Sitting of 29 April 1993

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 May.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 6 May.

CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Slaughterhouses
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the application of rules relating to slaughterhouses.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): My right hon. Friend and I have considered carefully the representations that we have received on the regulations. We have taken particular 'care to implement the EC requirements in a way that achieves the necessary improvements in hygiene standards without imposing unnecessary burdens on the industry.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister will know from that answer that a number of European countries give subsidies to the veterinary services. When will we either give an equal subsidy or ensure that there is a level playing field so that we do not operate at a disadvantage?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman should understand that we are working hard to achieve a level playing field. We have always adopted this method of charging in the United Kingdom. What is a perfectly true and fair point is that the charges were too high. We have taken considerable steps and made a great effort to get those charges down, and we are happy that they are moving in the right direction.
    Mr. Rathbone: What success has my hon. Friend had in making more of an equal qualification requirement among those veterinary surgeons who are duty bound to do their business in abattoirs but who are better trained and therefore much more expensive than their European counterparts?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, unusually, is incorrect in his supposition. Continental European vets are trained to exactly the same standard as British vets. The difference in the system is that in continental Europe ante-mortem inspection and the use of vets for meat hygiene work has always been the norm while in the United Kingdom it is a relatively new involvement and is therefore taking some time to settle down. It should be emphasised to the House that all vets across Europe must achieve the same qualifications, and it takes exactly the same length of time to qualify.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister recall that I wrote to him recently on behalf of W and J Parker Ltd., a slaughterhouse company in Leicester, which faced a potential investment of £9 million to £10 million to comply with the new European Community regulations? As a consequence of that investment, the company closed its slaughterhouse in Leicester with the loss of 300 jobs. It subsequently bought a minority holding in a company in Buckinghamshire, but the jobs in Leicester were still lost. Does he accept that it would be grossly unfair to that company and to the 300 people who lost their jobs in

    1135
    Leicester—including my son—if the regulations were weakened for smaller slaughterhouses throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I am distressed and sorry about the news of the job losses in Leicester. He is correct that we have tried, through the regulations, to achieve a high standard of uniform meat hygiene throughout the country. While we wish to be as sympathetic as we can, we feel that the great importance of the regulations is that they will take us from a dual standard to a single standard, and we shall not resile from that.

    Common Agricultural Policy (Fraud)
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to tackle fraud in the common agricultural policy.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Under the United Kingdom presidency, the integrated administration and control system was agreed and will be applied in all member states. It is specifically designed to provide effective control of payments flowing from CAP reforms. We make that clear in the accompanying literature both here and elsewhere.
    Mr. Whittingdale: While I fully support my right hon. Friend's commitment to eradicate CAP fraud and I welcome the contribution that the new integrated administration and control system will make to that, can my right hon. Friend assure me that his Ministry will adopt an understanding and flexible attitude to farmers who are not fraudsters but may have made genuine innocent mistakes in completing their forms?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. On some matters there are Communitywide rules on how we apply the forms. An example is the date on which the forms have to be returned. If the form is a couple of days late, there is a particular penalty. The rules are purposely Europewide to make sure that everyone obeys the rules. However, wherever there is flexibility, we shall use it. I appeal to farmers to tell us in advance if they find that they have made some mistake. Then we shall know that they are not trying to defraud.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What lessons have been learnt by the various EC countries with land frontiers which could be useful in dealing with the fraud that has taken place across our land frontiers with the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Gummer: We have learnt several lessons. One of the most important is that we should not start fraud off by paying money to which people are not entitled. Therefore, both the IACS forms and the arrangements for passports and ear-tagging for animals that receive a premium are a basic necessity if we are to save taxpayers' money and ensure that the money goes to the right people.
    Mrs. Browning: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to examine the comparable forms which farmers in other EC member countries have to fill in? Will he guarantee to take a watching brief to ensure that the forms are applied universally throughout the Community?
    Mr. Gummer: I have certainly looked at the forms used by our partners. In almost every case, they have been less
    1136
    clear and less well laid out than ours. Only the Danes have a shorter form, but that is because they have had much of the material on computer for some time. Our accompanying literature is also much clearer. That is because we bothered to spend time to make sure that farmers made the fewest possible mistakes. I will ensure that the forms are properly filled in other countries.
    Dr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that fraud involving the common agricultural policy now costs billions of pounds a year? Does he acknowledge that although the IACS forms, if applied effectively throughout the EC, will help to tackle fraud in respect of payments to farmers, they will not deal with the large part of the fraud relating to export refunds? Is it true that some member Governments are concealing information on such fraudulent transactions? Is it not time that the British Government took a decisive stand on the issue and made it clear that they will not agree to any changes in the CAP until fraud is effectively tackled?
    Mr. Gummer: The British Government's decisive stand has led to a much more fraud-proof operation than we had before. I am grateful for such support as I have received from the Labour party on the issue—at least we all agree that we do not want fraud. The hon. Gentleman somewhat overstates the amount of fraud, but we agree that there is too much—any amount of fraud is too much and we must stop it. We must now proceed to ensure that the reduced amount of export support which comes from the GATT round will give us the opportunity to carry the much more stringent measures into every aspect of the CAP.

    British Wine
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote sales of British-produced wine to the EC.
    Mr. Soames: The Government promote exports of English and Welsh wine vigorously. The export services of Food from Britain are also readily available to growers.
    Mr. Amess: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the merits of the Basildon grape, which is grown by many of my constituents? Will he care to reflect that as Basildon leads the economic recovery of our nation, so perhaps Basildon is well placed to lead the drive of British producers of wine further into EC markets?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Essex wines, like Essex women, are the adornment of the crown of British life—[interruption]—as is my hon. Friend. Just as Basildon is the economic capital and leader of Britain, I have always been told that it drinks for Britain. We will do our very best to promote the Essex grape. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister served Essex wine to the Council of Ministers at an informal meeting and it was much appreciated. We will do all that we can to promote British wine.

    Lobsters
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made with amending the minimum landing size of lobster in the EC.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The Undersized Lobsters

    1137
    Order 1993 was laid before Parliament today and comes into force on 20 May 1993. It establishes carapace length as the only measurement to determine minimum landing size of lobsters and sets minimum landing size at 85 mm carapace length.
    Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is to the lasting credit of British fishermen that they were so concerned about conservation that they drew this matter to my hon. Friend's attention? Is it not enough to make a blue-blooded Englishman's blood boil and turn red with anger that this particular regulation slipped by officials unnoticed? Or is it yet again the French fishermen's rule that if it is old enough to live in the sea it is ready to be eaten?
    Mr. Curry: It did not slip anybody's notice in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. When the rules were changed, nobody picked this up—and that includes all the fishermen's organisations.
    Mr. Field: That is what I said.
    Mr. Curry: As soon as we discovered that there was a problem, we sought to have it remedied on a Community basis and we made it clear that if that was not possible we would do it unilaterally. The industry accepted that, and we worked closely together. We have now laid the order. It is an example of how we can work together on technical conservation matters, which is very important.
    Mr. Morley: I note that the Minister conceded that it was the fishermen themselves who pressed for tighter regulations on the minimum landing size of lobsters. Does the Minister agree that fishermen are responsible in relation to conservation measures, and does he recognise the frustration that fishermen feel at the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992? Would he agree to sit round the table with the fishermen to discuss genuine, constructive and workable conservation measures as an alternative to the crude and simplistic days-at-sea measures?
    Mr. Curry: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is behind the times. A meeting took place last Monday between my officials, my scientists and fishermen's representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom in an attempt to work out what would be practical in technical conservation terms. It will be difficult—probably impossible—to find measures of technical conservation that would be acceptable to the industry and would do all of the job that can be done by the other methods. Therefore, we have a mix of remedies to the problems of technical conservation and over-exploitation and we are pursuing that course.
    We will not withdraw the proposals in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, but we have every intention of pursuing with the industry in good faith and at a technical level—the matter is now being considered by a technical working group—measures to try to identify enforceable, workable and efficient technical conservation measures.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fishermen, particularly in Dorset and the Isle of Wight, were very co-operative on conservation measures for lobsters? They want to ensure that decent sized lobsters are taken out, and the original conservation measures taken had improved the quality of the catch. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that the rest of the European Community will keep to the same standard as our inshore fishermen?
    Mr. Curry: This is a case in which we sought to have a defect remedied on a Communitywide basis. We did not succeed in doing that, but we will return to the attack in that regard. The choice was between trying to put it right in our waters, at the demand of our fishermen, or doing nothing. In those circumstances, the sensible cause is to take the remedy that is at hand. We have done that and it is a good example of co-operation. Technical conservation measures are not always acceptable to all fishermen in the United Kingdom. Very often, one group of fishermen in one port is at odds with another group of fishermen in another port. That is part of the problem that we have to face.

    Food and Drink (Import Substitution)
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to encourage import substitution in the combined food and drink sector.
    Mr. Curry: We are working to encourage the British food and drink industry to win markets through its efficiency and through the quality and safety of its products.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this country has a trade deficit of about £5·5 billion in the food and drink sector, whereas Holland has a trade surplus of about £10 billion, including sales to this country of £1·6 billion. Does he agree that the key to reversing that trend lies in better marketing of agricultural produce? Will he examine the effectiveness of Food From Britain and any other measures to find out whether the promotion of British agricultural products can be improved so that we can sell more in the home market and prevent imports from being sold in this country?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend. Food From Britain is being reviewed and we expect a report shortly. Marketing is the key and I hope that the improvements in farm incomes and commodity prices will not make farmers think that marketing has become less important. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that a fortnight ago in Tewkesbury the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Sainsbury's ran a seminar on marketing for farmers and 60 of them turned up, which demonstrates how seriously we take the matter.

    Food Subsidies
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list all of the subsidies and import barriers affecting food products.
    Mr. Gummer: The European Community agricultural policy, in common with similar policies in the United States and elsewhere, supports agriculture; in that sense, therefore, most of the food that we buy has had the benefit of that support.
    Mr. Oppenheim: As a member of a Government who believe in open markets and freedom of choice, is my right hon. Friend not a little ashamed to preside over a regime with so many impediments to choice in trade that he cannot read them all out during Question Time? Is not one of the most pernicious aspects of that illiberal regime its effect on eastern Europe, particularly the strict import

    1139
    quotas and restrictions on imports of soft fruit from Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary? How can we expect the eastern European countries, to which we have for so long preached the benefits of free markets, to reform themselves successfully when we cold shoulder the very products that they can successfully sell to us?
    Mr. Gummer: I am proud that the farmers of the Amber Valley and elsewhere are able to get a return on their hard work which keeps our land looked after and home-produced food supplied. I do not believe that it is possible to run a system which does not give support to those farmers. As for strawberries, I am pleased that farmers who are producing raspberries and other soft fruit, especially in Scotland, have fair competition within a sensible regime, rather than finding themselves unable to produce at all.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept that the cost of bringing milk across the channel acts as a non-tariff barrier for imports of raw milk into the United Kingdom? If so, does he accept that to talk about a free market in milk, after the wind-up of the milk marketing scheme, is something of a nonsense?
    Mr. Gummer: We have the natural advantage that those who wish to export products such as milk and potatoes to us have to pay the cost of transport. We also have the natural disadvantage that if we wish to export to others we have to pay the cost of transport. I find it difficult to equate that with a non-tariff barrier: it is a geographical fact of life and even the Opposition have to accept such facts of life.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the raspberry growers of Tayside believe that he and his team have introduced measures which have given them the opportunity to compete in the marketplace in a way that did not exist before? In addition, they have been able to improve substantially the way they market their products, which has had a remarkable effect on the economy of north Tayside.
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. There is a balance to be achieved. I want there to be as much opportunity as possible for eastern European countries to sell in this country and in the rest of the European Community, but that must be consonant with the retention and expansion of a healthy British agriculture, if it is to be able to look after the land and to produce the food that we need. As my hon. Friend says, one cannot do that without some protection for our raspberry growers.

    Set-aside
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his final recommendations to the European Commission for non-rotational set-aside.
    Mr. Gummer: We are pressing the Commission to come forward with its proposals for non-rotational set-aside as soon as possible. It reported at our last meeting that it would do so.
    Mr. Colvin: The House may share my hope that the Commission's proposals, when we see them, will be based on my right hon. Friend's recommendations for
    1140
    non-rotational set-aside. At present, 15 per cent. of our countryside, which at this time of year should be looking a picture, is a mess. The farmers are frustrated, the public are getting angry, and a much better method must be found to take this 15 per cent. of land out of arable production.
    Mr. Gummer: I am not quite sure that that sweeping generalisation is true. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is rather enthusiastic about rotational set-aside. After all, a high proportion of land has historically always been set aside rotationally as part of the fallowing process. I think that a mixture of non-rotational and rotational set-aside, chosen by the farmer, must be the best answer. I should like that to be attended by environmental requirements so that the public good is respected. That is what we hope the Commission will propose.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that we have reached a sorry state of affairs when, after 20 years in the Common Market, every family in Britain is paying £19 a week to prop up the common agricultural policy while farmers in Britain are being told to watch the grass grow and collect up to £80 an acre for doing so? When millions of people in the third world need food, the best answer must be to produce food in Britain so that the empty bellies in the Sudan and other parts of Africa can be filled.
    Mr. Gummer: This is the first time the hon. Gentleman has produced the farmers' argument and I would like what he says to be true, but he should have discussions with Oxfam, Christian Aid and other bodies which know a little more about this than he does. They will tell him that that is not the way to help the agriculture or the feeding of the third world. Indeed, one of the reasons why we want to reduce over-production in the European Community is that it undermines agriculture in the third world. It is scandalous that oilseed rape oil produced in the EC is sold in developing countries more cheaply than the oil that they produce at home. I hope that we shall be able to stop that.

    Common Agricultural Policy (Reform)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to meet the new French Minister of Agriculture to discuss reforming the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Gummer: I met the new French Minister of Agriculture two weeks ago in London. The visit was his first to any European Community Minister.
    Mr. Marshall: Did my right hon. Friend emphasise to the new French Minister that it would be an international tragedy if, due to a combination of narrow nationalism, short-term party advantage and chauvinism, he sought to derail the GATT talks by reneging on the reform of the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Gummer: I needed to use no such language, as the new French Agriculture Minister was very much aware of the need for a GATT agreement, not only for the interests of Great Britain and France but for the Community, the world and especially developing countries. He has his own problems and his own policies—he has fought an election, and a number of promises have been made, but I hope very much that we will come to an accommodation which protects this nation.
    Mr. Llwyd: On the subject of reform of the CAP, local authorities in Wales are anxious to help farmers who do not have plans to accompany the integrated administration control system forms, but they have been told by representatives of Ordnance Survey that they would not be allowed to copy them, as that would be a breach of copyright. That fact has created a worse problem. We know that there is a time limit—15 May—and time is running out. I urge the Minister to have a word with Ordnance Survey to ask it to look at the matter sensibly.
    Mr. Gummer: I have met the head of Ordnance Survey, who has made arrangements throughout England and Wales that have increased the number of outlets from 39 to 300. Unfortunately, very few farmers have tried to get their maps since October, when they were first warned that they had to do so. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service is playing a particular part in Wales and I believe that the maps are available as widely as they need be. The one thing that we have made clear is that if farmers are genuinely unable to obtain the maps by 15 May, they can send them on afterwards and will not suffer penalties as a result.
    Mr. Gill: When my right hon. Friend discusses reform of the CAP will he take a hard look at the system of beef intervention, because on 31 March Britain had more beef in intervention than we have had for a comparable period in each of the four previous years? A total of 164,000 tonnes of British beef were then in intervention. My right hon. Friend has often said that it is a great shame that British catering butchers cannot provide all the steaks that are required in this country. He will know that British beef in intervention stores is not available to them and in some cases, even if it were, it would not be in a suitable form. The issue is serious and I hope that when my right hon. Friend considers the reforms he will do something about the intervention beef, as action is long overdue.
    Mr. Gummer: I have discussed intervention beef with the French Minister on two occasions. Intervention is an unsuitable way of regularly supporting the beef market, and should be an emergency provision, not the sort of regular activity that it now is. Catering butchers do not have that problem. Their problem in this country is that beef is not produced in the volume or in the way that provides them with the sort of portions that they want. I hope that the industry will address the issue, as there are many opportunities for it in the catering business.
    Dr. Strang: As the common agricultural policy is responsible for food prices being higher than they need be, as it costs the average EC family of four £300 a year in higher taxes, and as the EC Commission has admitted that agricultural spending is set to rise sharply in the next two or three years, did the Minister tell his French counterpart that the CAP was like a juggernaut out of control and needed to be the subject of root and branch reform?
    Mr. Gummer: We have carried out root and branch reform, but the effect of that is that we now pay money directly to farmers, instead of hiding it in the cost to the consumers, which will fall significantly. As a result, we can ensure that the money goes where it is needed. The cost to the CAP is the cost of Europe having a well looked-after landscape and of ensuring that we produce our own food—a price worth paying.

    Set-aside Land
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of farm land have now been set aside; and if he will make a statement on the uses to which this land has been put.
    Mr. Gummer: Information on the area set aside under the arable area payments scheme will be available when the area aid applications have been processed.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend measure the desirability of keeping a fair proportion of set-aside land in good agricultural condition against a time when circumstances might be different from now? How satisfied is he that other EC member countries are carrying through the regulations on set-aside as well as he is?
    Mr. Gummer: We are keeping a close watch on that last issue and, as far as we are able, we can see that other member countries are clearly carrying out those rules, as we are. My hon. Friend is right to talk of the need to keep land in good agricultural heart—the seven fat years are always followed by seven lean years. Any Minister who was not prepared to protect the public from a shortage of home-produced food should not be Minister of Agriculture.
    Mr. Bennett: Does not the Minister agree that both the farmer and the farm worker constitute an important part of any rural community? Does he agree that the set-aside scheme compensates the farmer, but not the farm worker? Does he agree that the country stewardship scheme provides income for the farmer and the farm worker? Would it not be better if he persuaded his European counterparts to follow that scheme, which ensures that the countryside is kept in an attractive state, for people in both the countryside and the towns to enjoy? Would not that be a better policy than the set-aside scheme?
    Mr. Gummer: There is a place for both—the countryside stewardship scheme has a number of advantages, but it does not reduce production. We must ensure that set aside also includes environmental aspects that look after the countryside properly. If it has to be cut, that may require the attention of farm workers, which is of great benefit. The reduction in the number of farm workers has continued in a similar way, year by year, for almost the whole of the century, so I doubt whether set aside has a close association with it.

    Bacon
    Mr. John Townend: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the United Kingdom bacon market is taken by imports.
    Mr. Curry: Fifty-eight per cent.
    Mr. Townend: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are more pigs in my constituency than people? [Interruption.] Is he further aware that in east Yorkshire we produce the finest bacon pigs in the world, that the quality of British bacon over the past 10 years has improved enormously and is now equal to any bacon in the world and that our prices are competitive? Is it therefore not a tragedy that we import such a large proportion of the bacon that is

    1143
    consumed? Would my hon. Friend support my campaign to buy British bacon, eat British bacon and help to reduce the very serious deficit in food?
    Mr. Curry: Pigs are reputedly very intelligent animals and that is clearly indicated by their choice of residence. I agree with my hon. Friend and I merely add the eggs and butter as well.

    Set-aside Land
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress being made in the assessment of agricultural land for the purposes of set aside.
    Mr. Gummer: I hesitate to use a crystal ball when we will soon have the exact figures as a result of the filling in of the integrated administration and control system forms.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, does he agree that farming is one of this country's most productive industries and, as such, requires reductions in bureaucracy and red tape to maintain its competitive edge, just like any other business? Is my right hon. Friend therefore aware of the concern in my constituency about the IACS forms, in particular in respect of set aside and other acreage payments, which require 79 pages of explanation and which required one of my constituents to answer 3,000 questions? Is not that an unnecessary and heavy burden on our farming industry?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not think so. After all, farmers in this country will receive £1,000 million as a result of it. The danger of recoil from the taxpayer if farmers were not required to give the right facts to obtain that money, would be enormous. My hon. Friend referred to competition. The farmers in every other country in the Europen Community have to fill in the same forms. However, we were sensible enough to give farmers a booklet which enables them to fill in the form very simply. In the many meetings that my colleagues and I have had, farmers have told us that the booklet is extremely good and explains well how to fill in the forms. They felt much happier after reading the booklet than they did when they first saw the form.
    Mr. Flynn: What will the Minister do to increase the amount of set-aside land that is used for coppicing and for growing biofuel? Does he agree that much set-aside land might look a mess to those whose interest in land relates only to profiting from the land? However, to most sensitive souls, set-aside land presents a magnificent sight with its unfettered growth of wild flowers. Is it not an example of where beauty is to be found in the wallet of the beholder?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a bit thick on that point. Most people find set-aside land difficult to take because they are used to neat farm land. We have far too neat a view of the countryside. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's end, but not his explanation. Set aside should be a matter of choice for the farmer between rotational and non-rotational. It should have environmental requirements. Farmers are being paid to look after the land properly and that is right.
    Mr. Budgen: Why does my right hon. Friend keep talking about future changes in set aside and other arrangements in the CAP? Last Thursday, in a
    1144
    wide-ranging and very conciliatory speech the Prime Minister spoke of the triumphs of the EC and included in that the reform that has already taken place—apparently to his satisfaction—in the CAP.
    Mr. Gummer: Because the reform in the CAP is not yet extended to a wide range of products over which it should extend. It is not yet satisfactory, particularly in relation to the beef regime. Life will change and different reforms will be necessary year after year. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not say the same thing to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had introduced—as the current Chancellor of the Exchequer has—a very successful Budget. My hon. Friend would not therefore say that there is no need for another Budget next year.

    Integrated Administration and Control System
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what submissions the Minister has received about the integrated administration and control system form.
    Mr. Gummer: We have received a number of representations about the integrated administration and control system documentation and I have heard a great number in the many meetings that I have conducted personally and many have been made at meetings with other Ministers around the country.
    Mr. Tyler: Following that answer and previous answers, what steps is the Ministry prepared to take to introduce an independent arbitration and appeal system to ensure that any farmer who makes a genuine mistake—who is not being fraudulent in any way—is not penalised? Previous answers show that the Minister appears to be the only person in the country, apart from his candidate in Newbury, who thinks that the integrated administration and control system will make life easier for farmers.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman employs his usual party political speech, and we all know what it is worth. The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party which is absolutely uncritical of the European Community and which is federalist to the core. For him to dare to speak in such terms shows him up for what he is. He is much more interested in party politics than in farmers. Farmers know that and that is why increasing numbers of them have thrown aside the pretensions of the Liberal party to care about the countryside.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: While I appreciate that the IACS form is the foundation for future set-aside payments, does my right hon. Friend agree that many farmers, especially in my constituency, have found it difficult and unnecessarily bureaucratic, especially as it sometimes involves ordnance surveys of farms? Such a survey is costing a farmer in my constituency £1,700. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Ministry's response to the filling out of the forms is reasonable and that penalties are not unnecessarily imposed on farmers who make mistakes when completing the form?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend says that a farmer in his constituency had to spend £1,700 on maps. I hope that my hon. Friend will find out how much that farmer will get annually as a result of filling in the form. It will run into many thousands of pounds. The forms are not

    1145
    unnecessarily bureaucratic. They will not need to be repeated next year because we shall do a computer print-out on which people can insert new details. We will ensure that the flexibility that is available is used to its utmost. However, we have to meet the perfectly reasonable argument, which the Opposition spokesman again raised, that as far as possible the system must cut fraud.
    Mr. Olner: Surely the Minister is aware of the grave concern of many farmers, especially in my constituency, about the complexity of these forms. How many people have asked the Minister to extend the 15 May deadline, which is proving almost impossible for many farmers in my constituency to meet? They are concerned that they are not working on the same playing field as their European counterparts.
    Mr. Gummer: They cannot have that concern because almost every country in Europe has to meet the 15 May deadline and will do so. The exception is France which has set a 30 April deadline. There is absolute parity between the countries of Europe. Secondly, in the last two meetings that I conducted, one in Okehampton and the other in Wincanton, no farmer asked me for an extension of the deadline. They all recognised that it was necessary to make sure that Italian, Spanish, Greek and French farmers filled in the form, and that only by doing that did they get the money. The form is necessary not only to stop fraud, but to ensure a level playing field throughout Europe. I shall use as much flexibility as possible, consistent with stopping fraud, because I want every farmer to get every penny to which he is entitled.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his flexibility on the mapping arrangements, may I draw to his attention the fact that in Wales 70 per cent. of the forms that have so far been checked, and even those that have been completed with maps, have errors? Therefore, many farmers are interested in discovering the degree of flexibility that will be shown in considering claims. I echo the pleas of my hon. Friends by urging the Minister to deal with the applications as flexibly as possible.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend need have no worry about that. I am absolutely committed to using the maximum flexibility that is available consistent with stopping fraud. The Welsh example underlines the fact that in most areas of England and Wales the area officers have done their best to make sure that as much help as possible is given for filling in the forms. The area officers are trying to be helpful to farmers by making sure that they miss nothing.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the estimated annual cost of the common agricultural policy for the United Kingdom in the current financial year.
    Mr. Gummer: About £2·32 billion estimated market support expenditure in the United Kingdom for this financial year.
    Mr. Cryer: Does that figure not demonstrate what a calamity the common agricultural policy was and is? In spite of successive Ministers saying that there has been
    1146
    root and branch reform of the policy, the fact remains that it costs families in this country at least £18 a week, that it is an obscene policy because it damages other developing nations and that even when starvation occurs, the massively increasing food mountains are never touched because the Common Market buys food from world markets and does not transfer the food surplus to the starving areas of the world. Is it not time for the British Government to recognise that the CAP is a failure and that the only way for us to avoid the CAP is to get out of the Common Market?
    Mr. Gummer: The cost per family has gone down £1 since the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put forward his view. If hon. Members ask a few more questions, we will get the figure down to nil, and that will be very convenient. There is a real cost involved in looking after the land and ensuring future food supplies in Europe. That cost is bound to be considerable. It is too high and that is why we have taken major measures to change the common agricultural policy, and that will cut prices in some areas by 30 per cent. The result will be that total resource costs will be considerably reduced. The hon. Gentleman hates the European Community. It is odd that his party still has him as a member.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Couchman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he contact President Clinton today, as he contemplates new measures against the Bosnian Serbs, and convey to him the grave reservations of many people in Europe about the possibility of air strikes against any targets, strategic or otherwise, in Bosnia? Will he remind the President of the paramount need to secure the safety of United Nations troops presently serving in Bosnia, including British soldiers, in giving vital humanitarian aid?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to minimise the risk to the United Nations troops and, of course, to the humanitarian aid civilians who are also there and who, for so long and so bravely, have carried out the humanitarian operation. We will take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that.
    Our other objectives in Bosnia are to do all we can to deter further Serbian attacks and to maximise pressure on all parties to accept the cease fire and a negotiated settlement. But at the moment we are not excluding any viable option which might help to achieve those objectives. We are consulting our allies, especially the United States and our United Nations allies in France and elsewhere, and have expressed our views very clearly to them.
    Mr. John Smith: As the horrendous situation in Bosnia worsens even further and as no clear policy has yet emerged from the international community which would effectively deter continued Serb advance, is it not the case

    1147
    that the acknowledged risks of limited air strikes are increasingly outweighed by the very real dangers of continued inaction? Is there not a serious danger that if another policy is not adopted, moves will be made to lift the arms embargo, which would merely intensify the conflict?
    The Prime Minister: I share the observations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about the lifting of the arms embargo. That does present special difficulties. As I have said before, and reiterate now, we cannot rule out further measures for maximising pressure on the Serbs. We are consulting closely our allies and partners. We must, of course, weigh carefully the implications of air strikes for the removal of the arms embargo or, indeed, any other proposals that may arise in our consultations or in the debate in the House this afternoon.
    We must bear particularly in mind the need to sustain the United Nations humanitarian effort. It is all too easy to overlook the fact that, but for that effort over the winter, many hundreds of thousands possibly would have died. The fact that it has continued has been of immense benefit.
    Mr. John Smith: As the days and weeks go by, and the Serbs continue to flout the authority of the United Nations, is it not increasingly clear that if the Serbs are to be stopped, they must be given an ultimatum that is backed by a credible threat to their lines of communication and supply in Bosnia?
    The Prime Minister: I have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will reiterate it, that we have not ruled out options. We are discussing options and it is best to consult on them, consider them, examine the probability of success and the possibility of difficulties and then reach a final conclusion.
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duncan: While I recognise our success in bringing down the level of inflation and thereby laying the foundations for economic recovery, does the Prime Minister agree that a rapid rise in house prices is not necessarily good news? Should not we aim for a sustainable recovery, based on exports and investments and, at all costs, avoid a return to the cycle of boom and bust?
    The Prime Minister: I share that objective with my hon. Friend. We have said from the outset that we want a recovery that is steady and sustainable, and that is what we have repeatedly taken action to achieve over the past two years. We have said that recovery would follow the reduction of inflation. We got inflation down from 11 per cent. to 2 per cent., and it seems that recovery is now following. As a result of that, we were able to cut interest rates, but that had to follow the reduction in inflation and not precede it. We have worked extremely hard, and it has been extremely difficult for everyone during that period, to get the fundamentals right. We now have them right and I have no intention of throwing away that advantage.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister pause for a moment in his campaign of self-congratulation—
    1148
    [Interruption.]—and recollect—[Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister pause for a minute in his campaign of self-congratulation and recollect that the price of his policies for Britain has been 3 million unemployed, borrowing at £1 billion a week, a devalued pound and a burden of debt that will not be paid off until the end of the century? Does he really think that that is cause for self-congratulation?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman carried the House with him in the introductory part of his question. I acknowledge the difficulties that there have been for many people, not just hon. Members but throughout the country, as we have dealt with the effects of the recession. As the right hon. Gentleman will observe, that recession is not unique to this country. We are emerging from it when many others are still going into it. As we come out of the recession, perhaps I might quote the words of the chairman of Grand Met, Sir Allen Shepherd, who said:
    "Today, in British Industry we have almost everything that we've been asking for: low inflation, competitive exchange rates, higher productivity and good industrial relations. On top of that, the skills 'revolution' is well under way and will add value to everything we do."
    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that and go out and encourage people across the country to take advantage of that position.
    Sir Edward Heath: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that until he and the Government give an absolutely clear and categorical assurance that no British forces, of any kind, will become involved in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia, except for humanitarian reasons, any other suggestion will be suspect and will make it extremely difficult to persuade people to support the effort that we make? It will be suspect because it will be thought that we shall be dragged, stage by stage, into a European war or that we shall be pushed there by Washington. Both would be intolerable.
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, we were among the first specifically to put troops into Bosnia to deal with humanitarian matters. We need to consider precisely how we can play a part both in seeking to end the terrible conflict that exists within Bosnia and in ensuring—for this is a clear-cut British strategic interest—that the conflict does not spread beyond Bosnia and lead to a realisation of the greater fear on which my right hon. Friend touched: a wider Balkan war. Those are issues of great complexity, which we need to discuss with our colleagues and friends in the United Nations and NATO.
    I take to heart my right hon. Friend's remarks, as I know will every right hon. and hon. Member. This is an emerging and changing situation. We shall keep at the forefront of our minds the concern to keep British troops off the ground in Bosnia, but also the need for us to play a part, with our partners, diplomatically, in humanitarian aid, and in using political pressure to bring this dreadful conflict to a conclusion.
    Mr. Hoon: Is the Prime Minister at all embarrassed by the fact that last year some £7 million, or two thirds of the cost of his general election campaign, was received by the Conservative party from foreign sources?
    The Prime Minister: I have to say that that is just a touch rich coming from a member of a party whose entire shadow Cabinet is sponsored by trade unions. As Mr. Tom Sawyer of NUPE said,
    "It's as crude as that … no say, no pay."
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bates: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gross domestic product figures produced on Monday clearly show that the recession is over and recovery well under way? Does he further agree that those same figures point to growth in the United Kingdom economy commencing in the middle of last year? Does that not further point to his leadership winning the essential battle against inflation and the equally essential battle against the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right that getting inflation down was the key. We were elected in the spring and the figures that we now have for growth in the second half of last year show that recovery began in the summer.
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Coffey: Is the Prime Minister aware that Ferranti International, a company in my constituency, is awaiting the outcome of a bid for a high technology contract from the Saudi Arabian Government to which I understand he gave personal support in his talks with the Saudi Government earlier this year? Can he tell me what action he is taking to ensure that the contract is awarded to a major British industry to prevent the job losses that will surely follow if we do not get the contract?
    The Prime Minister: Defence Ministers are following the programme closely and doing all they can to progress it. The awarding of the contract in due course is a matter for the Saudi Government, but we are doing what we can to assist.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the British taxpayer should not be expected to pay towards the administration costs of the social charter throughout the EC, when the United Kingdom, quite rightly and properly, has opted out of all its provisions?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is well aware of and shares the Government's view on the social chapter. The administrative costs of dealing with the social chapter are de minimis and in no sense a burden on the economy.

    Arms Exports (Iraq)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to instruct Government Departments to make full disclosure of all documents requested in connection with legal proceedings relating to unlawful export of arms to Iraq; and if he will make it his policy not to issue public immunity interest certificates in connection with any such proceedings.
    The Prime Minister: Government Departments will continue to disclose documents in any legal proceedings in the manner prescribed by law.
    Mr. Dalyell: If that is the answer, why is it that the Crown did not exercise its discretion, when Ministers knew perfectly well of his service to MI5 and MI6, in favour of Paul Grecian in the Ordtech trial?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that it is quite inappropriate for me to comment when such cases are in the courts. He knows that it is inappropriate and I will not do so.

    Engagements
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Prime Minister rethink the Government's approach to low pay and the abolition of the wages councils? Will he consider the information prepared by Lancashire county council which not only highlights the scandal of low pay but shows that in areas with no wages councils there is a much higher incidence of low pay, clearly identifying the dangers of their abolition?
    The Prime Minister: I am hardly likely to take any advice from Lancashire county council, given its record in recent years. The sheer scale of the increase in Lancashire's council tax—I think from memory that it is an extra £84—as a result of the council's maladministration is remarkable. Therefore, it is most unlikely that I shall take its advice upon that matter.
    On the general subject of wages councils, we have made it clear on a number of occasions in the past that their principal drawback is that they cost jobs to people who would otherwise be employed, and that is something which we care about, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the sub judice rule, are the privileges of the House of Commons to be overtaken by arbitrary—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot take such a point of order now. I shall do so later, as always, at the end of questions.

Cervical Smear Tests
3.30 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the disclosure yesterday of serious errors in the cervical smear testing of more than 2,000 women at the Inverclyde Royal hospital in Greenock.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): The Argyll and Clyde health board—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. It is time that the House came to order so that we can hear this important exchange.
Mr. Lang: The Argyll and Clyde health board announced yesterday that there had been some inaccurate reporting of results of smear tests by the laboratory staff at Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock, carried out between 1987 and February 1992. This problem was confirmed last week following the analysis of 1,000 slides, and the health board has moved quickly to take appropriate action.
Some 20,000 slides are being reviewed and it is expected that 90 per cent. of these will be confirmed as normal, requiring no further action. The board considers that up to 2,000 women may require a repeat smear test and that a high proportion of these will also be found to be normal. Arrangements have been made for counselling through the provision of helplines and to follow up quickly any women whose re-test shows an abnormal result. General practitioners have been fully briefed. It is anticipated that the whole process will be completed in eight to nine weeks, but that the large majority of the women involved should receive reassurance well before that.
My noble Friend, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has already indicated that priority will be given to this problem and the other Scottish health boards will assist as necessary to ensure a speedy conclusion of the review and follow-up action. He has also announced that he has commissioned a full inquiry into the circumstances of the problem at Inverclyde in order to put beyond doubt that the situation was unique and will be non-recurring. Dr. Euphemia McGoogan of Edinburgh University will head the inquiry team, and my noble Friend hopes to be able to announce the names of the other members shortly, together with the full terms of reference. The findings of the inquiry will be made public.
I regard this as a serious incident that deserves the closest and most careful attention. That it will have. I would, however, also like to reassure the House that all national health service laboratories in Scotland are now working to the highest professional standards and subject to external audit. Women in Scotland should be reassured that the results of tests are as accurate and reliable as they can be, throughout Scotland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Godman: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on this critical and sensitive issue. He will surely agree that our main concern must be for the retesting of the women, and that re-testing should be carried out as accurately and as speedily as possible, with accuracy being the key word. Should he not be considering the use of laboratory resources from elsewhere in Scotland and south of the border in order to reduce this over-long period of
1152
eight to nine weeks? For my constituents, caught up in this distressing affair, I can tell the Secretary of State that eight to nine weeks is much too long to wait for peace of mind.
With regard to the inquiry to be chaired by the excellent Dr. McGoogan, may I implore the right hon. Gentleman to invite a woman of commensurate stature from outwith the medical profession to join Dr. McGoogan so that we can dispel once and for all the idea that this is a case of a doctor examining other doctors?
While the monitoring of these so-called quality control programmes is adequate, it surely now requires statutory regulation. Will the right hon. Gentleman set up a supervisory body that can examine in as accurate a way as possible the monitoring procedures adopted by these clinics throughout Scotland's health boards?
The Secretary of State will surely agree with me that we must tell women of all ages, from teenagers to grandmothers, not to allow this dreadful incident to put them off obtaining cervical smear tests, because of the importance of such tests in preventing the dreadful scourge of cervical cancer.
Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman in emphasising the importance both of speed and of accuracy in the handling of the re-tests, such re-tests as may be necessary.
As regards the time scale for completing the exercise, I indicated eight to nine weeks as the outside limit within which we expect all aspects of the matter to be concluded, but I confidently predict that the very large majority of cases will be dealt with quickly and well within that time scale.
We are considering the membership of the inquiry team along with Dr. McGoogan. I take note of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about involving somebody from outside the medical profession.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of a supervisory body to monitor auditing procedures in the future. This is certainly a topic that I expect the inquiry to want to examine.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of women not being put off having the tests, and I absolutely endorse what he said. These tests are important and of great value to the women concerned. They are now carried out on a three-year cycle, whereas before it was a five-year cycle, and I have considerable confidence in their efficiency and accuracy.
Mr. Phil Gallie: I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a most regrettable situation. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), but I must point out that the problem extends into Ayrshire, albeit not to such a degree. Does my right hon. Friend agree that application for trust status for hospitals demands very stringent quality processes to be built into business plans? Does that help in this situation for the future?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to the extent that a number of cases, particularly in north Ayrshire, will also be involved in this rescreening exercise since some of the smears taken in that part of Scotland were processed at the Inverclyde laboratory. On the latter part of his question, I agree with him on the importance of the highest possible quality both of performance and of auditing of measures of this kind.
Mrs. Ray Michie: The Secretary of State will be aware of my concern and that of my constituents in Cowal and Bute whose tests were also sent to the Inverclyde Royal hospital. I too welcome the swift action by the Argyll and Clyde health board in making this very serious matter public and in setting up the valuable helpline. I endorse what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said about the membership of the inquiry team. I hope that a suitable lay person will be included in the team.
Has any thought been given to tracing women who have left the area, including the Scottish wives of Americans who have returned to the United States following the closure of the Holy Loch base?
Finally, will the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about the possibility of introducing the Quest cancer test? I believe that it is 95 per cent. accurate, and much less subjective than the method currently used. Only £480,000 is required to conclude the final trial.
Mr. Lang: I note what the hon. Lady has said about the membership of the inquiry team, and I shall bear her suggestion in mind.
Every effort will be made to track down all the women involved in the tests over the period in question, including, where possible, those who have gone abroad. The community health index will be helpful, and all Scotland's health boards have offered whatever help may be needed to improve both the speed and the accuracy of the exercise.
The hon. Lady also asked about new procedures for cervical smear tests. I am confident that the processes being used throughout the health service in Scotland—and elsewhere in the United Kingdom—are the most appropriate at present, but research continues, in this country and abroad, to find ways of improving them. If any improved method is established, we shall of course want to consider it.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern that was felt throughout Scotland when the problem was announced. Surely the important task now is to reassure everyone that the Government are acting to remedy this difficult and serious situation. We all realise that human errors will always occur when humans are involved; the important thing is to deal quickly and effectively with such errors when they are revealed.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since February 1992, the auditing process that has already been in use elsewhere throughout Scotland has been used in the hospital concerned. I am confident—as is the chairman of the health board—that the problems will not recur.
Mr. Tony Worthington: The problem clearly occurred because of procedural errors. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the same procedural errors could not have occurred in other health boards between 1987 and 1993?
Mr. Lang: As far as I am aware, there is no question of their having occurred in other health boards. All the general managers met yesterday to discuss matters; this matter was also discussed, and I am confident that they will all re-examine the processes that are used. I believe,
1154
however, that the situation that existed in the Argyll and Clyde board until February 1992 does not exist anywhere else.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State accept that all hon. Members wish to ensure that women are guaranteed a service that will secure the correct results of tests that they undergo—for instance, cervical smears or mammography? That is very important.
Any woman whose test produces a slightly worrying result will experience weeks of agony in her attempt to come to terms with the situation. The Secretary of State has said that he estimates that women in the Inverclyde area will have to wait no longer than eight or nine weeks at the outside for the final result. Will he give us his estimate of the shortest time that they will have to wait, to reassure the 20,000 women involved—and, no doubt, all the other women throughout Scotland who are deeply concerned about the possibility that their tests have produced an inaccurate result? That is an important consideration for women.
Mr. Lang: I agree: it is urgent that as many people as possible are reassured as quickly as possible. Mrs. Mary Robertson, the unit general manager, has been appointed head of a task force set up to take appropriate steps as quickly and efficiently as possible, and the assistance of two external laboratories has been called in to speed up the process. In addition, further resources will be made available as necessary.
I emphasise that the eight-to-nine-week time scale is the outside limit within which I hope the entire exercise will have been completed, including the follow-up on those who have to be tested again.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be churlish not to agree that the Government have acted speedily on this matter but that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has done a great service to the House and to women in tabling the question? Although the Secretary of State apparently takes the view that this is an isolated incident, does he accept that 20,000 women are deeply worried and that the incident has implications beyond Inverclyde?
Will the Secretary of State accept that we require assurances about standards of quality elsewhere in Scotland and that it is a matter not only of human frailty but of the type of systems that we operate? Is he satisfied that the available resources are sufficient to ensure that no such incidents occur elsewhere?
Will the Secretary of State consider whether the inquiry that he has outlined should be broadened in its remit not to deal only with the specific problem in Inverclyde but to allay the worries of women throughout Scotland and Great Britain who have rightly placed so much faith in smear tests?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on resources? Will he assure us that the local health authority will not be asked to pay the bill arising from this unfortunate incident?
Does he accept that the Opposition and the whole House wish to encourage the great majority of hospital laboratory personnel engaged in such demanding work to maintain their very high standards, and that we acknowledge that the obligations placed on them are horrendous in the extreme?

1155
It is essential that this incident should not act as a deterrent to anyone anywhere in the United Kingdom, and certainly not in Scotland, who is considering whether to be screened or tested by the NHS. Apart from the re-examination of slides, which the Secretary of State has announced, and the inquiry, what further steps will he take to ensure that there is no such deterrent effect from the sad experience of Inverclyde?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the speedy reaction of the health board and the Government to this extremely unfortunate and serious incident. I must emphasise the fact that, of the 20,000 cases involved, some 90 per cent. will not need to be recalled—that is our expectation—and, of the remainder who are recalled, a substantial proportion will be recalled simply because the quality of the original smear does not enable an adequate reading to be taken.
I anticipate that any difficulty or problem arising over the identification or diagnosis of a cancerous or pre-cancerous condition will be confined to a very small number of people within the overall numbers with which we are dealing.
As for resources, I stress that the important thing is to get the exercise completed quickly, accurately and sensitively, and I shall not allow resources to be a problem. Whether it is a matter for the health board or for the health service as a whole in Scotland, I shall ensure that resources are adequate.
The question of the possible broadening of the inquiry's remit is essentially a matter for the inquiry itself whose terms of reference have not yet been set, but I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said.
I certainly pay tribute to the staff of the health board for the speed and commitment which they have shown in bringing all their efforts to bear on this problem and ensuring that the counselling services and other ways of helping the anxious women involved are put into operation as speedily and effectively as possible.
I underline the wish stressed by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). This incident should not deter women from undertaking these tests. Tests that identify a problem early are immensely valuable for the prospects of the woman affected. As for further steps that might be appropriate to ensure that that result is achieved, I shall watch the situation closely as it develops and take full account of the inquiry's findings.

Business of the House
3.38 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
TUESDAY 4 MAY—European Communities (Amendment) Bill, Report state, first day.
WEDNESDAY 5 MAY—European Communities (Amendment) Bill, Report stage, second day.
THURSDAY 6 MAY—Debate on the Royal Navy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 7 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 10 MAY—Progress in Committee on the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 5 May at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
Committee 'A'
Document No. 11235/92 on European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund anti-fraud measures.
Committee 'B'
Document 7021/92 on company taxation.
[Wednesday 5 May:
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Document
11235/92 Anti-fraud measures
Relevant European Legislation Committee Document HC 79-xviii (1992–93).
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document
7021/92 Company Taxation
Relevant European Legislation Committee Report HC 79-vi (1992–93)]
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, and especially for the debate on the Navy for which he will recall hon. Members on both sides have been pressing for some time. I remind him that we are still anxiously awaiting an announcement of the assignment of the new European constituencies in terms of where they will go and of who will deal with the issue of boundaries. Labour Members have repeatedly said that it would be outrageous if such decisions did not go to the Boundary Commission, which has expressed its willingness and ability to deal with them. We are anxious to have an early statement in the House on the matter.
May I press the Leader of the House for a statement and some information on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, which I understand may be returning from another place shortly? I hope that he can tell us that it will be possible to have the new draft immigration rules before the House before we come to that part of our proceedings so that people can assess how the Government have been able to meet assurances given in Committee which will clearly inform the debate that we have here.
I ask the Leader of the House to bear in mind that we will need at least three full days in Committee on the Finance Bill so that we can explore, for example, the recent judgment of the IMF that we are seeing the emergence of a structural budget deficit alongside a structural trade

1157
deficit in the United Kingdom. The emergence of such twin deficits will be of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
To address the issue of the victims of the Government's economic policy, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Secretary of State for Employment to come to the House and make a statement on the observation of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans):
"of the 1 million long-term unemployed, probably half … can be termed layabouts".—[Official Report, 27 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 838.]
The Secretary of State conspicuously failed to rebut that statement at the time—it has caused outrage certainly among Labour Members. I hope that she will take the opportunity to make a statement to rebut it.
Finally, I remind the Leader of the House that we are anxiously awaiting a further Opposition day.
Mr. Newton: On the last but one point, I will certainly bring the the right hon. Lady's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I must admit that I did not read into those remarks of my hon. Friend quite the import that the right hon. Lady has suggested.
As for days on the Finance Bill, the right hon. Lady will find that she will have ample opportunity to make the points that she evidently wishes to make, although I am not sure whether they truly arise in relation to the Finance Bill. It sounded more like the sort of point that she wanted to make anyway, and I acknowledge and, within limits, respect that.
On the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, I cannot give immediately to the right hon. Lady the precise undertaking that she sought. I know that my hon. and right hon. Friends will seek to ensure that the House has what information it feels it properly should have in undertaking the further debates that will be required on that measure.
On the question of the boundaries of the extra European seats, I cannot add to what I have said on the past two or three occasions—that once proposals on the matter have been formulated, the Government plan to consult the Opposition parties. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will come well within that parameter.
I note the further request for another Opposition Supply day. I couple it with the right hon. Lady's kind thanks for the debate on the Navy. I repeat the point that I think I have been meeting the right hon. Lady's requests at the rate of one a week, so at least she can harbour some continuing hope.
Sir Terence Higgins: As it appears to be the policy of the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee not to reply to letters from right hon. and hon. Members regarding the future of Old Palace yard, will my right hon. Friend allow us to have a debate next week? Is he aware that it is a serious matter? It is wrong that hon. Members and their secretaries should be evicted to accommodate the House of Lords secretarial agency. Their Lordships have said that the building is not suitable. The proposal is to apply for planning permission to make structural alterations to a building that is clearly of great historical importance.
Mr. Newton: I am, of course, aware of the concern expressed in various quarters, not least by my right hon. Friend, about the matter. As he suggested from the way in
1158
which he put his question to me, the issues are primarily for the Accommodation and Works Select Committee, the Chairman of which I note is present in the Chamber. I am sure that he will have noted and will seek to respond in an appropriate way to my right hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Leader of the House may not be aware that in the past two weeks confusion seems to have developed between Ministers at the Department of the Environment about whether they have any responsibility for water charges in those parts of the country which face large increases in water charges. In view of the differences of opinion within the Department and with the Prime Minister, perhaps it would be appropriate to allow some time for a debate in the Chamber so that the matter can be urgently resolved. It seems extraordinary that Ministers have not decided among themselves.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in all Departments are united in their view about such matters, but I will certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's perception of disagreement to their attention.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Last week my right hon. Friend agreed to consider my request that statutory instruments Nos. 526 and 542 should be referred to a Standing Committee for debate. In those statutory instruments the Government seek to treat timeshare dwellings as commercial properties subject to business rates. Now that the weakness of the Government's position has been exposed and the cost to individual timeshare owners has become clear, will my right hon. Friend grant my request?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I have not yet had an opportunity to complete my examination of the matter in the light of my hon. Friend's request last week. However, I note his further request, and I shall seek to complete my consideration as soon as possible.
Ms Diane Abbott: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motions 1858 and 1859 and the recent murder of the black schoolboy Stephen Lawrence?
[That this House shares the sense of outrage in the community in South East London following the brutal racist killing of Stephen Lawrence on 22nd April 1993; sends condolences to his parents, Neville and Doreen Lawrence; recognises the state of shock in the area in view of the previous murders of Rolan Adams and Rohit Duggal; believes that the presence and activity of the British National Party in the area incites racial hatred and contributes to the level of racial violence; calls on the Attorney General to bring proceedings against the British National Party for incitement to racial hatred; and calls on Bexley London Borough to use its enforcement powers to close the British National Party headquarters which are operating in breach of planning regulations.]
Stephen Lawrence, a church-going schoolboy, was standing by a bus stop when he was set upon by a gang of white youths carrying knives. It is the third murder of a young black person in recent months in that area. All those murders have taken place within a four-mile radius of the headquarters of the British National party.
I visited the family last weekend. In the light of the family's grief and the fear of the black community that the murders represent the start of a wave of racist attacks, I

1159
ask the Leader of the House to make time for a debate on racial attacks. We want to tell the House that the black community wants to see such murders receive the front-page attention that other attacks receive. They are fearful that the type of racial violence that we have seen in Europe is coming to the British Isles.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate, but I can say—and I am sure that I say it on behalf of not only members of the Government but of all Members of Parliament—that I unreservedly condemn all attacks on members of ethnic minority communities. We all extend our sympathy to the family of Stephen Lawrence and express our hope that the culprits will be caught and brought to book.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend will have seen early-day motion 1670 on the selected list proposals for family planning.
[That this House notes the Government's proposal to include the contraceptive pill in the Selected List of drugs for prescription under the National Health Service; notes that the United Kingdom uses the cheapest oral contraceptives of any country in the EC and that the contraceptive pill gives the lowest failure rate of any form of contraception; recognises that following medical advances, the newer and more expensive pills containing safer progestagens are most vulnerable to the Selected List proposals because they are more expensive but are the first choice when prescribing; is concerned about the possible side effects, such as weight gain, headaches, bleeding and even unplanned pregnancies in women forced to transfer to a cheaper contraceptive pill; notes that the saving per woman is of the order of 16·90 per annum and contrasts this with £200 as the average cost of a termination of pregnancy and £1,217 for a delivery; therefore concludes that there will be no net saving if between two and four unplanned pregnancies occur in 100 women per year; understands the concerns expressed by health care professionals and organisations including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Family Planning Association; and therefore calls on the Secretary of State for Health to delete the contraceptive pill from the Selected List.]
The matter is causing increasing anxiety among both doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. I draw the attention of the House to my declared interest in the matter. Will my right hon. Friend give time for a full debate in the House in Government time on the proposals, which will affect many patients throughout the country? I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) recently had an Adjournment debate on the matter, but I feel that it should have Government time for full debate.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be present to answer questions on the first day of the business programme that I have announced. Meanwhile, I understand that the independent advisory committee on NHS drugs will ensure that oral contraceptives to meet real clinical need remain available on NHS prescription.
Mr. Ray Powell: As to the question by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) about the Accommodation and Works Committee, I can assure
1160
the Leader of the House that any letters he or any hon. Member sends to it are replied to. Indeed, if anyone has a complaint, most of them—like the right hon. Member for Worthing—are invited to raise it with the Committee.
I was not going to ask that particular question. My main question was to ask whether the Leader of the House had read early-day motion 1892.
[That this House shares the concern reported in the House Magazine of 19th April over the way the televising of Select and Standing Committees can be something of a lottery because of a haphazard pricing structure which can result in broadcasting organisations being asked to pay up to £2,000 for the television feed of a two-and-a-half-hour Committee hearings; believes that Committee hearing which are of interest on editorial grounds should not go unrecorded soley because of cost; and calls on the Lord President of the Council and the Broadcasting Select Committee to have discussions with the independent contractor, CCT Productions Ltd., so as to agree a pricing structure which meets the needs of the smaller regional companies and programmes as well as those of the national news networks.]
I pay tribute to the Table Office for ensuring that it appeared on the Order Paper because it was tabled only at 2.30 this morning. I do not expect the Leader of the House to have read it, but it is of direct relevance to him. It has a direct effect on the House of Commons Committees and, in particular, on those dealing with private Member's Bills. The televising of my Committee was stopped because it could not be funded on the particular day that I wanted it to be televised.
Mr. Newton: If I might advert briefly to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question—which he conceded was not really his intended question at all—I realise that I am standing here as a sort of postbox in an exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is in the firing line.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Bolsover is right, but I am glad to have facilitated this exchange between then.
As to the latter part of the question, I have not had a chance to look at the early-day motion, but I understand the position to be that the House decided that the broadcasting of Standing Committees should be, as it is called in the jargon, "demand-led"—that is to say, a Committee is covered only if one or more of the broadcasting organisations is willing to pay for it. I do not think that it is a matter over which I can have any direct or overriding control.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for time to be given soon for a debate on management buy-outs, with particular reference to Leyland-DAF, so that the preservation of jobs in the west midlands created by that management buy-out and its knock-on effect of retaining jobs in my own constituency can be fully discussed and the Government's contribution of £5 million to help Leyland-DAF can be properly noted?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very sensible question. I am glad to confirm the welcome news that the Leyland-DAF receivers have now transferred ownership to the management buy-out team. I

1161
understand that that was completed over the weekend, and officially launched yesterday. It will secure about 1,000 jobs, and it is good news.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a debate soon on the financing of political parties in view of the recent revelations of the former director of fund raising for the Tory party that two thirds of the £11 million which the Tory party admits to spending in last year's general election came from rich overseas backers, many of whom did not have a vote in this country at that general election? Is it not a serious threat to democracy for the party of government to be filling its coffers in such a way?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here during Prime Minister's questions. If he was, I cannot better—nor will I attempt to—what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said then: that it takes a pretty fair nerve for questions of that kind to be asked by a party, well over half of whose members, as I understand it, are sponsored by trade unions and where trade union leaders are on record as saying something as simple and straightforward as that which my right hon. Friend quoted a few moments ago.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I again ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on the serious and ever more widespread mutilation of horses in this country and to take account of the recent report of the National Equine Welfare Committee, of which I am president, which is seeking to co-ordinate a nationwide effort to stop those vicious practices?
Mr. Newton: Once again, with respect, I note my hon. Friend's persistence in quite rightly raising this matter on the Floor of the House. I hope that he will understand that I am not able to promise a debate, but I will ensure that my hon. Friends with responsibilities in this area are made aware of his continued concern.
Mr. George Foulkes: Thank you for calling me, Madam Speaker, and I wish you well as you enter your second year in the Chair.
May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) in asking the Leader of the House for a debate next week on the funding of political parties so that we can compare the contributions from British trade unions, which are openly and honestly declared, with the secret contributions of millions of pounds from foreign business men and tax evaders and find out exactly what the kickbacks are and what they get in return for their secret, undeclared contributions to the party in government?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman seeks to make amends to you, Madam Speaker, for what amounted to lese-majesté yesterday or the day before. He can ask me the question but he will not get a different reply. I would like him to explain what was said to the union leader who said that he will have a say in the party while he continues to fund it and that it will be a question of "No say, no pay". What about that?
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the Leader of the House make time to enable the House to redebate some elements of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which is clearly not working? I concede that I voted for this Act and that I was wrong. I hope that the Government will also concede that they were wrong.
1162
One element is that magistrates do not know the history of the persons appearing before them and therefore, when the case has been proved, they do not know whether the sentence is for a persistent or a first-time offender. Clearly, that is wrong. The fines formula is also not working well. People with a disposable income of more than £100—
Madam Speaker: Order. There is no need to argue the case. The hon. Gentleman must ask a business question.
Mr. Dickens: I wanted to be clear about the two elements. The disposable income formula is not working well and, as Madam Speaker has so kindly suggested, a debate would give us a wonderful opportunity to explore the subject in depth.
Mr. Newton: Even without a debate, it sounded to me as if my hon. Friend managed to explore it in some depth and I note his concern. He will be aware that we are all—including my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—aware of the comments and criticisms made in that respect. Equally, he will understand that I cannot promise a debate or the Bill that he appears to want, but I shall consider the matter carefully.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Could the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement from the Minister responsible for fisheries on the implementation of policies towards the industry, particularly the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill? Because of the preponderance of agricultural questions during Agriculture, Fisheries and Food questions, he will have noted that there was no opportunity for Members of Parliament representing fishing communities to express their views. He will also recognise that the Government's policies are extremely controversial and wholly hated in the fishing communities. May we have an early statement so that those matters can be examined once again?
Mr. Newton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman evidently did not manage to get in during Agriculture questions. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister was as sorry as I am and I am sure that he will seek to respond appropriately to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Nicholas BudgenWill my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on British relations with Denmark before 18 May? May I remind him that at the Edinburgh summit the Foreign Secretary said ' that it would not be a political reality to suppose that we should sit down at a new place and renegotiate a treaty with 11 member states without Denmark. As he has since made some ambiguous remarks in Denmark which, given their worst interpretation, may amount to a betrayal of the promises made to obtain the paving debate—
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not need hon. Members to argue their case at business questions. A couple of lines merely to give an indication of the subject to the Leader of the House would be sufficient. Will the hon. Gentleman please make his point?
Mr. Budgen: Those ambiguous words might have been a gross—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am now calling the hon. Gentleman to order. He must either ask a direct question or resume his seat. Which is it to be?
Mr. Budgen: I shall ask a direct question. In the light of those observations, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate as quickly as possible?
Mr. Newton: I have nominated two days of debate on European matters—the first two days after the weekend. I am not absolutely sure whether my hon. Friend was present during Prime Minister's questions on Tuesday, but even if he was not he has only to read the record of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to see that the implications of the question that he has just asked were completely disposed of by the answer of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday.
Mr. Barry Jones: When will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry make a statement on the new map of assisted area status for Britain? Cardiff, Newport, Rhyl, Wrexham, and Alyn and Deeside are apprehensive about losing that prized status. Wales must not miss out. There are 3,100 people out of work in my constituency; they need the status to find work.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's concern about the assisted area status map. I take it that he is giving a sign of what he wants to see in the outcome of the current review. I am not in a position to give the outcome today, or to say precisely when it will be possible to give it. However, I am sure that, once again, my right hon. Friends will have noted the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in a moment or two the House will undertake a debate on the problems of Bosnia and the ethnic difficulties of that embattled republic. Does he accept that a similar, although lower profile, problem presently exists on the wonderful and beautiful island of Cyprus, about which discussions are taking place? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or an appropriate Minister to come to the House and make a statement on the United Kingdom Government's exact stance on the problem? That would allow the Foreign Office to adopt an even-handed attitude to both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots—which is not the case at present.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise the sort of statement that my hon. Friend wants, but at least I am saved from the task of having to act as a postbox as the man at whom the missive was aimed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, is by my side.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for a debate on the long overdue reports of the Select Committee on Members' Interests on a register of lobbying interests and new registration rules which are roughly two years and 14 months overdue? Does he not realise that people will think it hypocritical of the Tories to vote for a 1·5 per cent. pay freeze for the public sector while many of them are busy lining their pockets with outside directorships and parliamentary adviserships? Such moves have been backed by a Government who consistently refuse to give time for a debate on reports as requested by the House.
Mr. Newton: Leaving aside all the political stuff at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question, as I have said to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on
1164
a number of occasions, I am hoping to make progress on the matter. Clearly, the House has had to deal with much business of various sorts in recent weeks.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Given the tragedy of Warrington, the mayhem of Bishopsgate, regular disasters throughout the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland, and the fact that the IRA has boasted that no security levels are immune to them, will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on a means of resolving those problems?
Mr. Newton: I certainly cannot promise a debate next week, but I note the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed—I am sure that it is echoed in many parts of the House. I shall bring it to the attention of the Home Secretary, who is the person principally concerned.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland next week to clear up the confusion that has arisen in Scotland about what has happened to its share of the money announced by the Secretary of State for Employment for after-school child care? When I asked her about this in January, she said that 9 per cent. of the £45 million should go to Scotland and that the money was earmarked for that purpose. Can the Secretary of State explain, then, why the money is ring-fenced in England and well publicised in England, yet the Scottish Office has refused to ring-fence it or give any publicity to it?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman should be able to find an opportunity to put that point directly to the Secretary of State on Wednesday 5 May, when he will be here to answer questions.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, regardless of what may or may not happen on 14 May to the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), the Government will, in the next Session, introduce a Bill of their own on Sunday trading, offering at least three choices on which the House will be able to vote without a Whip?
Mr. Newton: In a technical sense, my hon. Friend is asking me to pre-empt the Queen's Speech, but he will be well aware of what has been said about the Government's intention to introduce legislation covering this matter.
Mr. Mike Hall: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that the doctors' surgery at Windmill Hill in my constituency has closed today, and that the 703 patients of the surgery were advised of the closure by Cheshire health authority only last weekend? They were not consulted about the decision, and they now have to go elsewhere in Runcorn to find doctors' practices. Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House next week and make a statement on how the patients charter is protecting the interests of my constituents?
Mr. Newton: As it happens—I have already said this once or twice—the Secretary of State for Health is due to be here on Tuesday 4 May. Perhaps I can be even more helpful by saying that I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already spoken to the Minister, who has agreed to write to him about the matter. I am sure that she and her officials are looking into it at this very moment.

Points of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether, arising out of Question 6 to the Prime Minister, you would reflect on the following issue over the weekend, because these matters are complex. I refer to the question of the sub judice rule.
I draw your attention to column 755 in the Official Report of 10 November 1992, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said:
"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."
My right hon. Friend then asked you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on the matter. At column 756, I said:
"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"?
You, Madam Speaker, replied:
"Order. It is quite the opposite. As I have already said, the inquiry is not sub judice."—[Official Report, 10 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 755–56.]
The argument is that the Ordtech trial, which is a very grey area, is parallel to the Matrix Churchill trial. However, after various inquiries, I do not know whether this is covered by Lord Justice Scott although I am told that 'At is. In those circumstances, may I ask you to reflect on those complex issues over the weekend and perhaps make a judgment on Tuesday?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman would read his Question 6 to the Prime Minister today, he will see that it deals not with an inquiry, but with legal proceedings. In fact, his question today did not breach the sub judice rule. The hon. Gentleman did, I have to say, stray in his supplementary a little far into matters of that nature, and
1166
the Prime Minister was quite correct in declining to comment further. The hon. Gentleman's question was not related to an inquiry; it related to legal proceedings.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister's answer did relate to the inquiry as I understood it. Would you reflect when you see the full report?
Madam Speaker: I think that I have gone far enough on this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read his question and will look at my answer. The question is concerned with legal proceedings; it is not concerned with inquiries.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you do something to protect the business of the House? We had questions today to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be aware that we made much progress through to Question 18 because, of the first six Labour Members with questions on the Order Paper, only one turned up for Question Time. Of the first six, only one turned up, although the seventh was present.
Can you advise the House whether you were paid the courtesy of being informed that notice of those absences had been given? Is there some way in which hon. Members can raise important subjects such as the Agricultural Wages Board, the Potato Marketing Board and the distribution of surplus food to poorer people when hon. Members do not turn up for their questions?
Madam Speaker: As the House is aware, I am quite anxious to get speedily through the Order Paper, but not as a result of absenteeism. Of course there are occasions when I am given notice of absence from the Chamber and that was the case today in relation to one question where notice was given well in advance, and in relation to a couple of others when it was given rather late in the day. It is a discourtesy to the House for hon. Members to table questions and then not to be present without giving notice to the Chair and to the Minister who is to answer them.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 17 MAY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Simon Coombs

Mr. Archy Kirkwood

Mr. John Austin-Walker.

Bosnia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
[Relevant document: the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 23rd April 1993, relating to sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.]
Madam Speaker: Today's debate is on Bosnia. I remind the House that, because of the great interest in this subject, I will have to limit hon. Members to 10-minute speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. I hope that hon. Members who speak outside that period will help the House and limit the length of their speeches.
May I make a point about the digital clocks which cannot be restarted without an engineer entering the Chamber? However, I think that we can manage without them, and I draw the attention of hon. Members to the clocks that are operating in the Chamber.
4.23 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): It is right that the House should return again to the tragedy of Bosnia. I am sorry that, because of the state visit, I cannot stay until the end of the debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will reply to the debate and of course the views of the House must weigh heavily with us as we continue to consult our allies.
Before I come to the policy issues, I should like to give the House a short update on developments on the ground since I made my statement in the House last week. At that time, 19 April, our concern was focused on the outrageous Serb attacks on the Muslim enclave of Srebrenica. Thanks to the courage and determination of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees staff and the United Nations protection forces, particularly the 200 Canadians now in the town, the situation there has become somewhat better. A ceasefire is holding, although it is fragile. More than 700 wounded have been evacuated by air and food convoys are getting through.
The House may know that on Tuesday an Overseas Development Administration British aid civilian driver, Jerry Swallow, leading an aid convoy in northern Bosnia, suffered serious shrapnel wounds when the convoy was attacked by mortar bombs. He has been treated in a Canadian field hospital in central Bosnia, where his condition, after an operation, is much improved. He has our sympathy. He was wounded in a good cause.
Since last week's statement we have seen further attacks launched by Serb forces near the UN headquarters at Kiseljak and around Bihac in the north-west. The swirl of violence is sometimes hard for us to piece together. The Serbs clearly bear the greatest share of the blame for starting the war and for the atrocities that it has produced, but they are not uniquely guilty. The recent carnage in central Bosnia committed by the Croats and occasional evidence of Muslim atrocities against both Serbs and Croats vividly illustrate that no side has the monopoly on evil.
This is not a war with saints or heroes. We all share the revulsion forcibly expressed about Croat atrocities by Colonel Stewart of the Cheshires. He was right to be angry and the dedication and commitment of Colonel Stewart and his men deserve our highest praise.
1168
Our armed forces and British civilians, of whom I have just given an example, continue to play a leading part both in bringing relief from the suffering in Bosnia and in enforcing the arms embargo and the sanctions. Since November, our troops have escorted more than 500 convoys carrying nearly 35,000 tonnes of aid. In 460 flights to Sarajevo the RAF has carried more than 6,000 tonnes. We have contributed over £92 million to the international relief agencies directly and through the European Community. This British effort has helped to keep alive hundreds of thousands who might otherwise have perished this winter from cold and hunger. We must sustain the effort for as long as the need is so great and for as long as the situation on the ground allows.
We are all conscious of the moral and public pressures on the international community to do more, to intervene more actively to stop the carnage. Those pressures are sincere and must be taken seriously. However, we also have to remember the nature of this problem. We are witnessing a civil war in Bosnia which is encouraged and overwhelmingly fuelled by Belgrade. We should not pretend that, from outside, we can ensure a solution. Even a prolonged military commitment by the interational community could not guarantee that. It would convert Bosnia into a protectorate for an indefinite period without a certain outcome. In practice, no Government—I am not speaking about columnists—are seriously suggesting that.
As the House knows, our troops are in Bosnia for a humanitarian purpose and we do not intent to convert them into an army of occupation or an army fighting to impose a particular solution on the problem by force.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree, as he has in the past in the House, that if a peace settlement is agreed it will have to be internationally guaranteed, with all the consequences of that guarantee?
Mr. Hurd: That is quite a different proposition. Work is going on in NATO and elsewhere on how, if there were a credible and durable agreement, the Atlantic alliance under the authority of the United Nations might help to keep it that way. I am sorry to say that, as my hon. Friend knows, that prospect has receded quite substantially in the past few weeks. It may return, and I shall come to that matter later in my speech, because in the end the only durable answer is a negotiated political solution. That solution will have to provide ways in which the three communities in Bosnia can live and work together, if not in friendship, at least not in war.
If we accept, as I have argued, that military intervention on the ground is not an option, we are faced with a choice of lesser options to achieve that objective. None of them can be guaranteed to be wholly effective. All have drawbacks, some more serious than others. We must keep in mind our overall objectives—to provide a framework for a political solution, to press the Serbs, in Bosnia and in Serbia, to abandon the pursuit of their aims by the use of force, to relieve humanitarian suffering and to prevent the fighting from spreading—for example, to Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia or, indeed, beyond.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hurd: I hope that hon. Members will allow me to make progress with my speech.

1169
To be sustainable, peace must be based on a settlement agreed by all parties. The fighting cannot by itself resolve the fundamental problems in Bosnia, any more than fighting solved, or could solve, the dispute between Israel and the Arabs. A peace process is essential in Bosnia, as it is in the middle east, and of course a successful peace process involves difficult compromises.
Gains, to be permanent and worth while, must be accepted by others. Military conquest in Bosnia cannot achieve gains which are accepted. It is not enough to fly flags over ruined towns and villages. Worthwhile gains are not to be secured by making a desert and calling it peace. There is no future for Bosnian Serbs down that path, if they look beyond the coming days and weeks. The only alternative to a real negotiated settlement is indefinite fighting and suffering.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: In regard to United Nations resolution 828, what progress has been made in setting up an international war crimes tribunal? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that a genuine threat of being arraigned in front of such a court might act as a deterrent to those who sanction acts of barbarity against the poor people of Bosnia and elsewhere?
Mr. Hurd: It might. I do not deceive myself that it is a certain remedy. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the Security Council passed a resolution asking the Secretary-General of the United Nations to draw up a scheme for precisely such a tribunal. Everybody knows that it is not easy. It has consumed years of work by lawyers in the United Nations, and the outcome is not yet clear, but the Secretary-General has been asked to do that and we shall help to forward that work as best we can.
Mr. Chris Mullin rose—
Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make progress with my remarks.
Mr. Mullin: The right hon. Gentleman said that it must be made clear to the Serbs that aggression does not pay. It is clear, is it not, that aggression for the Serbs unhappily has paid? The only time that it will not pay is when they realise that the UN is serious and is prepared to back up threats with credible force. Is it not an unhappy fact of life that only a credible military force—on the ground, not bombing—will make any difference? Are we not deluding ourselves if we talk of any other alternative?
Mr. Hurd: I shall be coming to that issue. The hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong, as he will see if he considers the matter in detail. One does not secure anything seriously—for our children or ourselves—by raising flags over ruined towns and villages. There is nothing secure about that. It is a temporary gain, but it must be accepted if it is to result in any real benefit. That is the point I am making and why we have given our full support to the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Vance.
Two sides in the conflict—the Muslims and the Croats—have accepted the peace proposals. Lord Owen has been tireless in his efforts to bring the Bosnian Serbs around, exploring every possibility for compromise. So far, they remain intransigent. The plan remains on the table. It incorporates a number of guarantees to take account of Bosnian Serb concern to ensure that key decisions in
1170
Bosnia cannot be taken without the consent of the Bosnian Serbs and that they have unimpeded access, monitored by an international authority, between their provinces.
The political process is not dead and sooner or later, for the reasons I have put before the House, the parties must, and will, come back to it. The Vance-Owen peace plan is not a sacred text. Adjustment to it is perfectly possible. The political process is essential because it is the only realistic way forward for Bosnia, and the choice facing not just the Serbs but others is how long it takes to realise that and for how long the fighting and suffering must go on.
I come to the means of pressure, because persuasion has to be backed by pressure. The main, agreed, instrument of pressure on the Serbs has been, and remains, sanctions. I do not claim, and the House would not accept it if I tried to, that sanctions alone can guarantee success. I do not wish to follow the example of those who, in the past, have given a time scale for the effectiveness of sanctions. However, if carried out in a rigorous and determined manner, they can make an important difference. Combined with economic mismanagement, they are already having a harsh effect on the economy of Serbia and Montenegro. Monthly inflation in March was 225 per cent. Industrial production is half the level of 1990, more than 70 per cent. of the work force is idle and shortages are becoming the norm.
There are signs—I put it no more strongly than that—that under the pressure the leaders in Belgrade are becoming increasingly impatient with the Bosnian Serbs, whose territorial ambitions threaten to involve the whole Serbian nation in virtual isolation from the rest of the world. Those signs are insufficient. The Government in Belgrade can do more. We believe that they can exercise decisive influence on the Bosnian Serbs by cutting off economic and military support.
On Monday this week, a letter from Mr. Milosevic and three Serbian presidents to the Bosnian Serb assembly urged full acceptance of the Vance-Owen plan. It came days after the television station that carried the letter urging acceptance had been demonising Lord Owen. Public opinion is split and confused in Belgrade. We have to increase the pressure on the Bosnian Serbs and on Belgrade. That is why on midnight last Monday, a tighter and more powerful regime of sanctions was applied to Serbia and Montenegro. I am referring to Security Council resolution 820, through which we aim effectively to close Serbia's border. We are pressing forward with efforts to ensure that the provisions are translated into a blockade.
Sir David Steel: Is the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary able to confirm the reports that some of the shelling of Srebrenica took place from Serbia? If that is so, does it not make nonsense of written appeals to the Bosnian assembly and cast doubt on the use of the phrase "civil war"?
Mr. Hurd: It is a civil war in the sense that the huge majority—more than 90 per cent.—of those fighting are Bosnian. They are Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims. What the right hon. Gentleman says may be true. Certainly, there are supplies and encouragement from Serbia. That is why the pressures which I am describing are directed overwhelmingly against the Serbs as well as the Bosnians.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hurd: I do not want to take up the whole afternoon. I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) and then I must get on.
Mr. Duncan-Smith: In line with what my right hon. Friend has said, so that there is no confusion, will he confirm that, in the past 15 months, Croatia has taken shipments of some $320 million-worth of imported arms of all kinds, from aircraft through to powerful tanks, so the whole area is awash with arms? It is not just the Serbians who are involved in the matter.
Mr. Hurd: I cannot confirm my hon. Friend's figures. I shall come to the arms embargo and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me from his analysis.
I wish to deal briefly with the four main areas of sanctions. It is important that the House should understand what we are trying to do. On the Adriatic sea, since Tuesday we have new powers to prohibit all commercial and maritime traffic from entering Montenegran territorial waters unless specifically authorised. HMS Cardiff has been in the Adriatic with other ships for some time. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Western European Union forces in the area should be able to stop illegal passage by sea.
In the Danube, it is much more difficult. There are plans to deploy a WEU monitoring flotilla. We support that and are considering what we can do to help. The British are already providing a communications system between the states on the river, which is crucial for this purpose. We are anxious that the operation should begin as soon as possible.
The land borders are almost equally difficult. All freight and rail border crossing points should now be closed, with limited and specific exceptions. People are able to move from one country to another, but goods cannot, except for food and medicines.
We have to find the best ways of monitoring the new sanctions. We have sanctions assistance missions in all the countries concerned and they are being reinforced. We are considering with the United States and our EC partners how those numbers can be doubled, and we are tripling our own contribution of customs officers.
Finally, on financial sanctions, Lord Owen believes—and I think that there is evidence for this—that these are the most crucial of all. The financing of trade is just as important as its physical passage.
Since Tuesday, the obligations on Governments worldwide to enforce financial sanctions against Belgrade have been tightened even further. Funds outside the former Yugoslavia cannot be used for the benefit of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or of any commercial, industrial or public bodies in Serbia and Montenegro. We now have the power to freeze the flow of any Serb assets of even indirect benefit to Serbia.
There have been some real and publicised problems in Nicosia, Cyprus over the enforcement of financial sanctions. The Government of Cyprus have now announced certain measures to help bring them into the mainstream of enforcement. Those measures are welcome, but there is still some way to go.
I have proposed that, because of all the institutions involved in the effort under Security Council resolution
1172
820, the Secretary-General should appoint a sanctions co-ordinator—a senior figure who would identify loopholes, have the authority to knock on the doors concerned to ensure that the loopholes are quickly blocked and, where necessary, knock heads together.
I have gone through the measures because on paper, and now in international law, they are formidable. They will not halt the conflict overnight, but they pin down the Serbs and they limit their options. I hope that the message is clear that the Serb leadership has to exercise decisive influence on the Bosnian Serbs by political means, but principally by cutting off military and economic support to them.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Presumably the sanctions will also apply to Kosovo. In those circumstances, what is the point of the sanctions? Might they not be counter-productive all over Serbia and Montenegro?
Mr. Hurd: The sanctions have to apply to Kosovo because, under international law, Kosovo is part of Serbia. The point of sanctions is to intensify the pressure on the Serb leadership to induce it to exercise pressures which could be decisive on the Bosnian Serbs who, although they do not bear the entire responsibility, bear the main responsibility for prolonging the conflict.
Mr. Peter HardyWill the Minister give way?
Mr. Hurd: No, I must get on.
I now turn to other options. None of us can refuse to look at other ideas for a way forward. The suffering is great, the prospects for further atrocities are bleak and the glimmers of hope are too dim for us not to examine and re-examine all choices.
Solidarity among like-minded nations is essential. The European Community has worked together, with difficulty, but knowing that one policy is better than 12 and carries more weight than 12. NATO is now involved in different respects, on the Adriatic, as I have mentioned, providing elements of control and command for UNPROFOR. The NATO 16 are working closely and well. The WEU and the CSCE are involved and the Security Council has stuck together.
Work on other options is going on in all the major capitals. Wide discussions continue on three particular policy options in addition to the sanctions choice which has been made. It is now a matter of putting it into effect. Our common aim is to stop the fighting and bring the parties back to the conference table.
Mr. Tony Benn: I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary is coming to this point, but if so, perhaps he will allow me to anticipate it. Has he made it crystal clear to the American Administration that if arms are supplied and poured into the civil war, or if bombing is carried out by the United States, that will put at risk more lives and the humanitarian effort and will lead us into a far worse crisis? Has he made that clear to the Americans?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned two of the three options with which I am about to deal, and I shall come to his point soon.
The first option, which the right hon. Gentleman did not specifically mention, is safe areas. We have already

1173
welcomed the UNHCR proposal for safe areas in Zepa and Gorazde to allow the United Nations humanitarian agencies and the Red Cross to operate there. We supported similar United Nations ideas on those lines last July.
An international presence can have a calming effect, as we have seen in central Bosnia, and is invaluable to ensure access by relief convoys. However, there is a limit on what can be negotiated. We are discussing the option of safe havens by negotiation and the number of forces available and we do not believe that United Nations forces could or should fight their way into designated areas, or become combatants on behalf of the Muslim or any other community.
The House will know that in Srebrenica the Canadians have been living through some difficult moments. At one stage last week they felt that they were in acute danger. We have made it clear that it would be inconceivable for us to fail to support them from the air if the need arose.
We have always emphasised the right and determination to use force in self-defence if necessary. Thankfully, the situation in Srebenica is quieter than it was, but that may not last for ever.
Ms Kate Hoey: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Hard: No, I shall not give way again, as I have some ground yet to cover and many hon. Members wish to speak.
The second option was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—lifting the arms embargo. The House knows our deep reservations about that. We believe that we should be in the business of trying to stop the war and not equipping the parties to fight it out. The idea is understandably presented as giving the Muslims a chance to defend themselves against the more heavily armed and better equipped Serbs. It is possible that in that way Muslims would get better access to weapons, but the impact on the military situation would be neither quick nor decisive. The Serbs, and possibly the Croats, might decide to attack before the Muslims became too strong.
Far from tilting the balance towards the Bosnian Muslims, lifting the embargo could lead to an increase in the supply of weapons to the Serbs and the Croats. Violence could escalate and the humanitarian relief operations would become increasingly difficult and dangerous. If that were to happen, far from ending the suffering, that course would aggravate it. It could, more than any option seriously being considered, threaten an extension of the conflict into other parts of the former Yugoslavia or beyond. As arms flow into the area, the fighting could overflow out of it.
The third option is that of limited air strikes as a further means of pressure on the Serbs to accept the Vance-Owen plan and as a response to military attacks. That might work as a threat to deter the Bosnian Serbs from further attacks, atrocities and offensive strategies. If it were defied, actual strikes could prevent them from following those strategies. However, there are risks and uncertainties attached to any such action and they need to be thought through with the greatest of care, not just here but in consultation with our allies, before decisions can be reached. In particular, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield pointed out, the implications for the forces of
1174
the United Nations, for our own forces, for humanitarian agencies and for the drivers and civilians carrying supplies through day after day have to be weighed carefully.
We could not agree to action which would put British forces at serious risk. That was put succinctly, as the House will have read, by the chairman of NATO's military, committee, Sir Richard Vincent:
"Decide what you're trying to achieve before you go out".
That is very true. In testimony before the Senate this week, my colleague Warren Christopher, the American Secretary of State, made it clear that air power should be used in Bosnia only after strict criteria had been met.
Those criteria included the assurance that the goal of strikes was clear and understandable to the American people, and that there was what he called an "exit strategy" to avoid becoming involved in a Balkan war. In Washington, on the same day, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said:
"you cannot allow somebody to go forward and assume you are going to get in and out with a quickie operation."
Those are all wise comments.
The situation essentially is similar to that when I reported to the House last week. Those options and others are being considered. We must seek to stick together as we consider those options. We must not allow the Atlantic alliance to fracture on this issue. We are not excluding options simply because they were considered earlier and not adopted. But we in Government, we in the House, owe our constituents, as we said in another context last week, our considered judgment. The worst of all worlds would be half-measures in Bosnia which salved consciences without saving lives.
There is a risk of overlooking the broader picture in that concentration on Bosnia. The break-up of the former Yugoslavia has left a rash of conflicts, not just one. I sometimes think of Bosnia as a fire which is blazing, but there are heaps of combustible material around which we must try to prevent from catching fire. That is why we must support what Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance, soon to be replaced by Mr. Stoltenberg, are doing to prevent the trouble spilling over into neighbouring regions, particularly Croatia, Kosovo and Macedonia.
In Croatia, there is particular concern that moves to announce the unification of the Krajina Serbs with the Bosnian Serbs could lead to a flare-up of the fighting there. Pressure is being brought to bear on both the Croatian Government and the Serbs to hold back from any new offensives and to enable the renewal of the mandate for the 15,000 UNPROFOR troops in Croatia. That is the first force, not the one in which the Cheshires are involved. The continued presence of the United Nations in Croatia is vital if the kind of cruel, bitter fighting which occurred at the end of 1991 in Croatia is to be avoided.
In Macedonia, the greatest risk comes from instability as a result of that country's relations with its neighbours, including Greece. We worked hard, and in the end successfully, to secure Macedonia's admission to the United Nations on terms acceptable also to Greece. Lord Owen and Mr. Vance are now charged with seeking to resolve the difference between those two countries which continue.
At the same time, 700 UNPROFOR troops from Scandinavia, together with monitors from the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and the EC

1175
monitoring mission, are active in Macedonia helping to build confidence. There is a case for strengthening that United Nations contingent.
In Kosovo, there remains a high risk that a particularly brutal incident of repression against the ethnic Albanian majority could spark an uprising which could in turn destabilise the region. Under international law, it is part of Serbia. No one questions that. A CSCE monitoring team is active in the province under the direction of the Swedish Prime Minister, the chairman of the CSCE. That mission, he told me this week, is being urgently reinforced; but, undoubtedly, the situation in Kosovo remains dangerous.
Dr. John Cunningham: Are not the points that the right hon. Gentleman has just made reasons for making it clear to the Serbs that they should stop their aggression now and that they will not get away with ethnic cleansing? If they are allowed to get away with it in Bosnia, will not the temptation be for the Serbs to try it again in Kosovo and Macedonia?
Mr. Hurd: I follow that thread of argument. I am all in favour of finding effective ways in which we can achieve a turnaround in Serb strategies. I have been running through the options and we shall listen to the right hon. Gentleman with great care. I have listed the disadvantages of options, as well as the way in which we are carrying through the option that has been agreed—sanctions. I repeat that we are not excluding further examination and the consultation will continue next week, but it would not be right to refrain, either in private consultations or in dealings with the House, from setting out the difficulties that we see.
Bosnia was once a peaceful, prosperous country, in which all ethnic groups mixed freely. I had a letter last week from a medical student who now lives and works in Birmingham but who escaped from Sarajevo last year and whose family is still there. She wrote:
"Until the war began, Sarajevo existed as a multicultural, pluralist and peace-loving society. No one cared about the ethnic origin of their neighbours, nor their own for that matter. And people there still live together, Muslims, Croats and Serbs (because Mr. Karadzic is not a leader of all Bosnian Serbs)."
From my slight knowledge of the former Yugoslavia, I do not believe that hatred and killing are inevitable, somehow irredeemably logged in the history books as something that has to happen. That is not the history of the former Yugoslavia. The killing and hatred will come to an end—perhaps not soon, but never too soon.
We are deeply moved and angered by what has been happening in Bosnia. Why? Because it is carried day by day and night by night in our newspapers and on our television. But Bosnia is not unique, and I end on this general thought. If one visits Japan, as I did recently, one finds that the people there are much more concerned about what is happening in Cambodia. In Moscow, people are at least equally concerned about the killings in Georgia and the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Africans are more conscious of the atrocious killings, on a much larger scale, which continue in Angola, Liberia, Rwanda and the Sudan.
All those, and others—I have given only a selection—are wars inside countries in which thousands are being killed and standards of decent behaviour are wholly disregarded. That is why I have always disliked as
1176
pretentious the phrase "a new world order". We are wrestling, in fact, continent by continent with ancient disorders fanned into a new blaze by factions and extreme nationalism. It has been so through the centuries. What is new is our awareness of it.
We should not resent the fact that the media bring some, but of course only some, of those horrors into our homes. It is difficult for the television or even the press to convey the complexity of conflict, the spread of guilt, or the difficulty of arriving at the truth which characterises, in particular, a civil war. Nevertheless, they are right to anger and horrify us.
Anger and horror are not enough as a basis for decisions. It is a British interest to make a reasoned contribution towards a more orderly and decent world. But it is not a British interest, and it would only be a pretence, to suppose that we can intervene and sort out every tragedy which captures people's attention and sympathy. I have never found the phrase "something must be done" to be a phrase which carries any conviction in places such as the House or the Government where people have to take decisions. Governments and Parliaments have to weigh and judge. Bosnia is not the same as Kuwait or the Falklands, in history or terrain or calculation of risk.
Decisions cannot be based either on false analogies or on a desire to achieve better headlines tomorrow than today. That is particularly true when those decisions affect human life, and more especially still when the lives are those of British service men or civilians. The instinct to do better, to work harder, to look again at options, even those previously rejected, is a sound one, which we are following. But the decisions that follow must be based on judgment as well as instinct if they are to match the need. We shall continue, with our friends and allies, to apply that judgment.
4.58 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: It was right for the Government to provide time for a debate on Bosnia today and we welcome the decision of the Leader of the House to respond to the request made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition for such a debate.
There are deeply held and genuine differences of opinion on both sides of the House on this nexus of complex problems in the former Yugoslavia.
I make no criticism of those hon. Members who take a different view from the one that I take; nor are there certainties in any of the options that we are considering. I believe, however, that there have been some disasterous miscalculations in the past with diplomatic efforts, particularly in the European Community, over the former Yugoslavia, and that the credibility of the Community has been damaged as a result. We now face circumstances where the credibility of the United Nations itself is being questioned, not just by hon. Members and not just by people in the West as a whole but by many people in Muslim countries, and people in Muslim Governments too.
I want to begin, therefore, by making it clear to everyone that any action that Opposition Members would support, any new departure that we would endorse, would

1177
have to be firmly authorised under the provisions of chapter 7 of the United Nations charter, specifically article 39, which says:
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
I do not believe that we should depart from those provisions.
It is to the decisions of the United Nations that I first want to turn. There is an arms embargo under resolution 713 of September 1991. The United Nations protection force was established by resolution 743 in February 1992. Mandatory sanctions were established under a resolution of the Security Council in May 1992, and the UNPROFOR mandate in Bosnia is under those provisions of chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. I begin with those facts to answer those who say that nothing has been done and to point out that a great deal has already been done to try to deal with the appalling situation in Bosnia.
Who does not share the anger and the anguish of people in Britain and elsewhere about the agonies of the Bosnian people? We all share the anger and anguish, but we should not allow anger to dictate the difficult political decisions that we must make in trying to deal with the circumstances.
I want to echo the point made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about British personnel currently in the former Yugoslavia, all of whom, military and civilian, are playing an effective and brave role in appallingly difficult circumstances. They have earned our lasting admiration and they enjoy our complete support in the tasks that they are trying to carry out.
We gave our support to the London peace conference which eventually produced the Owen-Vance plan. I want to compliment Lord Owen—not always my favourite person—on his outstanding attempts to secure a peace settlement in Bosnia. The peace plan unveiled in Geneva in January 1993 has now been signed by the Croatians and the Bosnian Government but not by the Serbs. Surely the principal political objective of any action we seek to take must be to secure Serbian signatures to that peace plan? We must spell out political aims and objectives before we can begin to contemplate whether any kind of military intervention is appropriate or likely to be effective.
I do not, however, understand why there is such a drawn-out, continuing delay in reaching conclusions. The tragedy is that, in spite of the mandatory resolutions on sanctions of, in some cases, a year ago, no serious effort has been made by the international community to implement them effectively. That is the truth. It is clear that members of the European Community as well as members of the United Nations, including in some respects members of the Security Council itself, have allowed their own economies and their own people to turn a completely blind eye to the mandatory resolutions of the Security Council.
So while we warmly welcome something that we have called for since the summer of last year, namely a complete economic blockade of Serbia—I first called for it on 4 August last year, and I remember the date well because it was my birthday—we regret that it has taken the international community until now to accept that the existing resolutions were being flouted and that they were
1178
in no way preventing the Bosnian Serbs from continuing their military aggression in Bosnia. The decision, therefore, is welcome, if somewhat belated.
I recognise too that questions remain about the peace plan that the sanctions are intended to buttress, but Lord Owen has made it perfectly clear that it is open to amendment if only agreement to it can be reached.
Other decisions by the United Nations have been taken in support of securing peace in Bosnia: on human rights, particularly with reference to crimes of violence against women, under resolution 808 of February this year, and on the establishment of an international war crimes tribunal. As, in an incremental way, the international community has sought to bring about a resolution of the problem, we have gone along with those decisions, hoping that eventually they would become effective in a cumulative way, but we must face the reality that they have not done so. Economic sanctions, the arms embargo, the humanitarian aid programme which has been so worth while, the no-fly zone, the resolutions on crimes of violence and on the war crimes tribunal have not stopped the Serbs. They have not stopped Serbian aggression which, regrettably, continues even today.
The Serbs are the principal aggressors although it does not help the case or the credibility of other political leaders in Bosnia—Croatian or Muslim—when the Croatians launch attacks on the Muslims or the Muslims launch attacks on the Croatians. The reality is that among the political leaders as well as among the military leaders in Bosnia there are no innocents. They all bear a grave responsibility for continuing the slaughter in the way they do.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
The innocents are women and children, elderly people, civilians and non-combatants, the hapless victims of the civil strife that their political and military leaders continue to inflict on them. Surely it is they who should be uppermost in our thoughts. The best way to help them must surely be, in turn, to secure as quickly as possible a peace; an end to fighting; an end to the conflict in Bosnia.
Mr. Marshall: May I first of all apologise to my right hon. Friend for failing to note his recent promotion?
While I do not disagree with a good deal of what he has said, when he uses the term "Muslim" he uses it in the sense of the Bosnian Government, the legitimate Bosnian Government. Although it is true that atrocities may have been committed by that Government, does he not accept the basic fact that, when the Bosnian Government attack the Croatian nationalists in Bosnia or the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia, they are carrying out the legitimate right and programme of any legitimate Government?
Dr. Cunningham: I accept that civil war is going on in Bosnia, and I also accept that Serbian aggression is taking place.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: I am in the middle of replying to one intervention; I can hardly deal with another at the same time.

