proceedings in Scotland, appeals will go from the tribunal to the Court of Session.
The provisions also amend Clause 2(5) of the Bill so that Ministers will be required to vary licences, not only as a result of decisions of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal but also as a result of decisions taken on appeal to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Court of Session. That means that applicants to the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal will have recourse to appeal to the courts on a point of law if they are dissatisfied with a decision of the tribunal.
I stress again that those remarks relate to government Amendment No. 24. The remarks that I made earlier on that amendment should have been made now. I trust that the Committee will be content to accept the line of argument that I put forward earlier. I beg to move Amendment No. 37.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Annual report on renewals
In section 20 of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Section 4(6) (c) of this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of each period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed unless before the end of that period—

(a) the Ministers have laid before each House of Parliament a report on—

(i) the exercise of the power conferred by section 4(6) (c) and its effect on the fishing industry;

(ii) the measures and the effect thereof, taken by other Member States to meet their Multi-Annual Guidance Programme Targets; and

(b) that report has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks an annual report on the workings of the Act and seeks that the report should be approved by each House of Parliament. In view of the complexity of the measure and the restrictions applied, I think this amendment is only reasonable. Ministers have undertaken that they will not introduce greater restrictions than those applying in 1993 without coming before the House and seeking approval of those restrictions by affirmative resolution. So that Parliament has the information necessary to consider such an application, and also to consider whether that which Parliament has approved is having the effect pleaded by Ministers, it is right that Parliament should consider annually what effect effort restriction is having on the capacity of the fleet and also the other benefit claimed that effort control is essential if the fundamental problem of fishing mortality is to he tackled.
It is quite clear that an annual report is necessary because the fishing industry is under severe restriction. The Minister has already made doubtful statements on the effect of decommissioning in other countries. Therefore, I think it is only right that Ministers report to Parliament the effect of the measures taken by other member states and the effect of the Bill on our own fishing industry over the previous year. I am sure the Minister will find the amendment reasonable. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I take note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, but I hope that on reflection he will feel that this amendment has been rendered unnecessary by Amendment No. 4, which I tabled and which was accepted earlier today. That amendment provides both Houses of Parliament with an opportunity to consider any overall reduction that the Government propose to make in days at sea allocations below the freeze based on 1991 levels of activity.
When I tabled that amendment I made clear that the Government, in presenting the case for any reductions during the debate, will perforce need to give an oral account of why the reductions are necessary and on the actions that other member states are taking to meet their MAGP targets. That surely is the essence of this amendment and I hope the Committee will feel that we have already covered the point of principle satisfactorily in our earlier debate. I do not believe that there is any need to go further and I hope the noble Lord will agree with me.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The Minister is getting better and better. I will consider his reassurance, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("(tribunals") and insert:

(" .—(1) The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 11(1) (appeals from certain tribunals) after "37" there shall be inserted ", 40A".