1179
The point that I was making is that political leaders on all sides of the conflict are willing to continue to wage war. I do not believe that, in those circumstances, there are any innocents.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: I will not give way yet. I am dealing with the point put to me by my hon. Friend the Minister for Leicester South (Mr. Marshall).
Let me refer my hon. Friend to a passage that I came across by accident. It is very relevant to the aggressive nationalism that is now so rampant. In one of his essays, George Orwell wrote:
"Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage—torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment … forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians—which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side."
I am afraid that too many such views prevail now among political leaders in Bosnia.
Mr. Cormack: This morning, the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to receive the Foreign Minister of Bosnia. We recognise the Bosnian Government—a multi-ethnic Government including Serbs, Croats and Muslims; but they have been virtually disarmed while seeking to repel people who are guilty of the most appalling atrocities. Can the right hon. Gentlemen deny for a moment that the overwhelming majority of those atrocities have indeed been committed by the Serbs?
Dr. Cunningham: I have already dealt with that point at least twice. I shall say more about my meeting with Dr. Silajdzic in a moment.
There are arguments for further action in the circumstances that I have described: action to secure peace, to end ethnic cleansing, to stop the killing and brutality, to prevent the destabilisation of the region—to which the Foreign Secretary rightly referred—and to avoid a spread of Serbian aggression into Kosovo or perhaps Macedonia, destabiilising Greece and, possibly, Turkey, Albania, Romania and Bulgaria. The need to uphold the authority of the international community and the decisions of the United Nations is another reason for contemplating further action, different from any that has been taken hitherto.
There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that, if we are to secure compliance with the decisions of the United Nations, we need to do more to deal with Serbian aggression than we have done so far. I am not sure that the necessary international political will exists to support the economic blockade that the United Nations is imposing. It is a sad irony that Cyprus—itself the subject of ethnic cleansing nearly 20 years ago—is now a base for money laundering to support that atrocious act in the former Yugoslavia. There is plenty of evidence that some countries are not ensuring that, for instance, money laundering and the trade in arms and important supplies are stopped.
I do not believe that we can simply stand by and let the present position regarding the peace plan drag on indefinitely. When I met Dr. Silajdzic this morning—I had
1180
already had a discussion with him some weeks ago—he made it clear that he did not want military intervention by ground troops in Bosnia; what he did want were air strikes and an end to the arms embargo.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: That may well be true from the point of view of the Bosnian Government, but my right hon. Friend should bear in mind the fact that air strikes without the withdrawal of British troops on the ground would simply put at risk many of my constituents, and those of other Cheshire Members.
Dr. Cunningham: I am coming to that. I am now explaining what Dr. Silajdzic asked me to support on behalf of the Labour party.
I recognise that none of these proposals is without risk: anyone who did not recognise that would be deluding himself. I cannot accept, however, that ending the arms embargo, abrogating the mandatory resolution of the UN Security Council—either by taking unilateral action, or by seeking to change it—and allowing additional arms to pour into Bosnia would do anything to bring about an early peace settlement. I do not believe that it would do other than extend and exacerbate war and conflict. Certainly, it would almost completely end any hope of maintaining an aid programme. The idea that it is the moral imperative of the west to arm the combatants and stand by while they go on slaughtering each other in ever greater numbers does not appeal to me at all.
Nor do I accept the argument put to me by Dr. Silajdzic and others that we have a moral duty to intervene in Bosnia. No one talks about our moral duty to intervene in Angola, where nearly three times as many people have been killed in a bloody civil war. No one says that we have a moral imperative to intervene in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: Not for the moment.
If the fragile circumstances brokered by the United Nations in Cambodia collapse and we see a return of the atrocities perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge, will we be obliged to intervene?
Ms Clare Short: I do not think that anyone wants more arms to go to the region. Does not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that if there is no willingness to create safe havens and no willingness to stop the Serbs, the Bosnians are entitled to have arms to defend themselves? If we do not accept that, we are saying that we want the war to be ended by the defeat and slaughter of the Bosnian people. Arms are not the best option, but if we do nothing else, the Bosnians are entitled to defend themselves.
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is a little precipitate in suggesting that I am about to rule out all the other options, but I do not agree that ending the arms embargo would be sensible; nor do I think it likely that the UN Security Council will be persuaded to agree to such a course.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry; not for the moment.

1181
There are other options. If, through agreement and negotiation, safe havens can be approved, of course they should be created. I do not believe, however, that we can establish such havens quickly or simply by taking military action and putting in combat troops. That is a fundamental difference between my view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short).
Indeed, the whole argument that somehow—quickly and militarily—we could impose a peace in Bosnia is not borne out by any sensible, rational examination of the circumstances. It would take weeks, if not months, to assemble a force, set up the logistical support and create the necessary airfields, safe harbours and supply lines. In the meantime, surely the predictable response of the Serbians would be simply to turn up their own aggression to grab as much land as they possibly could.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned air strikes. I know that they, too, are not risk-free. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition spelt out our view, clearly and concisely, nearly two weeks ago. He rightly pointed out:
"In recent days the tragic civil war in the former Yugoslavia has produced ever more appalling examples of barbarity as innocent civilians are made the victims of indiscriminate and brutal attack.
The slaughter in … Srebrenica and the horrific and ruthless pursuit of the inhuman concept of … ethnic cleansing requires urgent re-examination of the policies adopted by the international community.
Last year the United Nations imposed mandatory sanctions against Serbia in an attempt to halt the persistent aggression on which it was engaged. Over the months … we"—
meaning the Labour party—have
consistently protested at the failure to make the economic and military sanctions effective. Long before now they should have been widened and intensified—and above all, enforced. The sad truth is that so far they have not been a sufficient or effective impediment to Serbian aggression."
My right hon. and learned Friend concluded—and I believe that he was right—that the
"time is now overdue for the United Nations to insist that its mandatory sanctions must be imposed urgently and completely so that the pressure upon Serbia becomes intense. Had this been done earlier, as we have consistently advocated, perhaps we would have avoided reaching the edge of the present abyss.
However we are now in a situation which requires a more urgent response … it is now necessary for the United Nations to issue an ultimatum to Serbia—that unless a ceasefire is made effective, the United Nations will authorise air strikes against Serbian lines of communication in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such action is of course punitive, but I believe we are now at a stage where it is necessary to stop the flow of material to the war zones and to make the Serbs realise that the international community is capable of effective action in the course of implementing a resolve to bring the slaughter to an early end."
Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
Dr. Cunningham: I shall come to the point of the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in a moment.
My right hon. and learned Friend continued:
"Thereafter there must be continuous pressure to reach a political settlement which is the only way in which some sense of peace and order can be restored."
The whole purpose of an ultimatum is not only to give time for compliance but to give time for our own troops on the ground and the troops of other countries involved in the United Nations protection force effort there to regroup
1182
and, if necessary, withdraw. That is the reality of the situation. It will take some time, which is why it would be foolish in the extreme to say that we should simply launch air strikes immediately.
Air strikes have some advantages as well as some disadvantages. They can be far more readily controlled, politically as well as militarily, than involvement by ground forces in a combat role. They could be brought to an end and the situation reassessed after air strikes had taken place if the Serbians did not accept the ultimatum. However, none of my colleagues has ever suggested that there are any risk-free options in any of the propositions that we are discussing in connection with this war.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does not the ultimatum proposed by the Leader of the Opposition have a fatal deficiency—that the sanction that would ultimately have to be invoked would be air operations? By giving notice of them, would not the likely targets be dispersed and the effectiveness of the air operations minimised? In the meantime, the aid work, which has been so effectively pursued by the United Nations humanitarian agencies and our own forces, would be fatally compromised.
Dr. Cunningham: If the purport of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that risks would flow from taking the type of military action that I am describing, that is undeniable. He has to set beside that the risks and results of doing nothing further at all, of inaction. I have been making clear—as I believe the Foreign Secretary also made clear because it is a point of agreement between us—that those risks go way beyond the borders of Bosnia. They may not only be translated into action by the Serbs in Kosovo or Macedonia, but other people threatening ethnic or religious minorities in other eastern countries and other parts of Asia may conclude from the Serbian aggression that they, too, will be able to treat their minorities in the way that the Serbs are treating minorities or, in this case, the majority, in Bosnia.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I have been listening carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the risks of doing nothing. Has he noticed that the loudest voices from Labour Back Benchers urging military action are the same voices that were urging that we should do nothing in the Gulf? Does he believe that the hon. Members who have taken that line have now been converted to military action, or is it just that they oppose Government policy, whatever it is?
Dr. Cunningham: Fortunately, the hon. Lady is not eligible but, if she had been able to attend the parliamentary Labour party's debate last week or the discussion of its foreign affairs group, she would have discovered that there are some very unusual alliances in the Labour party on both sides of the argument. As I said at the outset, there are deeply held and genuine differences of opinion about what constitutes the proper course of action in these matters. I do not criticise my hon. Friends for taking a different view from mine but I am expressing the view of my right hon. and learned Friend, endorsed at the meetings that I have described.
Mr. Hardy: Many of us would not shrink from military action in the cause of peace, but my right hon. Friend will know that a number of us have been seeking to make modest contributions of a political nature. Is he aware

1183
that, in December last year, at the latest assembly of the Western European Union, which is heavily involved in the monitoring of sanctions, the then chairman of the Council of Ministers, an Italian, enthusiastically embraced the call that any European member state of the Council of Europe, WEU or any other European forum, or any aspiring member state—which may be more relevant—which was involved by negligence or design in the breach of sanctions should forfeit its right of membership of those forums?
The Italian Minister enthusiastically supported that call, then confirmed that WEU Governments had plenty of information about the breach of sanctions but said that he would release that information so that political decisions could be taken. The sad part is that the right hon. Gentleman has gone along with the Italian Minister and left us with an inadequacy in that political approach.
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend said "the right hon. Gentleman", but I am not sure whether he means me or the Foreign Secretary. I hope that he was not aiming that accusation at the Labour Front Bench, because it is from this position that the persistent calls for the effective implementation of sanctions and United Nations resolutions have been coming for almost a year. I understand from my hon. Friend's indication that he was referring to the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Frank Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Cunningham: No, I must move on, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
Sooner or later—again, I believe that there is agreement between the Foreign Secretary and myself—there will have to be a political solution to the situation in Bosnia. Sooner or later people will have to accept that they cannot go on slaughtering each other but will have to come to terms with living together as neighbours, peacefully and in harmony or at least without resorting to the violence of the past few months.
We are clear that the political objectives—the peace plan, the ceasefire and the need to bring the combatants to their senses—can be supported only by military action which is endorsed by and has the support of the Security Council of the United Nations. We would not contemplate supporting unilateral action from whichever quarter it was suggested, but we believe that the Security Council should be meeting now to consider the proposal in the terms put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend.
5.29 pm
Sir Edward Heath: All hon. Members in the House and everyone outside will agree with the Foreign Secretary's admirable words about the feelings of horror we all have about what is happening in the former Yugoslavia. Of course I share those feelings.
This afternoon at Question Time I asked the Prime Minister to give a clear undertaking that in no circumstances would British sea, land or air forces be used in the former Yugoslavia except for humanitarian purposes. I said that it was absolutely essential that such an undertaking be given because, until it is, every action taken by the Government is suspect and slowly dragging us into the civil war—[Interruption.] It is a civil war. Until we get such an undertaking, the Government's action will
1184
be suspect. An example of that is the presence of the Navy in the Adriatic. It has been said that the Navy is there to evacuate British forces. However, everyone suspects that it is there to join in military action if we agree to it.
All the time, we hear sources say that our presence in the Adriatic gives the impression that the Government are evasive or indecisive. Neither of those things is desirable. We must have a clear policy. If it comes to the question of air strikes, surely a decision can be made now—that is, that the humanitarian forces would immediately be endangered. We know full well that that is the case. Therefore, we should say decidely that we will not take part in or agree to any action in the air.
The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—as I understood him, because so many of his arguments were contradictory—said, "Of course, we will not agree to the use of armed military force of any sort unless it is sanctioned by the United Nations." In other words, he accepts the use of armed force, provided the United Nations agrees to it. Is he urging the Government, sitting on the Security Council, to agree to proposals for armed force from other countries? If so, he completely denies all his arguments that the British forces will be damaged if air force is used.
Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry if I was as unclear as the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but I read carefully what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said. We believe that the Government should support in the Security Council the issuing of an ultimatum to the Serbians. If the ultimatum is not complied with, selected air strikes should follow. I have said that clearly, and it is what we are suggesting should be discussed in the Security Council. We are asking the Government to put that question forward for discussion.
Sir Edward Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he accepts the invasion of the former Yugoslavia to deal with the situation. I cannot accept that for one moment. If that is proposed in the United Nations, the British Government should veto it completely. We must not send forces to the former Yugoslavia for military purposes. What balance of advantage can there be if we must immediately withdraw some 2,630 personnel who have done such magnificent work in helping all those wretched people? They are the people who matter. I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can stand up in the House and say, "Take action, even though it will mean that all the humanitarian action will stop." Nor is it in any way justified.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman had a proud record in the past in opposing fascist agression at a time when other people were perhaps prepared to appease it. Does he recognise that this proposed course would essentially give the green light to continued Serbian aggression and remove any possibility of our having a sanction to stop the aggression which is causing the most terrible suffering in Bosnia?
Sir Edward Heath: I do not agree with that entirely. As the right hon. Member for Copeland said, we must weigh up the possibilities. It is no use saying that there are risks in whichever course we follow: we must weigh up the risks against the possibility of obtaining an advantage. In this case, the risks are much greater than any advantage that

1185
we could obtain. The countries around Yugoslavia have agreed that they will not become involved in this civil war. If they want further protection, it is up to us to arrange to help them with it. That is different from taking part in a civil war.
Let us consider history. Anthony Eden rightly kept us out of the Spanish civil war, which was in my time. if was against Franco: I was on the other side. I went to Spain during the civil war. It was absolutely right to keep British forces out of that civil war. If we had gone into it, it would have precipitated the second world war before we were prepared for it. That is a fact.
Harold Macmillan kept us out of Vietnam, despite all the pressure from American Presidents, and from the Australians and New Zealanders. He was absolutely right. Recently, Henry Kissinger said that it was easy to get into Vietnam but damned difficult to get out. That applies just as much to the situation in Bosnia.
Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, week after week and month after month, the United States air force and navy pounded away at the Ho Chi Minh trail, dropping tonnes of ordnance but in no way stopping the supply of armaments to the Vietcong and in no way preventing the Americans from being defeated in the war?
Sir Edward Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I had not quite got to that point.
Another example is what happened in the Lebanon. When the American forces were blown up, President Reagan immediately withdrew everything and nothing else has ever been done about the Lebanon.
What I find slightly unrealistic about much of the discussion relates to the United Nations. What is the United Nations? It is the five members of the Security Council. The right hon. Member for Copeland is surprised that other countries do not carry out actions to support the resolutions. Those countries do not take action because they take no part in the Security Council and are not interested, or they find that their own interests are affected to their disadvantage. There is no need to be surprised at that. The right hon. Gentleman said that the resolutions must be enforced, but how do we enforce them? How do we force other countries not to do deals under the counter? It is a practical matter which must be dealt with by the United Nations.
The United Nations always acts after the event. It has no means of pre-empting the dangers that the world faces today. It has no intelligence service of any sort and it does not know what is going to happen. It has no information service, no means of assessing risks in actions that can be taken and no military staff to advise the Secretary General. It has absolutely nothing. If it is to perform any worthwhile service in this new world, it must have all those things and be properly organised; otherwise, it is just a matter of a discussion in the Security Council and the pressure exerted by its individual members.
Mr. Cormack: I am sad to disagree with some of the things that my right hon. Friend is saying. He was rather against the United Nations having any involvement in the Gulf. As he tried to be influential against it, does he regret his position in speaking against that? Does he now see that an independently recognised sovereign state has been invaded and dismembered and its people butchered before our eyes?
Sir Edward Heath: I said that we should have pre-empted the Gulf war and recognised what was going on, which we did not. We still have not had an honest admission from Washington of what the American ambassador said to Saddam Hussein about the lack of any interest in Kuwait—and he should get on with it. It is a complicated situation, which I will not go into now. Once we got to the point of the war, I did not oppose it. However, if it had been handled effectively by Secretary of State Baker, as my remarks on television have recorded, the whole situation could have been entirely different. To come to the final point, Saddam Hussein and his regime are still there.
This has a lesson for us. We hear about war crimes. If people taking part in ghastly orgies are told that there will be a war crimes tribunal, they will say, "If I have had it, I might just as well go ahead." So that is what they do. That is the psychological impact of saying that war criminals will be tried. We are unrealistic in suggesting that war crimes trials are part of the answer. They are not.
It is all very well to talk about sanctions. It grieved me when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day that sanctions were a long-term business and that they would continue until the previous situation was restored. That is also entirely unrealistic. We shall never return to the previous situation in the former Yugoslavia. Therefore, we are committing ourselves to something which is impossible and from which later we shall have to withdraw. That is another aspect of the unrealism that is prevalent.
We have just heard again from the right hon. Member for Copeland about the peace plan. It is hopelessly irrelevant. It is out of date. It bears no relationship to the present circumstances in the former Yugoslavia. It is useless to continue saying that we have a peace plan and that we must put it into action. That gets us nowhere. There may still be negotiators for the peace plan.
Lady Olga Maitland: Surely the peace plan has validity in that it is a means of bringing people to a peace agreement. No one has ever said and no one says now—not even Lord Owen or Cyrus Vance—that the peace plan proposals would be the final version. The great thing is to get people to agree in principle. Surely it is worth it.
Sir Edward Heath: The peace plan is now so irrelevant that it is not fulfilling the purpose that my hon. Friend wants. If we tell the Serbs in Bosnia that they must give up what they have now, which is more than 70 per cent. of the territory, and return to 43 per cent., they will not say, "Thank you very much. We will now sit round and have a happy party about it." The peace plan is entirely irrelevant.
It is also important that Lord Owen should retire and that there should be a fresh negotiator.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that that is not an invitation.
Sir Edward Heath: He goes to the other place. I am sorry if that disturbs my hon. Friend. Before Lord Owen was appointed, he made it clear that he believed that military force was the only way of settling the crisis in Yugoslavia. When he took over he said that he wanted a peaceful agreement. On television last week he said that the only answer was force. It is not possible to conduct peace negotiations if one publicly announces that the

1187
answer must be force. One cannot be surprised if those whom one wants to take part in the peace negotiations say, "Thank you very much, but there is nothing doing."
We must have peace negotiators who are prepared to recognise the reality of life and negotiate. We must have negotiators whom all the parties who take part in the negotiations, however controversial and nasty, are prepared to accept as people who are trying to do a proper job of settling the problem. Lord Owen is no longer capable of doing it. The best thing that the Community can do is ask him politely to retire.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I agree with much of what my right hon. Friend is saying. However, he says that one must recognise the reality on the ground. Does that not encourage the Serbs and their allies to conquer more territory?
Sir Edward Heath: No one is going to stop them. That is where people are so unrealistic. The conflict is a civil war stemming from Yugoslav history going back centuries. It is seeking to wipe out all the changes and hatreds of all those years. Unless we recognise that as the basis of the conflict, we shall not reach any peaceful solution. One must realise that.
Ms Hoey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Heath: No, I am sorry.
We then come to the European Community. The problem about the Community is that, again, it has no machinery to find out what will happen. I am sorry that my right hon. Friends who are now in power are opposed to the Community having the machinery to deal with foreign policy and defence. It is absolutely essential. Otherwise, there can be no Community action. We hear criticism not from sceptics, who approve of the European Community's stance, but from other people. They ask why the Community has not stepped in to deal with the conflict. It did not foresee it and it has no means of evaluating a policy on it or achieving any results.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is divided.
Sir Edward Heath: One has no means of knowing that it is divided, because it has not got together on the issue.
The Community requires the proper machinery to deal with problems such as the crisis in Yugoslavia. People ask what can be done. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he stands against the "something must be done" syndrome. That syndrome is affecting much of the behaviour in the House.
We see ghastly scenes on television and of course we are horrified. So are people outside. But the people of Britain do not want us to go to war. They do not want to see planes bringing back dead bodies as they see dead bodies on television in Yugoslavia. Of course people are opposed to that. I believe that the great majority in the House are also opposed to it.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ms Hoey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Heath: No, I will not give way.
We are told that we have the closest contact with our allies in Washington. The new President has no experience of international affairs. He has no military knowledge. His Cabinet is hopelessly divided on all these problems and incapable of reaching a decision about Yugoslavia or any other international matter. So why should we risk being pushed into military action by the President of the United States? In his younger years, before he became so important, he criticised what the Americans were doing in Vietnam.
Mr. Mullin: There is no comparison with Vietnam.
Sir Edward Heath: Yes, there is. There is a comparison between policies of putting forces into a country in which they cannot achieve their end. That applies just as much to Yugoslavia as it did to Vietnam.
Mr. Mullin: Half a million American troops were sent 10,000 miles to prop up a rotten regime which had no moral base whatever. There is no comparison between Vietnam and Bosnia.
Sir Edward Heath: With great respect, I will not argue about the nature of the regime.
How many troops would be required in Yugoslavia—150,000? And where would the troops come from if we decided to use force? We could not provide them. We are already over-extended. So which other countries will provide the forces to deal with the conflict?
We must not allow ourselves to be pressured by Washington. One of the American chiefs of staff said that air attacks ran no risk. That statement shows profound and overwhelming ignorance. There would be enormous risks to our people there, who are carrying out their task magnificently.
Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if bomb attacks were agreed, the logical conclusion would be to put in combat troops to safeguard the lives of humanitarian aid workers? The deployment of ground forces would follow from that. So one cannot divorce one argument from the other.
Sir Edward Heath: Of course that is true. A substantial number of ground forces would be required. The minimum estimate is 150,000. One must be realistic about that.
Mr. Nigel Forman: For how long would they be needed?
Sir Edward Heath: For year after year. I wish to say a few words about what we can do. We have given a great deal of humanitarian aid. The amount of food and medicine available now will last only a short time. To supply people with food to the end of the year will cost £590 million. Only £16 million of that has been committed internationally so far. If the "something must be done" brigade want to get something done, let them start working on that. Let them acquire the supplies of food and medicine. We can provide the people because they are there already. We can provide the air transport. That is a practical measure which would help the wretched people in Yugoslavia.
I ask the House to be clear. There is no future in our putting in military forces to join in the civil war in

1189
Yugoslavia. On the other hand, there is an immense amount that we can do to help them if we put our minds to it.
5.49 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The House will have listened to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) with interest. I am bound to say that he is, at least, consistent. The House will note that many of his comments and predictions are exactly the same as those that he made about the Gulf war. He was wrong then, and I fear that he is wrong now.
This is not an easy matter; it is a very difficult matter which requires careful judgment. None of us can be certain that any judgment that we make today will carry through in the heat of the events of a fast-changing situation. It is right that the House should debate it—many will find it remarkable that the House has not debated it before now except on a Supply day provided by my party.
The best that can be said about the tragedy in Bosnia is that it is a tragedy which arrived before Europe was ready to cope with it. The worst that can be said is that the consistent, year-long failure of judgment, leadership and action has led, as many of us predicted it would, inexorably to tragedy heaped on tragedy, to the humiliation of the United Nations and the weakening of its international standing, and to the humiliation of our own troops on the ground. It has led to the return of practices that we thought had been banished from the continent of Europe 50 years ago when the Nazis were defeated—except that the use of rape has now been added as an instrument of war—and to the ever-present and growing threat of a widening conflict with the incalculable consequences for the peace of the region and, in due course, the peace of Europe.
There was a failure of judgment from the start—that is without question—in the too-early recognition of Croatia, without ensuring that there were proper bulwarks in place for minority rights. There has also been a failure of judgment on our part because we began to see things in blacks and whites too early.
The Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who spoke for the Labour party, are absolutely right to say that nobody comes out of this with clean hands; there has been aggression on all sides—a powerful case can be made that the aggression in Bosnia-Herzegovina was started by the Muslims as much as by the Serbs—but there is no doubt whatsoever that the burden of aggression and the revolting overturning of the basic practices of human rights lies against the Serbs. And, whatever the history, it is with the current Serbian aggression that we must deal.
The failure to take action after the conflict started a year ago is greater than the failure of judgment which may have contributed to its beginning. We have acted throughout this crisis always too little and too late—always reacting to events, never shaping them; always allowing ourselves to be dragged in backwards, tiptoeing a step at a time into the mire of intervention in circumstances that we have never sought to control. Those are the circumstances we have currently arrived at, and the consequences of this failure are enormous.
A terrible price has been paid by the innocents on the ground for that failure. Every attempt at peace—from London through the Vance-Owen plan—has failed,
1190
because the Serbs, and now the Croats, have always understood that they had more to gain from aggression on the ground than from the negotiating table. The Prime Minister's own success at the London conference has, I regret to say, turned to dust, just as we warned him it would. Unless we were prepared to stop the aggression on the ground, there was no possibility that the Serbs—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I shall come to that.
There was no possibility that the Serbs would seriously negotiate; they would not stick to anything they signed up to. No prediction is necessary because that is exactly what happened in Krajina of Croatia. Even if the Vance-Owen plan was to be put into practice—I share the view of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup on this and doubt that it will—the reality is that there is no prospect that the Serbs would then relinquish the territory that they had captured by blood around Srebenica, which is dedicated to the Muslims under the Vance-Owen plan, unless we are prepared to force them to do so.
We have but two options now open to us, because the other consequence of that failure is that all the best options have been lost to us. There is no risk-free option, there never has been. The risks of taking the actions that were open to us in August, September, October and November were less than the risks of the actions now open to us. There is no doubt whatsoever that further delay will mean greater risk of action, and that is the ineluctable conclusion to be reached as a result of what has happened.
It seems to me that there are only two options left; to act or to see the United Nations humiliated and forced to leave the area with its tail between its legs. David Owen has rightly said that this is a crucial moment because the Croats, having observed the Serbs indulging in aggression with impunity upon the territories held by the Muslim forces, now intend to join the feast and have started to do so.
If there is now a second front, as we see, opened up on this tragedy, the possibility of a situation which becomes totally unmanageable is much the greater. Unless we can stop it and stabilise the conflict now, we will have a situation where all the remaining power and authority of the United Nations will be incapable of making any major contribution.
In addition to that, the position of our own troops in Vitez will become increasingly precarious. We have to remember that every round of ammunition and ration pack for our troops must come across Croat territory. Their position will become increasingly hazardous if the Croatian/Muslim conflict is allowed to continue. The remaining Muslim state—a state recognised by the United Nations—will be annihilated, wiped out by aggression, and we will see a miserable and desperate end to this tragedy, which will undoubtedly result in the spread of this conflict to other areas.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must make it clear that I have quite a lot to say and because I do not wish to detain the House too long and allow time for other hon. Members to speak, I shall take three interventions only. [Interruption.] If hon. Members want me to take more interventions I will, but they are

1191
cutting into their own time. [Interruption.] I sense the mood of the House and if hon. Members want me to take more interventions, I shall do so happily.
I want to knock on the head the idea that has been perpetrated by the Foreign Secretary—and behind which he has taken cover to excuse matters, as have the Government, the right hon. Member for Copeland, and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup the former Prime Minister—that this is a civil war. This is not a civil war. If it is, what on earth are we doing raising sanctions against Serbia and Belgrade? If it is a civil war, why is it that the Foreign Secretary admitted that gun sites in Serbia proper were used in the bombardment of Srebrenica, a clear act of aggression across a recognised United Nations border? If it is a civil war, what on earth are units of the Croatian standing army doing in Bosnia-Herzegovina involved in the attacks on the Muslims? It is as logical to claim that this is a civil war as to claim that the events in Sudentenland in the 1930s was a civil war.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: The right hon. Gentleman is good at outlining the problems and like all of us he wishes the authority of the United Nations to be maintained, but its authority has been desperately challenged in Nagorny Karabakh, where it has actually done nothing, it has been desperately challenged in Burma, where 5,000 people have been killed, and it has been desperately challenged in Liberia, where some of the atrocities are worse than the ones we are talking about. What is so unique about this one conflict, one of about 25 in our modern world?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly fair question. Unless we are prepared to take a stand—and this happens to be Europe's problem and we have the capacity to take a stand on this—unless we are prepared to lay down standards here which might be applied later—the problems he talks about will not be controlled but will be multiplied out of number on Europe's own borders. Europe had better understand that this is not just the Muslims' problem but ours. Unless we are prepared to cope with it ourselves, more problems will arrive to threaten our peace.
There is no question but that the problem is Europe's failure. I am bound to say to the Prime Minister, who is not in his seat at present, that I think that it is a particular failure of Britain. We had the duty of leadership through our presidency, in the key months of the campaign. It was the Prime Minister's inability to realise that one must be able to reinforce on the ground what one seeks to achieve at the negotiating table that led to the failure of the London plan and, regrettably, the probable failure of the Vance-Owen plan. Once again, Europe is failing to tackle its own problem on its own doorstep, which leaves us today once again in the humiliating position of having to wait to see what the Americans will do so that we can, once again, hang on to their coat tails.
I noted Baroness Thatcher's criticisms of Europe. I found them strange coming from her, as no one has done more than she has to prevent Europe from creating the institutions necessary to tackle the problem on a European level. Opponents of even the modest advances contained in the Maastricht Bill are not in a position to criticise Europe on this problem.
Mr. Frank Field: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the impact of the crisis as it explodes elsewhere in Europe. We have a self-interest in the matter. We are witnessing the collapse of the nation state and the rise of tribalism—and those tribes are armed. If the conflict extends in the way that I think the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, millions of people will be driven from their homes and will try to gain entrance to this country and other European countries. We have already seen how Germany has been almost destabilised by the numbers of refugees that it is taking in.
If we cannot act from what some Conservative Members dismiss as higher motives, we can do so because of our legitimate self interest. Some people say that we act because we are horrified by what we see on our television screens—I do not think that that is a bad reason for wanting to take action—but we can also properly act in our self-interest. If we do not act, we may be engulfed, not directly by the fighting, but by the consequences of it as millions of people are pushed and moved around Europe.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman advances the argument more powerfully than I could, and I am grateful for his intervention. We do have a self-interest in the matter.
Those of us who propose stronger military action need to answer the question posed by many, including Mr. Alan Clark: why should action be in our interests? Why should we be involved? There are four reasons. The first reason is a moral one. We have a moral duty to help those who are suffering if it is in our practical power to do so, and I believe it is. Perhaps other hon. Members do not take that view, and some may believe that the moral argument is the weakest of all, but I do not think so. I believe that it is a powerful reason. I think that we can, and therefore should, help.
The second reason is an historical one. The continent of Europe should have learnt 60 years ago that appeasement does not satisfy the appetite of aggressors; it increases it. We Europeans, of all people, should have learnt that lesson.
The third reason is a regional one. If the situation gets out of control—as I greatly fear that it will if we do not act—there will be a regional conflict of incalculable proportions. It will destabilise, not just the regions of Europe, but Europe itself. Ultimately, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will become involved—Greece, Macedonia and Turkey. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, it is a personal problem for Britain. Over the past 40 years, we should have learnt from the experience of NATO that Europe's security problem is Britain's security problem—the two are indistinguishable and inseparable.
The fourth reason is an international one. If we do not stand up for the United Nations, its authority, and the basic standards of human rights and international law, then the UN will not be available to us when we need to rely on it in months and years to come.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)rose—
Mr. Ashdown: If the Secretary of State for Defence wants to intervene, perhaps he will answer the following question: if, after careful thought, it was considered right to risk lives in defence of the United Nations and international law in the Gulf, why is it wrong to do the

1193
same in Bosnia? Are we so cynical that our answer to that question is that the only difference between the two regions is oil? I hope not.
Mr. Rilkind: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way as the question that he asks me is very much in line with the question that I want to ask him. He is trying to persuade the House of the crucial importance for moral reasons, the peace of the world and the future of Europe of bringing the war in Bosnia to an end. Why is he prepared to call for what is by any definition only partial measures to bring that about? If he believes in the arguments that he is advancing, why is he not using his authority to call, if necessary, for the total deployment of massive ground forces, including British forces, in Bosnia? If he believes in his own rhetoric, why does he seek to draw back from that position?
Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks a perfectly fair question, which I intend to answer later in my speech. If he wishes to intervene again because he believes that I have not answered it fully, I shall happily give way again.
What can be done? That question relates directly to the Defence Secretary's question. Some people—including, I think, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—believe that nothing can be done. I do not agree. I believe that the longer one delays action, the greater the risk. For the past eight months, our plans have been bedevilled by the fact that we have been prepared to calculate to the last iota the cost of action, but we have never calculated the cost of inaction. But doing nothing carries the greatest risk of all, and could spread the conflict.
Whatever we do, our action must have a clear aim and deal with the facts—here, I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have given the Defence Secretary the chance to come back. I will answer the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman should answer the question."] I shall answer the question in my own way, in my own time, in my own speech.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that one of the realities is—I wish it were not so —that the Vance-Owen peace plan is, for all practical purposes, dead. That has serious consequences, and if the plan could be resuscitated, I would be the first to cheer. However, that would be an act of resurrection equivalent to Lazarus being brought back to life.
What we do on the ground must always be co-ordinated with what we seek to achieve at the negotiating table. Until now, the deployment of our forces has not been in concert with what we have sought to achieve in the peace negotiations—there has been a dislocation between the two. [HON. MEMBERS: "What do we do?"] Hon. Members should allow me to make my speech in my own way.
I believe that the Government are right. The Defence Secretary is also right to say that there is no purely military solution. That is how I answer the Defence Secretary's question. I have never claimed that there was a purely military solution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me why I did not recommend using vast numbers of groups to achieve a purely military solution. My answer is that such a thing is impossible, and for the past seven or
1194
eight months I have made it clear that I have never believed it to be possible. The job of the military is to create the conditions in which peace has a chance.
My criticism of the Government and of those Conservative Members who are now heckling me is that we have never created that position. On every occasion our lack of capacity to take action on the ground has murdered any chance of peace because the Serbs and Croats could gain more from aggression.
Mrs. Currie rose—
Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Lady will allow me to make a little progress, I will happily give way to her later.
There can be no military solution, but there can be no political solution either for as long as the Serbs and Croats believe that they will gain more by aggression than they will at the negotiating table. That must be properly understood.
What are the options? The Government tell us that the sanctions are the option. They tell us that sanctions are part of a package which includes the enforcement of the no-fly zone, for which I called seven months ago. Then, I was told that it was impossible; now it is being done. In any event, we are told that sanctions will solve the problem. Yet this is the same Government who told us before the Gulf war that sanctions would not solve the problem. I should like to know why they thought that sanctions would not stop Saddam Hussein but will work to stop Serb aggression. Today the Foreign Secretary almost admitted that sanctions would not work, yet they are as far as the Government are prepared to go.
Mrs. Currie: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He will know that, as with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), constituents of mine are in the military in Bosnia. Given the figures that the Secretary of State gave us earlier, not only for deployment in Bosnia but for deployment in neighbouring areas, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are now the best part of 10,000 United Nations troops deployed there on various missions? If they cannot do what he thinks they ought to be doing, just how many does he think there ought to be?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Lady is wrong: there are 16,000 in all. She will have to wait until I offer my solution to what can be done. I will then tell her about the calculation given to me by soldiers on the ground.
There are two kinds of intervention. We might call the first offensive intervention and the second preventive intervention. The first is based on the idea that we can somehow deploy 250,000 troops to roll back the Serbs and recapture the territory. I do not believe that possible, for the reasons that I have already given. There would not be enough of them, even in those numbers, to do the job.
The second form of offensive intervention is that we should lift the arms embargo as recommended by the Bosnian Foreign Secretary. I agree with the Government and the Labour Opposition about this. This is the single action best calculated to ensure the widening of the war. It is also an impractical option, because if we lifted the arms embargo, to get the arms to the Bosnian Muslims, they would have to pass across Serb territory—self-evidently the Serbs would not allow that—or Croat territory, and as the latter are also engaged in the conflict, they would not allow it either.
Mr. Michael Colvin rose—
Mr. Ashdown: I have taken enough interventions.
Secondly, the arms could not be delivered to the Muslims until a considerable period had elapsed, and that would provoke increased aggression on the part of the Serbs and, perhaps, the Croats too.
Thirdly and crucially, if we are to lift the arms embargo on the Muslims, we will inevitably have to tolerate its being lifted from the Serbs too—and the Russians are only too ready to supply the Serbs with all that surplus, highly sophisticated equipment, including possibly nuclear weapons. God forbid that those weapons should get on to the battlefield.
Then there is the Labour party's suggestion that we should bomb the supply lines. If the Opposition seriously believe that that will stop the aggression, I must tell them that they are wrong. I have travelled in the area, for a week last September. I can tell Labour Members that the Serb part of Bosnia is stuffed with weapons. It was Tito's arms manufacturing area, separated both from the eastern and the western borders and thus best able to resist invasion.
The Serbs are past masters at throwing up new roads through forests. I saw them do it overnight when a road was cut by a Muslim ambush.
The bridges that would have to be blown are situated in the middle of densely populated towns. Even using smart bombs with a 40 per cent. accuracy rate, this would end up with the United Nations killing innocent Serb civilians. Nothing could be better calculated to strengthen support for the Serb leaders or to widen the conflict.
I can see a case for air intervention attacks against purely military targets, with the aim of showing clearly that we are earnest in our intent; but I do not believe that we will hit many of them. They will have been long since dispersed into the forests. But if we want to do this as an earnest of our intent, so be it. We should not expect it to have any effect on the ground.
The truth is—it is a hard truth—that if we want to do anything effective, we cannot do it without troops on the ground. If we are not prepared to countenance that—and it seems that the Labour party is not—we should not be in Bosnia at all. I can see no other way of achieving what we need to achieve except by putting troops on the ground ready to play their role.
When I spoke to the troops north of Vitez in December, they all said that they knew that the job they were doing was important and that they are prepared to take risks to do it, but they want to do it properly, and hitherto they have not been able to do so.
Mr. Andrew Robathan rose—
Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make some progress—and the Secretary of State is already waiting to intervene if I do not answer his question effectively.
But I believe that we can go in for protective intervention. I believe that we can establish the safe havens for which many of us have been calling for so long. I believe that it is possible for the United Nations to take under its protection the remaining Muslim enclaves in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is possible, and it is already being done, de facto.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: How long?
Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I
1196
will come to that.
Furthermore, it can be done without any change in the current mandate on terms of engagement. Indeed, this is precisely what the senior UN commander recommended three weeks before Srebrenica fell. He was prevented from taking that action by the politicians. It is also what the Canadians—only 150 of them; not vast numbers—in Srebrenica are doing today under the current mandate. It is precisely what the UN commander in Bihac recommended be done the day before yesterday. Indeed, he promised that it would be done under the present mandate.
The fact is that the soldiers on the ground are rewriting and reinterpreting the mandate, because they are fed up with waiting for the politicians to give them the backing they need. The Secretary of State says that military commanders have advised against what I propose. I tell him that there are times when politicians, who have to take account of wider considerations, have to disagree with military commanders. We had to do that in the Falklands; if we had not done it, we would not have undertaken that operation. But if, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, military commanders here disagree, why are the military commanders on the ground putting this into practice right now? Why was General Morillon prepared to recommend it? Why are the Canadians putting it into effect, supported, we understand, by the Government?
There are those who argue that this will mean the end of humanitarian aid, but it has already ended. Tuzla has had no effective aid for a month. If this is such a catastrophic course of action in terms of the delivery of humantarian aid, why has the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recommended just such action in a letter last week to the Secretary-General of the United Nations?
I will now answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), because it needs an answer. How many would be involved? I can only tell her the answer that I was given by the commanders on the ground in December. I said, "If I asked you to protect the remaining Muslim enclaves in Bosnia-Herzegovina, how many troops would you require?" Their rough calculation was about double the number that are there now—30,000-plus. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady can sit there comfortably on her Bench, but that is the view of the commanders on the ground.
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to present to the House a dramatic initiative to reverse the whole course of aggression in Bosnia in his proposals to protect the remaining Muslim enclaves. Why does he restrict his proposals to enclaves? In practice, is he suggesting that we should deploy whatever ground forces are required, without a ceasefire, to guarantee all remaining Muslim-held territory? Is he prepared to do that without a ceasefire and if the troops in Bosnia do not have the weapons to defend themselves if they face a combat situation?
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are more than 80,000 heavily armed Bosnian Serb troops in Bosnia. He is trying to suggest that we should expose British and other UN forces on the ground, and without a ceasefire, to a possible onslaught from those 80,000 men. How long should those troops stay there, and when would he draw a line in respect of that kind of operation?
Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State clearly, and presumably selectively, has not been listening to my speech —[Interruption.] I will answer the Secretary of State, if I may, without being shouted down by Conservative Members. What I have described is precisely what is happening now. Has the Secretary of State not yet fastened on to the fact that the senior UN commander on the spot, three weeks before Srebrenica fell, said that he was prepared to protect Srebrenica but he was prevented from doing so? He believed that it was possible to do so with his present forces.
Mr. Marlow: What happens if they are attacked?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wants to know what will happen if they are attacked. The answer is precisely what the Government have agreed to do to protect the Canadian forces in Srebrenica. We are not there, in these circumstances, to assault or kill the Serbs or to conduct an offensive operation. We are there to set up United Nations-protected enclaves. However, if they attack us, they will feel the full force of the response available to us, and that includes a response from the air. If that is the case, how can 150 Canadian troops, presumably with the commander's agreement, be placed in precisely the position I am recommending in Srebrenica today, with the support which the Government are now providing, of air power?
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman has been very kind in giving way. However, he must appreciate that the 150 Canadian troops, brave though they are in Srebrenica, are not in a position to defend Srebrenica from a determined Serbian onslaught comprising thousands of Serbian troops. At the moment, they are doing a very important job, but we must acknowledge the reality that that is because the Serbs have so far chosen not to use their weapons against them. What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest they should do if that position were to change?
Mr. Ashdown: are becoming weaker and weaker. The troops are there, there has been no attack and presumably the Government agreed to that disposition, because they have said that they will support it from the air.
If, as the Secretary of State claims, the action that I have described is impossible, why did the senior United Nations commander on the spot—General Morillon—recommend such action? Why did the UNPROFOR commander in the Bihac area, the day before yesterday, say that that is what he is now doing? Why are the 150 troops in Srebrenica following that policy at this very moment when we are prepared to support that action by the use of air power?
What the Secretary of State has said in the past is absolutley right. It is true that if we are to use air power alone in offensive operations, we will have to have massive numbers of troops-to back up that action. However, that is not true in defensive operations. That is the crucial difference between what we recommend in this case and what has been happening in the Gulf.
Mr. Shore: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. Ashdown: I promised to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, and so I will. However, it will be the last time that I give way.
Mr. Shore: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; I am very interested in his argument. One should not approach this debate in a negative spirit. We want to find a solution. However, there is a difficult point. The 150 Canadian troops are where they are now by agreement and permission of the Serb commanders. They would not have been able to get to that enclave or to the other enclaves without, as Morillon discovered to his intense fury, negotiating an agreement first. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his plan depends on negotiating agreements to allow UN forces into the different enclaves?
Mr. Ashdown: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, there are only two enclaves left. We already have ready access to all other areas. Unhappily, there are only two enclaves left—we could say that there were three if we included Sarajevo—but the two major enclaves are Zepa and Gorazde.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) may be aware that the UN has agreed to establish protective zones in those two areas without agreement from the Serbs. The UN simply declared them protected zones. It is fair to ask how we would get the protective forces through to those areas. It would be up to the UN commander on the ground to decide whether he could force passage. Let me make it clear that I believe that it would be extremely unlikely that that would ever be possible except in the most stable of circumstances.
I remind the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney—[Interruption]—and those Conservative Members still baying from the Government Benches, that the Muslim forces already in those towns are almost capable of holding the Serbs at bay. If we were to declare them defendable protected areas, it would be perfectly open to the UN to declare a land no-go zone around them and to use air power to assist the Muslim defenders to ensure that they did not face the kind of attack from heavy artillery and tanks that they currently face.
Mr. Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me; I will not give way, and I apologise to him.
It is perfectly possible for the UN to make that kind of declaration and to use air power to support the Muslim defenders to put it into practice.
I have criticised the Secretary of State for Defence for not having a clear aim. Let me tell him what I believe the clear aim of such a military operation would be. It would be to make it clear to the Serbs and Croats that they could not gain more from aggression on the ground and therefore the conditions in which a meaningful peace could be created.
I will now respond to a sedentary intervention, about the long-term solution, from the Conservative Benches. The Americans are right. If we go into something, we must have an idea about how to get out. Let me tell the House what I believe could happen. If we were to protect the remaining Muslim enclaves, and if we were therefore to create the conditions in which a genuine peace could be operated, it would be open to the UN to declare the remaining Muslim enclaves a UN protectorate. In that respect, I assume that the Vance-Owen plan has failed.

1199
If the Vance-Owen plan fails, we cannot commit any British troops, or troops of any other nation, to preserve the illusion that Bosnia-Herzegovina can be recreated. In those circumstances, Muslim enclaves could be declared a UN protectorate and the UN, on behalf of the Muslims, could negotiate with all the authority of the international community behind it, with the Serbs and Croats to establish safe, just and secure borders. After that, it would be for the UN to support that state until, in due course, it would achieve self-determination and the capacity for self defence.
This is a very important debate. When the Secretary of State for Defence sums up, will he tell us why, if he believes that this course of action is so impossible, it is the course of action currently being carried out by UN commanders on the ground? If it is the view of the commanders on the ground that it is possible, why are they not now receiving the backing of politicians here?
I finish by returning to a point raised earlier. Europe is most at threat when empires collapse: so it was at the end of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and so it is at the end of the Soviet empire. We do not have to look very far to see that the Yugoslav crisis is not so much a revisiting in Europe of Europe's dreadful past as a precursor for Europe of what might happen in Europe's increasingly chaotic future.
We do not have to look very far—not even as far as Hungary—to see the conditions for ethnic cleansing which are already in place. We need look only so far as Czechoslovakia to see nations being divided up and borders being rewritten. We need look only so far as the old Soviet Union to see rising warlordism with warlords armed to the teeth with the most modern and sophisticated weapons.
If western Europe, as the only bloc and foundation of stability on our continent, is not prepared to project its power to secure peace around its borders, this decade will be a very painful, very troublesome and extremely difficult one. I believe that this crisis is now in the eleventh hour. It is not too late to act, but it soon will be.
6.28 pm
Mr. Tom King: I agree with the last point in the speech by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The debate takes place at a difficult time. Paradoxically, we may be close to success but we are also closer to failure. The debate is of high quality and hon. Members have expressed strong feelings. The House is united in its concern about the appalling and distressing situation facing people in the former Yugoslavia, but it is divided honestly and sincerely on the best way to tackle that problem.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil said that perhaps the problem came too soon for Europe. Hon. Members who take an interest in defence know that the most feared scenario of NATO was that precisely the situation that we now face would arise during the cold war, and that a conflict and a collapse of authority, ethnic tension and civil war would lead to the involvement of the great powers and a third world war. If there is a tiny crumb of comfort to be taken from this appalling situation it is that that has not happened. Only a courageous hon. Member would deny
1200
that the spreading of that conflagration throughout Kosovo, Macedonia and the Balkans could give rise to the risk that we thought we had put behind us.
We should all have a proper sense of humility, because we face an appallingly difficult situation. All hon. Members are equal in the House, but the Government have to take responsibility for agonisingly difficult choices. It is easy to be courageous on the Back Benches and to advance radical and bold thoughts, but it is not so easy to commit our friends and the sons of our constituents to a conflict which we will not face ourselves but which will place them at considerable risk. I had some brief experience of such choices.
Our first objective must be to stop the fighting, to get a genuine ceasefire and then to see some prospect of diplomacy and negotiations leading to finding a political solution. I shall try to outline how we can ensure that pressure grows to the extent that those who will suffer from it will be able to judge in their coldest and most calculating nationalist interest that resisting it will not be worth the diminishing benefits that will flow from continuing aggression.
The past week has revealed some evidence that the balance between growing pressure and diminishing returns is starting to be considered. Unfortunately, it coincides with a period when we are closer to failure. Today, the French decided to move some of their forces because of their current exposure to risk. Such risks can arise suddenly. At any time, a message could reach the House about a serious accident involving our troops. If that happened, the Government would have to decide whether the risk to our troops could be justified. If it could not, the vital humanitarian bridgehead that we have established could be lost.
As I have said, we must achieve our first objective of a genuine ceasefire so that we may sustain and develop the humanitarian effort on which it is asserted that 2 million people in the former Yugoslavia now depend. We have a massive responsibility to ensure that that effort is not impeded in any way. As all hon. Members who have spoken have said, that effort is a tribute to the amazing achievement of our forces and those of other countries. They have made possible not the feeding of 5,000 but the feeding and support of 2 million who might otherwise not have survived an appalling winter.
As we debate the wider issues, our forces are flying into Sarajevo with supplies, and ensuring the safe passage of the convoys at some risk to themselves. Today, a Spanish major put his life on the line, apparently to save 171 people who faced the risk of massacre. That is an example of what Colonel Stewart and his forces have to face. Anyone who listens to broadcasts will appreciate the undoubted strain and pressure that are being placed on our forces. We are asking a great deal of them.
There is an urgent need to re-establish the credibility of the United Nations. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that the United Nations lacked credibility in other territories, but the key area in which it currently lacks credibility is with the Serbs. It is perceived that the United Nations does not seriously intend to obstruct the activities of the Serbs. The United Nations lacks credibility because it is not enforcing a resolution stating that the conduct of the Serbs should not continue.
We had hoped that one of the most fruitful outcomes of the Gulf war was the establishment of the credibility of the United Nations as a force that would resist aggression and

1201
could be enlisted to support free, sovereign nations. Such credibility could have been of enormous benefit but, tragically, it is being seriously undermined. We must get through to those who need to hear it the message that the world is no longer prepared to accept the flouting of the United Nations and its resolutions and that action will be taken against those who do so.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. King: I should like to be brief so I shall not give way.
We must make it clear that continued aggression will result in total disaster for them. Perhaps that message is now getting through to Mr. Milosevic. The Foreign Secretary spoke about Mr. Milosevic's letter and apparent pressure on the Bosnian Serbs. However, we do not have to take that on trust, although if it is right it is to be welcomed. The pressure must be maintained and reinforced so that next time it will be clearly understood where it matters.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. King: As' I have said, I am trying to be brief, so I shall not give way.
We must examine what is realistic and possible, and in that context I welcome the action by the Government in the United Nations to turn the sanctions regime into an effective blockade. The Gulf war illustrated the importance of sanctions as a key element in the early stages of a conflict. Sadly, it became clear that they would not be successful. But a substantial organisation was established and meticulous effort was put into the sanctions. Sanctions take much work and close attention and cannot be implemented merely by pious United Nations resolutions. They must be reinforced by organisations on the ground. I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about that.
Much more effective measures must be taken on the Danube to support what is being done on the Adriatic and on the land frontiers. Although I appreciate the difficulties, we must insist that it is a total approach by all members of the United Nations. Those who are looking for the support of the UN in other areas—for example, the Russians, Bulgarians and Romanians, desperate for economic support from other countries—must give wholehearted support to UN resolutions on the sanctions side.
We must back it up with a military threat, and in that respect I depart from the view of practically every right hon. and hon. Member. There has been exhaustive examination of every option. Each has been thoroughly examined, criticised, ridiculed and finally discarded. We have announced to Belgrade that this or that will not work, so we will not do it. That has been profoundly unwise, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement today that no option has been ruled out.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said in his speech and in an intervention to the Prime Minister that troops on the ground should be ruled out. I can presume to appreciate as much as anyone in the House the difficulties involved in putting troops on the ground in an offensive position. But why rule that out? Why tell Belgrade or the Bosnian Serbs in advance all the steps we will not take?
1202
There are a number of options, and I can think of a few that have not so far been canvassed, some of which could be extremely unpleasant. We have the capacity to do some very nasty things to people who seek to obstruct the will of the UN. The key element is not to examine and then disclose such issues—for example, matters in connection with air strikes. Let us not flag up the options in advance.
I said in an earlier speech that I thought that the situation in Bosnia and Yugoslavia was an absolutely classic example of where one should not get involved. I give no secrets away when I say that I know exactly the military advice that the Secretary of State is getting. I strongly recommended Field Marshall Sir Richard Vincent for the post of Chief of the Defence Staff. I am proud that he is the first Briton for many years to be chairman of the military committee of NATO. We could not have a better man, regardless of nationality, in that post at this critical time.
I remind those who have suggested that there is great division among the different countries—in case some believe that soldiers may hold different views—that the press conference given by Sir Richard Vincent was not a personal or private conference. It was given in his capacity as chairman of the military committee, one of the key members of which is General Colin Powell, chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have no doubt that the military advice coming through is setting out the real difficulties that are faced. It is right that such advice should be given because any senior serving officer in uniform must have a sense of responsibility, a feeling for his men, and be concerned about the situations in which he may commit them. I appreciate why those officers have been issuing the warnings that have been coming through.
But as the right hon. Member for Yeovil pointed out, although military considerations must be taken into account, decisions still have to be taken. My simple and clear message is that we must make it clear that military options exist and that we are not in the business of discussing and disclosing what they might be. I would issue the clear warning to those in positions of authority in Belgrade or elsewhere—to the leadership of the Bosnian Serbs and to anyone who might seek to continue aggression—that the anguish, horror and awfulness that is felt by us, here and throughout the world, has brought forward the prospect of some military contribution.
I say that recognising the disadvantages that might attach to such a prospect, but it would be a very foolish person indeed who, sitting in Belgrade or elsewhere, thought that the discussions we have had on the difficulties and problems meant that people did not face any risk of such a consequence. I want them to understand that they face a real military threat, coupled with the certainty of a massive threat of the blockade which would totally destroy their economy and cause huge disaster and unhappiness to their people. Let them know that they had better understand that quickly.
Such an approach must be adopted in a united way. I noted the conditions that Mr. Warren Christopher set out to a Senate sub-committee. One was that any step must be acceptable to United States public opinion. That is not good enough because it would be catastrophic if the United States acted on its own. Any actions must also be acceptable to UN public opinion.
There is no simple, obvious solution. We recognise that every option is extremely difficult. Even so, we must not dismiss any of them out of hand. We must maintain the

1203
most effective threat possible because I believe that there is now a chance to get messages through. The balance of advantage—of the continuing struggle and violence—is changing. If that threat can be developed at this time, it may prove to be the crucial contributor that might lead, helpfully and hopefully, to the ending of the present awful situation.
6.46 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I agreed with two points made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). The first was that we must approach the subject with humility. There is disagreement on both sides of the House and in our respective parties on how the issue should be approached, and none of us should be arrogant enough to imagine that we have a magic solution to what everyone accepts is a complex problem.
If people listening to my contribution disagree with me, I hope that they will be generous enough to accept that it is offered in a spirit of sincerity and is made by someone with some experience of having been out and about in the world, but who does not suffer from the illusion that he is always right.
I also agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it is foolish to rule out military action and to send the message to Belgrade that we have ruled it out. So I regret that any Serb listening to the contributions from the Government Front Bench today will have got the message that just about every form of effective action has been ruled out. That is a regrettable but unhappy truth, so we must face the problem more robustly than we might otherwise have done, had there been more spirit coming from the Foreign Office and the Department of Defence in recent months and today.
I make it clear at the outset that I am in favour of ground forces, under the United Nations banner, in such numbers as are necessary, for as long as is necessary. I agree with Field Marshal Sir Richard Vincent that a clear objective must be set, and it is only right that the military should receive clear instructions from the nation's political leaders.
In my view, the objective is not complicated. It is to create a safe haven based as far as practicable on the recent borders of Bosnia. I do not prentend to know the precise details. There are sufficient people, many of them in the military, more experienced than I in such matters. If I were the Secretary of State, I would listen carefully to what the military people are saying. As I say, they expect to receive positive political leadership. I regret that up to now they have not received it.
When I outlined my position succinctly to a gentleman from the BBC a few hours ago, he said, "You are an ultra." I replied "Hang on a minute. Actually, I am a moderate. Ultras feel able to sit by while innocent women and children are slaughtered on a huge scale, and I do not have the stomach for that. I am not tough enough to sit through that indefinitely." That is the ultra position. I respect the view of those who disagree with me, but the ultra position is to sit by and do little or nothing, and a worse position is to pretend to be doing something.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mullin: No, I will not.
People ask for how long, and I say, "For as long as is necessary." I shall accept the judgment of those who are qualified. It will probably not be for as long as we have kept—I see a smirk on the face of the Secretary of State for Defence. I hope that he will wipe it off. The Government's policies have not been so glorious that they can rule out all advice from whatever quarter. This has not been a very glorious episode, whatever course we should take. It will probably not be for as long a period as we have kept hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany—for the past 45 years—or for as long a period as a large number of troops, mainly American, were kept in Korea to protect that not very perfect regime. It will probably not be on that scale, but it will have to be for as long as necessary.
It has been said that there will be casualties, and there are always casualties of war. In my previous incarnation I was a journalist, and in that capacity I attended a number of wars, including those in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. I am not under any illusion about the nature of war. However, those casualties will be small compared with the tidal wave of human misery with which we are faced, and which will get a great deal worse. There has been some discussion of alternatives. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about the Gulf war?"] We are debating the situation in Bosnia. If the hon. Gentleman wants a debate on the Gulf, we can have one. Angola has been mentioned. If we want a debate on that, we can have one. Somebody else mentioned Cambodia, and we can have a debate on that. I happen to know something about Cambodia. However, we are debating the situation in Bosnia and that is what I propose to stick to.
What are the alternatives? The one most practised so far has been hand wringing. By God, we have been faced with a great deal of that. It does not get us anywhere. A second course of action is hand wringing plus food and medicines. The food and medicines are running out, but the hand wringing is not. Tragically, that is not getting us anywhere either, because we are not being taken seriously. Whatever message the Serbs are getting, it is not the right one. Another course of action, which was arrived at very reluctantly, was the air exclusion zone. That is the most pathetic alternative that we have come up with. It is designed solely to placate western public opinion. By and large, the threat is not coming from the air.
Another suggestion was bombing. The Americans have always been very keen on bombing, mainly because they have never been bombed themselves, but bombing on its own, as other hon. Members have already said, will not do anything. It is another way, a tougher way, to add to the air exclusion zone and placate domestic public opinion. However, it will not achieve anything. It will not cut the supply lines. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has said, the millions of tonnes of bombs dropped on the Ho Chi Minh trail did not interdict any supplies. I confidently predict that it will not make any difference to Yugoslavia if it is designed to cut supplies.
Bombing will threaten our troops over there in a way that they have not been threatened hitherto, and it will kill a lot of innocent civilians. I am not in favour of bombing. I can see that one has to give air cover for any ground troops that one might have to put in, but that is a different argument. Bombing by itself will get us nowhere; I hope that everyone involved in this tragic situation understands

1205
that and that every possible restraint is put on the President of the United States to persuade him to rule out unilateral bombing raids.
What is at stake is not just the fate and the misery of hundreds of thousands of people that we have witnessed so far. It is, as others have said, the credibility of the United Nations. The Serbs are laughing at the United Nations. Nothing that they have heard from those on the Government Front Bench or from other western capitals on the subject will stop them laughing. They will carry on until they are stopped. If they are allowed to carry on. that will give the green light to every little tinpot nationalist from here to Cambodia, and they will stop only when they realise that we are being serious, as the right hon. Member for Bridgewater said.
Unfortunately, so far we have not been particularly serious, so it will take some effort—only the introduction of ground troops will do—to convince the Serbs that we are serious. Only when we have done that will they stop.
6.55 pm
Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) knows, from his experience in government, all about enduring pressure to use military force. He spoke very much for me. I agree with, and strongly endorse, everything that he said. With the statutory 10-minutes rule coming up, I shall make my speech an addition to his.
I sympathise strongly with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who made a brave speech. It is not at all fair to allege, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) did, that my right hon. Friend is taking cover. My right hon. Friend advanced the dilemma with his usual integrity and honesty. I realise the enormous difficulties that he faces, especially as—there is nothing to be ashamed of in this—there are comings and goings in Washington. Washington has not yet made up its mind, and we do not know which way President Clinton will go.
It is a question not of waiting and then following the lead from Washington but of trying to get the allies—ideally, all members of the Security Council, including not just the five permanent members but the rotating members —on the same side, acting together, sounding decisive and presenting a credible threat to the war makers and those who have shown that they do not care tuppence for the remarks of the allies in the west, and believe that no one will stand in the way of their wish to pursue an agenda of endless slaughter of civilians.
This is not one of these wars where civilians get accidentally caught up. Killing of civilians, particularly the women and children, and the murdering of every village inhabitant is a deliberate aim of policy. Let us not confuse that with the accidental killing of civilians which, tragically, happens in every conflict.
I confess that I used to think that this was just another Balkan mess, that they have been at it for hundreds of years—we can all remember Balkan wars—and if we could somehow put a ring fence around all that, we could stand aside and walk away from it. The truth, which has gradually dawned on the policy makers and perhaps on all of us as well, is that we cannot possibly walk away. We have already been dragged in. We fell into a major diplomatic ambush and allowed premature recognition of Croatia and then of the independent state of Bosnia—probably the biggest diplomatic blunders since the second
1206
world war. Once we had done that, we had created new states, with all the resulting paraphernalia and obligations on the international community.
We could not walk away for that reason and we cannot walk away because genocide is not something over which we can wring our hands and tell our schoolchildren that it is not our matter, we are against killing people, but, in this case, it is all very difficult, and nothing can be done. Furthermore, we cannot walk away because we have already interevened, as a result of the decisive action through resolution 820, which ruled that heavy arms should be denied to one of the combatants. That is a direct intervention.
The Serbians, the Croatians and the Serbian Bosnians —the Serbians are supplying the latter—have unlimited access to arms. The idea that if we put more arms into the area, they will fall into the wrong hands, is absurd. They have already fallen into the wrong hands in vast quantities. Access is complete for any range of weapons falling short only, by some miracle, of tactical nuclear weapons, which I hope are under the tight control of the CIS forces. We must work to ensure that that hope is soundly based.
There are plenty of arms. As one of my hon. Friends said this afternoon, the place is awash with arms. Everyone has access to the killing weapons which they are using freely, although the Bosnian Muslims very much less so that the others. It is all the more remarkable that they are putting up such a staggeringly successful fight against Serbian-Bosnian forces who do not seem to be keen on engaging in hand-to-hand fighting and prefer to sit outside towns mortaring children's playgrounds.
Hon. Members say with great sincerity that we must not become more involved, but of course we are involved. We are already caught in a process which is dragging us forward into more difficulties and narrower choices. The idea that if we could stand aside everything would settle down and there would be some equilibrium, a stalemate of terror or a halt to the killings through exhaustion, is completely false, extremely dangerous and one which will encourage us not to take further action now and find that later we are far more committed.
There are many more British than other troops involved. Those who are now saying that we must not have our boys in there will find that, through circumstances not of our dictation, many more troops will have to get involved and we will pay a heavier price later than if, between ourselves and our allies, we can produce the will and the clarity of objective necessary to act.
The choice is not between involvement and noninvolvement, but between action now and far more involvement later. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary understands that if we delay now and do not manage to get a grip on the deteriorating and sliding situation, everything will get much worse.
Hon. Members rightly ask about our existing commitment. It is not true that we are doing nothing at all. We have made a major humanitarian commitment and our troops are protecting the heroic humanitarian workers, some of whom are being killed, and that has undoubtedly helped to save lives. The same applies to other countries. Of course, our French neighbours have already paid a penalty in the loss of military life, as 12 French soldiers have already been slaughtered.
It has been said that all that will be at risk if we move in a new direction and develop a new policy to halt the bloodshed. I have to tell those who do not know it already

1207
—that sounds arrogant, as most hon. Members know that the humanitarian effort is increasingly under strain. All those who have been to the area know from talking to the operators of the humanitarian effort that it is becoming more difficult and supplies are not getting through. Supplies have been blocked through Gorazde, one of the target towns, and other places. The intensity of effort required to get supplies through, even on quite a modest scale, let alone on the full scale required to feed everybody, is getting harder to sustain.
The humanitarian effort has worked very well; the troops and the UNHCR drivers have done wonderfully through the winter months and many lives have been saved, but it is an illusion to imagine that, just because it has gone well, it is still going swimmingly and we must not do anything to upset it.
The humanitarian effort is now in great danger. Our troops and, as we have seen from the French experience, those of ether countries are in increasing danger because the policies and the patience have run out. The combatants, particularly the aggressors, and the Serbians who are supplying the equipment and the personnel to Serbian Bosnia have reckoned that they no longer need to be quite so careful or sensitive about who they shoot at and whether they should tolerate the humanitarian effort. They said yes to the Canadian troops in Srebrenica this week and I hope that they will continue to say yes, but it is a precarious situation and we may well be compelled or forced to go to the aid of the people there if the yes becomes more conditional and the bombs and shells start falling into the town again.
I sense from what my right hon. Friend said—perhaps some of us have realised this rather late, in my case only a few weeks ago—that the whole mood has changed. The policy phase of the past is over. In that phase, we were trying to establish the Vance-Owen plan—I do not think that maps were ever going to work, as they were far too complicated—in which it was believed that Mr. Milosevic and the Serbians meant what they said, were not supplying the Serbian Bosnians, genuinely wanted them to stop and were going to hold off from the systematic phases of bloodshed and knocking off the Muslim enclaves. We have to move to new ground. Of course, we are already doing so.
In my view, although we have canvassed every option this afternoon, there is no single solution. It will have to be a mixture of measures applied with great sensitivity. It will need as much support as we can get from the United Nations. I am glad that Mr. Yeltsin now feels that the Russians can come on side in a more effective way. Frankly, I think that they would have done so anyway two or three weeks ago, but they are now playing a much more positive role. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has rightly put his weight behind the proposal, which comes into force on Monday, not merely for the sanctions but for a serious blockade.
I hope and understand that it will be a real blockade. A blockade has to be imposed by force because people will break blockades. Ships will try to run it and will have to be stopped; lorries and trucks will try to break it and will have to be physically stopped; operations on the Danube will have to be interfered with to make a blockade work, quite apart from the financial aspect which, as my right
1208
hon. Friend said, is extremely important. Those measures, combined with the no-fly zone, which will probably also have to be intensified to the point at which there could be interdiction, represents a move into the area where real force is threatened and I strongly welcome it.
Now we come to the next steps to stop the process sliding away from us and dragging us into far greater commitment than we want. We have had authoritative views on whether we can cut supply lines. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Yeovil is right in believing that all the bridges are in the middle of towns and nothing can be done. Cutting supply lines from the air is difficult, but every litre of benzene that fuels the Bosnian-Serbian armoured troop carriers comes out of Serbia.
I cannot believe that some interdiction, whether by bombs, rockets or more subtle lateral thinking—the military are very good at that—could not make serious inroads into the entire fuel supply of the Serbian-Bosnian operation. I regard that as second best to the idea which is now being advanced on all sides—which I suspect is the one that President Clinton will propose next week—that we enlarge the safe areas into safe havens. In a sense, that is the limited objective which makes sense.
We cannot solve the war from outside; it is partly civil and partly invasion from next door and we can all argue endlessly where the solution point lies. However, we can deal with the immediate objective, which is stopping further bloodshed on a massive and hideous scale by the systematic elimination of towns and communities in the way we saw when the mortar bombs scattered the limbs of children in the schools at Srebrenica. We can move on those fronts.
We should take seriously the recommendations of the latest United Nations surveillance force to Bosnia and the recommendations of the President's own study group which went to Bosnia, all of whom said that it would be possible if one moved carefully, without putting in thousands of troops and getting the Serbians into a state of total aggression, to establish wider areas that were genuinely safe and protected where it was known that, if people started lobbing artillery shells, there would be retaliation.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howell: I should love to give way, but I am right up against the 10-minute rule and I have only a minute left.
We must not merely keep that option open but sound as though we are addressing the matter seriously, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater rightly said. The threat must be credible otherwise there will be no movement and no halt to the bloodshed. If not, we will be forced back to the idea of the Bosnian Foreign Minister and everyone else that if we are not prepared to help people, we should not deny them the arms to help themselves. That is a very bad option, but if we are not
I realise that combining foreign policy with democracy is good but difficult because one has to explain to people what may happen in the future—not immediate interests, but what may happen if we do not take action now. In this case, it is clear to me that if we do not take action now, the actions that we shall take later, the bloodshed, the cost in

1209
our own troops and their lives, let alone to the moral authority of the post-cold war world, will be far greater than our worst fears at the moment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Madam Speaker has imposed a 10-minute restriction on speeches from now on. Hon. Members will be aware that the digital clocks are not working. Therefore, I ask them to look at the clocks at either end of the Chamber. I shall move in my seat 15 seconds before the 10 minutes is up.
7.10 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I welcome the apparent conversion of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to a more realistic appraisal of the problems of Bosnia. I hope that more of his colleagues follow his conversion.
There is a near-exact analogy for the inaction of the Front Bench of timorous Tories with the conduct of a not dissimilar bunch who sat there in the 1930s as the civil war in Spain erupted. They dithered and prevaricated, except of course those who supported the fascists in Spain. 'They refused even to supply arms to the Government of the day while Nazi Germany and fascist Italy armed Franco, and the second world war ensued because of such apppeasement.
As Yugoslavia broke up, it was clear what the proponents of greater Serbia were after, and it is still clear. It has no intention of abandoning its military campaign to create that greater Serbia. Its leaders, fanatics to a man—we have seen them in action on the screen—take no regard of United Nations instructions. But the resolution of the countries of the United Nations has been less than effective and the United Nations has found excuse for delay and further discussion—the phrase of leaders who do not know what to do.
Time has been wasted with the plodding pursuit of the Vance-Owen plan. What a farce that has been; an arrogant attempt to redraw the lands of Yugoslavia along ethnic frontiers, and that in a community that has been mixed for centuries. The map that was drawn up by that failed politician, now a distinguished world figure, David Owen, our old colleague, actually recognised the ethnic cleansing achieved by the Serb attacks. Just last week, the Croats and Muslims fought each other to ensure that they got their bits of the map as drawn up by those two stumbling savants.
The Vance-Owen plan is as dead as a dodo. As I warned many months ago, there was never any hope that the Bosnian Serbs would ever sign up to the delimitation of their own territory, or what they thought was their own territory, because they have not completed the operation yet.
There will be another bite at Gorazde and Zepa, and if the international community does nothing, as appears to be the case, and that is endorsed by this timorous Front Bench, it will all start again in Kosovo. Then we shall be into a Balkans war. It is extraordinary the limitation of understanding of the men who are professionaly advised on the issues. Do they listen to the professional advice, I often wonder?
Only effective military action will stop the advance and enlargement of the Bosnian Serbs. The palsied leaders of western Europe have to summon up their shriveled
1210
political will to mount military action, as must the new President, poor inexperienced clot, whom British Ministers have tried to emasculate, apparently with some success.
What should that action entail? I do not believe that any of the leaders in western Europe will agree to the early involvement of ground troops made up of their forces. They are too frightened of the effect that the body bags will have on their electoral chances in future years. But if the military were instructed to mount specific actions against certain objectives, of course it could be done. It is outrageous to suggest that that could not be achieved. Remember the skills and precision displayed in the Gulf war, a somewhat less justified intervention than would be intervention in Bosnia.
The aims of those operations would be destruction from the air of the bridges between Serbian and Muslim territories—they are all in towns, so both communities would suffer—of Serbian routes of supply and communication, which can certainly be interdicted, of their air force, which has cheated the United Nations resolution, and the taking out of their artillery emplacements. They might move them, but modern warfare has ways of finding to where they have been moved. Finally, and absolutely essential, is the destruction of the armament factories within old Yugoslavia. Unless we do that, we do not mean business.
Serbian aggression has to be stopped, and to achieve that we must go in and mean to win. Of course there will be civilian as well as military casualties, but civilian casualties are continuing all the time, compounded by cold-blooded murder, torture and rape as a policy objective.
The humanitarian operations will have to be withdrawn while the attacks on Serbian objectives continue. It would be foolish in the extreme to keep our and other forces in Bosnia as sitting targets for revenge operations, and the Serbians are not very nice fighters. The protection that those forces provide and the provisions they distribute would have to cease, hopefully only temporarily, while Serbia's military machine is crippled. On the achievement of that goal—it can certainly be done if the west means to do it—humanitarian operations must be resumed.
At that stage, with Serbian ambitions halted and their military effectiveness destroyed, the United Nations should introduce a protectorate, imposed by United Nations forces on the ground. They would run the communications, the utilities and the immediate provision of food and medical supplies.
Those forces would have to remain for some years. It would be a financially expensive operation to rebuild and initially administer a multi-ethnic democratic state. But only such resolute action would shorten the sufferings in Bosnia and prevent a protracted Balkan war. Perhaps, historically most significantly of all, only such action will avoid the alienation of millions of Muslims throughout the world which would give and will give enormous impetus to Islamic fundamentalism.
7.17 pm
Mr. David Sumberg: All of us approach this debate from the same starting point. All of us are angered and appalled by the terrible scenes of violence that we witness on our television screens every night. All of us

1211
are haunted by past horrors which come vividly to mind as a result of the suffering of the Bosnian people. I am no exception to that.
The leader of the Liberal party was right to refer to the events of the second world war. They have a powerful influence upon us. All of us in Europe thought that those events would never be repeated. Perhaps we were naive. We were wrong. Europe 1939 to 1945; Bosnia 1993—ethnic cleansing is back.
But the problem with history is that it sends out conflicting messages. Yes, it is true, my generation has always found it difficult to understand that the generation of the 1930s failed to recognise the threat that Hitler posed, certainly failed to do anything about it and certainly failed to protect some of those who went to their slaughter.
But equally, a later generation finds it difficult to understand how the greatest power on earth at the time and today—the United States—got sucked into the Vietnam war, which it could never win. First, it gave aid with arms, then sent instructors to demonstrate those arms, then used air power to support those arms and, finally and ultimately, it sent its own men and women to fight with those arms.
So when emotive words are used—I understand why they are, and perhaps it is right that they should be—by those who advocate further military action in Bosnia, words like "appeasement", words such as were used to me this morning by the Foreign Minister of Bosnia, "Munich" and "Chamberlain", I must remind the House—and perhaps the House as a whole should remind the United States of America—that words like "bombing Hanoi" and "My Lai" show that history is littered not only with examples of failure to act and the dire consequences that resulted but equally with examples of decisive action taken with disastrous results.
My point is simple: however haunted we are and however much we remember the past, we must not allow past failures of intervention or non-intervention or too little or too much intervention to dictate what we do today. The policy that this Government and the West must pursue must be pragmatic. It must be based on what we can realistically achieve.
In 1958, the United States invaded the Lebanon. It did nothing in 1956 about Hungary. We debate today whether we should do something about Bosnia. We have no intention, I imagine, of ever debating whether we should do something about Georgia, Armenia or Azerbaijan. So while it is true that foreign policy, rightly, has a moral dimension, it must be tempered with what is achievable and practicable.
I will be frank with the House: I have changed my mind on this issue, and I dare say that other right hon. and hon. Members may have taken a similar course, including perhaps even my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. We may have been able to do something months ago. Six months ago, perhaps we should have bombed the Serbian artillery. We had no British troops there, no major humanitarian effort at risk, and there was still a realistic state to defend. Six months ago, air power might have been effective, and I said so at the time. But the scene has changed and events have moved on. It is not enough now
1212
to say simply, though understandably, "Something must be done," unless that something has a realistic chance of achieving the objectives that we set ourselves.
Will the air strikes be enough to end the killing? I do not think they will. Will they necessitate the end of the humanitarian effort? Yes, I think they may. The humanitarian effort, for all the comments that have been made, is daily saving lives and we see it too on our television screens. Would all this lead to massive ground intervention—one or two Opposition Members have been frank enough to admit that it would lead to that—and is that feasible in political and military terms? No, I do not think it is, and, more important, neither do those who are advising this and other Western Governments. We must listen to that advice because they are responsible for the lives of our soldiers and of other soldiers who will go into the conflict.
Would arming the Muslims save Bosnia? Yes, it might, but what would be the consequence and where would those arms eventually end up? Those who a year ago were saying that we should arm the Croatians may well have seen those very arms used in the massacres which we saw only a day or two ago and which British troops are now clearing up. Are sanctions enough? I do not know because —here I agree with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—we have not applied those sanctions vigorously enough so far. Month after month, the killing has been going on and we have still not imposed, or perhaps we are just starting to impose, the sort of blockade to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) referred. It is essential that we have an effective blockade.
I am torn on this issue and I think that many other hon. Members are too. There are powerful emotions. There are no easy choices, but the difference between me and my right hon. Friends in government is that, if the decision they make is wrong, and if they respond to the "something must be done" argument for the best of motives and they get it wrong, with all the resultant disasters, it is they and not I or the leader of the Liberal party who must come to the Dispatch Box and answer for what they have done, not just to the House but to the people of the country, including people who may have paid the price for that error.
So I say, not with an easy heart, because it is not an easy decision—we all approach the matter with great sadness—that it is a balanced judgment as to what should be done now. Circumstances may change. Nothing should be fixed, but I believe that, on that balanced judgment, the Government have for the moment got it right.
7.25 pm
Mr. John Spellar: Other contributions tonight have dealt with the appalling situation in Bosnia, the awesome scale of the human tragedy there and the way in which we see it every night on our television screens, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not use the short time that I have to go over that again.
We should recognise that there are dreadful events happening in many other areas of the world. Some, like the situation in Armenia, have been very well reported in the past. Some, like the appalling events in the Sudan, have never been properly covered. We cannot, then, just base

1213
our decision on moral outrage, although that will be one of the factors in our decisions. Nor can we base it on where the television companies choose to send their cameras.
Ms Hoey: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that we should all pay tribute to those very brave camera men and women, photographers and reporters, for without the work that they have done in very difficult circumstances none of us would be seeing the pictures or reading about what is going on?
Mr. Spellar: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She reinforces my point about the acts of great courage of those who are not combatants in the events. Without them we would not know what was going on. In many other areas of the world we do not know what is going on, and there is not so much public concern because the events in other areas are not being reported. It is right that they should be reported and that we feel outraged about them, but that cannot be the only guide to action. We must take into account the international situation and Britain's capabilities. We must also consider Britain's interests in this.
I therefore wish to confine myself tonight to the very basic questions that we ought to address: what is to be done and, in particular, what is to be done by Britain? Our debate has focused on what is to be done about military intervention and, in particular, on what should be done about troops on the ground. That point was highlighted by the right hon. Member for Yeovil. I also ask what this country should be doing as a party to military intervention on the ground because, so far as I am aware, no one is suggesting that Britain should act unilaterally or in an isolated fashion.
What does that international agreement amount to? Mention has been made of the United Nations, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), although up to now in many cases they have not been particularly united, especially Russia. It might therefore seem unlikely that we would get agreement from Russia in the Security Council, where we would require unanimity in order to take such military action.
We have had a welcome indication of a shift in the attitude of a post-referendum Boris Yeltsin. There was some criticism of the western Governments as to whether they should have required greater conditions from Yeltsin in return for the granting of aid, but that criticism was perhaps a little unfair as we are seeing some change. Equally, we must ask why Yeltsin was so sensitive on the issue in the first place. What did he detect inside Russia regarding a strong, pro-Yugoslav, possibly pan-Slav attitude among the Russian people which made it a consideration, so that these decisions were delayed in deference to his desire to get past the referendum?
That attitude will still be there. It could still influence Russian foreign policy, and it could well influence Russia's decisions on the Security Council. We would not be able to rely on unanimity to secure a decision from the United Nations, and even if we secured such a decision, we should have to question whether the Russian army would be willing or able to participate.
If this were not a United Nations operation, would a UN-sanctioned NATO force be involved? Is it proposed, even, that if United Nations agreement could not be secured, a NATO force should act on its own account? The
1214
right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) did not answer the real question: what decisions would have to be made, and how would they be implemented?
NATO would be taking a dramatic step if it moved from being part of a defence pact to being a world policeman, able to intervene throughout the globe. It would have to take a far greater step than any taken in the Gulf war, which involved a clear military objective, a clear international principle and a simple and straightforward issue. Favouring intervention in a civil war in Yugoslavia would represent a dramatic change in NATO's terms of reference, which would require serious consideration and a major debate before any action was taken.
Let us assume, however, that the objections were overcome. What if the Government decided tonight that we would intervene militarily? Would the invasion be over by May day or the Whitsun holiday? Not a bit of it: it would not even have begun.
At the time of the Gulf war, we all saw how long it took to build up military troops and to prepare an invasion force. We must remember the sheer logistics involved in preparing sea and air forces for action. Even if we were able to use Europe's road transport system, it would still take a good deal of time. What would happen in the meantime? Would there be a reduction in hostilities, or —as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—an escalation, while everyone in Yugoslavia tried to secure their section of territory before the potential invasion? I believe that the violence would increase, rather than diminish.
If we invaded, what would be our objective? It would not be so simple as the objective involved in the Korean war—to move beyond a certain parallel—or that involved in the Gulf war, which was to drive the Iraqi forces back from the Kuwait border. Presumably, our aim would be to bring about a ceasefire; but no meaningful line exists in Yugoslavia. In fact, we should need to establish not merely an invasion, but a permanent military presence. We should have to achieve not just a military victory, but a takeover of civil power. That would mean army patrols on every street corner, and would create an almost unending situation from which we would have enormous difficulty in emerging. It could drag on for many years.
There would then be no way out, unless we were prepared to commit massive forces and, possibly, to use methods on the ground that the House—indeed, all civilised opinion—would deem unacceptable for the maintenance of the basics of law and order. The situation in Bosnia has justified General Sherman's dictum that "war is hell". If we intervened, we would be deeply immersed in that hell.
How could we guarantee the continuation of peace after we had left? Moreover, how could we answer the all-important question, "Will the British public give us the support we need?"? Are the public now loudly demanding action? I have to say that the awful situation in Bosnia is not the subject of unending talk in the pubs and clubs of the black country, and I suspect that not many other members are under pressure from their constituents to suggest intervention in the region. Without such support, how could we bring matters to a successful conclusion?
We must say, bluntly and honestly, that we cannot be the world's policeman—or, in the words of John Bright during the Crimean war, "the knight errant of the human race". We should not bring injury and death into the

1215
homes of our soldiers. Ultimately, we must say that we cannot go out and get involved in such an appalling situation—that this is not our war.
7.34 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) with respect, but also with profound sadness. I trust that the House and members of my Front Bench will forgive me if, like the Irishman, I say that I would not have started from here.
In the small hours of 12 December 1991—the first occasion on which Yugoslavia had been debated in the House since the beginning of the current troubles—I urged the Government to take some action. Dubrovnik and Vukovar were being shelled. I still believe that, if we had put aircraft and a naval patrol in the area then, there might have been no necessity for today's debate. Since then, I have tried hard to argue effectively that not only a moral dimension but a political responsibility is involved.
Just over half an hour ago, I left the Chamber briefly to sit in the Foreign Secretary's room with Haris Silajdzik, the Bosnian Foreign Minister. I shall not, of course, reveal what was said, but over the past few months I have had many conversations with Mr. Silajdzik: he is deeply impressive, and anyone who has met him—as have a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—will know that he is a man of great quality and dignity.
Since I first met Mr. Silajdzik for the first time in December last year, another 50,000 of his countrymen have been killed: the figure now stands at around 200,000. Some 75,000 have been maimed—most are without legs, and many are children; at least 30,000 women have been raped. That is the catalogue of enormity and horror that we must contemplate today.
That, however, is not the only issue. In 1914, Europe was destabilised for 50 years or more following events in the Balkans. If what is now happening spreads, as it may do, to Kosovo and Macedonia, inevitably drawing in Bulgaria, Albania, Greece and Turkey—with two NATO countries fighting each other—and possibly spreading to Romania, it is not inconceivable that a conflagaration would result that would destabilise Europe for another 50 years. That is what we should consider when debating what should now be done.
I make no accusation about the good faith of the Government; I have never done so. Surely, however, no one can deny two facts. First, it cannot be denied that the largest share of blame for the horrors that we have witnessed lies with Serbia; secondly, it cannot be denied that our collective policy—it is not just a British policy —has been manifestly ineffective.
I consider the present situation the gravest that Europe has faced since the end of the second world war. Hon. Members sometimes point out that problems exist in Angola and Cambodia; of course problems exist all over the world, but the fact that we cannot act everywhere does not mean that we should act nowhere. If we know that there is a bad house fire in Manchester and that we cannot get there, we have no excuse for not helping our next-door neighbour if his house starts to burn down.
The Yugoslavian conflict is at the heart of Europe. Whatever happens there will affect our lives and those of
1216
our children. If the world order and the European powers are proved to be ineffective, the signal that will be sent out will be dire. In this post cold war era, which is in itself so unstable, it will lead to more situations such as that which we are debating now.
What do we do? It would have been easier to act earlier, but that does not mean that we can do nothing now. Last week I was talking to the Foreign Secretary with officers of the all-party parliamentary Bosnian group. The Foreign Secretary was kind enough to admit that there was some merit in the idea that I put to him: why cannot the Prime Minister and Presidents Mitterrand and Clinton, as leaders of the three permanent members of the Security Council, communicate to Milosevic the notion "Thus far and no further", that the international order will never accept what has been brutally gained and that aggrandisement as the result of invasion and destruction is not acceptable?
Those of us who met Mr. Salidjic today heard that of every four prisoners captured by the Muslims—they do take prisoners occasionally—at least two are Serbian and one is from Montenegro. The tanks are still moving in and the Bosnians have no tanks.
The Bosnians are not all Muslims—let us nail that lie now. Bosnia was a multi-ethnic country which lived in peace until relatively recently. It still has an internationally recognised multi-ethnic Government and a Parliament whose Speaker is a Serb. Several Ministers are Serbs and others are Croats. Rightly or wrongly, we recognised Bothnia as an independent sovereign state. We are talking about a state that has been invaded and continues to be invaded, weekly if not daily. Tanks roll in from Serbia, and the Bosnians have no tanks.
Personally, I am not greatly enamoured of the idea of breaking the arms embargo, although it was an embargo against Yugoslavia, which does not now exist. But what can one say to a Foreign Minister who says that he does not want our people to die? He says that we can take them away if we must although he welcomes their marvellous humanitarian aid but, for God's sake, if we cannot stop the war, can we let the Bosnians stop it themselves and die for their own country? That is an exceptionally difficult argument to refute morally, although I would prefer us to make a final attempt at bringing the conflict to an end.
I should like us to communicate to Milosevic the notion that Sarajevo is a United Nations protected city and that any further attack on it will be regarded as an attack on the United Nations. I should like us to deliver an ultimatum to Serbia to the effect that we shall take appropriate action. Why agonise over that in particular? That has been the problem all along.
We invalidated the doctrine of the deterrent from the start by saying that we would take no action. As armchair generals, we sit around and say, "Do this, that or the other." It is possible to say that we shall take the appropriate action, which can take a variety of forms. Sometimes, a specific air strike can have a dramatic effect, and I need only say the word "Libya" to prove that.
Something that Haris Salidjic said to me today convinced me that we must get the message to Serbia. As he said, in the second world war there were leaflet drops, so why not warn the Serbian population, which is the subject of constant black propaganda, of what the world thinks? That would help to reinforce much of the

1217
opposition there but, day after day, the people are fed the siege mentality black propaganda. There are things that can be done.
Hon. Members of all parties have said that the Vance-Owen plan is far from perfect. That is so, but the Muslims have signed it, or rather the multi-ethnic Bosnian Government have signed it, the Croats have signed it, and pressure can and should be put on the Serbs to sign it. It has been put to the Foreign Secretary many times—I put it to him again this afternoon—that, if a peace is brokered under international auspices, it will be internationally guaranteed. Just as he said yes on 13 January, he said yes again today. We must try to take action to bring the conflict to a close.
I see by your movements, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I must bring my speech to a close. I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who will reply for the Government, not to throw away all the aces but to keep Milosevic guessing and make him and Karadzic realise that we mean business. We should make it clear that we are not prepared to see a sovereign state extinguished from the map of Europe.
7.45 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I am struck by the fact that we are constantly told by the apologists for inaction that we are witnessing a civil war. We should examine that proposition a little more closely. Bosnia is not a nation of long standing with a fair history and which is now disintegrating. It is a wholly artificial construct.
There was no Yugoslavia before the end of the first world war. There was no demand from the peoples of the area that it should be created. It was created by great imperial powers at the end of the first world war and imposed on the people without a plebiscite. The people of Slovenia and Croatia were not consulted about whether they would be part of the new Yugoslavia. Broadly speaking, where Bosnia now stands has been a major international dividing line for almost 2,000 years. When the Roman empire split, it was the border between the eastern and western empires. It became the border between Christianity and Islam. One could not hope to bridge the area and not expect problems.
I am also struck by the fact that the apologists for inaction say that the problem with the Croats is that they are all fascists and are on Hitler's side. It is interesting that we are told that history seems to have started in 1940, because in the 1920s and 1930s people—including Members of Parliament at the time—signed international letters condemning the Serbian oppression of the Croats in Yugoslavia. There were protests when the Serbian royal family, a member of whom was to become the king of Yugoslavia, began assassinating and eliminating the political leadership of the Croats. I condemn the Croats who lined up with Hitler as I condemn the resulting butchery. However, let us not forget: they have been subjected to two decades of oppression as a minority in Yugoslavia. We must remember that when we hear these sweeping condemnations.
I cannot find any political party in any part of former Yugoslavia that I would be happy to join—the parties would probably not be happy to have me. It is not easy for those of us who are used to having to look for someone with whom we can agree ideologically—the goodies, of
1218
whichever party. There is no obvious group with which we could line up, and virtually all sides have bloodstained hands from events of the past few decades and centuries.
I believe that one principle should guide us in this horrendous mess. There is an equally horrendous mess around the borders of the old Soviet Union and, indeed, in parts of Russia today and also in the completely artificial nations created in much of the third world, especially in Africa. That principle is self-determination. It is on this point that the Government and the Opposition have failed most abysmally.
When Yugoslavia started to disintegrate, Slovenia and Croatia held free and fair ballots for the people to decide whether they wished to remain part of Yugoslavia or become independent. They voted overwhelmingly and I am not surprised, because the people of Slovenia and Croatia saw what was happening. I suppose that the only tribute one can pay to Tito is that he kept a lid on the mess for the best part of two generations. However, at his death, the Serbian ruling class, the leadership and the elite, began to debate a Greater Serbia.
In 1987, the Serbian Academy of Sciences voted for a Greater Serbia. There were no protests internationally or in the House when Milosevic suppressed the Kosovo Parliament. Kosovo is 90 per cent. Albanian, and the Serbs went in. In Kosovo, there are virtually no Albanian doctors practising, no Albanian teachers teaching and no Albanian children in schools. Virtually all Albanians are out of work. There is massive and sustained pressure because of the long historic demand that the Serbs have for that area.
Where was the protest? Nothing was done. That lack of action drove the Croat people into the arms of the thoroughly unpleasant leadership that emerged. Virtually no hon. Members in the House could find anything good to say about that leadership. What happened? I remember the first debate in the House in which a junior Minister in the Foreign Office was sent here, after the votes of the Slovene and Croat peoples. He stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the British Government's view was for the status quo and that they did not want Yugoslavia to unwind. That is what happened, instead of the people in the area being asked what they wanted and the matter being looked at objectively.
The people had just voted for independence in a free ballot. We decided that it was inconvenient and the Government jumped up and said that they completely agreed. How inconvenient that people should vote for the same right to national self-determinations that we have taken for granted for 1,000 years. What right do we have to deny people that?
The main principle that will get us through a difficult decade as such problems unwind across the face of the planet is self-determination—what people demand at the ballot box. We would have the same problem if 51 per cent. of the people of Scotland voted for independence. Would we fight to keep them? It would be a mess. The principle of self-determination applies close to home in Europe as much as it applies in other parts of the world.
We must accept that Serbia has a clear idea of what it wants. That idea has been argued by its intellectuals, its academics and the political leaders of Greater Serbia. They have pursued it logically and clearly, in the same way as Hitler pursued his strategy to unite all the German people

1219
in one nation. The rest of the world, and especially Britain, has been totally reactive. We did not once anticipate what was coming.
I do not think that any one has any doubt that, unless Milosevic is stopped in his ambition to carve up more of Bosnia, and we let him get away with it, we will see a much greater conflagration in Kosovo and Macedonia. I do not say that it is a repeat of Hitler in the 1930s. Hitler led one of the most massive industrial powers and a vast nation. The conflagration in Kosovo and Macedonia will not be conflagration on that scale, but it is the same principle.
I have sat in the House sometimes and thought that it must have been the same mood—this is what it must have sounded like as, year after year, weasel-worded people got up at the Dispatch Box and said, "Czechoslovakia is a long way away. It is a small country of no significance to us. Hitler has legitimate aspirations but we do not understand him." Some hon. Members said that the policies of the Nazi regime towards the Jews were an internal matter and no concern of theirs. That must have been the same as hearing people now say that the rape of women as an active policy is an internal matter and cannot be a matter for the international community.
That was the reality when the world was divided on ideological lines—when people were in one camp or the other. Some order and discipline was maintained in the communist and capitalist camps. That world has gone and we face a more dangerous situation. In a sense, all the problems can unravel and unwind and we must decide how we will be guided through them. The principle of self-determination will help, but people in the world who have little power—those who are in a minority, trapped in other nations or supporters of a religious minority—have the right to expect that world opinion and pressure will be brought to bear when abhorrent regimes practise policies that include genocide. That is why I condemned China's actions in Tibet and Iraq's bombing of the Kurds. It is why I support minorities that are oppressed by the regime that they may be trapped inside.
Having moved out of the cold war world, we must create an international mechanism that moves to stop the abuse of human rights. That is why I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said. I am prepared to see as many ground troops as it takes for as long as it takes. If we do not stop Milosevic in Bosnia, we will have to fight a much worse conflict in Macedonia. If we do not act in Macedonia, there will be another conflict involving nuclear weapons somewhere on the fringe of the Soviet Union.
7.54 pm
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: It is a privilege to take part in what is for many of us an emotional and important debate. We are debating the spiral of violence in the Balkans that we see nightly on our television screens. The media like to put labels around one's neck. I am a minimalist. Unlike the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), I want minimum intervention. I am frightened that we have become more involved in the quagmire in the past six months. If we have another debate in six months' time, I fear that we will find that we are even deeper in the mire.
1220
I will not be accused of being an appeaser or a user of weasel words. However, I beg hon. Members to be a little more cautious about committing British troops to combat for unlimited periods for confused and blurred objectives. Before I entered politics, I was an infantry soldier for 10 years—twice on active service. A driver was killed alongside me. It behoves all of us with such a background to remember that we are talking about human lives; we are talking about our constituents and our countrymen.
Let us put the Balkans in some sort of perspective. The world's major religions meet in the Balkans. There has been ethnic feuding in the region for 300 years. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made an authoritative and excellent speech this afternoon, but perhaps he was a little optimistic in thinking that some time in the next 30 years all the fighting in that part of the world will miraculously come to an end.
The United Nations is desperately overstretched. Countries have not been paying their dues—and the United States is a bad offender. There is an unwillingness, which I entirely understand, for sovereign Governments to commit their troops to fight other people's wars. When we hear the demand for troops on the ground to be dispatched, it is not made clear exactly who will supply those troops. It is impossible for that world body, the United Nations, to deal with the 25 conflicts and the 70 potential flashpoints in the world. In the past, it has not tried to deal with them. In Cambodia, 1·5 million people were killed in the civil war—one fifth of the population was destroyed. It was not expected that the United Nations should intervene and become a third party to the dispute in Uganda or Biafra.
In Angola, we all know that UNITA lost the election but is now back fighting its corner. Is there a call in the House to take action against UNITA? I do not think so. We are being lead by the media—we must be cautious about this—like little dogs on a lead. The pictures are incredibly emotional. Many people saw the young boy who had been blinded the other day when meeting his brother. I told my wife on the telephone what I had seen on television and she said that the family cried when they saw it. That has been a common experience throughout the country.
The media are fickle. We all know that, if British Tornado pilots were to kill men, women and children while trying to take out a strategic bridge in Serbia, those pictures would be flashed around the world and those reporters in the media who are saying, "You must do something," would be saying, "My God, what have you done? Bring them back."
As the Secretary of State well knows, I was cautious about the commitment of the Cheshires to Bosnia. In the past, humanitarian aid has been entirely a civilian matter organised by the United Nations. I am the first to pay tribute to the commanding officer of the Cheshires and to the sterling work that they have done. However, I still have reservations. If we switch on our radios at breakfast time tomorrow and hear that there has been some heavy shelling and 12 soldiers have been killed, will we all say how marvellous it was that that battalion was given that task? We have put them in a most invidious position.
I hope that the Secretary of State will explain why British soldiers have been used to bring out in body bags the bodies of those who have been massacred. I am told that it is because no one else was prepared to do it. It is insulting and humiliating for our officers to be held up at

1221
checkpoints by drunken bums with kalashnikovs. I query the role that the Cheshire battalion has been given. I wish that we did not intend to replace it. The winter is over. There is a tremendous job to be done in dispersing food. I do not deny that for a moment, but the end of the winter might have been the moment to bring that style of operation to a halt. By all means let us have medical personnel, engineers, communications experts and so on in Bosnia, but I am doubtful about keeping a British battalion there carrying out its present role.
We have been told that the way forward now is to allow the Muslims to have the arms they need. They are short of artillery and tanks. That is a crazy suggestion. It is nonsense to imagine that we would help to resolve the conflict by upping the scale of military hardware. Instead of rifles, there would be machine guns; there would be precision-guided missiles and more and more rockets; and more artillery would be introduced which would kill more people. That cannot be the solution.
There is a danger that the Serbs would get the surplus equipment sitting in Russia waiting for a home rather more quickly than the Muslims would get their equipment from their friends in the middle east. It could be that, within six weeks, the balance of power would be, if anything, more in favour of the Serbs than the Muslims.
I ask hon. Members to think carefully before they call for surgical strikes. Heaven knows, we know what happened in Vietnam, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said. Some of the American air force generals who talked about surgical strikes were responsible for the fiasco when the United States tried to get its hostages out of Tehran. Surgical strikes mean killing men, women and children. If strikes are to be effective, one needs observers on the ground. They entail involvement of people physically walking, using their radios to report back.
I appreciate that I am running out of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. My message is that we cannot bring about the good governance of every country in the United Nations. That is simply impossible. There is a danger that we would make matters worse. We can attempt to douse the flames. We should go in for humanitarian effort. But we cannot colonise the countries that are misbehaving or where human rights are a disgrace.
In the 1980s, the cry went up that something had to be done about the Lebanon. A bloody, bitter civil war was taking place and there was degradation and despair on all sides. We had no direct interests, but western countries felt that they should help. The multinational force was dispatched. What did it achieve? Some months later, more than 200 United States marines were killed. Shortly after that, the multinational force was withdrawn. No historian would say that it was anything other than a disaster.
I happened to be in Washington when that force was withdrawing. You may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the United States used a world war two battleship, the USS Jersey, to shell the Chouf mountains. Each shell took out an area the size of a football pitch. We watched that on television in the United States. The image stuck in my mind. There was total misunderstanding in the United States of the local scene in Beirut, the local politics, the local ethnic communities and the intricacies of life in a city like Beirut. For heaven's sake let us learn from our previous mistakes and be cautious about greater involvement in the Balkans.
8.4 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) on his speech. It is remarkable in this place to find someone who is willing to admit that he has changed his mind. It is even rarer to find someone who is prepared to admit that he was wrong. He did that today in a most eloquent speech.
As the case for military intervention in Bosnia has gathered pace and won more support, a formidable chorus of voices has been raised against that case. We have heard echoes of those arguments in the debate today. We have been told that no British or western national interest is at risk in Bosnia so there is no reason why we should intervene militarily. We have been told that there are other bigger and better wars around the world so why should we become militarily involved in Bosnia. We have been told that there is no guarantee of success.
We have been told that massive numbers of ground forces would be required. We have been told that it will endanger the lives of UN forces and jeopardise humanitarian relief. We have been told that arming the Muslims would escalate the conflict and increase civilian death, injury and suffering. We have been told that air strikes against supply lines would endanger civilian life and cause Serbian retaliation. Of course, all that is true.
However, not only in the debate but previously, far less emphasis has been placed on the risks of doing nothing about what is happening in Bosnia. There is a formidable risk in inaction and failure to take effective military action. From day one, and certainly since British troops were first involved in the United Nations contingent, there has been uncertainty and confusion about not only Her Majesty's Government's political objectives but the whole exercise. The House has been denied a debate on this crucially important issue since last November. I believe that that is because the Government are embarrassed about public scrutiny of their policies, primarily because they have no coherent policy on Bosnia.
NATO military commanders had a perfect right this week to call for clear political direction. The job of the military is to arrange military power to achieve political objectives. There are many objectives at play in Bosnia. The overriding political objective is to stop genocide, stop territorial gain by military aggression, create safe havens, secure an effective ceasefire, encourage joint negotiations to secure future political settlement, secure adequate food, water and medical supplies, to release detainees, sustain displaced persons—let us not forget that there are between 2 million and 3 million in Bosnia now—and bring war criminals to book.
I cannot see how those objectives can be achieved without military intervention mobilised by and through NATO under the overall command of the United Nations. That inevitably calls for a major ground force. Like other hon. Members, I came to that conclusion reluctantly, but nevertheless I accept the consequences of that and I say clearly and unequivocally that those forces need to be deployed in numbers that military commanders judge to be necessary. They should remain there until, in the view of military commanders and their political leaders, their job is complete.
I do not know how many will be required, but we must have to recall, as various military experts have done recently, that the Germans occupied the whole of

1223
Yugoslavia with five divisions. We should also understand that, if the Vance-Owen agreement were to be implemented—and I agree with many who have spoken that that agreement is dead—that would require at least 100,000 military personnel and possibly many more.
All of the options we have had paraded not only in this debate but before, have implications for military ground forces. Ground forces, in my view, would be reinforced by air strikes against all those exercising aggression to secure territorial gain—I emphasise "all"—and against supply lines, airfields and other military targets. A total blockade is to be established and I believe that very severe action must be taken against those who are flouting the operation of sanctions—and we all know that they are numerous. Intense diplomatic effort must be made to isolate Serbia and to bring all parties to the negotiating table.
The main aggressor is undoubtedly Serbia. It has an enormous arms superiority and is responsible for many, if not most, of the atrocities which have been committed, including the systematic rape of women designed to humiliate and demoralise the Muslims. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that 200,000 have been killed. That includes 14,000 children under the age of 14. They have been slaughtered—and the bulk of them were Muslim.
The conflict has been met by hand-wringing and dithering inaction. That will be seen by many, especially those in the Islamic world, as part of a world wide conspiracy against Islam. We should take this factor on board if, in the future, we are to come to terms with the surge of nationalism and the rivalry between minorities —including ethnic and religious minorities. If we are to come to terms with the surge for the right to self-determination, for the right of people to decide their own destinies, the United Nations and the European Community must recognise those realities. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was right to say that the United Nations and the European Community are singularly ill-equipped to deal with those political realities.
The hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) told me that when he visited the United Nations, its control room monitoring the conflict shuts down at the weekend. Is this the way in which the architects of the new world order intend to approach such intensely complex and complicated issues? I fear it is not and that we, the political leaders of this country, should ensure that the international forum that we charge with this responsible task should be properly equipped and resourced to carry it out.
I attended a broadcast debate recently in which a representative of The Times and the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham, (Mr. Hogg) participated. Lord Bonham-Carter intervened to say that that was not the first time that The Times and a Hogg had sung the same tune. He recalled that the Minister's father ran a by-election campaign in the 1930s, under the memorable slogan, "Vote Hogg and save your bacon."
I venture to submit that the stench of appeasement hangs over the Government—and, indeed, over every EC
1224
Government. In my view, we do have an obligation to the people of Bosnia—Muslim, Croat and Serb—to defend their independent country from external aggression.
This debate is long overdue. I hope that the voices that have been raised today calling for military intervention will grow and continue to gather popular support. Unlike many other hon. Members who have spoken, I am getting a great deal of pressure from constituents—and they are certainly not all Muslims—for Britain to intervene militarily and effectively. People have said to me that they are ashamed to be British at this particular juncture. I can understand their point of view.
I hope very much that when the Government respond to the debate they will recognise that if we authorise air strikes, inevitably there will be retaliation and a vital need for ground forces. Let us, for God's sake, ensure that those ground forces are properly organised and equipped to do the job.
8.14 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: Those of us who take part in this debate do so with mixed feelings of pride, anger, frustration and humility. We feel pride at the successes of our forces, and civilians too, in delivering humanitarian aid to Bosnia; anger at what is going on in that country—the bloodshed, the rape and the ethnic cleansing; frustration at our inability, so far, to stop the atrocities and humility because it is someone else's country that is being fought over by peoples whom we do not altogether understand, and because it is difficult, though not impossible, to define Britain's national interest. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in fact defined it extremely well.
Before we look for an acceptable and workable plan for peace in Bosnia, it is as well to consider what caused those wars—I use the plural deliberately because too many people refer merely to a three-sided civil war. We should not forget that Bosnia, a sovereign state, has been invaded by Serbia.
Hostilities started because the cohesion of communism —the glue which held Yugoslavia together—was removed. Totalitarianism was suddenly replaced by tribalism. In potentially volatile, though heterogeneous communities, tolerance gave way to the fear of minority groups becoming second-class citizens, deprived of their rights, freedoms, property and even their limbs and their lives. Imagine the sudden awful realisation that their neighbour, with whom they and their forebears had co-existed for centuries, was their enemy and that their enemy's enemy was not their friend, but their enemy, too. That is what has happened in this ghastly triangular conflict and it has fanned the flames of war still further.
I do not believe that there was a sudden release of centuries of pent-up ethnic hatred when Yugoslavia fell apart, although I acknowledge that some settling of old scores has triggered repeated reprisals. The problems of former Yugoslavia were exacerbated by the western powers' rush to recognise the independence and sovereignty of former parts of that country without giving any copper-bottomed guarantees to minority groups.
It might have been possible to recognise Slovenia, but it was certainly not possible to recognise Croatia. The fact that no guarantees were given to the Serb minorities led directly to Serbia's invasion of that country. That was just

1225
one reason for the 1991 invasion: the other was Serbia's policy to create a greater Serbia and to drive through a northern corridor between Belgrade and the Adriatic.
Before we debate what should be done about Bosnia, we should consider the current situation in Croatia. UN Security Council resolution 743 and subsequent resolutions led to the establishment of UNPROFOR—the UN protection force. The most recent resolution, 815, extends the UN mandate until 30 June.
Croatia is a real test of the UN's ability to enforce such resolutions. At present 15,000 out of some 22,000 troops in former Yugoslavia are stationed in Croatia. They are drawn from 14 different countries. But Serbia is still in unlawful possession of vast areas of Croatia. Nothing has been done to persuade the Serbs to withdraw from those parts of the country that they have unlawfully occupied; the United Nations has failed to remove them.
Many observers feel that the United Nations' failure in Croatia encouraged the Serbs to continue their military aggression and invade Bosnia. The credibility of the United Nations is at stake. Other belligerants around the world—of which there are many—will be encouraged by the UN's failure to enforce its Security Council resolutions. Bosnia is already paying the price. Who will be next? There are 25 wars now being waged throughout the world. The UN is involved in 17 of them and they a re all civil wars.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Twenty-six with Northern Ireland.
Mr. Colvin: What should the United Nations do in former Yugoslavia? It may be best to acknowledge that we should leave Croatia to one side at present and deal first with Bosnia, where the position is more serious. One option is to do nothing. That would be a disaster. It would reward Serbian aggression and encourage the Serbs to take further aggressive action and to turn to Kosovo, Macedonia and who knows where. Many contributors to today's debate have reminded us how appeasement encouraged Hitler.
We could lift the arms embargo and let the parties fight it out, in which case humanitarian aid would have to cease. I believe that arms supplies would increase, and conflict and bloodshed would escalate. To lift the arms embargo, we would have to persuade Russia—as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to agree, which it most certainly would not.
What about armed intervention? Military intervention would worsen the situation in former Yugoslavia. It would be difficult to define with clarity any military objectives. In addition, how would we withdraw if the policy failed'? We have to acknowledge that Serbia has enough weapons and ammunition to fight a full-scale war for two years or more. The only way to stop the wheels of war turning is to have a full-scale blockade, but that will not work unless Russia, as well as Serbia's neighbours, Bulgaria and Romania, agree to co-operate. If a blockade is to be effective it must be coupled with a deadline. Unless an ultimatum is given to Serbia to co-operate, the blockade is unlikely to work.
What if the blockade is successful and there is a proper ceasefire? A growing number of people share the view that the Vance-Owen plan is now a non-starter, and a three-way partition of Bosnia is also ruled out. Therefore, there is no alternative but to return to the negotiating table and redraw the map of Bosnia. In any new negotiations,
1226
the Bosnian Serbs would be under far greater pressure to agree if a blockade was enforced. Only if the map is redrawn could the United Nations then be asked to set up a protectorate under chapter 12 of the UN charter. I believe that agreement on the map must come first; then the protectorate can be established. The negotiations would stand a better chance of success if they took place in the knowledge that the protectorate would follow.
Even if a plan was agreed by all the parties in former Yugoslavia, it could be achieved only if the UN was prepared to send in troops to underpin it and make it work properly. If that worked, we should have to start thinking about giving the UN the resources to repeat the operation elsewhere. Bosnia presents the western powers with a problem which has serious implications for world peace and the future of the United Nations. I have already referred to 25 conflicts around the world, 17 of which already involve the UN, but there are another 50 or so flashpoints around the world where hostilities could break out at any time.
8.25 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: In view of the shortage of time, I shall merely pick up on one or two of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Romsey arid Waterside (Mr. Colvin). There have been continual references in the debate to the other flashpoints throughout the world, and the 25 wars—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, the 26 wars. I am sure that he was joking when he increased the number.
There is a difference in degree and character between those 25 wars and the position in former Yugoslavia, which is a legacy of the breakdown and the end of the cold war. Many of the other 25 wars are legacies of the cold war itself, with one side intervening on the part of another because the east or the west was involved. Such intervention increased the trouble as an attempt was made to secure victory for one particular combatant in the cold war. We must increasingly take account of those wars, but the position in former Yugoslavia is of immediate importance.
The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside mentioned Serbian arms. There is no doubt that Serbia has a virtually limitless supply of arms and one of the best military complexes in its part of the world. It is ironic when people say that Russia is prepared to provide more arms to Serbia as the Serbians did not build up their military complex to defend themselves against the west, but against the east—the former USSR and its allies in the Warsaw pact. The idea that Russia will run to the aid of Serbia if the Bosnian nation is armed flies in the face of historical evidence.
It is easy to say—every hon. Member who has participated in the debate has done so—that we are appalled by the position in former Yugoslavia, particularly Bosnia. It makes not one jot of difference whether we are appalled or not. If we are appalled, it will make no difference to the number of lives lost, people maimed and women raped. The only way that we can begin to assist is to do something as an international community or to enable the Bosnian nation to take up arms in its own self-defence.

1227
I shall stand back from the horror and seek to draw some conclusions from the mistakes that the international community has made. The present conflict involves some successes as well as errors.
The United Nations humanitarian aid programme has been a success, and a further success is represented by the fact that the states bordering the former Yugoslavia have not yet been drawn into the conflict. Thirdly, the belated safe city policy, which I hope will turn into a safe haven policy, will provide some succour in the coming months.
These successes, however, are far outweighed by the failures. First, there has been the lack of any overall objective, adopted either by the European Community or latterly by the western allies. Secondly, there was the precipitate recognition of the former republics of Yugoslavia. Thirdly, there was the Vance-Owen plan which is now seen, if not actively to be encouraging ethnic cleansing, at least implicitly to recognise it. Lastly, there is the blanket arms embargo on the former republic of Yugoslavia.
There is no doubt in my mind that these failings have fuelled Serb and Croatian nationalism in Bosnia, encouraging Bosnian Serbs and Croats to take up arms, as they have done in the past 12 months—ably assisted and abetted by their masters in Serbia and Croatia.
In the meantime, the multi-ethnic Bosnian Government are virtually powerless, and, despite their cries for international assistance, they remain defenceless and they have not a cat in hell's chance of the international community exhibiting the political will to intervene in sufficient numbers to separate the combatants in Bosnia. If we do not realise this, we fail to understand one of the principal motives of western policy.
Air strikes are becoming increasingly popular among armchair generals. When they were used in Iraq and elsewhere, many people were critical of them, but now they seem to be becoming the day's best treat. Air strikes are nothing but a figleaf for military inaction. Unless they are the precursor of further military action, they will make no difference. And to pretend that air strikes will make any significant difference to the position of the Bosnian Government flies in the face of the evidence.
The arms embargo is virtually a pro-Serbian and pro-Croatian policy, since both countries have access to huge amounts of arms already. The Bosnian Serbs can acquire further supplies from the Serbian republic, while the Bosnian Government and people are denied the elementary right of self-defence.
The policy implied here is that a political solution in Bosnia will be reached only when the Serbs and Croats have realised all their territorial ambitions, whereupon the Bosnian Government will be reluctantly forced to accept the political fact of a rump Bosnian state.
In the meantime, people still advocate no intervention, but until this military and political stalemate has been achieved, thousands more men, women and children—Bosnian Muslims, Bosnians Serbs and Bosnian Croats—will be maimed or killed. That is intolerable.
I am driven to the view that the west intends to take no action, but I believe that we should at least admit that the Bosnian Government and nation have the right of self-defence, the right to defend the lives of their people and to try to defend the integrity of their territory. The
1228
only way of doing that and the only positive policy that we can offer the Bosnian Government is a partial lifting of the arms embargo so that the Bosnian Government can acquire the elementary means of self-defence which the west has been denying them.
8.34 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: At this stage in a debate of this character, many of the best and most necessary points will already have been made. Having listened to most of the debate, I believe that I can add only a little of value, so I shall try to be as brief as I can.
I want to look at these important questions under three disarmingly simple rhetorical headings. The first is: why are we in this position? When I say "we", I mean not only the House of Commons—it is interesting to speculate why this matter has not been fully debated here before—but the unfortunate people of Bosnia. Why are they in this tragic position?
I also want to say a word or two about some of the options already touched on fairly fully in this debate; and, thirdly, I want to discuss what I believe to be the least bad way forward in this unhappy situation.
Clearly, the original cause of these difficulties was the collapse of the communist yoke in Yugoslavia itself. Whatever else one says about the former Yugoslavia, it worked in a miraculous way to hold in check all the ethnic differences that have now bubbled out, with the tragic consequences that go under the headings of ethnic cleansing and tribalism. But there is more to it than that. The influence of the mass media on both politicians and public has had its effect, and not only by confusing and troubling us in the so-called free world; it has also had dramatic effects on the dramatis personae in the former Yugoslavia.
As we saw in the Iraq-Kuwait conflict and on other occasions, the media not only manipulate us, willingly or unwillingly; they are also used themselves, wittingly or unwittingly, by the participants. I have heard awful but true stories from people who have been out to Bosnia about the way in which certain parties to the conflict have wrought havoc and destruction on their own vulnerable peoples so as to make a point on CNN or world television.
So, we need to be not only idealistic and moralistic but also cynical. It is hard to hold all these perspectives in the mind at one time.
The issue has already been influenced by Lady Thatcher. I have not heard her much mentioned in this debate, but her influence on the American public is still considerable—and on the way in which opinion evolves within the Beltway in Washington.
Then there is the nature of American politics, something about which many of us know a bit at first or second hand. In the past, the only way the Americans have been mobilised for war, civil or abroad, has been by introducing the moral imperative. That can be very dangerous in situations that do not lend themselves to moral courses of action.
There is also the difficulty of the historical precedents, most of which are beguiling and false and some overlooked, which are used in cases like this. I do not believe that the Gulf war is a legitimate precedent for what is possible or desirable in this case. If hon. Members have had amnesia about some of the historical issues, they have

1229
had amnesia about the inability of the most powerful nation in the world—the Americans—to subjugate the Vietcong over many years in Vietnam and the equal inability of the Soviets to subjugate the Afghan rebels in territory which is perhaps a little more similar, in topographical terms, to the territory in Bosnia.
What should we do next? The options have been well rehearsed. I believe that we should continue the humanitarian aid effort plus what the Foreign Secretary described as the peace process. He was right to describe it as a peace process, a phrase that is also applied in the middle east context. The Vance-Owen peace plan is, as has been said in this debate on many occasions, now looking a bit dated and irrelevant.
We must turn the economic sanctions, the effect of which has been rather pitiful so far, into a meaningful economic blockade. For example, I understand that, until very recently any lorry or land traffic which could claim that it was in transit through Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia was not affected by any meaningful restrictions. Clearly, things were labelled as being in transit and then, surprise, surprise, they ended up in the relevant place to add to the warfare.
We must also consider the use of selective air strikes. That proposal has been at the heart of this debate. I see only three possible rationales for such a tactic. The first would be as a placebo to make us feel better, and we need only state that for it to be rejected.
The second rationale would be to use selective air strikes as a controlled experiment to test the reaction of the Serbs to see whether such action had any effective leverage over their desire or otherwise to come to the negotiating table. That is the most respectable reason for considering selective air strikes. However, it is not a conclusive reason.
The third rationale, which is the most likely because of the dynamic of escalation, would be to use selective air strikes as yet another step towards a full military commitment which would also involve substantial forces on the ground. I believe that the unwisdom of that was well expressed by Sir Richard Vincent, and I do not have to repeat what he said.
Were we to use ground troops in a peacemaking rather than a peacekeeping role, we would effectively be taking sides to punish aggression. That is a perfectly honourable thing for a nation or group of nations to do, but we must be very clear about the chances of that improving the situation at the end of the day.
Who really are the aggressors? Is Serbia the only aggressor? Obviously that is not the case. There are many other aggressors and no one is really clean. Should we rule out lifting the arms embargo as irresponsible and counterproductive? Yes, I believe that we should. It has been clear throughout this debate that this would be like throwing petrol on a bonfire. Most of the weapons would probably end up in the hands of the Serbs and Croats, and not in the hands of the Muslims, because they have more hard currency, better connections and a larger critical mass of territory to use for that purpose.
The lessons of history should teach us that it is nearly always a bad idea to edge backwards into a policy in which we do not believe and have not thought through. That would be a fair description of what is happening in Washington right now, and it explains to a large extent why President Clinton is taking an inordinately long time for someone with his razor-sharp intellect to reach some sensible conclusions.
1230
What, then, is the least bad way forward? I believe that it is to combine a policy based on our national interest —after all, this is the British House of Commons and our first responsibility is to our voters and to our people—in an area where our national interest is not greatly engaged in the outcome, disagreeable though that may be to some people, with sensible humanitarian efforts and a certain ambiguity about the use of force. I understand the points made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell) about maintaining ambiguity. If we do not do that, we undercut the threat of force.
That means maintaining the food and medical aid, persisting with the movement of vulnerable people which is a very useful humanitarian activity. It includes tightening sanctions to the extent that they become effectively an economic blockade on Serbia. In that context, we should exhort the Russians and even use leverage on them, now that the referendum is out of the way, to owe us one and pay us one back in return.
We have been unusually generous to President Yeltsin and to the Russian people in recent times. It is time to call in our IOU if there is any danger of the blockade of Serbia being undermined. Above all, we must resist military escalation, which I believe may mean the necessity for firm, quiet, private advice from our Prime Minister to the President.
I remind the House that about 40 years ago Clem Attlee had to go very swiftly and necessarily, at the height of the Korean war and in slightly more serious circumstances than those that we face now, to dissuade President Truman, for whom I had the highest regard, from allowing General MacArthur to use the nuclear weapon against the Chinese and North Koreans.
In retrospect, we can see that was the right decision and a timely intervention. I hope that it will not be necessary for our Prime Minister to do that in quite such a dramatic form. However, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will act as a restraining influence, because I believe that it is not self-evident that the British national interest is such that we should involve ourselves deeply in a process which would only escalate and probably end in tears, not just for the tragic peoples of Bosnia, but also ultimately for the British people themselves.
8.45 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: This is the nightmare debate that I have feared for two and a half years. As long ago as 1985, I addressed a meeting of the British Yugoslav Society in a Committee Room of this House and I pointed out the dangers of the over-decentralisation of that country as it was then. In April 1991, I sent a letter to the Prime Minister, who replied:
"Under CSCE we support Yugoslavia's unity and also maintain the right of its peoples to self-determination. We thus believe that it is for all Yugoslavs to determine their country's future."
I was very concerned that we were not giving enough assistance to the federal Government at that time. We even failed to provide assistance through the know-how fund. Nevertheless, I was pleased to be able to tell the Foreign Secretary that I was glad that he had an even-handed approach to the situation in that country.
That was true in August 1991 when I first met Milosevic and Tudjman and was able to tell them that our country stood by the integrity of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, in

1231
January 1992 the British Government gave in to pressure from those with less sagacity than the Government—simply, I suggest, because of the opt-out on the Maastricht treaty—to the premature recognition of Croatia despite the Badinter report set up by Lord Carrington. That folly led to further folly. We then recognised Bosnia-Herzegovina. People have been talking about the Bosnians as a nation. There is no nationality of Bosnian. They are Serbs, Croats and Muslims. Even the Muslims are Serbs. They are the descendants of those who converted from the Orthodox religion to the Muslim religion during the time of the Ottoman empire.
People want to orchestrate action against the Serbs because the Serbs have committed atrocities. At least I had the guts to say to Milosevic, "Look, what are you doing in Kosovo?" I faced him and asked him that. I also faced Tudjman because the Croats are by no means innocent in all this.
Recent ceasefires have been broken by the Muslims. General Wahlgren, the Swedish commander of UNPROFOR, is reported in the New York Times as saying that the ceasefire was holding in Bosnia until the Muslims in Srebrenica broke it. He said that they broke it because they wanted to invoke western intervention. An article in a Los Angeles periodical, which I could produce, states that General McKenzie, the commander of the UNPROFOR forces until November 1992, said that every ceasefire that he had negotiated was broken by the Muslims. The reason he gave was that they wanted to get the west to intervene on their behalf.
There are 15,000 or 16,000 British troops in Bosnia, but the HVO—the Croat national army—has 60,000 troops there. It is not a Bosnian-Croat army. Colonel Bob Stewart was justly angry at the atrocities committed by the HVO. He said, "The HVO said 'no cameras' and I told them to get stuffed." He was right. The commander in chief of that army is the President of Croatia, President Tudjman, but that army is not the worst. The HOS troops wear Utashe arm bands and flaunt the swastika in areas around Mostar.
When I was in Geneva, the military adviser to David Owen told me that one of the biggest problems faced by the British Army was the HOS, but we still hear orchestrated campaigns about Serbian aggression. More than 60 per cent. of the land in Bosnia-Herzegovina was owned by Serbian people when the conflict started, but only 34 per cent. of the population are Serbs. Only one large town which could be described as Muslim has been taken by the Serbs—the town which controls the water supply to Banja Luka, which is a Serbian stronghold.
I have seen Bosnian Muslims at the Palic refugee camp in the north of Serbia looked after by Serbs and the International Red Cross. It is untrue to say that every Muslim is at risk. Ironically, those who are calling for military intervention in the former Yugoslavia are the same people who call for troops to be pulled out of Ireland. When an- Italian plane was shot down by the Croats, people said, "Bomb the Serbs." When a French United Nations convoy was attacked by Muslims and people were killed, there was the same cry. On 26 January, the Croats launched their attack on Kriena and the cry was "Bomb the Serbs." When one of our soldiers was killed by Croat bullets, people again said, "Bomb the Serbs." The
1232
same cry was heard even when it was discovered that the attack on a bread queue in Sarajevo was by Muslims. On Friday there were television reports of Croat atrocities and on television last night we saw Muslims demanding to be allowed to search British tanks for civilians. Yet in both cases people said, "Bomb the Serbs."
My party talks about air strikes without understanding the consequences, not only for the civilian population but for humanitarian aid because the strikes would be on bridges across which that aid pours into Bosnia from Serbia. Most of the convoys come from Belgrade, across bridges such as that which I saw a few months ago. That is not a rational formulation of policy—it is giving in to an emotional spasm.
The Vance-Owen plans has often been held up as though it were sacrosanct, but in March 1992 there was another plan which all three parties agreed to sign. But then the Muslims withdrew. There are alternatives to the Vance-Owen plan. We must not become hung up on the idea that that is the only possibility on offer. Churchill once said that "jaw, jaw" was better than "war, war." Neither air strikes nor military intervention will solve the problem.
People do not think about the political consequences of intervention in Serbia. Two years ago, I spoke in the House about Vojislav Seselj. When I met Milosevic at that time I said, "The more bloodshed there is, the more this escalates and the more your position is at risk." He said, "What do you mean?" I said, "Seselj, the fascists, the chetnik radical party, the people who were responsible for the murder of 17 Croats in the area around Osijek." He said, "Oh no, they have only one or two Members of Parliament." In the election in December they won 75 of the 250 seats in the Yugoslav Parliament.
Air strikes, more military intervention or even tightening sanctions will not destroy Milosevic in favour of democratic forces. It will harness the decent Serbian people behind Seselj and people like him and war criminals. That would be piling folly upon folly. Last December I met Albanians in Kosovo who are under moderate leadership. They have legitimate complaints and need to have their human rights protected. The CSCE is there now and I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary say that that will be strengthened. War in Bosnia will encourage extremists among the Albanians.
8.55 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a powerful speech. The information that I have shows that there is little difference between the atrocities committed by all three parties to the conflict, the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims in Bosnia. I say that on the basis of a visit there in February and some discussions. I agree that the Serbs are responsible for most of the aggression, but that does not mean that they commit the majority of the atrocities.
I heard it said today that because such atrocities are happening in the former Yugoslavia we should be ashamed to be British. That is most unfair. We should feel a sense of shame that human beings can behave in that way towards one another. They are worse than animals because animals rarely kill, other than for food. Through our soldiers we can feel a sense of pride in the courage and skill that they have dedicated to the distribution of humanitarian aid. They are under considerable threat and

1233
exercising their skill with great determination and humour. Their presence gives us an authority as well as a responsibility to try to work out where we should go from here.
There are many demands for further action but what should it be? The imposition of the Vance-Owen peace plan is not on the cards because it is not acceptable to all those who are concerned and the number of troops that it would require is massive. lf we tried to impose the plan we would require about 10 times the number of troops in Northern Ireland, which means about 250,000.
Bombing the Serbs has been suggested, but those who suggest that speak about surgical bombing strikes. Bombs can be accurately aimed but they are not always accurate, and bombing would certainly not stop the Croats and Muslims murdering each other in central Bosnia. We could stand back and allow the Muslims to be armed, but such arms would need to be delivered by air, which would be extremely hazardous, or would have to come through Serbian or Croat lines and would no doubt be intercepted because I cannot imagine that the Muslims, who are being fought by both the Serbs and the Croats, would allow the arms to get through. They would probably be confiscated en route. Hon. Members have mentioned safe havens. I shall deal with that later, but one must ask who would protect those safe havens.
Every proposed solution is unrealistic because of the nature of the terrain and the ferocity of the three factions. It is unrealistic to expect an external imposition of a military solution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. King) said that we should not disclose too much of our hand but should keep the Serbs and others guessing about our intentions. This debate addressed several audiences but the audiences to which we should most address ourselves are those in the United States where people are agonising about their future course of action. In any event, Americans are more likely to listen to the debate than the Serbs.
We need to point out to the Americans the dangers of more action and the vulnerability of our troops. We are entitled to say to them that our troops are within range of Serb and other gun positions. I shall not go into detail but I have seen guns that cover our positions in Bosnia. We and the French are certainly entitled to say to the Americans and others, "You are not on the ground and we are. Do nothing to make the position worse."
It is clear from visits I have paid to America that the people in the Pentagon, in NATO, in SHAPE, in SACEUR, in the executive in the US Administration, appreciate the risks and problems that might be faced in Bosnia if we now escalate the situation. but it is not clear that that is understood on the Hill among the elected representatives or among the American media.
The points raised by Warren Christopher—the points on which he would insist in any further escalation of the war in Bosnia—show, in the four conditions he laid down, that
"the goal must be clear and understandable to the American people."
Why the American people? The truth is that the American people, for their own reasons of American politics, are concerned to find a way ahead and to respond to the mass of emotion that is rightly sweeping across the world and demanding a response. He goes on to signal other points that must be fulfilled, but basically his four points are for American consumption.
1234
If I am ruling out many ways in which the war might be escalated, do I believe that there is a possible way forward? First, sanctions could be increased to a full blockade, and we are entitled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said, as members of the Group of Seven, having promised substantial aid to Russia and with Russia having cleared out of the way the referendum to confirm Yeltsin in a position of authority, to demand full, active and positive co-operation from the Russians. That is an important new point.
Secondly, in terms of humanitarian aid, it is well known that our troops are pushing their brief to, and well beyond, the limits. When the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) demands safe havens, he must accept that in a small, local and pragmatic way, that is tending to happen in Bosnia now as the troops who are there for the distribution of humanitarian aid talk to each side and try to arrange solutions that are acceptable in local areas.
If we were to endorse and support the concept of a development of the Vance-Owen plan with different lines being drawn on the map of Bosnia and with a different geographical area being imposed on each side, it might work if it were pragmatic and local. But if that were to come from New York or some other area, it would not work. It is important to remember that our troops, who are performing well in Bosnia, are acting as a kind of dragging anchor, preventing the situation from drifting into total anarchy.
My third point has not been made before today. We in the United KIngdom have spent about £200 million so far on military force in Bosnia in assisting the distribution of humanitarian aid. All of that has gone effectively into supporting the military. Little has been offered in the way of reconstruction to former Yugoslavia. Every solution and every building block to be discussed so far has been negative, warning, in effect, "If you continue to advance, we shall bomb you," and "If you continue to advance, we shall allow arms to go through to your enemies."
We must think of more positive things to say to the people of the former Yugoslavia. Having spent £200 million on saving that country from the worst excesses of war, we and others could surely find some money to offer to the sides as an inducement—as a carrot as opposed to a stick—to come to the peace table and discuss the terms of a settlement.
We and the French are actively engaged in Bosnia. The three most effective economic nations—America, Japan and Germany—are, for their different reasons, not so engaged, but they could co-operate in a reconstruction plan. Further funds offered to the three sides through the United Nations could act as a bargaining counter and would represent a positive step forward.
I am not entirely without hope for Bosnia. The United States has been through the difficult period of the election and the new Administration is now fully engaged in discussing the issue. I am greatly impressed by the understanding in America of the problems of Bosnia. That must be fully debated so that that knowledge filters through to the American people. The Russians should now be called in to assist us. With that support and with the continued assistance of the troops on the ground, there might yet be hope for Bosnia.
9.4 pm
Ms Clare Short: What is morally right in the former Yugoslavia is also in our self-interest, and those who have pretended that the two are in conflict are profoundly wrong. Serbia is the major aggressor in the former Yugoslavia and hon. Members who pretend either that there is a civil war or that all the parties are equally guilty are making an excuse for inaction against the major aggressor and are wrongly confusing the situation.
Serbia is trying to acquire territory by force. It has invaded other states recognised by the United Nations. It is deliberately engaging in ethnic cleansing. It is systematically slaughtering minorities and terrorising them out of the area that it wants to take. There has always been a lot of rape in times of war, but Serbia has organised a new war crime; the systematic and deliberate use of rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing to shame women, children and even men—the latter is not much talked about because of the absolute horror of male rape.
It is a pretence to claim that the Bosnian Serbs are not controlled, succoured and given all the resources that they need by the Serbian state. Serbia has already taken 30 per cent. of Croatian territory and 70 per cent. of Bosnia. The aggressor is succeeding. We know that Serbia wants more. We know that it wants to ethnically cleanse Kosovo. If we do not stop it, it will go there. We know that it wants Macedonia. Therefore, it is not a civil war.
The voices in the House that have constantly said that the situation is dangerous and that military action must be ruled out have given the green light to Serbian aggression. They have been saying "Carry on, do nothing." Anyone who has said that there can be no military intervention until all the parties have agreed is reinforcing the Serbian veto. It was the Serbs who would not go for the Vance-Owen plan—a deeply flawed plan that rewards and encourages ethnic cleansing.
Those who say that there can be no action without agreement from the Serbs, and that no military action can be taken to stop the Serbs, are telling the Serbs to carry on with their aggression, ethnic cleansing, rape and the taking of territory because we will do nothing. That, I am afraid, has been the stance of our Government. It is shameful, and also deeply dangerous to the self-interest of the British people, which the Government are not protecting.
There is no doubt that Croatia is also an aggressor—on a lesser scale but nonetheless an aggressor—engaged in a breach of international law in seeking to acquire territory by force. The aggression in which it is engaged is encouraged by the Vance-Owen plan because that would divide Bosnia into ethnic enclaves. Now Croatia wants to take those enclaves into its state. As others have said, the Vance-Owen plan is dead, and we need to learn the lesson that ethnic enclaves in Bosnia are not the way forward for peace in the former Yugoslavia. We need to protect and celebrate multi-ethnic Bosnia rather than break it down.
Bosnia is the major victim. It surprises me, but it is interesting that frequently in the media, and often in the House, there is talk of Muslim Bosnia. That is wrong; that is false. I wonder why they do it. There is no doubt that the majority of the people of Bosnia are Muslim, but Bosnia is a multi-ethnic state, and that is an important part of what is at stake in the conflict. Some 26 per cent. of Bosnian families are mixed. Muslims, Croats and Serbs intermarry and live side by side in the same families in the
1236
same cities. The Bosnian fighters, who are fighting almost without arms, with only rifles against large aggressors with major equipment, are Muslims, Serbs and Croats.
It is wrong to talk about Bosnia as if it were only a Muslim state; it is a multi-ethnic state that was recognised by the United Nations and that has all the same rights as Kuwait in international law. We are seeing it decimated, broken up and ethnically cleansed with deep war crimes, yet many hon. Members have said that we must do nothing about it.
We are seeing a war involving heavily armed forces because Serbia has most of the arms of the former Yugoslav army. Yugoslavia was a major arms supplier and trader, so to talk about the arms embargo being even-handed is a disgraceful distortion. The Serbs are using heavy artillery to slaughter women and children, because most of the men are not there to ethnically cleanse. The Serbs have no courage whatsoever. The Bosnian fighters have only rifles, yet hon. Members have repeated that, if we lifted the arms embargo, there would be more deaths. Anyone who uses that argument is looking forward to the death of Bosnia with the Bosnians being unable to fight because they have so few weapons.
An escalation would mean that the Bosnian people would have more equality and a better chance to defend themselves. That would be a less favourable option, but, if the west is unwilling to do anything, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) argued, that is the least we owe to Bosnia. I hope that we will do
Anyone who argues that the embargo is somehow even-handed and is preventing war is not attending to the reality of a heavily armed aggressor fighting an unarmed people, slaughtering their women and children and systematically raping women and girls in order to acquire territory by force.
I said at the beginning of my speech that stopping Serbian aggression is both morally right and in Britain's self-interest. Some enormously important and precious things are at stake, especially in the so-called new world order now that the certainties of the cold war, ugly as they may have been, have ended.
We are witnessing the absolute undermining of international law. The international community recognised Croatia as a full state in international law, the Serbs are invading and seeking to break up that state, yet nothing is being done.
We are seeing genocide which is a breach of the United Nations convention. The world learnt after Hitler's aggression that something had to be done to create international law to stop such evil war crimes as genocide, yet we are seeing it again and being told that nothing can be done.
The authority of the United Nations is being undermined. We have forces on the ground wearing United Nations helmets and operating under the United Nations flag yet the Serbian fighters are saying, "You cannot come here. You cannot bring food in here. We will not let you through." The United Nations is being belittled and humiliated and that is serious for the future of any order and decency in international law and world stability.
We are also seeing the destabilisation of Europe. If the war does not stop it is likely that it will spread to Kosovo; it is very likely that it will spread to Macedonia. If it spreads to Macedonia, and Greece and Turkey are involved, two NATO powers are potentially at war and

1237
that is extremely dangerous. It could escalate and it could suck our young men into an horrendous war in future if we do not stop it now.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, even if it does not escalate to that extent, about 2 million people have already been displaced. The number of refugees will desatabilise Europe. Germany has already taken large numbers of refugees and ugly, right-wing, fascist parties are growing in Germany because of the problem of refugees. Will we settle the conflict by allowing people to live at peace in their own countries or will there be millions of refugees with all the consequences of destabilisation flowing across Europe?
Finally, it is in our interest not to allow evil, fascist dictators, who wish to acquire territory by force and are willing to engage in genocide, to get away with it. If we cannot stop it in Serbia, there will be others.
The situation in the former Soviet Union is frightening. Petty dictators there are looking to see what the world community is doing about the conflict and will feel encouraged to take similar action. It is not a question of morality verses rationality and self-interest; it is in our interest to stop what is happening in Serbia now before it spreads, escalates and undermines any decency in international law and the authority of the United Nations.
The question is what is to be done. I agree with all those who have said that major errors have been made in the past. The way in which the states of the former Yugoslavia were recognised was wrong. It should have been made clear that recognition was dependent on the absolute undertaking not to seek to change any boundary by force and absolute protection for the human rights of minorities within those states. They should have been clearly entrenched as preconditions of recognition, but they were not.
The failure to consider limited air strikes earlier was disastrous. It was led by those who said that no troops could be risked on the ground. A generation, thinking of the Serbians as the good guys, roughly speaking, in the last war, could not see the reality of what was going on on this occasion. They were scared stiff by any possibility of troops on the ground and therefore rules out even the use of air strikes.
When the artillery and the mortars were raining down on Sarajevo—remember, on the hospital, on the buses full of orphans trying to get away—if there had been limited use of air strikes then, it might have turned back the Serbian aggression. However, errors were made and we must deal with the situation that we face now.
There are three options. We can carry on as now. Yes, sanctions can be tightened, but why were they not tightened earlier? Humanitarian aid will be increasingly difficult to deliver. We can rule out any military action. The Secretary of State may be about to do that in a few minutes. Serbian aggression will continue until the Serbs are satisfied that Bosnia will be destroyed and aggression will succeed.
Sanctions are important but they cannot work in lime without something else alongside them. That is the road that we are on now. The Government talk as though they are examining other options and have plenty of time to do so. They do not. If they do not take some kind of urgent action, that will be the outcome.
The second option, the fashionable recent option, is air strikes. That is the "we have got to do something" option; the "we do not have a strategy, but it is dreadful just to let
1238
it go on; we do not want any troops on the ground, so let's bomb a few supposed supply lines and pretend that that will bring the conflict to an end" option. That is not a serious option.
When military spokesmen spoke recently at press conferences about the need for a serious strategy, they were objecting to air strikes without an underpinning strategy. Safe havens are the right way forward. I agree with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) who said that the troops on the ground are almost trying to create safe havens. The politicians are failing to go for that option. The senior military commanders might not be calling for it, but the troops on the ground are virtually trying to create safe havens.
We let Srebrenica be destroyed, then the Canadians went in, then the United Nations declared it a protected area and then the British Government said that they would help to protect it. Why did we not do that earlier? The only way forward is now to declare that the United Nations will create safe havens in the major area that is left of former Bosnia. Once safe havens have been created—that means no aggression and no attempt to take territory back by force—any aggression against United Nations forces will be answered with force. That means troops on the ground and a willingness to use force to protect what remains. Then, within what remains, we could deliver humanitarian aid and wait for sanctions to work.
Of course there would then have to be a new political settlement and we must seek not to reward any aggression and changing of boundaries by force. That is the only way forward. It is the option that we are creeping towards. It is the option for which our forces on the ground are asking. It is the only one that will give us any dignity and contain the ever-spreading situation.
I plead with the Secretary of State not to rule that out and not to keep sending the message to the Serbs that Britain will never back military action. That is like saying, "Go on offending. Go on being aggressive. We will never do anything to stop you."
9.19 pm
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: At this late hour and in order to try to let another colleague in, my colleagues will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to make the speech that I had planned but just to say a very few words.
There has been a lot of talk about sending our troops, about our doing this, that and the other, and about United Nations authority. Commendable as all those feelings are, we are dealing overwhelmingly with Uncle Sam, with our ally, the United States of America, and the burden on President Clinton at the moment is considerable.
To give a brief example of that, we had a debate in January on Iraq, on the coalition and the enforcement of the no-fly zone. It was announced that the coalition had, in its first despatch of aircraft, sent—if I remember rightly —114 planes into action to enforce, by bombing, the no-fly zone. Of those 114 we sent six, including two tankers, and the French sent six. There were 102 American combat aircraft. One could go through the Gulf war and give even starker examples.
So when it comes to intervention anywhere and when we talk about United Nations authority, not only do we need United Nations consent and Russian approval, we

1239
need also American leadership, call it what we may. We need better allied participation, and we need the planned and full use of all three armed services of the countries involved.
In other words, we must permit from the outset, at least in planning, the use of ground troops. It is not practical to speak of using air power without ground forces, and I am amazed at one or two colleagues on both sides, whose views I often agree with, and particularly one or two of my hon. Friends, who have been almost wildly impractical in advocating bombing without saying what else they would do.
This is really the outcome of what I call "war by television". It is very wrong, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) in an elegant speech, dealt with this very well. As has come out in the debate, one is dealing with high emotions on both sides, encouraged by the sort of part-information that one is given on television. It is the duty of all politicians not to react to that, nor to react to our own emotions in what is indeed an appalling situation but rather to approach the situation in a practical way.
All I would say to Her Majesty's Government is that, while we will do what we can in the ways that have been described, the worst scenario of all would be to be gradually sucked into anything because we refused to face
9.21 pm
Mr. Roger Godsiff: There are no easy solutions in this terrible tragedy. I certainly cannot offer any words of wisdom which might throw new light on this terrible problem, but I should like to make one or two points.
We have all heard about the terrible atrocities being carried out, and there is no doubt, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), that the majority of the atrocities have been carried out by the Serbs and the Croatians and not by the Muslim communities. That is fact. It must also be pointed out that the current conflict was not precipitated by Bosnia. Bosnia did not start the break-up of Yugoslavia. That was brought about by the militant nationalism of Tudjman and Milosevic.
If it had been a question of individual republics going their own way when Yugoslavia began to fall apart, maybe the history of the past two years would have been different, but it has been conpounded and confused by Milosevic's dream of a greater Serbia. What does a greater Serbia mean? It means the annexation of parcels of land in an independent country by another country. That is what this is all about. Bosnia is an independent country and is recognised as one. It did not ask to become an independent country, nor did it ask for the break-up of Yugoslavia, but when Yugoslavia broke up Bosnia became an independent country.
Serbia is also an independent country, but Milosevic is not satisfied. His dream of a greater Serbia means that large parts of Bosnia need to be annexed and added to the Serbian state. Do we in the international community just stand by, despite all the difficulties, and watch this happen or do we try to do something?
I am not one of those who say that we should try to do something without suggesting what should be done. Let us
1240
be under no illusion, however: this is naked aggression by one state against another, made even worse by the fact that the aggressor is using not only the conventional machinery of war, but something much more insidious—it is using rape as a weapon, in order to humiliate a population.
I do not believe that anything will happen until a stalemate is reached. Serbia will be stopped only by force of one kind or another—unless, as I fear, it stops when it has attained its objectives. I understand all the difficulties involved, but if the international community—by which I mean the United Nations—cannot organise itself to take action, what right has it to deny an independent country which is under attack and being dismembered the right to obtain arms to defend itself. What right have we to do that?
That might be a valid argument if we were offering a possible way of resolving the problem or returning it to the negotiating table, but I fear that, as the weeks and months roll on, there will continue to be no action. If that is the case, can we honestly tell an independent country that it has not the right to obtain arms to defend itself? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a civil war."] No, it is not. If it is a civil war, why has the international community imposed sanctions against Serbia? What right has it to impose sanctions against another independent country if it is not directly involved in what is going on? The international community is well aware that this is not a civil war in the traditional sense; it is naked aggression by one country against another.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) mentioned the Spanish civil war. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber now. He pointed out that the other European powers did not wish to become involved in that war; it should be emphasised, however, that what the Spanish republican Government were asking for above all else was the right to arm and defend themselves. The international community said, "No, we will not stop you doing that"—and we all know what the consequences were.
I have listened to the other options that have been mentioned. I have grave doubts about the success of bombing gun targets. I do not believe that there is such a thing as pinpoint bombing; in any case, what will we do when the Serbs move their gun encampments into civilian areas—next to hospitals or mosques? I also have grave doubts about whether simply aiming at the supply lines in Bosnia would solve the problem. A few days ago, George Shultz said, "If you want to break the supply lines, you bomb all the way to Belgrade." He is right: that is the only way to disrupt the supply lines.
I heard what the leader of the Liberal Democrats said about safe havens, and I sympathised with his view to some extent. I have my doubts about whether the idea will work, but it should be on the table as a possibility.
I believe that we shall halt Serbian aggression only by massive military action. That might not be what we want, but we should be under no illusion: only by massive military intervention on the ground, involving American troops and those from other countries, shall we have any chance of halting Serbian aggression. I do not think that the international community will agree, for some valid reasons, but if the international community does not take that step and is not prepared to commit itself to halting Serbian aggression, it should not deny the legitimate, multiracial Government of Bosnia the right to defend themselves.
9.30 pm
Dr. David Clark: We have had a thoughtful debate. Twenty-two right hon. and hon. Members have participated and expressed views as diverse as those held by our own electors. Divisions have occurred, not always across the Chamber but sometimes within our parties. There have been some strange alliances and there are some strange views, but they are held with conviction.
We have heard views as diverse as those expressed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who I think argued that there should be no military intervention in Bosnia. I contrast those with the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who said that, no matter how long it takes and no matter how many troops are needed, there is a moral imperative for us to go into Bosnia.
We heard the cool logic of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who outlined our case, in contrast to the passion of my hon. Friends the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), who set out their views with emotion and clarity. My hon. Friends the Members for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) all suggested a cautious and reasoned approach, and all came to slightly different conclusions. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) gave us an insight based on an authentic account of his experiences in the former republic of Yugoslavia and in Bosnia and Croatia.
The words of hon. Members of all parties have added to the richness of the debate. I am sure that the Government have taken note of those words and experiences. Certainly I found them very valuable.
The Foreign Secretary began the debate in a reasoned and rational manner, perhaps weakening only as he reached his peroration, when he seemed to lose his nerve. He showed a certain lack of urgency which highlights, or perhaps epitomises, the Government's attitude. We felt that he showed a certain lack of resolve at that stage as if he was retreating under smoke. He mentioned Macedonia and Kosovo. He recognises the problem down the line, but he did not mention once the best tack which he could take to stabilise the situation and which is in his power, and that is to recognise Macedonia. It is already a member of the United Nations and has a democratically elected Government.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): By voting for the admission of Macedonia into the United Nations, we have recognised Macedonia.
Dr. Clark: I am delighted to hear that. It is an excellent point. I hope that before long we shall have accredited representatives there and that we shall do whatever we can to facilitate the financial situation. That issue has not been dealt with. At present, the citizens of that country can trade only in international currencies such as the deutschmark and the American dollar. The Government may have recognised Macedonia formally; they need to move speedily to the next step of putting into effect the apparatus of recognition. Only when that apparatus is in
1242
place can we begin to show that we support the boundaries of Macedonia and that we mean what we say. We can also support the 700 United Nations troops who are showing the determination of the United Nations towards the integrity of the state.
Although we have heard many fine words in the House today, perhaps there were more words of wisdom outside which, in a sense, sparked off this debate and shadowed it. I refer to the words of our only serving field marshal, Sir Richard Vincent. He is the chairman of NATO's military command and a former Chief of Defence Staff in the United Kingdom. In a sense, he gave us, as politicians, a timely reminder only a few days ago when he said:
"The first principle of war is…decide what you're trying to achieve before you go out there."
It was a timely reminder and showed a perceptive view. We have always supported the view of the primacy of political objectives in warfare. When the House first debated the deployment of British troops to Bosnia, I said:
"there must be a political resolution of the problem in Bosnia…The use of the military is merely a means to an end—we should never forget that objective."—[Official Report, 25 September 1992; Vol. 212, c. 180.]
It is important to remember that the use of the military is a means to an end.
It is right and proper to ask: what are we trying to achieve? What is the ultimate objective of our policy? I suggest that we are trying to reach the point at which the people currently living in Bosnia can live a life of some normality without the threat of rape, pillage and murder in the foreseeable future. That is what we are trying to achieve.
If we can use the military to force the warring factions to sign a peace agreement and then perhaps send in United Nations troops to ensure that that agreement is policed, that would be the first step along the path. It is useful to remind ourselves of what we are trying to achieve. As we move towards that objective, we must use other limited transitional objectives as building blocks to move closer to our ultimate objective. At present, the only United Nations objective that is backed by the use of force is the delivery of humanitarian aid.
For colleagues to argue that the flow of aid is diminishing does not serve us well. I have seen the figures for the past week—1,260 tonnes of aid were delivered by our convoys. That does not show any marked diminution
of delivery.
Mr. Ashdown: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he realise that, because of the Croatian fighting, all of the aid is coming through not Croatia but Serbia? The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to cool logic. Will he explain the cool logic of bombing the only supply lines that are providing that humanitarian aid to Bosnia?
Dr. Clark: Perhaps I could come to that point. When there was an intervention on the right hon. Gentleman, he insisted on dealing with the point when he came to it. I will deal with the point, because it is important.
We are fortunate that we have not had to use much force. The mere presence of our armed forces, their determination and skill and the negotiating skill of the local commanders has meant that force has, by and large, not been necessary. We are now approaching the time when we must pay more attention perhaps to extending the
We may need to use military action to develop the humanitarian aid. Obviously, the military means of

1243
achieving the objective are varied and many. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has set out the views of the Labour party relating to air strikes, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland repeated them earlier. They both made it clear that the action would be designed to
"bring the slaughter to an early end."
We have said repeatedly that the Labour party recognises that that entails risks for the safety of British personnel in the area.
The Government have shown that they do not have a closed mind about military action. If the Government pursue that line, they must take the necessary precautions. They must either deploy additional personnel to protect the soldiers delivering humanitarian aid or they must withdraw those soldiers. Clearly, it would be highly irresponsible to carry out air strikes without taking those precautions.
We recognise that it is not possible with one or a few strikes to do anything other than hamper the supply lines. But the aim is to show our intent and determination to the Serbs that they must sign the peace agreement. I remind the House that we are nearly there. There are three parts to the peace agreement. The Serbs have signed two. Only the map part remains to be determined. As I understood him, the Foreign Secretary made it clear this afternoon that the precise boundaries on the map were negotiable. He said that there was still room for manoeuvre on the boundaries. Only last weekend, Lord Owen offered a major development when he suggested in advance of the implementation of the plan a corridor protected by the United Nations linking the two Serb areas.
I should like to take it a stage further. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East has also said that we have an inescapable moral duty to do everything within our power to end the slaughter of innocent people which we witness on a daily basis. That is why I wish to mention another type of military action which could be used to safeguard non-combatants—the establishment of safe areas. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has proposed such a move. I suggest that the Government should not shut off that option from the range that they may be considering.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces told me earlier this week that it was
"impossible in the absense of an effective peace agreement to envisage the establishment of genuine safe areas"—[Official Report, 27 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 393.]
I should be interested to know whether he was referring to the overall settlement or simply to local arrangements. If the latter is the case, I heartily agree with him. It would be difficult to establish safe havens without some form of local establishment. However, if he believes that safe havens cannot be established until after a general political settlement for the whole of Bosnia, he is being far too cautious. We have never ruled out that option.
I hope that the Secretary of State will urgently reconsider his view because the establishment of safe havens may turn out to be one of the few methods available to the United Nations to ensure the protection of non-combatants. I repeat that we believe that there may be an opportunity to establish agreed safe havens possibly for the different ethnic
1244
groups. There is an opportunity for lateral thinking there. There is an opportunity to explore some different approaches.
Clearly, the United Nations has not been best organised for military action. Yet virtually all hon. Members accept that if any military action is taken, it must be under the auspices of the United Nations.
On 8 March, the Secretary of State for Defence said that the Government would consider favourably any request from the UN to provide further military personnel. Have the Government done so?
In the longer term, a lasting and peaceful settlement of the dispute is required and the UN now needs to reconsider how to achieve that given the recent Serbian rejection of the Vance-Owen proposals. Some hon. Members believe that those proposals are dead—as dead as a dodo, as one hon. Member said. Others believe that they are still on the table for negotiation. We share the latter belief.
The international community may feel that it is right to impose the Vance-Owen proposals on Bosnia, or it may decide to try to develop some other type of plan. Has the Secretary of State any views about the earlier discussions held prior to and at the Lisbon conference in May 1992, when a map drawn up by our compatriot, Mr. Darwin, was agreed and signed by two sides of the conflict? That agreement was given a fair blessing by the Bosnian Government, only to be withdrawn later. I am merely asking a question about that agreement, but I believe that we should keep all our options open at this stage.
The Labour party firmly believes that the authority to sanction the use of force in Bosnia is the UN. The Labour party is committed, under clause 7 of its rule book, to work for the strengthening of the UN. The Opposition have argued consistently that the UN should be involved not only in the Bosnian conflict, but in many others.
We should remember that, according to the UN charter, one of the reasons, ironically, that it was founded was
"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".
We have seen on our television screens the ghastly effects of war in Bosnia and now is the time, in the words of that charter,
"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men
and women".
9.47 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Today we have experienced the House at its most stimulating, with a series of powerful and convincing speeches from both sides of the House, expressing both sides of the argument. It was one of those rare occasions when, as each hon. Member rose, the House waited to find what he or she had to say, having no knowledge in advance, in most cases, of what that might be.
Speeches were delivered with great conviction. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) put forward strongly his long-held views. I then heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) put a contrary case with equal passion and conviction. There were many examples of that phenomenon.
Much of the debate has centred on the role of the United Nations. Some hon. Members have expressed understandable disappointment that it has not, so far,

1245
been able to realise the aspirations that we would have wished to see realised. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was perhaps unwise to describe the United Nations as having been humiliated and having failed in its objectives. It is not unreasonable to point out that in a significant respect the United Nations has already achieved more in Bosnia than it has achieved in any comparable crisis since its creation.
If one looks at the ghastly wars that have taken place in recent years, it is only on this occasion that the United Nations, with the tremendous contribution of British forces, along with other forces, has been able to save hundreds of thousands of lives.
One remembers that the United Nations was unable to make any useful contribution during the genocide in Cambodia under Pol Pot. Hon. Members have referred to the continuing agony and anger felt about that civil war, which has gone on for a decade, during which hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered. A tremendous number of atrocities have been committed in Cambodia, but the United Nations has been unable to make a significant contribution to saving lives.
Therefore, although it is understandable that we should be disappointed that the war has not been brought to an end, the United Nations deserves a tribute, which it is right and proper to give. It has not failed in Bosnia; it has already saved the lives of tens of thousands, possibly
I also listened to the argument that we have a special responsibility in the former Yugoslavia that does not apply in other parts of the world. I can understand that, at a political level, we in the United Kingdom clearly have a security interest in stability in Europe. However, I hope that hon. Members will not advance that argument on moral grounds when they demand at the same time that any action must be taken in the name of the United Nations. The UN can make no moral distinction between intervening in Bosnia and intervening in Angola or Cambodia—its responsibility is to the global community. Those hon. Members who called for UN intervention. but sought to imply that it must be made in Bosnia even if not elsewhere, displayed an inappropriate inconsistency.
We are all seeking to address the moral and ethical issues. I do not believe that either side of the argument has a monopoly on ethical wisdom, but sometimes the arguments are advanced as if that were so. I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), who called for the ending of the arms embargo. At first glance, her argument that people had a right to defend themselves and that the Bosnian Muslims had a right to self-defence seemed acceptable and reasonable. Who could possibly take exception to that view?
However, the hon. Lady knows as well as other hon. Members that, when one lifts an embargo and the international community starts supplying arms to a war of particular viciousness, one has no control. The donors of those weapons have no control over how they are used. When we are already aware that vicious atrocities have been committed by all parties in the war, it is not sufficient to say that, because most of the atrocities may have been committed by the Serbians, it is ethically acceptable to provide arms to other parties in the conflict, which may also use them for similar purposes.
Let us imagine that we, or the international community, supplied arms to the Bosnian Muslims or the Bosnian Croats for self-defence and that, one month later, a
1246
conflict such as we saw a week or so ago broke out among Croats and Muslims, with British troops in the middle of the conflict trying to sort out the mess, and British soldiers ended up being killed by those who had been provided with weapons by the international community—ostensibly for their own self-defence, not for aggressive purposes. The ethical argument cannot be made in favour of lifting the embargo when that could be the outcome which we would have on our consciences and with which we would have to live.
Ms Short: I want to make it clear that in my speech I said that I preferred the option of the United Nations taking action to halt Serbian aggression and the strategy of safe havens, but that if we did not adopt that policy, it seemed wrong to continue the arms embargo and not allow the Bosnian people to defend themselves.
Mr. Rifkind: I understand that argument, but the hon. Lady cannot avoid the consequences of the actions that she advocates. If those actions were to lead to the arms being used, not just in self-defence, but for the commission of atrocities, all of us—including the hon. Lady—would feel ashamed of the action that we had initiated.
Mr. Frank Field: Does not the Secretary of State feel slightly uncomfortable about the fact that, having been on the winning side in four elections fought on the need for a balance of terror on both sides, and on the success of that policy, he now thinks that the same strategy would not work in Bosnia?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's argument is uncharacteristically illogical. It is one thing in a state of peace to ensure that a deterrent is maintained between two potential aggressors by ensuring that those who wish to defend themselves from aggression are properly armed; it is quite a different matter to start supplying arms to one side in a vicious war and believe that one is contributing to peace.
As for whether this is a civil war, let us not get into an argument about semantics. Of course it is not purely a civil war; of course there are characteristics about the war that make it similar to many civil wars. The crucial point to be borne in mind is that because the vast majority of those taking part in the actual fighting are Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats—until a year ago, they were living in the same villages, streets and communities—we cannot treat this in exactly the same way as an invasion of one country by another.
That is why the parallels sometimes drawn with the Gulf or the Falklands, with respect to military intervention, are utterly wrong. In those cases there was a military solution if the political will existed. In both cases, the political will did exist, and the invader was eventually expelled from the country it had invaded. But no Bosnian Serb, Muslim or Croat can be expelled from Bosnia by a United Nations army or by other forces.
Mr. Cormack: Of course, many of the Muslims have indeed been expelled from their own country by the Serbs. Would my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge —this has already been acknowledged often—that this war was started by Belgrade and is still being supplied by Belgrade? Almost daily, tanks are going from Serbia into Bosnia.
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend is right to say that a huge amount of unwarranted intervention by the former Republic of Yugoslavia, in the form of Serbia and Montenegro, is going on. That is why the Government support the blockade of Serbia—to force it to change its ways.
Mr. Wareing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that I do not have much longer to speak.
We always listen with great care to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). He called on the Government instantly to rule out all possible use of force, either now or in the future. In that respect he was unwise. I believe that we should pay considerable attention to the counsel of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). It is important for several reasons to act in the way that he suggested.
First, it is important to think about the consequences of what we say and how it will be heard in Belgrade. It is important to ensure that the Serbians cannot take for granted certain forms of policy, including inaction on the part of the international community. It is also not simply the policy of the United Kingdom or of any one country that matters. If we are to influence the Serbian Government's behaviour, it is crucial that they see that the international community continues to speak with a single voice so as to put the maximum pressure on that Government and to force a change of policy.
If, at this delicate moment in the development of policy, any one Government—especially the United States, France and the United Kingdom—made unilateral statements of the sort that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested, that would do a disservice to the cause of maintaining the maximum international pressure on the Serbian Government to achieve the policies that are vital if the fighting is to be brought to an end.
Of course I pay tribute to the sincerity with which the right hon. Member for Yeovil advances his proposals for safe havens and enclaves. No one can object in principle to the development of safe enclaves, if they are a practical proposition, but we should pay close attention to a remark by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He told the right hon. Member for Yeovil that the 150 troops in Srebrenica are there only by the consent of the Serbian forces, who allow them to enter the city.
Essentially, the right hon. Member for Yeovil must realise that a policy of safe havens can operate only when a ceasefire has been agreed or if those who urge it are
prepared to use force to impose it.
Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He has been very generous. How does he account for the fact that a safe haven has been declared,
1248
not negotiated, by the United Nations in Zepa and Gorazde? May we take it from the Secretary of State's answer that as the UN has declared safe havens, the Government do not agree and are not prepared to support that declaration? I remind the Secretary of State that they were declared, not negotiated.
Mr. Rifkind: The UN has, of course, declared its desire to see those areas treated as safe havens to ensure the physical safety of those living there. We are having a practical discussion as to whether the use of force and
The right hon. Gentleman cannot escape from the fact that unless there is a ceasefire or the consent of the Serbian forces, unless he wishes to call for the use of force to impose a safe haven and if he wishes to call for the use of ground forces for that purpose—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has talked about air power. He must address himself to the fact that earlier he argued that ground forces should be used to achieve safe havens. He must appreciate the fact that without a vast increase in the number of forces on the ground, and without a commitment of the kind that would last many years and risk massive casualties, he is setting out a proposal that is impractical and unrealistic.
The Government will continue to use all the powers at our disposal to ensure a blockade of the Serbian Government and to ensure that other options are considered with the seriousness that they deserve. However, we owe it to the people of Bosnia not to bring forward proposals which are based on emotion and which are not justified by honest judgment of the practical way in which they would help the process of peace in Bosnia at the present time.
We do no service to the cause of peace by responding to arguments that are essentially based on a failure to realise the consequences that they would bring about.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
Resolved,
That the draft Treaty on Open Skies (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

NORTHERN IRELAND
Resolved,
That the draft Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Legislation (Timing)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this Flouse do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
10 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I am particularly glad to have this opportunity to return to the question of the Order in Council method of legislating for Northern Ireland. I suppose that I should describe that procedure briefly, but time is short. I refer those who may read the report of this debate—if anyone does—to the description of that procedure in the report of the Hansard Society commission on the legislative process.
Normally when we criticise the Order in Council procedure, we do so on the grounds that it is undemocratic and that it deprives this House generally, and Members who represent Northern Ireland in particular, of the opportunity of debating and proposing amendments to Northern ireland legislation. We have pressed that argument several times in the House over the years.
I want to open a different argument tonight. I want to argue that the Order in Council procedure, as well as being objectionable in democratic terms, is also inefficient. I should be able to produce evidence to show that it is inefficient and produces delay and confusion in the legislative process with regard to Northern Ireland.
When we consider legislation generally in Great Britain, we find that there is a procedure: at the beginning of the Session there is the Queen's Speech in which an announcement is made about the legislation to be introduced during that Session so that people know in advance what is going to happen. Generally, the Session sees that legislation through. Occasionally new things come forward and sometimes things are not passed in a Session. Nevertheless, there is a pattern.
There is no equivalent with regard to Northern Ireland. It is true—I acknowledge this and it has been very useful to me on this occasion—that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland sends letters twice a year to the political parties of the Members for Northern Ireland in which he outlines the Orders in Council which may come forward in the forthcoming weeks and months. That is very useful to us, but the information does not go beyond us.
The "Weekly Information Bulletin" of the House of Commons provides a schedule of Northern Ireland legislation. That is very useful, but I am afraid that the schedule is sometimes misleading because it does not indicate the disposal of the legislation at the end of the day. It does not say whether something has been withdrawn or is continuing. When the Minister replies, will he undertake to inform the editor of the "Weekly Information Bulletin" whenever a completed order is about to issue? That would make the list much more useful to hon. Members and to other people in Northern Ireland.
I shall concentrate on the problem of delay, and deal first with negative resolution orders. There should not be problems with such orders because, as hon. Members know, they are not debated in the House. An Act for Great Britain authorises the making of an order by resolution and it should he a simple matter for the draftsman in Northern Ireland to modify the Great Britain Bill, if necessary, for any differences in the legislative history of Northern Ireland and to introduce it as the Bill goes for
1250
Royal Assent. The greatest difficulty about a negative resolution order ought to be catching an appropriate Privy Council meeting to make it.
Of the 20 Orders in Council in 1992, eight were made by negative resolution. It should have been possible to bring those eight orders into operation at the same time as the Acts that they followed, but it seems that three of those orders are not yet in operation. They are the orders dealing with competition and services, offshore safety and the prescription of medical products, and they all relate to Acts made in the same year which are themselves not yet in force.
The Northern Ireland Office managed to get it right with one of the other five orders—the Still Birth (Definition) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 which came into operation on 1 October, the same day as the Still Birth (Definition) Act 1992. Of the other four orders, the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Order 1992 came into operation on 12 April 1992 while the relevant Act, the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Act 1991, came into force on 28 August 1991. The Home Loss Payments (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 came into operation on 5 August 1992 and the corresponding sections of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991—that is, sections 68 and 69—came into force on 25 September 1991. The Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) (Northern Ireland) Order came into operation on 11 June 1992 while the corresponding Act came into force on 16 March 1992. The Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order came into operation on 16 September and the corresponding Act on 16 March.
Respectively, those four orders had delays of nine, 11, three and six months, but it should have been simple to get them spot on. It may be said that it does not make much difference. Is it important that an order to vary the duration of a firearms certificate is available in Northern Ireland six months after the legislation applies in England? In some cases it does make a difference. If enabling mortgage interest to be paid directly to lenders was good, why should it be avaialble in Northern Ireland three months after it was available everywhere else? For 11 months people in Northern Ireland whose homes may have been compulsorily acquired could have received lower compensation by not benefiting during that period from the tenfold increase in the maximum home loss payments. Is that right? That deals with negative resolution orders.
Affirmative orders are subject to substantial delays, the worst of which occurred with the Children (Northern Ireland) Order. In the list that we received from the Secretary of State it was said that the purpose of that order was,
"to revise, harmonise and bring together the private and public law affecting children in a civil code along the lines of the Children Act 1989."
That order has been on the Secretary of State's list since April 1991. At that time, it was described under the heading of proposals intended to be published before the end of the 1990–91 Session. In the letter of November 1991 it was under the heading of proposals intended to be published before the Easter recess and it was under the same heading in January 1992 and January 1993, although they were three different Easter recesses.
It is now four years since the passing of the equivalent English Act and 12 years since the Black report which reviewed the whole area. My hon. Friend the Member for

1251
Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) told me that when he first came to the House he pressed for a children Bill to be introduced. We have constantly pressed the matter but there has been a great delay. We are four years behind the Great Britain legislation. The Minister may say in defence that the Government have had difficulties fine-tuning the legislation for Northern Ireland and that they are still consulting various people. If they are, they are consulting secretly, because there has been no consultation with political parties and no local political input or discussion. Against that background, one must ask whether there is any effective ministerial push.
Another bad case relates to environmental protection. There was legislation for Great Britain in 1990 and a useful Select Committee report pressed for something to be done. There was reference in November 1991 to an integrated pollution control and control of air pollution measure, but that disappeared from the lists. In recent lists there has been reference to litter, with an instrument
"to replicate for Northern Ireland the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which relate to litter."
It has been cut down from the full scope of the 1990 Act to that small bit, but three years later we still do not have it.
Another example with an environmental element concerns agriculture. In the April 1991 list there was reference to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order and we were told that that was
"to extend and rationalise existing legislation, for example, to ensure a reasonable balance of interests between the agriculture industry and the maintenance of rural areas in general."
There was a sort of conservation element there. It was listed for publication before the end of the 1990–91 session, but it disappeared from view. In 1993, the lists again refer to that order, but it is now described as being
"to replicate for Northern Ireland the provisions of section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 by requiring the Minister to take into account certain matters such as conservation; to allow grants for the purpose of encouraging rural development".
The purpose seems to have changed by going back to an Act of 1986, for which we do not have an equivalent in Northern Ireland. Again, there was a delay of seven years.
In some cases there is confusion as well as delay, certainly in regard to road traffic. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Order was mentioned in lists published between November 1990 and January 1991. That was replaced by the Road Traffic (Offenders) Order in the 1991 list, and that stayed until January 1992. Then we had what was described as a "Roads Proposal" published in October 1992 in relation to a roads measure, apparently for a different purpose from the other two provisions. That introduced into Northern Ireland provisions enacted for Great Britain relating to roads and street works. In other words, as I say, there is confusion as well as delay.
It is even worse when we consider criminal justice. There was reference to a Criminal Justice (Fines and Penalties) Order in the lists from November 1991 right through to January 1992. That referred to
"replicating some of the provisions in the English Criminal Justice Act 1988."
But that has not come forward. In the January 1993 list we had another instrument, the Criminal Justice (Children's Evidence, etc.) Order which was,
"to replicate for Northern Ireland the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991."
1252
On the April 1993 list those two disappeared and we had instead a single Criminal Justice Order which seemed to include the purposes of the other two. But that has not yet been published. Instead, we have had a big consultation paper published entitled "Crime in the Community", covering the purpose of one of those measures, and we are left to wonder what will happen, for it will be months before the consultation is completed.
I am glad that the Minister of State is to reply to the debate because when I think of criminal justice provisions I am reminded of the old Army adage about order, counter-order and disorder. It seems that in the criminal justice sphere we are now in the disorder situation. There is delay because we are referring to Great Britain Acts of 1991 not being introduced in Northern Ireland, and there is confusion throughout the system. Clearly, the system is not operating efficiently.
I could give other examples, but I shall not go on because I am anxious to give the Minister ample time in which to respond. The few examples that I have given show that there are delays and that in some important areas there are serious delays. There is also confusion and failure to give the public adequate information about the operation of the legislative process as it affects Northern Ireland.
I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to respond to all the detailed examples that I have given, but I particularly ask him to explain the cause of the present state of affairs. The Order in Council procedure is truncated. In relation to negative resolution orders, it should be easy to produce them on time. The procedure with affirmative resolution orders may take somewhat longer. But why does it take so long?
It seems to take longer to produce legislation for Northern Ireland by the truncated Order in Council procedure than it takes to produce legislation for England by proper Bills. Why that delay? Does it arise in the Northern Ireland Departments from which instructions are issued to the legislative draftsman's office? Does the delay occur in the draftsman's office, in the drafting and sorting out procedure? Does it arise in the Minister's office because policy decisions are involved from time to time?
Some of my hon. Friends suggest that the recent inter-party talks absorb so much interest and time of Northern Ireland Office Ministers that that might be the cause of the delay. I doubt whether that is the cause, because although I have given examples from 1992 I could give many others relating to other periods.
I asked a former colleague the other day whether he knew the cause. Without revealing the office in which the conversation took place, he told me that he was in a Government office not so long ago and mentioned the matter and asked whether there was a problem. The people to whom he addressed the question laughed but would not reveal anything further. I am glad to know that some civil servants observe the Official Secrets Act in that respect, if no other.
Whatever the cause might be, responsibility must lie with the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, because they have presided over that inefficient system. I shall not repeat to the Minister the comments that I made the other Monday night, which seemed to have some effect. There is a case to answer and a need for solutions, not just in terms of sorting out the Order in Council procedure, but in terms of the legislative process generally.