(3) In Schedule 1").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Right of appeal against decisions of Tribunal
Notwithstanding the provisions for the general supervision of the tribunal established by section 6 above, there shall be a right of appeal by licence holders to the European Court of Justice when it is contended that a decision of the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal is in conflict with or fails to conform to decisions by the European Community regarding the Common Fisheries Policy.").
The noble Lord said: Not being a legal person I am in something of a dilemma, as regards Amendment No. 40, which was created for me by the effect of Amendment No. 24. That gives, as I understand it, rights of appeal to High Courts in England and in Scotland. I shall not move this amendment this evening. In the meantime, perhaps the noble Earl will be kind enough to let me know whether, in the light of Amendment No. 24, such a provision as is proposed in Amendment No. 40 is still necessary or whether it would be available in any case. In those circumstances and in anticipation of hearing from the noble Earl I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 40A not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 42, after ("1,") insert ("(2) and (4) to (6),").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 2, leave out from ("less") to the end of line 7.
The noble Lord said: I find myself under considerable difficulty. I had hoped to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, but he is unfortunately stricken with laryngitis and unable to be present. There is no one here that I am aware of who shares the concern which I expressed on Second Reading about the fate of that limited but locally important class of fishermen who use small boats off the beaches of south-east England, east Sussex and Kent, and who feel that subjection to
164
this kind of scheme of limiting days at sea, while perhaps understandable in relation to large commercial vessels with high intensive capital content, is not reasonably applicable to them. They feel that their livelihood risks being destroyed, as they see it—I reflect their own anxieties—because of something said earlier today in our debates; that is, the feeling that while the British no doubt will, as usual, observe the letter of every regulation that is made on behalf of our own Government, or on behalf of the administration in Brussels, they themselves will be penalised because foreign fishermen will not necessarily be regulated to the same extent.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said that it was impossible to have a conservation scheme unless boats of every size were included. I did not find that argument convincing. The fishing grounds concerned are not those frequented by the major trawlers that we have been discussing off the Scottish, Northern Ireland or Cornish coasts. The fishery I am discussing is essentially a local fishery. I feel sympathy for those fishermen in that local fishery and I feel obliged to advocate to the Committee, even with my minuscule knowledge of the subject, the case for their exemption.
There must have been some worry on the part of the Government about this particular issue; otherwise why were those fishermen not included in the Bill from the beginning? Why should it be necessary to have a Ministerial order? Whenever a Ministerial order appears, even if as is sometimes the case we are allowed to consider it on affirmative resolution, we know that it is, in fact, law making. As I say, I feel obliged to move the amendment which has the effect of omitting boats of less than 10 metres length unless and until there is primary legislation affecting them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selborne: I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff. It would simply drive a coach and four through any hope of operating a decommissioning scheme in this country. Earlier in the day while discussing previous clauses we acknowledged that the earlier decommissioning scheme failed because people who were rewarded for taking their ships out of commission simply spent their money on new and extremely efficient but smaller boats of under 10 metres—the rule breakers.
I am afraid that, much as we all sympathise with the local fishing industry around the coasts of Sussex and Kent, it simply is not the case that those ships are used exclusively in that area. They are now widespread in all fisheries. It was a common factor in the evidence to Sub-Committee D from all the fishery organisations that while that lacuna existed in our national legislation capacity could not be reduced.
I fear that if my noble friend Lord Beloff wishes to give preferential treatment to the fishing industry of Sussex and Kent this is not the way to do it.
Earl Howe: I have the greatest possible respect for my noble friend Lord Beloff and I appreciate the anxieties which he has expressed. However, I put it to