1253
I referred earlier to the report of the Hansard Society commission on the legislative process. Paragraph 363 refers briefly to the evidence that it received from Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland and other regions of the United Kingdom. It said:
"We hope that their special problems will be considered sympathetically—especially the case for returning to legislating for Northern Ireland by Acts rather than by Orders".
The case for so doing is irrefutable.
To show how easily it can be done, let us examine the home loss payments order made in 1992, which followed two sections of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The Minister will see that the Act covers two different jurisdictions—England and Wales, and Scotland. For Scotland, it has to deal with a different legislative history and a different legislative background and to introduce different sections. Parts of the Act deal with England and parts deal with Scotland. It would have been easy to include within the Act further sections dealing with Northern Ireland; there would then not have been a nine-month delay in introducing the increase in home loss payments for people in Northern Ireland. That is an obvious course to follow.
It would also help to solve the problem if there were proper scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Office. The fact that it is the only Department of State not subject to scrutiny must inevitably encourage people, or make it easier for them, to take it easy. I suspect that that is what happens with the Northern Ireland legislative process.
10.12 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has long made clear his own dissatisfaction, and that of his party, with the present arrangements for legislating for Northern Ireland. His choice of subject for this debate therefore comes as no surprise, but I welcome the opportunity to explain how we see the situation and why, contrary to some of his assertions, it is wrong to blame the present method of legislating for Northern Ireland for any lengthy delays in introducing, where appropriate, legislation for Northern Ireland on similar lines to that already enacted for the rest of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said before now that the present system for legislation is not entirely satisfactory. To that extent, we would not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman. That system arises from the present constitutional arrangements for dealing with Northern Ireland's affairs. Those arrangements will continue unless and until it proves possible to reach agreement on new political institutions for Northern Ireland.
However, if and when new institutions can be agreed upon—it is to that end that my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to promote a new round of political talks —then those institutions will doubtless assume responsibility for many issues involving the need for legislation. They, rather than Westminster Ministers, will undoubtedly take control of a range of matters and be able to set their own legislative programme in those areas. That should lessen the need for so much of Northern Ireland's legislation to be dealt with in this Parliament, and remove the grounds for many or most of the complaints that he has voiced.
1254
However, in the absence of new political institutions, we will need to continue with present legislative arrangements. These take account of, indeed arise from, the fact that, until the introduction of direct rule, Northern Ireland had a Legislature and Executive of its own and therefore had its own body of legislation. It has been the policy of successive Governments to seek to return legislative and executive powers to locally elected representatives as part of an overall political settlement if a suitable basis for this can be found.
To that end, we have been anxious to preserve a separate body of powers for ready transfer to any new political institutions. The present arrangements, whereby legislation for Northern Ireland, other than in the so-called excepted field, is generally made by Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, has seemed the best way of preserving such a body of powers.
The use of the Order in Council procedure has, of course, its limitations. As hon. Members of the hon. Gentleman's party do not hesitate, rightly, to point out at frequent intervals, such orders are unamendable once laid in draft before Parliament. It is for this reason that the practice of publishing proposals for draft orders in Council has been adopted. Such proposals are circulated to Northern Ireland Members and to the Northern Ireland spokesmen of the major political parties in Great Britain and to other interested bodies in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman's point about the information on Northern Ireland legislation provided in the House of Commons weekly bulletin is a matter for the House. If it is felt that the extra information that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned should be included, the Northern Ireland Office would be happy to provide any assistance that it can. However, it is not a matter for us.
The process of consultation and the frequent need to adapt to local circumstances provisions originally prepared for Great Britain inevitably mean that Northern Ireland legislation is made some time after that in Great Britain. But I am sure that it is necessary in the interests both of getting legislation technically right and of giving Northern Ireland Members and other representatives of opinion in Northern Ireland the opportunity to coment on legislative proposals before they are set in the concrete of a draft Order in Council.
Of course some legislation for Northern Ireland intended to follow Great Britain policy closely has been introduced up to several years after the Great Britain legislation, and the hon. Member for Upper Bann has given us some examples. The reasons are various and include the need to give priority to some legislation over other and the inevitable limitations caused by finite resources among others.
I should, however, remind the House that social security and financial provisions, for example, and other legislation which could have a direct financial effect on citizens in Northern Ireland is virtually always implemented at the same time as the relevant Great Britain legislation. Indeed, the negative resolution procedure for making Northern Ireland Orders in Council provides a ready means for achieving speedy implementation of such so-called parity legislation or when it is otherwise appropriate.
On the other hand, delays may occur because some powers may simply not be required in Northern Ireland as

1255
early as equivalent powers are needed in Great Britain. The recent financial provisions order to which the hon. Gentleman alluded is a case in point.
On occasion, too, there may also be advantage to be gained by having the opportunity to see how Great Britain legislation works out in practice before proceeding to introduce equivalent law for Northern Ireland. Furthermore, the different social mores of people in Northern Ireland from those in Great Britain have in the past been grounds for either delaying or indeed not implementing Northern Ireland legislation equivalent to Great Britain legislation.
So when talking about the timing of Northern Ireland legislation and delays in producing it, the House will recognise that there are normally perfectly good reasons for such so-called delays, including the need to take proper account of the different legislative and administrative history of Northern Ireland. It is therefore not unreasonable for the preparation even of legislation which does follow Great Britain legislation in its broad principles to take a little time.
That is not to say that there have not been and, in the nature of things, will not be occasions when it takes longer than is strictly necessary for legislation to be made. We are continually looking at ways of minimising the time it takes to produce necessary legislation without of course resorting to cutting corners when it comes to appropriate consultation.
Despite the complaint of delays which we have heard from the hon. Member for Upper Bann, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor have managed to maintain a steady programme of legislation for Northern Ireland, running at an average of about 20 Orders in Council a year. As those orders are the equivalent of Parliamentary Bills, that is a pretty good record.
We are not complacent about legislation for Northern Ireland. We recognise that the present legislative system is not perfect. To make the point again for the best emphasis that I can manage, we want that unsatisfactory situation to end as soon as possible. But it is up to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and friends and members of the political institutions of Northern Ireland to get together and agree upon a different and better way forward.
When they can so agree collectively upon a way forward for the better government of Northern Ireland, but at any rate governed by people with a direct representational interest there and much more local knowledge than we can ever have however hard we might work at it, the convenient way to return that power to whatever assembly, body—call it what one will—that is set up for Northern Ireland would be with a body of coherent and non-contradictory legislation. That is why we use the process whereby we build upon the corpus of legislation that existed before we had, perforce, to take it away through direct rule.
1256
That is our wish and that is why, while acknowledging that the local elections have yet to be concluded, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be working as hard as he can in the coming months to get people of good will together to decide how we can put an end to the anomaly. We are not satisfied with the system, but, for the reasons I have given, it is desirable and necessary to continue in this less than perfect way. If one were to follow the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and try to legislate here under the British system, we would be creating anomalies, differences and variations which would then have to be put right.
Northern Ireland must have a coherent and consecutive corpus of law so that, if and when the day comes, which the hon. Gentleman says that he wishes for, when he will take some part in his own assembly in his own part of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] He would, hopefully, want an assembly in his part of the United Kingdom with directly elected representatives, and he will want that to work. One reason why we keep this less than perfect system with the affirmative and negative resolutions is that no Government of any party have acknowledged or want to acknowledge that that day cannot come. Until it comes, we are compelled to retain the present system.
Mr. Trimble: The argument that the Minister has elaborated during the past few minutes is a bad one., There is no separate Northern Ireland statute book. Over the years, Northern Ireland has been legislated for by five different Parliaments. Before the Northern Ireland Parliament was created in 1920, this House enacted a separate corpus of legislation for Northern Ireland. There is no need to keep the Order in Council procedure to achieve that. Enacting legislation in the proper way will not change the corpus of Northern Ireland legislation in the way that the Minister says.
Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is no separate statute book, but, since the days of the Act that he mentioned, there is a consecutive logical body of law which is not contradictory and which does not have the thousands of anomalies that would arise if we transferred the British legislation straight across. The same applies to Scotland. There is a different body of law there. It is maintained sometimes by Bill and sometimes by order, and sometimes, for perfectly good reasons, Scotland does not follow England and Wales. Those are decisions that we have to take.
As I have explained, it is desirable and necessary to legislate separately for Northern Ireland on those matters which it is hoped to return to the control of new political institutions in due course, not least because this facilitates the preservation of a separate body of powers for any such new institutions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what inquiries he undertook to determine the ability of those who will have to pay higher contributions to their legal fees as a result of the changes to legal aid regulations announced in the last autumn statement to afford these contributions; and what plans he has to monitor the new regulations to ensure that applicants are in fact able to pay the new contributions.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Contributions to legal aid are one third of disposable income above the free limit after a generous range of allowances has been made against gross income. When an offer of legal aid with a contribution is made, it is for the individual concerned to assess his priorities and to decide whether or not to accept it. The operation of the new financial eligibility regulations will be closely monitored.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current progress of the design and funding of the new class 323 electric multiple units designated for Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority; and when he expects them to enter service.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that 45 class 323 vehicles are on order for services sponsored by Greater Manchester passenger transport authority. These will be funded by British Rail and the cost recovered over time through S20 payments. In addition, the PTE has ordered, through British Rail, a further six vehicles for services to Manchester airport. The PTE is to fund 45 per cent. of the cost of these and British Rail the remainder. The PTE's contribution to the airport link project has been funded through capital allocations.

  The manufacturers of these vehicles are making good progress in overcoming the technical problems that they have incurred. British Rail hopes to have the first vehicles in revenue-earning service, initially in the west midlands, at the end of September. Further vehicles will then enter service on a regular basis over the course of the following year.

  A650, Keighley
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a further announcement about the A650 Hard Ings road, Keighley, improvement scheme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The preferred route was announced for this scheme in March 1992. Design and 462
  related works are now being progressed with a view to publishing draft orders under the 1980 Highways Act during 1994.

  M6 (Lane Closures)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions on which lane closures have taken place at junction 8 (Ray Hall) of the M6 motorway and associated link roads since the M5-M6 link was completed; what was the reason for the closures and the subsequent work carried out; what were the dates and length of time of the closures; what is the total estimated cost to public funds of the works carried out at this junction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not possible to list all the lane closures which have taken place on these sections of the midland links motorways since they opened to traffic in 1970. In addition to programmed major refurbishment works, there have been closures required for emergency works and for routine maintenance. Major refurbishment works in the period are as follows:

  (i)) 1980 M6 Ray Hall—viaduct resurfacing and deckjoint repairs for six months.

  (ii) 1981 M5 Eastern Arm—viaduct resurfacing and deckjoint repairs for three months.

  (iii) 1982 M5 Western Arm—viaduct resurfacing and deckjoint repairs for three months.

  (iv) 1991 M6 Ray Hall—viaduct deck repairs, waterproofing, drainage, carriageway strengthening and resurfacing, street lighting renewal for six months.

  (v) 1993 M5 Eastern Arm—viaduct deck repairs, Waterproofing, drainage, carriageway strengthening and resurfacing, street lighting renewal for six months (contract commenced on 19 April)

  By using temporary narrow lanes at times of peak traffic demand, the programmed closures have not materially restricted capacity below that otherwise available. At all other times, sufficient capacity has been maintained to accommodate the prevailing traffic flow with minimum delay.

  The total estimated cost to public funds of all the works carried out at this junction cannot be separated from the costs of maintaining the midland links motorway network as a whole.

  The midland links motorway network is subject to ongoing major and routine maintenance work and every effort will continue to be made to minimise disruption to traffic.

EDUCATION

  Voluntary Aided Status
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many recent applications for voluntary aided status have been received; and which were(a) accepted and (b) rejected.

  Mr. Forth
  Since January 1990 the Secretary of State has decided 15 applications for new voluntary aided schools; of these five were approved and 10 were rejected. Four of these approvals were for new primary schools, including a Roman Catholic, Church of England/ Methodist, interchurch and a Jewish school. The fifth approval was for a Jewish secondary school. The 10 unsuccessful applications included three RC, three C of E,
  463
  one Church of England/Methodist, two Jewish schools and one Muslim. The last decision is currently being reconsidered.

  Higher Education Colleges
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps can be taken by students to appeal to an independent body against decisions of colleges of higher education in England.

  Mr. Boswell
  Arrangements for consideration of student appeals, including appeals to an independent body, are a matter for each college to determine individually.

ENVIRONMENT

  Domestic Appliances
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to promote the reduction of energy consumption of domestic appliances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department encourages consumers to purchase energy-efficient appliances through information and advice campaigns such as "Helping the Earth Begins at Home". In collaboration with the regional electricity companies, the Energy Efficiency Office within my Department operates a voluntary labelling scheme for household refrigerators and freezers to show their relative energy efficiency on a scale from 1—least efficient—to 10—most efficient.

  The Government strongly support the development by the European Commission of measures to improve the energy efficiency of traded goods including domestic appliances. A framework directive for the mandatory energy labelling of domestic appliances was adopted in September 1992 and delegated to the Commission the responsibility to prepare and adopt detailed application directives for specific appliances. The first such directive, for refrigerators and freezers, is expected to be adopted by the Commission in the next two months.

  We will support the proposed development and adoption by the Commission of a directive setting minimum energy efficiency standards in Europe for household refrigerators and freezers; and are in favour of the extension of such requirements to other domestic appliances provided that it is clear that market forces or voluntary measures will not produce the desired result and that other member states agree that this is the best way forward.

  "Agenda 21"
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the implementation of "Agenda 21" and the biodiversity and climate changes conventions at local and national levels.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are committed to ratifying the climate change convention by the end of this year and to establishing the basis for ratification of the convention on biological diversity in the same timescale.

  An extensive consultation exercise is currently taking place on the United Kingdom's national programme for limiting emissions of carbon dioxide. Two thirds of the
  464
  programme is already in place. The complete programme will be incorporated in the national plan under the climate change convention to be published by the end of the year. Wide consultation across all sectors is also under way on our national action plan on biodiversity which will be published later this year. This will bring together the Government's policies and programmes for wildlife and will cover the conservation and sustainable use of our natural heritage.

  We intend to present a report on the United Kingdom's national sustainability strategy to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, the main institutional mechanism for following up Agenda 21, before the end of 1993. We are conducting a national debate so that everyone with a concern for the environment has the opportunity to express views on how we can balance the need for economic development with protection of the environment. The local authority associations with our support are developing a "Local Agenda 21" initiative for local government. We are also hosting "Partnerships for Change '93", an international NGO conference to be held in Manchester in September. This will enable all parts of the international NGO community to exchange experience on the implementation of Agenda 21.

  Fiddler's Ferry Power Station
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made of whether the Fiddler's Ferry power station conforms to the Govenment's national plan's control on emissions of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  The requirement of the national plan is that National Power and PowerGen, who are the operators of Fiddler's Ferry power station, should each keep within a specified company quota for SO2 and NOx emissions from existing large combustion plant. This has been met in 1991 and 1992. Authorisations issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution aim to ensure that the sum of allocations for SO2 and NOx for a particular company do not exceed its overall quota. However, there is flexibility within the plan for the distribution of a company's allocations to change provided that they do not in total exceed the quota or conflict with any other conditions of the authoritisation, such as those designed to ensure that best available techniques not entailing excessive cost are used to minimise harmful emissions.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the sulphur dioxide emissions from Fiddler's Ferry power station for 1991; what are the 1993 estimated figures; and what assessment he has made of the reason for the difference between those two figures.

  Mr. Maclean
  Reported emissions of SO2 for 1991 were 171,018 tonnes. It is estimated that total emissions will be broadly the same in 1993.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated level of sulphur dioxide emissions from Fiddler's Ferry power station for 1993; what were the figures for 1987; and what effect the EC policy of securing a 50 per cent. reduction in emissions has had on reducing the level of emissions from that station.

  Mr. Maclean
  Estimated 1993 SO2 emissions from Fiddler's Ferry power station are 172,000 tonnes; 1987
  465
  figures are not held centrally. Current EC policy on reductions of SO2 emissions is primarily embodied in the large combustion plants directive of 1988. One of its requirements is that by the year 2003 total SO2 emissions from all power stations in the United Kingdom should be reduced by 60 per cent. from 1980 levels. The annual company quota for PowerGen, which operates the Fiddler's Ferry power station, reflects that requirement.

  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration the Government have given to supporting the European Commission request that the deadline for the 50 per cent. reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions should be the year 2000.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware of such a request, but the Government are already committed through the national plan to a 52 per cent. reduction, from 1980 levels, in SO2 emissions from existing large combustion plant by the year 2000.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to reduce emissions and conform to the 50 per cent. reductions of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen laid down by the European Commission.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom is committed to meeting current EC legislation on reductions of SO2 and NOx.

  Housing
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new housing units were constructed by(a) the local authority and (b) housing associations in the Cannock Chase district council area and the Lichfield district council area in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates of housebuilding completions by sector for each local authority area in England are shown in the publications "Local Housing Statistics" and "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas 1980–1989" for some earlier years.

  Figures for 1979 are in table 5 of the May 1980 edition, issue No. 53, of "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for 1980 to 1984 are in "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas", tables 1.1 to 1.5. Figures for 1985 to 1991 are in tables 1(a) to 1(g) of the October 1992 edition, issue number 103, of "Local Housing Statistics". Figures for the first nine months of 1992 have been published in table 1 of issue No. 104 of "Local Housing Statistics".

  Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  South West Water
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making in the examination of South West Water prices announced by the Prime Minister on 11 March,Official Report, column 1105.

  Mr. Maclean
  Responsibility for water charges rests with the Director General of Water Services. The Department is, however, now examining certain aspects of water authorities' overall programmes to see if there is any room for manoeuvre.
  466

  Open Spaces Society
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the grant from his Department for the Open Spaces Society for 1991–92, 1992–93, and 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on Wednesday, 24 March,Official Report, column 628.

  Disused Mine Shafts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make available resources to make safe disused mine shafts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Resources to make safe disused mine shafts are available in England through derelict land grant and in Wales through the Welsh Development Agency's land reclamation programme. Normally these are provided where the treatment of the mineshaft forms part of the scheme for the reclamation of derelict land. However, resources are also available for the treatment of isolated mine shafts which threaten public safety or which endanger existing development.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest position on the waste management licensing timetable.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am convinced that we must achieve our environmental objectives for waste management in a way which places the least possible burden on industry. In doing so, we have to take account of European Community measures dealing with waste management, as I explained in my announcement on 17 March.

  Unfortunately further consideration of this important aspect and its impact on the relationship between waste management licensing under part 11 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other controls has produced a number of technical problems that have not yet been finally resolved. It is very important to get the position right and for all regulating authorities and handlers of controlled waste to know what they have to do to comply with obligations deriving from Community measures.

  Regrettably, therefore, we cannot now meet our target for waste management licensing of 1 June. As soon as I am in a position to give a revised date, I shall do so. I should stress that we fully intend to bring in the Environmental Protection Act waste management licensing system and the EC revised waste framework directive. Moreover, this delay in no way affects the present requirement under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 for facilities handling waste to have licences.

  Local Authorities (Complaints)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities are not prevented by terms in insurance policies from providing explanations or issuing apologies in response to complaints from members of the public.
  467
  Mr. Robin Squire
  the terms included in these policies are a matter for negotiation between local authorities and their insures.

  Council Tax, Newbury
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the secretary of State for the Environment what are the current council tax levels in Newbury for each band; and what these levels would be if there was no budgeted recourse to the council's resources.

  Mr. Howard
  Assuming that the council had made no use of its resources and had chosen to set the budget requirement at the level of budgeted net revenue expenditure, the council taxes for each band would have been as follows in each case:

  £

  Current council tax levels

  Band A

  352·30

  Band B

  410·90

  468

  £

  BandC

  469·60

  Band D

  528·30

  Band E

  645·70

  Band F

  763·10

  Band G

  880·50

  Band H

  1,056·60

  Tax levels assuming no use of council's own resources

  Band A

  423·08

  Band B

  493·59

  Band C

  564·11

  Band D

  634·62

  Band E

  775·65

  Band F

  916·67

  Band G

  1,057·70

  Band H

  1,269·24

  469

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Employment, Belfast
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new firms have been established in the enterprise zone area of Belfast since the zone was first operational.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of firms in the Belfast enterprise zone increased From 165 at designation on 21 October 1981 to 478 at expiry in October 1991, a net increase of 313 firms.

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the expenditure per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Primary £

  Secondary £

  1989–90

  1,026·60

  1,845·72

  1990–91

  1,130·84

  1,976·45

  1991–92

  1,226·91

  2,091·93

  Students
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the flow of third-level education students out of and into Northern Ireland each year since 1981.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is available from 1985–86 to 1991–92 and is as follows:

  Year

  Northern Ireland domiciled students entering third level institutions outside Northern Ireland

  Non-Northern Ireland domiciled students entering third level institutions in Northern Ireland

  1985–86

  2,190

  625

  1986–87

  2,486

  699

  1987–88

  2,690

  866

  1988–89

  2,879

  968

  1989–90

  3,286

  990

  1990–91

  3,582

  1,161

  1991–92

  4,004

  1,209

  Note:

  Figures relate to full-time undergraduate new entrants only.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reduce long-term unemployment in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Reducing unemployment in Northern Ireland depends on the achievement of higher levels of economic growth and on Northern Ireland industry becoming internationally competitive. The Government's strategy to achieve this includes identifying and removing 470
  obstacles to growth; encouraging inward investment; promoting cross-border trade; building up management and work force skills; developing an enterprise culture; and supporting innovation and research and development.

  Those who have been unemployed for long periods may need additional helpo to enable them to compete for the jobs that are available. The Training and Employment Agency provides practical help through the job training programme, Enterprise Ulster, the Action for Community Employment scheme and the job clubs service. In addition guidance and counselling is available from each of the Training and Employment Agency's area offices and from the Social Security Agency through the Restart programme.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 January,Official Report, columns 488–89, when he now expects to announce the non-fossil fuel obligation quota for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Subject to approval by the European Commission, I expect to announce details of a non-fossil fuel obligation for Northern Ireland in the early summer.

  Training and Employment Agency
  Sir James Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets have been set for the Training and Employment Agency for Northern Ireland for the period 1993 to 1996.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following targets have been set:

  1. To increase the number of companies developing their management and workforce skills from 225 at April 1993 to 300 by March 1994 and 400 by March 1996.

  2. To assess companies on the Company Development Programme against the national standard "Investor in People" with the aim of having 70 achieving recognition by March 1996.

  3. To offer every company referred to the Agency by the Industrial Development Board relevant information, advice and customised training.

  4. To increase the proportion of Youth Training Programme leavers who achieve a full qualification at National Vocational Qualifications level 2 or above from 13% at April 1993 to 45% by March 1996. This is in line with the National Education and Training Targets.

  5. To increase the proportion of Job Training Programme leavers who achieve a full qualification at National Vocational Qualifications level 2 or above from 12% al April 1993 to 30% by March 1996.

  6. In 1993/94 the Agency will seek to place 30,000 people into jobs.

  7. To maintain the high levels of customer satisfaction and where possible increase them.

  8. To reduce administration costs by more than 2% in 1993/94.

  9. To meet, for the Agency, the national "Investors in People" standard by September 1995.

  Electoral Areas
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will publish a table to show for(a) each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland, (b) each council area in Northern Ireland, (c) each district electoral area in each council area and (d) each ward, the number of electors currently qualified to vote at the local elections;
  471
  (2) if he will publish a table to show the area of each (a) parliamentary constituency, (b) council area, (c) district electoral area and (d) ward, in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer, 21 April 1993]: The information is set out in the tables. The electorates represent the number of local government electors included on the electoral register for 1993–94 on 19 March 1993, the enumeration date for the purpose of the current review of parliamentary constituency boundaries. The areas are approximate and include areas of inland water.

  Table 1: Parliamentary constituencies

  Constituency

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  Belfast East

  53,217

  2,896

  Belfast North

  55,161

  3,414

  Belfast South

  52,317

  2,460

  Belfast West

  55,415

  2,935

  East Antrim

  64,651

  43,077

  East Londonderry

  78,265

  148,468

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  72,285

  266,000

  Foyle

  77,167

  60,385

  Lagan Valley

  74,853

  45,498

  Mid Ulster

  70,486

  255,641

  Newry and Armagh

  69,546

  108,259

  North Antrim

  71,209

  154,262

  North Down

  70,371

  10,456

  South Antrim

  69,939

  71,630

  South Down

  78,588

  149,241

  Strangford

  70,827

  43,206

  Upper Bann

  69,088

  47,933

  Total

  1,153,385

  1,415,761

  Table 2 Districts, district electoral areas and wards

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF ANTRIM

  30,961

  57,794

  Antrim North West

  Cranfield

  1,598

  5,518

  Drumanaway

  1,507

  2,359

  Randalstown

  1,549

  2,307

  Shilvodan

  1,505

  5,230

  Toome

  1,568

  6,499

  7,727

  21,913

  Antrim South East

  Aldergrove

  1,649

  15,669

  Ballycraigy

  1,598

  57

  Clady

  1,621

  8,028

  Crumlin

  1,903

  1,471

  Farranshane

  1,565

  420

  Parkgate

  1,500

  6,514

  Templepatrick

  1,749

  2,028

  11,585

  34,187

  Antrim Town

  Balloo

  1,501

  514

  Fountain Hill

  1,752

  87

  Greystone

  1,535

  55

  Massereene

  1,730

  523

  Springfarm

  1,882

  417

  Steeple

  1,554

  43

  Stiles

  1,695

  55

  11,649

  1,694

  472

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF ARDS

  49,716

  38,052

  Ards East

  Donaghadee North

  2,372

  1,692

  Donaghadee South

  2,198

  189

  Gregstown

  2,407

  272

  Loughries

  2,279

  2,050

  Millisle

  2,112

  1,518

  Movilla

  2,325

  144

  13,693

  5,865

  Ards Peninsula

  Ballywalter

  2,119

  3,319

  Carrowdore

  1,989

  5,052

  Kircubbin

  2,039

  3,962

  Portaferry

  2,185

  3,074

  Portavogie

  2,256

  2,313

  10,588

  17,720

  Ards West

  Ballygowan

  2,203

  1,565

  Comber East

  2,126

  454

  Comber North

  1,933

  362

  Comber West

  2,314

  655

  Killinchy

  2,012

  4,158

  Lisbane

  2,020

  3,817

  12,608

  11,011

  Newtownards

  Ballyrainey

  2,066

  1,017

  Bradshaw's Brae

  2,297

  1,034

  Central

  2,149

  255

  Glen

  2,100

  460

  Scrabo

  1,827

  423

  Whitespots

  2,388

  267

  12,827

  3,456

  District/district electoral area and Wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF ARMAGH

  36,705

  67,130

  Armagh City

  Abbey Park

  1,425

  348

  Callan Bridge

  1,682

  136

  Demesne

  1,629

  336

  Downs

  1,526

  155

  Observatory

  1,801

  413

  The Mall

  1,662

  119

  9,725

  1,507

  Crossmore

  Carrigatuke

  1,543

  6,272

  Derrynoose

  1,551

  6,996

  Keady

  1,670

  103

  Killylea

  1,565

  6,399

  Milford

  1,533

  4,427

  7,862

  24,197

  Cusher

  Hamiltonsbawn

  1,853

  5,479

  Killeen

  1,707

  1,515

  Laurelvale

  1,663

  1,238

  Markethill

  1,726

  3,181

  Poyntz Pass

  1,661

  5,946

  Tandragee

  1,818

  1,496

  10,428

  23,855

  The Orchard

  Ballymartrim

  1,648

  6,137

  473

  District/district electoral area and Wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  Charlemont

  1,656

  3,447

  Hockley

  1,785

  4,200

  Loughgall

  1,742

  3,279

  Rich Hill

  1,859

  508

  8,690

  17,571

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF BALLYMENA

  42,637

  63,197

  Ballymena East

  Ballykeel

  1,668

  109

  Castle Demesne

  1,731

  115

  Dunclug

  1,744

  69

  Fair Green

  1,731

  66

  Moat

  1,581

  45

  Summerfield

  1,844

  159

  10,299

  563

  Ballymena North

  Broughshane

  1,864

  1,291

  Craigywarren

  1,748

  5,957

  Cullybackey

  1,930

  484

  Dunminning

  1,732

  5,266

  Glenravel

  1,832

  8,984

  Slemish

  1,624

  13,594

  10,730

  35,576

  Ballymena South

  Ahoghill

  1,981

  1,122

  Glenwhirry

  1,815

  11,576

  Grange

  1,833

  6,035

  Kells

  1,954

  2,180

  Portglenone

  1,843

  3,946

  9,426

  24,859

  Ballymena West

  Academy

  1,668

  223

  Ardeevin

  1,893

  347

  Ballee

  1,752

  148

  Ballyloughan

  1,737

  95

  Galgorm

  1,714

  1,003

  Harryville

  1,710

  287

  Park

  1,708

  96

  12,182

  2,199

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF BALLYMONEY

  17,864

  41,856

  Ballymoney Town

  Carnany

  1,189

  86

  Fairhill

  1,180

  224

  Glebe

  1,244

  96

  Newhill

  1,101

  64

  Route

  1,156

  265

  5,870

  735

  Bann Valley

  Clogh Mills

  1,130

  2,427

  Dunloy

  1,120

  2,235

  Killoquin Lower

  1,107

  4,014

  Killoquin Upper

  1,050

  2,429

  Seacon

  1,279

  1,899

  The Vow

  1,048

  3,490

  6,734

  16,494

  474

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  Bushvale

  Ballyhoe and Corkey

  1,023

  8,155

  Benvardin

  1,056

  3,594

  Dervock

  1,086

  3,886

  Knockaholet

  1,069

  4,986

  Stranocum

  1,026

  4,006

  5,260

  24,627

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF BANBRIDGE

  27,052

  45,248

  Banbridge Town

  Ballydown

  1,692

  795

  Banbridge West

  1,723

  132

  Edenderry

  1,578

  94

  Fort

  1,536

  123

  Seapatrick

  1,503

  389

  The Cut

  1,599

  74

  9,631

  1,607

  Dromore

  Ballyward

  1,561

  8,654

  Dromore North

  1,597

  348

  Dromore South

  1,583

  1,206

  Gransha

  1,521

  5,149

  Quilly

  1,564

  4,853

  7,988

  20,210

  Knockiveagh

  Bannside

  1,514

  7,119

  Gilford

  1,516

  1,546

  Katesbridge

  1,545

  7,187

  Lawrencetown

  1,542

  2,765

  Loughbrickland

  1,575

  4,195

  Rathfriland

  1,741

  619

  9,433

  23,431

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF BELFAST

  208,599

  11,488

  Balmoral

  Blackstaff

  3,729

  194

  Finaghy

  3,915

  261

  Malone

  4,340

  220

  Musgrave

  4,042

  180

  Upper Malone

  3,785

  434

  Windsor

  3,996

  94

  23,807

  1,383

  Castle

  Bellevue

  3,706

  287

  Castleview

  3,899

  146

  Cavehill

  3,987

  339

  Chichester Park

  3,993

  97

  Duncairn

  3,628

  922

  Fort William

  3,768

  103

  22,981

  1,894

  Court

  Crumlin

  4,035

  86

  Glencairn

  3,547

  396

  Highfield

  3,868

  264

  Shankill

  3,678

  91

  Woodvale

  3,824

  60

  18,952

  897

  475

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  Laganbank

  Ballynafeigh

  3,994

  65

  Botanic

  3,953

  132

  Rosetta

  4,131

  169

  Shaftesbury

  4,038

  222

  Stranmillis

  4,002

  245

  20,118

  833

  Lower Falls

  Beechmount

  4,156

  83

  Clonard

  4,119

  66

  Falls

  4,012

  116

  Upper Springfield

  3,985

  257

  Whiterock

  3,874

  77

  20,146

  599

  Oldpark

  Ardoyne

  4,305

  59

  Ballysillan

  4,354

  112

  Cliftonville

  4,246

  119

  Legoniel

  4,129

  884

  New Lodge

  4,496

  72

  Water Works

  4,594

  127

  26,124

  1,373

  Pottinger

  Ballymacarrett

  3,729

  75

  Bloomfield

  4,201

  77

  Orangefield

  4,196

  141

  Ravenhill

  4,152

  190

  The Mount

  4,127

  74

  Woodstock

  4,046

  56

  24,451

  613

  Upper Falls

  Andersonstown

  4,444

  102

  Falls Park

  4,506

  237

  Glencolin

  4,271

  950

  Glen Road

  4,466

  159

  Ladybrook

  4,469

  136

  22,156

  1,584

  Victoria

  Ballyhackmore

  4,555

  114

  Belmont

  4,467

  179

  Cherryvalley

  4,332

  199

  Island

  3,779

  376

  Knock

  4,126

  119

  Stormont

  4,604

  706

  Sydenham

  4,001

  619

  29,864

  2,312

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF CARRICKFERGUS

  25,123

  8,194

  Carrick East

  Bluefield

  1,525

  113

  Boneybefore

  1,430

  59

  Love Lane

  1,290

  81

  Milebush

  1,498

  40

  Victoria

  1,588

  92

  7,331

  385

  Carrick Middle

  Blackhead

  1,571

  239

  Eden

  1,751

  2,154

  476

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  Gortalee

  1,248

  33

  Greenisland

  1,384

  460

  Knockagh

  1,384

  323

  Whitehead

  1,528

  652

  Woodburn

  1,613

  3,622

  10,479

  7,483

  Carrick West

  Burleigh Hill

  1,836

  115

  Clipperstown

  1,468

  49

  Killycrot

  1,430

  111

  Northland

  1,257

  18

  Sunnylands

  1,322

  33

  7,313

  326

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF CASTLEREAGH

  47,994

  8,501

  Castlereagh Central

  Cregagh

  1,802

  31

  Downshire

  1,889

  43

  Lisnasharragh

  1,887

  96

  Lower Braniel

  2,011

  87

  Upper Braniel

  1,948

  283

  Wynchurch

  1,816

  48

  11,353

  588

  Castlereagh East

  Ballyhanwood

  2,468

  1,056

  Carroweagh

  2,136

  756

  Dundonald

  2,057

  216

  Enler

  2,253

  51

  Gilnahirk

  2,021

  81

  Graham's Bridge

  2,302

  89

  Tullycarnet

  2,131

  50

  15,368

  2,299

  Castlereagh South

  Cairnshill

  2,146

  96

  Carryduff East

  2,311

  407

  Carryduff West

  1,903

  422

  Knockbracken

  1,842

  105

  Moneyreagh

  2,455

  3,625

  10,657

  4,655

  Castlereagh West

  Beechill

  2,145

  392

  Galwally

  1,901

  102

  Hillfoot

  2,250

  152

  Minnowburn

  2,108

  144

  Newtownbreda

  2,212

  169

  10,616

  959

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF COLERAINE

  37,322

  48,557

  Bann

  Agivey

  1,567

  6,716

  Castlerock

  1,798

  2,913

  Garvagh

  1,781

  5,337

  Kilrea

  1,597

  2,647

  Macosquin

  1,634

  7,310

  Ringsend

  1,533

  10,724

  9,910

  35,647

  477

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  Coleraine East

  Ballysally

  1,655

  92

  Cross Glebe

  1,639

  127

  Dundooan

  1,644

  4,749

  Dunluce

  1,602

  4,777

  University

  1,554

  237

  8,094

  9,982

  Coleraine West

  Central

  1,641

  105

  Churchland

  1,756

  125

  Knocklynn

  1,658

  296

  Mount Sandel

  1,555

  192

  The Cuts

  1,943

  465

  Waterside

  1,841

  238

  10,394

  1,421

  The Skerries

  Atlantic

  1,855

  457

  Hopefield

  1,843

  212

  Portstewart

  1,767

  86

  Royal Portrush

  1,788

  420

  Strand

  1,671

  332

  8,924

  1,507

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF COOKSTOWN

  21,863

  62,169

  Ballinderry

  Ardboe

  1,475

  6,181

  Coagh

  1,298

  2,887

  Killycolpy

  1,440

  9,437

  Moneymore

  1,330

  2,198

  Stewartstown

  1,257

  4,270

  The Loop

  1,488

  6,099

  8,288

  31,072

  Cookstown Central

  Gortalowry

  1,427

  185

  Killymoon

  1,434

  187

  Newbuildings

  1,402

  81

  Oldtown

  1,361

  217

  Tullagh

  1,525

  110

  7,149

  780

  Drum Manor

  Dunnamore

  1,323

  9,822

  Lissan

  1,279

  7,302

  Oaklands

  1,240

  5,284

  Pomeroy

  1,320

  3,895

  Sandholes

  1,264

  4,014

  6,426

  30,317

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF CRAIGAVON

  54,810

  37,820

  Central

  Bleary

  2,250

  1,747

  Drumgask

  2,153

  287

  Drumgor

  2,139

  305

  Edenderry

  2,350

  174

  Kernan

  2,239

  1,697

  Killycomain

  2,059

  91

  478

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  Taghnevan

  2,078

  111

  15,268

  4,412

  Loughside

  Aghagallon

  2,282

  9,918

  Court

  2,256

  129

  Derrytrasna

  2,359

  7,168

  Drumnamoe

  2,143

  41

  Woodville

  2,334

  139

  11,374

  17,395

  Lurgan

  Church

  1,937

  56

  Donaghcloney

  1,799

  3,348

  Knochnashane

  2,152

  199

  Magheralin

  2,177

  1,789

  Mourneview

  1,919

  71

  Parklake

  1,962

  280

  Waringstown

  2,179

  1,169

  14,125

  6,912

  Portadown

  Annagh

  1,895

  945

  Ballybay

  1,879

  658

  Ballyoran

  1,910

  976

  Brownstown

  2,400

  743

  Corcrain

  1,989

  110

  Tavanagh

  1,897

  52

  The Birches

  2,073

  5,617

  14,043

  9,101

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF DERRY

  64,197

  38,738

  Cityside

  Beechwood

  2,018

  41

  Brandywell

  1,967

  66

  Creggan Central

  2,003

  97

  Creggan South

  1,851

  75

  Westland

  1,870

  32

  9,709

  311

  Northland

  Crevagh

  2,482

  2,611

  Foyle Springs

  2,316

  104

  Pennyburn

  2,400

  215

  Rosemount

  2,155

  41

  Springtown

  2,257

  109

  Strand

  2,296

  122

  The Diamond

  1,966

  83

  15,872

  3,285

  Rural

  Banagher

  1,911

  12,114

  Claudy

  1,949

  8,267

  Eglinton

  2,167

  2,910

  Enagh

  2,262

  3,114

  Holly Mount

  1,995

  5,271

  New Buildings

  2,241

  520

  12,525

  32,196

  Shantallow

  Ballymashalog

  2,501

  278

  Carn Hill

  2,144

  93

  Culmore

  2,307

  972

  Shantallow East

  2,060

  41

  479

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  Shantallow West

  2,173

  584

  11,185

  1,968

  Waterside

  Altnagelvin

  2,341

  318

  Caw

  2,000

  125

  Clondermot

  1,985

  119

  Ebrington

  2,041

  156

  Kilfennan

  2,197

  81

  Lisnagelvin

  2,308

  80

  Victoria

  2,034

  99

  14,906

  978

  District/district electoral area wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTICT OF DOWN

  41,229

  64,917

  Ballynahinch

  Ballymaglave

  1,836

  522

  Ballynahinch East

  1,798

  207

  Drumaness

  1,974

  3,531

  Dunmore

  1,774

  4,574

  Seaforde

  1,676

  7,330

  9,058

  16,164

  Downpatrick

  Ardglass

  1,820

  3,503

  Audleys Acre

  1,700

  183

  Ballymote

  1,703

  365

  Cathedral

  1,832

  557

  Killough

  1,762

  5,871

  Quoile

  1,907

  1,251

  Strangford

  1,725

  6,072

  12,449

  17,802

  Newcastle

  Castlewellan

  1,798

  2,312

  Donard

  1,785

  1,012

  Dundrum

  1,639

  2,416

  Murlough

  1,694

  1,214

  Shimna

  1,783

  134

  Tollymore

  1,611

  6,906

  10,310

  13,994

  Rowallane

  Crossgar

  1,897

  3,195

  Derryboy

  1,809

  5,775

  Killyleagh

  1,846

  538

  Kilmore

  2,018

  6,059

  Saintfield

  1,842

  1,390

  9,412

  16,957

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF DUNGANNON

  32,668

  78,323

  Blackwater

  Aughnacloy

  1,463

  7,018

  Benburb

  1,527

  4,069

  Caledon

  1,520

  8,069

  Killyman

  1,520

  3,527

  Moy

  1,527

  2,648

  7,557

  25,331

  Clogher Valley

  Augher

  1,402

  7,200

  Ballygawley

  1,516

  5,721

  480

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  Castlecaulfield

  1,601

  3,912

  Clogher

  1,410

  10,442

  Fivemiletown

  1,419

  7,798

  7,348

  35,073

  Dungannon Town

  Ballysaggart

  1,617

  259

  Coolhill

  1,446

  229

  Drumglass

  1,340

  469

  Killymeal

  1,441

  609

  Moygashel

  1,355

  609

  Mullaghmore

  1,366

  409

  8,565

  2,584

  Torrent

  Altmore

  1,506

  6,044

  Coalisland North

  1,599

  1,112

  Coalisland South

  1,514

  412

  Coalisland West and Newmills

  1,509

  917

  Donaghmore

  1,494

  2,750

  Washing Bay

  1,576

  4,100

  9,198

  15,335

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF FERMANAGH

  39,617

  187,678

  Enniskillen

  Castlecoole

  1,989

  684

  Devenish

  1,779

  429

  Erne

  1,813

  647

  Lisbellaw

  1,682

  5,215

  Portora

  1,840

  414

  Rossorry

  1,731

  575

  Tempo

  1,627

  9,075

  12,461

  17,039

  Erne East

  Brookeborough

  1,670

  12,397

  Donagh

  1,620

  10,924

  Lisnaskea

  1,866

  556

  Maguires Bridge

  1,687

  8,872

  Newtownbutler

  1,767

  9,090

  Rosslea

  1,654

  9,544

  10,264

  51,383

  Erne North

  Ballinamallard

  1,566

  4,467

  Belleek and Boa

  1,632

  17,306

  Irvinestown

  1,619

  1,727

  Kesh, Ederney and Lack

  2,132

  11,281

  Lisnarrick

  1,352

  7,192

  8,301

  41,973

  Erne West

  Belcoo and Garrison

  1,661

  20,283

  Boho, Cleenish and Letterbreen

  1,808

  13,986

  Derrygonnelly

  1764

  16,058

  Derrylin

  1,600

  10,567

  Florence Court and Kinawley

  1,758

  16,389

  8,591

  77,283

  481

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF LARNE

  22,603

  33,647

  Coast Road

  Ballyloran

  1,442

  29

  Carncastle

  1,550

  908

  Carnlough

  1,478

  5,828

  Craigy Hill

  1,451

  28

  Glenarm

  1,343

  10,719

  7,264

  17,512

  Larn Lough

  Antiville

  1,429

  61

  Ballycarry

  1,523

  3,031

  Glynn

  1,376

  3,284

  Island Magee

  1,539

  2,658

  Kilwaughter

  1,623

  6,587

  7,490

  15,621

  Larne Town

  Blackcave

  1,512

  91

  Central

  1,664

  100

  Gardenmore

  1,640

  121

  Harbour

  1,504

  157

  Town Parks

  1,529

  45

  7,849

  514

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF LIMAVADY

  19,699

  58,633

  Bellarena

  Aghanloo

  1,196

  7,613

  Ballykelly

  1,219

  2,048

  Glack

  1,239

  5,612

  Gresteel

  1,431

  1,948

  Magilligan

  1,234

  7,886

  6,319

  25,107

  Benbradagh

  Dungiven

  1,351

  238

  Feeny

  1,205

  9,449

  Forest

  1,374

  3,607

  The Highlands

  1,143

  6,015

  Upper Glenshane

  1,218

  13,816

  6,291

  33,125

  Limavady Town

  Coolessan

  1,289

  83

  Enagh

  1,725

  74

  Greystone

  1,472

  30

  Rathbrady

  1,408

  80

  Roeside

  1,195

  134

  7,089

  401

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF LISBURN

  70,665

  44,669

  Downshire

  Ballymacbrennan

  2,367

  6,994

  Dromara

  2,548

  4,525

  Drumbo

  2,405

  2,515

  Hillsborough

  2,549

  2,991

  Maze

  2,533

  1,581

  12,402

  18,606

  Dunmurry Cross

  482

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  Collin Glen

  2,551

  935

  Derryaghy

  2,315

  512

  Dunmurry

  2,306

  145

  Kilwee

  2,278

  98

  Poleglass

  2,499

  78

  Seymour Hill

  2,106

  92

  Twinbrook

  2,216

  58

  16,271

  1,918

  Killultagh

  Ballinderry

  2,376

  5,774

  Glenavy

  2,554

  7,854

  Knockmore

  2,203

  434

  Maghaberry

  2,288

  3,921

  Moira

  2,499

  1,739

  11,920

  19,722

  Lisburn Town North

  Ballymacash

  2,375

  190

  Ballymacoss

  2,610

  1,408

  Harmony Hill

  2,360

  93

  Lambeg

  2,162

  416

  Lisnagarvy

  2,326

  71

  Magheralave

  2,232

  175

  Wallace Park

  2,279

  172

  16,344

  2,525

  Lisburn Town South

  Blaris

  2,421

  880

  Hilden

  2,357

  107

  Hillhall

  2,274

  681

  Lagan Valley

  2,435

  106

  Old Warren

  2,092

  74

  Tonagh

  2,149

  50

  13,728

  1,898

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (Hectares)

  DISTRICT OF MAGHERAFELT

  25,871

  57,240

  Magherafelt Town

  Ballymaguigan

  1,538

  4,087

  Glebe

  1,496

  200

  Lecumpher

  1,461

  6,609

  Town Parks East

  1,694

  116

  Town Parks West

  1,649

  163

  7,838

  11,175

  Moyola

  Bellaghy

  1,615

  2,817

  Castledawson

  1,679

  1,469

  Gulladuff

  1,631

  3,652

  Knockloghrim

  1,676

  4,124

  Upperlands

  1,478

  3,735

  Valley

  1,634

  3,664

  9,713

  19,461

  Sperin

  Draperstown

  1,628

  5,266

  Lower Glenshane

  1,700

  8,208

  Maghera

  1,719

  196

  Swatragh

  1,787

  6,888

  Tobermore

  1,486

  6,046

  8,320

  26,604

  483

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF MOYLE

  10,708

  49,210

  Ballycastle

  Bonamargy and Rathlin

  791

  1,438

  Dalriada

  834

  83

  Glentaisie

  668

  62

  Kinbane

  663

  3,848

  Knocklayd

  719

  165

  3,675

  5,596

  Giant's Causeway

  Ballylough

  648

  1,252

  Bushmills

  661

  851

  Carnmoon

  637

  3,088

  Dunseverick

  633

  3,742

  Moss-Side and Moyarget

  611

  3,988

  3,190

  12,921

  The Glens

  Armoy

  653

  2,796

  Glenaan

  891

  1,594

  Glenariff

  852

  5,302

  Glendun

  774

  8,919

  Glenshesk

  673

  12,082

  3,843

  30,693

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF NEWRY AND MOURNE

  57,369

  90,316

  Crotlieve

  Burren and Kilbroney

  1,822

  4,652

  Clonallan

  2,217

  264

  Derryleckagh

  2,063

  1,491

  Mayobridge

  1,837

  5,478

  Rostrevor

  1,992

  3,234

  Seaview

  2,145

  129

  Spelga

  1,769

  7,903

  13,845

  23,151

  Newry Town

  Ballybot

  1,845

  136

  Daisy Hill

  1,920

  151

  Drumalane

  1,967

  202

  Drumgullion

  2,038

  151

  St Mary's

  1,918

  162

  St Patrick's

  2,168

  199

  Windsor Hill

  1,992

  157

  13,848

  1,158

  Slieve Gullion

  Creggan

  1,700

  6,001

  Crossmaglen

  1,772

  1,834

  Fathom

  1,858

  2,646

  Forkhill

  2,090

  4,387

  Silver Bridge

  1,893

  5,672

  9,313

  20,540

  The Fews

  Bessbrook

  1,737

  624

  Camlough

  1,766

  3,842

  Derrymore

  1,843

  739

  Donaghmore

  1,748

  6,595

  Newtownhamilton

  1,691

  7,732

  Tullyhappy

  1,749

  6,494

  10,534

  26,026

  The Mournes

  Annalong

  1,935

  3,853

  484

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Areas (hectares)

  Binnian

  1,749

  6,561

  Kilkeel Central

  2,306

  625

  Kilkeel South

  2,135

  450

  Lisnacree

  1,704

  7,952

  9,829

  19,441

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF NEWTOWNABBEY

  56,105

  15,071

  Antrim Line

  Ballyhenry

  2,387

  89

  Burnthill

  2,339

  48

  Collinbridge

  2,153

  448

  Glebe

  2,317

  88

  Glengormley

  2,338

  51

  Hightown

  2,092

  57

  Mallusk

  2,372

  2,364

  15,998

  3,145

  Ballyclare

  Ballyclare North

  2,363

  179

  Ballyclare South

  2,269

  178

  Ballynure

  1,850

  4,540

  Ballyrobert

  2,701

  2,545

  Doagh

  2,100

  2,706

  11,283

  10,148

  Macedon

  Abbey

  2,335

  188

  Cloughfern

  2,277

  330

  Coole

  2,251

  49

  Dunanney

  1,849

  66

  Valley

  2,455

  191

  Whitehouse

  2,126

  72

  13,293

  896

  University

  Ballyduff

  2,303

  52

  Carnmoney

  2,280

  86

  Hawthorne

  1,953

  74

  Jordanstown

  2,400

  188

  Monkstown

  2,243

  145

  Mossley

  2,268

  143

  Rostulla

  2,084

  194

  15,531

  882

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF NORTH DOWN

  55,042

  8,158

  Abbey

  Bangor Castle

  2,183

  167

  Bloomfield

  2,323

  145

  Conlig

  2,284

  901

  Harbour

  2,146

  72

  Rathgael

  2,056

  51

  Whitehill

  2,149

  44

  13,141

  1,380

  Ballyholme and Groomsport

  Ballycrochan

  2,706

  157

  Ballyholme

  2,009

  79

  Ballymaconnell

  2,209

  225

  Ballymagee

  2,204

  75

  Broadway

  2,341

  113

  Churchill

  2,336

  81

  Groomsport

  2,231

  731

  485

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  16,036

  1,461

  Bangor West

  Bryansburn

  2,351

  68

  Clandeboye

  2,255

  667

  Crawfordsburn

  2,043

  640

  Dufferin

  2,045

  84

  Princetown

  2,216

  156

  Silverstream

  2,101

  54

  Spring Hill

  2,300

  101

  15,311

  1,770

  Holywood

  Craigavad

  2,082

  1,928

  Cultra

  2,056

  649

  Holywood Demesne

  2,232

  180

  Holywood Priory

  2,023

  451

  Loughview

  2,161

  339

  10,554

  3,547

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF OMAGH

  31,414

  112,990

  Mid-Tyrone

  Beragh

  1,477

  6,095

  Drumnakilly

  1,584

  7,339

  Gortin

  1,357

  9,043

  Killyclogher

  1,434

  218

  Owenkillew

  1,391

  17,498

  Sixmilecross

  1,393

  7,857

  Termon

  1,485

  8,445

  10,121

  56,495

  Omagh Town

  Camowen

  1,521

  176

  Coolnagard

  1,683

  223

  Dergmoney

  1,594

  140

  Drumragh

  1,582

  405

  Gortrush

  1,634

  239

  Lisanelly

  1,533

  1182

  Strule

  1,396

  173

  10,943

  1,538

  West Tyrone

  Clanabogan

  1,543

  8,781

  Dromore

  1,458

  4,027

  Drumquin

  1,436

  13,318

  Fairy Water

  1,409

  9,413

  Fintona

  1,523

  3,871

  Newtownsville

  1,492

  7,153

  Trillick

  1,498

  8,394

  10,350

  54,957

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  DISTRICT OF STRABANE

  25,552

  86,165

  Derg

  Castlederg

  1,566

  544

  Clare

  1,726

  8,965

  Finn

  1,552

  3,812

  Glenderg

  1,665

  17,094

  Newtownstewart

  1,580

  4,755

  Sion Mills

  1,516

  695

  9,605

  35,865

  Glenelly

  Antigarvan

  1,573

  4,681

  486

  District/district electoral area and wards

  Local electors

  Area (hectares)

  Dunnamanagah

  1,483

  9,435

  Plumbridge

  1,447

  20,502

  Slievekirk

  1,494

  6,607

  Victoria Bridge

  1,530

  8,154

  7,527

  49,379

  Mourne

  Ballycolman

  1,568

  57

  East

  1,687

  86

  North

  1,673

  479

  South

  1,798

  168

  West

  1,694

  131

  8,420

  921

  1,153,385

  1,415,761

TRANSPORT

  Safe Seas
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has made to the European Commission on its proposal for setting up a committee on safe seas contained in the communication from commissioners on a common policy on safe seas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom has warmly welcomed the Commission's communication "A Common Policy for Safe Seas", which closely mirrors the Government's views on the need for action to improve the level of maritime safety in Community waters. Along with other member states, we approve in principle the Commission's proposal for a Committee on Safe Seas, and are currently considering what its terms of reference should be.

  A614
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to make the A614 in Nottinghamshire dual carriageway.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We do not have any proposals in the trunk road programme to upgrade the A614 in Nottinghamshire to dual carriageway standard.

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached following his Department's consultative exercise on the provision of rolling stock following the privatisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  I intend to ask British Rail to establish rolling stock companies and to transfer its existing passenger rolling stock to these by 1 April 1994. Our provisional view is that there should be three rolling stock companies. Each should have a mixed portfolio of different types and ages of stock which they would lease to franchisees and BR's operating divisions pending franchising. Wherever reasonably practicable franchisees should have more than one potential source of supply for rolling stock in any particular market segment. More
  487
  detailed work is in hand to determine how the fleet should be divided between the companies; what role the companies should take in the maintenance of their stock; and, whether, for example, individual BR maintenance depots should be associated with each rolling stock.

  The companies will initially be publicly owned and will invest as necessary to renew their fleets. Our intention is to transfer the companies to the private sector as soon as practicable.

  During the course of the consultative exercise a number of ideas have been put forward for the early involvement of private sector expertise and capital. I expect to reach conclusions shortly on the role which the private sector might take in working with the public sector in developing an operating lease market. I will then be inviting those interested to bring forward specific proposals.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Coal Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when British Coal last made normal contributions to mineworkers' pension funds; and if members are continuing to make contributions;

  (2) what sum British Coal now owes to the industry's pension funds to cover the cost of making pension payments to the staff made redundant and retiring early between April 1983 and April 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for British Coal and the trustees of the pension schemes.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest valuation of the assets of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal and the trustees of the staff superannuation scheme.

  Riot Control Units
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences his Department has granted for armoured anti-riot units since 1979.

  Mr. Heseltine
  This would require examination of all export licences for military goods to all destinations since 1979 which could be done only at disproportionate expense.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representation his Department's export control office had at the non-proliferation seminar on plutonium held at Rhodes House, Oxford, on 21 April.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Two officials from my Department's Export Control Organisation attended the seminar.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the Greenpeace report, "Vessel Head Penetration Cracking in Nuclear Reactors", published in March 1993, a copy of which has been sent to him.
  488
  Mr. Eggar
  I have not received a copy of this report.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what visits to the Trawsfynydd nuclear plant have been made by International Atomic Energy safety inspectors on OSART safety assessment missions since the plant opened; and if he will make a statement on the current safety status of the plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  There have been no International Atomic Energy Agency operational safety and review team—OSART—missions to Trawsfynydd. Both reactors remain shut down while the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate completes its assessment of Nuclear Electric's safety case for restart.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the chief nuclear inspector at Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate is taking to consider measures to prevent vessel head penetration cracking in Sizewell B.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 15 April 1993,Official Report, column 705.

  Assisted Area Status
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his proposals in respect of the assisted areas map were submitted to the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  After the review of the assisted areas map has been completed the Government's proposals will be put to the Commission for article 92 state aids clearance.

  Dan-Air
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had regarding the competition implications of the takeover of Dan-Air by British Airways.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  All representations received are treated in confidence. All relevant considerations were taken into account in the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and in his decision not to refer the proposed acquisition to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Sodium Hexacyanoferrate
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of sodium hexacyanoferrate is(a) manufactured in the United Kingdom, (b) imported into the United Kingdom and (c) exported from the United Kingdom; and what are the locations where sodium hexacyanoferrate is produced in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Sodium hexacyanoferrate is not separately identified in the United Kingdom statistical classifications; therefore, the information is not available.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many obligations remain outstanding for drilling(a) firm and (b) contingent wells under the 11th and 12th United Kingdom offshore licensing rounds.
  489
  Mr. Eggar
  There are 309 outstanding obligation wells from the 11th and 12th rounds of offshore licensing. Of these, 193 are firm obligations, and 116 conditional.

  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg), of 21 April,Official Report, column 119, about the change of rules governing the shipbuilding intervention fund, which took effect from 1 April, if the grant to be paid at the maximum permitted level refers to vessels under construction on 1 April as well as those to be constructed after 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The concession applies only to those vessels for which offers of grant were made on or after 1 April.

  Explosion, Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of 'Trade if he will make a statement on the recent explosion which occurred in Liverpool 8.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 20 April 1993]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the gas explosion at 148 High Park street on 30 December 1992. This was dealt with by the police authorities and the Health and Safety Executive which, I understand, have decided to take no further action.

  Economic Task Force
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will create an economic task force for the industrial areas of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

HEALTH

  Myelograms
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many myelograms were conducted in the national health service in each year since 1989–90 and in the first six months of 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The latest estimate of episodes involving myelogram procedures,. held by the Department, for the year 1989–90 is 18,230. This figure includes radiculograms as well as myelograms.

  Older Patients
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to monitor the NHS purchasing arrangements to identify whether there is discrimination against older patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have set in place mechanisms for monitoring purchasers' performance and ensuring that they are accountable to Ministers and to the public they serve. Health authorities as purchasers are expected to develop contracting arrangements which accurately reflect the needs of all of their resident population.
  490

  Contact Lenses
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received questioning the safety of contact lenses; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The College of Ophthalmologists wrote to the Chief Medical Officer to bring to his attention the increase in contact lens-induced microbial keratitis. The Department has met the representatives of the four eye care professional bodies: College of Ophthalmologists, British College of Optometrists, Association of Optometrists, and the Association of British Dispensing Opticians.

  The working group chaired by the Department has drafted guidance for the eye care professions including a leaflet for patients. The Department has consulted the industry on the content of these drafts and a further meeting of the working party, together with representatives of the industry, will be held on 27 May with the aim of finalising the documents.

  The Department will fund the publication of the guidance.

  Nurses
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance has been issued to health authorities and trusts on providing newly qualified nurses with information about national vacancies;

  (2) what guidance has been issued to health authorities and trusts on the provision of careers counselling services for nursing students;

  (3) what plans she has to establish schemes to enable newly qualified nurses who are unemployed to consolidate their education.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities and trusts are aware that the Employment Service has details of national vacancies and that the English National Board runs a Resource and Careers Service Department.

  Regional health authorities have chosen to manage the position of newly qualified nurses themselves by adopting a variety of approaches such as expansion of flexible working patterns, job sharing, short-term contracts and clearing house schemes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current state of discussions within the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council regarding outstanding clinical grading appeals.

  Mr. Sackville
  The management side of the council awaits a response from the staff side to an offer on 31 March about a number of procedural changes aimed at significantly speeding up the appeals process. The management side made the proposals in support of the initiative requiring regional health authorities to draw up plans to clear outstanding appeals by 31 October 1993.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the chairs and non-executive directors of NHS trusts had previous professional experience within the NHS before their appointment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.
  491

  Overseas Manufacturers (Inspection)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the annual cost of providing teams to inspect plants overseas which manufacture products for use in the NHS;

  (2) how many people are employed by her Department to inspect plants overseas which manufacture medical products for use in the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The equivalent of 6·7 full-time inspectors from the Department of Health and the Medicines Control Agency together were employed in the inspection of medical device and licensed medicinal product manufacturers overseas in 1992–93. The estimated cost—staff, travel and subsistence expenses—of providing these services was £595,000.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many approvals were successfully processed by the Dental Estimates Board; and what was the value of that work approved for each month since April 1991;

  (2) how many requests for prior approval were received by the Dental Estimates Board; and what was the value of that work which dentists wished to carry out, for each month since April 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information in the table shows the number of applications for prior approval submitted by general dental practitioners in England and Wales to the Dental Practice Board for the period April 1991 to March 1993. We have no reason to believe that the DPB failed to process any applications made during this period. The value of the dental work for which these applications were made is not routinely collated by the DPB.

  General dental services (England and Wales) Number of applications for prior approval1 April 1991 to March 1993

  Number

  1991

  April2

  7,000

  May2

  7,000

  June2

  6,000

  July

  6,583

  August

  5,308

  September

  4,437

  October

  5,746

  November

  4,717

  December

  3,331

  1992

  January

  5,037

  February

  4,551

  March

  4,528

  April

  4,408

  May

  3,907

  June

  4,323

  July3

  6,378

  August

  10,624

  September

  17,765

  October

  24,609

  November

  24,069

  December

  23,591

  1993

  January

  26,113

  February

  27,959

  March

  34,073

  1 The small number of prior approval applications arising from investigation, Prior Approval Penalty and Targeting are excluded.

  492
  2 The figures for April to June 1991 are estimates.

  3 The prior approval by value limit was reduced from £600 to £200 with effect from 8 July 1992.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total sum paid out to the general dental practitioners working within the national health service for each month since April 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Payments to general dental practitioners—England

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–92 £ million

  April

  90·582

  116·408

  May

  91·807

  116·576

  June

  94·140

  111·830

  July

  100·276

  114·106

  August

  104·808

  113·243

  September

  92·334

  101·281

  October

  99·553

  98·397

  November

  108·703

  101·686

  December

  111·130

  102·551

  January

  100·896

  105·225

  February

  115·203

  99·171

  March

  114·359

  94·849

  Total

  1,223·791

  1,275·323

  Source: Monthly expenditure returns submitted to the Department by family health services authorities and the Dental Practice Board.

  Notes: Figures are the total of gross payments made to general dental practitioners in each month for all fees, allowances and directly reimbursed practice expenses, but exclude other General Dental Service costs such as payments to salaried dentists, emergency dental service fees, and employer's superannuation costs.

  Respiratory Illness
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence is available to her Department on the rate of hospital admissions of people suffering from respiratory illness in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the north-west region.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1989–90 the rate of hospital admissions of people suffering from respiratory illness in(a) England was 125 per 10,000 population and (b) in the north-west region was 153 per 10,000 population. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Proposed Hospital Mergers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines or instructions she has given to the Guy's and St. Thomas's hospital trust on the subject of the proposal for merger of Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have asked the trust to carry out a thorough appraisal of the site options and to bring forward clear recommendations on future service configuration and siting by the autumn.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the special circumstances under paragraph 9(3) of schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act 1977
  493
  which led her to make a compensation payment to the former chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority on the termination of his appointment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The decision to offer a compensation payment took account of the fact that Sir James Ackers resigned from the position of chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority 18 months before his term of office was due to expire; and that in his 10 years of service considerable progress was made, particularly in carrying out many major hospital developments; waiting lists have fallen dramatically and a record number of patients are now being treated.

  Special Health Authority
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the revenue budget of each special health authority for 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what is the projected distribution of funds for those authorities for 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  The revenue allocations for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are given in the table. Figures for 1994–95 cannot be projected at this early stage.

  Special Health Authorities

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  Central Blood Laboratory Authority/ National Blood Authority (CBLA/ NBA)

  3·718

  6·152

  NHS Supplies Authority

  13·892

  8·110

  UK Transplant Special Services Authority (UKTSSA)

  1·986

  2·397

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley (BR&M)

  33·896

  35·825

  Eastman Dental Hospital (EDH)

  8·178

  8·489

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's (and Acton) (HQC)

  76·608

  80·172

  Moorfields Eye Hospital (MEH)

  21·321

  22·185

  Hospitals for Sick Children (Gt. Ormond St. and Queen Elizabeth's) (HSC)

  55·483

  57·612

  National Heart and Lung Hospitals (Brompton and London Chest) (NH&LH)

  48·87

  49·387

  National Hospitals for Neurology and Neurosurgery (Queen Square, Maida Vale, Finchley and Chalfont) (NHNN)

  30·116

  31·113

  Royal Marsden Hospital (Fulham and Sutton) (RMH)

  35·685

  37·234

  Notes:

  The figures for UKTSSA do not include money allocated for reimbursement of donor hospitals as the money does not contribute to the running costs of the organisation. The UKTSSA in effect manages the funds used to reimburse donor hospitals for maintaining cadavers prior to transplantation, for the Department.

  The figures for 1992–93 are subject to validation by audit. The figures for 1993–94 are initial allocations, which will be added to by in-year adjustment, as appropriate.

  The CBLA became the NBA with effect from 1 April 1993.

  Junior Doctors (Working Hours)
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress towards reducing the hours worked by junior doctors.

  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in achieving a reduction in junior doctors' hours.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I will make an announcement shortly.
  494

  Listeria
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths in the United Kingdom were caused by listeria in the last year for which figures are available; what comparable figures he has for other EC member states; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991, there were 10 certified deaths from listeriosis in the United Kingdom. There are no comparable figures available for other EC member states.

  Medical Practitioners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the implications of the European medical directive for the ability of British registered medical practitioners to practise elsewhere in the European Community; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Last year the European Commission expressed concern that the system in place in the United Kingdom for the mutual recognition of specialist qualifications might not comply with the 1975 European medical directives. A working group was established to review United Kingdom arrangements for specialist medical training in the light of these directives. The group has produced comprehensive recommendations and its report will be issued shortly for a period of consultation.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 497, if she will place in the Library a copy of her Department's instructions on the valuation of assets for transfer to NHS trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is contained in the "Capital Charges and Trust Equivalent Manual", a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will consult the Lord Mayor of London and the City of London corporation about the future of the accident and emergency department at St. Bartholomew's hospital;

  (2) If she will withdraw her proposal to close the accident and emergency department at St. Bartholomew's hospital following the bomb explosion in the City of London; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  North East Thames regional health authority has issued a consultation document on proposals for the closure of the accident and emergency department at St Bartholomew's hospital. The consultation process will proceed in the normal way and the North East Thames RHA would welcome comments on the proposals it contains.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations govern access to free NHS sight tests for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The same rules of entitlement to free national health service sight tests, as set out in section 38 of the NHS Act 1977, apply to people who are deaf or hard of hearing as to all other people.
  495

EMPLOYMENT

  DEFENCE
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 209, if she will give a breakdown of the cost per trainee of employment training.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 22 April 1993]: The breakdown is provided in the following table;

  Breakdown of employment training unit costs

  £

  Unit Cost elements

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Fees

  2,576

  2,399

  2,929

  Allowances

  2,601

  2,662

  2,807

  Head Office Costs

  227

  323

  278

  Total

  5,404

  5,384

  6,014

  Note: No comparable breakdown is available for the 1988–89 total.

  Service

  Year

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  18

  18

  21

  16

  20

  14

  Army

  90

  71

  73

  99

  120

  112

  Royal Air Force

  8

  2

  3

  3

  3

  1

  Notes:

  1. More than one offence may have been committed in some cases and the sentence of dismissal may have been given because of the more serious offence; or perhaps as a result of numerous convictions at a trial, i.e., a totaling effect.

  2. Figures for 1992 are not expected to be available until mid-June. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of state for defence will write to the hon. Member when the information is available.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving members of(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the RAF and (c) the Army were discharged from the services, having gone absent without leave, in each year since 1986.

  Service

  Year

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  28

  64

  77

  90

  71

  74

  76

  14

  Army

  1,962

  1,997

  2,190

  2,477

  2,999

  2,808

  2,650

  597

  Royal Air Force

  236

  219

  154

  190

  155

  131

  103

  29

  1. The figures show the number of reported cases of absence without leave, which are not necessarily the same as the number of individuals who have gone absent without leave as some individuals may have gone absent more than once.

  2. Figures for the Royal Navy/Royal Marines and Army show cases of personnel reported as absent for a period of seven days or more and for whom warrants for arrest have been issued.

  3. Figures for the Royal Air Force show cases of personnel reported as absent for one day or more and may include instances where warrants for arrest have not yet been issued.

  4. Figures for 1993 cover the period 1 January 1993 to 1 April 1993.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ascertain the current location and deployment of military equipment and armaments exported under licence from the United Kingdom to the former republic of Yugoslavia since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is already United Kingdom policy to do so.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representation his Department had at the seminar on nuclear proliferation held at Rhodes House, Oxford on 21 April.
  496

DEFENCE

  Absence without Leave
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving members of(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the RAF and (c) the Army were discharged from the services, having gone absent without leave, in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel are not usually discharged from the services for going absent without leave. Records of any such discharges are not maintained centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Details of personnel dismissed following court martial or summary proceedings for offences involving absence without leave, however, are as follows:

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information in respect of reported cases of absence without leave is as follows:

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department was represented at official level at the seminar "The plutonium legacy: nuclear proliferation out of control?" held in Oxford on 21 April 1993.

  Aer Lingus Crash
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with representatives of the Irish Government concerning further information on the cause of the crash of the Aer Lingus Viscount in the Irish sea on 24 March 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.
  497

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key performance targets have been set for 1993–94 for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  Mr. Aitken
  The chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down is responsible for research to ensure that the United Kingdom armed forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. He has been set the following challenging key performance targets for 1993–94:

  Improved delivery of the programme

  1. In 1993–94 to achieve, within agreed timescales, 88 per cent. of the programme milestones agreed with customers.

  2. In 1993–94 to complete 82 per cent. of the agreed programme assignments required by customers within the specified cost and to keep within CBDE's overall budget.

  3. To sustain the CB research programme and the capability of CBDE to respond effectively to operational emergencies by maintaining scientific and technical staff to at least 70 per cent. of the total planned manpower.

  More efficient use of resources

  4. To increase the overall efficiency of CBDE by at least 2·5 per cent. of the net budget less capital works over the financial year 1993–94 with emphasis on improving output efficiency.

  5. To continue the agreed Market Testing programme identified by the Feasibility/Scoping Study, including the preparation of the specification in 1993–94, to produce an in-house bid and to complete the process by 31 March 1995.

  6. In 1993–94 to increase the percentage of CBDE cash expenditure (less captial works) attributed to direct costs by 5 per cent. to 60 per cent. using the database established in 1992–93.

  Development of management systems

  7. To extend the improved resource allocation and cost attribution system to provide project costs on a full cost basis by March 1994.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gibraltar
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the status of Gibraltar in the EC.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Local Authority Powers, Scotland
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many representations he has received proposing that some existing local authority powers be transferred away from Scottish local authorities to the Scottish Office;

  (2) how many representations he has received to establish joint boards or non-elected bodies in Scotland to take over functions from directly elected Scottish local authorities.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations on local government issues. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has received some comments, in response to his consultation exercise on local government reform in Scotland, which advocate either the transfer of particular local authority functions to central Government, or the establishment of joint boards, or both.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister how much food has been contributed by the United Kingdom to relieve humanitarian suffering in the former Yugoslavia; what proportion of food held in intervention under EC rules in the United Kingdom has been supplied; what action he is taking to persuade EC Heads of Government to ensure proper supplies of food to the former Yugoslavia are made; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom has provided £92·5 million for humanitarian relief in the former Yugoslavia. Of this some £48 million is our share of EC expenditure, the bulk of which has been spent on food aid. This is provided in cash to UN agencies and NGOs, which then purchase supplies that meet their operational requirements. Some EC intervention stocks have been used in the past, but none from the UK.

  The UK has also contributed some £44·5 million in direct bilateral action, focusing on the supply of transport, equipment and expertise to central Bosnia where needs are greatest. We were the first country to respond to the United Nations inter-agency appeal of 25 March, donating a further £15 million, of which £8·5 million was in immediate cash contributions. We maintain a regular dialogue with other EC member states and have urged them to follow suit.

  Former Soviet Union
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards securing international action to decommission nuclear power stations in the former Soviet Union where it is judged that their continued operation poses a hazard to the lives of the peoples of both eastern and western europe; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  At the Munich summit last July, the G7 countries gave their support to a multilateral programme of action designed to improve the safety of Soviet-designed reactors in the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe. The programme, subsequently endorsed by the G24 countries, included measures to bring about urgent operational and near-term technical improvements to the highest risk plants. The Government are playing a full part in supporting and implementing the programme both bilaterally and through the European Community's technical assistance programmes. We have contributed £8·25 million to the nuclear safety account recently set up at the European bank for reconstruction and development to finance urgent safety not covered by bilateral assistance programmes.

  The longer-term future of the plants concerned is a matter for the Governments of the states concerned. However, the G7 programme also provided a basis for consideration of the future of these plants, within the framework of market-oriented energy strategies, by setting in train energy studies covering replacement sources of energy and their cost implications. The World bank, with the International Energy Agency, is in the process of completing these studies, in discussion with the countries concerned. The forthcoming Tokyo summit will review progress on the action programme as a whole, including how best to take forward the conclusions of these studies.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his statement in the House on 11 March,Official Report, column 1105, to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), what is the timetable for the review of water charges in the south-west; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Responsibility for water charges rests with the Director General of Water Services. My right honourable and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is now examining certain aspects of overall programmes to see if there is any room for manoeuvre. This requires analysis and it would be premature to say more at this stage.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Prime Minister what implications the decision to abandon the privatisation of water in Northern Ireland has for the future of the water and sewerage services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None. The position in Northern Ireland is quite separate from that in Scotland. A decision for Scotland will be taken in the light of circumstances that apply to Scotland.

  I refer the honourable Member to the reply I gave to the honourable Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 27 April at column 848.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Television
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will make provision for separate viewing facilities for right hon. and hon. Members to view Channel 4 and satellite television news.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I shall arrange for this matter to be considered by the Administration Committee.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Malawi
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made under their good governance programme for the reform of Malawi's Bill of Rights, and the establishment of an independent judiciary and a fair judicial review process in Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 27 April at column 370 regarding the representations we have repeatedly made on human rights grounds. These included proposals to introduce habeas corpus legislation as well as urging a review of the powers of Malawi's traditional courts.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the recent conference held in Addis Ababa to discuss the future of Somalia; and if he will make available a full account of the proceedings of the conference.
  500
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The conference held in Addis Ababa on 15 to 27 March resulted in an agreement among the main Somali factions on the formation of a transitional Government. The factions also affirmed earlier agreements on a ceasefire and disarmament. We have not seen a full record of the proceedings, but I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the text of the 27 March agreement signed by 15 faction representatives.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the systematic abuse of women in Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no information on any systematic abuse of women in Somalia. We received reports of the stoning to death of five women in Hargeisa, northern Somalia in January. My right hon. and noble friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, during a visit to Hargeisa on 7 February 1993, raised the issue with the authorities there, and was assured that action was being taken to arrest those responsible.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits have been made to Somalia in the last 12 months by representatives of the British Government; and if he will list the parts of Somalia visited.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 14 December 1992 at column 22. Since then, an FCO official visited Mogadishu, 16–17 January; an FCO official and an ODA official visited Mogadishu and Baidoa, 29–30 Janaury; my right hon. and noble friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey visited Baidoa, Mogadishu and Hargeisa, 6–7 February; the British ambassador to Addis Ababa visited Hargeisa, 6–7 February; an FCO official and a member of the British high commission, Nairobi visited Mogadishu, Belet Huen and Baidoa, 2–4 March; and a member of the British high commission, Nairobi visited Mogadishu, 17–18 April.