165
him that the amendment is unwise. It is unwise because it seeks permanently to exclude vessels of 10 metres or less from days at sea restrictions.
Vessels of 10 metres or less make up a sizeable sector of our fishing fleet and have a significant effect on some fishing stocks. Days at sea restrictions are being introduced to conserve fish stocks. I really cannot see why all vessels which can have an impact on those stocks should not eventually share the burden of conserving them. I have no need to tell my noble friend that, if we make an exception for smaller boats we shall simply encourage the growth of a class of vessel—known as the "metre beaters" —whose dimensions are designed specifically to evade the restrictions applying to larger vessels. That would directly undermine our fish conservation measures. We must allow ourselves the scope in this Bill to ring fence fishing effort across the entire fleet. I wonder whether my noble friend realises that the industry itself is calling for greater controls in certain sectors, notably for shellfish, and that those are typically the smaller boats about which he is concerned.
Perhaps I can convey this reassurance to my noble friend. The restrictions that we impose as regards days at sea are likely to be different for different classes of boat. As a rule the type of vessel about which he is worried is likely to be at the less severely restricted end of the spectrum. Both Houses will of course have an opportunity to consider the policy of extending days at sea restrictions to some or all of those vessels if and when an affirmative resolution order specifying the commencement date of such restrictions is tabled.
On that basis I hope that my noble friend has received some reassurance and will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beloff: In the absence of anyone who shares my anxieties to the extent of supporting me in the debate, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment and to record the assurances which the Minister has given. I hope that they will give some comfort to those men who are fearful for the loss of their livelihood.
If it were possible to devise an amendment which was locally exclusive rather than, as has been pointed out, raised problems elsewhere I would gladly support it. In the absence of any counsel at this stage there is nothing I can do but beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Expiry of Act
This Act shall cease to have effect on 31st December 1996.").
The noble Lady said: Although in their confusion the Government have proposed two major reasons for the introduction of this Bill, the first being the reduction in fleet capacity and the second an attack on excessive fish mortality, a more important reason appears to be that proposed by both Ministers in the
166
Second Reading debate in this House, namely that it is a necessary complement to a decommissioning scheme aimed at reducing capacity to meet multi-annual guidance programme targets.
The requirement to meet the target expires on 31st December 1996. For that reason alone there can be no validity in any argument that the Act should have any effect after that date. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I do not believe that there can be anyone in this Chamber this evening who does not realise that the need to conserve fish stocks is continuous. It is not driven by the arbitrary deadlines which the Community sets for its structural policies. It is driven by the over-arching imperative that fishing effort and fleet capacity should be in safe proportion to the stocks available. It would therefore be quite wrong to link the powers in the Bill to Community deadlines.
If the powers of the Bill were terminated at the end of 1996, which may be the end of the next multi-annual guidance programme, further legislation would be necessary of exactly the same type as we have in this Bill. That would be an unnecessary waste of parliamentary time. In fact the Committee will also wish to note that the end date for the multi-annual guidance programme is not yet fixed. New objectives are likely to be set with a target date of 31st December 1998.
We cannot, therefore, assume that the end of 1996 will mark either the end of our MAGP targets or, more importantly, an end to the need to conserve fish stocks. The amendment, if it were pressed and carried, would not only terminate Ministers' powers to restrict time at sea at the end of 1996; it would bring to an end all the provisions of the Bill, including those which the fishermen's organisations have been pressing us to introduce and which are desirable in their own right: namely, licence suspension or revocation for breach of licence rules; increased maximum fines; the Scottish evidential provisions, and so on. At the very least I should have thought that the noble Lady would wish to reflect further on whether this is really what she wants. I hope that this evening she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that very clear explanation. In the light of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Modification) Order 1992
7.59 p.m
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. The amendment which is proposed by this draft order will help to combat the evil of drug trafficking. The order is designed to bring five precursor chemicals and five essential chemicals used in the illicit manufacture of controlled drugs within the control of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. The order is required in order to comply with the United Kingdom's treaty obligations under the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. It implements decisions taken earlier this year by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs to bring these extra substances under the control of that convention.
In order to set the draft order in its proper context it may be helpful if I give a brief explanation of how the 1990 Act controls both precursor and essential chemicals. For almost 20 years the United Kingdom has relied upon the voluntary co-operation of the chemical industry in providing information covertly about suspicious orders and transactions involving chemicals which are used in the illicit manufacture of controlled drugs. The Government have enjoyed consistent support from the industry throughout this time, and this has led to the detection of many illicit laboratories in the United Kingdom and overseas. Since 1989, 36 such laboratories have been detected in the United Kingdom, of which 23 have been traced as a result of direct information from the chemical industry. We are most grateful to the industry for that co-operation.
Unfortunately, with the growth over the last 20 years of the international trade in chemicals used for illicit drug production, it became clear that the existing provisions were insufficient. The 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Drug Trafficking was subsequently adopted, and that was a significant step forward in the international effort to control precursor chemicals.
The Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 was designed to implement the requirements of the 1988 United Nations Convention. That required parties, first, to take appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of 12 scheduled substances to illicit drug manufacture and co-operate with one another to that end, and, secondly, to establish as criminal offences the manufacture or supply of scheduled substances knowing or suspecting that they were to be used in the unlawful production of controlled drugs.
I should like briefly to explain how the 10 additional chemicals are by this order to be included within the provisions of the 1990 Act. The 10 chemicals are divided into two groups in paragraph 2 of the draft order. Five of the substances are to be included in Table I of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act. As with all of the substances in Table I, these five chemicals are precursor chemicals—that is, they are one step removed from the drugs themselves. Four of the substances are precursors for the group of related compounds which include MDMA, more commonly known as Ecstasy. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that there has been a worrying increase in the
168
use of this drug in the United Kingdom and that it is illicitly manufactured both here and in mainland Europe. The additional five substances are to be incorporated into Table II. Table II comprises chemical solvents and reagents which have a much wider commercial use. The five substances involved are widely used in processing heroin and cocaine as well as synthetic drugs. The order will bring the 10 chemicals within the scope of the offence provision in Section 12 of the 1990 Act. On indictment the maximum penalty which may be imposed is 14 years' imprisonment or a fine or both.
It is also important to place these measures in the context of developments throughout the European Community. The Community has taken measures to implement a number of regulatory recommendations made by the Chemical Action Task Force. This has resulted in a Council regulation which will come into force on 1st January 1993 and will control the trade between the Community and third countries. A directive controlling the trade within the Community is due to come into operation on 1st July 1993. Regulations are being brought forward to implement both the Council's regulation and directive.
It is within the context of the international effort to combat drug-trafficking that the provisions contained in the order are being introduced. A number of the chemicals which are to be brought under control are used in large quantities for a wide range of perfectly legitimate commercial purposes.
We have worked together with the chemical industry throughout the negotiation process. We have endeavoured to thwart the operations of the drug-traffickers as much as possible while not unnecessarily impeding the perfectly legitimate commercial dealings of the chemical industry. I think and I hope that we have managed to achieve this. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, the order is brief and clear and has been fully explained by the Minister. We fully support its objective of placing further controls upon the drug trade by adding to the list of chemical substances which may be used in the manufacture of controlled drugs. Because of the rapid changes that occur in the drug market it is essential to respond quickly to, and if possible anticipate, new developments in so-called designer drugs. Drugs are being developed in laboratories and some have become more fashionable among young people than the traditional products of Asia and South America.
First, perhaps I may ask the Minister what steps are being taken to monitor new fashions in drugs and to prevent their use amongst young people. The noble Earl went on to describe European Community-wide initiatives. If I may, I should also like to refer to the title of this order, which makes reference to international co-operation. This can often be merely liaison at police officer level. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what arrangements there are at governmental level for sustained collaboration and initiatives, not just quarterly meetings, with the