  China
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the total number and (b) the refusals for applications for entry clearance as students, in each of the last five years, from nationals of the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The total number of private student applications and the number of private student refusals, in each of the last five years, for nationals of the People's Republic of China is as follows:

  Applications

  Refused

  Appeals Received

  1988

  454

  152

  8

  1989

  1,357

  466

  136

  1990

  2,607

  1,479

  525

  1991

  2,894

  2,346

  760

  1992

  1,308

  1,015

  264

  South Africa
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid has been given to each organisation directed to helping human rights groups in South Africa in each of the past three years.
  501
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 22 April 1993]: The ambodia information is as follows.

  Organisation

  Amount £

  1990

  National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders

  8,069

  Black Sash Advice Office

  3,000

  Butterworth Legal Resources Centre

  2,000

  Lawyers for Human Rights

  3,128

  1991

  Advice Centres Association

  10,800

  Twilight Children

  4,367

  Social Development Centre

  3,062

  Kimberley Advice Office

  1,089

  National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders

  2,570

  Rwetelayakwanga Advice Office

  1,233

  National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders

  11,685

  Moletsane Advice Office

  2,718

  1992

  Family Institute (child abuse and marital problems)

  2,254

  Phahameng Advice Office

  3,900

  Herschel Advice Office

  1,440

  National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders

  38,000

  In addition, Britain has supplied experts to support Mr. Justice Goldstone's investigations into incidents of violence and we are providing £50,000 for a human rights colloquium to be held in South Africa in September to look at the role of the judiciary in upholding human rights and ensuring government under law. Our entire aid programme in South Africa of over £10 million in 1992–93 is aimed at assisting the country's non-white citizens to play their rightful role in the economy and future government of the country.

  Gini coefficients for the distribution of income at each stage of the tax-benefit system, 1977–1990 Households with and households without children

  Gini coefficients (per cent.)

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  19901

  Equivalised original income

  Households with children

  29

  n/a

  29

  31

  33

  36

  36

  37

  39

  41

  42

  41

  41

  42

  Households without children

  50

  n/a

  51

  51

  52

  53

  54

  54

  54

  55

  55

  55

  53

  55

  All households

  43

  n/a

  44

  44

  46

  47

  48

  49

  49

  50

  51

  51

  50

  52

  Equivalised gross income

  Households with children

  24

  n/a

  24

  25

  26

  28

  27

  27

  29

  30

  31

  33

  32

  34

  Households without children

  32

  n/a

  32

  33

  34

  33

  34

  33

  34

  35

  37

  38

  37

  40

  All households

  29

  n/a

  30

  31

  31

  31

  32

  31

  32

  34

  36

  37

  36

  38

  Equivalised disposal income

  Households with children

  23

  n/a

  22

  24

  25

  26

  25

  24

  26

  28

  29

  31

  31

  32

  Households without children

  29

  n/a

  29

  30

  30

  29

  30

  29

  30

  32

  34

  36

  35

  38

  All households

  27

  n/a

  27

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  29

  31

  33

  35

  34

  36

  Equivalised post-tax income

  Households with children

  26

  n/a

  25

  27

  28

  30

  28

  27

  29

  32

  33

  35

  35

  37

  Households without children

  30

  n/a

  30

  32

  32

  31

  33

  32

  33

  36

  38

  40

  38

  42

  All households

  29

  n/a

  29

  30

  31

  31

  31

  30

  32

  35

  36

  38

  37

  40

  1 Includes Company car benefit.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each district council in Gloucestershire the number of appeals to the valuation
  502

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the number of mine-clearing units operating under the UN mandate in Cambodia; and how many mines have been lifted as a result of those operations.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [pursuant to his reply 22 April 1993]: We have received further information from our mission in Phnom Penh.

  UNTAC has now redeployed its resources. As of 17 April, there were three international training teams and 20 supervisory teams operating in Cambodia. A total of 2,184 Khmer deminers, 51 Khmer supervisors, and 21 Khmer instructors had been trained. A further 32 deminars, 24 supervisors and 27 instructors were still undergoing training. Twenty-six platoons of trained Khmer deminers were operating under UN Supervisory teams in Cambodia, while another six were operating under NGO auspices.

  We continue to strees to UNTAC the importance of its mine clearance training activities to which we have contributed personnel.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Incomes
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give Gini coefficients for the distribution of income at each stage of the tax benefit system 1977 to 1990, in the equivalised form adopted in Economic Trends No. 471, page 187 for (a) households with children only, (b) other households and (c) all households.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures are given in the table.

  officer by property owners against council tax banding; and how long he expects it to take for these appeals to be determined.

  Mr. Nelson
  As at 22 April, 6,125 proposals had been received by the listing officer responsible for district
  503
  council areas in Gloucestershire. The division of this figure into individual district council areas is not yet available. As the number of appeals which will be made in Gloucestershire cannot yet be predicted it is not possible to determine the length of time it will take to deal with them.

  Charities
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount in real terms that charities will gain from the changes announced in the Budget regarding payroll giving and gift aid in the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The revenue cost of these measures will depend on take-up. But the cost of the Gift Aid change is estimated at £20 million in 1993–94, £30 million in 1994–95 and £30 million in 1995–96. The cost of the payroll giving change is estimated at £1 million each year.

  Married Couples Allowances
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the additional revenue, at 1993 prices, resulting from leaving the married couples allowances unchanged in the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what estimate he has made of the additional revenue which will be generated in the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Dorrel
  The estimated direct revenue yield for each year compared with tax regimes in which the married couple's allowances had been increased in line with the statutory rules for indexation since 1990–91 are as follows:

  Yield in a full year at 1993–94 prices

  £ million

  1991–92

  450

  1992–93

  600

  1993–94

  750

  Equivalent estimates for 1994–95 and 1995–96 would depend on income levels, changes in the retail prices index, and other aspects of the tax regime for the future years.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the ways in which United Kingdom contributions to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have been spent to date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 19 April, Official Report, c. 249–50.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue from value added tax paid by charities on domestic fuel and power in real terms at 1993 prices, in the years 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Sir John Cope
  In 1993 prices, we estimate that applying VAT to charities' non-business use of fuel and power will raise around £10 million in 1994–95 and around £25 million in 1995–96.
  504
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received favouring his proposal to charge value added tax on supplies of fuel and power for domestic, residential and charity non-business use.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations. Among other things these support the need to use the tax system to help fulfil our Rio commitment, support the need to raise revenue to tackle the deficit and support the policy of doing this through indirect taxation rather than income tax.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 April,Official Report, column 180, what is his estimate of the annual revenue for value added tax on pensioners' payments of standing charges for gas and electricity when the rate is (a) 8 per cent. and (b) 17·5 per cent.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: Table 4.1 of the FSBR provides estimates of the total revenue effect of applying VAT to domestic fuel and power. Applying VAT to pensioners' payments of standing charges is estimated to raise around 3 per cent. of this total, or around £30 million in 1994–95 and £70 million in 1995–96. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear in his Budget speech, extra help will be given through benefits to those pensioners and others on low incomes who are dependent on income-related benefits.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Services
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by each fire service actual expenditure for 1992–93 against standard spending assessments 1992–93 and planned spending for 1993–94 against standard spending assessments 1993–94.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Neither outturn expenditure for 1992–93 nor local authority service budgets for 1993–94 are yet available centrally. English authorities' latest budget estimates for fire and civil defence in 1992–93, and the fire and civil defence components of their standard spending assessments for that year, are given in the table.

  £ million

  1992–93 Fire and civil defence budget estimate

  1992–93 Fire and civil defence SSA

  Avon

  20·698

  19·494

  Bedfordshire

  10·939

  10·907

  Berkshire

  14·766

  16·458

  Buckinghamshire

  11·389

  12·171

  Cambridgeshire

  11·688

  11·471

  Cheshire

  19·720

  19·077

  Cleveland

  17·993

  18·669

  Cornwall

  9·512

  7·250

  Cumbria

  10·947

  8·377

  Derbyshire

  16·587

  16·758

  Devon

  20·634

  19·089

  Dorset

  12·342

  11·753

  Durham

  12·968

  12·491

  West Sussex

  15·492

  14·330

  Essex

  32·019

  31·108

  Gloucestershire

  9·857

  9·069

  Hampshire

  25·990

  30·448

  505

  1992–93 Fire and civil defence budget estimate

  1992–93 Fire and civil defence SSA

  Hereford and Worcester

  12·254

  11·831

  Hertfordshire

  18·805

  20·378

  Humberside

  22·644

  20·217

  Isle of Wight

  3·078

  2·280

  Kent

  33·841

  30·328

  Lancashire

  30·844

  30·361

  Leicestershire

  14·308

  16·548

  Lincolnshire

  9·969

  9·309

  Norfolk

  13·906

  12·399

  Northamptonshire

  10·560

  10·905

  Northumberland

  8·592

  5·706

  North Yorkshire

  13·975

  11·706

  Nottinghamshire

  19·435

  20·482

  Oxfordshire

  10·639

  10·848

  Shropshire

  7·717

  7·626

  Somerset

  8·625

  7·316

  Staffordshire

  18·548

  18·640

  Suffolk

  11·936

  10·691

  Surrey

  23·374

  21·756

  Warwickshire

  11·186

  8·618

  West Sussex

  13·977

  14·430

  Wiltshire

  9·500

  9·610

  London

  237·550

  238·252

  Greater Manchester

  66·386

  67·242

  Merseyside

  45·292

  44·904

  South Yorkshire

  30·966

  27·310

  Tyne and Wear

  32·012

  32·915

  West Midlands

  63·239

  66·216

  West Yorkshire

  51·035

  47·388

  Isles of Scilly

  0·101

  0·067

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to the police to apprehend and arrest individuals attempting unlawfully to sell nuclear materials in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The police have the power to arrest without warrant in relation to an offence of dealing with nuclear material in contravention of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983. In certain circumstances, they may also be able to arrest for offences under the Theft Act 1968.

  Crime, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests there were in the Greater Manchester area during the past year for(a) burglaries and (b) crimes of violence.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Police National Network
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 109, what contract award procedures applied in the case of the short-listing for the police national network.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The procurement of the police national network follows the negotiated procedures set out in article 11(2) (c) of the EC services directive, which comes into force on 1 July.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints he has received about wheel clamping in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the Greater Manchester area.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1 April 1992, the Home Office has received 258 written complaints about wheel clamping on private land, both directly from members of the public arid from hon. Members on behalf of constituents. Of this total, 15 can be identified as originating from the Greater Manchester area.

  In the same period, the Home Office has received 20 written complaints about wheel clamping on the public highway, which currently takes place only in London. We are not aware of any complaints from the Greater Manchester area on this issue.

  The Home Office issued a consultation document on wheel clamping on private land on 23 February. Comments should reach the Home Office by 30 May.

  Primates
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in establishing a register of primates kept in member states in order to minimise the importation of primates for research from outside the Community.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 16 March at col.176.

  HMP Blakenhurst
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries into the antecedents of Mr. T. Don Hutto were made before awarding the contract to manage Her Majesty's prison Blakenhurst to UKDS; in what way the present departmental inquiry into Mr. Hutto differs; and if the results of the inquiries will be made public.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Dunbar to Mr. Tony Blair, dated April 1993:

  In the temporary absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, from the office the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Mr. Hutto.

  As is standard practice before awarding any prison managment contracts, a range of enquiries was made about the Corrections Corporation of America and to a limited extent about individuals within it; (those who are to be running a prision are subject to separate, more detailed checks). The purpose of the present inquiry is to look into specific allegations which have been made against Mr. Hutto and the conclusions of the exercise will be announced.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the national and regional police bodies in England and Wales giving(a) the purpose of the body, (b) the date established, (c) the

  507
  headquarters' location, (d) the name and rank of chief officer, (e) the body to whom the chief officer reports or is accountable, (f) the number of police officers employed, (g) the number of civilian staff employed and (h) the cost of the body in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  HMP Manchester
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will detail the procedures for firms to re-bid on cost, after all the original bids have been received, for the contract to manage Her Majesty's prison Manchester.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Dunbar to Mr. Tony Blair, dated April 1993:

  In the temporary absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, from the office the Home Secretary has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the procedures for firms to re-bid on costs.

  There are at present no such procedures in place; in the event that a re-tender is required, tenderers will be advised accordingly, and the procedures detailed.

  Any unsolicited re-tenders received after the return date will be considered as late tenders, and may not be included in the evaluation.

  Bogus Marriages
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his most recent estimate of the number of bogus marriages solemnised in the United Kingdom during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of bogus marriages identified in the course of enforcing the immigration law is not collected centrally. More generally, the incidence of bogus marriages is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now place in the Library full information arising from the 1992 British crime survey.

  Mr. Jack
  Analysis of the 1992 British crime survey is still in progress. Full results will be presented in a series of reports. The first two will be published in the summer and will cover: crime levels, the reporting of crime and the risks of crime; and contacts with and attitudes to the police. Copies will be placed in the Library in the usual way.

  Young Offenders Centre, Feltham
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations which have placed a bid to run the educational service at Her Majesty's young offenders and remand centre, Feltham; and if he will make a statement.
  508
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Dunbar to Mr. Alan Keen, dated 29 April 1993:

  In the temporary absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, from the office, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about those bidding to provide future education services at Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre, Feltham.

  I would refer you to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sherwood, Mr. Tipping, on 14 January, col 798, a copy of which is enclosed. The London Borough of Hounslow and Hounslow Borough College have agreed to continue to provide education services at HM Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre, Feltham until 31 August 1993. Following the recent judgment of Mr. Justice Ogden in the case of Kenny and Woodroffe v South Manchester College, the Prison Service expects to reach a decision shortly on how to proceed with tendering for those prison establishments, for which contracts for the future provision of education services have not yet been placed.

  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the report into Her Majesty's young offenders and remand centre, Feltham, carried out by Anthony Scrivener QC and his team on behalf of the Howard League; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Dunbar to Mr Alan Keen, dated 29 April 1993:

  In the temporary absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, the Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Howard League report on Feltham Remand Centre and Young Offender Institution.

  The report covers a wide range of matters and makes many recommendations. The Howard League have identified several areas of concern and steps have already been taken to improve conditions at Feltham and to reduce the risk of suicide by the young offenders held there.

  The Governor of Feltham is studying the Howard League's report in detail, along with other members of the Prison Service Working Group on Feltham. Its terms of reference are to support and facilitate the enhancement of the regime at Feltham Remand Centre; to consider the plan for its long-term future; and to make recommendations.

  There will be a full response to the Howard League recommendations when the Feltham Working Group publishes its report later this year.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made with the invitation contained in the guide issued jointly by the Office of Public Service and Science and Her Majesty's Treasury to consider making the interests of members of non-departmental public bodies a matter of public record; and if he will list all declarations already made.
  509
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Such action is at the discretion of Departments, and information on declarations made is not collected centrally.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Indemnity Undertakings
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many indemnity undertakings were given by Departments under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six months ending 31 March; and what was the value of contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time and which remain outstanding as at 31 March.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information requested is as follows:

  In the six months to 31 March 1993 the following undertakings to indemnify were given by the relevant departments for items on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Number

  Department of National Heritage

  501

  Scottish Office Education Department

  45

  Welsh Office Education Department

  26

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  9

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time and outstanding at 31 March 1993 are:

  £

  Department of National Heritage

  1,187,879,848

  Scottish Office Education Department

  133,108,056

  Welsh Office Education Department

  32,937,662

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  2,994,719

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made in deciding the reconstruction strategy for Windsor castle.

  Mr. Brooke
  A thorough examination has now been carried out of the area damaged by the fire on 20 November, which extends to nine principal rooms and 103 additional rooms. A large expanse of roof has been destroyed. However, almost all the walls, the structure of the windows, and much of the floors of the principal rooms are still sound. And damage to the interiors varies greatly from room to room. Some have been almost totally destroyed; others have suffered only limited damage to the interior decoration of the walls and ceilings. Virtually all the furniture and paintings were in store at the time of the fire and can be returned to the rooms, some of which were specifically designed to house them.

  The reconstruction strategy must clearly take account of the extent of the damage in the various state apartments. In those rooms where significant internal decoration remains, it would not be right to complete the work of the fire by destroying what remains: restoration to the condition before the fire is clearly appropriate. But, where little or nothing of the former interior has survived, there is much more scope for considering modern redesign, for putting a late 20th century stamp in this area of the castle of which we and future generations can be proud.
  510
  It has therefore been agreed by Her Majesty that some rooms—the grand reception room, for example, and the crimson and green drawing rooms—will be restored to their former glory. Modern techniques may be used where they will not impinge on the visual impact of the rooms; and, where practicable, damaged elements will be repaired and significant fragments that have been saved will be reused. Throughout, we will be seeking to combine faithful restoration with value for money.

  In other rooms, such as the private chapel where the fire began and the state dining room, there will be the opportunity to start anew and give expression to the best of modern design.

  In arriving at this broad approach, the Government and the royal household have had the benefit of consultations with the chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission, the president of the RIBA, and the chairman of English Heritage in their personal capacities. I am indebted to them for their assistance.

  Her Majesty is very conscious of the potential cost to the taxpayer of that work. She has decided to open, to the public, parts of Buckingham palace, housing important items of the royal collection in August and September, starting this summer. The income from charges for entry, together with the proceeds from charges to be raised for entry to the precincts of Windsor castle from next year, will be devoted to the reconstruction of the fire-damaged areas.

  Some decisions regarding design have yet to be taken and detailed specifications are still to be drawn up. And any recommendations in the report on fire prevention strategy which will be presented to me by Sir Alan Bailey next month will need to be considered. However, early estimates suggest that the reconstruction of the fire-damaged areas will cost £30 to £40 million over a five-year period. Some 70 per cent. of that cost is expected to be met by proceeds from visitor charges at Buckingham palace and Windsor. The remainder will be found from within the present level of funding provided by grant-in-aid from the Department of National Heritage to the royal household. The contribution from the Exchequer, therefore, is expected to average £2 to £2½ million annually at current prices over the five years.

  The royal household will now proceed to prepare a detailed programme of work. Full consultation with relevant bodies will be carried out on the proposals once they have been worked up.

  What is proposed represents an approach to the reconstruction of Windsor castle that blends restoration with redesign. The burden on the taxpayer is significantly reduced, due to Her Majesty's proposals to allow greater public access to Buckingham palace and to devote the proceeds from admission charges at Buckingham palace and Windsor to the reconstruction work.

  I am in no doubt that this will be widely welcomed, both in this House and beyond. I believe the way now to be clear for that work to proceed with support throughout the nation.

  Angling
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment his Department had made of the total number of anglers in Great Britain.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: The 1990 general household survey found that 6 per cent. of those

  511
  surveyed in Great Britain, aged 16 or over, participated in angling in the 12 months before interview. This suggests that there are about 2,670,000 anglers.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the latest estimates of the number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time (i) males and (ii) females in

  Thousands

  Division description

  September 1984

  September 1987

  September 1989

  September 1991

  Male full—time

  Manufacturing

  36·4

  39·7

  42·8

  37·7

  Metal goods/vehicle industries, etc.

  18·1

  19·7

  21·0

  17·1

  Other manufacturing1

  18·3

  20·0

  21·8

  20·6

  Construction

  8·1

  7·0

  6·7

  6·7

  Distribution2

  5·8

  6·3

  6·1

  6·6

  Transport/communication

  5·1

  4·8

  5·6

  4·4

  Banking, finance, insurance, leasing, etc.

  3·5

  2·9

  3·4

  3·8

  Other services3

  16·1

  19·0

  15·4

  15·7

  Male part—time

  Manufacturing

  0·3

  0·3

  0·4

  0·4

  Metal goods/vehicle industries, etc.

  0·1

  0·1

  0·2

  0·2

  Other manufacturing1

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  Construction

  0·2

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  Distribution2

  0·5

  0·7

  1·2

  1·2

  Transport/communication

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·4

  Banking, finance, insurance, leasing, etc.

  0·1

  0·2

  0·2

  0·2

  Other services3

  2·6

  4·6

  2·4

  2·6

  Female full—time

  Manufacturing

  17·0

  19·5

  20·0

  16·8

  Metal goods/vehicle industries, etc.

  7·8

  8·0

  8·3

  6·3

  Other manufacturing1

  9·2

  11·6

  11·7

  10·5

  Construction

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  0·4

  Distribution2

  4·1

  4·0

  4·4

  4·1

  Transport/communication

  0·5

  0·7

  0·8

  0·9

  Banking, finance, insurance, leasing, etc.

  2·8

  2·7

  3·1

  4·3

  Other services3

  16·4

  18·0

  17·5

  19·3

  Female part—time

  Manufacturing

  1·9

  2·7

  3·0

  2·6

  Metal goods/vehicle industries, etc.

  0·6

  0·8

  0·8

  0·7

  Other manufacturing1

  1·3

  1·9

  2·1

  1·8

  Construction

  0·6

  0·5

  0·5

  0·5

  Distribution2

  5·4

  5·7

  7·8

  8·2

  Transport/communication

  0·3

  0·6

  0·6

  0·6

  Banking, finance, insurance, leasing, etc.

  1·0

  1·0

  1·3

  1·9

  Other services3

  18·7

  20·5

  25·9

  27·8

  Division Description

  1984–91

  1987–91

  1989–91

  Percentage change in Male full—time

  Manufacturing

  3·4

  —5·1

  —12·0

  Metal goods/vehicle industries, etc.

  —5·6

  —13·2

  —18·6

  Other manufacturing1

  12·3

  2·8

  —5·6

  Construction

  —16·5

  —3·4

  0·9

  Distribution2

  12·8

  3·9

  7·1

  Transport/communication

  —13·7

  —9·7

  —22·6

  Banking, finance, insurance, leasing, etc.

  8·9

  32·1

  12·4

  Other services3

  —2·6

  —17·8

  1·7

  Percentage change in Male part—time

  Manufacturing

  31·8

  24·1

  —8·6

  Metal goods/vehicle industries, etc.

  140·0

  140·0

  —4·5

  Other manufacturing1

  —5·4

  —12·7

  —11·9

  512
  employment in (1) manufacturing, (2) metal goods, engineering and vehicles, (3) other manufacturing, (4) construction, (5) distribution, (6) transport and communications, (7) banking and financial and (8) other services, in 1991, 1989, 1987 and 1983 within the areas covered by the valleys initiative; and what percentage changes in each category level occurred in 1991 as compared with 1989, 1987 and 1983.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested on employees in employment within the areas covered by the valleys initiative is given in the following tables:

  Division Description

  1984–91

  1987–91

  1989–91

  Construction

  —29·3

  61·3

  39·1

  Distribution2

  161·8

  65·4

  2·0

  Transport/communication

  18·3

  37·9

  18·3

  Banking, finance, insurance, leasing, etc.

  97·5

  9·8

  51·6

  Other services3

  2·5

  —43·3

  7·5

  Change in Female full—time

  Manufacturing

  —1·6

  14·2

  —16·2

  Metal goods/vehicle industries, etc.

  —19·9

  —21·2

  —24·3

  Other manufacturing1

  13·9

  —9·3

  —10·4

  Construction

  —17·1

  —19·1

  —17·1

  Distribution2

  —0·2

  1·3

  —7·3

  Transport/communication

  71·4

  24·0

  7·0

  Banking, finance, insurance, leasing, etc.

  53·2

  58·3

  38·7

  Other services3

  17·6

  7·4

  10·1

  513

  Division Description

  1984–91

  1987–91

  1989–91

  Change in Female part—time

  Manufacturing

  34·7

  —5·7

  —13·9

  Metal goods/vehicle industries, etc.

  33·4

  —10·6

  —11·2

  Other manufacturing1

  35·3

  —3·4

  —14·9

  Construction

  —21·9

  —7·5

  —0·9

  Distribution2

  52·3

  44·1

  5·3

  Transport/communication

  73–3

  0·5

  —8·3

  Banking, finance, insurance, leasing, etc.

  82·2

  95·6

  47·0

  Other services3

  48·8

  35·8

  7·2

  Source: Employment Department.

  1 Divisions 2 and 4, Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980).

  2 Classes 61–65, Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980).

  3 Classes 66–67 and division 9, Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980).

  Home Improvements
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement on 1 April,Official Report, column 513, how many homes have been improved through enveloping and repairs in each of the last five years, and at what public cost within the area covered by the valleys initiative; and how many homes, and what public expenditure he estimates will be spent during each of the next five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers and cost of homes improved through enveloping and block/group repairs over the last five years are set out in the following table:

  Year

  Numbers

  Cost £ million

  1988–89

  2,656

  14·343

  1989–90

  2,749

  12·716

  1990–91

  1,622

  14·117

  1991–92

  367

  3·943

  1992–93

  478

  4·788

  Totals

  7,872

  49·907

  For 1993–94 I have made almost £3·3 million available specifically for area renewal schemes in the valleys area. Activity beyond 1993–94 will depend on the priority which local authorities give to area based renewal within the resources available to them.

  The figures shown are exclusive of mandatory home renovation grant activity for individual homes.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of pharmacies in Wales; and how many dispense fewer than 2,000 prescriptions per year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In each month on average, for the 12 months ending 28 February 1993, there were 708 pharmacies in Wales, of which 124 dispensed fewer than 2,000 prescriptions.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 October 1992,Official Report, columns 283–84, what progress he had made in allocating
  514
  the £2·5 million under the urban programme; what allocations have been announced and on what the money has been spent; and what proposals he has for the expenditure of the residual amount.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Local authorities were informed in January of the successful projects receiving assistance from the urban programme in 1992–93 under the special allocation of £2·5 million to help promote the development of the areas affected by the colliery review. A further £700,000 has also been made available in 1993–94 to continue the developments started in 1992–93.

  Details of the individual local authorities benefiting and amounts approved from the special allocation are as follows:

  Local Authority

  Approval 1992–93 £

  Approval 1993–94 £

  Clwyd CC

  100,000

  —

  Delyn BC

  80,000

  —

  Rhuddlan BC

  425,000

  160,000

  Dyfed CC

  20,000

  —

  Llanelli BC

  331,300

  150,000

  Dinefwr BC

  565,000

  150,000

  Cynon Valley BC

  260,000

  100,000

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  363,000

  140,000

  Rhymney Valley DC

  161,000

  —

  West Glamorgan CC

  126,000

  —

  Lliw Valley

  64,000

  —

  Total

  2,495,300

  700,000

  Details of the individual projects approved are as follows:

  Authority and Project

  Approved £

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Projects approved for areas around Betws colliery

  Dyfed

  Garnant Initiative Programme Provision of 15 small workshops and retail facilities skills training for business in the tourism, craft and leisure industry also provided

  20,000

  —

  Llanelli

  Cross Hands Business Park—12

  166,300

  150,000

  Workshops—Complementing existing provision

  Cross Hands Business Park—7

  165,000

  —

  Workshops—Complementing existing provision

  Dinefwr

  Capel Hendre Business Park provision of major serviced Industrial site

  250,000

  50,000

  Cwmaman River Corrider Improvements

  Development of Site for recreational purposes

  235,000

  100,000

  Block B Capel Hendre Business Park Servicing of three-acre site

  80,000

  —

  Lliw Valley

  Nursery Units at Pontardawe— provision of 10 units

  64,000

  —

  West Glamorgan

  Training and Activity Centre Cwmllynfell

  82,000

  —

  515

  Authority and Project

  Approved £

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Purchase and conversion of garage—24 training places

  Amman Valley Enterprise

  24,000

  —

  Improvement of facilities for Community Businesses and IT Training

  Cwmllynfell Miners' Welfare Hall

  20,000

  —

  Redevelopment of Hall

  Total

  1,106,300

  300,000

  Authority and Project

  Approved £

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Projects approved for areas around point of Ayr colliery

  Clwyd CC

  Managed Workshops Space, Morfa Provision of 5 units totalling 118m2

  100,000

  —

  Delyn BC

  Afonwen Woolen Mill—Grosvenor Charter—Conversion of 900m2 of floor space for commercial use

  80,000

  —

  Ruddlan BC

  Ffrith Beach Development Prestatyn Tourism development—15 acres of derelict land improved

  90,000

  —

  Extension to Tai Tywyn Business Centre

  30,000

  —

  Land acquisition for industrial development

  Extension to Pare Industrial Estate Land acquisition for industrial development

  130,000

  —

  Coach Interchange, West Rhyl Provision of alternative and improved facility for coaches

  65,000

  160,000

  Gateway Project, Rhyl Railway Station Provision of 10 units—Refurbishment of an old station building into Business Centre

  110,000

  —

  Total

  605,000

  160,000

  50 per cent.

  95 per cent.

  Urban

  7 mins

  14 mins

  South Glamorgan

  Rural

  8 mins

  18 mins

  Clwyd, Gwent, Mid and West Glamorgan

  Sparsely populated

  8 mins

  21 mins

  East Dyfed, Gwynedd, Pembrokeshire and Powys

  The information given in the tables relates to the relevant standards for each service:

  Year ended 31 March

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Percentage of ambulances arriving within 50 per cent, target

  Clwyd

  62

  n/a

  63

  59

  60

  East Dyfed

  54

  55

  56

  54

  55

  Gwent

  61

  73

  53

  50

  52

  Gwynedd

  54

  54

  55

  54

  55

  Mid Glamorgan

  48

  45

  50

  47

  53

  516

  Authority and Project

  Approved £

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Projects approved for areas around Taff Merthyr colliery

  Cynon Valley

  Cwm Cynon Enterprise Centre Provision of 20 units and offices

  100,000

  100,000

  River/Sewer Diversion, Mountain Ash Cwm Cynon Development Programme

  130,000

  —

  Technology Centre, Aberaman Part of Cwm Cynon Development Programme —Training Centre in high technology skills. Grant to help meet additional costs

  30,000

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Goat Mill Road, Dowlais Reclamation of 3.8ha of land, clear derelict buildings

  250,000

  —

  Repairs and Renewal to Treharris Boys Club

  53,000

  —

  Increase Community uses of Club. Cyfarthfa Park

  60,000

  140,000

  Phase III of Tourism development Programme for Merthyr

  Rhymney Valley

  Caerphilly Business Park

  61,000

  —

  Provision of medium sized units Infrastructure Works at Duffryn Industrial Estate part of Local authority's Economic Strategy

  100,000

  —

  Total

  784,000

  240,000

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many ambulances have been operated by each health authority in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of emergency calls to the ambulance service in each country in Wales in each year since 1987 was answered within(a) eight minutes and (b) 14 minutes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Until 31 March 1991 standard ambulance response times in Wales were 50 per cent. in eight minutes and 95 per cent. in 20 minutes. Revised classifications of ambulance service—tied to density of population served—came into effect on 1 April 1991:

  Year ended 31 March

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Percentage of ambulances arriving within 50 per cent. target

  Pembrokeshire

  33

  44

  40

  37

  36

  Powys

  46

  44

  44

  44

  44

  South Glamorgan

  66

  66

  58

  56

  42

  West Glamorgan

  55

  n/a

  62

  64

  61

  Percentage of ambulances arriving within 95 per cent. target

  Clwyd

  99

  n/a

  100

  96

  97

  East Dyfed

  91

  92

  92

  92

  94

  Gwent

  98

  99

  98

  100

  93

  517

  Year ended 31 March

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Percentage of ambulances arriving within 50 per cent, target

  Gwynedd

  95

  95

  93

  94

  94

  Mid Glamorgan

  98

  95

  98

  82

  96

  Pembrokeshire

  68

  86

  86

  92

  84

  Powys

  86

  83

  83

  82

  83

  South Glamorgan

  99

  99

  98

  95

  84

  West Glamorgan

  94

  n/a

  97

  97

  96

  Note: n/a=not available.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 October 1992,Official Report, columns 283–84, what progress he has made in allocating to the Welsh Development Agency (a) £16 million for land reclamation and urban property development, (b) £5 million for business support services and (c) £10 million for urban renewal joint venture schemes; how much expenditure under each of these heads has been announced and for what purposes; and what proposals he has for the expenditure of the residue.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Provision for the Welsh Development Agency's 18-month programme in the coal review areas announced last October has been made within the overall budget totals set for the agency, the 1993–94 figures for which I announced on 10 December. The programme embraces a wide range of projects. I understand that the agency has made good progress in implementation of the programme and expects to achieve the target outturn by the end of the current financial year.

  Local Government
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he had made of the effect on the populations of Coychurch Lower, Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick of a transfer of those communities into the South Glamorgan health authority in respect of access to the Princess of Wales hospital in Bridgend.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The function of health authorities is to purchase health care from providers on behalf of their resident populations. These providers need not necessarily be within the boundaries of the health authority, and often are outside those boundaries.

  As a provider of health care, Bridgend and district NHS trust is well placed to offer services to a number of health authority purchasers, as well as fund-holding general practitioners. Purchasing decisions will be informecl by GP, community health council and patient preference rather than administrative boundaries.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the distances between(a) Wick, (b) Saint Bride's Major, (c) Ewenny and (d) Coychurch and (i) Bridgend and (ii) Barry using the shortest route by A and/or B roads.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The approximate distances are as follows:518

  Miles

  Bridgend

  Barry

  Wick to

  6·0

  13·6

  St. Bride's Major to

  3·4

  16·2

  Ewenny to

  2·1

  17·0

  Coychurch Lower to

  2·4

  17·9

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect on children living and attending primary schools in Coychurch Lower, Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick of a transfer of those communities to the Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority in respect of access to comprehensive schools in the proposed Bridgend unitary authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Responsibility for the admission of pupils to local education authority maintained schools rests with local authorities, and that responsibility will be unchanged under any proposals for the reorganisation of local government. Admission authorities are required not to discriminate against pupils living outside their areas in implementing their admissions policies.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the distances, by A and/or B roads, from the place, closest by road, in(a) the community of Wick, (b) the community of Saint Bride's Major, (c) the community of Ewenny and (d) the community of Coychurch Lower to (i) Bridgend and (ii) Barry.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The approximate distances are as follows:

  Miles

  Bridgend

  Barry

  The community of Wick to

  5·1

  13·3

  The community of St. Bride's Major to

  2·3

  15·3

  The community of Ewenny to

  1·0

  15·4

  The community of Coychurch Lower to

  1·3

  16·2

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what specific criteria he used to determine that the communities of Coychurch Lower, Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick should be transferred from the borough of Ogwr to the Vale of Glamorgan under his plans for unitary authorities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In considering the boundaries of the proposed unitary authorities I took account of the principles set out in the consultation paper, "The Structure of Local Government in Wales" which I published in June 1991 and, in particular:

  i. local authority boundaries should, as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties; and

  ii. local public services should be of high quality, and delivered efficiently, economically and effectively.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect on the communities of Coychurch Lower, Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick of a transfer of those communities into the Vale of Glamorgan in respect of access to the library facilities in the town of Bridgend.
  519
  Mr. David Hunt
  The education, leisure and culture sub-group of the structures group of the WCCLG considered the provision of library services under a structure of unitary authorities.

  A copy of their report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the length of time it takes for a resident of the communities of(a) Coychurch Lower, (b) Ewenny, (c) Saint Bride's Major and (d) Wick to travel by public transport to (i) Bridgend and (ii) Barry.

  Mr. David Hunt
  These are matters which were put to me when I visited the area last Friday.

  Farmers (EC Aid)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he is making to improve the service to farmers requiring maps in order to make applications for European Community financial assistance before the 14 May deadline; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Farmers may obtain advice and maps from the Ordnance Survey and their agents. In addition, to ease congestion at these outlets, I have made special arrangements for farmers to have access to maps held by my Department to help them complete their applications. I have asked local authorities and other bodies to provide access to maps they hold. Special arrangements have also been made with the Ordnance Survey so that the Welsh Office and ADAS can sell maps to farmers.

  In the past week I have also informed livestock producers that if accurate details of forage areas cannot be established accurately by 15 May they should submit this year an estimate in hectares on a field-by-field basis. Provided that estimate proves to be either accurate or an under-statement of the area, they will not be penalised subsequently. I have therefore recommended that they estimate conservatively should they need to do so.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he has made to meet farmers and farming organisations to discuss the revised guidelines for European Community assistance, and to set up explanatory seminars with(a) a ministerial presence and (b) official presence only.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has gone to considerable lengths to inform the farming industry of the changes to the various premium schemes, including the introduction of the integrated administration and control system (IACS), arising from the reforms of the common agricultural policy. Between January and March senior officials ran 10 seminars throughout Wales to explain the new rules and grant application procedures. They have also, upon invitation, addressed meetings of both local and national organisations with an interest in the industry.

  Special additional arrangements have been made to advise farmers about the completion of their IACS returns. I have established free-phone helplines in the divisional offices of my Agricultural Department which have received over 10,000 calls. I also commissioned ADAS to undertake an awareness campaign and provide on the spot training at markets and places where farmers gather throughout Wales. By Friday 23 April, in
  520
  conjunction with my officials they had held some 150 such events, attended by approximately 6,500 farmers. These will continue right up to the deadline of 15 May and concentrate more on form filling in working groups and clinics. I have participated in several of these clinics in various parts of Wales. I shall also be meeting representatives of farming unions next week.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimates he has made, on the basis of assumptions used in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", assuming a unified pension age of 60 years, of the rate of increase in pension above price inflation which would be consistent with the combined national insurance contribution rate in 2035 being 19·4 per cent., and of the equivalent rate of single pension;

  (2) what estimates he has made, on the basis of assumptions used in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", assuming a unified state pension age of 65 years, of the rate of increase in pension above price inflation which would be consistent with the combined national insurance contribution rate 2035 being 19·4 per cent. and of the equivalent rate of single pension;

  (3) what estimates he has made, on the basis of assumptions used in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", assuming a unified pension age of 63 years, of the rate of increase in pension above price inflation which would be consistent with the combined national insurance contribution rate in 2035 being 19·4 per cent., and of the equivalent rate of single pension;

  (4) what estimates he has made, on the basis of assumptions used in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", assuming that current state pension ages are maintained, of the rate of increase in pension above price inflation which would be consistent with the combined national insurance contribution rate in 2035 being 19·4 per cent., and of the equivalent rate of single pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is in the table.

  Pension Age

  Rate of Basic Pension in 2035 consistent with a combined Class 1 NI contribution rate of 19·4 per cent. (1993–94 benefit rates)

  Required rale of annual increase in pension above price inflation

  £

  Percentage

  Current pension ages

  61·10

  0·2

  Unified age of 60

  52·90

  —0·1

  Unified age of 63

  61·10

  0·2

  Unified age of 65

  68·15

  0·5

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish estimates, on the basis of assumptions used in "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", on the effect on national insurance contribution rates in 2015, 2025, 2035 and 2045 of equalising state pension age at(a) 60 years, (b) 63 years and (c) 65 years, giving figures separately for (i) earnings-uprating of pensions and national insurance thresholds and (ii) price-uprating.
  521
  Miss Widdecombe
  Available information is given in the tables. Figures for 2015 and 2045 are not available.

  (i) Earnings-uprating Effect measured in percentage points

  2025

  2035

  Age 60

  + 3·0

  + 2·5

  Age 63

  negligible

  negligible

  Age 65

  —2·0

  —1·5

  (ii) Price-uprating Effect measured in percentage points

  2025

  2035

  Age 60

  + 2·0

  + 1·5

  Age 63

  —0·25

  negligible

  Age 65

  —1·5

  —1·0

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what ways the procedures have been changed for people who were receiving invalidity benefit and are found to be no longer eligible.

  Mr. Scott
  No changes have been made to the entitlement conditions or to the procedures which follow an adjudication officer's decision that someone is no longer entitled to invalidity benefit.

  Voluntary Work
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the effect of voluntary work undertaken in excess of 24 hours a week by an unemployed person who can demonstrate that he or she is looking for work on the person's benefit entitlement.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no legislation limiting the amount of voluntary work an unemployed person may undertake. An unemployed person who is engaged in unpaid voluntary work may continue to receive benefits provided he continues to satisfy the conditions of entitlement. These are that a person must be available for work, and must actively seek work each week.

  Current legislation allows volunteers 24 hours' notice in which to make the necessary arrangements to give up or rearrange voluntary responsibilities before taking up an offer of employment. In recognition of the value the Government place on voluntary work the Secretary of State announced on 28 April a proposal to extend this period of notice to 48 hours.

  Fuel Bills
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further proposals he has to lessen the effect on people on low incomes of the imposition of value added tax on gas and electricity bills.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to ensure that those who are chronically ill receive additional payments to cover the cost of value added tax on fuel.

  Mr. Burt
  In his Budget statement the Chancellor said that there would be extra help for poorer pensioners and those on low incomes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing the details of this extra help in the autumn.

  Claimants Abroad
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has as to the payment of social security benefits to individuals who died in the Waco fire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Harry Green way, dated 28 April 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State asking what information he has as to the payment of social security benefits to individuals who died in the Waco fire.

  A check of the Departmental Central Index has shown that five people had current or recent claims to benefit whilst in the Waco Compound of the Davidian Cult. Of those five people four are feared to have died in the fire and the benefits involved were Income Support, Child Benefit and Retirement Pension.

  The above information has emerged from our preliminary enquiries. I can assure you, however, that the individual circumstances of each case will be fully investigated to establish the correct entitlement in each case and we are reviewing procedures to prevent payment to those living abroad who do not qualify for benefit. I would also like to say that the payments of benefit to persons overseas are not made by girocheque or order book and that legitimate payments to such persons would be made by the Agency's Overseas Branch Directorate by payable order through a bank account or by automated credit transfer.

  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how long those in the Waco compound who were receiving social security benefits had been out of the United Kingdom;

  (2) how many people in the Waco compound were in receipt of benefits from his Department; and what benefits they were receiving.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 28 April 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking (i) how many people in the Waco compound were in receipt of benefits from his Department; and what benefits they were receiving and (ii) how long those in the Waco compound who were receiving Social Security benefits had been out of the United Kingdom.

  A check of the Departmental Central Index has shown that five people had current or recent claims to benefit whilst in the Waco Compound of the Davidian Cult. The benefits involved were Income Support, Child Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, Disability Living Allowance, Industrial Injuries Benefit and Retirement Pension.
  523
  I am unable, until my investigations are complete, to say how long each individual had been outside the United Kingdom as none of the absences from this country had been reported to the Department's Overseas Benefits Directorate (OBD), who are responsible for considering benefit entitlement for most people who leave the United Kingdom. I can, however, say that of the five people mentioned, one ceased to receive benefit in February 1993 and another ceased to receive benefit in March 1993. I can also say that the payments of benefit to persons overseas are not made by girocheque or order book and that legitimate payments to such persons would be made by OBD by payable order through a bank account, or by automated credit transfer.

  The above information has emerged from our preliminary enquiries. I can assure you, however, that the individual circumstances of each case will be fully investigated to establish the correct entitlement in each case and we are reviewing procedures to prevent payment to those living abroad who do not qualify for benefit.

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

  Visually Impaired Claimants
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he has taken, or will be taking, to improve access to the benefits system for people who are visually impaired by providing more official information in large print, Braille, or on tape; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The provision of benefit information is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Richard to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 28 April 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security regarding the provision of benefit information in large print, Braille, or on tape.

  The Benefits Agency has a contract with RNIB to provide information for visually impaired people in Braille. Last year 28 different leaflets were translated, and 450 eye hospitals were mailed with the Braille version of FB19 Social Security benefits—A guide for blind and partially sighted people. This year we are working to extend the distribution of material further and translate yet more leaflets.

  The Agency also produces the publication FB19 in both large print and as an audio tape. In the year 1992–93, 80,000 booklets and 40,000 tapes of this publication were mailed to visually impaired people. A similar level of activity is planned for this current year.

  A number of services are available from the Benefit Enquiry Line for visually impaired customers. These include a forms completion service in Braille and large print.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals are currently claiming invalidity benefit in(a) the county of Cleveland and (b) in the boroughs of Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool and Langbaurgh.
  524
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of invalidity benefit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 28 April 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many individuals are currently claiming Invalidity Benefit in (a) the County of Cleveland and (b) in the Boroughs of Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool and Langbaurgh.

  The information requested is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportinate cost. However, the latest statistics available from the Agency's North Tees District and South Tees District Offices, which include the areas concerned in the question, show a total of 27,777 customers in receipt of Invalidity Benefit. As Agency District boundaries do not correspond with county or borough boundaries this figure includes some customers living in areas other than those listed in the question.

  Listed below are the figures available for each Office within the North Tees District and South Tees District.

  Number of recipients currently in receipt of Invalidity Benefit

  Number

  North Tees District

  Stockton-on-Tees District Office

  7,545

  Hartlepool Branch Office

  5,368

  South Tees District

  Middlesbrough District Office (including Tees South Branch Office)

  7,108

  Easton Branch Office

  3,355

  Redcar Branch Office

  4,401

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

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 15 March to the Minister of State regarding retirement age for receiving invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  My noble Friend Lord Henley wrote to the hon. Member on 26 April. He apologised for the delay.

  Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the data used in the construction of figure 7 in the 1993 Social Security departmental report on percentages of different types of benefits paid in the broad groups of beneficiaries in 1992–93; and what were the equivalent figures for each year since 1976.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.
  525

  Different types of benefit paid to broad groups of beneficiaries in cash terms

  £ million

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Elderly:

  Contributory

  5,662

  6,697

  7,639

  8,903

  10,615

  12,216

  13,640

  14,705

  15,361

  16,678

  17,876

  18,842

  19,337

  20,795

  22,798

  25,688

  26,955

  Non-contributory

  36

  36

  42

  41

  43

  45

  46

  47

  45

  48

  45

  46

  45

  44

  45

  47

  48

  Income-related

  716

  809

  1,063

  1,186

  1,481

  2,070

  2,436

  2,909

  3,381

  3,709

  3,969

  4,165

  4,275

  4,842

  5,741

  5,688

  7,481

  Short-term sick:

  Contributory

  559

  652

  696

  655

  654

  680

  554

  765

  787

  821

  936

  1,033

  1,090

  1,153

  1,157

  973

  1,025

  Non-contributory

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Income-related

  16

  17

  29

  25

  28

  29

  28

  29

  28

  28

  28

  35

  45

  74

  66

  107

  134

  Long-term sick:

  Contributory

  732

  909

  1,070

  1,253

  1,446

  1,701

  1,952

  2,257

  2,540

  2,772

  3,128

  3,435

  3,826

  4,325

  4,444

  5,362

  6,116

  Non-contributory

  353

  424

  523

  628

  791

  970

  1,149

  1,353

  1,554

  1,788

  2,090

  2,386

  2,590

  2,912

  3,938

  4,902

  5,944

  Income-related

  166

  177

  176

  218

  262

  289

  408

  523

  619

  726

  948

  845

  1,050

  1,320

  1,842

  2,291

  2,799

  Family:

  Contributory

  58

  76

  105

  125

  149

  158

  152

  141

  161

  164

  168

  244

  277

  316

  348

  376

  398

  Non-contributory

  559

  889

  1,814

  2,846

  3,021

  3,464

  3,767

  4,112

  4,414

  4,619

  4,675

  4,761

  4,694

  4,736

  4,820

  5,438

  6,044

  Income-related

  470

  569

  654

  669

  809

  1,097

  1,479

  1,751

  1,936

  2,265

  2,617

  3,129

  3,712

  4,130

  4,741

  5,538

  6,483

  Unemployed:

  Contributory

  559

  629

  632

  653

  1,280

  1,702

  1,500

  1,497

  1,578

  1,589

  1,734

  1,468

  1,107

  733

  870

  1,604

  1,838

  Non-contributory

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Income-related

  545

  761

  742

  817

  1,250

  2,320

  3,511

  4,204

  4,741

  5,374

  5,574

  5,179

  4,128

  3,576

  4,203

  5,943

  7,452

  Widows and others:

  Contributory

  481

  512

  555

  617

  698

  757

  795

  844

  859

  877

  906

  899

  910

  912

  891

  1,013

  1,032

  Non-contributory

  88

  96

  105

  116

  131

  148

  156

  162

  169

  180

  183

  186

  189

  199

  281

  291

  291

  Income-related

  18

  15

  26

  27

  21

  45

  45

  34

  59

  59

  39

  46

  55

  34

  51

  76

  94

  Note: Expenditure in this table includes grants to local authorities, rent rebate subsidy payments and local authority expenditure not met by specific Government grants.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which year the additional resources for the Commonwealth Development Corporation announced in November 1992 will be made available; whether the money will be drawn on the existing Overseas Development Administration's budget; and whether it will be classified as official development assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In November 1992 we announced that certain changes in the financing arrangements for CDC would result in up to £50 million of additional resources being made available to the overseas aid effort as a whole. Part of this arises from the decision to waive interest due on outstanding aid loans from 1 April 1994, which would otherwise accrue to the Consolidated Fund. This will increase the amount of self-generated funds retained within CDC.

  We also agreed that CDC should seek to borrow from funds available for some Caribbean basin initiative countries, known as "936" funds, provided the borrowing terms meet the Government's normal criteria.

  Decisions about the level of new loans from the aid budget for the CDC are made annually. CDC loans to borrowers overseas are not sufficiently concessional to qualify as offical development assistance. Equity investments in developing countries under existing definitions do count as official development assistance.

  Aid
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of British aid was spent on primary health care, nutrition, basic education, family planning, safe water and sanitation in 1990, 1991 and 1992; and how much in cash terms would 526
  need to have been spent in those years in order to increase the amount spent on those basic needs to 20 per cent. of official development assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information for 1990 and 1991 is in the table. Figures for 1992 are not yet available. More detailed information on spending within individual sectors is not readily available. Individual projects may be targeted at more than one sector and area. Equally, projects not covered in the sectors listed may have an impact on basic needs.

  Sector

  1990 £000

  1991 £000

  Education

  103,098

  114,141

  Health and Population (including Nutrition and family planning)

  39,066

  45,319

  Water and Sanitation

  22,099

  24,966

  Total

  164,263

  184,426

  As percentage of bilateral aid allocable by sector1

  29

  30

  1 Bilateral aid which is not allocable by sector includes programme aid, debt relief, humanitarian assistance, and loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of its official development assistance the United Kingdom spent in Sub-Saharan Africa in 1990; and what was the increase each year in percentage terms, giving the figures for(a) bilateral aid, (b) multilateral aid and (c) in total.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested for 1990 and 1991 is set out in the tables. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.
  527

  (i) Total Net oda

  (ii) Allocable Bilateral oda to Sub-Sahara Africa

  (i) as a percent of (i)

  (iii) Multilateral Aid to1 Africa

  (iii) as a per cent. of (i)

  (ii) plus (iii) as a per cent. of (i)

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1990

  1,503

  301

  20·0

  366

  24·4

  44·4

  1991

  1,814

  428

  23·6

  n/a

  —

  —

  n/a = Not yet available.

  1 The figures given are estimated by ODA Statistics Department using data provided by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD on the spending patterns of multilateral agencies, and United Kingdom contributions to multilateral organisations. They refer to all Africa; it is not possible to dis-aggregate Sub-Saharan Africa.

  Allocable net bilateral oda to Sub-Saharan Africa increased by over 42 per cent. between 1990 and 1991. As a percentage of total net oda the figure for allocable bilateral oda to Sub-Saharan Africa for 1991 represented an incrase of some 18 per cent. over that for 1990.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what British assistance is being given to the formation of police forces in Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have informed the UN, EC and other bilateral donors that we are ready to help in the re-establishment of an indigenous police force in Somalia. The UN is currently developing a plan. As soon as it is available we shall consider what form our assistance might take. Meanwhile, we have appointed a consultant to undertake an assessment of emergency rehabilitation needs in the north-west, including the requirements for the development of police forces in the region.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts have been made to involve women's groups in the reconstruction of Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey met representatives of women's groups when she visited Somalia last September and again in February. She encouraged them to play a full role in Somalia's rehabilitation and reconstruction. Since, then, women's groups have played an active role in the political reconciliation process. The Addis reconciliation conference of 12 to 27 March 1993 agreed that women should be represented on the proposed interim national council. The UN's relief and rehabilitation plan for 1993 gives priority to activities designed to involve and assist women.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific assistance has been given by(a) the Government and (b) the EC to Sudan since January 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since January 1992, we have committed over £13 million in bilateral humanitarian assistance to Sudan. In the same period, we have provided 528
  almost £0·8 million in residual payments following the termination of the bilateral development aid programme in January 1991. In addition, since April 1991, almost £0·7 million has been disbursed through the joint funding scheme to support the work of British NGOs in Sudan.

  Since January 1992, the EC has committed over £61 million—United Kingdom share about £10 million—in food and other emergency assistance to Sudan. Figures are not available for EC disbursement on development projects, but no new development projects have been approved since 1990.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the adequacy of medical supplies to Sudan; and what obstacles there are to the adequacy of supplies to that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our bilateral development assistance programme to Sudan was terminated in 1991. We are not therefore now involved in considering the regular provision of medical supplies to the Government of Sudan and we have made no assessment of the national availability of such supplies.

  Since January 1992, we have committed about £563,000 in humanitarian assistance funds and, in 1992–93, almost £52,000 from the joint funding scheme, in support of health care activities run by British NGOs in Sudan.

  Least-developed Countries
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have signed the Paris declaration and the United Nations programme of action for the least-developed countries; and what is the Government's policy towards recommendations on the amounts donors should spend on aid to the least-developed countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government joined the international consensus in adopting the Paris declaration and the United Nations programme of action for the least developed countries. There are a number of different aid targets set out in the programme of action. We reaffirmed our commitment to the target of 0·15 per cent. of GNP for aid to the least developed, but we did not subscribe to any timetable for reaching it.

  Forestry Aid
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake a review of the United Kingdom's assistance to forestry aid projects in developing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We routinely monitor and review all our projects. We have recently completed an evaluation of six forestry projects, the lessons from which are being applied to our current programmes.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from potato growers in Lancashire about the effects of the abolition of the Potato Marketing Board.
  529
  Mr. Curry
  We have received representations through three hon. Members expressing support for the continuation of the PMB and one directly from a potato grower who favours abolition.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board.

  Mr. Gummer
  The board is due to be reviewed this year as part of the periodic review of all non-departmental public bodies.

  Surplus Food
  Mr. Williams O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he has considered to the distribution of surplus EC food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I am reviewing all aspects of the scheme and will make an announcement soon.

  Hill Farms
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of hill farms generated a net farm income below the annual average for industrial earnings in 1991–92.

  Mr. Curry
  Net farm income is not a measure of farmers' cash earnings and is not comparable with the average earnings of industrial workers.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a progress report on non-rotational set-aside.

  Mr. Gummer
  We are pressing the European Commission for Proposals.

  In the meantime, we are consulting on our proposals for national management rules for non-rotational set-aside.

  Farmland (Public Access)
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from farmers in the northern region about public access to farmed land.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to make representations to the EC in order to reduce United Kingdom net contribution to the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  As a result of the reform of the common agriculture policy agreed last year, UK receipts under the CAP are likely to increase from 7 per cent. to around 9 per cent. of total expenditure.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on an extension of the 15 May deadline for the return of details appertaining to the integrated administration and control system.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have received a number of representations suggesting an extension of the 15 May deadline.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the integrated administration control scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  The integrated administration and control system is an important and necessary measure to make sure that taxpayers' money is properly accounted for in every part of the Community.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had on the complexity of IACS questionnaires.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have received a number of representations about IACS documents.

  Fishing Organisations
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent consultations he has held with fishing organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The industry and the Fisheries Departments began a major review of fisheries conservation three days ago. On 8 May I expect to attend the annual general meeting of the NFFO.

  French Agriculture Minister
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the French Minister for Agriculture to discuss implementation of CAP reforms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his French opposite number to discuss the export of British farm produce; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).

  Set-aside Land
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek a review of the criteria for rotational set-aside in the EC.

  Mr. Curry
  We are continuing to discuss various detailed aspects of the rotational set-aside arrangements with our Community partners. We have no plans to seek a fundamental review of the arable area payments scheme at this stage.

  Clenbuterol
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to which countries in the European Community have incorporated into their domestic legislation a ban on the use of clenbuterol as a growth promoting substance.
  531
  Mr. Soames
  I am not aware of any member state which has introduced a specific ban on the use of Clenbuterol as a growth-promoting substance. It is, however, contrary to EC legislation for a veterinary medicinal product to be used for a purpose other than that for which it is licensed, unless under the direction and authority of a veterinary practitioner. No member state has licensed the use of Clenbuterol other than for therapeutic purposes.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the health risk to citizens of the United Kingdom from beef produced in countries which have ineffective controls over the misuse of clenbuterol.

  Mr. Soames
  All member states are required to submit to the Commission annually details of their national plans for the examination for residues, including clenbuterol, in live animals and fresh meat. Similar arrangements apply in respect of third countries importing meat into the Community.

  Ongoing surveillance in the UK for clenbuterol in imported meat is carried out under a scheme, co-ordinated by the working party on veterinary residues in animal products, which is directed at retail and wholesale premises and extends to both imported and domestic supplies. Because of the evidence of abuse of clenbuterol outside Great Britain, surveillance is being increased this year. A new sampling programme for imported meat will also commence shortly under which samples of imported bovine tissues will be collected and analysed for clenbuterol residues.

  The consumption of meat containing excessive residues of clenbuterol can result in increased pulse rate and palpitations. There is no evidence of any such cases of illness arising in the United Kingdom.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the occasions on which his Department authorised the establishment of an additional personal secretary post responsible to the marketing development manager—principal grade—since January 1986.

  Mr. Curry
  No personal secretary posts have been appointed to report to principal grade officers.

  Cashmere
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for placing cashmere production on an equitable base with other supported livestock enterprises in the United Kingdom.

  Mr Curry
  I have no plans to introduce support measures for cashmere production.

  Vegetables
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those vegetables of which he is aware which contain alkaloids; if he will indicate in each case the number of cases of harm to humans which have been recorded in the United Kingdom as a result of the consumption of those vegetables; if he will indicate in each case whether sales of products made from those vegetables have been banned; and if he will make a statement.
  532
  Mr. Soames
  Potatoes, aubergines, green and red peppers and green tomatoes contain glyco alkaloids. Figures are not collected centrally in the form requested. Local authorities have powers under the Food Safety Act 1990 to ensure that foodstuffs containing unacceptable levels of alkaloids do not enter the food supply.

  Comfrey Products
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from the Action Group for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy about the decision to ban the sale of comfrey products; what reply he has given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I have received representations from both groups about the recent decision to seek the withdrawal from sale of certain comfrey products containing the highest level of toxic alkaloids. In reply, I have reiterated that this action was taken on the basis of clear and unequivocal recommendations from the independent expert scientific committees that advise Ministers on food safety issues.

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to suspend payment of the farm woodland premium scheme in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Fishery Protection Vessels
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent successes have been achieved by the fishery protection vessels operated on behalf of his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  From 1 January to 15 April this year the Royal Navy fisheries protection vessels have carried out 465 inspections at sea; serious infringements of fisheries rules have been identified on 27 vessels.

  Agricultural Training Board
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decisions have been taken about the future status, funding and operation of the Agricultural Training Board following the consultation exercise that took place last month.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, Official Report, 1 April, col. 329]: The Government can now confirm their intention to replace the Agricultural Training Board with a non-statutory independent organisation. The target date for completing the change is 1 April next year.

  The new arrangements will free the successor body to the board from the constraints that statutory control imposes and allow it to expand commercially, so that it can offer training services on a fully commercial basis to a wider range of land-based and rural businesses. The new body will work closely with the other agencies and organisations operating in rural areas, particularly the Rural Development Commission and training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and the local enterprise companies in Scotland. The successor body will

  533
  continue to service the agricultural and horticultural industries, but this change will also allow it to develop and provide services to organisations operating in areas such as the countryside and environmental management.

  As I have already announced, the Government will continue to make a substantial contribution to the new organisation's finances, through a contract with the ATB successor body for the provision of specific services, initially covering the period to March 1996. Government objectives will be reviewed before the end of this first contract period and any changes will be reflected in any succeeding contract. Subsequent changes to funding levels will also have regard to the commercial revenue generated by the successor body.

  I have asked Mr. Andy Stewart, the ATB's current chairman, to lead the development of the successor body. He will be supported by a group of senior industry representatives from Scotland, England and Wales who have agreed to act as directors of the successor bodyy and to work closely with the existing board members during the changeover period.

  I have every confidence in the ATB successor body's ability to make the most of the opportunities that this new freedom presents to respond to the needs of the industries that it will serve.

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many qualified veterinary surgeons were employed by the Central Veterinary Laboratory on 1 January 1991, 1 January 1992 and 1 January 1993, respectively.

  Mr. Gummer
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the Central Veterinary Laboratory and I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Gentleman direct.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Gavin Strang, dated 29 April 1993.

  As you know the Minister has asked that I write to you direct with the answer to your question. The information requested is as follows:

  Veterinary surgeons employed

  1 January 1991

  44

  1 January 1992

  46

  1 January 1993

  38

  These figures include veterinary surgeons employed at the Laboratory's Lasswade laboratory near Edinburgh.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates the Veterinary Products Committee considered the paper "Bovine Somatotropin and Animal Health: The effect of recombinant BST on somatic cell counts", by E. J. Brunner, E. P. Millstone, I. R. White, R. J. Barrel and O. N. N. Al-Muderis.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Veterinary Products Committee considered a pre-publication copy of this paper at its meeting on 23 July 1992.

SCOTLAND

  Bail Appeals
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many appeals against refusal of bail were granted in each of the past five years on legal aid; and what proportion of the total these appeals constituted;

  (2) how many appeals against refusal of bail in each of the past five years in (a) district court and (b) sheriff court were forwarded to the High Court; and how many were granted;

  (3) what was the total cost to his Department in dealing with appeals against refusal of bail for each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available. Records do not distinguish between appeals against grant or refusal of bail, nor between appeals from the district and sheriff courts. Bail appeals are not recorded as a separate category of grants of legal aid.

  The total number of appeals against grant or refusal of bail considered by the High Court over the past five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1988

  2,679

  1989

  2,820

  1990

  3,031

  1991

  3,301

  1992

  4,149

  The estimated average court costs of hearing a bail appeal, including judicial, staff and accommodation costs, are £10·80 at 1992 prices.

  Ferry Piers
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of adapting the piers at Kennacraig, Port Ellen and Port Askaig to accommodate the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry, Isle of Arran; and which agencies are responsible for funding the project.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total cost of adapting the piers at Kennacraig, Port Ellen and Port Askaig including dredging and other associated works to accommodate MV Isle of Arran is estimated to be in the region of £700,000. The project is being funded by Caledonian MacBrayne, the Scottish Office and the European regional development fund.

  National Epilepsy Centre
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has concerning the future of the National Epilepsy Centre.

  Mr. Stewart
  Decisions on the future of residents of the national epilespy centre are matters for Quarrier's Homes, which runs the centre in conjunction with those local authorities and health boards which have responsibility for the residents. Proposals for the future should be set out in the relevant local authority and health board community care plans.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many actual hours are currently worked by junior doctors in each hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on actual hours worked by junior doctors is not held centrally. Junior doctors contract for a standard working week of 40 hours and such further agreed additional duty hours to be spent on-call or on shift work as are required to meet the needs of the service. As at 30 September 1992—the latest available figures—the average number of contracted hours for junior doctors was 79 per week. Provisional half-yearly returns from health authorities indicate that as at 31 March 1993 only 130 junior doctors, 3·9 per cent., were contracted for more than 83 hours of duty per week.

  Huntington's Disease
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial contribution will be required from sufferers from Huntington's disease or other long-term illness living in private sector homes.

  Mr. Stewart
  None.

  Sufferers from long-term illnesses, living in private sector nursing homes, who require medical or other treatment are not required to contribute towards the cost of that treatment provided it is available under the NHS and is prescribed or recommended by their general practitioners.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision there is within the national health service for long-term care for sufferers of Huntington's disease.

  Mr. Stewart
  The level of provision for sufferers of Huntington's disease will vary for each patient. In all cases the aim will be to secure the most effective package of care to meet the needs of the patients and carers alike. This can range from community health service care and support for those able to live at home to long-term hospital care.

  Care in the Community
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of whether appropriate residential care will be available, for all who require it, under the care in the community legislation.

  Mr. Stewart
  Since April 1992, all social work authorities have been required to produce community care plans for their areas based on a local assessment of need. These plans have been examined by the Scottish Office community care implementation unit which then discusses the plans with the local authority and the health board jointly. All plans include information about the availability of residential care.

  Acute Beds
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the impact of deprivation on the demand for acute beds in each health board area.

  Mr. Stewart
  There is no conclusive information available on the impact of deprivation on the demand for acute beds in Scotland.

  Ambulances
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on speeding up response of emergency ambulances.

  Mr. Stewart
  In 1991–92, 49 per cent. of emergency calls were responded to within eight minutes and 95 per cent. within 20 minutes. In 1992–93 the percentage of calls responded to within eight minutes increased to 51 per cent. and the performance within 20 minutes was maintained. This was achieved despite a 6·9 per cent. increase in the number of calls received.

  Residential Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether elderly home owners who enter residential care are expected to sell their property to pay part of their care costs.

  Mr. Stewart
  All client groups who require public support are expected to contribute towards the cost of residential care they receive. The National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992 require that the value of a permanent resident's former dwelling should be taken into account in assessing ability to pay unless it is occupied by the resident's spouse, or a relative who is aged 60 or over, or who is incapacitated. Local authorities do, however, have discretion to disregard property from the financial assessment in other circumstances where they consider it reasonable to do so.

  Women Consultants
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to increase the number of women medical graduates who take specialist training to become consultants.

  Mr. Stewart
  On 2 April the NHS in Scotland management executive announced the introduction in 1993–94 of a national scheme for part-time training and working at registrar and senior registrar level which will be available to men and women doctors and dentists. We have allocated additional funding of £350,000 to meet the cost of 25 part-time registrar and 10 part-time senior registrar posts. The scheme will be run by the Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.

  NHS Employees
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken concerning NHS employees' continuity of employment with local authority-run community care services.

  Mr. Stewart
  Consideration is presently being given to responses received as a result of a consultation exercise on draft care staff transfer enabling regulations.

  Crossroad Schemes
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many crossroad schemes funded by his Department have reported that they expect to run out of funds by 31 December.

  Mr. Stewart
  My Department does not fund local crossroads schemes directly and I have had no reports of
  537
  any that expect to run out of funds by 31 December. Local schemes, of which there are about 50 in Scotland, are eligible for grants from local authorities and health boards. It is for these authorities to decide whether to fund crossroads schemes or make other provision for care attendant schemes.

  Unemployment
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reduce long-term unemployment in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The key to increased employment is a prosperous and productive economy. The Government are firmly committed to removing the barriers to economic growth and to the stimulation of economic development, through various measures including the activities of Scottish Enterprise and its network of local enterprise companies, among which is the Glasgow Development Agency.

  In relation to long-term unemployed individuals, we have introduced the most comprehensive range of measures there has ever been in this country to help people back to work. The Employment Service already provides a wide range of services which contribute to two thirds of people who become unemployed leaving unemployment within six months. From the summer it will also provide community action, a new programme of voluntary work for people unemployed for more than a year. The, new training for work programme operated by local enterprise companies, which began on 1 April, has the principal purpose of helping unemployed people to get jobs and is targeted on those unemployed for six months or more. This programme will be delivered in Glasgow by the Glasgow Development Agency, along with further measures announced on 16 March by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which will give long-term unemployed people a new way to gain qualifications and provide more opportunities for those seeking to starr, their own business.

  The rate of increase in long-term unemployment in Glasgow between January 1992 and January 1993 was less than a third of that for Great Britain as a whole. The measures which I have described will further improve performance in responding to the needs of the unemployed.

  Young Chronically Sick
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to build a hospital unit for the young chronic sick.

  Mr. Stewart
  None. It is for health boards as purchasers of health care to determine how best to provide for the health needs of all residents in their area.

  Accident Waiting Times
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average length of waiting time at accident and emergency departments within each health board area for the latest available period.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 150, when he expects the inter-departmental committee of civil servants to report on the future organisation, management and ownership of the Forest ry Commission.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 20 April 1993, column 89.

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what reasons underlie his decision to suspend payment of the farm woodland premium scheme in Scotland until October; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The farm woodland premium scheme has been highly successful in Scotland in its first full year of operation. Although there have been more planting proposals submitted than originally expected, my Department is continuing to process new applications and the resulting payments in the normal way.

  Central European Time
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to hold consultations with people resident in the north of Scotland about the possibility of Britain moving into the central European time zone.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have no proposals at present for changing the existing arrangements for summertime. No changes will be made without fully taking into account the views of the public and sectoral opinion throughout Scotland.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a progress report on the Scottish breast screening programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have today approved the publication of a report covering the background, introduction arid structure of the Scottish breast screening programme together with the 1991–92 results and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The report shows that:The Scottish Breast Screening Programme is based on 3 key issues: quality, patient acceptability and continual monitoring and evaluation of the programme;
  The primary target of the Programme is to reduce mortality in the screened population in Scotland by 30 per cent. overall;
  Each year in Scotland approximately 2,600 new cases of breast cancer are diagnosed and a total of 1,300 women of all ages die from the disease;
  Mammographic screening is but one strategy in the fight to defeat breast cancer and, by the year 2000, the Screening Programme is expected to result in about 1,650 extra years of life gained annually in Scotland; on average, each of the women in whom death from breast cancer is prevented will have an additional 15 years of life;
  In 1991–92, 126,867 Scottish women were invited for screening;
  The United Kingdom target for uptake of invitation is 70 per cent. and Scotland is above this with an average uptake of 72 per cent. of all women invited for screening;

  539
  0·9 per cent. of all women screened went on to have a biopsy, and 72 per cent. of these women were diagnosed with cancer; this level of diagnosis is well above the 50 per cent. target set by the United Kingdom standards;
  In 1991–92, 578 cancers were detected, equalling 6·3 per 1,000 women screened; this again is well above the United Kingdom detection standard of 5 per 1,000 women screened.

  The Scottish breast screening programme is an example of the increased emphasis on improving health structures set out as a goal in the patients charter. It also accords with the patients charter in seeking to provide a high-quality service and standards and value for money.

  Junior hospital doctors: contracted average weekly hours of work; as at 30 September 19921

  Average hours contracted

  Type of contract

  Number of doctors

  Basic

  Additional duty

  Total

  Maximum hours contracted total

  Whole time:

  Full shift

  142

  40

  21

  61

  108

  Partial shift

  138

  40

  30

  70

  78

  Rota (on call)

  2,631

  40

  40

  80

  116

  All whole time contracts

  2,911

  40

  39

  279

  116

  Part time:

  Rota (on call)

  28

  20

  26

  46

  n/a

  Others

  91

  37

  —

  37

  n/a

  Notes:

  Doctors contracted for full or partial shift patterns of working are not contracted for on call work.

  1 Data are provisional.

  Excludes staff with honorary contracts and staff in dental specialities.

  Excludes data for the Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Grades included in the table are: senior registrar; registrar; senior house officer; and house officer.

  2 Includes both shift and on call additional duty hours.

  Provisional information collected for the half-year to 31 March 1993 shows that only 130 junior doctors—3·9 per cent.—were contracted for more than 83 hours of duty per week.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the average and maximum weekly number of hours on duty and on call of junior hospital doctors in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: Information on actual hours worked by junior doctors is not held centrally. As at 30 September 1992, the latest available figures, the average number of contracted hours for junior doctors and the maximum hours contracted by any doctor were as shown in the table:

  Violence
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the levels of resources provided towards the reduction of murder and violence in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: My right hon. Friend has a number of bids for additional resources under consideration.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Women's Refuges: Funding
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to encourage the provision and the funding of women's refuges.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the provision of funding for women's refuges is primarily a matter for local agencies.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that in this country we still have only 284 refuges—approximately 30 per cent. of the number recommended by the Select Committee in another place in 1975 even though recorded levels of domestic violence are far higher than they were in that year? When she costs any proposals for improvement, as she must, will she take into account the cost of not making any improvement in that regard, especially the amount involved in taking children into care?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right. There is anxiety about this issue. There is anxiety why the Minister of State at the Home Office, my honourable friend Michael Jack, is establishing a ministerial group on domestic violence. I am sure that the issues the group will look at will include the availability of accommodation and the way in which the law is framed and how improvements can be made.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it makes economic sense to fund centrally authorised refuges for abused women? Is she aware that the present diversity of funding makes matters extremely difficult because no one source of funding is guaranteed on a yearly basis? Will she also look into safe housing for abused women and their children following Bristol University's report on local authorities' response to domestic violence, which is published today?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the report will be fully published in two weeks' time. At present it is only a press release that has been issued. We wish to look at the report carefully. However, I understand that the report examines only four local authority areas in detail. It is clearly therefore a small-scale report and we must look at its recommendations in that light. As regards central or local funding, the Government believe that local funding provides the best solution because it is sensitive to local needs. However, we must take into account that some women do not wish
434
to be housed locally in a refuge because they are fearful of violence from their partner. I am sure that my honourable friend's group will look at those issues.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree, given the new group that is being set up, that it would be helpful if the Department of Health and other departments were to urge the Government to make the guidelines under the Housing Act statutory so that there would be the possibility of influencing local authority funding and local authorities could not escape what would have become a statutory responsibility to fund women's refuges? That would give an understanding that there was special provision for women and children at risk.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, some local authorities are doing very well on that front. Today I visited the local borough of Southwark, which has not been one of the favoured children in terms of local authority action. However, since last week that borough has not had a single person in bed and breakfast accommodation. It is clearly dealing well with the issues at this time. If that borough, which has some of the highest indices of deprivation, can do it one wonders why other authorities cannot do it also. With regard to the code of practice, the Department of the Environment is planning to monitor the operation of the code which clearly gives sound advice. Some authorities are following the code and are proving to be successful in that regard but others are not.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is considerable welcome among the various agencies concerned for the proposal to set up an interdepartmental group? The Minister will recognise that the matter crosses departmental boundaries. Will the Treasury be a part of that group?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that that will be the case.

North Sea Oil and Gas: Tax Policy
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, in the light of proposed changes in the petroleum revenue tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, it remains the Government's policy to encourage cost effective and well-directed exploration for oil and gas in the North Sea, with proper regard for safety and the protection of the environment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the proposed changes to the petroleum revenue tax have caused a great deal of anxiety within the industry? It is felt that they destabilise a tax regime which has been steady for the past 10 years and, in particular, is likely to reduce the impetus towards exploration. Is she aware also that, taking the 131 exploration and appraisal wells drilled last year, it is

435
felt that that rate might fall to little more than half next year and that something like 10,000 jobs or more could be at risk? Does not the noble Baroness consider that, in putting forward that proposal, the Treasury is perhaps pursuing a policy of short-term gain at the expense of long-term economic benefit?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can answer that in no better way than by quoting what my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said in another place. He said that it is a measure designed to ensure that we recover the maximum economic reserves from the North Sea. Forecasts suggest that production will continue to rise and reach record levels over the next three to four years. The tax changes will not affect that. As regards the number of jobs, the figure of 10,000 is alarmist and we expect to see little overall change in the North Sea.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, in addition to the information that my noble friend the Minister has just given, can she also give the House an assurance that investment will still continue in that area?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell my noble friend that we have every expectation that investment will continue. I can also say that the levels of capital investment have now risen to their highest level since the late 1970s. It is a prosperous and successful industry.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the three to four-year term just mentioned by the Minister confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said; namely, that this is short termism? Further, can the noble Baroness say whether she has had representations, especially from the smaller oil exploratory companies? If so, can she say what consultation the Government had with them as opposed to the consultations they had with large oil companies before the tax was introduced?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoward—
Noble Lords: Lord Stoddart!
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I apologise; I mean the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. As the noble Lord has told me on frequent occasions that he is a reasonable man I hope that he will forgive me.
However, the noble Lord well knows that it is not policy to consult before the Budget. Treasury and DTI Ministers are meeting and listening to all representations from the industry. On the question of small companies, in any substantial change there must be winners and losers; but no single class of company is likely to be more or less favourably treated. Companies that purchase interest in assets to provide shelter and not on the basis of sound commercial decision-making may be worse off. I and my colleagues believe that industry is best based on commercial decisions and not on financial tax decisions.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can my noble friend suggest with the utmost gentleness to the
436
Treasury the possibility that those concerned may have got it wrong, that they would be well advised now to seek the views of the industry, which perhaps understands the problem better than they do, and that they should also consider whether in this case they have resorted to a short-term expedient and caused long-term injury?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that the Treasury has noted with interest the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peyton on many occasions and will do so now. However, under the reform, the Treasury has not only enabled companies to keep much more of the rewards of their enterprise but also—and rightly—to carry more of the risks and costs involved and not leave those to be carried by the taxpayer.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I think that noble Lords on all sides of the House should be alerted to the fact that the Government may be bringing to the British North Sea exploration industry the same striking qualities of political delicacy and economic subtlety with which they recently blessed the British coal industry. Does the Minister accept that most experts in the industry forecast that that will have a devastating effect with a reduction in drillings of 70 per cent. and an unemployment figure, contrary to the Treasury's forecast, of up to 20,000?
Does the Minister also agree that the main damage will be to the development of smaller fields at the margins of the North Sea which constitute what would be the future development of what is now a mature oil province? I put the question again: is that not one more example of short termism with the Treasury sacrificing employment and future energy supplies for the sake of immediate revenues to pay for the economic failures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The old regime of high tax rates discouraged investment to enhance oil recovery from existing fields which is incremental investment and gave little incentive to control costs, because costs could often attract high tax relief. Therefore, companies only carried a small proportion of the costs. We are now looking at a regime which will give a long-term and stable environment for investment planning. I should also point out to the noble Lord that the reform is acknowledged by the United Kingdom Off-shore Operators Association as being positive for incremental investment and the development of new fields already found.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords—
Noble Lords: This side!
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House. I know that the 1,000 Guineas starts in a few minutes and that we all want to be away.
However, will the Minister agree that almost any company operating in the North Sea will improve its revenues immediately by stopping exploration in the area? Is that what the Government want?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I continue to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The North Sea has proved to be a very successful offshore exploration area and we believe utterly that it will continue to do so.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the petroleum revenue tax was designed—I had some part in designing it —to ensure that development was carried out in the North Sea and to ensure that exploration could continue in a way that might not otherwise have been economic? Can she give us an assurance—I believe she is doing so—that the changes which are being made in that tax will not affect the long-term development of the North Sea and the prosperity which that sector of our economy brings to this country?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boardman points out that situations change. At the time he referred to it was important to encourage development in the North Sea. We believe the proposed changes will allow us to maximise the opportunities there.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while the proposed changes may prolong production of oil from existing fields, is consideration being given to exploration programmes already approved and based on the present tax regime? Will adjustments be made or will companies be released from obligations where the financial conditions are changed unfavourably? I again declare an interest in a major oil company.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to tell my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that the indication from the industry is that it wishes to continue with the agreements it has made with us. Final discussions will take place during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

Inland Revenue: Responsibilities
3.21 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Inland Revenue is required to approve schemes whereby the remuneration of employees may be paid to it via specially created companies, as in the recent case concerning the BBC.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): No, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that such an Answer is quite inadequate to the Question which is put to him? Perhaps he has not read the Question but he is asked whether the Inland Revenue is required to approve schemes. He gave me a negative answer and I accept that that is adequate in itself, but will he not tell us—the House is entitled to know—on what basis it is possible for a person in an earning capacity to turn himself into a company? Does every occasion on which that is done have to
438
receive the approval of the Inland Revenue? If I worded the Question wrongly, I must apologise to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is up to the noble Lord how he words his Question. I answered the Question on the Order Paper. The Inland Revenue takes steps to assist employers to fulfil their obligations. As a part of its work the Inland Revenue issues written guidance for employers; it advises on the obligations arising in certain situations when asked to do so, and it also visits employers periodically to audit their records. However, it is the obligation of employers to ensure that payments to employees or other workers are treated correctly for income tax and national insurance purposes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the construction of tax statutes is ultimately a question for the courts and not for the taxpayer or the Inland Revenue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe my noble and learned friend is right that ultimately a decision is taken in the courts if there is a dispute. It is the Inland Revenue's duty to look into the facts of each case.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware, or will he agree, that it would be most undesirable if the Inland Revenue were allowed to interfere at will with the operation of the Companies Acts themselves which grant to individuals, provided they have gone through the necessary formalities, the right to turn themselves and possibly their relatives into a limited company with all the rights of contract as between one corporation and another which are thereby enshrined in the articles and memorandum of association? However, does the Minister agree that the real trouble in this whole matter is the disparity of treatment between individuals employed, and therefore assessible under Schedule E of the income tax Acts, and the expenses that are allowed to independent individuals or to limited companies? What is really required is a revision of the taxing statutes themselves whereby the expenses allowed to employees for tax deduction purposes are brought more into conformity with those that are admitted under Schedule D in the corporation tax provisions.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's analysis that he gave in the first part of his question. However, the second part of his question goes very much wider than that on the Order Paper.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is perfectly in order for consultancy companies to be set up for legitimate purposes, one of which is pensions, for those who draw their income from many sources or who change their occupations and their revenue sources quite frequently? However, what has caused concern about a recent case, and other comparable cases which may exist, is that a person with such a consultancy company might apparently be able to become not only a full-time employee but actually an executive of another

439
company and still have expenses deducted from the consultancy company. That is the cause of the concern which many of us feel.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will appreciate and fully understand that I do not wish to comment on any particular case. However, he was right to point out some of the potential advantages of using a service company for those people who have certain occupations; for example, computer consultants, TV and film workers, entertainers and those in professions such as design and architecture.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Earl be so good as to tell your Lordships' House whether Mr. Birt—that is the case which gives rise to this Question—has yet signed a contract with the BBC as a normal member of the staff?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord heard my reply to my noble friend? I said that I would not discuss any particular case.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is not the quintessential feature of this matter the fact that all these cunning and clever schemes are really designed to reduce the amount of income tax the individuals involved will have to pay? That provision does not apply to other skilled workers such as coal miners and steelworkers. Is it not therefore about time that the Government defended the mass of ordinary hard working people who cannot become involved in such cunning schemes but who pay their income tax in an honest and straightforward manner?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these service company schemes are perfectly legal provided the Companies Act is followed. I would say to the noble Lord that there is also the matter of VAT, corporation tax and many other taxes which come into play when one is dealing with companies rather than individuals.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Bruce was well within the scope of the Question and is an important matter related to the complex subject we are discussing? Will he be good enough to reply to my noble friend?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with care to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. My understanding was that it concerned a revision of the whole of the tax structure and the payment of tax. That is very different to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not the Minister being somewhat unreasonable in refusing to answer my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter? This is a case of immense public interest and it has been mentioned in every newspaper. The matter is very relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not believe I was at all unreasonable in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. It would be quite wrong for me to discuss individual cases.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in his first supplementary answer the Minister said, as I understood it, that the responsibility for the payment of income tax rested on the employer. Is the Minister satisfied, in connection with the remuneration of Mr. Birt as an employee of the BBC, that the BBC has ensured that the correct income tax has been paid?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I repeat for the third time that I am not prepared to discuss any individual case.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is all very well for the Minister to stand there saying he is not prepared to discuss that case but the Question on the Order Paper specifically deals with it. I cannot therefore for the life of me understand why he cannot discuss the matter. Is it a fact now that Mr. Birt has a contract with the BBC and is paying tax under the PAYE scheme? Why on earth cannot the Minister answer that question? I would say with respect that it is in the Question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it might be in the Question but it is not a matter for the Government.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the importance of the BBC example is precisely that a person receiving a full-time salary simultaneously set himself up as a company and obtained reliefs which, strictly speaking, were applicable only to a company or to a person not engaged by a single employer? That is an example of a general case. The noble Earl is entitled to tell us whether that practice is common. If it is common ought it not to be stopped?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly do not know whether the circumstances alleged by the noble Lord are common practice. That is a question for the Inland Revenue, which will look at every individual case. I shall not comment on the case.

Housing Benefit Scheme
3.30 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the working of the housing benefit scheme in the light of the recent report by Shelter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, we are still studying the report and its recommendations. Local authorities are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the housing benefit scheme and for the quality of service they provide to their customers. We do, however, note the considerable public expenditure consequences of the recommendations in a scheme which is expected to spend £8 billion in 1993–94.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I am glad that he is studying the report. Has he noticed that one of the major problems which affects housing benefit claimants is the delay in processing their claims? Is the Minister aware that the requirement for councils to process the claims is 14

441
days but many of them take much longer? The time taken ranges from 112 days to 27 days. That means that tenants rapidly fall into arrears with the huge rents they have to pay. Landlords cannot wait for the money and as a result we are creating homelessness through a measure which was designed to assist the homeless. Is that not a matter which we ought to consider urgently? Should councils not be informed that the 14-day limit is a requirement and not just a luxury? If they cannot meet the 14-day requirement should they not meet the interim payment requirement, which many of them do not meet either?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's second point that housing benefit itself is causing homelessness. I simply cannot accept that a mechanism that is designed to help people out of homelessness is actually causing it.
In respect of the noble Lord's first specific question I would accept that there are occasions when the local authorities are probably not meeting their targets. However, as far as we are aware 75 per cent. of all claims are processed within 14 days of the local authorities having the necessary information. That is important. That is the statutory requirement.
As the noble Lord correctly said, local authorities must make interim payments where there is a delay. Further, under the Citizen's Charter local authorities are now collecting data for performance indicators on housing benefit. That information will be published next year. We hope as a result to be able to improve their service.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should like to link the report with the Government's own return to work initiative which was published yesterday and which we welcome. Is the Minister aware that a family which doubled its earnings from £60 a week to £120 a week is only £5 a week better off because benefits, and especially housing benefit as the report shows, are withdrawn too sharply? Is that not perverse?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the concerns of the noble Baroness about the level of the taper in housing benefit and the other income-related benefits. I have to tell the noble Baroness that we have to allocate resources as best we can. Any reduction in the taper, particularly if one, say, reduced the housing benefit taper from 65 per cent. to 50 per cent., would be extraordinarily expensive. In that particular case it would cost something of the order of £340 million a year.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my noble kinsman said that he could not understand how housing benefit might lead to homelessness. Will he consider two ways in which that could happen? The first is where housing benefit falls far short of the rent and the tenant cannot meet the difference, and the second is when housing benefit is not paid for many months after it is due. Are those possible?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have already dealt with delays and stated that local authorities have a duty to make interim payments where there are delays. I also
442
would like to say that it is necessary that there should be, in a benefit which deals with public money, rent restrictions where landlords seek to charge rents above market levels at the expense of the taxpayer. However, I should stress that vulnerable groups are protected from housing benefit reductions unless they can be expected to move to cheaper accommodation that is available.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister take on board the fact, which was pointed out in the report, that under the current system students' income is more than £450 below the income they would expect to gain from social security benefits alone for the 18 to 25 age group? Would it not make sense to restore students' right to claim housing benefit or, failing that, to bring in a new system of student financing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, in the main full-time students are outside the benefit system. We believe that they should be, quite correctly, the responsibility of the education system. I see no case whatsoever for returning to the days when large numbers of students were claiming housing benefit and, for that matter, other income-related benefits.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in his original reply the Minister mentioned the rising costs of housing benefit. Could that not be because there are now more people unemployed than ever and there are therefore more housing benefit claimants? In his reply to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the Minister failed to recognise that rents can rise twice a year but housing benefit rises only once a year, so that the number of people falling into arrears increases rapidly accordingly. The CAB regularly reports cases of people falling into arrears and being threatened with eviction because of these anomalies. Is it not time that we debated the whole matter in detail in this Chamber?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Chief Whip will have heard the noble Lord's last remark. I quite accept the point that obviously income-related benefits are affected by the state of the economy. As regards the question of rent increases, as I explained, we have to have restrictions to ensure that the system does not become a vehicle whereby landlords can take ever-increasing sums of money from the taxpayer.

Business
3.35 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Treaty on Open Skies (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1993 will be taken.

New Towns (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Schedule 9 to the New Towns Act 1981. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Finsberg.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Brougham and Vaux and the Lord Lyell be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, that the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself in Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 148 [Meaning of "special educational needs" and "special educational provision" etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 192B:
Page 90, line 32, after ("authority") insert ("(other than special schools)").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 192B in my name is part of a group of amendments including Amendments Nos. 193, 218B, 220BA, 220BB and 220C which will be spoken to by other Members of the Committee.
Amendment No. 192B makes clear the distinction between special educational provision and that which is made generally for children who do not have special educational needs. I therefore ask the Committee to accept this technical amendment which will in every
444
case specifically exclude provision made in local authority maintained special schools from the definition of special educational provision.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has tabled an amendment to that very effect and I hope that when we come to it he will feel able not to move it. I shall, of course, respond to all the other amendments in the group after they have been spoken to by the respective Members of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: Before addressing the amendment, perhaps I may say this. As noble Lords will be aware, there has been a certain amount of feeling on this side of the Chamber about the time available for the Bill, in particular in the light of the guillotine in another place and the short time for public consultation on the White Paper. It would be churlish therefore not to say that we appreciate that in answer to our representations the Government have made one further day available for the Committee stage. We should like to put our appreciation on record. We believe that that is a move in the right direction in the spirit of open discussion and democracy. We should like that recorded.
I raise one small point on the amendment on which the Minister may help us. It has been argued by some that there is a possible ambiguity that educational provision made at any grant-maintained special school is not similarly excluded from the definition. Will the Minister clarify that point?
Baroness Blatch: I have explained that the amendment specifically excludes provision made in LEA-maintained special schools from the definition of special educational provision. Such schools would otherwise fall within the category "schools maintained by the local education authority". Clause 172 defines special schools, including LEA-maintained special schools as being,
"specially organised to make special educational provision".
In short, special education should not be defined as provision additional to that made in special schools.
Lord Elton: I have put down the second amendment in the group, Amendment No. 193. It adds to line 34 on page 90 the words,
"and includes the provision of speech and language therapy".
I tabled the amendment simply for this reason. It has come to my notice that there is considerable difficulty in the field because while agreeing on the desirability of providing for special educational needs in speech and language therapy, district health authorities and local education authorities cannot between them decide whose responsibility it is to pay for such provision. I simply ask my noble friend to make a decision in one direction or the other and relieve us of the difficulty.
Lord Renton: I rather wish that I had had a word with my noble friend Lord Elton about the amendment, but the point has only just occurred to me. The word "language" is being used in two somewhat different contexts within the same clause.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may spare my noble friend any difficulty. I believe that the difficulty I have

445
addressed is understood. I would not sully the face of the statute with my inadequate language. So long as it suffices to convey the difficulty to my noble friend and for her to answer it, I shall take the amendment away and it will vanish as the mist in the morning.
Lord Renton: I am relieved to hear that. I need not add more.
Lord Addington: I support my noble friend Lord Elton on the amendment to which I have put my name. The provision covers an important area and clarification is needed. Giving responsibility and authority to one area is important. I thank the noble Baroness for the constructive provision moved at the beginning of the group of amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say a personal word in support of the amendment. I declare an interest. My wife was trained as a speech therapist. Therefore anything in that field attracts me.
I, too, am a little worried about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton: that a provision that we all believe desirable might not be made because of a technical problem about who is responsible for such provision. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to explain that there is no problem or, if there is, that she will put it right.
On the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I did not believe that there was a difficulty with regard to "language" in the two separate clauses. I understand what "language" meant in subsection (3), and its meaning in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I, at least, was not confused by the difference but perhaps for once I understand something that others do not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: I call Amendment No. 192C which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.
Lord Peston: I am lost.
Baroness Blatch: The first is a complicated group which I said included Amendments Nos. 193, 218B, 220BA, 220BB and 220C. If the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is in the Chamber a number of the amendments in his name are in that group.
The Chairman of Committees: Nevertheless, the noble Baroness did not speak to Amendment No. 192C. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, would like to speak to his amendment.
Lord Elton: I believe that we are in a difficulty. We have agreed to the first amendment in the group and have ignored the remainder. It would be for the convenience of the Committee if we now dealt with the second amendment and the second group. I am sure that we can all retain my noble friend's opening remarks with regard to Amendment No. 193 and discuss the remainder of the group when we reach that amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: I entirely agree with the noble Lord. That is what I sought to indicate. Amendment No. 192B has now been agreed. I am therefore calling Amendment No. 192C.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 192C:
Page 90, line 32, after ("area") insert ("(none of which shall be a special school)").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment and the group of amendments is to prevent the establishment of grant-maintained special schools and to prevent the maintained special schools becoming grant-maintained.
Special schools are an important element in the LEAs' provision to meet the range, degree and quantity of special educational needs among children for whom they are responsible. Special schools, together with units, support services and mainstream schools, are intended to dovetail with each other to form a coherent range of services to meet children's needs. Giving grant-maintained status to special schools would remove from them the control and co-ordination of LEAs in important ways.
An LEA would no longer be under a duty to review provision made at the school; nor indeed would it be able to do so. It would become impossible for that school to be part of the planned response by the LEA to the special educational needs of children in the area since the LEA would no longer have a means of involving itself in such a plan.
The amendment goes to the heart of the worries expressed by numerous interest groups about the planning and lines of responsibility for special educational needs provision. In concluding my arguments, I can do no better than quote from Hansard of 23rd June 1988. In response to an amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the then Minister, Lord Trefgarne, responded:
"Special schools are … in a different position from ordinary schools. They often serve a much wider area, so that there is no discernible community with which they could establish close links. That is not to say, of course, that they do not encourage close parental involvement: many do, to mutual benefit. But they could not look to their locality for the sort of support that grant-maintained schools will need. And as far as parental choice is concerned, it is inevitable, because special schools by definition cater for special needs, that the scope for offering choice is going to be limited. Very often there is only one school of the appropriate type and in the right place for a pupil with special needs. Whether that school is grant-maintained, LEA-maintained or non-maintained will not be relevant. To admit special schools to grant-maintained status would not therefore increase choice in any way.
"Special schools rely to a large extent on specialist services which the local education authority provides. Under the 1981 Act LEAs, for their part, are charged with the responsibilities for making statements of special educational needs and for determining the school which a statemented child should attend. It would not be compatible with those responsibilities if the special school for the area in which the child lived was not under the control of the local education authority. In such circumstances the local education authority might even have difficulty in placing a child in a suitable school".
The Minister further stated:
"In conclusion … we do not believe that making such schools eligible for grant-maintained status would be in the interests of those whom they serve. Nor do we think it would be practicable".—[Official Report, 23/6/88; cols. 1027–1028.]
I cannot put the argument any more succinctly or better than the former Government Minister in 1988. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I find the remarks of the noble Lord opposite quite extraordinary. I can think of no group of parents who would have a stronger wish and a greater need to be concerned very directly in the governance of the school which their children attend than the parents of children with special educational needs. His view that it would not in any sense increase choice to have a grant-maintained school as well as a local authority school in an area is also very hard to understand. Given the enormous involvement and concern of parents in the grant-maintained school, I would have thought that most parents would wish strongly to have an alternative rather than simply one choice—namely, what the local authority provides, which will be very similar in all its schools and in all its special schools—and that they would prefer to have the choice of a special school in which they could have direct involvement and which might be extremely well provided for and resourced by the local authority. That would offer a parent a very clear choice and I hope we would support it.
Baroness Warnock: There is an extraordinary degree of confusion about planning and provision for children with special educational needs. We have been repeatedly assured by the Government, from the 1988 Act and through the White Paper, and I have been personally assured, that the local education authorities will retain responsibility for children with special educational needs. I do not see how the local education authority can retain that responsibility or carry it out if there are to be grant-maintained schools which are special schools and into which, presumably, the local authority will have no authority to go to review or monitor the provision. I shall say more on this matter in regard to later amendments. It seems to me that that runs completely counter to everything that we have been promised about local education authorities and their responsibility for special needs if there should be grant-maintained schools that are special schools.
Lord Renton: At various earlier stages of the Bill we heard the word "flexibility" used in order to cover the wide variety of circumstances that prevail unavoidably in our society. I would have thought that in order to achieve flexibility in the circumstances of special educational needs, there is a good deal to be said for allowing the special schools to become grant maintained. I am thinking in particular of those special schools that are outside the state system at the moment although recognised by it—schools run, like some of the Rudolph Steiner Schools, by charities and by voluntary societies.
If by mischance one or other of those schools was to find itself in financial difficulties, as many charities—some of us know this from sad experience—have found themselves in the past year or two, I do not see why they should not try to opt into the state system.
448
In doing so, the trustees and governors of the charity may very well feel that they would rather have their school become grant maintained than become a local education school or a voluntary school under the local education authority. Therefore I believe that in order to achieve flexibility we should not rule out the possibility of special schools becoming grant maintained.
I could give examples of what are in effect special schools which are at present outside the system altogether. I remember one remarkable example. Some 20 years ago, when I served in another place, I was asked to show the boys of a special school round the Houses of Parliament. To my astonishment all the boys—about 20 of them turned up—were albino. All were short-sighted and wearing glasses. It was a remarkable thing that a school had been started for those boys. If that school ran into difficulty, I do not see why those responsible for it should not have freedom of choice.
Using the word "choice" in a rather different sense, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that under the Bill as it stands, if his amendment were not accepted, choice would be precluded. I do not see why it should be. We should aim at freedom of choice, and if further amendment of the Bill is needed—I do not know that it is—to achieve that, it should be done. I do not know whether the views I have expressed coincide with those of my noble friend Baroness Blatch.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may intervene briefly to oppose the amendment and to ask the noble Baroness why the Government do not go further. Surely, the procurement of special educational provision from independent schools ought to be included in this step.
Baroness Seear: Can the noble Baroness clarify one point? I expect that I should know the answer, but I do not. Supposing one takes the view, as I do personally, that so far as special needs are concerned, we do not want schools under the local authority to go grant maintained. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made the point about a voluntary organisation which has an established special school but, for a variety of reasons, as I can well see, may run out of money and would like to contract into the grant-maintained system. Or perhaps a school of a special religion, which could not be looked after by the local authority, would like the advantages of grant-maintained status. Is that permitted under the legislation? If it is not, should it be?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: There is a certain concern that in grant-maintained schools special school pupils might in some circumstances bring down the level of attainment in the testing procedure. It may mean—perhaps the noble Baroness will explain this to the Committee—that if grant-maintained schools accept special school children, those children will be looked after in a different way when examination processes go through on attainment. There is a feeling that the grant-maintained schools will not be at all helpful to the special school pupils, and therefore that local authority schools will take the bulk of special

449
needs children and will be low down in the attainment leagues following the examination results. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could indicate the lead to be given to grant-maintained schools to ensure that they have a representative group of special needs pupils.
Baroness Blatch: To deal first with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, the amendments deal with special schools being allowed and being eligible for grant-maintained status. So the particular point made by the noble Baroness is not applicable. I can say to her that the record so far shows that grant-maintained schools that are up and established are doing very well by their children with special needs, particularly those children who are part of the 18 per cent. as well as those who are part of the 2 per cent. of what we have all come to know affectionately as the Warnock children. So the particular fear expressed by the noble Baroness is not founded. We shall have further opportunity to talk about the needs of children who are not statemented and other special needs children in mainstream schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was concerned about the role of the local authority and, I believe, tried to suggest that giving self-governing status to special schools would remove them from the control and co-ordination of the local authority thus making it impossible for such a school to be part of a planned response by the authority to the special educational needs of children in its area. There is little argument here. It is an exaggerated concern. Sensible authorities will recognise that they have little to fear when one of their own special schools becomes self governing —for that is all it is—adding to local parental choice.
Local authorities have the most important co-ordinating role of all which is placement of children with special needs. The argument seems to ignore the fact that authorities must in future respond far more flexibly to parental choice. A parent will be able to choose an appropriate special school in another authority or a mainstream self-governing school. We have not heard arguments that that will disrupt central planning. Why cannot parents choose a self-governing special school?
Independent schools cannot become grant-maintained schools. We shall be discussing that point later today. Perhaps I can address the point about schools which are not in the LEA-maintained system at the moment and which wish to become grant-maintained schools. It will be possible for the funding authority to establish a new grant-maintained school from an existing school out of the sector against proven criteria about the assessment of need and so forth. So there is a way in for schools in that sense. We shall be discussing planning in great detail when we come to discuss Amendment No. 197A.
I have to say that these amendments are wrecking amendments. The Government believe and indeed have proposed that local authority special schools, which subsume local authority established hospital schools, shall be eligible to seek grant-maintained status subject to all the procedures laid down in Clauses 173, 174 and 176 and in Schedule 10.
450
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, intends to remove those clauses from the Bill and so deny to the parents of children with special needs the democratic right of freedom of choice under the law. This is a wrecking amendment. I ask the Committee to reject it.
4 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to ask her to consider how society at large and the local community are going to adapt to changing circumstances, particularly with regard to children with special needs. If a special school opts out of the local education authority administration and becomes grant maintained, it has a vested interest in continuing its existence and recruiting children to make up the numbers and to maintain its financial viability. It will harp on the concept of parental choice.
As regards special needs children, one has to balance the concept of parental choice with professional advice. That can lead to a dilemma. Perhaps I may explain what I mean to the Minister by way of illustration. I shall mention our experience of education services for children with hearing and visual impairments. Over the past 10 years the system in Manchester has changed from being a system of special schools for visually and hearing impaired children to a support service whereby visually and hearing impaired children are educated in Mainstream schools with support from a support service.
Manchester is currently undertaking a review of its special needs provision and is effectively reducing the number of what are classified as moderate learning difficulty schools. It is changing the support services and hoping to provide a support service for mainstream schools to enable children with moderate learning difficulties to be educated in mainstream schools. There is a fear that if the provisions in the Bill are enacted as the Government seem to wish, those special schools, whether they are for children with visual impairment, hearing impairment, moderate learning difficulties or a range of other special educational needs, will be frozen in time. Governing bodies and staff will have a vested interest in maintaining the number of children attending those schools. Parents will be persuaded that it is the right course for their children.
The change which has been taking place over the past 10 years and which will continue probably for the next 10 years whereby children with special educational needs are brought into mainstream schools with appropriate support services will be stopped. We shall lose the opportunity of adapting and accommodating the change in education philosophy, technology and knowledge to enable children with special educational needs to be educated in mainstream schools. That effort will be frustrated. The benefits for children with special educational needs in the future will be lost. That is a desperate fear.
I am not sure how the Government will address that anxiety. Can the Minister give any assurances to allay the fears that we have about losing the real advances made in providing for children with special educational needs?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord addresses two issues. I have no doubt that we shall discuss one of them in some detail later today; namely, the policy of integration. Whether or not the noble Lord opposes a vigorous policy of integration, there are Members of the Committee who take a different view, as we shall hear later.
The Government take the view that provision for the child and the needs of the child are supreme throughout the system and that the provision should be appropriate. "Appropriate" means that the provision may be better in a special school for special children or in a mainstream school. We are speaking at this time about special schools and we know that most of the children in special schools have statements. If the local authority believes that a child is more appropriately educated in a mainstream school, there is nothing wrong with the authority stating that and naming the school on the statement. We say that it is absolutely essential that the parents' preference should at least be taken into account when the LEA arrives at its decision. There is a tribunal system set up for the parents, if they wish, to challenge that view. If so, an independent judgment will be made about whether the appropriateness of the provision made by the local authority is right or wrong. There has to be a presumption in favour of the parents' choice where at all possible, subject to three tests: whether the decision is consistent with the statement and the accurate information in the statement; the impact on the other children in the school (in other words, whether one particular school is unbalanced by the number of children with particular needs being sent to it); and, thirdly, the efficient use of resources.
Unless the noble Lord is a total integrationist, his fears are, I believe, totally unfounded. Today we are talking about existing special schools and their right to seek grant-maintained school status. Thereafter they are subject to all the procedures laid down in the clauses which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, seeks to remove from the Bill.
I believe that this is a wrecking amendment. I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Baroness Warnock: I do not think that it is a wrecking amendment. It is largely a matter of trying to clarify what the responsibility of the local authority for all children with special needs is supposed to be. There is an enormous desire for clarity among local authorities and parents. Certainly I do not feel that it is a wrecking amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee what has happened since 1988 to make the Government so totally change their mind about the appropriateness of special schools for grant-maintained status.
Lord Glenamara: With regard to what the Minister said, why do the Government in this Bill (in Clause 152) give parents an absolute right to send their children to special schools but no corresponding right to send them to mainstream schools? I shall raise the matter under Clause 152 in due course. But since the noble Baroness mentioned it, I shall ask her now why there is such a difference? Parents have the absolute right to send their children to a special school but no
452
absolute right to send them to a mainstream school. Modern thinking is that the children should go to a mainstream school.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure what the noble Lord is saying. If a special school is full there is no such thing as an absolute right. If a parent wishes a child to have a place at a special school and the school is able to provide for the specific needs of that child, it will take the child. If the school is full there is no way that the parent can exercise an absolute right.
With regard to mainstream schools, other than a selected school for specific reasons—a special school is selected for special educational reasons—all parents have a right to send their children to school up to the standard number. If there is room in that school, then any mainstream school must accept the child.
Lord Glenamara: If the noble Baroness reads Clause 152, she will see that it gives an absolute right to parents to send their children to a special school.
Baroness Blatch: As I said, there is nothing different from the right of parents to send their child to a mainstream school. If a parent has a child with specific needs that are so special that he or she belongs in a special school, I am making the assumption that they are very special. If that is true, there is nothing to stop that parent from going along to a mainstream school and saying, "I would like my child educated in this school". But if it is the case that the school does not have the expertise to meet the needs of that particular child, it becomes the responsibility of the local authority to determine what is appropriate for the school. It does not deny the right of the parent to ask for a place in a mainstream school.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Will the noble Baroness answer the question asked a little earlier by my noble friend Lady Warnock as to why the Government have changed their mind over the past five years?
Baroness Blatch: When the Act was debated in your Lordships' Chamber the Government used the same grounds for denying special schools the opportunity to become grant-maintained. Indeed, at the time they also said the same about the small rural primary schools.
Time has moved on; the policy is proving successful; self-government is something of which schools are capable. We know that many special schools, at the time of that policy in 1988, made a good case for wanting to be considered for self-governing status. We listened to all the arguments and believe that it should be an enabling power for any school that wishes to seek it. After all, it is a voluntary process; if they want to seek grant-maintained status we are making it possible for them to do so.
Therefore no viewpoint is encased for all time. But it was the view at the time that it was a new policy and there were complicated issues in regard to the funding of special schools and in regard to the degree to which a special school could stand alone but within the bosom of state school provision. We are more than convinced that that is a possibility as long as the

453
school goes through the process of having its entire case considered and the Secretary of State at the end of the day makes the determination.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may return to the main thrust of the amendment and follow up what I thought was an interesting point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. It seems to me that the case for enabling special schools to be grant-maintained is the same as that for allowing ordinary schools to be grant maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, shakes his head. Perhaps he and I must agree to differ on the matter. When the old grant-maintained schools were abolished—I had more than one distinguished school in my constituency—many chose to go independent. What the then Labour Government were doing was to establish a form of educational apartheid. They created a complete gulf between the sector which was the responsibility of government and local authorities and the sector which was not. To my mind that was a tremendously retrograde step. It produced enormous hurdles for children from disadvantaged backgrounds trying to obtain the best education possible. I shall not develop that argument now.
What the Government have done in recent years and what the Bill is doing now is to begin once again to build bridges between the two sectors so that the divide is not as stark and so that there is a graduated form of provision which allows parents to make a choice of what most suitably fits their children.
I had a marvellous special school for the deaf in my constituency. It was a charity, an independent school. On later amendments tabled in the name of my noble friends Lady Young and Lady Faithfull I hope to be able to enlarge the argument. Why should there not be the same spectrum of choice in the field of special schools as we have now introduced and which the Committee is accepting for ordinary schools? After all, with this group of amendments we are taking Clauses 173, 174 and 176 and Schedule 10, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, seeks wholly to strike out. There would be no possibility of establishing grant-maintained schools in the special sector and no opportunity for an independent school to decide to become grant-maintained.
It seems to me that in the field of special schools the noble Lord is trying to establish that dreadful apartheid which operated for so many years under the policy of successive Labour Ministers. I wholly support what the Government are doing and totally oppose what the amendment suggests. I shall later have something to say in regard to schools for the blind and handicapped as well as for the deaf. But there is enormous advantage in being able increasingly to blur the administrative distinctions and offer a greater choice of provision. The proposals in the Bill are absolutely right and should be warmly supported by the Committee.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in regard to the position of direct grant schools in general is one that has only ever
454
exercised my mind in theory. As I come from South Wales, the grant-maintained system does not seem to matter much. We have managed very well, thank you very much, out of the state system. I believe that that is true also in Scotland. It is an English phenomenon far more than a Welsh or Scottish phenomenon.
People are entitled to send their children to whatever school they wish. That argument, therefore, is not one with which I am concerned. Recently for the first time in practice rather than in theory I had to consider the question of a child and special education. It opened my eyes.
I have no doubt that many special schools in the private sector are first class. I wish that that were the case in the public sector. I wish it were as easy to obtain entry to them and that money did not arise as a factor in the situation. The question I want to ask does not relate to my personal concerns. In a northern city that I know special schools have been shut down; they have been closed because of the new philosophy that children should go into integrated schools. In that local authority area therefore there are fewer special schools for children to attend.
There is a special school that I know well, where the parents are extremely supportive and where the staff work extremely hard and deserve extra payment, which under our system is given far more to teachers who work with the highly academic pupils. Suppose the school opts to be grant-maintained. There are already far fewer special schools than there used to be. What will the parents in a poor section of town do? Will they be able to insist that their child attends that special school if they think it is necessary? What will the new system be in the grant-maintained schools?
Perhaps I may put a second question. What will happen the other way round? I know that some parents are extremely worried when their child who is not severely disabled—many are severely disabled and will not go back into the integrated system—is considered by the local authority to be eligible to attend an integrated school. The parents may want the child to stay in the special school, which is now grant-maintained. Who will decide whether that happens? Will the head teacher who now runs his own ship—it seems to me that they run their own ships anyway, but that is another matter—have control of the intake? And what input will the local authority have?
Baroness Blatch: I believe that part of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, was answered earlier in relation to the point about LEAs closing down special schools as part of an integration policy. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said later—as I think is right—that there had to be a balance because there would always be some children who required special school provision as opposed to special provision in mainstream schools. But the rights of parents under either system remain the same. If they are not statemented children they can go to any school door and ask to be accepted. If the special school thinks it is appropriate and there is room it can take those children. If the mainstream school has room and it believes it can meet the needs of those children it must take them up to its capacity.

455
This Bill will not affect children who are already placed in schools, so it will not do anything retrospectively. However, other children who come along will be able to state a preference—we will have a detailed debate about this later on—for an LEA-maintained school or a grant-maintained school. That preference has to be presumed in favour of and judged against three tests: compatibility with the statement; a judgment about the impact on other children in the school; and the efficient use of resources within the authority.
I know that Clause 152 troubles the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. That clause does not give parents a veto over the placement of their child in a mainstream school. Clause 152 places local authorities under a duty to integrate children, subject to certain conditions, provided integration is compatible with the wishes of the parents. If it is not compatible with the wishes of the parents the local authority has no duty to integrate. There is no question of compulsory integration because the effect of Clause 152 falls away.
Lord Glenamara: I was referring to Clause 152(1), which uses the words,
"the child is educated in a school which is not a special school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent".
If that does not give parents an absolute right I do not know what does.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord will listen to what I say. If he goes on to read Clause 152(2) he will see it provides that if integration is not compatible with the wishes of the parent the local authority has no duty to integrate and Clause 152 falls away altogether.
Baroness Seear: In the midst of all this discussion I may have missed the point, but has the Minister answered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that I picked up? Can a voluntary organisation—a Rudolf Steiner school—opt in to the grant-maintained system? This is a terribly important point to many of us.
Baroness Blatch: It is a terribly important point and also a hugely expensive one. We will discuss this in great detail later. Outside the maintained sector there are schools full of children simply asking that the costs be met by the Exchequer rather than by whatever means they are met now. That will be one of the inhibiting factors when we discuss that. What I said was that the entré into grant-maintained status would be by way of two avenues: through schools that are already LEA-maintained schools, and where the funding agency determines that there is a need and establishes a special school from scratch. It is unlikely to take a full special school from outside the sector and bring it in because it will not be satisfying the need that has been determined by the funding agency. The funding agency will be charged and given the power to establish a school, just as the LEA has, if there is such a need in the area.
Lord Renton: I am glad that the Minister said what she said. Although she said that we would come to it later, that later discussion would be frustrated if the amendment were to be carried.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend is right. I appeal to the Committee. This is an enabling measure that offers one more opportunity to a group of parents. If they were not allowed these clauses in the Bill we would create and reinforce a system of apartheid, as my noble friend said. It is important to open up another avenue if we are widening choice but securing the quality of that provision for parents. This is a wrecking amendment. The definition of a wrecking amendment in this place is where the Government wish to do something and make provision for it in a Bill and the Opposition wish to take the provision out of the Bill. That is a very clear-cut definition of a wrecking amendment, and I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Lord Peston: I do not want a debate on the philosophy of what is and what is not a wrecking amendment. The noble Baroness's interventions on these matters seem to me to be tremendously important, so I believe we ought to get them straight. It was the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who started this off and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also intervened. Let us leave money on one side. Is the Minister saying that, at least theoretically, a school not in the maintained system —it may be a special needs school or any school—can opt into grant-maintained status? If so it is an amazingly interesting aspect of the Bill. I have to confess that I had no idea that it was in the Bill. We will discuss the matter later, but at this stage I am intrigued to know the answer to that question.
Baroness Blatch: The answer is that the Bill is at this moment couched in such a way that there are only two avenues to grant-maintained status: one is through an existing maintained special school, and the second is a school started from scratch by the funding authority.
Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare: Will my noble friend make sure that she does not leave money on one side but treats it very seriously indeed?
Lord Peston: If I may say so, that is a silly remark from the noble Lord. I am trying to understand what the Bill says. How we should spend our money is a quite separate question. The noble Baroness said that a school can opt in if the funding authority feels that it is desirable. A new school can start and become grant-maintained. I thought she said that the funding authority could start a new school and bring it in.
Baroness Blatch: I said that the funding authority could start a new school from scratch. I made the point to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that if there is a school full of special needs children outside the LEA-maintained sector it would not identify a need that had been identified by the funding agency. I simply said that there were only two avenues for entry. But we have amendments down today, which we will discuss later, to allow for what the noble Lord is asking me to agree to at this moment.
Lord Monkswell: I wonder whether the Government can clarify the situation of children whom I would describe as falling in the grey area. The vast majority of our children are educated in

457
mainstream schools and have no special educational needs. There is also a proportion of children who can never attend mainstream schools and who have to be educated in special schools. There is a group of children who can get their education partly in special schools and partly in mainstream schools. There is also a group of children who have special educational needs and who spend all of their time in mainstream schools but get support from outside the mainstream sector. That provision is at the moment made by the local educational authority because it has a broad remit. There is no vested interest in children being brought into special schools, but there is a vested interest in transferring children from special schools into mainstream schools. The local authority has an interest in providing support services for children with special needs within the mainstream sector.
One aspect of concern to a broad range of opinion in the Committee is what will happen to children in the grey area, or the overlap as it was referred to a short time ago. If we have a system whereby each institution, whether it is a mainstream school or a special school, operates totally in isolation in terms of special schools provision in the grant-maintained sector, will there be any facility for the new funding agency to provide special educational support services for children in mainstream schools?
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is unfortunate that we are trying to run the whole debate on Part III on this one amendment. The amendment is actually a clear-cut facility that opens up an avenue for existing LEA special schools to become grant-maintained special schools. The very reason that we have given LEAs the sole responsibility for children with special educational needs is so that the LEA can determine a placement for a child in a mainstream school, a mixture of mainstream and special school, or just a special school. They are all taken care of in other parts of the Bill. The amendment proposes a mechanical process which opens up an avenue for special schools to make a judgment about whether they wish to become grant-maintained schools. We are in danger of trying to run ahead of ourselves and have discussions that we shall be having for many hours yet.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: This has been a very wide-ranging debate on a fairly specific amendment. Perhaps I may first clarify something. The noble Baroness's answer to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, as to why the Government have changed their mind since 1988, was a little misleading. The 1988 Act allowed primary schools with more than 300 pupils to opt out. That could be changed by a negative statutory instrument as happened in 1989 when the figure was reduced to zero. It was not possible to create grant-maintained special schools under the 1988 Act and the Government distinguished between the smaller primary and grant-maintained schools in their response.
This is not a wrecking amendment: it goes to the heart of the concerns which we shall be discussing with regard to special educational provision in local areas.
458
It seems to us that the guiding principle of the Government is one of choice, however impractical and minimal that might be in the specific area of provision for special educational needs. It seems to us that the principle of choice, as argued by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Renton, should not supersede the good planning, the good provision and the good co-ordination of services.
Underlying the Bill as a whole is an antipathy to local education authorities, a point we have made time and time again but the Government have yet to accept. What the whole of today's debate is about is trying to fit into the institutionalised conflict which the Government are setting up through the grant-maintained sector the special educational provision. Members on both sides of the Committee want to make sure that that provision works as effectively as possible within the Government's ideological preferences. The amendment is essentially important. It is not a wrecking amendment. It addresses all the concerns that will arise through the rest of today's debates.
For some time this afternoon discussion seemed to stray to the subject of the integration of children with special needs into mainstream schools, a debate we shall be having later today. There is concern that, with the increased competitiveness in grant-maintained schools and other schools, integration will not proceed, as we all want, where it is practical but will go into reverse. There are preliminary statistics to suggest that. That is a worrying trend, but we shall have a fuller debate on the subject later.
This is not a wrecking amendment. It goes to the heart of our concerns about provision for children with special educational needs. I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the response that we have had from the noble Baroness. I wish to press the amendment to a Division.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, and just for the record, he referred to the 1988 Act and the change of heart on both rural primary schools—small schools with fewer than 300 pupils—and special schools. Both Houses gave my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the power to come before Parliament to vary the provisions for primary schools. That was a legitimate power given by both Houses. So far as concerns special schools, I believe that the House would not have approved in primary legislation in 1988 a power simply by negative resolution to allow special schools to become grant-maintained schools. I believe that it is entirely justified that we come to this House in this way in primary legislation to allow that to be done. My definition of a wrecking amendment is: this is something the Government want to do; it is something the Opposition do not want to do. That is a wrecking amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: By that definition, just about every amendment that we have put forward since I have been here would be a wrecking amendment. I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. I should like to press the amendment to a vote.
4.35 p.m.
On question, Whether the said amendment (No. 192C) shalle be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 149.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Attlee, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Aylestone, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

McCarthy, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Northfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Falkender, B.

Peston, L.

Falkland, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fitt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Glasgow, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glenamara, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Stallard, L.

Howell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hughes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Teller.]

Warnock, B.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brightman, L.

Addison, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Aldington, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cadman, L.

Annaly, L.

Caithness, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Astor, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Auckland, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Bauer, L.

Cockfield, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Beloff, L.

Cox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Craigavon, V.

Blatch, B.

Cranborne, V.

Blyth, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Boardman, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Derwent, L.

460

Ellenborough, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Palmer, L.

Ferrers, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Finsberg, L.

Pender, L.

Flather, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gainford, L.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Gibson, L.

Radnor, E.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Goschen, V.

Rennell, L.

Gray, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Romney, E.

Halsbury, E.

St. Davids, V.

Hankey, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harvington, L.

Sandford, L.

Haslam, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Shannon, E.

Hemphill, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Slim, V.

Holderness, L.

Stewartby, L.

Howe, E.

Stockton, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strafford, E.

Ilchester, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Kintore, E.

Swansea, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinfen, L.

Leigh, L.

Swinton, E.

Liverpool, E.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Tombs, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Munster, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Nelson, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Norfolk, D.

Winchester, Bp.

Norrie, L.

Wolfson, L.

Northbourne, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 90, line 34, at end insert ("and includes the provision of speech and language therapy").
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may move this amendment formally on behalf of my noble friend. I beg to move.
Lord Howell: I understood that it was for the convenience of the Committee that my Amendment No. 220BA would be taken in conjunction with this amendment. Perhaps I may express my appreciation to the Minister and my apologies to the Committee for not being here when the amendment should have been taken. That is due to some inadvertent information which suggested that I could have a cup of tea and that this amendment would be dealt with after dinner. I

461
apologise. I have had to pay a forfeit in buying the tea which I have not consumed. That is as a result of my inexperience.
This is not a hostile but a probing amendment on behalf of the AFAISC which is an organisation with which I am connected. It is concerned with extending the spirit of Clause 159, which we have been debating. I certainly do not intend to do any more at this stage than to propose the amendment and give rough reasons for doing so. I shall accept the advice which the noble Baroness will give us shortly in response to it.
She will know that the statement to which parents are entitled about educational needs is a provision which I fully support. It is a considerable improvement on the present position. It deals with the assessment of the child's special educational needs and must specify the special educational provision which the authority judges necessary to meet the needs of those children. These amendments carry that principle a little further, recognising that with such children with very severe handicaps there are other special needs which are not essentially of an educational nature but which must also be taken into account at the same time.
One can easily imagine a whole range of such issues; for example, the availability of transport for a child and other related matters. Therefore, it seems to us that it would be a good idea, if we are moving down that road, that such an assessment should be as comprehensive as it can be and deal with both the educational and the non-educational needs of these very seriously impaired children. The organisation on whose behalf I am speaking deals specifically with children with very serious speech defects. I gather that other organisations are sympathetic to this view. Therefore, I trust that the noble Baroness will understand the reason for moving this amendment and will be able to give us her departmental or her own thinking on the matter so that we can consider it in due course. I hope that she finds some merit in extending her provisions on educational needs to include non-educational needs as far as these children are concerned.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I should say first to the noble Lord that I understand his feeling. I arrived to take my place in the Committee this afternoon thinking that his amendments would be considered at the end of the night only to be told that they would be considered with the second amendment of the day. I did some very quick footwork only to find that they did not come up when I had been told that they would because the noble Lord was having a cup of tea at the time. I think that we can all be forgiven for sounding slightly at sixes and sevens at this point.
I shall deal first with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton. I take seriously the question of co-operation between all agencies concerned with children with special educational needs, and in particular the provision of speech therapy services, first, because I know how sensitive this issue is and, secondly, because I know that it is important in all our deliberations today that the provision of speech therapy must not be left out of the equation or of the
462
provision for children with special needs. I shall keep your Lordships fully informed of the outcome of the consultation exercise that is at present in hand. The code of practice, which we shall be discussing in some detail in a little while, will deal with co-operation among agencies and the provision of speech therapy. Parents will have a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal if they consider that speech therapy should be specified in their child's statement as special educational provision. I believe that what I have said will suffice in relation to the amendment of my noble friend, together with what we shall be saying later this afternoon on the code of practice.
Turning to Amendment No. 218B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I need to make it clear that, in considering the non-educational needs of a child as part of the assessment and statementing process, local authorities must be as specific as possible. They must specify any additional non-educational provision which they propose should be made for a child and set out the detailed advice upon which they have acted in drawing up the statement. Regulations made under the Bill will spell out such requirements. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore feel that at this stage his amendment is not necessary.
Amendment No. 220BA, which also stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is also part of this grouping. It seeks to impose by statutory regulations criteria or grounds for determining whether the provision to meet some of a child's particular needs is educational or non-educational. This is not, and never will be, an area for black or white determination and a growing child's needs will rarely fit neatly into the category of "health" or "education". They often overlap or are interrelated.
Both my department and the Department of Health recognise that responsibility for the provision of some services, such as speech therapy, cannot be categorically allocated beforehand to either health or education authorities. The most effective solution is the local one, taken in the light of local needs and service availability. This is why we attach such importance to co-operation—because it is futile to try to prescribe hard and fast rules. Therefore, I hope that, taking this debate together with the next debate on the code of practice, the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment at this stage.
I turn now to Amendment No. 220BB, the final amendment in this grouping. Under existing regulations, if a local authority specifies any non-educational provision in a statement, it must do so only after close co-operation with other agencies and must be satisfied that the service will be delivered by a district health authority, a social services authority or some other body.
I hope that I am not being presumptuous in saying that I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, will agree that there needs to be a co-ordinating body that is responsible for seeing that that provision is made—whether by the district health authority, the school or the local education authority by, perhaps, a portage scheme or by some other means.

463
Noble Lords will be aware from my earlier remarks that the Department of Health is already consulting about how co-operation between health, social and education services can be best achieved in supporting children with special needs. I am sure that noble Lords will wish to wait and see the outcome of that consultation before deciding how to proceed. I have promised that I will report to the House about that.
Amendment No. 220C, in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, provides, first, for the inclusion in this Bill of a general requirement for co-operation between agencies, similar to that in Section—
Lord Peston: I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I was under the impression that again the grouping has been changed and that that amendment has now been dropped out.
Baroness Faithfull: If I may say so, we seem to have got into a terrible muddle over the groupings because Amendment No. 220C and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, should, I think, have been grouped with Amendment No. 193C. Indeed, I asked my noble friend's colleague on the Front Bench whether I could move Amendment No. 220C with my Amendment No. 193AC which touches on the same subject as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Before my noble friend the Minister gives the answer to the question which I have not yet asked, I should be very grateful if I could ask the question first.
Baroness Blatch: Of course. I unreservedly apologise to my noble friend. I am finding this incredibly difficult. I have been dealing with briefing on amendments almost solidly since we left the House at 3.20 a.m. the other morning. I had an understanding of the groupings right up until I arrived at the House at 2.30 p.m. this afternoon. There have been two changes already, so I hope that I can be forgiven for being presumptuous. I was not actually answering the question—I was attempting to pre-empt the question that I thought that my noble friend would have asked. I shall, of course, now wait for my noble friend to pose her question. In the light of the explanation that I have given, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Howell, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Perhaps I may say how very much I sympathise—for once—with the Minister about the grouping. I hope that certain people are taking notice of this. One of the difficulties is that one arrives at this place—and it does not matter how early one gets here because the documents showing the grouping of the amendments are sometimes not there—but the arrangements that one had in mind simply do not arise. It has occurred time and time again over the years and something really should be done about it.
Apart from that point, which I think is important, I have risen now because I may not get the chance later to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Howell. I simply wanted to raise this point which I thought that the Minister might have mentioned. First, we must recognise the really splendid work that
464
is done by speech therapists. Indeed, some of it is miraculous, as some of us with experience of it know. I do not know whether the Minister will agree—perhaps your Lordships will agree—that there is almost always, if not always, a shortage of speech therapists to carry out this necessary and important work. I am glad that my noble friend has introduced this amendment today on behalf of that organisation with which I know that he has great sympathy.
Noble Lords continually refer to their previous experiences, and I remember when I was an education officer that if we could get hold of speech therapists we would just about bribe them with anything because of the splendid work that they did. That brings me to my second point which is that there is no doubt that considerable expense can be involved in this. While we all have to take notice of the expenditure involved, I hope that the Government, through the Minister, will recognise that if this good work is to be done, enough money must be spent on it. I hope that the Minister will take those two points on board because this is a most important amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It was possible that there would be the usual response about resources. However, it is now an absolute duty to ensure that young people who require speech therapy have the provision that is determined for them in the statement. Perhaps I may speak from my practical experience in local government. I think there has been a problem with the provision of speech therapists for a very long time. Although my authority was criticised for not having speech therapy always available, that was not because there was not enough money; we had the money, but simply could not find any speech therapists. There are clearly good reasons for that. It may be to do with pay or with the status of the profession—I do not know, but one reason that was constantly given to me was that—I know that this is a sexist thing to say—speech therapists are usually very young and attractive and go off to get married and do other things.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I was interested in the Minister's last comments. Although it will be a duty on the local authority to provide speech therapy, that duty cannot apply if the speech therapists are not around. Do the Government intend to launch a campaign to train speech therapists for the future? If the duty is there but the speech therapists are not, there is nothing that local authorities can do about it. In any case, they are in the hands of the local health authorities when it comes to that provision.
5 p.m.
Lord Howell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her helpful and sympathetic response. My colleagues who are involved with children with speech impairment difficulties will appreciate the fact that the Committee has found a short time to discuss these problems. The reply of the Minister was helpful and encouraging. We shall look at it carefully and, if necessary, come back to it at another stage. But with the appreciation of those on behalf of whom I speak, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Young: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 148, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 193AC:
After Clause 148, insert the following new clause:
Consideration of social factors
( ".—(1) When considering a child's special needs, consideration shall be given, not only to special educational needs, but also to social needs due to adverse social conditions, disruptive family circumstances and mental and emotional disturbance.
(2) In such cases the local education authority's Education and Social Services shall consider whether residential care is appropriate to the needs of the child; and shall consider not only Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties schools but schools run by voluntary organisations, charities or on a private basis.
(3) Any costs incurred under this section shall be met by the Local Authority's Education and Social Services Departments, and such cases shall be dealt with under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989.").
The noble Baroness said: Because of the grouping there is some difficulty here. With the Committee's and my noble friend's permission I shall speak to Amendment No. 220C with Amendment No. I 93AC. Unfortunately, Amendment No. 220C was put with the first lot of groupings and had nothing to do with them at all. I know that my noble friend Lord Jenkin wanted to speak to Amendment No. 220C—unfortunately, he has now left—and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, had an amendment down that was practically the same but with different wording. I shall proceed from there, if I may.
Amendment No. 193AC should be taken with Amendment No. 220C. That is a new clause after Clause 159. The intention behind these two amendments should also apply to Amendment No. 74, which I moved earlier in the Bill and will bring forward again at Report stage. The amendments apply to children excluded from school who have special educational needs due to social and emotional factors. I base these amendments on my experience as chairman of the governors of the Caldecott Community, an independent residential school run by a registered charity, and also on my experience as a governor of Bessel Leigh residential school, also run as a registered charity for boys with educational and behavioural difficulties. I should also say that I am a patron of the Hesley group of schools in Yorkshire, a private organisation with schools for children with educational and behavioural disturbances. With some diffidence I therefore say that my amendments are based on personal experience at the grass roots.
I am also indebted to the National Children's Bureau for its research on placement and progress in residential special schools for emotional and behavioural difficulties. The research workers state that children with emotional and behavioural difficulties have received little attention in recent years, particularly those in independent residential schools run by charities. Yet this small group of children causes serious disruption in their schools, in their communities and, sadly, in their families. This group of children tends to be those who, if not given specialised help when young, will later in life tend to
466
present problems of mental disturbance and delinquency, or both, and are then at a later stage an even higher financial burden to the state.
Just to give an example, a short time ago I visited a residential independent school with 60 children run by a charity. Every girl in that school had been sexually abused within the family. A proportion of the boys had been lured into paedophile rings. These children are deeply disturbed, and I have to say here that the disturbed children in this country have become particularly difficult in recent years. I shall not go into the reasons why because we should be here not just until midnight but until next week. Perhaps that could be a debate for another time.
I have the deepest sympathy for teachers in schools dealing with a class of 30 with one of these disturbed and disruptive children in the class. I profoundly believe in community care, and wherever possible and practical children should be helped within the ambit of their families, their schools and their communities. But reality must be faced. There are some children who need highly specialised help in a residential setting such as that offered by the Charterhouse Group, the Hesley Group and others.
I say with some regret that these schools and the problems of these children have been sadly neglected and we are now paying the price. The Home Secretary is recommending the setting up at enormous cost of five units for seriously delinquent children. If the children about whom I have spoken were to be assessed and dealt with at a younger stage —and in some of these schools there are vacancies—perhaps the Home Secretary would not be faced with as big a problem as he has today with juvenile delinquency.
When considering children with special educational needs and non-school attenders, I submit that when decisions are taken as to how they should be helped consideration should be given not only to special educational needs but to social conditions, disruptive family circumstances and mental and emotional disturbances. Some of those children who have been sexually abused and have been in paedophile rings can be very disruptive in a large class, and I have great sympathy for their teachers. These independent schools run by charities in the private sector are expensive. Experience shows that local authorities, usually the treasurer's department, perhaps understandably refuse to pay, but this means that the country is gradually losing a valuable resource in buildings, in staff and in the whole ethos.
Such cases should be the joint responsibility of the education and social services departments of the local authority, both of whom should be involved in the planning process. Such cases should be cared for and helped within the social services department, and perhaps under Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, which deals with care and supervision orders. Since setting down this amendment I have looked again at the Children Act 1989, and it may be appropriate to meet the needs of these deeply disturbed children under Section 27, which deals with co-operation between authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Judd,

467
referred to this section of the Children Act 1989 in his Amendment No. 162AA, so this is nothing new, but at that stage he withdrew his amendment.
Forgive me for going on for so long, but I have to say that one reason why treasurers will not pay for children to go to these schools is the high cost. Why is the cost so high? It is because many of our services have been dropped. For instance, the child guidance clinic service has been dropped. We do not have enough adolescent psychiatric units in our hospitals. We do not have counselling and helping facilities in the health and education services. In any event, it is hardly for teachers to deal with the home and social circumstances of children. If the facilities are not available, the children or young persons will later become, the responsibility of the social services department.
I understand from Mr. Clough, the secretary of the Residential Care Association, that the local authority social services departments could not deal with that type of child. Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child states:
"In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public, a private institution, Courts of Law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".
The Minister has been most generous in the time that she has given to meet a delegation and later to see me personally. I ask her to give this amendment serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I pay a very warm tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for what she has said. She has illustrated yet again the value in our debates of having someone with so much first-hand, almost unrivalled, experience. I live in the city of Oxford and I know how high her reputation stands for the quality of her practical service in the past. Therefore, I am sure that the Committee will listen extremely attentively to what she says. I congratulate her on bringing forward this amendment which we warmly support. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who are working for the charitable and voluntary organisations to which the noble Baroness referred. They are making a powerful contribution towards meeting existing needs.
The amendment is clearly important because local education authorities and social services departments must co-operate as regards the funding of residential schools as such schools meet social as well as educational needs. That is absolutely clear, as the noble Baroness underlined. Therefore, I believe that the amendment makes an important point and makes an important provision. I hope that the Minister can receive it sympathetically. It would be deplorable and sad if we were ever to find that officials in different departments were arguing because they did not accept the joint and mutual responsibility for meeting such closely integrated needs.
Lord Northbourne: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in drawing attention to the importance of emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. I am a governor of Weavers' Fields School in Tower Hamlets which deals with such
468
children. There is very little mention made in the Bill of behaviourally disturbed children. Will the Minister confirm that that group of children falls squarely within the category of children with special needs?
I support the noble Baroness in drawing attention to the richness and diversity of provision available in the private sector. It can sometimes be significantly cheaper than provision in the public sector. I have experience of children who have benefited greatly from such provision.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: The noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, raises an extremely important point in an important area. The dividing line between so-called educational problems and social factors is thin and, in many cases, does not exist at all. I have been involved in a great deal of work with dyslexic children, many of whom have ended up in juvenile courts or prison. There is a direct correlation between social and educational problems. We suspect that in many cases educational problems lead to social problems. We must co-ordinate our efforts to meet those problems; otherwise both sets of problems will feed together and create a monster.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what the Minister will say in reply to the amendment but I hope that the reply will be sympathetic and helpful. On the face of it, it appears to be a not unreasonable proposition, even more so because of its authorship. It must be treated extremely seriously.
I agree with the nice tribute which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, paid to my noble friend Lady Faithful!. It was a proper tribute and one with which I humbly associate myself. My noble friend has an extremely impressive record in these matters and speaks on them with great authority. While not knowing what technical difficulties may or may not arise, I suggest to the Minister that there is a strong feeling in the Committee in favour of the amendment. I hope that she may be able to be helpful in connection with it.
Lady Kinloss: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I agree with her that not only should special educational needs be considered but also the social and moral needs of a child which may lead to a child's inability to concentrate. If personal and social needs are not considered, in time children may become delinquent or develop psychiatric problems which can sadly lead to some of the difficulties which we face today. For one reason or another, some children cannot remain in their own homes but can be helped in residential special schools.
I give as an example the Charterhouse Group and, in the private sector, the Hesley Group, which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, mentioned. Their provision is expensive but that is partly because they provide services which are no longer supplied by local authorities or health authorities; for example, child guidance and psychiatric services.
The Government are extremely anxious to promote projects in the voluntary sector which involve raising considerable sums of money. Yet the Department of Health and the Department for Education appear to

469
be neglecting that charitable resource. The Home Secretary is recommending setting up special units for delinquents at considerable cost to the country. That is a waste of resources. Children can be helped in those residential schools, two of which I have mentioned, where education and treatment are of a high standard. There is a definite need for early identification of children with special educational needs and a decision as to which local authority is to meet the needs of such children. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Baroness Elles: I support the amendment. I am a trustee of the Caldecott Community and I pay a warm tribute to the chairman of its governing body. If any Members of the Committee—and I include the Minister—were to visit the community to see the children resident there, they would understand that those children could not possibly be in a normal school. One can see from their behaviour that, because of the disturbing experiences they have had, they could not fit in to a normal school. In this wealthy country of ours a home must be made for them where they are nurtured, loved and looked after and where their moral, educational and physical needs are met. No places can be found in an ordinary school to meet those serious needs.
My noble friend has been too modest. She should have said that often young people leave the Caldecott Community to live a normal life in the outside world. The community has set up an outreach tutor who deals with the young people as they leave the institution so that they are able to face the facts of life living in an ordinary community. I have had the privilege and honour to meet many of those young people. I am happy to say that one would not be able to guess what were their origins or what had been their problems because of the treatment that they had received in a Caldecott home.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the drafting may not be correct and may need amending but I ask the Minister to look helpfully and positively upon the spirit which underlies the amendment. It seeks to deal with a problem which is becoming worse throughout the country. I support my noble friend.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: I was going to say that the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, were music to me, but it seems that they were music to several Members of the Committee. I feel strongly that the educational achievements of a child cannot be extricated from that child's social background and psychological environment. It is most important that more attention should be paid to that factor. Throughout all their educational reforms the Government have tended to ignore those aspects of a child's upbringing. It is most important that they should be given greater consideration. There is a tendency to over-simplify and to behave as though our education system can be reformed merely by offering the children and teachers the carrot or the whip: tests, assessments and so on. But in fact much more understanding of the social circumstances involved is what is needed.
470
I have experienced that myself. With many of the boys who went through my hands it was difficult to know whether their psychological disturbance was the result of their learning difficulties or whether their learning difficulties were the result of a psychological disturbance. They are inextricable, and must be given prime consideration. I support the amendment strongly.
Lord Renton: My noble friend has, with great persuasion and from great experience, drawn our attention to some real and difficult problems. I broadly support what she has put forward. However we should bear in mind that the amendment covers four separate kinds of problems. Learning difficulties with mental handicap, which is what this part of the Bill is concerned with mainly, present a separate problem from those who suffer from disturbed family circumstances. They may have divorced or drunken parents, but the children may be brilliant and not in need of the kind of education which caters for those—if I may use a broader term—who are backward.
The third category which may or may not derive from disturbed family circumstances is emotional disturbance. We have come across that in happy families. I am afraid that it sometimes happens in large families that one child may be disturbed. The fourth category of course is mental illness. The amendment covers all those circumstances. My noble. friend has wisely, I think, by implication, acknowledged that they have to be treated differently.
Subsection (2) of the new clause states that various possibilities have to be considered, including,
"whether residential care is appropriate".
It may well be the best answer, especially in the case of disturbed family circumstances. Then my noble friend rightly introduces flexibility by referring to:
"schools run by voluntary organisations, charities or on a private basis".
I am not sure what she is getting at when she says that, but it is right that she should include it.
I hope that I shall not be thought to be pouring cold water on the amendment by analysing, as I have attempted to do, the various problems and the various solutions to them which arise in the amendment. I should like to join with those Members on both sides of the Committee who have asked my noble friend the Minister to give serious thought to the amendment and to the problems that it covers.
Earl Russell: If it were just a matter of welcoming the amendments, I should be a silent member of the majority, but I should like also to say that I believe that they provide an ideal legal framework for considering cases about which I do not believe there has been much thought; that is, the treatment of the children of women in refuges. That is a matter which involves so many departments and so many authorities, but it is a situation where the five left fingers have to be told individually what the right hand is doing.
Already we have involvement by the Home Office, the Departments of Health, Environment, and Social Security and the Welsh Office. I do not believe that there has yet been any involvement by the Department for Education. Women in refuges regularly arrive with

471
their children. It is normally better in such circumstances for the children to stay with the mother. They are intended to be short-stay places, but for reasons normally to do with housing, and irrelevant to today's debate, they are not always so.
Those children have educational needs. The amendments provide the framework within which those educational needs may be considered. Attendance requirements here have to be applied with flexibility. They are not always in a fit mental state to go to school when they arrive, but one hopes that as time passes it may be possible for the outward shell of normality to return. Amendment No. 193AC would give a legal authority for the discretion which is needed in applying the law in that situation.
It is also a regular problem that local authorities tend to say that those people come from other boroughs and are none of their business. They normally do. It is necessary for the women's safety. So it may sometimes be difficult to persuade local authorities that they have a legal obligation for the education of those children. I express no view on whether education for those children should be grant-maintained or under the local authority, but a duty to ensure that they are educated should rest somewhere. That could possibly be something which might be considered in guidance. Where consultation with the local authority of origin is needed, Amendment No. 220C would provide the machinery under which it could happen.
I am not asking the Minister for any firm opinions now. I am asking her to consult other departments involved in this issue, and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, whom I have always found extremely helpful on this issue, and the interdepartmental group to be set up by Mr. Michael Jack which he announced at Question Time today. Since the amendment mentions the Children Act, perhaps I may ask at the same time for consultation with the Women's Aid Federation about the implementation of the Children Act in the context of domestic violence, because there are problems there with which I shall not detain the Committee now.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I, too, support the amendment moved by my greatly respected noble friend, with particular reference to the child who is seriously and continuously disruptive because of a bad and deeply troubled family background which may itself produce mental and emotional disturbance. What is a teacher to do if one child, not through wickedness but through emotional and mental disturbance, makes it impossible for the others to learn, and requires the full and exclusive attention of a teacher if it is to benefit by any education?
The school and the parents alike need to know that in such cases it will be recognised that the local authority's education and social services will accept a joint responsibility for finding a way to educate and care effectively for the child, probably in the way proposed in the amendment. As my noble friend said, because the problem is partly educational and partly social it is wrong that children should fall between two stools. Of course, it will cost money, but surely that
472
must be set against the cost of the spoiled education of not just that child but the others in the class if nothing can be done.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: If the proposed new clause is brought into effect it will help not just the present generation of such children; it will also help their children because the children who need that help now will in the next generation produce other children who need the same help, and so on. It is a very brave attempt by my noble friend to break a cycle. Further, resources given to those children at this stage which may be expensive to the community in terms of time, trouble and money will be repaid a thousandfold as they become productive members of society when adult, rather than spending the whole of their adult life in need of additional help and wasting resources which could be used elsewhere. Other speakers have raised many points with which I agree, but the latter, so far as I know, is one which has not yet been raised.
Baroness Brigstocke: I, too, should like to add my modest support for the amendment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Most of the points I wished to make have already been made. I know that it is very bold of me, but I question the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Renton. I think that there are many more than four categories of emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. When a teacher is faced with a child who is clearly deeply disturbed and disturbing and disrupting the class, she does not have time to pause, analyse and work out what would be the right diagnosis to give there and then; indeed, one just has to deal with the situation. I should like to see an acceptance that the overall responsibility for helping that child and ultimately for paying for the diagnosis and the treatment is a shared one.
Finally, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to a recent paper published by Whitbread PLC. The company trades in many inner-city areas where there is an unbelievably high proportion of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. The paper is entitled Teaching and Learning in cities. I should like to quote a few lines reported in the paper on the response from Richard Martineau who was formerly Affairs Director of Whitbread PLC. The extract reads:
"While collaborative partnerships are essential he is fearful in the current climate of change and uncertainty for the future of these arrangements and the consequences for those inner city schools without adequate resources to purchase the necessary support services".
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I happen to be a governor of a local authority school which caters for seriously maladjusted children with emotional needs; in other words, the children for whom the schools are not able to cater. It is a five-day-week residential school on the outskirts of Birmingham. But on occasions we find that even we have to exclude a pupil, although we have all the facilities and assistance possible to help those who need to be helped.
With the number of exclusions that are now taking place in local authority schools, it is important that there are facilities available for them. We shall be able

473
to cater for the groups of children about which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke so ably if the money is made available. I believe that figures have been given during the past fortnight of exclusions from schools. It is a matter which the Government must seriously consider. I give all my support to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
Baroness Blatch: At the outset perhaps I may say how good it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, in his place. I know that he has not been in the best of health. I must tell him that his portfolio has been looked after most ably in his absence; but, nevertheless, it is good to see him back.
I should like to join with all Members of the Committee and say at this point how much admiration I have for the worked carried out by my noble friend Lady Faithfull on behalf of all children with special educational needs, and in particular her contribution to the well-being of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Drawing on her extensive experience, I know that she has worked tirelessly to ensure co-operation between local authorities and social service departments and to promote, and indeed protect, those schools, including those in the non-maintained and independent sectors, which do so much for a vulnerable group of children. It is worth noting that most of the children we are talking about in those schools are in fact placements of the local authorities. That is what happens now. That is what we want to see.
I wonder whether my noble friend would think it in order if I were to address Amendment No. 220C now.
Baroness Faithfull: I would be most grateful. I have not elaborated on the matter because, although Amendment No. 220C is basically the same, it is broader and encompasses various other points. It is possible that other Members of the Committee may wish to speak to that amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My suggestion was not meant to extend the debate too much. However, that amendment is grouped with this one and I hoped to be able to address it at the same time.
Amendment No. 220C has a general requirement for co-operation between agencies similar to that in Section 27 of the Children Act to which my noble friend referred. The amendment also provides that, when specifying non-educational provision, the local authorities should always be satisfied that such provision will be provided either by the local authority or by another agency. The means to greater co-operation between agencies is precisely the subject of the consultation exercise which the Department of Health is now conducting. I hope that my noble friend will agree that we should await the outcome of the exercise before proceeding further.
As to that part of my noble friend's amendment which deals with the specification of non-educational provision, I hope that she will accept my assurances that, as now, regulations will continue to make it plain that local authorities should always be satisfied that non-educational provision will be made before that
474
provision is specified on a child's statement. I hope that my noble friend will also be reassured by what I said about the contents of the code of practice and about parents' rights of appeal. But again we shall deal shortly with the code practice in some detail.
The need for greater assurance and co-operation has been put to us forcefully during the consultation process on the provisions which now form Part III of the Bill. In particular, it has been suggested that the Bill might include a general requirement on district health authorities and social service departments to comply with a request from an LEA on behalf of a child with special educational needs. That proposal is reflected in the amendment before us today tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
In response to those representations, the Government have accepted in principle the need for greater assurance about co-operation between the agencies concerned. The Department of Health has therefore embarked on a consultation process (which I just mentioned) and has asked a sample of purchasers and providers of health and social care for children, their representative organisations, relevant professional organisations and voluntary groups how, by legislation, guidance or otherwise, assurances can be given that the health and social services contribution to assessments and the preparation of statements can be made in a timely manner. Indeed, the same levels of co-operation among health, social services and education services can be achieved in supporting children with special educational needs, as are prescribed in the Children Act.
The consultation process is therefore designed to secure the kind of co-operation envisaged in the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend, without threatening the necessary independence of the health service. I am sure that, like me, my noble friend will wish to await the outcome of the consultation process before deciding how to proceed.. The consultation will conclude on 14th May. I shall consider the results most carefully together with my colleagues in the Department of Health and will bring our conclusions to the House during the Report stage of the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned about the children of women in refuges. The purpose of the Bill—and, indeed, the responsibility of education departments—is to be concerned about children, whether they are travellers' children, children in secure families, children in insecure families or children of women in refuges, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned. We have strengthened the rights of parents considerably not just in this Bill but generally throughout the education service. Therefore, any one of the people I have referred to could take his child to any school and, provided there was room, that school would be obliged to accept the child. The child would fall right into the full panoply of special educational needs if the child had such needs.
As regards the point the noble Earl made on consultation, we will do all we can to pursue that matter with our colleagues in the Department of Health who are also responsible as regards the provisions of the Children Act. I have explained the

475
consultation exercise which the Department of Health is presently conducting. That exercise is designed to secure closer co-operation between agencies working on behalf of children with special needs. One of the proposals referred to in that exercise would, if adopted, reproduce in education legislation the provisions of Section 27 of the Children Act whereby social services departments are already required to assist local education authorities with the provision of services for any child in the area in question who has special educational needs. I look forward to the outcome of that consultation and I shall report back to the Chamber at Report stage.
I share my noble friend's admiration for the work of non-maintained special schools and indeed independent schools which cater for children with special educational needs. I share the view of all Members of the Committee who have said that this is particularly demanding and challenging work for anyone. Clearly, we have to recognise that. I know that many such schools provide a valuable service for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. They often take children who exhibit the most challenging and extreme forms of behaviour. It is in the interests of both the individual child and of society as a whole that these children should be given the help they need. Failure to do so can mean a wasted life for the child and problems for the rest of society in the future.
I recognise my noble friend's concern about the future of these schools. I am confident that such schools will continue to make a valuable contribution in the new regime envisaged in this Bill. To do so, those schools, which are autonomous, fee-charging organisations, must market their services to customers. All such schools should engage in a continuous dialogue with placing authorities to find out what their requirements are. They must then persuade those authorities that the provision which they offer will meet the needs of children and will be thoroughly cost-effective. I have had meetings with my noble friend and representatives of those institutions. Occasionally they have a jolly good case to put to local authorities for better and more cost-effective provision. As we expose the costs of local authority provision, that position will be revealed, and that is a good thing.
Local education authorities and social services departments place children in non-maintained and independent schools which cater wholly or partly for children with special educational needs. I believe that the Bill's provisions will help ensure that they continue to do so. In particular, parents will have a right to make representations to local education authorities to the effect that their child should be placed in a school outside the maintained sector. Authorities will be obliged to consider those representations. Moreover, if parents are dissatisfied with the outcome, they may appeal to the new SEN tribunal. If the tribunal finds in favour of the parents, it may order the local education authority to arrange provision in a non-maintained or independent school.
476
The Committee will be aware that in 1989 my department gave guidance, in the form of Circular 23/89, on provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. That circular dealt with such matters as the range of emotional and behavioural difficulties, learning strategies and objectives, the implications of the national curriculum for the schools concerned and the size, scope, age range and organisation of the schools. It also dealt with pupils over 16, single sex or co-educational schools, boarding schools, staffing and staff training. There was also guidance on improving support services for the most difficult pupils and their schools. For those who are concerned about support services, I should say that we have left the responsibility for providing those services to those with special needs with the local education authority in the Bill.
The existing guidance has proved useful to those working with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Nonetheless, a number of developments in the intervening years, not least the implementation of the Children Act, the publication of the Utting Report Children in the Public Care, and the Warner Report Choosing with Care, the introduction in this Bill of a new duty on local education authorities to provide education otherwise than at school, and increasing concern about children with emotional and behavioural difficulties mean that the time is now right for the Government to issue further guidance on the full range of these issues.
The Department for Education and the Department of Health, working closely together, will over the next few months draw up for consultation inter-related guidance on matters which I know are of particular concern to my noble friend. We have in mind guidance covering the following issues. First, in the context of school discipline and exclusions, we shall draw up guidance on how schools can best act to recognise and resolve disciplinary problems. Secondly, in the light of the new duty on local education authorities to provide other education, we shall draw up guidance on how LEAs can best fulfil that duty with the aim, wherever practicable, of returning pupils to school as quickly as possible. My noble friend Lord Elton is not in the Chamber but that matter concerns him particularly. Thirdly, in the light of the recommendations of the Utting Report, Children in the Public Care, and the Warner Report, Choosing with Care, we shall issue guidance to all those concerned as to how the education of children who are being looked after by local authorities can most effectively be delivered. Fourthly, in the light of this Bill and through the code of practice which we shall debate in detail in a moment, we shall issue guidance to schools and local education authorities as to how they should best identify and assess children with special educational needs. Fifthly, but not least, in the light of concerns expressed by my noble friend, we shall issue guidance to local authorities and schools on provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
Let me say something in more detail about the proposed guidance on children with such difficulties. I envisage that the guidance will recognise the full

477
extent of the difficulties facing such children. In so doing, it will place emphasis on the role of the family and acknowledge that where family support is lacking or is inadequate, schools and other agencies must give children the security of an assured framework in which they can learn and develop. I envisage, therefore, that the guidance will look first at the role which mainstream schools can play in providing sensibly managed education. I envisage that it will stress the importance of the early identification of emotional and behavioural difficulties and offer guidance on intervention strategies and examples of good practice. In this respect and others the guidance will reflect the code of practice to be issued under the Bill.
I envisage that the guidance will also deal with action to help those pupils who may require statements of special educational need as a result of their emotional and behavioural difficulties. In doing so, the guidance will stress the importance of co-operation between local education authorities, social services departments and health authorities. The guidance will then cover the question of the appropriate school placement for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. In that respect, the Department for Education will ensure that all local education authorities and social services departments are given regularly full information about the full range of non-maintained special schools and independent schools approved for the admission of children with statements which offer appropriate provision. Finally, the guidance will, I envisage, stress the importance of keeping such placements under regular review, noting that the making of a statement, particularly a statement reflecting emotional and behavioural difficulties, should not mean that the child will always require such a statement.
In short, the Government are taking action to meet the concerns expressed by my noble friend. The Department of Health has embarked on an important consultation process with a view to securing closer co-operation between the agencies concerned. We shall issue guidance aimed at improving practice and provision for a wide range of vulnerable children; and we shall, in particular, issue guidance addressed to local authorities and schools about provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked me a particular question on this matter. The children he mentioned fall foursquare into the category of children with special educational needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, was concerned about exclusions and the increasing incidence of exclusions from schools. I believe that we shall be dealing with that matter in some detail next Tuesday. The noble Baroness made an important point and I shall be tabling some interesting amendments on behalf of the Government which will, I believe, meet many of the concerns expressed.
I can give assurances that we shall consult very widely before promulgating guidance. The dedication and expertise of those working with children are crucial to our plans for improvement. The guidance we offer will draw on that expertise and reinforce it, we
478
believe to the general benefit of the children concerned. I hope that in the light of what I have said—and I hope that the Committee will forgive the length of time I have taken to say it—my noble friend will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend for such a clear exposition of what is being considered in both her department and other departments. We are very grateful to her for taking so much time to explain her point of view.
I wish to thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate on the amendment. I should like, with some diffidence, to thank the Committee for the tributes which have been paid to me. I would not have been able to say what I said had it not been for the fact that I learnt from both the staff and the children, and particularly the children. One child said to me, "How old are you?" When I told her that I am over 80 she said, "Coo, lumme! You must be on the way to heaven".
I thank the Committee for showing such interest in the issue. The Minister in particular has shown a great interest. It would be quite wrong to divide the Committee on this issue because everyone has shown such an interest. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 149 [Code of Practice]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 193B:
Page 90, line 40, after ("authorities") insert ("and the governing bodies of maintained or grant-maintained schools, or grant-maintained special schools,").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that we shall not get in a muddle with this group of amendments. I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 193B and then respond later to Amendments Nos. 194. 194A, 194B, 195, 195ZA, 195A, 195B, 195C, 196 and 197, which are grouped with my amendment.
The purpose of Amendment No. 193B is to enable the code of practice to offer practical guidance to the governing bodies of all maintained schools as well as to LEAs and make it clear that those governing bodies must have regard to the code in carrying out their functions under Part III of the Bill and that other bodies, in particular the special needs tribunals, must also have regard to the code.
As I have said, with the permission of the Committee I should like to listen to what the Committee has to say on what I believe is the heart of the debate on this part of the Bill and then respond in some detail. I should like in particular to speak about the legal status, scope and nature of the code of practice. That code is the most important document, together with other provisions of the Bill. It will set the framework for special educational needs in the future.
I should also like to say at the outset of the discussion on this group of amendments that I believe that this is a subject which unites the whole of the Committee on all Benches. Any debate we have today will be of means rather than ends. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I do not know at what stage it would be convenient for me to intervene in this

479
boldly grouped series of amendments to speak to Amendment No. 195 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
I was incautious enough to make a noise of assent when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, spoke at Second Reading. As a result I find my name on the Marshalled List, without warning that the noble Lord would be abroad and unable to move his amendment. I am very glad that my noble friend Lady Warnock is here to support me, because she is, of course, a main source of Part III of the Bill.
The amendment concerns the legal status of the code of practice to which the Minister referred and how it is intended to operate when it affects the parents, the child and the local authority and others concerned. It is a matter of considerable constitutional importance but it is by no means an academic issue. It concerns the welfare of children with learning difficulties and the rights of their parents.
As the Committee knows well, there are roughly three grades of statutory provision. At the top is the primary legislation, which is contained in this bulky document. In addition there is delegated legislation, which is considerable in the case of this Bill in which there are well over 100 powers to delegate legislation. Massive as is the part which appears above the surface, what is below the surface and as yet unseen is positively titanic. Both those modes of provision give rise to legally binding obligations. The third grade of provision, with which the Committee is concerned this evening, is codes of practice, which do not ordinarily give rise directly to legal obligations. This is exceptional, and that is the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, at Second Reading. In this case the code of practice is quite exceptional in that it gives rise to legal obligation. Perhaps I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is acknowledged as the foremost and most knowledgeable exponent of codes of practice in our constitution.
The oldest and most familiar of the codes of practice is the Highway Code. Like other similar codes of practice it gives advice and guidance but it does not give rise immediately and directly to legal obligation. In that code we are told that when we turn to the right we should signal that we are going to do so, but if we do not signal there is no immediate civil or criminal liability because we have merely been advised to do so. It is certainly a matter which any court, civil or criminal, will take into account, but it is only one matter and failure to observe the code may not give rise to any legal obligation.
Most codes of practice are similar to the Highway Code in that respect. Where this code differs is that it gives rise to an obligation. That is because this part of the Bill provides that local education authorities have not merely to provide facilities and make provision for those who have learning difficulties but are under a very important and crucial obligation to assess where the need arises. From that assessment two rights accrue to the parents. One is a right to appeal to the special educational needs tribunal to which the noble Baroness referred.
480
I see that the noble Earl, Lord Elton, has returned. I fear that I pre-empted his position. However, no doubt he will be allowed to speak when I have finished.
I was saying that the parent who claims to have a child in need of special provision can either appeal to the tribunal or can complain to the Minister, according to the grievance in question. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was kind enough to send me a copy of a long letter that she wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I do not propose to summarise it because she has indicated that she wishes to explain her position on the amendment in due course. However, there is one crucial sentence in that letter which is the nub of the matter. She wrote, rightly, that local education authorities are not bound to follow the code of practice but that if they depart from it they must justify that departure. In other words, it is clear that in that respect the code of practice, in this case differing from the Highway Code and all the other codes, constitutes a prima facie case when it is breached. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, with his vast experience, has put down the amendment.
I know that the Secretary of State has his scheme of reforms. I, for one, have been persuaded by it. I also know that he has been much irritated and frustrated by some local education authorities occasionally not co-operating fully. But that makes it all the more dangerous to give the Secretary of State completely unlimited discretion. Even the awkward squad is entitled to a clear word of command. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
The terms of the amendment are these. Instead of "have regard to"—those words are perfectly suitable in the case of a purely advisory, guiding code of practice—the amendment seeks to substitute the words,
"take into account and implement in so far as is practicable in the circumstances".
That gives a considerable discretion, which is perfectly workable. The words "so far as is practicable in the circumstances" appear in almost every section of the factories legislation and indeed this Bill uses them in a few later clauses.
Lord Renton: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he agree that compared with the words "have regard to" which are in the Bill, the words of the amendment merely make a change of emphasis in the exercise of the discretion?
Lord Elton: I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive my joining the debate a little late and perhaps unsuitably attired. I am, as it were, in a migratory phase during which I had hoped to speak in the debate.
I shall speak briefly under the circumstances. Amendment No. 194 simply adds to the duty to give guidance to local education authorities, as set out in Clause 148, a duty to give that guidance also to others. Amendment No. 193B extends the provision to include a duty to give guidance to various governing bodies. My amendment, for instance, includes the tribunal referred to in Clause 160, the district health

481
authorities referred to in Clause 166 and the independent schools referred to in Clause 178. Those bodies all have a role to play in the sphere overseen by the guidance and they should have copies of it.
Amendment No. 194A addresses a matter that I hope my noble friend will state is to be covered in the guidance. It proposes that the guidelines should lay down time limits for the completion of the various stages leading up to a statement. The provision is badly needed. Noble Lords at Second Reading gave examples of statements which have taken 18 months to two years to deliver during which time the child has missed the boat on education. I shall not give instances at this stage.
Amendments Nos. 195A to 195C propose acceptance of the advice endorsed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am becoming accustomed to being promoted by the noble and learned Lord. At our last meeting he kindly promoted me to chairman of the Select Committee on scrutiny of delegated powers which I blushingly denied and attributed to my noble friend Lord Rippon. He now advances me to the condition of Earl. However, I believe that that is simply because I am overdressed.
The advice given in paragraph 23 of the report of the scrutiny committee was that it would be appropriate at least in the first instance for such important guidelines to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Once they have become established perhaps minor revisions of the orders might be subject to the negative procedure. My noble friend will have something to say on that.
Amendments Nos. 209 and 210, although not within the grouped list, will be subject to the guidance to which we refer. They refer to plans for education otherwise than in schools which may be the subject of the guidance about which my noble friend will speak. My amendments simply seek to require it always to be the aim of a plan of education for a child otherwise than in school, except when it is neither appropriate nor possible, to be returned at the earliest possible opportunity to mainstream education.
My committee on discipline in schools observed the rapid deterioration of children's educational chances when they were taken out of mainstream education, for example, because of the difficulty of providing the full range of the national curriculum for a small number of children in specialist treatment, or for other reasons. We were unanimous then, and I believe that the Committee agrees, that children taken out of school for special education should be returned to such education unless the circumstances set out in Clause 153(3) are not satisfied.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 195ZA which stands in my name. I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I support too what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said about the status of the code.
I shall try to be brief, but as the Committee will understand the amendment has five paragraphs. Originally, five amendments were intended for the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of
482
Alloway, suggested that such provisions should properly be in the code of practice. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am delighted that he has added his name to the amendment.
Paragraph (a) refers to the officer of the authority. He plays a crucial role. He can make or mar the parents' experience of statutory assessment. We believe that one should build on the existing good practice. It would therefore be helpful if the code of practice spelt out the details of that officer's role.
Paragraph (b) refers to information on voluntary organisations. Assessment and statementing is a stressful time for the family. The voluntary organisations can help with advice. They can put the family in touch with other families with children with special educational needs, professional advisers, advocates, or trained volunteer befrienders. The special education consortium is keen on that being in the code of practice to ensure that LEAs appreciate the need for these services, the importance of early referral and that it is desirable to support them to some extent financially. SNAP (the special needs advisory project) in South Wales is a very good example of a befriender scheme which is part funded by an LEA.
Paragraph (c) refers to:
"the manner in which a statement should specify the type and amount of special educational provision".
At present many children have statements. which fail to specify the special educational provision which should be made for them either in terms of the type—for example, teaching, non-teaching or therapeutic—or in terms of the amount: the hours, lessons, sessions per week, month, term etc. The special education consortium has sent copies of statements which include (I shall give just one example) loose wording:
"X will have the support of a helper in the school".
That statement does not provide any protection for the child; it gives no information to the parent and little to the school. Clearly, it is vital that the code should explicitly and unambiguously set out just what is meant by specifying the special educational provision in the statement.
Paragraph (d) deals with parental permission before naming a residential school. Specifying a residential placement for a child without the agreement of the parents runs entirely counter to the spirit and intent of the 1981 Act, and should it come to ensuring that a child attends such a school, would run counter to the provisions of the Children Act. The consortium feels that an LEA should have the written permission of a parent before a residential school is named. Obviously we look to the code of practice to see precisely how the LEA should go about it.
Finally, paragraph (e) refers to,
"the amount of notice to be given to parents … [on] issuing a draft statement, or amending an existing statement".
Every September there are large numbers of children with special needs who are out of school because LEAs have issued their proposals to change their provision or type of school too late in the previous term for parents to appeal. At times the late delivery of the draft statement or a proposal to amend the statement cannot be avoided. Very often the child

483
involved has been known to an authority for years. In a disturbingly large number of cases there is no explanation other than that the short notice given is intended to put parents under pressure to accept the LEA's verdict. The legal right to appeal still exists, but by exercising that right parents can find that their child has no school to attend come the beginning of the new school year or only a school which they believe cannot meet their children's needs. That matter needs to be sorted out. I very much look forward to the Minister's reply, not only on this amendment but on all the others in this group.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elliott of Morpeth): We are dealing at the moment with Amendment No. 193B, which I should now like to put to the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: When I spoke I believe that I said that Amendment No. 193B is grouped with Amendments Nos. 194, 194A, 194B, 195, 195ZA, 195A, 195B, 195C, 196 and 197.
The Earl of Radnor: Having heard that, perhaps I dare, with the leave of the Committee, speak to Amendment No. 196. I promise to take only a very short time. The subject I wished to deal with has already been covered by my noble friend Lord Elton. My point was simply that there should be an obligation upon the Secretary of State to lay this code of practice before both Houses of Parliament. My amendment dealt with that provision simply by changing the permissive "may" into "shall". My noble friend's amendment does the same in a different way; it is slightly more elaborate and, I am quite sure, more efficient. The difference between our two amendments is that he has followed the affirmative line and, by the use of "may", I have allowed what is in the Bill already, which I believe is the negative procedure.
The code of practice is absolutely essential to the whole working of Part III of the Bill. It seems almost unbelievable that the Secretary of State should not be absolutely obliged, by one procedure or the other, to lay the matter before Parliament so that both Houses can scrutinise it, throw it out, have it re-submitted or whatever. It would be quite wrong if that did not take place. Apart from everything else, it is a pity not to recognise the enormous skill that exists both in this Chamber and in another place in matters of education. It would be a pity not to use such skills to best advantage.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I should like to address myself to a few of the amendments contained in this group. I refer first to Amendment No. 195 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. The term "have regard to", although weak, is a conventionally recognised term in law. It implies that local authority procedures have been shaped by the whole code of practice. The term means that LEAs have to show why they are not conforming to the spirit and intention of the code of practice. The phrase,
"take into account and implement in so far as is practicable in the circumstances",
484
is, in my reading, far weaker because it implies that the LEA has the option of piecemeal usage depending on the circumstances of the code. This amendment—I believe the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton—may be posed in terms of realism. I wonder whether it undermines the intention of the code itself.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendments Nos. 195A and 195B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. They address an extremely important clause. LEAs now have one main strategic responsibility left after the Bill; namely, meeting pupils' special educational needs in the widest sense. LEAs are responsible for pupils with learning difficulties, emotional and behavioural difficulties and disabilities and also for pupils who are out of school. A code of practice—there seems to be a consensus in this debate—will therefore not only define how an LEA reviews and implements its special educational needs responsibilities but also to a large extent the shape of the local education authority itself. Additionally, it will define how a local authority will approach its residual education responsibilities in terms of liaison with other departments. A code of practice is therefore much more important than enactment regulations such as the regulations implementing the 1988 Act assessment arrangements. Any new code of practice must therefore be subject to scrutiny by both Houses, especially the House of Lords, which has more time to examine the detail of any such code—although I must say that I feel a little punch drunk after the time that we have spent on it during the past couple of weeks.
Perhaps I may quickly turn to Amendment No. 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton—and I must say that I wondered whether he had been promoted to Doorkeeper when he walked into the Chamber—
Lord Elton: I have been promoted yet again. But Amendment No. 195 is not in my name.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: In that case I shall not say anything about Amendment No. 195 as it applies to the name of the noble Lord, but I was about to say that it is somewhat confusing if read in the context of the whole of Clause 150. The implication could be that the Secretary of State need only issue for consultation a copy of a revised code rather than the original code. But be that as it may.
Most importantly, I wanted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), in Amendment No. 195ZA. It seems to me that many of the voluntary organisations which have an interest in special education spend a large amount of their time filling the information gap which is currently there. These tasks, if the amendment is accepted, can concentrate the efforts of everyone who comes into contact with parents as they struggle to get adequate provision for children with special educational needs. The practical support offered by the voluntary sector will be more fully utilised and the efforts of all concerned are more likely to be successful if statutory and voluntary organisations work together with parents.
That work must begin by parents being fully in the picture about what help and advice are available. The onus is an those agencies which have contact with the

485
family to make sure that parents know of voluntary organisations that might be able to help them. The 1981 Act's injunctions to that effect have not been fully effective. Therefore the Bill must reinforce the order to health authorities, for example, to extend it to local education authorities.
Amendment No. 195ZA seeks to reinforce the 1981 Act's concept of the named person—someone to liaise with parents about their children's education and to ensure that they have a port of call within the local education authority to provide information and help and to negotiate the best outcome and maintain a continuity of provision amid the confusion which many people feel when dealing with their own children with special educational needs. There seems to be a consensus about the general thrust of this group of amendments.
Baroness Warnock: I have lost track of whether it might be appropriate at this point to speak in support of Amendment No. 195, which has attached to it the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Before we hear more about what the code of practice will include, it seems relevant to raise the question of the status of the code with regard to local authorities.
I am in no sense a legal expert. Until this afternoon I had no idea of the status of the highway code. I had always wondered about it. All I knew was that one had to learn it. I took the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, knowing him to be an expert, and therefore assumed that the amendment as it stands in his name strengthened the status of the code of practice rather than weakened it. I simply want to register strong support for anything which strengthens the status of this code, whatever that code may be. We know that whatever is in the code will be of the greatest importance when it comes to work on the ground. I would like to support Amendment No. 195 on the assumption that the legal experts have got the matter right.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 197 which stands in my name. We have spoken about a code of practice. This is something of a chicken and egg situation. Will there be a code of practice and, if so, at what stage shall we have the code of practice? We cannot have the code of practice until we finish the Bill. One is not quite sure at what moment one should have the code of practice.
My amendment seeks to provide that:
"No code or practice under section 149 … shall be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament".
I propose that the code of practice should be subject to the affirmative resolution, which means that the code of practice, before becoming law, comes to this Chamber and, I think I am right in saying, has to be reviewed every year.
Baroness Blatch: As I said at the outset, this code of practice is central to Part III of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will bear with me as I address the detail of the code and then refer to the amendments in particular.
486
The amendments before us relate to the code of practice which the Secretary of State must issue under Clause 149. In addressing the issues raised by the amendments, the Committee may find it helpful if I describe at this stage the legal status, scope and nature of the code. The code, taken together with the regulations made under the Bill and the Bill's primary provisions, will set the framework for special education in the future. The code will be, therefore, an important document.
How we are producing the code and when we expect to issue a draft for consultation are matters that I want to address. I know that this has been of concern to the Committee and that sight of a full draft of the code will be welcomed. But I hope that, when I have finished speaking, there will be an understanding that that is impossible at this stage.
Drafting a code of practice of the kind we have in mind is a major undertaking. It is absolutely vital that we get it right. We have, therefore, commissioned respected expert consultants to help us. Their work is being presented to an advisory group drawn from the local education authorities.
We shall issue a draft code, together with draft regulations, for consultation in the autumn. That consultation, I can assure the Committee, will be full and thorough. All concerned will have every opportunity to make their views known. We shall consider reactions to the draft very carefully indeed. When we have done so, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will lay a final draft before Parliament on present plans in the spring of next year. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
In short, we are benefiting from expert advice in drafting the code and shall seek comments from all concerned when that draft is ready. The code, and the associated regulations, must, if they are to be effective, command the broadest possible consensus. In these matters we regard seeking a consensus as very important.
I turn to the legal status of the code. I stress first of all that the code must be seen in context. It will stand alongside the primary provisions of the Bill and the provisions to be introduced through regulations. Those regulations will deal with such matters as the manner in which the assessments are to be conducted, the advice which authorities should seek, the time in which assessments and statements should be completed (that was another point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton), the form and content of statements (the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), referred to that point) and the review of statements.
Regulations will also prescribe the information to be included in schools' annual reports to parents on their special needs policies. The three elements taken together —the Bill, the regulations and the code—form the new framework for special education.
The code itself will not impose duties. It will offer practical guidance to those bodies to which it applies as to how they should carry out their functions under Part III. It will deal with matters which are not susceptible to hard and fast rules, matters where an element of judgment is always required. It would be

487
neither sensible nor, I think, possible to lay down at the centre strict rules as to how in every case, with no room for manoeuvre, responsible professional people are to proceed when dealing with children with special educational needs. But it is right that, having consulted all those concerned, the Government should offer guidance as to how vitally important procedures can best be carried out to the benefit of parents and children. That is our aim for the code.
That said, the code will have its own special legal status. It will be laid before Parliament and carry parliamentary approval. Moreover and most importantly, those to whom it applies will have a duty to have regard to it. That is no light duty. By law, those who must have regard to the code cannot ignore it. If they do so, they will be in breach of a duty. They do not, however, have to follow the code to the letter and in every particular. But any departure from the code will, if challenged, require justification—to parents in the first instance and then, depending on the circumstances, to the Secretary of State if the matter at issue is the subject of a statutory complaint, or to the new special needs tribunal if the matter at issue is the subject of an appeal. In justifying their actions, those to whom the code applies will have to show that the alternative action they took produced results which were at least as beneficial as those which would have resulted from their following the code. If that is not the case, that authority will be found wanting. So the code will be effective, will promote good practice and will benefit children both when it is followed to the letter and where some alternative approach is found to be preferable in the particular circumstances.
The status of the code in offering guidance is the reason why we thought it right that its approval by Parliament should be subject to the form of negative parliamentary procedure specified in the Bill. That has been standard practice with codes of this kind. Nonetheless, as I have already said, the code is an important document. I have seen the views of the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers. I understand the strength of feeling among Members that the code should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I readily defer to the Select Committee and to that strength of feeling. In doing so, I take the view that, if the code is subject to the affirmative procedure when it is first made it should also be subject to the same affirmative procedure if and when it is subsequently revised. That is the intention of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. The adoption of the affirmative procedure would, of course, mean that the code would always be laid before Parliament before it was issued. Thus, if the Committee is content, I shall take these matters away, have drafted the wording necessary to implement my noble friend's wishes and return it to the House at Report stage.
Now let me say something about the scope of the code—the bodies to which it will apply. I know that, during the passage of the Bill, some anxiety has been expressed that, while the Bill does much to improve the position of those children who already require
488
statements, more could be done for those who have special needs but who do not require statements—the so-called "18 per cent."
The amendments before us in my name, in envisaging the extension of the code of practice to include guidance to schools in exercising their functions under Part III, directly address the question of "the 18 per cent." They should be seen alongside amendments which the Government introduced in another place. Those earlier amendments gave effect to our intention that, henceforth, all maintained and self-governing schools should draw up, publish and report annually to parents on their policies for all their children with special needs—"the 18 per cent." as well as "the 2 per cent."—and that registered inspectors in their four-yearly inspections of schools should look closely at the effectiveness of those policies. The amendments also make it clear that local education authorities are empowered to provide specialist support services to assist school governors in implementing their policies and carrying out their duties towards all pupils with special educational needs.
We shall make regulations which will govern the issues which schools' policies must address. Among those issues will be schools' procedures for identifying, assessing, teaching and monitoring the progress of all children who have special educational needs. Schools' policies will, therefore, be closely related to the code of practice. That code, if the amendments in my name are accepted, will apply to schools and will offer guidance as to how they should identify, assess and help children with special needs, long before any statutory intervention to make assessments or issue statements is necessary.
Those provisions—promoting school special needs policies, empowering LEAs to provide special needs support services and extending the code of practice to cover all children with special needs in all maintained schools—mean that the Bill will represent a most significant advance in provision for all children with special educational needs, not only "the 2 per cent." with statements but also "the 18 per cent." without.
If the amendments in my name are accepted, the code of practice will be addressed to local education authorities and the governing bodies of maintained schools. By virtue of Clause 149(2), as we propose it is amended, LEAs and governing bodies together with those bodies which assist local education authorities in carrying out their functions under Part III—for example, social services departments, district health authorities and the new special needs tribunal—must have regard to the code.
In applying to all those bodies across England and Wales, the code will promote a consistent and coherent approach to the education of children with special needs. The very fact that LEAs will know that the SEN tribunal must have regard to the code when determining appeals will, I believe, serve to improve practice and promote adherence to the code long before the appeal process. The code should, therefore, serve not only to inform the appeal process but also restrain the number of cases going to appeal.