169
drug-producing countries—I noted a recent visit by the Home Secretary to Colombia—and, perhaps more importantly, joint ventures with countries such as Italy, Spain and Nigeria, which often provide major channels for the drug trade. I conclude by confirming that we fully support the order.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the comprehensive but brief way in which she has supported the order. She asked what monitoring was carried out of new types of drug. I can tell her that several agencies are engaged in monitoring the drugs scene in the United Kingdom. The police, customs and forensic science services continually monitor new trends in drugs as part of their law enforcement activities. Their findings are co-ordinated and disseminated nationally through the drugs division of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Databases maintained by regional health authorities and data collected by non-governmental organisations such as the Standing Conference on Drug Addiction and the street agencies also provide valuable indications of the trends in drugs use.
The noble Baroness also asked about consultation. There is a great deal of consultation at international level within the United Nations system. The World Health Organisation and the Pompidou Drug Co-operation Group of the Council of Europe are both organisations in which a great deal of concentration takes place. Agreement has just been reached within the European Community on the establishment of a European drugs monitoring centre whose main task will be to provide accurate and comparable information about drug misuse within the Community. Through both Interpol and the Customs Co-operation Council the police and customs services also pool information about drug trends. Plans are well advanced for the creation of a European drugs intelligence agency, which will be called Europol. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is a very great deal of international co-operation on drugs.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992
8.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th July be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992, laid before the House on 15th July, be approved. The draft regulations seek to give effect to requirements of the European Community Directive on the Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons. The directive lays down minimum standards which all Community states must achieve in their national firearms controls. But states can be stricter than the minimum. Our domestic firearms controls are among the strictest in Europe. And they
170
will remain that way. There will be no relaxation of the standards of control which we consider necessary to protect public safety.
But some relatively minor adjustments are required to bring our controls up to European Community standards in the few instances where we are not as strict as the directive requires us to be. The most notable change is the extension of our category of prohibited weapons and ammunition. Firearms which are disguised as other objects, explosive military missiles and their launchers, armour piercing and incendiary ammunition for military use and expanding pistol ammunition will all become prohibited under draft Regulation 3.
We have made special arrangements for collectors and for those who use expanding pistol ammunition. They will not be affected by the ban if they have a special condition added to their firearm or shot-gun certificate. We shall be implementing an exgratia payment scheme for owners of disguised firearms. If they lawfully held a disguised firearm on 16th July, the day after the draft regulations were laid, they will be able to apply for a payment provided that they surrender the firearm to the police before 1st January 1993. Payments will be based on the value which the firearm had immediately before the draft regulations were laid before Parliament.
The directive says that no one under 18 should be allowed to acquire or to possess a firearm except for hunting or target shooting. "Hunting", in this instance, does not carry the definition which an Englishman would normally give to the word, but rather the definition which our American and European friends ascribe to it; namely, shooting wild animals or birds.
The draft regulations, therefore, provide that certificate holders under 18 can use firearms only for sporting purposes, vermin destruction, the shooting of wildlife as part of estate husbandry, competitive purposes, including target shooting, or target shooting outside competition.
Residents of Great Britain will need a European firearms pass after 1st January 1993 if they wish to take their firearms to other Community states—for example, on a shooting trip. Draft Regulation 5 provides for chief officers to issue European firearms passes free on request to firearm and shot-gun certificate holders in their areas.
Visitors from other Community states who come here with their firearms after 1st January 1993 will also need a European firearms pass issued by another Community state. That will not mean, though, that European Community nationals will be able to bring firearms here just by virtue of holding a European pass. They will still need our prior consent. They will still need a British visitor's permit, which can be obtained by a sponsor applying to the local chief constable.
Draft Regulation 7 simply ensures that intending visitors from elsewhere in the Community have a European firearms pass, as is required by the directive, when they apply for a visitor's permit.
The draft regulations make a number of other minor changes to the controls on European

171
Community residents who buy firearms here and on our residents who buy firearms abroad. They also ensure that we can tell other Community states when one of their residents buys a firearm here, as the directive requires, without breaching confidentiality requirements.
I hope that it will be clear from what I have said that these regulations do no more than implement our Community obligations under the weapons directive, and, most importantly, that the changes will not mean any relaxation of our existing firearms controls.
I commend the regulations to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th July be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, these complex regulations have been clearly explained by the Minister. Their intention is to bring our firearms legislation on the control, acquisition and possession of weapons into line with the European Council directive. We support these amending regulations with the sole reservation that they may, by their very complexity, be difficult to implement in practice. I anticipate particular difficulty with Regulation 4. Seeing that it is headed "Restrictions on minors", I had hoped that it would prohibit the use or possession of firearms by children—by children, I mean children of 11 or 12. I regret that the Government have not seen fit to tighten the law in that respect.
Moreover, Regulation 4 as at present drafted allows a chief constable to refuse a shot-gun certificate only if he believes that the applicant intends to use it for an unauthorised purpose under the European directive. That is an odd provision. No applicant will declare that he intends to use a shot-gun for an unauthorised purpose. So it seems difficult for the chief constable to form the opinion that that is his intention. I therefore see very little purpose in terms of necessity or usefulness in this part of the regulation. However, in all other respects we support the amending regulations.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, as chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee, perhaps I may briefly say a few words. As my noble friend explained, the regulations do no more than give effect to our Community obligations by bringing British legislation into line with EC standards in a number of minor areas where that is not already the case.
The Firearms Consultative Committee has been kept fully informed of the Government's plans for the implementation of the weapons directive. We welcome the helpful approach which the Government have taken in transposing the directive's requirements in a way that will cause the minimum of inconvenience to legitimate shooters in this country. Although the regulations will prohibit disguised firearms and certain other weapons and ammunition, we are pleased that sensible arrangements have been made to ensure that serious collectors will not be prevented from pursuing their interests and will be able to collect the newly prohibited items.
172
We were particularly glad to note that the Government have retained the visitor's permit requirements for EC visitors as recommended in the Firearms Consultative Committee's second annual report. We were also pleased to see that the Government have taken on board our recommendations on the issue of European firearms passes to British residents and that such passes will be issued freely to firearm and shot-gun certificate holders. I also welcome the fact that the regulations will not prevent legitimate young shooters from participating in sporting and other lawful activities. I refer the noble Baroness to the third report of the Firearms Consultative Committee, in which it looked in depth at the whole question of young people with both firearms and shot-guns.
My committee will be monitoring the effects of the implementation as part of our programme of work during the coming year.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining these regulations so clearly. In the light of his explanation, I do not think that there is very much to object to in the content of the regulations. Nevertheless, and quite differently from the previous order, I am astonished that we should be considering this measure tonight.
If ever there were a subject suited to the exercise of the principle of subsidiarity which our Prime Minister purports to support so strongly, it is this one. For those very few individuals who want to take their rifles, pistols or shotguns across national frontiers within what is still technically known as the European Economic Community, some Community-wide harmonisation, and hence consequent legislation, may very well be desirable. I should not object to that. But at least 99 per cent. of licence holders, whether they be firearms licence holders or shot-gun licence holders, do not shoot and have no desire or intention of shooting outside their own country.
As is well known, every state within the United States—and, I imagine, every province in Canada and every state in Australia—has its own individual gun laws as well as its own laws on seat belts, the maximum power specification of motorcycles and similar matters, which the European Commission seeks unjustifiably to standardise right across the Community. Unless the principle of subsidiarity is invoked without delay so as to leave matters such as this to national parliaments, those who suspect that the hidden agenda of the European Commission is not the creation of a federal super-state but, far worse, a unitary super-state and that everything will be standardised to a much greater degree than is the case in the United States, Canada or Australia, will turn out to have been justified in their suspicions. How can the noble Earl defend interference by the Community in what is almost exclusively a domestic matter with virtually no implications for free trade or the free movement of goods, services and people across frontiers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions that they have made, in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. She