489
I turn now to the guiding principles which will inform the code. Taken together with the primary provisions of the Bill and the regulations, the code should embody the following principles. First, that the needs of all children with special educational needs, those who require statutory assessments and those who do not, those who are of school age and those of pre-school age, should be identified and assessed as early as possible and as quickly as is consistent with thoroughness. Secondly, that provision for all children with special educational needs should be made by the most appropriate agency—in most cases the child's mainstream school—without a statutory assessment but in a small number of cases by the LEA through issuing a statement. Thirdly, that schools should receive clear guidance on the steps they should take to identify, assess and monitor all children with special educational needs. Fourthly, that schools and LEAs should be given clear criteria as to when a statutory assessment may be necessary and when a statement should follow. Those criteria should generate greater objectivity and hence a larger degree of national consistency in the making of assessments and statements.
Fifthly, LEAs should receive clear guidance on the procedures which they should and—where regulations require—must adopt in making assessments. Thus, regulations and the code should: subject LEAs to time limits; promote partnership between LEAs and parents at all stages of the process; promote partnership between LEAs and schools, grant-maintained and LEA-maintained, mainstream and special; promote partnership between LEAs and other statutory agencies; acknowledge the important contribution which voluntary bodies are able to make to the assessment process; and make provision for LEAs to take into account the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, considered in the light of his or her age and understanding.
Sixthly, and finally, the code and regulations should ensure that LEAs are given guidance on the writing of clear, thorough and specific statements and on the naming, in the light of parental preference or representations, of an appropriate school, whether within the maintained, non-maintained or independent sector and whether day or residential.
Those are the principles which we envisage should inform the code. I want to say something now about the contents of the code. In doing so, I shall concentrate on two matters with which I know your Lordships have particular concern: first, the under-fives and, secondly, the identification and assessment of children of school age.
First, then, the under-fives. The code will promote the principle that the early identification of special educational needs and early action to address those needs can be the most effective means of preventing or at least alleviating later difficulties. The code will note that those needs can be addressed in a variety of settings—including the home, a portage scheme, a child development centre, a nursery school or class, a pre-school play group or an opportunity group. The code will stress that, whatever the setting, all staff working with young children should fully understand
490
the procedures to be followed and the range of services available to meet children's special educational needs. I should add that we shall expect schools with provision for the under-fives to have clear policies for identifying, assessing, teaching and monitoring the progress of all children under five who have special educational needs.
Beyond that, I envisage the code embodying the following features. The code will pay particular attention to the role of parents, stressing that their involvement can be of enormous benefit to their children and that schools and LEAs should provide parents with the fullest possible support during the different stages of the assessment process. Many parents, particularly those with younger children, find the identification and assessment of special educational needs to be frightening and confusing. Those parents themselves need information, advice and support, delivered in a sensitive and supportive manner, from both statutory and voluntary agencies. Therefore, I expect the code to refer to the particular advantages of portage and other parent-support schemes, including those provided through the voluntary sector.
The code will stress the importance of close liaison and full exchange of information between all the agencies concerned—local authorities, district health authorities, social services departments and voluntary agencies.
The code will also contain guidance on the assessment of children under five, stressing the importance of reports from the child's teacher, playgroup leader or day care provider; the involvement of child health services; the need to give parents full information about the range of services available to them, including relevant voluntary agencies; and the need to ensure that assessment is always conducted in a supportive manner, with proper regard to the sensibilities of the child and his parents.
The code will set out guidance on the content of statutory statements for children under five, stressing the need for clear objectives, accurately specified provision, but a necessary degree of flexibility to account for the rapid development of children of this age—and the need, therefore, for regular reviews of the statements. At the same time, the code will offer guidance on the contents of statements for children under two, which are not statutory and will be rare, but when made should be carefully considered, conform to the standards of statutory statements and should, in particular, specify the educational provision to be made for the child.
In summary, the code will recognise the importance of effective and early action to meet the special needs of children under five. It will promote good practice among all concerned and it will recognise the vital roles that parents can play in helping their children and that statutory and voluntary agencies can play in helping parents.
I turn now to the identification of children of school age who have special educational needs. It is essential, if the code is to be effective, if children's special needs are to be identified and met early, and if there is not to be an inordinate and unnecessary demand for

491
statutory assessments and statements, that the code should recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, recognised in her seminal report some 15 years ago, that there is a continuum of special needs. I know that to be a point that the noble Baroness has emphasised since the introduction of the 1981 Act. It is essential therefore that the code should cover the identification and assessment of the 18 per cent. (those children who have special needs but who do not require a statement) as well as the 2 per cent. (those whose special needs are best met through a statement). It follows that the code should ensure that responsibility for identifying and meeting needs is properly assigned—to schools for the great majority of pupils with special needs, and to local authorities where their intervention is necessary. The amendments in my name will ensure that these objectives are met.
The report of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, envisaged a five-stage assessment model. That model has been widely influential and adopted in various forms by many local education authorities across the country. I envisage that the code of practice will adopt and as necessary, given the passage of time, adapt a staged assessment model along the lines of that originally proposed by the noble Baroness. In doing so it will stress that, before the local authority intervenes, schools should have made every effort to meet the special needs of the pupil concerned. It will recognise the continuum of special educational needs and emphasise partnership between schools and LEAs within that continuum, rather than a sharp division between pupils with and without statements. At stage one the child's teacher and the head teacher should consult together and thenceforth monitor the child's progress closely. At stage two the school's special needs co-ordinator should be involved and specific programmes with clear objectives should be set. At stage three outside professional help should be obtained even though responsibility for the child remains with the school. At all of these initial stages parents should be kept fully informed and be closely involved in helping their child and monitoring his or her progress. At the same time, clear evidence of the child's performance should be recorded in a form which will be useful later if a statutory assessment is needed. The emphasis will be on meeting the child's needs in the school. There should be no assumption that the child should move through these stages. Indeed, quite the contrary: the assumption should be that action taken by the school, with outside help as appropriate, will be the most effective way and that LEA intervention will be unnecessary.
Nonetheless, in a small minority of cases the local authority will need to intervene. The code will offer guidance to schools and LEAs as to when such action will be necessary. The governing criterion is likely to be that a statement will be required when the child clearly needs provision additional to that which the school can provide, having demonstrated with clear supporting evidence that it has used its best
492
endeavours on behalf of the child and followed the code of practice through the initial stages. We are now at stages four and five.
The criteria governing the making of assessments and the issuing of statements will therefore emerge naturally from the provisions of the code for identifying children's special needs within the school. Our aim is to ensure that early action is taken to help children with special needs and that there is a greater degree of objectivity and reduced scope for conflict at the point at which statutory assessments or statements are necessary. The code of practice to be issued under this Bill will promote consistency in practice while allowing for a diversity of forms of provision. It will improve procedures both in itself and by virtue of being the document to which the tribunal must have regard in determining appeals. It will serve as a guide to parents, as to what they can expect of schools, local authorities and other agencies. It will thereby enhance accountability. Taken together with the regulations and the Bill itself, it promises a new, commonly understood and accepted framework for provision for all children with special educational needs.
My amendments, Amendments Nos. 193B and 194B, make it clear that the code will apply to maintained and grant-maintained schools and special schools and that those schools, and any bodies assisting local authorities or those schools in the performance of their functions under Part III, and the tribunal must have regard to the code. I hope I have explained why I regard these amendments as essential if the code is to be an effective document and is to be of benefit to pupils without statements as well as to those who require statements.
Amendment No. 194, in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton, is designed to extend the scope of the code. I venture to suggest that the amendments in my name will fully deliver what my noble friend seeks. Amendment No. 194A, again in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton, calls for the code to offer guidance on time limits for the conduct of assessments and the making and implementation of statements. I believe I have said enough to satisfy my noble friend in that regard.
Amendment No. 195ZA, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Baroness, Lady David (to whom I am sure we all wish to send our sympathy on this occasion and whose absence from her seat is wholly excusable), will oblige my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to issue in the code of practice guidance on a number of matters. I hope that what I have already said will assure all noble Lords and Baronesses that the code will address precisely the kind of issues that they have in mind. It will cover procedures to be adopted by local authorities; the role of voluntary organisations; the content of statements; and the naming of a school. However, I have to say that there is no provision for parental permission for naming a residential school and that the name of an appropriate school should be, as far as possible, agreed between the parents and the local authority; in other words, there is no question of forcing residential provision on parents. In dealing with the naming of a school, whether in the first

493
instance or by amendment, the code will contain guidance to the effect that, as far as is practicable, the timing of changes should not be such that children are out of school for any substantial length of time. I hope therefore that the noble Baronesses will accept my assurances and agree that it would not be appropriate for an amendment of this nature—which after all offers only a most selective list of the topics to be addressed by the code—to appear on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 195, in the names of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway (who is also not in his seat), the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, seeks to alter the legal status of the code. I hope I have explained that the code will offer guidance as to how LEAs and others are to carry out their functions under Part III. It must be read together with the primary provisions of the Bill and the provisions of regulations. Those primary provisions and regulations will impose duties. Those to whom they apply will be obliged to implement the provisions. But the code will not impose duties. This amendment is not therefore appropriate for a code of the kind we envisage. Nonetheless, as a result of the combination of the primary provisions of the Bill, the regulations made thereunder and the code of practice, I believe that this legislation will deliver what the noble Lords want and that the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 195A and 195B in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton seek to ensure that, when first made, the code will be laid before Parliament and its approval will be subject to the affirmative procedure. My noble friend Baroness Faithfull went further and said that not only should it be subject to the affirmative procedure at the outset, but that that should be the position subsequently. I have conceded that point and will bring forward an amendment at Report stage.
I thank the Committee for its indulgence. This is a crucial part of the Bill. The code of practice lies at the heart of our provisions to meet the needs of children with special needs. I commend the amendments in my name to the Committee. I hope that in the light of all I have said noble Lords will agree to withdraw their amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: I have the next amendment on the Marshalled List. First, I am entirely satisfied by what the Minister has put forward on the three issues that I addressed. Secondly, I hope that in the absence of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, somebody will say what a splendid collection of amendments this is and how this part of the Bill fully meets the very worthwhile Private Member's Bill that he put forward and withdrew. I think that his withdrawal has borne great fruit. Thirdly, although sometimes I feel that my noble friend gives us every syllable that we need, on this occasion I believe that we need every syllable that she has uttered for the introduction of a new and fundamentally important policy.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I too should like to thank the Minister for her very full reply to the debate. Perhaps she can tell us whether the advisory group on the code of practice will include teachers, parents and governors.
Baroness Blatch: It would be injudicious of me to give a spot answer as to the precise composition of the group. But I will write to the noble Lord and will make my reply available in the Library.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has rightly preceded me this time as he is entitled to both by the position of his amendment in the Marshalled List and by the state of glory in which he has appeared, making most of us feel rather shabby. I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for her very full reply. It will require careful study. But I am bound to say that the noble Baroness did not answer either the legal and constitutional point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, or the point made by my noble friend Lady Warnock; namely, that the change of wording emphasises the importance and increases the power of the code of practice.
Both those issues are interconnected. In the end, it comes to this. In this context—I emphasise that in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said—the words "have regard to" can mean anything, and words that can mean anything mean nothing. You can "have regard to" the code of practice if you glance at it before throwing it into the waste paper basket. The trouble is—I come back to the constitutional point—that it is then up to the Secretary of State, on a complaint, to say, "I am not satisfied that you had proper regard to the code of practice". And no one can say him nay.
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. His interpretation is not quite right. Where, for example, a local authority with abandon disregarded the code of practice, if a parent was satisfied with the placement, that would be an end to it. But if a parent was not satisfied with that he or she would have, first, informal opportunities to complain. However, the complaint would be dealt with at a local level by the tribunal. It would be the tribunal that would make a judgment as to whether the local authority had proper regard for the code of practice or whether the provision it had offered, having disregarded the code of practice, was effective or less effective as a result of its actions.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am afraid that that will not do. There are two quite separate procedures. One is to appeal to the tribunal, and the other is to complain to the Secretary of State. It was the latter that I was dealing with at this stage. The local education authority has no power once the matter has gone to the tribunal or gone to the Secretary of State. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, explained to the noble Baroness, the process of judicial review is not available.
Although I am bound to say that the noble Baroness has not answered those two points, it seems

495
to me better that the matter should be left to be considered on Report when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will be here.
The Earl of Radnor: I shall not move Amendment No. 196 in view of the concession made. I thank my noble friend for such a useful answer.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank the Minister for her full and satisfactory reply to Amendment No. 195ZA.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 194 and 194A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 194B:
Page 90, line 42, leave out from ("of") to end of line 43 and insert:
("( ) local education authorities, and such governing bodies, exercising functions under this Part of this Act,
( ) any other person exercising any function for the purpose of the discharge by local education authorities, and such governing bodies, of functions under this Part of this Act, and
( ) the Special Educational Needs Tribunal").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 195 and 195ZA not moved.]
Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 195A not moved.]
Clause 150 [Making and approval of code]:
[Amendments Nos. 195B to 197 not moved.]
Clause 150 agreed to.
Clause 151 [Review of arrangements]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 91, line 21, after ("shall") insert ("from time to time determine the extent of the special educational needs of the children in their area and shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may also say a few words to Amendments Nos. 198, 199 and 206ZA which are grouped with it. We see the amendment as particularly important. It places on local education authorities a specific duty to audit the extent of special educational needs of children in all schools, including LEA and grant-maintained schools. We would submit that is essential for planning.
I am sure the Minister will argue that there are enough information-gathering powers already in the Bill. For that reason, I have been taking a look at the provisions within the Bill as they affect such information gathering. I see that in Clauses 144 and 153 there is a requirement that every school should publish its special needs policy in its annual report. But there is no requirement on the school to send the annual report to the local education authority. Similarly, the Secretary of State will also require governors to publish this information; but, again, there is no requirement on the LEA to gather such published information.
Clause 146(4) of the Bill requires the governing body to make any reports or returns to the LEA as the authority may require for the purpose of the exercise of those functions. But this is a general function not specific to special educational needs. Clause 18(3) of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to exercise his
496
powers to gather information on children with special educational needs. But that is not a requirement on the LEA to gather information.
I suggest that all this makes it abundantly plain that there is no clear requirement on the LEA to initiate an audit of special educational needs. It is true that many authorities have certainly produced excellent review documents. The DFE has outlined in a number of circulars—DES Circular 11/90 and DES 7/91 are examples—components and matters to which a review should refer. However, too often reviews are patchy and do not pick up gaps in educational provision. Indeed in some authorities, reviews are only reviews of the workings of existing provision and ignore, for example, as the Audit Commission pointed out, the needs of girls with emotional behavioural difficulties.
There are many other areas of needs which are often ignored. These include support for pupils with special educational needs in nursery education, including the need for assessment nurseries; additional provision for pupils with severe learning difficulties who have emotional behavioural difficulties; health authority provision, including physiotherapy and speech therapy; educational psychologists and special education support staff who are heritage language speakers; and Welsh language special education support teachers.
The most obvious gap in provision, which has been addressed by the Coopers & Lybrand report, commissioned by the National Union of Teachers and the Spastics Society, entitled Within Reach, is access for pupils with physical disabilities. That report found very few authorities had initiated access audits for pupils with physical and sensory disabilities. Little research existed on the accessibility either of primary schools or secondary schools. The conclusion of that report was that meeting the needs of pupils with physical disabilities was not particularly high with the exception of start-up costs for premises conversion and transitional staffing costs. In speaking to this amendment I emphasise the question as to why two independent organisations should have found it necessary to conduct the research which should surely have been available before the Government formulated their legislation.
There is another important reason for this kind of audit. A number of authorities, including Kent, have initiated a special needs audit for allocating their non-age weighted pupil unit money to pupils with special educational needs without statements. From all accounts, it is working well and teachers are satisfied with the process, if not with the cash amounts which come after the auditing takes place. The importance of this auditing procedure is that it allows schools systematically to review the needs of their pupils.
This amendment simply puts into logical form the consequences of the requirement on the LEA to review its provision and to deliver it properly. What the amendment does not do is to destroy the partnership between the LEA and the schools in its area, whether they are grant-maintained or LEA maintained schools. It should start a reasonable dialogue between schools and the LEA about how

497
best and most efficiently special education provision can be delivered. In fact, it will place no extra work on schools since all the amendment will do is to require schools to put in standard form the information which they will have gathered for their annual report special education policies.
Very briefly, a word on Amendments Nos. 198 and 199, which I believe will be in order. The reluctance of the Government to acknowledge the obvious conclusion of their policy—that the sole strategic responsibility left to LEAs is provision for pupils with special educational needs in the wider sense—has left a planning confusion at the heart of the Bill. One example of that planning confusion is probably enough. If an LEA decided to close a school for pupils with physical disabilities and set up a resource-based unit at a grant-maintained school in its area, and an order had been made for the LEA area either under Section 10(1) (a) or 10(1) (b) and the funding agency objected, which body would have the say in the final planning decision?
Some might argue—we obviously have not pressed it or formulated it—that what is really needed after Clause 151 is perhaps a new amendment saying something like, "the funding agency shall have regard to the review responsibilities of a local education authority where an order has been made under Section 10(1) (a) or 10(1) (b)".
Perhaps I may also say a word on Amendment No. 206ZA. Existing Clause 153(4) outlines a new duty,
"for each county, voluntary, maintained special or grant-maintained school shall include a report containing such information … about … the governing body's policy for pupils with special educational needs … [in the schools] 'annual report'".
This report covers both the provision for statemented pupils and non-statemented pupils. LEAs are able directly to inspect their own schools to ensure educational quality and to see whether the LMS budget is being spent properly. They can match the school's annual reports, and what they say, with what, in reality, is going on in relation to special needs. However, LEAs have no way of seeing whether the annual reports on special needs from grant-maintained schools are actually a true reflection of provision. Yet I would argue that local education authorities would have to know the appropriateness of the grant-maintained school placement of a child with a statement; and whether the initiation of a statement from a grant-maintained school actually reflects the true circumstances surrounding the need for a statement. It is essential that the LEAs are able to inspect grant-maintained schools so that they can plan statemented provision properly.
For all those reasons I believe that, taking into account everything that has been said already in the debate today, this would be a very good overview provision which would ensure that there is a sound, strategic approach based on good, comprehensive information available to all those carrying responsibility and involved in making and carrying out the necessary policies. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I support Amendment No. 197A and I shall speak very briefly to Amendments Nos. 198 and 199. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for everything she has said about the code of practice. We have advanced a long way as a result of the details which we have heard. I feel particularly grateful for that. Nevertheless, I still feel grave anxiety about the concept of strategic planning. I tabled Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 in order to clear up this matter. When I speak about planning I am also speaking about finance because it is impossible for a local education authority to know how to make provision for the children with special needs in its area unless it also knows quite clearly what is going on in the grant-maintained schools.
I was in discussion yesterday with the director of education for Shropshire. He showed me a letter that he had written to the DFE asking for clarification as regards his position, supposing that a grant-maintained school, or one that was to become grant-maintained, had a unit for the provision—I believe it was for deaf children in this particular case, but it was for some specific disability. He wanted to clear his position as regards the numbers in that unit and therefore what other provision he might need to make for that particular category or kind of child.
He was told by the Department for Education that if an LEA-maintained school has a unit and then becomes grant-maintained, the unit is then part of the grant-maintained school. That is perfectly understandable. The LEA can then play no direct part in any future decisions to change the number of places at the unit or to close it. Such decisions would either be for the Secretary of State or for the funding agency, depending on the proportion of GM schools in the area.
That seems to highlight the difficulties for an LEA in making any plans for future provision for children with special needs if it is the case, as the department seems to think, that once a school becomes grant-maintained it would have full control over all the children, even if they had special needs and even if they were statemented, provided that they were in a grant-maintained school.
I find it very difficult to understand that as compatible with a number of other things which we have been told about the retaining of responsibility for children with special needs by the local education authority. I shall be grateful if the Minister can explain how a local authority is to plan if it is true that it has absolutely no say whatever in whether a unit is, let us say, closed in a grant-maintained school.
Lord Addington: I shall speak briefly to all the amendments in this group, and in particular, to Amendment No. 206ZA which appears in my name. All these amendments have one common theme running through them; namely. that they try to involve the local education authorities in the provision of special educational needs which they were initially given the duty to do under the 1981 Act and which has been reaffirmed in Clause 151. Thus it is very important that we try to introduce some coherence

499
into the picture because, as the noble Baroness said, local authorities must have some say over what happens if they are to have that responsibility. That follows on.
Amendment No. 206ZA, standing in my name, is probably the long-stop position of this group of amendments in that it is probably more moderate and less direct in saying what the powers of the local authority shall be. I must admit that I should prefer some of the earlier amendments to be accepted rather than this, but I hope that the Government will see it as a compromise. Basically, it states that, focusing on the SEN provisions made by grant-maintained schools, the proposed new arrangements should provide for LEAs to address the difficulty, through the schools inspectors, without bringing in the Secretary of State or his officials. The amendment merely provides a more moderate method, and I hope that it will be considered.
Lord Renton: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will forgive me if I do not follow him on Amendment No. 206ZA, which I am sure my noble friend Lady Blatch will deal with. I hope to set the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, at rest by showing that her amendments are not necessary. I wish to speak primarily, however, to the first of this group of amendments, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I refer to Amendment No. 197A. Clause 151 reads:
"A local … authority shall keep under review the arrangements made by them for special educational provision".
The words "keep under review" impose a very definite and wide obligation. I do not see how a local education authority can keep such arrangements under review without doing what Amendment No. 197A suggests, which is,
"from time to time determine the extent of the special educational needs … in their area".
It seems to me therefore that Amendment No. 197A adds nothing. It does not add to the meaning or the effect of Clause 151.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. This is not a theoretical observation; it is based on reality. We have seen reviews produced by some local education authorities and it is clear that what is understood by "a review" can vary very much from one authority to another. I beg to submit that "review" is not a definite and specific term or injunction, as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may respectfully beg to differ. If local education authorities are not to fail substantially to keep the matter "under review"—and it has to be done in the light of the other clauses in this part of the Bill—they are bound to determine the extent of special educational needs in their area. They cannot make a review without doing so. I suggest that our Bills are long enough without unnecessarily introducing words which add nothing of value to their meaning or effect. I hope that I am not being vulgar if I say that this is over-egging a very big pudding.
Baroness Warnock: I am afraid that there is still some confusion. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, quoted Clause 151 as though my Amendment No. 199 had already been accepted because he spoke about arrangements "in their area". In fact, the words in the clause are,
"the arrangements made by them".
That was why I introduced my second amendment, Amendment No. 199. I was anxious to explore which arrangements we are talking about—whether it was the arrangements made by the local authority for local authority schools or arrangements made for the whole area, including grant-maintained schools. This is a terribly important point. I find it interesting that the noble Lord misquoted the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I owe an apology to the noble Baroness for not mentioning her amendment, as I was intending to do. As I said, she wants to add the words "review" and "and shall plan", but a local authority cannot observe the various provisions which follow Clause 151 without planning. Frankly, it adds nothing to say that they shall plan because they must plan all the time. They cannot avoid planning. Therefore, with great respect, to add the words "and shall plan" when dealing with the question of a review adds nothing.
Perhaps I should also point out, with deep respect, that Amendment No. 199 overlaps with Amendment No. 197A. Local authorities are very jealous as to areas. I cannot imagine that one local authority would start to review circumstances in another local authority's area without causing a good deal of friction. I suggest that we can take it that a local authority will review the circumstances in the area for which it is responsible, and not those in areas for which it is not.
Baroness Warnock: I am sorry to go on a bit, but I think that there is a certain confusion. I am not proposing that local authorities may start planning for areas other than their own. My fear is, on the contrary, that they will be unable to plan for the area that is their own because they will find that they may not go into schools to carry out inspections or audits if those schools are grant maintained although, geographically, they are still within the area for which the local authority is the responsible authority. That is my fear.
Baroness Faithfull: I wonder whether I can get something clear from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. What do we actually mean when we talk about "plan"? Do we mean that a local authority must ensure that within its area all the necessary facilities are available for all the different types of children who need special educational provision? Do they have a role for planning to review the whole situation? Supposing that a local authority finds several mothers with, for instance, mongol children or dyslexic children and there are no facilities in the area for such children, whose business is it to see that those facilities are available within that area? Is it the local authority's

501
business to see that, to "plan" and then to "review"? I think that we are slightly confused, and I should like to be put straight on the matter.
Baroness Blatch: The straight answer is that it would be the responsibility of the local authority to see that there was provision to meet the needs of mongol children or of children with whatever special difficulties. It would be the local authority which would have the procurement powers to make sure that the appropriate provision was made available to those children.
Baroness Warnock: How is that compatible with the judgment of the Department for Education that a local authority will have no say in the question of whether a special unit in a grant-maintained school might be closed or enlarged? I cannot see how that is compatible with planning in the sense that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was talking about "planning", which was my sense of "planning" also.
Lord Swinfen: I agree with the need referred to in this group of amendments, but I am worried that Amendment No. 199, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, might be somewhat limiting in that it limits local authorities to the planning of the facilities "in their area". In my view if there is a single child with a special need where that special need is being catered for in a neighbouring authority's area, an authority should be able to use that neighbouring authority's facilities rather than setting up its own. I have a feeling that this amendment might force authorities to set up their own facilities, which in some ways would be rather ridiculous.
Baroness Warnock: If that were a consequence of this amendment I would want it reworded so that undoubtedly a neighbouring area, or even an area miles away, could be used if it was more suitable. I do not take any particular stock over the wording of this amendment.
Baroness Seear: I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, what he meant on one point. I think he said that "review" included "plan"; that there is no need to add "plan". But surely "review" simply means that you make a map of what is there. Surely that is a review. In terms of the English language when you have made your map you have "reviewed". That word does not imply that you then make a plan, does it?
Lord Renton: If the noble Baroness would look at Clause 151 she would see:
"A local education authority shall keep under review the arrangements made by them".
Arrangements and plans are synonymous. If the noble Baroness looks at the subsequent clauses and all the obligations placed upon local authorities with regard to providing for those with special educational needs, she will see that they could not possibly carry out these things without making plans or arrangements.
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether it would help if I set out what I believe to be the case? I believe that
502
there is some confusion as to what is in a word. Professor Joad comes to the fore with, "It all depends what you mean by …".
Baroness Seear: I think that the noble Baroness meant—
Baroness Blatch: I said Professor Joad, not Professor Judd.
Baroness Seear: I think that the noble Baroness meant Humpty-Dumpty, "It means what you want it to mean".
Baroness Blatch: No, I did not, but there is certainly some confusion around the Committee and I thought it might help if I intervened at this moment.
This Bill gives local education authorities, school governors and the FAS clear responsibilities towards pupils with special educational needs. Those responsibilities do not exist in isolation and apart from each other: they form constituent and complementary parts of a coherent system of special educational provision.
I seek to reassure the Committee that we fully share the general concern that the Bill's provisions and subsequent action by all parties should protect and indeed enhance provision for children with special educational needs in any one area and more generally. It is right that LEAs should have significant responsibilities in this respect. But, however beguiling it may sound, it is not right that they should have sole responsibility, nor an overall strategic role. Our policy is that self-governing schools should contribute as fully as possible to the provision for children with special needs in an area and that, where appropriate, the FAS should also play a role. Our objective is, of course, that their joint efforts should improve the provision of special educational needs in the area as a whole.
There are three key points at which the provision of special needs services in an area need to be properly considered between an LEA and, as appropriate, the FAS and individual schools in the grant-maintained sector. They are the acquisition of GM status by an LEA-maintained school; the establishment of a new GM school; and when an existing self-governing school wishes to change its character.
Clauses 45 and 46 and Schedule 3 govern, respectively, the establishment of a new GM school by the FAS, the establishment of a new GM school by a promoter and the acquisition of GM status by a school maintained by the LEA. Schedule 3 says that the proposal for GM status for a school's governing body must describe the provision to be made at the school for pupils with special educational needs. Clauses 45 and 46 require the FAS and promoters to consult appropriately and to have regard to guidance which the Secretary of State will issue when making proposals for the establishment of a GM school. Clauses 91 and 92 govern the procedures when the FAS or governors of a grant-maintained school wish to apply for a change in the school's character. Those clauses also require the FAS or governors to consult and to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State before publishing relevant proposals.

503
I wish to give an assurance today to the Committee about the guidance which the Secretary of State will issue. That guidance will specify that before publishing proposals to change the character of a grant-maintained school the governing body or the FAS should consult the LEA over any alteration in the provision of special educational needs that the change would entail. Similarly, guidance will state that before publishing proposals to establish a grant-maintained school the FAS or the promoter should consult the LEA over the special educational provision the school proposes to make for its pupils with special educational needs. The FAS will of course already be under the duty in paragraph 3(2) (b) of Schedule 2 to have regard to the need for securing that special educational provision is made for pupils with special educational needs; and all school governors remain under their duty in Clause 153 to use their best endeavours to secure special educational provision for their pupils.
We have already debated the provisions of the Bill underpinning the collaboration through the exchange of information between the parties—the FAS, LEAs and GM schools—particularly in Clauses 6, 18 and 146. The code of practice will guide schools on the identification of their pupils with special needs. Governors and teachers should therefore know the numbers of pupils with special needs and the type of need in their schools. But—and this is important—should the authority require that information to carry out its functions, it has the powers to request that information under the 1986 Act in the case of LEA maintained schools and under Clause 146 in the case of a GM school. Furthermore, the FAS and the LEA are required to provide each other with information or conduct such research as may be necessary for the other body to carry out its functions.
There is no cause for concern that one party will act in ignorance of what the other is doing in fulfilling their duties in providing for school places for pupils with special needs; or that any information that might be needed by either party in respect of special educational provision cannot be obtained. I therefore suggest that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is not necessary and that the Committee should reject it.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 204 and 205. We are all agreed about the need to ensure that schools play their part and that school governors must be more accountable in respect of their pupils with special needs. However, I think that the amendments before us are simply not appropriate. I believe our policies will achieve the objectives we all seek.
Clause 153 requires school governors to "use their best endeavours" to secure that special educational provision is made; to ensure that teachers are aware of the importance of identifying and providing for pupils with special needs; and, subject to reasonable conditions, to ensure that the child is included in all school activities alongside other children. That is a powerful duty. It means that governors must do everything that they possibly can to secure the provision. It falls short of the amendments before us
504
only in that under the present duty, if governors simply cannot secure the provision, then they are not in breach of a duty if they do not secure it. But of course the LEA has the function to be concerned about provision for the individual child.
If we accepted these amendments, governors would be in breach of their duty to secure provision for pupils with special needs even where the responsibility for that provision might lie elsewhere; as in the case of pupils with statements, for example. Furthermore, the duty in Clause 153 must be considered in the context of the new accountability of governors arising from the code of practice and from the requirement that governors formulate, publish and report on their school's policies towards all their pupils with special needs.
I suggest that the new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would be misplaced in the context of this new accountability. We have had a fruitful debate on the code of practice. Your Lordships have agreed that the code should cover the school's role towards pupils with special needs. Governors would then take the code's guidance into account when drawing up their school's policies. Schools will be inspected on a four-yearly basis by independent—not LEA—inspectors who will scrutinise the effectiveness of the implementation of their special needs policies.
The noble Baroness posed a question about a unit in school. She was right when she sought advice from the department as to whether a unit of a school going grant-maintained would, if it was a part of the school when it was an LEA-maintained school, remain part of the school as a grant-maintained school. If we are talking about a unit for children with those sorts of special needs, we are mostly talking about children with statements, and what the LEA has responsibility for is the statementing process. If the LEA, for one reason or another, believes it is inappropriate that a child should be placed in a unit in the school then it has control over addressing the particular needs of individual children. Part III of the Bill ensures that the child's interests are paramount. I believe that the provisions under the Bill are realistic. While putting demanding but sensible duties and responsibilities on governors, they also provide for guidance and accountability in exercising those duties.
The amendment would put all of the eggs in the local authority basket. I believe that what we have is a coherent, cohesive framework for dealing with children with special needs, and I ask that the amendment be rejected.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the Minister for the full way in which she has replied to the points raised. The question that we have to face is whether we see the local authority's role as a kind of academic commentary upon the situation in its area or as one of real responsibility in respect of planning and provision. That is what causes our anxiety.
I greatly respect the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I always take his interventions seriously. I listened to him. I ask him to look again at the wording. There is

505
a difference in emphasis and role between determining the extent of the special educational needs and periodically reviewing a situation. We know that some local authorities have taken their review function, as it stands so far, seriously, bringing in highly professional consultants and producing detailed reports. There was the famous Fish Report on the inner London provision and the Galloway Report on Tower Hamlets. They are good examples, but we know that there are other examples of where local authorities have produced just two or three sides of paper and have said that they have reviewed the situation.
I noticed that during her full and helpful reply the Minister said that the Government did not believe that they should have sole responsibility. That is the repeated problem with the Bill. We see a situation developing in which the LEA has residual moral and other responsibilities but without the power. That is not a tenable or acceptable situation. The amendments are just another dimension of the confusion that is arising. For a government who seem to want to be seen as clear-cut and straightforward and to determine issues without equivocation, going straight to the heart of the matter, I find that they apply a different reality to the local political situation. This is just another example of all that. But having said all that, the position is repeated over and over again in the Bill, and so there would not be much point in pursuing this matter to a Division tonight. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 198 to 199 not moved.]
Clause 151 agreed to.
7.34 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

National Lottery etc. Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Treaty on Open Skies (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1993
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to extend certain privileges and immunities set out in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to men and women carrying out observation flights over the United Kingdom under the Treaty on Open Skies.
The collapse of the Iron Curtain has brought remarkable progress in building security and
506
confidence between East and West in Europe, and in particular in lessening the risk of surprise attack. Your Lordships will recall that that has been given substance in the CFE (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) Treaty which is deeply reducing holdings of major conventional weapons systems, the CFEIA Concluding Act which caps military personnel strengths and the 1992 Vienna Document with its basket of confidence and security building measures.
President Eisenhower put forward the notion of an agreement under which states would be able to fly over one another's territories and collect information on their military capabilities and activities as long ago as the 1955 Geneva Summit. It has been the thaw in the cold war however which has seen the idea bear fruit since President Bush renewed the proposal in May 1989.
The Treaty on Open Skies was negotiated by NATO member states and the countries of the former Warsaw Pact and signed on 24th March 1992 in Helsinki between the 16 allies, the five former East European members of the Warsaw Pact and Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia. Kirgizstan has since become the 26th signatory.
Open skies will enter into force 60 days after at least 20 of the states parties have ratified. The United Kingdom, along with the United States, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Ukraine and Turkey, must ratify before the treaty can come into effect. Any of the other Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Republics which have not yet joined the treaty can do so at any time. Once the treaty is in force further applications may be considered: for the first six months by any other Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) state and thereafter by other states irrespective of geographical location, if they are able and willing to contribute to the objectives of open skies. Such applications will require the consent of existing states parties to the treaty.
The treaty will provide a tool which will enhance ability to monitor compliance with and thereby further the objectives of current and future arms control regimes. Open skies may also prove a valuable resource in crisis monitoring and conflict prevention. Open skies therefore both complements and supplements existing arms control agreements. It picks up the threads of military transparency, of openness and of trust with which they are knitted and extends them. The open skies will not be bounded by the Atlantic and Urals but will take in the northern hemisphere from Vancouver to Vladivostock.
The essence of the treaty is confidence and security. Hence its detailed provisions are rigorous yet balanced and equitable. The articles dealing with observation aircraft, flight quotas, conduct of flights, sensors and data exchange are crafted accordingly.
Under the treaty each party has the right to designate one or more aircraft types for use as observation aircraft. To ensure that they comply with the requirements of the treaty and that the sensors carried are those agreed, all such aircraft must first undergo a strict certification examination. An observed state has the right to provide its own choice

507
of designated aircraft for a flight over its territory. However, if the observed state chooses to exercise that right, the observing country is able to ensure full compliance with the treaty and proper functioning of the sensors through the presence on board of its own observers.
Every state party to the treaty has agreed a figure, known as its "passive inspection quota", which indicates how many observation flights it commits itself to receive each year. In common with France, Germany and Italy we have agreed to receive up to 12 flights a year from the end of the 36 month "phase in" period. Prior to that parties will receive 75 per cent. of their quota—a maximum of nine flights in the case of the United Kingdom.
Each country's entitlement to conduct observation flights, known as its "active inspection quota", is in principle equal to its passive quota. In other words, each state party can choose how many of its permitted flights it actually uses.
Clearly a key factor in the effectiveness of the open skies treaty in promoting confidence is the ability to conduct observation flights at short notice. Hence only 72 hours' notice of intent to conduct a flight is required. The element of unpredictability is further enhanced by limiting advance warning of the route of the flight to as little as 24 hours.
A particularly significant feature of open skies is that it extends to the entire territory of all states parties. The only restriction to that is that observation flights will not be permitted to approach closer than 10 kilometres to borders with states that are not themselves parties to the treaty. Furthermore, states parties may not restrict observation flights on grounds of national security but only for legitimate flight safety reasons. At all times open skies flights will enjoy precedence over normal air traffic.
Four types of sensors are permitted by the treaty; these are optical and video cameras, infra red line scanners and synthetic aperture radar. The aim is that it should be possible to detect military activity in all weathers, both in daylight and darkness, and to distinguish a tank from a tractor. The data produced, contained on film negatives and magnetic tape, will be shared by the observing and observed states and made available to all other states parties, irrespective of their participation in the mission, upon payment to the observing state. The Open Skies Consultative Commission, which consists of all the signatories and is based in Vienna, is currently working on outstanding technical issues and will, after open skies comes into force, seek to resolve any issues that may arise from its implementation.
The order before your Lordships will enable the United Kingdom to give effect in domestic law to the requirements of the open skies treaty that flight crew, flight monitors and ancillary military personnel engaged on missions are granted certain diplomatic privileges and immunities. It is being made under Section 1(2) of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1988.
The Treaty on Open Skies is another step along the path of trust, confidence and transparency that leads to a more secure future for us all. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Baroness for that very clear exposition. It is not always that I have the good fortune to follow a Government Minister finding myself in complete agreement both with what the Government are seeking to do and with their reasons for doing it.
What the order seeks to achieve falls within an extremely narrow compass. Indeed, the Government would have been very remiss had they not sought to achieve it. I hope that I may add my support for the reasons expounded by the noble Baroness for the Government seeking to facilitate the implementation of the open skies treaty.
On these Benches we welcome the treaty for a number of reasons. First, perhaps I may be permitted a note of self-satisfaction because we in the Labour movement have called for something of this kind from the early 1980s when we repeatedly argued for the need for more confidence-building measures. Some of us can trace back our individual credentials even further. Speaking personally, I cannot go back to the period recalled by the noble Baroness —I do not suppose that she can personally—to the 1950s when this idea was suggested by President Eisenhower, but I can claim to have supported it, wearing my federalist hat, since the mid-1960s.
Therefore, this is a lesson in persistence. We make a proposal when no one wants to know. We are dismissed with the comment that it is all Utopian and that we are not living in the real world. We continue to argue the case when we are thought to be tiresome. We press home the arguments for the unfashionable idea as successive events provide object lessons. And then, one day it happens. Of course, it is tempting to point out that some of those who now take it for granted are relatively late converts. That does not matter. The prophets may have been stoned but their prophecies have been fulfilled. We must now press on with the next unfashionable crusade.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive that excursion into self-indulgence. The second and less narrow reason for welcoming the treaty is that it is a concrete, recognisable product of the CSCE process. Your Lordships may remember—indeed, the noble Baroness recalled it—that one of the major objects of the Helsinki agreement which gave rise to the CSCE process was to initiate a series of confidence-building measures; that is, measures intended to break through the barrier of mutual mistrust between what were then the Eastern and Western blocs. The purpose of that was that it had become obvious that the reason for the arms race was not that either side had anything to fear—no one wanted a war—but that neither side could be sure that if it disarmed, the other side would not seek to take treacherous advantage of that situation.

509
Neither side wanted to adopt a threatening stance but neither side could have confidence in the good faith of the other.
What was needed was a series of measures by each side, the very purpose of which was to increase the confidence of the other in its good intentions. If there were other commendable by-products, so much the better. However, the aim was to reverse the deadly cycle of each side increasing its armaments simply because it mistrusted the other; and in the process giving the other side reason in its turn for mistrust and, therefore, causing the other side to behave in exactly the same way, further feeding the cycle of mistrust.
Those mutual confidence-building measures have progressed a long way since that first concept. They now embrace that wide spectrum of mutual co-operation in enhancing civilisation which is now comprised in the CSCE process. But still a very important factor is to ensure that the world does not again descend into the cycle of mistrust which itself leads to the giving of further grounds for mistrust.
If it is said that the open skies regime may not prove to be a very effective method of inspection, let it be clear that its major purpose is as a symbol that each state wishes to believe in the good faith of its neighbours and to demonstrate its own good faith. It is to write the word Mizpah across the textbooks of international relations.
It would be silly to claim that the open skies regime is a substitute for a comprehensive verification regime such as that envisaged, as the noble Baroness reminded us, by the CSCE agreement and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It does not make any less urgent the need for the existing nuclear powers to renounce further testing before the non-nuclear powers become tired of waiting and, one after another, develop their own nuclear weapons until the world becomes one big nuclear explosion waiting to happen.
It may be hoped that one benefit deriving from the chemical weapons convention will be to demonstrate the feasibility of global monitoring. But that is not to diminish the importance of what is happening. Perhaps I may just express a note of caution and say that one needs to recognise the possible danger. If, with the treaty open for signatures and ratification there is a substantial number of powers seen to be dragging their feet then, far from building confidence, it may serve instead to engender suspicion.
Therefore can the noble Baroness tell us—I do not think she mentioned this; but if she did I missed it—how many countries are currently signatories to the treaty and how Her Majesty's Government are encouraging others to speed up the signatory process? Although the noble Baroness very helpfully expounded on the timetable for ratifications, I wonder whether it is known when the requisite number of ratifications will have been achieved. Perhaps she can also indicate whether there are any proposals to extend a similar regime to other regions. Is there perhaps a prospect of interesting China in a similar process?
The noble Baroness referred to other matters, such as crisis management, which might be subject to a
510
similar process. Is there any thinking of extending the open skies principle to other areas of activity—for example, pollution control? I should say at once that I have not given the noble Baroness notice of the last two questions. I shall therefore fully understand if she is not in a position to answer them tonight. But, perhaps at some stage we could be given the answers. Further, now that the international community has accepted the breakthrough and the sky has not fallen in on the world of international diplomacy, have the Government any plans to maintain the momentum?
We on this side of the House support the noble Baroness tonight without reservation. We look forward to further initiatives which we can support no less warmly.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for his very warm welcome to the order. I very much appreciate the fact that he gave me prior notice of some of his questions. It was exceedingly good of him to do so because I know how very busy he is at present. This is the first time we have faced each other across the Dispatch Box. Let us hope that in future life will remain as felicitous.
The noble and learned Lord asked first how many countries had signed the Treaty on Open Skies. There are 27 signatories to date. Does the noble and learned Lord wish me to recite the names?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In order not to weary the House, I would be content to receive a letter regarding the list.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall be delighted. I am also delighted not to have to pronounce all the names. Of the 27 countries, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Hungary and the Slovak Republic have ratified the treaty as of now. As regards the plans for ratification of the treaty, the passing of the order, and corresponding orders for the Dependent Territories, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, is essential for the UK to be able to ratify the treaty. The Dependent Territories order is due in the Privy Council in May. We expect the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to table their legislation as a matter of high priority.
The treaty comes into force when a minimum of 20 states ratify. They must include all the big players—that is, the UK, the USA, Russia, Ukraine, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey and Canada. The United Kingdom has no control over the speed of the ratification process in other countries, but it is to be hoped that the treaty will be in force by the end of this year.
At present, the only states able to join the treaty that have not done so are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The Open Skies Consultative Commission which represents all the existing signatories has recently written to those governments encouraging them to do so. Likewise, the United Kingdom has encouraged those states to sign the treaty in our bilateral contacts with them. In the

511
longer term, we would welcome applications from any state that demonstrates the ability and willingness to meet the objectives of the treaty in furthering trust and building confidence.
The United Kingdom has been encouraging those members of the 53-nation Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) that are not currently entitled to sign the treaty to consider applying to do so as soon as it enters into force. The Helsinki CSCE follow-up meeting in July 1992 set up a forum for security co-operation in Vienna, the FSC, and identified 14 areas in the field of arms control, confidence and security building and security enhancement in a programme for immediate action. The FSC convened in September 1992 and continues its mandated work. The target for completion is the 1994 Budapest CSCE summit.
I turn now to the control of pollution to which the noble and learned Lord referred. The use of the treaty for environmental monitoring is one future possibility recognised in the treaty. I am not sure, but I believe that he also asked about China as a passing comment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, yes I did.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, China is not currently eligible to join because it is not a NATO or a former Warsaw Pact member—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I trust that the noble Baroness will forgive my further interruption. I asked whether there was any thinking about extending it to other regions and, as an example, suggested China. I am aware that, at present, China cannot join.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we do not know anything about the intentions of the Chinese once the treaty is in force. But it is up to states outside the various bodies to apply. We can do no more than look at their applications. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.58 to 8.30 p.m.]

Education Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 199ZA:
After Clause 151, insert the following new clause:
("Access audits for children with special educational needs
—(I) A local education authority shall from time to time determine the accessibility to schools for children who have a disability which either prevents or hinders them from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided for children in schools within the area of the local education authority.
(2) A local education authority shall keep under review the arrangements made for school premises to be made accessible to children requiring special educational provision within the area of the local education authority.
512
(3) The Secretary of State shall issue, and may from time to time revise, guidance to local education authorities on the level of resources which he considers necessary to educate children who have special educational needs in a school which is not a special school and to make school premises accessible to children requiring special educational provision within the area of the local education authority.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 199A, 200, 201 and 203. During the debate at the Committee stage in another place, when considering research into special educational needs, there was detailed discussion on the report entitled, Within Reach: Access for Disabled Children to Mainstream Education. That report was jointly commissioned from Coopers & Lybrand by the Spastics Society and the National Union of Teachers. As a result, the Government—I wish to put this matter on record as we appreciate the Government's action—accepted an amendment to the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to secure in particular information and research relating to the provision of education for children with special educational needs.
The Within Reach report concludes that once start-up costs have been met, costs of progressing integration are not particularly high. A crucial recommendation by Coopers & Lybrand in the report was the strong recommendation that,
"the Government encourage and support research into resolving the uncertainties and supplying the missing information. Without coherent data collection and a standardised approach to quantifying existing per capita expenditure on pupils with different levels of special need in both special and mainstream schools, then the extent of existing progress towards the greater integration aim of the 1981 Act cannot be assessed, let alone the cost of progressing further".
That was stated in a report of Coopers & Lybrand.
Our contention is that the requirement for information and access audits of schools is essential to fulfil the Government's own policy of improving integration. During the course of its research, Coopers & Lybrand discovered that LEAs only held the original plans of each school in their area. The Department for Education had no idea, it seems, of the number, size, number of floors and age profile of schools in England and Wales. Therefore, the National Union of Teachers and the Spastics Society commissioned further research.
The report Within Reach is the first ever attempt to investigate the national costs of making schools accessible to pupils with limited mobility. More than 2,500 schools responded to a questionnaire distributed by the NUT to primary and secondary schools in England and Wales. From their replies Coopers & Lybrand found that unconverted Victorian and Edwardian multi-floor buildings were the most common barriers to access. The research was undertaken by Coopers & Lybrand to assist both the Government and local education authorities in obtaining a clearer idea of the resources which will be required to implement their policies for fuller integration of pupils with special needs in mainstream schools.
In accordance with the findings of the first report, the schools' survey, recommendations include a call for government to take action to produce targeted

513
plans to ensure that schools are brought up to the accessibility standards detailed in the Within Reach report. The new clause we are putting forward calls for local education authorities to undertake access audits for children with special educational needs. The LEAs should keep under review arrangements to make schools accessible to facilitate progressive integration of pupils with special educational needs into mainstream education. It is crucial that the Secretary of State takes a national view in support of the Government's own policy for fuller integration. National guidance should be issued. There is no excuse for not providing equal educational opportunities for pupils with disabilities.
I have spoken so far on Amendment No. 199ZA. I shall now say a few words on Amendment No. 199A. There is little doubt that the tentative moves in this country towards integration over the past decade are now threatened by new market forces in the education scene. In addition, increased pressures on mainstream schools have in many cases prompted a less tolerant approach by teachers and heads towards the inclusion of those pupils with disabilities or learning difficulties. At the same time the importance of educating all children together has not lessened. The social and human rights reasons underpinning integration remain as strong as they have ever been. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: This group of amendments brings us to the subject of integration. There are several question marks over this subject. Amendment No. 199ZA is a sensible amendment as it suggests access audits to determine what the needs are. My name is added to Amendment No. 201. I believe the gremlins have got into the Marshalled List as I do not believe that my name should have been added to the amendment. When we are considering integration we have to be careful to ensure that individual needs are met. There has been a movement to integrate everyone with special needs into mainstream education as the only way forward. I believe that cannot be right as pupils with special educational needs have many different types of problem.
It is absurd, however, to exclude someone from a school simply because he is in a wheelchair. Ramps should be provided. However, it is questionable whether someone who is badly dyslexic and who has not received the same level of tuition as his peers should be forced to enter a mainstream school. That pupil may feel that he is a failure. We discussed this matter earlier. Such a pupil may have an emotional reaction to such integration. Any child who suffers from a perception learning problem may feel isolated from his fellows and from the learning process in a mainstream school.
I hope the Committee will bear in mind that there are no absolute rules in this matter. There is no blanket rule for everyone. We should not permit any attack on special schools as there will always be certain pupils who require special schools. As teaching techniques develop and staff receive more training in this area, the role of special schools may diminish. If special units are attached to mainstream schools, a very small percentage of pupils may attend special schools. Nevertheless, there will always be a role for
514
specialist teaching in special schools. This group of amendments concerns the concept of how far we should take integration. We must always remember that individual needs must be the bottom line of any consideration of this subject.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I welcome the debate on integration. It is essential that we move forward on this matter, although we debated integration on an earlier bunch of amendments. The 1981 Act made integration possible but there was no compulsion to integrate. However, the danger at present is that we might be going backwards with the so-called parental veto on Clause 152(1). At present I am in correspondence with the Minister as I am seeking clarification of the Government's intentions. I hope that I shall eventually obtain a positive response. However, I was quite worried about what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said on Clause 152(1) when she spoke much earlier on a large and disparate group of amendments.
I hope very much that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Henley, if he deals with that clause, will agree to meet me and discuss the matter outside the Chamber as it is extremely complicated. I should be grateful for that assurance.
I shall also speak to Amendment No. 201 in my name, which gives the smallest possible nudge towards integration possible. However, I shall speak first to Amendment No. 199A. I shall be as brief as I can, but I have kept quiet all evening because I knew that I would take a little time on this subject.
Amendment No. 199A provides the strongest commitment to integration. It has a great deal to recommend it because it includes a commitment, and without such a commitment I do not believe that we shall make much progress. It refers to planning. That is crucial. I have seen in Hounslow how successful a calm, carefully planned but committed move towards integration can be. I spoke to pupils there who all said how beneficial it had been for them and that the education had stretched them immensely.
The reference to a "compelling" reason provides a let-out so that when an individual child needs a limited period of special provision that can be provided but there is still a commitment to integration.
On the question of integration, I was very struck by the experience of a mother with a disability, who was very much a survivor rather than a beneficiary of the special school system, who came to talk to the All-Party Disablement Group. Her daughter has a similar genetic inherited disability and goes to a mainstream school. The mother told us how deep the segregation had been in her case. She would travel to and from the special school in her special transport, never mixing with able-bodied peers. She lived a parallel existence in a parallel world. That struck me very forcibly.
The lady who is the joint co-ordinator of Parents in Partnership provided another very good description of the position. She said:
"Friendship and a feeling of belonging are as important to a disabled child/young person as it is to an able-bodied youngster. Community is part of life, and they deserve to be part of the whole… When you segregate. you effectively segregate the whole family, you segregate the disabled child

515
from their peers, and the rest of the family from the extended family of connections which naturally occur through mainstream education".
The child with a special need needs the model of the "ordinary" child. The latter learns very much from his contemporary with a special need. If they can grow up and laugh and play and fight together they have a far better chance of understanding and co-existing happily than if they are suddenly thrust face to face in uneasy integration into a harsh, competitive adult world.
I shall now move on swiftly and speak briefly to Amendment No. 201. Before doing so I should like to say that I support Amendment No. 203 in the names of my noble friend Lady Warnock and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. It relates to children with statements in special schools. I wonder whether the Government are now collecting figures relating to children without statements in special schools. Figures used to be collected and published, but that stopped. I believe that the figures are again to be published and I should be interested to know whether that is the case.
Amendment No. 201 would ensure that LEAs had regard to the potential benefits which provision for a statemented child might bring to other persons when considering the efficient use of resources. That does not mean only other pupils. It includes teachers, governors and visitors with disability, particularly now that schools are used out of school hours for other activities.
I should like to give an example which has been provided by IPSEA. Perhaps I should declare that I am a director of IPSEA. The example is the case of Lawrence. Lawrence was refused a place in an ordinary secondary school because his LEA claimed that adapting the school to permit him access would not represent "an efficient use of resources". Lawrence is physically disabled and relies on calipers and a wheelchair for mobility. The main adaptation needed to the school was the installation of a stair lift. Lawrence and his mother visited the school, after his refusal, and discovered that there was another boy in a wheelchair already on the school roll. That boy, Ben, was being taught some of the time on his own, in the footwell at the bottom of a staircase. On occasions, Lawrence's mother was told, other students would physically lift Ben up and down stairs. Clearly any adaptations made to admit Lawrence would have brought immediate and equivalent benefit to Ben, in strict accounting terms thus doubling the efficiency of the expenditure on a stair lift. That was an example of another child who was already at the school, not even a potential future pupil, who would benefit.
Therefore, I hope that I shall receive an encouraging reply in respect of this very modest amendment. It is important. If I do not receive a satisfactory reply I may return to the matter at a later stage, although I shall not move this amendment at this stage because it forms part of a huge group of amendments.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 203 in my name. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent a child who has neither been assessed nor issued with a statement being placed in a special school unless that school is a hospital school.
The Secretary of State would expect that children in special schools would normally be afforded the protection of a statement. However, it is clear that some LEAs are ignoring that advice. That was highlighted in a recent study by the Centre for Studies on Integration in Education. There are a number of concerns about children placed in a special school without a statement.
Without a statement a child's case is not reviewed, whereas if the child is statemented its case must be reviewed from time to time. Equally, the child's case must be monitored. Some children remain in residential schools when they have so improved that they could return to their homes and ordinary school. Without monitoring they might not return home. We feel that it is very important that it should be clearly understood that every child who is placed in a special school should be statemented.
Baroness Warnock: I very strongly support that amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said in introducing this group of amendments that there is evidence of head teachers being reluctant to accept into schools children whose needs do not easily fit into the existing pattern of school life, I wonder whether he could comment on whether that is a matter of resources rather than of other difficulties. It is my experience that heads are very open to the needs of children who require special assistance, whether of a physical kind or in the form of additional teaching. However, there is the usual problem of juggling resources and taking a decision when a school's budget is being set as to which of a number of competing priorities will win the day.
Lord Judd: It is perfectly proper that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised that question. There are many dedicated head teachers with a great sense of social commitment who would move heaven and earth to accommodate such people. Unfortunately, they are not everywhere. It is partly a problem of resources but it is also partly another problem of pressure concerning performance, leagues and all the rest, which I do not think we should go into now, although that is a very relevant issue.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 200 which is in my name. The amendment seeks to differentiate between mentally handicapped children and all other children with special educational needs. It seeks to exonerate them from the presumption in favour of educating them in a school for normal children which seems to exist in Clause 152.
My authority, such as it is, for moving the amendment is, first, that I am the father of a 12 year-old girl who suffers from Down's syndrome and,

517
secondly, that I recently chaired the Special Education Needs sub-committee of the Teacher Education Committee of the Council for National Academic Awards. In that latter capacity I entered the world of the academic special education needs specialists. I have to say that I found it rather crowded with people who hold lots of well-meaning theories about children with one kind of handicap or another but who were rather short on personal experience in the field upon which they pontificated and upon which they often wielded very great influence.
By "personal experience" I mean actually suffering from a handicap themselves or caring for a relative who did. I was surprised, for instance, to discover that no other member of the sub-committee which I chaired had a mentally handicapped close relative or indeed a close relative with any form of what most of us would regard as a special education need. I was further surprised to learn that the more enthusiastic of the SEN enthusiasts, of which my committee seem to be entirely composed, believed that nearly all children should be regarded as having a special education need at some time in their education. I suppose that this may have been a simple empire-building exercise; but it opened my eyes to the breadth of the possible meaning of the expression, "special education needs".
Be that as it may, nowhere was the lack of real experience to which I have referred more obvious than in the case of the experts dealing with mental handicap. One measure of the depth of this ignorance is that these are largely the sort of people who have decreed that the term "mental handicap" is now somehow unkind or inappropriate. They have instead invented the expression "people with learning disabilities" and woe betide anyone who dares not to use it.
It is of course true that mentally handicapped children and adults suffer from learning disabilities. But their condition goes far wider and deeper than that, and to pretend that it does not by sticking a cosy label on them helps no one or anything except, I suppose, the consciences or perhaps the subconscious of the experts in question.
I must emphasise that I am seeking to exclude only mentally handicapped, statemented children from ordinary schools unless of course their parents actually want them to go there and unless the school in question can really provide the unique care that mentally handicapped children need at school.
I do understand what the Bill and the other amendments which refer to special education needs are trying to do for all other categories of special education needs children, and I am not sufficiently expert in these other areas to comment on them. I confess that I fear there may be an element of wishful thinking even in the attempt to force the pace of integration into ordinary schools of children with other categories of special education need. I suppose I fear this because normal children can be quite cruel and in the present indisciplined state of many of our schools I worry that the disadvantaged will be subject to considerable bullying and unkindness when no one in authority is looking.
518
But the Bill itself, together with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David—to whom, together with my noble friend the Minister I wish to add my condolences—and by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, my noble friend Lady Faithfull, and others, all amount to an honourable attempt to integrate the physically handicapped, the dyslexic, those suffering from violent or unusually difficult home backgrounds and others into our normal schools. But most of the children in those categories can keep up with the lessons for normal children, at least mentally. Indeed, they often outshine normal children academically. And, what is more, they can answer the other children back if they are unkindly teased. In short, they can largely hold their own in the playground and they do not hold the other children back in the classroom. We cannot say that of the mentally handicapped.
Having criticised the Bill and the other amendments to it in this category for not seeing that mental handicap should be treated differently from other kinds of special education needs, I hope that it will be helpful if I say where I believe the emphasis should be laid for mentally handicapped children. I am in no doubt at all that many, if not most of them, are at their happiest in a good special school or a sheltered community type of school, one of which my own daughter is lucky enough to attend.
I mention this also because our well intentioned community care policy (for which I appreciate that the Minister is in no way responsible) is beginning to work against such schools. I suppose that this was to be expected because our community care policy is the elder sister of the philosophy which I am criticising here. My own view of our community care policy is that it is fundamentally flawed because there actually is not much of a community where we are forcing the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped to go, and even where there is, I am afraid that it does not care as much as the authors of the policy hoped it might. One result of these two attractive but naive sisters working in tandem is that local authorities are beginning to refuse to fund mentally handicapped children at least in special non-maintained schools, using such irrelevant excuses as that the schools in question do not stick closely enough to the national curriculum.
I suspect that this sort of attitude is also strengthened by the Government's very regrettable and misinformed decision to leave sheltered and village communities off the list of provision which local authorities are encouraged to support.
I know that my noble friend cannot answer for much of this latter point, criticising our community care policy, and indeed I made the point personally to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health only yesterday. But our Departments of Health, Social Security, and Education, and our local education authorities are inevitably intertwined in our policies for the mentally handicapped. I trust therefore that the Committee will not think that I have strayed too far from the specific purposes of the Bill. I am merely trying to show how good intentions towards the mentally handicapped can pave the way to a very

519
private hell which only those particularly unfortunate people must travel. I very much hope that the Committee will not force our mentally handicapped children down that road, and that the Committee will therefore feel able to support the amendment.
Lord Glenamara: Perhaps I may—
Baroness Cox: My name is linked with that of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on the amendment. I should like to follow him, since it follows logically, in support of what he said. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say how much I agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his contribution.
I speak not as a parent of a mentally handicapped child but as a nurse who has had the privilege of caring for many people who are profoundly handicapped. I have also had the privilege of being a patron of Restcare, an organisation established by and for parents with profoundly handicapped children.
Like my noble friend Lord Pearson I make no apology for using the term "mentally handicapped" although I know that it is not at the moment the professionally correct terminology. I do so because the parents of the families in which there are profoundly mentally handicapped children have told me that they prefer that title because it does not confuse the issue. I therefore use that terminology out of deference to their wishes and their concerns.
Of course I respect the principles and policies underlying the theme of integration. I recognise that for many young people integration has been a very good thing. I also recognise that when the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) speaks about schools for children with special education needs in an earlier era, perhaps much was left to be desired. We have made much progress both in mainstream education in providing for those children and in the schools which still cater for them.
I have two worries about the Bill as presently drafted. That is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I am worried about the presumption in favour of integration: the presumption that integration is the most appropriate policy for all children with special educational needs. In this amendment our concern is especially for the mentally handicapped.
I am worried that the clause that we are discussing puts an onus on parents to make a special case for their children to be treated specially. They have to make the case for them not to go into mainstream education. Many parents have been subjected to enormous pressure from professional advisers and local education authorities to send their children to mainstream schools. Some of them have succumbed to that pressure against their better instincts and deep knowledge of their own children. Over and above that, it must surely be obvious to anyone that while integration may suit many children with a mental handicap—and I rejoice for them—for others it can be a recipe for unhappiness. Day after day, week after week, month after month they are brought up against the agonising reality that they do not learn as quickly
520
as other children. They are brought up against the agonising reality that no matter how much people try to integrate them, they are different. They are disadvantaged. They are in a situation of real unhappiness and isolation.
In the past couple of days I happened to mention this amendment to a teacher in a secondary school in the North of England. The school had a special regional unit for pupils with special educational needs. He described how a pupil with mental handicap had been put in a mainstream class. Because the teacher could not cope, the pupil was repeatedly sent outside the classroom. My friend described how he would find that pupil sitting alone in the library, unhappy and demoralised. That is isolation, not integration, in the concept of mainstream education.
I was speaking to another person who is chairman of governors at a primary school. He described in vivid terms how six of the pupils in that primary school who are all mentally handicapped are subjected to quite frequent bullying. I do not say that that happens everywhere. There are many places in mainstream education—and I respect them wholeheartedly—where pupils with mental handicap are integrated, and they flourish. There are many examples of good practice. But the examples I have given are not atypical; and they are real. The law is there to protect against bad practice. It is there to promote good practice, but it must protect primarily against bad practice. Over and above that, there is the inherent problem that many children with mental handicap may be far happier in a more sheltered and more specialised environment where they are enabled and encouraged to realise their potential with the protection that a special school can afford.
I should like to emphasise that I believe that parents know best. The Government are committed to parental choice. I believe that we should offer a genuine, open, unbiased choice without this preconception, this presumption, that integration is always best and should always be chosen unless there are real reasons against it. I am in favour of integration where appropriate, but I do not think that it should be the main presumption. While it is the main presumption it has repercussions in terms of policies—of promoting funding policies favouring integration against special provision. It also puts great pressures on parents who already have to suffer the tragedy of having a mentally handicapped child. My support for the amendment is based on a belief that the choice for those parents should be open. It should not be prejudiced at the beginning in favour of a presumption that they ought to send their children into mainstream education. That is why I would like the amendment to be supported. It does not build in that presumption and that pressure.
9 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: Earlier in the day I said that I would raise again the question of parental choice. I wish to put a view which is rather different from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I do not believe that the presumption she talked about is a reality in most local authority areas.

521
I have a friend whose daughter has a son with Down's syndrome. I believe that Down's syndrome is one of the saddest disabilities of all. The little boy is four-and-a-half years of age. At present he attends a mainstream nursery school. His parents have avoided the statement process which would be his only passport to assistance, because the only provision would have meant a long daily ride to school in a bus. His parents, like many parents throughout the United Kingdom, I have discovered, want the right of choice between a mainstream school or a special school.
I believe, and I speak as somebody who started life as a teacher, that the educational needs of a child with learning difficulties can be met in any school, provided that the local authority supplies the resources. In the school of which the noble Baroness spoke, the resources were obviously not provided.
Baroness Cox: I did say that one of the schools to which I referred had a special regional unit for pupils with special educational needs, and that was still occurring. So resources were not the issue.
Lord Glenamara: In the case of the boy sitting in the library I am sure that the resources were not provided. Only local authorities have the power to allocate such resources and the power to decide which school a special needs child shall attend. Therefore, parents have no right of choice of school. A child may be sent to a school which they believe to be not at all suitable. That is happening.
The National Down's Syndrome Association finds that its members often have to fight for years against the local authority to find a mainstream placement. I agree that some parents do not want a mainstream placement. Some want a special school. All I am saying is that the choice ought to be there. Most parents do not want their children to mix only with children suffering from the same disability. Those of us who have been teachers know that children often learn far more from each other than they do from their teachers. But if all the children suffer from Down's syndrome they will not learn very much from each other. In the case of that disability, it is a disaster for their speech and development.
Unfortunately, there is nothing at all in Part III of the Bill which will help. There are new appeal tribunals, which I welcome. They are long overdue. There is a right for parents to state a preference for a school, and I welcome that. However, the local authority does not have to grant that preference. More importantly, parents will have no option but to choose a school where the resources have been provided by the local authority. The Bill strengthens the hand of local authorities and their special schools.
I repeat the point I made earlier. Parents are newly granted an absolute right to have their child sent to a special school. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will reply, but if he reads the clause he will discover that if English words mean anything they carry that meaning. However, there is no corresponding right for a mainstream placement.
The local authority's duty to arrange for a mainstream place continues to be subject to three provisos which are set out in Clause 152(2) (a), (b) and
522
(c); namely, that the child's needs can be met there, that the placement will not affect the efficient education of other children, and that it will be an efficient use of resources to send the child there.
With regard to the last of those provisos, while the local authorities continue to pour resources into special schools, it can never be, in the strict sense, financially efficient to integrate in any one child's case. The other two points, (a) and (b), are inevitably interpreted subjectively by the local authority.
Finally, I point out that, alarmingly, new plans come into force next year to hand over financial management to all special schools. The LMS funding formula is based on the number of places available rather than the number of pupils. LEAs are obliged to pay for a fixed number of places. They will therefore have a financial incentive, to say the least, to fill those places. So the situation will get worse. It will become ossified, with the special schools filling the centre of the stage.
I should like to make it absolutely clear that I am not opposed to special schools. At present I am the president of a college that trains disabled people. I followed the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in the post. She knows very well the college to which I refer. I am very proud of it and I am proud of many special schools. However, the fact remains that for the past few years those involved in education have been trying to persuade parents that integration is the right thing and that is the way to treat their children. They have accepted our point of view. All they want is a choice.
I have deliberately not tabled an amendment on this point but I hope that the noble Baroness—I am sorry that she is not in the Chamber—will think about the matter and before Report stage come up with some measure to help those parents. I am quite prepared to put forward an amendment at that stage but I would much rather that the Government brought forward an amendment to deal with the point.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to ask the Minister a question about Amendment No. 203 with regard to statements. If a statement will benefit a child, why do some children have statements and other children do not? Is it because the local authorities are overloaded and not able to cope? I should like an answer from the Minister as it is very difficult to make legislation when one is not sure why some children are without statements.
I go along with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. I believe that choice is needed. Some children do not thrive in a school and if they are unhappy perhaps they should go to a school where they do thrive. I believe that choice gives satisfaction.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend answers that question, perhaps I could pick up on three points made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. He said that he was speaking in the light of his experience of the four year-old son of a friend. I must suggest that that is rather different to dealing with a member of his own family whom he may not know so well.