173
quite rightly stated that the draft regulations do no more than harmonise our own arrangements with those of Europe. She was anxious about young people. It is important to remember that the regulations can give effect only to our Community obligations. They do that, and no more. A chief officer can refuse a shot-gun certificate if he has reason to suspect that a young person intends to use a shot-gun for a purpose that is not authorised by the directive. Under the Firearms Acts, no young person under the age of 15 may use a shot-gun unless he is supervised by an adult. The chief officer of police will also take account of an applicant's age, skill and experience when considering whether he should grant a shot-gun certificate without danger to public safety. Therefore the noble Baroness need have no undue cause for worry.
The Firearms Consultative Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Kimball, recently reviewed the controls in that area. It advised the Home Secretary that the existing restrictions adequately safeguard the public. My noble friend Lord Kimball thanked the Government for implementing the directive in a way which will cause the least destruction. That may not be the word that he used—he referred to the least possible inconvenience. Even though the directive looks somewhat complicated on paper, there will not be a great deal of difficulty in bringing it into operation. My noble friend was also glad that we took the advice that European firearms passes should be issued free. That will be a good thing.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say this to my noble friend. Firearms and their use and control, or lack of control, are always an enormously sensitive issue. My noble friend's committee is doing, and has done, an astonishingly good job of work. It is a complicated area. Members of the committee come from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests. It is exceedingly helpful to my right honourable friend to have the advice that my noble friend's committee gives. I take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend and his committee for the work that they do.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that the regulations would be a good subject for subsidiarity. I believe that it is good to have a common standard
174
throughout Europe applying to those who can and cannot have firearms. It is one classic example of an area which is suited to a directive—in this case one which states that throughout Europe no one can have a firearm if he falls below that standard. I believe that that is better than giving the sole decision to individual states. That does not mean that our own standards cannot be higher than the minimum set by the European Community: indeed, they are higher. In that way I should have thought that the noble Lord had the best of both worlds. Whenever he goes to another member state, he will know that its standards of control are as good as ours; and when he returns to our country he will find that our standards are better than those of the Community.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is the principle to which I object. Once one gives the Commission the right to interfere in purely domestic matters in one sphere of life, however beneficial it may appear to be at the time, it gives the open door to interference in almost every other nook and cranny of our daily lives, as I believe that the Prime Minister put it at one point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that that is an argument that many people use. However, the point of subsidiarity is that there are occasions when it is much better for governments of member states to take their own decisions. Nevertheless, even if one uses subsidiarity, it does not mean that there will not be common standards which will be used through directives over some issues throughout the Community.
However, I do not believe that we wish to pursue those esoteric subjects at the moment. Suffice to say, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will agree that the implementation of the directive is and will be a benefit. I commend the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Underground (Jubilee) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.

  LAW OFFICERS: APPEARANCES IN COURT
  LAW OFFICERS: APPEARANCES IN COURT
  BUSINESS FAILURES IN WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY
  BUSINESS FAILURES IN WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY
  COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING: POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES
  COMPULSORY COMPETITIVE TENDERING: POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES
  STREET PARKING ENFORCEMENT: CCT
  STREET PARKING ENFORCEMENT: CCT
  SURVEYOR GENERAL'S ORGANISATION: EXECUTIVE AGENCY STATUS
  SURVEYOR GENERAL'S ORGANISATION: EXECUTIVE AGENCY STATUS
  LUXEMBOURG TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 26TH OCTOBER
  LUXEMBOURG TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 26TH OCTOBER
  INLAND REVENUE TRUST RETURN FORM: DIMENSIONS
  INLAND REVENUE TRUST RETURN FORM: DIMENSIONS
  EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TAXATION THRESHOLD
  EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TAXATION THRESHOLD
  TOMLINSON REPORT: SITE AND BUILDING VALUATIONS
  TOMLINSON REPORT: SITE AND BUILDING VALUATIONS
  SOCIAL SECURITY CLAIMANTS: INDEBTEDNESS
  SOCIAL SECURITY CLAIMANTS: INDEBTEDNESS
  HAMPTON COURT PALACE: ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE
  HAMPTON COURT PALACE: ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE
  DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM ACT 1969: SECTION 4 ASSISTANCE
  DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM ACT 1969: SECTION 4 ASSISTANCE