523
Secondly, he made it clear that he was speaking for the Down's Syndrome Parents' Association, or that he supported to some extent the views that it was putting forward. Most of the members of the Down's Syndrome Parents' Association favour a normal placement for their children, but they are by no means the majority. I should be very surprised if they comprised even half the number of parents who have a Down's Syndrome child. When one allies that pressure to the pressure that he admitted comes from educationists toward mainstream education for their children, noble Lords will understand the kind of pressure that a parent comes under in order to put his or her child in a mainstream school. That is exactly the pressure that my wife and I suffered in facing that dilemma. I am extremely glad to say that we were mature enough and able to avoid it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I shall be very brief. I was very moved by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. He was absolutely right to say—though not in these exact words—that there is no substitute for direct experience. He can speak from his personal experience, as some of us cannot. Whatever happens in this or any other Bill, I hope that that will not be forgotten.
This Government and previous governments, urged by a number of noble Lords, have made some kind of provision for consultation. They have put on to various bodies and committees people with, if I may use the expression, second-hand experience—the noble Lord at least will know what I mean by that—so that we get as much benefit as we can from that kind of contribution.
I also hope that the Minister will take very careful note—I am sure that he will—of what his noble friend said in his speech regarding mental handicap. Something more than has been done must be done in that field.
I was also pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and my noble friend Lord Glenamara brought up the question of choice. I was one of those who succumbed to the original enthusiasm about integration. Obviously there is much to be said for it, and there is no question about that, but right from the beginning I had certain doubts in my mind because one of the most enjoyable experiences I had as an education officer was to visit our special schools—the warm welcome one received, the things that were said and what one observed. What was particularly noticeable, and this applies to every school, was the enthusiasm of head teachers and teachers in such schools. That is not realised except perhaps by those who have direct experience of them.
I therefore hope that the Government will take some notice of the question of choice. I add only one comment. What a parent decides is not necessarily the best choice for the child. In practice it will mean that parents will at least listen to advice from specialists within the educational service, regardless of the type of school. I make that plea, that the Government place more emphasis on that.
I wish to say only two or three brief words in regard to Amendment No. I 99ZA, moved by my noble friend
524
Lord Judd. It is astonishing that in 1993 Parliament is debating the content of this amendment. I recall, as does my noble friend, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act from our honourable friend Alf Morris in 1970. That was 23 years ago. More recently we had the Act on disability by our honourable friend Tom Clarke. It is astonishing that, after all this time, in education of all fields, an amendment of this kind has to be tabled.
The first worry is that it has to be tabled at all. The second is, why? There are at least two answers, which have perhaps been dealt with. My noble friend said, quite properly, that on the whole headmasters would like to have all the facilities if they can get them. But sometimes they do not think about them—they have so much on their minds and it may not be possible.
The Government might also say that these things are not cheap. That must be considered. Perhaps the Minister will say—and one can understand it—that it is up to the local authority or indeed the head teacher to decide the priorities. I believe one speaker has already said that. That is perfectly understandable. But we say that the time has arrived to change that situation and in those circumstances I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I should like to address some comments to Amendment No. 199A in the name of my noble friend Lady David. Before I do so, I will convey to her the sympathies which many Peers have expressed, along with my own.
This has been an extremely interesting and principal debate on the degree of integration. Amendment No. 199A goes perhaps further towards integration than all the other amendments. Perhaps I can quickly mention some figures which show that we are likely to be moving backwards in the integration of children with disabilities into our schools.
Progress with integration since 1983 has been slow. For example, between 1988 and 1991 there was only a 3 per cent. drop in the level of pupils segregated across all English LEAs. When the primary school population was analysed separately it was found that there was a 2 per cent. rise in the placement of that age group in special schools over the same period. That rise is possibly explained by the impact of primary school testing under the national curriculum, which takes up a point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Judd. Mainstream primary schools across the country may be getting rid of their more difficult pupils because they threaten the academic record and ambitions of the school in a rapidly changing market place.
The amendment seeks to place a stronger integration duty on schools. There is a wide variation in the proportion of pupils placed in special schools by different local education authorities. The patchiness of the provision has been found by an Open University report which was found to range between 0.5 per cent. in Barnsley up to about 3 per cent. in Lambeth, Kensington and Chelsea and Hackney.
There have been some emotive terms bandied around in the press in regard to this subject: phrases

525
such as "apartheid", which we heard also this evening; "disability cleansing", which is an even more emotive term, and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), spoke to Amendment No. 2O1, which is perhaps more acceptable among the pressure groups which make up this special education consortium. The purpose of that amendment is to ensure that in considering the efficient use of resources account is taken of the benefits to other users of school premises arising from changes made for an individual child. It seems to me that that is the consensus of the interest groups in special educational provision.
The debate has veered between the extreme as put forward in Amendment No. 199A and the views as articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who spoke against the presumption that is generally favoured on both sides of the Chamber.
I refer briefly to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. The amendment is a curious one. The 1981 Act requirement that a child with special educational needs should be educated in a mainstream school unless there are overriding conditions is lifted for a child registered under the Mental Health Act. The force of the amendment appears to be that a child registered under that Act will automatically be educated in a special school unless the parents wish otherwise. I wonder whether the mover is seeking a reversal of the 1981 Act policy. If so, I believe that it goes against the whole thrust of cross-party consensus, which is a preference for integration.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes me to answer that point at this stage. To be honest, I am not sufficiently familiar with the 1981 Act to know exactly what it does in this area. I merely wish to remove the qualified duty to secure the education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools when those children are mentally handicapped. I am quite happy to leave the rest as it is. I do not want there to be a presumption either way; I want it to be for parents, their advisers and so on to make the decision case by case, child by child. If there is a presumption against what I say in the 1981 Act then I certainly oppose it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I thank the noble Lord for his clarification. I believe there is a great deal of consensus on the point that parents should have a choice. I see that the noble Lord opposite is nodding. I do not wish to argue particularly in favour of the different degrees of the amendments. I totally agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the primary concern must be with the individual child, but I also believe that we should bear in mind the possible insulation of able-bodied children from children with disabilities and the benefits and broadening of the minds of able-bodied children if they were to be educated alongside children with disabilities. Although I agree with the preferences expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I believe that we ought to be cognisant of the whole picture.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I believe that there is much more common ground than we have necessarily given ourselves credit for. The Government are committed to the principle that, wherever possible and when it is right for the child, a child with identified special educational needs should be integrated in mainstream provision. However, that is a general principle. It implies that there will be an important continuing role for special schools, even if the number of pupils attending such schools declines slightly as a higher proportion of children with special needs have those needs met in mainstream education.
The other fundamental factors that are relevant in any debate on integration are the statutory assessment procedures through which the child's needs are precisely identified and parental choice. The Committee will know that the measures included in the Bill are designed to streamline the assessment procedures. At the same time the principal thrust of the Bill is to enable parents of children with a statement of SEN to play a more active role in their children's special education and to give greater weight to their wishes. Parents of children with SEN will in future be able to express a preference for a particular maintained school. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that in this respect the Bill significantly extends parental choice.
Turning to the amendments before us, I start with Amendment No. 199ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We are, of course, familiar with the Coopers & Lybrand report to which the noble Lord referred and which, I believe, has inspired the amendment. I do not disagree entirely with some of the principles behind the amendment, but I cannot support it. In the first place, the provisions as drafted would allow an LEA's consideration of these matters to extend to grant-maintained and independent schools where the authority's writ does not run. In any event, as I hope I shall show, it is unnecessary.
That said, I would not want to be in any way dismissive of the Coopers & Lybrand report which contains a great deal of very interesting and important material. However, we have no intention of building a raft of prescriptive legislation on the findings of that report, based as it was on only five local authorities. LEAs have been under a duty to promote integration of children with SEN since the 1981 Act became law. There is now, with the imminent introduction of local management of special schools, an ideal opportunity for LEAs to look into the costs of various forms of integration. There is in fact very little in the Coopers & Lybrand report about LMSS. The need to submit variations to published LMS schemes should now be focusing authorities' attention on the comparative cost of the different forms of provision and the desirability of ensuring that a good spectrum of mainstream schools has access for the disabled. We certainly would not be surprised, therefore, if a substantial amount of relevant information becomes available over the next few months.
Another aspect of access for disabled pupils in mainstream schools is the role of the FAS. When the

527
FAS has been established, it will be able to encourage grant-maintained schools to apply for capital grants for access for the disabled by inviting schools to bid for works in this area. It will be for the FAS to determine the allocations within the budget as a whole. Moreover, grant-maintained schools' success in bidding for capital grant to aid access for the disabled will not prejudice or pre-empt bids for capital expenditure for other purposes. Grant-maintained schools themselves will therefore have every incentive to apply for such grants. We are convinced that, as in many other spheres of educational practice, grant-maintained schools will lead the way by securing excellent facilities for disabled people. Many schools may consider applying for such capital grants as part of their new duty to formulate and publish individual policies for pupils with special needs. As an increasing number of grant-maintained schools are approved, the FAS will be able to maintain a strategic overview of such provision. Thus, well-planned and cost-effective facilities for the disabled should become increasingly available.
Finally, I should remind the Committee that there is a good base from which LEAs, the FAS and schools can move forward. We have given high priority in recent years to building projects necessary to implement approved statutory proposals. Prominent among these have been projects for integration arising from the closure or reorganisation of special schools. LEAs have spent more than £2 billion on capital expenditure on school buildings between 1986–87 and 1989–90. Much of this will have gone on improving the building stock, including through the provision of better access arrangements for disabled children. We estimate that between 1990–91 and 1993–94 LEAs will have spent a further £2.3 billion on their schools. I therefore urge the noble Lord, when the time comes in due course, not to press his amendment. I believe that it is unnecessary.
Turning to the other amendments, I should like to refer first to Amendment No. 199A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David. I should like to echo all the expressions of condolence expressed by the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, spoke to the amendment, as did others. We believe that the amendment is neither necessary nor, for that matter, desirable. As I believe I have made clear, we believe that parents have a major role to play in deciding what should be done for children with special educational needs.
The Bill itself represents a significant advance. Parents will be involved in considering whether children should be integrated into mainstream education or whether they should attend a special school. However, this amendment removes all reference to the wishes of the parents and as such it is wholly unacceptable. It represents an extreme viewpoint by assuming, in effect, that every child can and should be educated in a mainstream school. I believe that, as has been the general feeling expressed in the debate, that virtually all the Committee will agree that this is manifestly not appropriate.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I draw the noble Lord's attention to Section 3(2) where it explicitly makes reference to the child's parents in any consultation.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My understanding is that although there is that reference, it actually plays down the role of the parents. As I said at the beginning, I believe that there is a great deal of consensus in the Committee on this particular issue, or at least more consensus than the man from Mars might assume on first listening to such a debate, if I may put it in those terms. I believe that the noble Lord himself said that this provision is possibly at one end of the spectrum. We believe that it is too far towards that end of it and not necessarily appropriate. It does play down the role of the child's parents and for that reason we cannot find that particular amendment satisfactory.
I now turn to Amendment No. 200 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson. As he explained to the Committee, he has very understandable motives and very good reasons for moving that amendment. I believe that his involvement in these matters is appreciated by the Committee and by all Members of the House. We all know that he speaks about these matters with a great deal of authority and personal interest. We all value his contribution to a debate of this nature.
I hope to be able to reassure my noble friend by saying that Clause 152, as drafted, will already deliver what he is seeking in his amendment as regards all children and not just those who have mental illnesses. Subsection (1) of that clause would not apply in the case of any parent who did not want it to. I am advised that that is the effect of the words,
"unless that is incompatible with the wishes of [the] parent".
So if the duty is not compatible with the parents' wishes, then the parents relieve the LEA of that duty. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will welcome that clarification. Again, when we reach his particular amendment I trust that he will not feel it necessary to press it.
Lord Peston: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may ask for clarification. It is very rare, and almost the first time in my experience of the House, that I find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, completely compelling. Can the noble Lord assure the Committee that the wording in the Bill—namely, "unless that is incompatible"—means exactly the same as the words in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, which seem to be much clearer? I refer to the phrase,
"Unless the consent of his parents has been obtained".
As someone who believes that he understands the English language, the words do not mean the same to me. I am willing to accept the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that he is absolutely certain that they mean the same, but what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, wants should be the case.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is quite right to interrupt me on that. I very carefully said that I am advised that that is the case. In the light of the recent

529
court case, Pepper v. Hurt which went to the Judicial Committee of the House, it is very important that I know exactly what I am saying from the Dispatch Box. I reassure the noble Lord that that is my understanding. If I am wrong—and there is every opportunity that I am—I shall certainly write to the noble Lord after we have had another look at it. I shall also write to my noble friend Lord Pearson.
I was trying to give an assurance that the wording means exactly that. It is quite important that we get this matter right, but that is my understanding of the meaning of the words. I have forgotten most of the law that I ever knew, but I do not know about the state of the noble Lord's knowledge of the law.
Before I turn to Amendment No. 201, perhaps I may deal with one particular point raised by the noble Baroness whose amendment it is; namely, as regards statistics and whether we are collecting them on the number of children without statements in special schools. This really relates, I suppose, to Amendment No. 203, but the paper just happens to be here. I can assure the noble Baroness that we are, in fact, collecting such statistics on a national basis and we are in contact with several authorities with large numbers of unstatemented children in special schools. We are certainly monitoring the position closely and in due course I hope that we shall be able to provide the noble Baroness with more information.
Turning to her first amendment, Amendment No. 201, I obviously appreciate the motives which have led the noble Baroness to sponsor this amendment and particularly the desire to ensure that authorities consider the case, for example, for improved access for disabled pupils in mainstream schools, when carrying out their qualified duty to secure education of children with special needs in mainstream schools. But again I must regard the text of such an amendment as misconceived and its substance, in fact, as unnecessary.
The Government also have qualms about the necessity for an amendment of this kind. As I think I have made clear, we already have good policies—which have wide acceptance—on the matter of access for disabled pupils. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I should like to say a little about this. I believe that within any area—but not necessarily a single authority—there should be at least one reasonably accessible maintained mainstream school with good facilities for disabled pupils. However, not every school needs to be equipped in this way; in metropolitan areas with a high population density there may be less need than in rural areas where choice of school is in any event obviously and naturally much more restricted. But bearing in mind the balance between efficient use of resources—I think this is very important—and increasing parental choice, the Government consider that a good proportion of schools should be accessible to such pupils. Measures are in place to ensure that this is occurring and will continue to occur.
Before I move on to Amendment No. 204 in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me why children have to have
530
statements. Children will have statements when the local education authorities decide that they must intervene to arrange the special education that those children need because they need more than their school can provide alone. The code of practice, which my noble friend Lady Blatch dealt with earlier, will ensure a much greater degree of objectivity and consistency in the LEAs' decisions. Turning to my—
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Just to clarify that—what I asked the Minister was why some children had statements and other children did not have statements when the provisions meant that they should have statements.
Lord Henley: If the noble Baroness is dealing with the question which the amendment itself is about (Amendment No. 203), in effect, why are there a number of children in—yes, I have got the right one—these special schools who are unstatemented, I am coming on to that. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I will address those points.
I thank my noble friend for moving this amendment. I think this is a very important issue. I would certainly not wish her to think that we have not considered this matter carefully—or indeed that it has not been considered in the past. Again, I am sympathetic to some of the general principles behind her amendment, but again I have to say that I do not think that it is necessary and I do not think that it is necessarily appropriate to have such a measure enshrined in primary legislation.
The Government have an expectation that children in special schools should normally have a statement, and this has been made clear in the formal guidance which we have issued on this matter in Circular 22/89, which was quoted by my noble friend, that
"The Secretary of State would expect that children in special schools would normally be afforded the protection of a statement".
In practice, a minority of special school children will be undergoing assessment. This seems to be a reasonable position, assuming that the placement is provisional and has been agreed with parents.
However, it is another matter as to whether special schools should be statutorily prevented from taking any pupil without a statement and who was not undergoing assessment. There are certain, albeit relatively rare, instances when such a placement could be entirely justified. We consider therefore on balance that this is a matter for firm guidance (which could issue within a departmental circular in the wake of the Bill) rather than primary legislation.
The noble Baroness referred to research from the CSIE. We do not believe that the picture is quite as black as has sometimes been painted by that report. We have considered that report carefully, and we are also aware of more recent information from each of the 15 authorities which the report identified as having an unduly high proportion of children without statements in special schools. I am satisfied that in the great majority of cases these authorities have made substantial progress since January 1991 when the data in the CSIE report was collected. In those few authorities where there is still some cause for concern,

531
we have asked officials in the department to monitor the position to ascertain just what progress is being made.
I apologise to the Committee for taking up a great deal of time in responding, but these are important points and it is vital that the Committee address them. I end by repeating the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, and what I opened with at the beginning. There is considerably more agreement in these matters than we necessarily give ourselves credit for. I hope that in that conciliatory tone the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will not feel it necessary to press his amendment, and that the other noble Lords and noble Baronesses with amendments in this group will not feel it necessary to press them when they come up in due time.
Lord Glenamara: Could not the noble Lord give any reply to my plea that the parents who want integration should be given the same absolute right as the parents who want special schools for their children?
Lord Henley: They have a preference, and there is a presumption in favour of that preference. I do not think that one can ever talk about an absolute right in the way that the noble Lord is talking about. We believe that this Bill significantly extends parental rights, but it cannot go as far as the absolute extent that the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Glenamara: I wonder why there is a right in the case of the parents who want a special school and not in the other?
Baroness Faithfull: I must apologise. My noble friend rose before I managed to speak on Amendment No. 203. Many of us have come across parents who have wanted their children to be integrated, wanted them to go to the local school, and been told that they cannot. The amendment that I have put down says that parents must be told why their children cannot go to the local school if the statement is such as to make it clear to the parents that a local school would not meet the needs of their children.
I have had representations from about six parents who have been told that their children cannot go to these mainstream schools, but they have been given no reason why they should not go. Parents are distressed about this because they do not think that it is because of the child's state, and that it has been statemented to go to a special school, but simply because there are not the facilities. This ought to be addressed.
Lord Henley: My noble friend is under a misapprehension. My noble friend is talking about a situation that exists at present. Under the provisions in this Bill, parents would be told, and would have a right of challenge, if what my noble friend said occurred. In other words, if a statement child could not go to a school of their choice.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: I genuinely want to thank the Minister for his sensitive and courteous reply. I do not want in any way to embarrass him, but whenever I hear him speak at the Dispatch Box, I feel that the cause of reasonable pluralistic democracy is not lost, and that it is possible to examine subjects constructively together whatever our differences.
The Minister referred to how the proverbial man from Mars might see the situation here. Whether it was him or the woman from Venus, the conclusion would be that there was a great deal of intellectual meeting of minds on the issue; but what I believe they would find amazing is that after the intellectual meeting of minds, the logical action was not followed through. They would go back and say, "It seems to be a very nice political system they have down there; they talk at great length, late into the night; they find a great deal about which they agree, but they do not actually do anything about it". That is the message that would be taken back to Mars.
I wish to make a couple of practical points. The Minister referred to the evidence upon which the report was based. There is a slight problem because I believe that he has been speaking about the first report by Coopers & Lybrand, commissioned by the Spastics Society and the NUT. I was speaking not just about that report, but about the report published today which takes the matter further. The Minister may not have been briefed about that report. What is interesting is that the evidence has been based on replies by 2,500 schools and not just by local authorities. That is an important point. The other point we must realise is that in today's publication Within Reach (the school survey) we see clearly that the problem is that no one knows how suitable our schools are for disabled children. The information is not available.
The amendment provides that an LEA shall determine accessibility—that is, undertake access audits to provide a local and national picture. It further provides:
"The Secretary of State shall issue … guidance".
That brings me to the point that here again we are up against the issue of whether we are indulging in a genuine moral commitment to the principle of choice, as distinct from ensuring that meaningful choice is available. What has been said from several quarters in the debate is that the condition of so many schools means that choice does not exist. If, therefore, we are to have a free choice, and everyone favours a free choice, there must be a meaningful opportunity to make a choice, in terms of the provision that has been made, not just the intellectual possibility to do so. That is where we remain unconvinced.
It would be helpful if we could have an assurance from the Government that if by any chance Amendment No. 199A is lost the Government will ensure that somewhere in the Bill there is a provision that from 1993 LEAs should begin to plan for integration. That point does not seem to be firmly and clearly established. It is the point that we had on the last debate: we are putting the poor old LEAs into the position of having the moral public responsibility

533
without power and effectiveness. Power and effectiveness start with reliable information. All that we are asking for at this juncture is reliable information. The hour is late, as I have said before in our proceedings; I am a realist, and in that sense, I shall not pursue the amendment tonight.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 200, although I do not know whether it is appropriate to do so now. I wish to thank all noble Lords who spoke on the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, for his understanding of what I had to say, and for, if not necessarily his agreement, his acquiescence in the points that I made.
I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, for his kind words. We drew swords the other evening over the quality of some LEAs, although I do not think that we actually crossed them. His remarks this evening demonstrate his genuine commitment to the good of all children in our state system of education. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his remarks. He mentioned the advantage which normal children receive from association with handicapped children, and of course I accept that. I imagine that it is one of the main themes which underlies the whole integration policy towards the civilisation of our society in the future, and the trend away from locking people up and excluding them; people who are perhaps unpleasant and frightening at first sight. I understand that completely.
It is a question of balance and I think it is wrong if the handicapped suffer from that association. My contention is that the mentally handicapped are more likely to do so under the wording of Clause 152 as presently drafted than is appropriate.
Finally, I have to say that I am really extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his intervention. I am afraid that I have to agree with what he said. I think that the wording of Clause 152 as drafted is not acceptable, as the Minister felt, because it clearly says that:
"the child is educated in a school which is not a special school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent".
Incidentally, I do not know why "parent" has suddenly become singular in this part of the Bill and not "parents"—two parents. But that is another matter.
The point is that this really is a hurdle that the parents of a handicapped child have to jump. I had to jump it myself. I know the pressures that come against one from the social workers, who simply cannot understand that you do not want your child in a normal school, and from the Association of Down's Syndrome Parents, which is also rather of that frame of mind. Therefore, I feel that this is an unacceptable expression and I think that my amendment, although it may not be perfect, does create a balance towards the mentally handicapped children at least. I certainly should not dream of testing the opinion of the Committee at this hour of the evening but if my noble friend can come back at the next stage with more of a compromise in that regard, I should be very pleased.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 152 [Qualified duty to secure education of children with special educational needs in ordinary schools]:
[Amendment Nos. 199A to 201 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 91, line 35, at end insert:
("(3) Where—

(a) a statement is made under section 159 of this Act, and

(b) the statement names a special school as the type of school in which the child is to be educated

the statement shall specify which of the conditions set out under section 152 cannot be satisfied and why.").
The noble Baroness said: I asked for this amendment to be grouped separately from the previous group of amendments because basically it is not an integration question but rather a question of information to parents. In view of the other remarks made about large groupings, I should say that I have always found the Government Whips' Office extremely helpful about the grouping of amendments.
An LEA has a duty to integrate a child with special needs unless certain conditions cannot be fulfilled. That is still the case under the new Bill. In order for parents to be able to appeal against an LEA's decision that conditions permitting integration cannot be met in the case of their child, they need to know which conditions cannot be met and why. Without that information, it is extremely difficult for them to prepare a challenge to the LEA's decision.
The Audit Commission/HMI report Getting in on the Act revealed that many parents who are seeking an integrated placement for their child are being denied one. Sometimes parents are told that proper provision cannot be made in a mainstream school or that to make such provision available would not represent an efficient use of resources. Sometimes parents are given no explanation. For example, Vincent's mother was told by the LEA that her son could not be integrated because his needs could not be provided for in a mainstream school. It emerged later, however, that no school had been approached as part of Vincent's assessment. In fact, the LEA had taken an early decision that whatever school Vincent attended, the LEA would need to provide full-time welfare support for him. But no mainstream school was approached and given that information before being asked whether it could accommodate Vincent and provide for his special needs. The only school which was approached was not told of the provision to be made by the LEA under Vincent's statement, so, not unnaturally, it decided to say that it could not meet his needs.
This amendment would require LEAs to set out on the statement which conditions permitting integration it considers cannot be met in an individual child's case and give the reasons why. That would help parents to decide whether they should or should not appeal against the LEA's decision. Moreover, if they do decide to appeal, it will let them know exactly what it is that they are appealing against. I should like to emphasise that this is not a challenge to the power of the LEA to make a decision as to whether the conditions permitting integration can be met; the

535
amendment simply requires LEAs to be explicit about the reasoning behind their decision on the point. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I should briefly like to express my support for the amendment. As information is required by everyone to make a logical decision, it would seem that LEAs should not be excluded.
Lord Henley: In moving the amendment, I suspect that the noble Baroness spoke about the state of affairs at present. I must stress that the Bill takes us somewhat further. I also suspect that her amendment wants to make LEAs justify on the face of a child's statement their decision to specify a special school. LEAs would not be similarly required to justify naming an ordinary school.
The Government, on the other hand, believe that LEAs should always discuss with parents all aspects of a statement. Those discussions should include the name of the appropriate school, be it a special school or an ordinary school. We are confident, too, that the Bill makes full provision to that effect. I hope the Baroness—I am sure that she will not wish to press it—will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Obviously, the LEA must explain its decisions to parents. Indeed, parents should have been closely involved throughout the process of assessing the child and drafting the statement. We have already issued clear advice to that effect. Circular 22/89 says:
"The relations between professional advisors and parents during the process of assessment are of crucial importance. Parents should be encouraged to feel that they are partners in this process".
Further guidance issued under the Bill will very much underline the importance of that partnership.
Beyond that, the Bill gives parents an important new right —to state a preference for their child's school. The statement will go to parents in draft form. They will have explicit rights to make representations to the LEA and to hold meetings with the LEA. There will, therefore, be ample opportunity for parents and the authority to discuss the name of the school which should appear on the statement. When parents state a preference, LEAs will be bound to abide by that preference so long as certain reasonable conditions are met.
Our measures provide for full parental participation in the process of making an assessment, writing a statement and naming a school. There must be a full exchange of views between parents and authorities. The tribunal will stand behind that process: if the parent is dissatisfied, the tribunal will consider both sides of the argument. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his support and the Minister for his full reply. I shall read carefully what the Minister said and think about the matter. I am not sure that he has totally reassured me. I may return to the matter at a later stage or I may have a word with the Minister. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 203:
Page 91, line 35, at end insert:
("(3) No child shall be placed in a school which is a special school unless—

(a) that school is a hospital school, or

(b) the local education authority maintains a statement under section 159 of this Act naming this type of school; or

(c) the local education authority has initiated an assessment of his special educational needs under section 158(3) of this Act and has the written consent of the child's parents to placement in a special school.").

The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Clause 152 agreed to.
Clause 153 [Duties of governing body etc. in relation to pupils with special educational needs at ordinary schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 92, line 26, after ("needs;") insert ("and shall in particular include information as to the admissions policy of the school on children under the age of five where such children are admitted to the school;").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the admissions policy for under fives at a primary school is published as part of the school's policy for pupils with special educational needs. Admission to nursery provision may be crucial in the assessment and in the help given to young children under five with special educational needs.
Many primary schools, understandably, give priority to children in their own nursery class when it comes to admission to the reception class. That is entirely desirable in terms of continuity for the individual child. However, it means that any policy on admission to nursery provision will also have a knock-on effect on the school's admissions policy and practice for the reception class for rising fives.
It is therefore important that in publishing the school's policy on special educational needs (which we understand from the announcement made by the Minister, Mr. Forth, in another place on January 7th will include the school's admissions policy) the school is required to set out in addition any admissions policy relating to nursery provision at that particular school. Mr. Forth said:
"I am therefore proposing to seek an amendment to the Education Bill which would put a statutory duty on each school to draw up, publish and report on its policy towards all its pupils who have special educational needs. This requirement would strengthen the existing safeguards within the Bill, particularly Clause 144 which requires governors 'to use their best endeavours' to meet pupils' special needs. This policy will make all schools more accountable to parents and Inspectors will have regard to schools' SEN policies and their effectiveness when judging schools' performance. It will be of direct benefit to all pupils with special needs".
I beg to move.
Lord Judd: We on these Benches applaud this amendment and fully support it.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: It only happens once in a blue moon that one lands lucky in this Chamber. Tonight I feel as though I have backed a 33 to one winner because I find my Amendment No. 226 grouped with this amendment. In the normal state of affairs I would have had to wait until some even more unearthly hour to speak to my amendment but I have been given a chance to speak to it now. I do not believe my Amendment No. 226 has anything on earth to do with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. However, I do not wish to lose the opportunity of having a go at it now.
I welcome very much Clause 165 whereby parents of under-two-year-olds can agree to have their children assessed and then statemented. That is an excellent provision. However, Clause 161, which gives a right of appeal to parents who disagree with statements, does not cover the position of the under-two-year-olds. My amendment would bring those children into line with the other children and give them the same right of appeal.
Members of the Committee may well feel there can be no question of educating under-two-year-olds and that I must be talking about a health provision. In fact that is not the case. My noble friend Lord Pearson spoke on this issue in the previous debate. I am assured that children with Down's syndrome can benefit greatly from early education at the age of about 18 months onwards. They benefit from education conducted through water and sound methods. That form of education enables those children to improve enormously in their early years. If a child under two receives a statement, that statement will continue long after the child's second birthday and may have a potential influence on the rest of that child's education. Therefore, it is only right that parents of children under two years who disagree with the statement should have the same right of appeal as parents of older children.
Lord Addington: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
Lord Swinfen: I strongly support both these amendments. It is well known that it is beneficial to children who do not have special needs to start education as early as possible. I believe it is even more beneficial to children with special needs to start education as early as possible.
Lord Henley: I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Swinton is grateful that these two amendments have been grouped. I can give him no particular explanation as to why they were or were not grouped, and I appreciate they are on slightly distinct subjects. But if it makes life easier for my noble friend, I am sure he will be happy.
I start with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. It calls for schools' annual reports to contain information on their admission policies for children under five where such children are admitted to the schools concerned.
538
The Bill already makes the important provision that the annual reports of all maintained schools should include a report about the implementation of the governing bodies' policy for children with special educational needs. The annual report will therefore provide a significant body of information from which parents and others with interest in this matter will benefit. We shall make regulations which will govern the issues which schools' SEN policies must address. We have in mind such matters as the number of children with special educational needs and their age range, any particular specialisms offered, staffing provision and expertise, in-service training policy and links to other schools and specialist help. We shall ensure that schools with provision for children under five will report annually to parents on their policies for those children. We shall expect schools with provision for the under fives to have clear policies for identifying, assessing, teaching and monitoring the progress of all children under five who have or may have special educational needs.
We also need to consider the information available to parents before their child gains admission to a school. Section 8 of the 1980 Act sets out a full regime requiring prospectuses to be produced by or on behalf of the schools. It is clearly sensible practice for such prospectuses to discuss provision for children under five where that provision exists. I am not aware of any widespread absence of such information. We must, however, remember that, apart from provision for children with statements of special educational needs, provision for the under fives is discretionary.
Earlier this year the department consulted widely on the information which should, by law, be included in schools' prospectuses and annual reports. Among the issues discussed in that consultation was the question of schools' admission policies. We shall be making the relevant regulations next month. It would be sensible if, in the light of this debate and that consultation, we were to consider further the question of whether schools which make provision for the under fives should in their prospectuses state their admissions policies for those children. In doing so, we should have to bear in mind that the full statutory regime governing admissions does not and cannot apply to children under five. Nonetheless, I believe that the question is one which merits further consideration. I undertake to give it that consideration.
I turn now to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinton. I have to say that it seems inappropriate. While under the Bill, as under the Education Act 1981, children under two can be assessed and statemented, the process of assessing and statementing the under twos may be different from that which applies to children aged two and over. We believe that the issuing of statements for such children is rightly a discretionary matter. The formal rights of appeal relate specifically to the assessing and statementing processes for children aged two and over.
We believe that it is essential to retain a degree of flexibility so far as concerns children under two. To insist on applying the same educational assessment

539
and statementing procedures to children under two as apply to older children, with all the attendant appeals procedures, would in the Government's view be inappropriate. We do, however, consider it important that the conduct of assessments and the making of statements should meet the same standards as apply to the statutory processes. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will accept that explanation as to why I do not believe that his amendment is appropriate.
I hope that with the assurance that I have given to my noble friend Lady Faithfull she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble friend for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 153 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 206ZA not moved.]
Clause 154 [Provision of SEN assistance]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 92, line 32, leave out from ("assisting") to first ("in") in line 33 and insert:
("( ) the governing bodies of county, voluntary or grant-maintained schools").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 206A and 207A are grouped with Amendments Nos. 207 and 208. In speaking to my amendments I shall also address those latter amendments.
The amendments I have put before the Committee are technical amendments. Amendment No. 206A reflects the fact that the governing bodies of maintained and grant-maintained special schools do not fall under the duty in Clause 153(1) (a). Clause 172 defines special schools, including maintained and grant-maintained special schools, as being schools specially organised to make special educational provision. It is therefore not necessary to make governing bodies of such schools subject to the duty in Clause 153(1) (a).
However, as I have said, we recognise that the governing bodies of maintained and grant-maintained special schools may wish to use the services supplied by LEAs to mainstream maintained and self-governing grant-maintained schools. Therefore, Amendment No. 207A would enable local authorities to supply such services to them. I therefore ask the Committee to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I seek one point of clarification from the Minister. The amendment does not broaden the clause far enough to include independent special schools; but perhaps I have that wrong. Thus, if a local authority reaches the margin of its capacity for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, it would be allowed to continue trading with grant-maintained schools under the provision but would have to cease any trading activities in respect of independent special schools. Will the Minister reassure us?
Baroness Blatch: I am subject to correction, but my understanding is that a local authority will not be able to trade with schools beyond its own area of influence,
540
and certainly not with independent schools. I believe that I am right. If I am wrong, I shall return to it or write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 92, line 34, after ("153(1) (a)") insert ("and (c)").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is intended simply to extend the possibility of a service being provided with regard to teacher training. Schools might wish to avail themselves of any training which was specifically designed to inform and enlighten teachers in mainstream schools about the general needs of children with special need. It is not a radical amendment but it might be useful in certain circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: We strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Baroness will accept that I address Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 in my response.
Clause 154 provides for local education authorities to supply goods and services to governing bodies so that, if a pupil has special educational needs, the special education provision which his learning difficulty calls for can be secured. We recognise and endorse the importance of identification and appropriate provision for special needs. As the code of practice will say, appropriate provision cannot be made unless special educational needs are identified, preferably as early as possible, and the child's needs are properly assessed.
I very much doubt whether local authorities could provide services in relation to Clause 154(1) (c), which deals with teachers' awareness of the importance of identification and provision for children with special educational needs, that they could not also provide under Clause 154(1) (a), which deals with governors using their best endeavours in making provision for such children. As I said, identification is a necessary preliminary to provision. I therefore believe the amendment to be unnecessary.
I cannot endorse Amendment No. 208. It seeks to place local authorities under a new duty to ensure the availability of special educational need support services. I do not believe that such a duty is necessary or appropriate. Local education authorities must, and indeed will, maintain support services, or retain access to such services, to allow them to fulfil their duty towards children who require or may require statements. Staff employed in those services will be available to all maintained schools in the area to work with pupils with statements and those without. But it would be up to schools to decide whether they wish to retain access to those services to assist them or whether they wish to secure services from an alternative source—a voluntary body, for example, such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind.
If they are to abide by the code of practice, schools will need to use support services. But they will not always need to use the local authority support services. If the LEA was obliged to provide support services in all cases, that would discourage the growth of alternative suppliers. It cannot be the noble

541
Baroness's intention to stifle the choice available to governing bodies. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Warnock: That seems an extraordinarily wasteful reply in that there will be a great need for increased teacher training—a factor hardly mentioned in the Bill—if all the benefits for children with special needs are to result. I refer particularly to what is generally known as a whole school policy, without which it is impossible for children with special needs in mainstream schools to obtain a proper education. That requires a great deal of education of teachers.
It defeats me to see why, if the local education authority sets up that kind of arrangement, it should not be possible to supply the use of such arrangements for the governors of grant-maintained schools. I simply fail to understand that. Perhaps I have just not grasped the difficulty. At any rate, I do not think the point is worth pursuing any further. If I have completely misunderstood, perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to put me right. In the meantime, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 207A:
Page 92, line 35, after ("Act") insert ("or
( ) the governing bodies of maintained or grant-maintained special schools in their or any other area in the performance of the governing bodies' duties").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
Clause 154, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 155 [Special educational provision otherwise than in schools]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 208A:
Page 92, line 46, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This small amendment arises from the fact that Clause 155 provides for local authorities to look after children outside school who cannot be looked after in school. It simply says that the local authority "may" arrange for provision. My view is that if the local authority "may", the implication is that the local authority also "may not", and that would seem to be totally unacceptable. Unless the duty is mandatory, what will happen is that if the local authority is strapped for money it will cut back on its optional expenditure. That is what they always do and what in practice they are doing at this time. I know of two children who, for one reason or another, cannot go to school who are receiving only two hours a week of out-of-school tuition. I think that is the sort of pattern which will emerge. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: As Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 are grouped with this amendment, I should like to mention them on behalf of my noble friend. Lord Elton.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Perhaps I may speak briefly to the two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, Amendments Nos. 209 and 210. They seem to ensure that pupils who are placed
542
in units or who receive tuition at their home as specified in their statement are returned to schools as soon as possible.
For example, a pupil might be excluded from the mainstream school or special school and have a statement, or a pupil might be between schools and under full assessment. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, seem to ensure that LEAs are pressed to find provision which offers a balanced and broadly based curriculum as soon as possible. This seems to me to be a positive amendment. It seems to stop children, especially children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, falling through the net. On this side of the Chamber we are happy to support the amendments.
Lord Addington: I rise to speak very briefly in support of these amendments. This seems a very reasonable and sensible suggestion.
Baroness Blatch: As I flagged earlier today, we have tabled amendments for debate next week as a result of which local education authorities will have a duty to provide education otherwise for pupils who are out of school for whatever reason. Clause 155 has a relation to those amendments. But it must also be seen in the context of Part III as a whole. In particular. it must be seen in the context of the rights that Part III accords to parents of children with statements.
Thus, if a local education authority were to conclude that, for a child with a statement, education otherwise than at school would be appropriate, that local education authority must state that fact in the child's statement and arrange the provision. However, the local education authority's conclusion is subject to appeal. In certain circumstances, the special educational needs tribunal, following an appeal from the child's parents, could order the local education authority to amend the statement and provide education in school. Had Clause 155 imposed a duty on local authorities, the local education authority in question would have been faced with two conflicting duties: to educate the child otherwise and to abide by the determination of the special needs tribunal that the child should be educated in school. We believe that the determination of the special needs tribunal should take priority. After all, it is the tribunal that has heard the case from all sides. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will appreciate that Clause 155 is cast in permissive terms and therefore will not press his amendment.
I believe it is relevant to refer to Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 in the name of my noble friend Lord Elton and spoken to by my noble friend Lady Young. The concern here and the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is about reintegration, which is a very important aspect of education. Education otherwise guidance is separate from the code of practice: but the education otherwise guidance will embody the principle that children should return at the earliest opportunity to a mainstream school.
Lord Northbourne: I believe that I heard the noble Baroness say that there are other amendments coming up which will provide for the mandatory education of

543
those children, if that is what the appeal committee decides. On those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 not moved.]
Clause 155 agreed to.
Clause 156 agreed to.
Clause 157 [General duty of local education authority towards children for whom they are responsible]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 93, line 22, leave out ("under this Part of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is linked with Amendments Nos. 211, 212, 213 and 214. I shall speak to those amendments tabled in my name.
Clause 157 defines the general duty on local education authorities towards those children for whom they are responsible. It is an important clause as it is the bedrock of the subsequent duties to assess and, where necessary, determine the special education provision to meet a child's special educational needs.
The Bill currently requires local education authorities to use only their powers under Part III of the Bill to identify the children for whom they are responsible who require a statement of special educational needs. We recognise, however, that there are other powers, elsewhere in the Bill and in existing legislation which local authorities might need to use if they are to be certain to identify all such children. For example, Clause 146(4) of the Bill gives local authorities the power to seek information from self-governing grant-maintained schools and maintained schools about children for whom they are responsible, placing duties on the governing bodies to provide that information. Similarly the 1986 Act enables local authorities to seek information from the governing bodies of local authority maintained schools.
I have therefore tabled this amendment in order to enable local authorities to use any such other powers as they have in order to fulfil their responsibilities towards children with special educational needs who may require a statement. I believe that the Committee will welcome this amendment as it gives teeth to the authority's use of all its powers to identify those children with special educational needs who might need the authority's intervention.
Amendments Nos. 213 and 214 would extend the duty to identify all pupils who live in the local authority's area, who are being educated at the state's expense, wherever they may be, and who require statements of special educational needs. It would apply whether the pupil was in a school maintained by that authority or by another authority, a grant-maintained school or a grant-maintained special school within and beyond the authority's boundaries or a non-maintained or independent school when that placement was funded by either the local authority or the funding agency.
All parents now have a greater choice of school for their child. The amendments before the Committee are designed to ensure that the authority has an
544
unqualified responsibility to identify all pupils who require statements when they are in maintained schools and placed in non-maintained and independent schools by the funding agency or the local authority. I believe that that is a sensible safeguard to ensure that no child slips through the net. Local authorities have a range of means in the Bill and elsewhere to help them fulfil their duty to identify the pupils who may need a statement. We have debated the clauses which underpin the exchange of information between the funding agency and the local authority, notably Clauses 6 and 18. Governors of grant-maintained schools also have a duty under Clause 146 to give information to any LEA in respect of a pupil towards whom the LEA has a responsibility.
I commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: In so far as Amendment No. 210A makes it explicit that the naming of a grant-maintained special school in a statement makes it obligatory for the governors to admit the child to the school, we find that unexceptionable. But I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for raising again a slight niggle. We believe that there remains a lack of clarity regarding occasions when "grant-maintained school" is a generic term which includes grant-maintained special schools and when it is assumed to exclude them. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point.
Baroness Blatch: First, we do not yet have grant-maintained special schools. I look forward to the noble Lord's support for the notion that we should have them. I understand that grant-maintained schools do not subsume grant-maintained special schools. As I said, special schools are likely to be occupied mostly by children already with statements.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should like to put a question to my noble friend. Amendment No. 214, with the new substitute paragraph (b), refers to schools which are not maintained, grant-maintained or grant-maintained special schools. It is a question of assessment. If there is an obligation on the local authority to assess pupils who are in the independent sector, is it right that there is no obligation to continue the education of the children in that independent sector? It is a simple question of assessment.
There are amendments tabled to a later clause, to which I hope to speak, which will make the position absolutely clear. However, it may be helpful, in setting the context for that later debate, if my noble friend can explain what precisely is the ambit of her Amendment No. 214 and how far it extends in imposing duties on local authorities in relation to the non-maintained sector.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I can expand on that question and ask the noble Baroness what happens in regard to a child who is not at school at all. Sometimes, particularly in the case of children with special needs, there may be a situation where a mother has kept the child at home and not sent him to school.
Baroness Blatch: My understanding is that the responsibility is to the child. Amendment No. 214 includes children among those people for whom the LEA was responsible. Therefore, it includes the children for whom the LEA was responsible who were in a school that was not a maintained, grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school at the expense of the LEA or the funding agency.
Lord Swinfen: Grouped with Amendment No. 210A is Amendment No. 212 and perhaps I may say a word on that. However, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, whose name is attached to the amendment, may wish to speak first.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the noble Lord. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 212, having worked in a voluntary capacity at a special education school for children afflicted with hearing disabilities. It is important that the child's needs are taken into account, as the amendment suggests. The Minister may think it is labouring the point, but it is important to include it in the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also in connection with children who are deaf. I have been briefed on the matter by Deaf Accord. The emphasis put on ascertaining the wishes of the child in the Children Act, as the Committee will know, was widely welcomed. Deaf Accord was particularly pleased that the guidance to the Act stressed the need to provide communication support if the child was deaf and his first or preferred language was sign language.
Deaf Accord believes that it is essential that deaf children are encouraged to take an active part in educational decisions that will have such a far-reaching effect on their lives. There may be instances where the wishes of the child and its parents, over the preferred method of communication or the choice of a residential placement, are in conflict. We believe that the wishes of the older child should be taken into account in such cases.
Many local education authorities are beginning to incorporate the principles of good practice enshrined in the Children Act. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the two pieces of important legislation relating to children do not have differing views with regard to taking into account their wishes and feelings.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may ask whether anyone wishes to speak to Amendment No.211 or whether it has been withdrawn.
Baroness Warnock: I wish to speak to Amendment No.211. I should like to make one final appeal for clarity, which is the point of the amendment. The amendment proposes that the clause should read:
"(2) This subsection applies to a child if—(a) he has special educational needs or (b) he has special educational needs and it is necessary for the authority to determine the special educational provision …"
The long-winded phrase in paragraph (b) has come to be referred to as a statement. I wanted to explore whether the local education authority had a duty to ascertain the needs of children, whether those children
546
had statements or were definitely going to have them or whether they had special educational needs and did not have statements. I know that this subject has come up again and again but I still find myself unclear about the extent to which local authorities are to be responsible for children with special needs who are in a grant-maintained, voluntary aided or any kind of school, excluding a local authority school.
It could be argued that the wording of the clause is such that the local authority is shown to be responsible because there may be children who are brought to its attention as probably having special educational needs. But it seems to me that that is a rather backhanded way to ensure that the local education authority has responsibility for children with special needs who have been assessed and identified but who in no circumstances should have a statement. Though we have touched on this today, I still believe that there is confusion in people's minds about the nature of the provision for these children, who have been referred to as forming approximately 18 per cent. but who in many schools a far higher proportion—more like 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. We are unclear what is to be the responsibility of local authorities in regard to those children.
We have heard today from the Minister a good deal about what will be in the code of practice regarding the stages of assessment of children with special needs. As I understand it, a lot of local authorities are already using the old-fashioned stages of assessment as they appear in the 1978 report as a way of trying to quantify the provision that those children require. As we learn from the report of the Audit Commission last year, at the moment there is extreme vagueness about how to identify children with special needs who do not have statements and how much extra provision they will need. If we leave the matter unclear, as I believe it still is, we will have missed an enormous opportunity in the Bill to make certain that the majority of children with special educational needs do not, and should not, have statements.
The only reason for the increase in the number of statements in certain local authorities and for the overall increase in the number of statements is that parents, and sometimes schools, feel that to have a statement is the only way that any extra resources will go with the child. Therefore, parents press for statements, and we have the whole apparatus of these extremely expensive new tribunals to settle disputes. It runs between school, local authority and parents who want either a statement if there is not one, or more provision than the statement specifies. The reason that this has arisen is that there is not enough money to provide for all the needs of children. We know that that will be the case forever. Why should there be a bottomless porkbarrel of money? I entirely agree that this is likely to remain a difficulty.
I wish to refer back very briefly to the 1978 report where we quite specifically said that the children who had statements would be a small minority. We were thinking of children who had complex and often multiple disadvantages and for whom any given local authority or area might not be able to provide within their ordinary resources, whether special schools or

547
mainstream schools. We also sought to ensure that if the parents of those children had to move into another authority, they would go armed with their statement which would say what special provision was necessary for these extremely severely disabled children. It is undoubtedly the case that far more children than we envisaged are getting statements—as I say, simply so that parents, and sometimes schools, can feel that they have a way of screwing more money and more provision out of the local authority.
This has given rise to what is, in my view, the most disastrous aspect of special education. I refer to the gulf that has arisen between children with statements and those without them. It is all to easy to think that if a child is in a mainstream school and does not have a statement he is perfectly okay and does not need much else to be provided for him. I put down the amendment to get clarification. If a child is brought to the attention of the local authority, having come to the attention of the school first, and apparently has a special need, the child must be assessed within the school. What I want to know is whether the local authority is or is not involved in the provision that ought to be made for the child once he has been identified and assessed.
This is largely a question of finance. There will be endless disputes unless we can make it clear in the Bill who is responsible for the extra provision that the child may need. I know that in the Bill we have the possibility of the local education authority providing extra in the way of, for example, speech therapy and other non-teaching services or extra teachers, possibly peripatetic or support teachers, who will go into the school. But is it the responsibility of the local authority to see that that provision is taken up? That is less than clear.
Going with such a responsibility, if it existed, would also be the responsibility for ensuring that the needs of the child were being met in the grant-maintained school, monitoring the actual provision that was there and ensuring that the arrangement worked. But, we are told, the writ of the local authority does not run in the grant-maintained schools, and therefore it has no right of entry and no way of monitoring what is going on in the school. I know that what seems like hours ago I had one bash at getting this question cleared up. This is my terminal bash, so to speak. I hope that I shall not have to come back to it. I believe that not only are Members of the Committee unclear about where the responsibilities of the local education authorities begin and end but that they themselves are desperately unclear about it and need to know whether or not they may take responsibility for the education of children with special needs, the vast majority of whom will be in mainstream schools of one kind or another.
The problem has not become really acute because of the comparatively small number of grant-maintained schools. But if what the Government want actually takes place and the majority of schools become grant maintained, where does the responsibility of the local education authority for children with special education needs end or indeed begin? Will it
548
really have responsibility only for those children who are issued with statements? If so, that should be only about 2 per cent. of the school population. Is that really the role that the local education authorities are supposed to have in the future? If so, we should know that absolutely clearly. I would regard that as not quite the death knell but pretty well the death throes of the local education authority. Again, if the local education authority is being surreptitiously condemned to death, we ought to know that because we would know what the problems were.
I regard this kind of fog about where the responsibilities of the funding authority as against the local education authority begin and end as disastrous for the schools. They cannot function properly; they cannot make forward plans; and they cannot budget for their special needs children so long as this fog remains surrounding the issue.
Baroness Blatch: I find what the noble Baroness has just said quite depressing. We have spent a large part of today setting out clearly and in great detail stages 1, 2 and 3 and how they affect every single school in the grant-maintained and in the LEA-maintained sector. I pointed out how the responsibility for statementing remained with the LEA and how the system would work. As far as we could see, there was no lacuna in the system at all. The LEA can require information from the grant-maintained schools and the funding agency can require information the other way.
I find it disappointing. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence being used. But we are talking about the old system and not the new one as we expect it to work. I have spelt out that the system allows for early identification. As one works through stages 1, 2 and 3 that will become easier and more exposed to practice. I have talked about the way in which every school, whether grant-maintained or local authority, will be required to publish a policy for special needs. That will have to be conveyed to the wider world and to the parents. I pointed out how it would have to be inspected once every four years and the effectiveness of the implementation of that policy.
I can confirm in perhaps a slightly clearer answer to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, who was concerned about where responsibility lay as far as the LEA was concerned, that Clause 157 defines children for whom the local authorities are responsible and whose special needs they must identify. Local authorities have an unqualified responsibility to identify children who require statements if those children live in the local authority's area and are educated in any maintained or independent school at the expense of the local authority or the funding authority.
The responsibility to identify other pupils—for example, those in the independent sector but maintained at the parents' or someone else's expense—continues with the local authority, but it is a qualified one. It would be important for the LEA's attention to be drawn to the needs of a particular child who is being educated at somebody else's expense.
I refer now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, when he asked, "What about the

549
other children who are outside the system somewhere else - either walking the streets, in the subways or whatever?". The local authority would have a responsibility there. However, at stages 1, 2 and 3, where we are taking about the 18 per cent., there is a highly structured system, which is highly transparent. That would be school-based in an LEA-maintained or grant-maintained school.
Amendment No. 211 would require local authorities to identify all pupils who have some special educational needs, and not just those who need a statement. I believe that it would be a serious mistake to put such a duty on the local authority and provide no benefit to the pupils in the schools. The authority would be called upon to identify all pupils with special educational needs—that is, around one-fifth of the school population as the research by the committee charged by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, suggested—although, as she said, it is a good deal higher than that in some schools.
I do not believe that this compilation of information by the local authority is the best way forward. It is bureaucratic and not practical. We have debated the code of practice at some length and agreed that it should be extended to cover the school's role in identifying special needs. I have outlined the staged amendment model which we envisage the code adapting. School governors will have to have regard to the codes. They will both be accountable for the exercise of their responsibilities to identify pupils with special needs and have guidance on the exercise of those responsibilities. We have strengthened and enhanced the system for pupils with special needs but who do not require a statement without adding to local government bureaucracy. The Bill and the code will assign responsibility to the appropriate bodies—to schools in the real majority of cases and to LEAs in the minority of cases where statements are necessary. This amendment would assign responsibility to the local authority while leaving power with the schools. While designed with the best intentions to add coherence to the system, I believe that it is the amendment which would sow confusion—not what I have spelt out.
I turn now to Amendment No. 212. This Bill includes many provisions to ensure that parents will play a more active role in making choices regarding their children's education. However, we have also long exhorted local authorities to take into account the wishes of the child when carrying out their duties in respect of his or her special educational needs. Circular 22/89, which we issued jointly with the Department of Health, states that:
"The feelings and perceptions of the child concerned should be taken into account, and older children and young persons should be able to share in discussions on their needs and any proposed provision".
Where a child's age and understanding make it possible, his attitude to the choice of school—be it special or ordinary—will also be a very relevant consideration for the authority when determining a suitable school placement.
I do not think we disagree over the importance of considering the ascertainable wishes of the child within the assessment and statementing processes.
550
But, like many other important matters to be considered within those processes, primary legislation is not necessarily the place to include the relevant provisions. I can assure your Lordships that in our code of practice—this is about the nth time I have said this—which will guide LEAs over all aspects of the assessment and statementing process we shall be covering the place of the child's wishes in those processes. Local authorities will have to have regard to that code. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: As I have said before, I am very grateful to learn that the assessment procedure will be formalised to a certain extent - or at any rate used again in assessing the needs of children, most of whom will not end up with statements. Nevertheless, I am not wholly reassured because, although grant-maintained schools are bound by the Act to publish a statement of the arrangements that they are making for special educational provisions, they are not answerable to the local authority for the statements but to the parents. That is absolutely plain.
The local authority has no right to monitor anything to do with what we might call the general special needs provision in the school as opposed to the needs of those children who have statements. That has become absolutely clear. The governors of the grant-maintained schools must use their best endeavours to ensure that all pupils in their schools with special educational needs have their needs met. But they are not answerable to the LEA, they are answerable to the parental pressure that they may be under to make sure that they do what they have promised for the children.
It does not seem to me that the parents are always the best judges of whether or not good provision is being made for their child in accordance with what was promised. There is a great lack here if there are no local authority advisers or expertise to which the grant-maintained schools are answerable to ensure that they are delivering what they have promised. I think I have the clarity that I asked for. I see where the responsibilities of the local education authority lie, and I see the way in which they will be diminished, but I am equally depressed by the clarity that I have achieved.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is not giving enough credence to the fact that the policy will have to be drawn up, reported, and made public. Every four years the school will be inspected against the effectiveness of that policy. Each individual family will be involved with the progress of that child. There will be compulsory reporting to parents every year, annual meetings and reports. There is a great deal of transparency.
In addition, the local authority will have the power, and will initially be given the resources, to provide the support services both to grant-maintained schools and to its own schools, and it is inconceivable that there will not be contact between a school that has children with special needs, and a grant-maintained school

551
with children with special needs, with the local authority to purchase, or to be provided with, support services. It is up to the local authority whether it wishes to push the money down to the schools, and the schools make the choice, or the local authority holds back the money and makes the provision.
It is bound by law in this Bill to give equal treatment in terms of providing support services for special needs children both to grant-maintained schools and its own schools. There is a great deal of transparency in the system. There has previously not been in place a structure for children's needs at stages I, 2 and 3 in the way that there will be in every single school in the land, and subject to inspection. In addition, local authorities can require information about children with special needs in grant-maintained schools and from the FAS, and the FAS is required to give that information, as are the schools. The code of practice bites on all the agents in the process.
Baroness Warnock: I realise that there is a great improvement in that until now there has been no structured approach to the needs of children who do not have statements. I agree with that, and I am grateful. As to the way in which the relationship between the funding agency, the local authority and the governors of the school works, I should like to believe it; but I fully understand what is intended now, which previously I did not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 213 and 214:
Page 93, line 33, leave out from second ("a") to end of line 34 and insert ("maintained, grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school").
Page 93, line 35, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("( ) education is provided for him at a school which is not a maintained, grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school at the expense of the authority or the funding authority").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 157, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 158 [Assessment of educational needs]:
[Amendment No. 215 not moved.]
Clause 158 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Making of assessments under section 158]:
[Amendments Nos. 216 and 217 not moved.]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 159 [Statement of special educational needs]:
[Amendment No. 218 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 95, line 5, at end insert:
("having made appropriate arrangements for translation and interpreting if the child being assessed, or his parents, has English as a second language and").
The noble Lord said: I am disturbed to discover that the Commission for Racial Equality has assembled evidence which shows that the assessment of children with special educational needs and the involvement of their parents in that assessment sometimes takes place without appropriate translation
552
and interpreting. That has evidently led to children being mis-assessed in a number of ways and to their parents playing no part in the assessment. As I understand it, that could constitute unlawful direct racial discrimination against children and parents.
The Commission for Racial Equality is currently undertaking a formal investigation into the arrangements made by one major education authority for the assessment of special educational needs of children with English as a second language. The commission's grounds for believing that unlawful racial discrimination may be occurring there is research undertaken by the authority's own educational pyschologist indicating under-representation of children from ethnic minorities in the moderate and specific learning difficulty category and over-representation in the severe and profound learning difficulty category.
There is reason to believe that may have been caused by the lack of interpreting and translation. Such malpractice could become widespread. The amendment is designed to put an end to it. It will ensure that all children be assessed in their own language, and that their parents are involved on the same basis. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I entirely agree with the noble Lord that parents who do not have English as a first language should participate just as fully in the assessment and statementing process in respect of their children as parents who have English as their first language. Our commitment to improving access to the system for parents is absolute. To that end, issues such as interpretation and translation are important; but we believe they should be addressed in the guidance and not in primary legislation.
We have discussed extensively the code of practice which will embrace national criteria and practical guidance for local authorities when discharging the functions proposed under Part III. We shall be consulting extensively on that code, and we shall cover the point that the noble Lord has just raised.
Lord Judd: If I have one assessment of the Minister, it is that when her resolve is certain, nothing will deter her. In view of the unqualified way in which she has made her statement this evening, I tremble for all those who cross her path. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 218B and 219 not moved.]
The Duke of Norfolk The Duke of Norfolk moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 95, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) in so specifying as described in subsection (4) above, the local education authority shall take careful account of any parental request that the child's needs be met in an appropriate denominational institution.").
The noble Duke said: Since the passing of the Education Act 1981, which Part III replaces almost in its entirety, Catholic parents of a child who has been statemented and subsequently recommended as being in need of special school provision has no statutory right to demand that consideration be given to placing the child in a Catholic special school which could cater for the particular disability suffered by the child. The only concession we were able to ring out of the then

553
unwilling DES was that a space be provided on the model statement upon which the child's religious affiliation could be inserted.
There are presently 17 Catholic grant-maintained schools, catering for the special needs of some 1,200 pupils. Pupils are sent to those schools by the relevant maintaining LEA. Some of those schools enjoy the continued support of a number of LEAs. However, as the authorities become even more strapped for money, there is an increasing reluctance, now apparent, to meet the denominational preference of the kind which this amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill.
We believe that by giving due weight to such preference, we are seeking to extend genuine choice and diversity. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Judd: I assure the noble Duke that on these Benches, we warmly support the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: In supporting the amendment, I should point out that 16 of the 17 Catholic schools are residential. Where suitable local provision cannot be made for a child so that he must attend a residential school, it is especially important for him to have the familiarity and support of the religious background to which he is accustomed. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for the amendment.
The Earl of Stockton: In speaking in support of my noble friend's amendment, I refer particularly to Amendments Nos. 222A, 222B, 222C, 222D, 233A and 235A.
On Second Reading, I alerted the Minister to the anomaly which existed in the Bill as regards non grant-maintained special schools. A number of noble Lords were kind enough to support me in pointing out to the Government that they are unwittingly discriminating against the pupils and parents of many such schools. I drew attention in particular to Lord Mayor Treloar's College near Andover which enjoys the support of many of the livery companies of the City of London.
I was worried, even as late as Tuesday of this week, that the point had either been missed or ignored by my noble friend Lady Blatch, an anxiety that was shared by my noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lady Young, the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, all of whom have tabled amendments seeking to deal with that anomaly. It was therefore with some pleasure that I saw on the latest Marshalled List the amendments tabled au dernier cri by my noble friend on arrival at the Chamber earlier today.
However, I am concerned that the wording of Amendments Nos. 222AA, 222BA and 222CAB do not make specific mention of independent schools, merely grant-maintained and grant-maintained special schools. My amendments seek to include all schools that are not grant maintained. The risk remains that local education authorities will see the national obligations towards the grant-maintained sector as a method of offloading their costs, despite the wishes of the parents and pupils to stay in that non grant-maintained sector.
554
Whether my pleasure, not to say joy, will be unconfined depends on what the Minister says in reply to the debate on this group of amendments. I shall listen extremely carefully to what she says but will, no doubt, have to read her reply in Hansard because such is the mastery of her brief and the speed and authority with which she conveys it to the Committee that I for one sometimes find the sheer torrent of information which she bestows upon us more than my poor brain can encompass at the time.
I understand that that is in part due to the necessity to have all the details of the Government's argument in the written record of the proceedings of your Lordships' House in case they have to be cited by lawyers at some future unspecified time. I hope that that ruling of your Lordships' legal committee will not remain unaltered. Surely all that should be of interest to the lawyers is what is in the Bill when it finally passes into law. If subsequent interpretation of the law depends upon a gloss that may or may not be put on the letter of the law by what is said by Ministers in this Chamber or in another place, in my view the authors of the Bill, and indeed Parliament, can be said to be failing in their duty to include everything on the face of the Bill that makes an Act comprehensible to the public and to those whose duty it is to implement the law. That practice, which dogs the proceedings of both Houses of Congress in the United States, has profound and, I think, undesirable implications for this House and the other place. However, having said that, I hope that my noble friend and her apparent conversion to our cause, albeit in extremis, will deliver the goods.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 222CA, 222CB, 222DA and 226ZA tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Young. She has asked me to extend her apologies to the Committee because she has had to leave. Knowing that I was going to support the amendments, my noble friend has asked me to speak to them. I also have authority from the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who had similarly hoped to speak to the amendments to say that they have her support. I think that that in a sense represents support from both sides of the Committee.
The Bill apparently purports to give the parents of children with special educational needs the right to state a preference for the school at which they wish their child to be educated. But, as the Bill is presently drafted, that preference seems to be confined to maintained or grant-maintained schools. The matter was raised in another place where my noble friend's colleague, Mr. Forth, acknowledged that,
"some parents may feel strongly that their child should he placed outside the maintained sector in, for example, a non-maintained special school".
However, he declined to accept an amendment to reflect that preference and emphasised that under the Bill parents may "make representations" to the local authority about the school.
I chair an organisation—well, it is not really an organisation: it is a loose committee of the 10 leading voluntary organisations for the blind. We call ourselves the Visual Handicap Group. A number of

555
those organisations are concerned with either supporting or running independent schools for the blind and the visually handicapped. In fact, out of the 21 special schools that exist in this country for visually handicapped people, more than half—that is, 11—are not maintained.
I should like to mention just a few of those schools. There is Dorton House school in Sevenoaks. I am on the council of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. We have made a substantial grant to that school because we think that that may produce some more guide dog owners. There is also Henshaw's School in Harrogate which is very well known, St. Vincent's School in Liverpool and the West of England School in Exeter which enjoys a considerable reputation throughout the west of England. Of course, there are a number of others; for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, is connected to the Birmingham Royal Institution For the Blind. There is also the Catholic Blind Institute, the Royal National College for the Blind, the Royal London Society for the Blind and so on.
The Committee may indeed be surprised to realise that more than half of those special schools for the blind are not actually covered in this part of the Bill; indeed, there does not seem to be any machinery whereby a parent can exercise his or her preference for the child to go to one of those schools. To exclude those schools from parental preference seems to me to be the most drastic reduction of choice. I honestly cannot believe that that is what the Government intended.
It cannot be right to place on parents, who may already be facing considerable problems and stress with their child's condition, the onus of having themselves to make representations to a local education authority within a 15-day hearing. That is what is allowed under the Bill. One can well imagine how less articulate parents without specialised knowledge would find it impossible to press their case with local authority officials. Their difficulties would be compounded if they wished to take the final step of formally appealing against an LEA decision.
These schools are long-established centres of excellence in the education and care of blind children. Indeed I think it is right to say that without exception they have set the standards, have led the way and have provided the touchstone and the bench-mark by which schools in the maintained sector judge themselves. It seems to me that the legislation as it is at present drafted erects a barrier at the school gates which the children will find it hard to scale and behind which the schools may wither.
I have been told that this sector of the education world for the blind is desperately anxious now about its future. Anxieties are felt by parents, staff and governors at a change which they cannot understand and which they feel threatens their future. It cannot be the Government's intention to jeopardise the service which these schools have given to the community—some of them for more than 150 years. Like my noble friend Lord Stockton, I saw the amendment which my noble friend Lady Blatch had tabled and at first I
556
thought, "Ah, she has met the case". But of course she has not done so. There is nothing in the amendment about non-maintained schools; it merely slightly extends the definition to make it quite clear that it covers both grant-maintained mainstream schools and grant-maintained special schools.
I am at a loss to understand what this is about. Many of these schools find that perhaps 85 per cent. plus of their revenue already comes from the public sector in that the pupils are paid for by local authorities. Parents, voluntary organisations, trusts and organisations such as the one providing guide dogs provide substantial sums of money to make up the difference. Why cannot the Bill give parents the right to express a preference in this matter? That is what these amendments are about. I hope my noble friend will give me an answer which my honourable friends in another place seemed to be unable to extract from the junior Minister there.
Lord Swinfen: I wish to follow the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I am speaking particularly to Amendments Nos. 221 and 222. I wish to speak about blind and partially sighted children, but let us not forget the deaf, deaf-blind and those children with other special educational needs. As my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Stockton have said, we are discussing mainly voluntary schools which were started by charities a long time ago. They are leaders in their own fields. They are not just maintaining current standards but extending them and improving the education that they can provide for children who need special education services the whole time. I could go on for hours, but it is late and I shall not do so. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take note of what has been said and will come back with more sensible amendments at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether I also could support the amendments of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lord Stockton. I would remind my noble friend the Minister that she said earlier this evening that the truly excellent non-maintained special schools, whether denominational or not, are very largely supported by local education authorities.
I must say that my noble friend Lord Stockton may have put his finger on a rather delicate spot when he said that the Bill as drafted may encourage local education authorities in future to direct special educational needs children to their own special schools or even grant-maintained special schools to the detriment of non-maintained special schools. It is not even as though these schools are more expensive than the maintained special schools and the future grant-maintained special schools. Generally speaking, they are not. In the case of the schools I know well, the Camphill Community Schools, I believe they are in fact very much cheaper than what is on offer elsewhere. So I, too, join other Members of the Committee in hoping that my noble friend can have another look at this issue before the next stage of the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: It would seem ungracious of me to ask a question in relation to my amendment, Amendment No. 220C, when it was fully debated with Amendment No. 193AC. However, I should like to support other speakers, because schools for emotionally disturbed children are independent and run by charities. In her reply in relation to the earlier amendment my noble friend said that money for children to go to those schools was dependent on the market concept, and the schools must market themselves so well that the local authorities would want to use them.
I am concerned about that, for the same reasons as my noble friend. Local authorities may want to use those schools, but what is the position if they do not have the money to use them? The schools will have to close, in which case a great resource would be lost to the country. My noble friend generously said that there was to be consultation on the whole issue. Will this aspect be taken into account?
Lastly, if a child is statemented and sent to one of these schools, must the local authority then pay, or is it able to say that it cannot afford to pay?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I, too, should like to support this group of amendments. While I was listening to Members of the Committee I was reminded of a convent school near Chelmsford which my daughter attended. A very difficult child from London was sent there. She had been badly abused by her parents. She had run away from several schools and the local authority was in desperation. That was the only school which managed to give her security and help that emotionally damaged child over her problems. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will think very carefully and accept the amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: The Committee knows that we on this side of the Chamber have a presumption in favour of the local education authorities. We had that debate earlier in the day. Having said that, there is a logical extension to the Government's philosophy being put forward from the Back Benches opposite. I would say from these Benches that the point has already been made that many local education authorities place children in such independent schools.
I should like tentatively to advance two possible arguments against the amendments. One is that the balance may be skewed in favour of one particular form of preference, namely, the special school. We have already heard that parents have a right under the Bill to express a preference. The second possible argument is that there may be a temptation for some unprincipled lobbyist to advertise special schools to parents who are in a particularly vulnerable position.
In advancing those arguments I recognise that on this side of the Chamber we have a preference for the local education authority. I understand the logic of the argument being put forward by the Back Benches opposite. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Lord Addington: Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 are concerned with extending the choice of school. I am not sure whether the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness cover the same points as we are trying to address, but I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's reply.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: Just in case the Minister is in any doubt about the wide consensus in support of the amendments I should like to make it clear that the amendments have my fullest support.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may first make some general points. It is certainly not the intention to jeopardise those schools. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said, the majority of young people accommodated by these schools come from referrals from the local authority; and money follows the child.
Perhaps I may answer the specific question of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. If one of the schools is named in a statement and a child is sent to one of those establishments, there is no question as to who pays the bill. The local authority pays the bill. If it has blessed the statement and named a specific school in the statement, then the local authority must provide. The local authority will have to make judgments about the comparable provision that is consistent with the statement in its own authority. Those are difficult judgments that a local authority has to make.
There have been references to the market. I followed up my earlier remarks with a personal recollection of the meetings I had with my noble friend Lady Faithfull and representatives from the non-maintained special school sector. Like my noble friend Lord Pearson, I believe that that sector often offers not just good value for money but better value for money than local authorities. In the past, we have not had sufficiently clear information about the unitary costs of local authority provision. We are now beginning to obtain that information, and judgments on relative value-for-money factors can be made. That is an important factor too.
I note that almost every Member of the Committee who has spoken against my proposals is from my own Benches. Wholly uncharacteristically, the only person to whom I can look for support in the debate is the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I am beginning to be worried about that. I have not had a sleepless night in some nights; my head hits the pillow and I sleep. I might find it more difficult tonight. However, there is a fine distinction between making a representation and stating a preference. I wish to attempt to explain that because I believe it is important.
Local authorities will be entirely free to make a choice across the whole range of schools including the independent sector, non-maintained special schools, grant-maintained special schools, grant-maintained schools and local authority schools. But I wish to place on record too the Government's regard for the high quality of specialised provision offered by many non-maintained special schools and other institutions outside the maintained sector. Non-maintained special schools represent the valuable and longstanding contribution of voluntary organisations to the field of special education. They and many

559
independent schools approved by the Secretary of State offer high quality provision which is often cost effective. Their role is all the more valuable in that they bring diversity to the education system and offer choice to local authorities and parents. I am confident that under the Bill their position will be safeguarded. As long as they continue to provide good education at a reasonable cost they ought to be secure in the future.
The Government's proposals in the Bill will enhance provision for children with special educational needs. We are improving the system as a whole, building on the 1980 Act and the 1981 Act. I do not wish to repeat them—I have been repetitious today on many points—but I covered some of the Bill's most significant elements. I would ask noble Lords, if they do not mind, to re-read some of those statements in Hansard.
However, we should not mistake the very important advance which those provisions represent. They mean that there will be measures in place which will restrain the demand for statements because children's needs will be identified and met at the earliest possible stage in the school. They will mean that when a statement is made it will be clear what provision is needed. It should then be clear which schools can properly make that provision - which is a child's entitlement. If a non-maintained school or an independent school can best meet the child's needs at reasonable cost, then the school should be named in the statement. If it is not, parents may appeal and the tribunal may direct the local authority to name a non-maintained or an independent school; and the local authority would be obliged to pay.
I am worried that in their wholly admirable concern to ensure the best possible deal for children with special educational needs and their parents, some Members of the Committee—in particular all my noble friends—in pressing for a right for parents to state a preference for a non-maintained or independent school will jeopardise the system that we are putting in place.
I am particularly anxious that if parents of children with statements—and only of course parents of children with statements have a right to choose a school in the independent sector—and if LEAs are obliged to accede to that choice when certain conditions are met, there will be enormous pressure on local authorities to make statements. That is human nature. But it turns the new system on its head. It places emphasis on the statement when we wish to place emphasis on the role of the mainstream school; it places emphasis on the non-maintained or independent school the child may. eventually attend when the first consideration should be to identify his or her needs; and I am afraid it places emphasis on conflict when we wish to place emphasis on partnership.
In short the amendments before us would stoke up pressure all round. There would be: pressure from parents for statements; pressure from non-maintained and independent schools on the local authorities to send children to those schools; pressure from parents on local authorities to name non-maintained and
560
independent schools; and, as a result, I fear, pressure on the tribunal to deal with a large number of appeals cases.
I would point out that this also is an area on which the code of practice will provide clear guidance. The Bill carries forward from the 1981 Act the statutory duty on local authorities to arrange appropriate provision for children who have a statement of special educational needs. The school which a local authority names in a statement must meet certain criteria; namely, the suitability of the placement to the special educational needs of the child; the provision of efficient education for the other children in the school; and the efficient use of resources. The code will give guidance as to how those conditions must be met. On that basis there is no reason at all why a local authority should not continue to name independent and non-maintained special schools in statements; and no reason at all why parents should not make representations for that, too. Furthermore, Clause 179 makes clear that a local authority is responsible for paying the fees, and the board and lodging where necessary, where a non-maintained special school or independent school is named in a statement.
We are establishing a system which protects all children with special needs, gives new rights to parents and allows non-maintained and independent schools to play an important role. We are widening parental choice. We are giving parents rights to make representations in favour of non-maintained and independent schools. We are obliging local authorities to consider those representations. But we do not wish to boost the demand for statements, increase the scope for conflict or overload the special needs tribunal. In short, we believe we have the balance right. I hope that noble Lords will not feel that it is necessary to press these amendments.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Baroness sits down, if she is appealing to the market principle, then surely there ought to be a level playing field as between the independent sector and the maintained sector. If parents are allowed—as I believe I am right in saying they are—in Schedule 9 only to state a preference for a maintained school, we do not have a level playing field.
Baroness Blatch: As I said at the outset, there is a fine distinction between preference and making representations. There is nothing to stop parents making representations or stating a preference. The reason I say that there is a distinction between the two is that the local authority, under the provisions of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said, is bound to presume in favour of that preference so long as it meets the three criteria that I mentioned much earlier; that it is consistent with the statement that it does not impact adversely on other children, and that it is an efficient use of resources. It must presume in favour of that statement. In other words, if it is possible, consistent with the statement, to make provision within a local education authority, then that provision should be met within the local education authority.

561
However, if a parent makes representations for a non-maintained special school or an independent school, that has, by law, under the provisions of the Bill, to be taken into account. And the local authority can choose. The local authority can name a non-maintained special school or an independent school even if the parents have not stated a preference; if they have stated a preference for the maintained sector but have not made representations, it is also possible for the parents to appeal. It is equally possible for the parents to appeal if they have made representations and indeed stated a preference and the local authority has presumed in favour of that placement.
At the end of the day, the tribunal has to make a judgment about whether the local authority has made proper, appropriate provision consistent with the needs of the child. That is the judgment at the end of the day. So there is a slight edge and it is no more than that. There is no fettering of the freedom of the LEA. If provision can be made in the local authority and it is wholly consistent with all the provisions of the Act, there is a slight edge for the local authority provision. But at the end of the day, the needs of the child are paramount.
Baroness Seear: Is the Minister saying that if there is a vacancy in a local authority school, it is very unlikely that the child should go to an independent school?
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am saying that if there is provision in a local authority that can properly be provided consistent with all the details set out in a statement and that provision meets the three criteria I mentioned, then the authority could presume —indeed, it needs to presume—in favour of that local authority provision. It would have to give reasons to the parent why it had not placed the child consistent with the representations that had been made by the parent. Those would be the reasons. If that parent wished to appeal, he or she would go to the tribunal and it would be the tribunal which would make a judgment on whether that local authority provision was consistent with the statement.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I must express my gratitude that my noble friend has manifestly done her best to justify the case for the provisions of the Bill as they are. But I have to say that, uncharacteristically for her, she has totally failed to convince me. In fact she has said that if parents are given a choice they will choose the independent schools; therefore we cannot give them a choice, because we do not want them to go to the independent school if there is a place available for them at the maintained school.
That is an astonishing argument to come from a Minister in the present Government. I must ask her to take this matter back to her right honourable friend and have another look at it. Is she seriously saying that as there are 21 schools for the blind, the 11 local authority maintained schools have to be full before a
562
single pupil can exercise a preference? They can make their 15-day representation. I cannot believe that is what she means.
I say this in the context of schools for the visually handicapped and I also have experience of schools for the deaf. In my former constituency, there is the Sir Winston Churchill Schools for Deaf Children. When the parents had the choice, they used to come and live in Wanstead and Woodford in order to be near the Sir Winston Churchill Schools for Deaf Children. They came from all over the country because they recognised that it was the best school for the deaf. They cannot exercise any preference for it under the Bill.
The time is 11.30 p.m. and we cannot vote on this issue tonight. It would be foolish to do so. But I should like to bring representatives of the blind schools to talk to her right honourable friend. I cannot believe that is what she means. It is an astonishing case. I just do not believe that Ministers have grasped the reality of what is being said.
Baroness Blatch: I hear what my noble friend says. I want to make two points. First, there are enormous pressures on local authorities. I am sure we would all agree on that. We are talking about a very expensive part of the provision. We have already said in this Bill that there will be a guarantee through the statementing process that the provision is truly consistent—wholly consistent—with the statement that should be made for each child that is statemented. I believe the point is fair; because if the provision is more cost-effective, there is no contest anyway.
It is also inconceivable that children who at this moment are being placed in the deaf schools, the blind schools and the schools for behaviourally disturbed children, will not continue to be so placed. The local authority, even when the provision is more expensive, knows that that is the appropriate provision for which to make the choice. The distinction I make is that if provision can be made wholly consistent and more cost-effectively within the LEA borders, then the presumption must be in favour of the LEA being allowed to make that choice. That is the only distinction that I make.
But my noble friend is persistent. I promise the Committee that this is not my final word on this matter. I shall take it away. I shall reflect on what has been said, discuss it with my right honourable friend and colleagues in the department and continue to think about it until Report stage. I shall come back again with a wholly open mind.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am obliged to my noble friend.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may ask one final question. In considering a child's case a local authority may approach its treasurer. If the treasurer says it is too expensive then the child may not be statemented to go to the school that everybody else wants. Is that legal?
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend has the situation the wrong way round. The child is diagnosed as having special educational needs. Those needs are set

563
out in a statement and then the education provision consistent with those needs must be found. It is reasonable for the treasurer to say to those involved in making that professional judgment that they must look for the most cost-effective solution. But the cost-effective solution they come up with must be wholly consistent with the statement, whatever the cost.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: As the Minister says she is going to take the amendment away perhaps I can ask a question. As well as the cost-effectiveness, will she take into consideration the happiness and well-being of the child?
Baroness Blatch: All aspects of the needs of the child will be considered. I have already said that the ascertainable wishes of the child, of the family and parental preferences are all built into the system. That is all part of the bank of information to be considered at the time.
The Duke of Norfolk: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 220A:
Page 95, line 30, leave out ("or grant-maintained") and insert ("grant-maintained or grant-maintained special").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 220A is my second amendment. It is a sensible, logical extension of the Bill's provisions to embrace the new category of grant-maintained special schools which the Bill will establish. Government Amendment No. 222AA, to paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 9, which we will be debating later, seeks to extend similarly the parallel duty upon local education authorities so that the duty will apply also when an authority wishes to specify a grant-maintained special school in a statement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 220B, 220BA and 220BB not moved.]
Clause 159, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 220C not moved.]
Schedule 9 [Making and maintenance of statements under section 159]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 220D:
Page 185, line 35, leave out ("maintained school or grant-maintained") and insert ("maintained, grant-maintained or grant-maintained special").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 220D I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 222AA, 222CAA and 222CAB. These are technical amendments which parliamentary counsel has prepared for us. The aim of Amendments Nos. 220D, 222AA and 222CAB is to extend various provisions within Schedule 9 to embrace the new category of grant-maintained special schools which this Bill will establish. I am confident that the Committee will agree that where the Bill gives parents new rights in respect of schools within the maintained sector, grant-maintained special schools should be included.
Amendment No. 222CAA is also a technical amendment. Paragraph I of Schedule 9 states that all
564
references to a statement of special educational needs in Schedule 9 refer to a statement made under Clause 159 of the Bill. The specific reference in paragraph 6 is therefore superfluous. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I realise that these are technical amendments but I have some technical queries. First, to be absolutely clear, is a grant-maintained special school a grant-maintained school? Secondly, in Part III of the Bill grant-maintained schools and grant-maintained special schools would now appear to have different legal identities. Is that the case for the rest of the Bill.
The first occurrence of a grant-maintained school in the Bill is in Clause 7. No mention is made of grant-maintained special schools. Are grant-maintained special schools included in the ambit of Clause 7?
Baroness Blatch: Grant-maintained special schools, grant-maintained schools and LEA-maintained schools are a class of school.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos.221 to 222A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.222AA:
Page 186, line 11, leave out ("or grant-maintained") and insert ("grant-maintained or grant-maintained special").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.222B not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.222BA:
Page 186, line 12, leave out ("in the area or) and insert ("maintained by").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos.222C and 222CA not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos.222CAA and 222CAB:
Page 187, line 13, leave out ("under section 159 of this Act").
Page 187, line 33, leave out ("or grant-maintained") and insert ("grant-maintained or grant-maintained special").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos.222CB to 222DA not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No.222E:
Page 188, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert:
("( ) Where the local education authority determine not to comply with the request—

(a) they shall give notice of that fact and of the effect of paragraph (b) below to the parent of the child, and

(b) the parent of the child may appeal to the Tribunal against the determination.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 222E is grouped with Amendment No. 223 to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will speak. In speaking to the amendment in my name, I remind the Committee that a major thrust of the Bill is to enable parents of children with a statement of special educational needs to play a more active role in their children's special education and to give greater weight to their wishes. We have extended the 1980 Act provisions for parental choice of school to parents of children with a statement of SEN. We have also introduced the new right under paragraph 8 of Schedule 9 for a parent to

565
request a change of school named after the statement has been issued and the child is receiving the special educational provision that his statement specifies.
The amendment that I have placed before the Committee is a technical amendment. Its aim is to ensure that, should an authority determine not to comply with a request under this paragraph, the parent is informed by the authority of its decision and of the right to appeal to the SEN tribunal against the authority's decision. This is a sensible amendment and is also consistent with provisions elsewhere in Part III of the Bill which require an authority to inform parents of a decision regarding their child's special educational needs against which they may appeal to the tribunal and of that fact.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Given the hour, I speak very briefly to Amendment No. 223. The amendment seeks to open the books. The local education authority should show a parent all the evidence that it intends to bring to any tribunal hearing. That prevents the LEA from springing confusing and technical evidence on a parent so as to win its case by what I believed to be unfair means. Unless the amendment is passed, the likelihood of the special needs tribunal turning into a highly formal lawyer-dominated process is much greater. I am sure that your Lordships would not like to see that happen. Parents will feel that they have to employ lawyers to have a chance at such a tribunal, so in the interests of what may be characterised as natural justice I will be moving this amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I welcome the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 222E. I believe it to be extremely sensible. I also strongly support Amendment No. 223. It will be of great benefit to children and parents and may lighten the workload of the tribunal. I stress that it is not a freedom-of-information question; it refers only to professional reports on which the educational provision is based and which will in any case be disclosed at the tribunal when it comes to it.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I agree that as part of any discussion which the LEA has with a parent about ceasing to maintain a statement it should share the information it has which has led it to its view in the first place. Given good will and reasonable communication parents should understand and be party to an authority's decision. In many cases a parent will, after hearing what the authority has to say, agree with the LEA's view and what it proposes to do.
But if after all that they still cannot see eye to eye, and the parents disagree with an LEA's proposal to cease to maintain a statement, then they already have full rights to appeal built into the Bill—as the amendment acknowledges. Moreover, in any appeal, each side's evidence will be copied to the other. This happens with present appeals to the Secretary of State on other matters, as is required by the rules of natural justice, but the Committee will know that the right of appeal for parents who disagree with an LEA's
566
proposal to cease to maintain a statement—which this paragraph introduces—is brand new. The LEA will know that the parent has that right of appeal.
Moreover, the code of practice which my department is developing, and over which we shall consult, will provide further guidance to schools on how much they should themselves do for children with special educational needs before involving the LEA. This will make it clearer for all concerned—authorities, governing bodies, schools and parents—just what the respective duties are, when a school has done as much as it reasonably can, and when an LEA needs to intervene—or indeed when it may be that a statement should be discontinued. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 9, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps I may make a brief point on the contents of statements. Can my noble friend assure the Committee that the need for speech therapy will form part of the educational content of a statement as I understand that at present many local authorities are still including it under part V of the statement, which means that there is no opportunity for appeal against it. This can form an important part of the education of a child. I should be grateful if my noble friend could give that undertaking.
Baroness Blatch: We had a long debate about speech therapy at the beginning of our proceedings today. I ask my noble friend whether he would be so kind as to read what we said earlier. I also said that both educational and non-educational needs would be included in making provisions for children with special needs.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 160 [Appeal against decision not to make statement]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 224 and 225:
Page 95, line 42, at end insert:
("(1A) The notice specified in subsection (1) above shall include a statement of the cost, if any, referred to in subsection (3) of section 158 of this Act".).
Page 95, line 43, at end insert:
("either—
(a) the cost referred to in subsection (IA) of this section, or
(b)").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments as part of an earlier group. I should like to move them formally in case the Minister has anything to say about the points which they address. I beg the Committee's pardon. I spoke to these amendments a long time ago. I do not need to move them.
[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]
Clause 160 agreed to.
Clause 161 [Appeals against contents of statements]:
[Amendments Nos. 226 and 226ZA not moved.]
Clause 161 agreed to.
Clauses 162 and 163 agreed to.
Clause 164 [Assessment of educational needs at request of governing body of grant-maintained school]:
[Amendment No. 226A not moved.]
Clause 164 agreed to.
Clauses 165 and 166 agreed to.
Clause 167 [Constitution of Tribunal]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 226B:
Page 99, line 43, leave out ("Regulations shall provide for the establishment of") and insert ("There shall be established").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 227A to 227D, 227DA and 227E. The Committee will be aware of the Government's wish to improve parents' statutory rights of appeal against the local authority's decisions in respect of children's special educational needs. This follows sustained criticism of the present appeals system with its excessive delays. In seeking to improve the appeals system our objectives have been to create a new system that is quick, simple, impartial and independent; a system in which informality is the key word but which at the same time gives parents complete confidence that their child's needs will be properly met and fully considered.
We firmly believe that the independent special educational needs tribunal is the best way to meet those objectives. We have made it clear both in this House and elsewhere that the tribunal should provide a simple and straightforward means of resolving disputes between parents and local authorities. The amendments before the Committee today are intended to clarify both the status and the authority of the tribunal and to emphasise its independence and impartiality. I commend the amendments to the Committee and beg to move Amendment No. 226B.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 99, line 46, at end insert ("and in Wales of a tribunal to be known as the Special Education Needs Tribunal for Wales.").
The noble Lord said: I regret that my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas, in whose name the amendment also stands, is unable to be here due to a long-standing commitment. It is right to say that the proposal to set up a special educational needs tribunal has not been well received in Wales. The Welsh organisations with a special interest in the subject would have preferred a modification of the present appeals system. In particular, it is feared that the tribunal proposed by the Bill will be too legalistic, formal and inaccessible. That will tend to lead to apathy.
However, as the Government are against modifying the present appeals system, it is essential that there should be established an independent tribunal for Wales. I believe that that is attested by the special education consortium and by many voluntary organisations in Wales, including the Children in Wales organisation. I also believe that it is reflected in the responses which the Welsh Office has received but which it has not published.
In another place the Minister of State at the Welsh Office said that in Wales we have 14,000 children with
568
statements. That represents about 2.9 per cent. of the school population. I believe that that is higher than the figure for the United Kingdom. I do not know—and I do not know whether the evidence is available—how many of the statements have been the subject of appeal. It would clearly be helpful if we had that information.
The case for setting up an independent Welsh tribunal is based on three main grounds. The first is one of benefit to the individual child. That should be the paramount principle. I am reminded of that in the light of the work which we did on the Children Act. By now the Welsh language is an essential part of the educational environment in Wales. In a sense we have at least two linguistic communities: the Welsh-speaking, bilingual community and the monolingual English-speaking community. We have our own national curriculum and a highly developed and excellent all-Wales strategy for the mentally handicapped. A statutory Welsh Language Board will be set up under the Welsh Language Bill, which is awaiting Second Reading in the Commons.
Clearly, against that kind of background, any special educational needs tribunal operating in Wales should have an intimate and immediate knowledge of the Welsh bilingual scene with its distinctive curriculum and funding arrangements. It should be familiar with the special educational needs which have a bilingual dimension. It should also be aware of the facilities available in Wales.
The voluntary bodies which have been in touch with me believe that it would be unfair and unreasonable to expect a Welsh member of the GB body, or a GB body listening from time to time to a Welsh complaint, to have a full and adequate understanding of the Welsh position that I have described and of the needs of a Welsh child. I understand that such a body would be in some difficulty in gaining the confidence of Welsh parents and educational bodies.
That is the main argument, but it is supported by two others. The second is the argument of convenience for parents and witnesses. An independent Welsh tribunal would be within easy reach of parents living in Wales. The travelling time and costs of parents and witnesses attending such a tribunal would be reduced. Also, it has not gone unnoticed that under Clause 170 it would be a criminal offence, punishable by a fine not exceeding level 3, not to attend a meeting of the tribunal if summoned to do so. I hope that the setting up of a Welsh tribunal would also lead to a reduction of work at the centre and to a speedier decision for the parent.
The third argument, which I shall only touch upon, is based on the right of Wales to have its own national institutions. The amendment would be consistent with the policy of successive Governments since the 1939–45 war to set up Welsh institutions to meet Welsh needs. For the three reasons that I have advanced and, in particular, for the first, we believe that the amendment has considerable merits. I beg to move.
Midnight
Viscount St. Davids: I appreciate the concerns of the noble Lord in wanting to ensure that the new tribunal arrangements fully reflect the needs of Wales and cover the particular features of the educational scene in the Principality. Let me assure him that I, too, would not countenance a situation which took no account of Welsh issues and interests. However, this can be achieved under the arrangements proposed in the Bill and there is no need to have a separate tribunal for Wales. There is no question of appeals in Wales not having a Welsh identity.
It may be helpful if I emphasise that the tribunal will not be established as a once and for all body in a fixed location; rather, we have made it quite clear that separate local tribunals will be set up and operate whenever and wherever appeals are lodged—and that includes different parts of Wales, as near as possible to the home of the appellants.
The tribunals will comprise three people—a legally qualified chairman from a panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor and lay members from a panel appointed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State for Wales will make appointments to the lay panel of people with the appropriate expertise and attributes to serve on such tribunals, as well as a knowledge and appreciation of Welsh life. I fully expect that the panel of chairmen appointed by the Lord Chancellor will also include people with similar attributes.
I am sure the noble Lord would agree that it is important that the right people are put forward for the tribunals to deal in an expert and sensitive way with the issues that will arise on such appeals as well as to cover Welsh interests. Accordingly, where appropriate, the tribunals will include people who not only have particular specialist experience but also have a particular appreciation of issues in the Principality. Bearing in mind the wide range of special needs, it must be open to question whether a separate Welsh tribunal system would always be able to offer the necessary expertise in cases of highly specialised difficulties. We do not want to cut Wales off from access to experts in their field. Further and most importantly, I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that, in considering the needs and provision for children with special educational needs, we must have a consistent approach between England and Wales.
The local tribunals will be focusing their attention on the statutory code of practice to which, in future, LEAs will be required to have regard. That will operate for England and Wales. It would not make sense to have a code operating different criteria in the two countries. Similarly, how could Members of the Committee contemplate a situation where tribunals in England applied different standards from those in Wales and vice versa? One tribunal system, with panels sitting in both England and Wales—and even within Wales in various locations—represents the most effective and fairest way of handling appeals and is in the best interests of the children concerned.
In addition, the noble Lord will note that the tribunals will be served by a central secretariat which, for appeals in Wales, will include Welsh Office
570
officials. The Secretary of State for Wales will be consulting widely in Wales on the arrangements for the running of the tribunals. I see no reason why translation facilities cannot be provided where appropriate. In sum, I can see no cause for concern that no account will be taken of particular Welsh issues in the new arrangements.
It is in the interests of all children with special needs that the arrangements are applied consistently and uniformly in both England and Wales while at the same time taking account of Welsh circumstances and conditions. This applies both in terms of the composition of the tribunals and in the application of a common code of practice. The Bill's provisions achieve this. I trust that the noble Lord will accept that the system we envisage—local tribunals sitting as near as possible to an appellant's home, appointments to the panel of lay members of persons with a knowledge of the Welsh scene and a joint secretariat for appeals in Wales—obviates the need for his amendment and that he will seek to withdraw it.
Lord Prys-Davies: I have been following the Minister's response. I believe that it meets one of the main arguments that I have advanced for setting up an independent tribunal, but it leaves untouched the other two arguments. The Minister raised two objections in principle to setting up a tribunal. The first was that a Welsh tribunal would not have access to the necessary expertise. That argument has not been raised before in the other place or by any of the organisations. I should have thought that the tribunal would need access to specialist knowledge that is part of the Welsh experience itself.
The noble Viscount raises a second objection. If we had two independent tribunals, one for England and one for Wales, that would make it difficult to achieve a consistency of approach. I submit that that argument overlooks the fact that the code of practice will go a long way to ensure consistency of approach where that consistency is desirable, and provided also that it is consistent with flexibility where flexibility is required.
The noble Viscount referred us to Clause 170. Clause 170(2) (b) envisages that there will be more than one tribunal. I wonder whether the noble Viscount can take our amendment away and consider whether the department could in some way strengthen Clause 170(2) (b) to ensure that one of the tribunals will have special responsibility for Welsh cases. I should not like to draft the amendment at this time of night. I wonder whether the department could build a new subsection onto Clause 170 to reflect the thinking expressed by the noble Viscount.
Viscount St. Davids: I can give no such commitment, but I shall write to the noble Lord on the issue that he has raised to see whether I can reassure him that the proposals put forward in the Bill will meet with his satisfaction.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the noble Viscount for that response. In the light of his promise, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 227A and 227B:
Page 100, line 14, leave out ("under subsection (1) above may") and insert ("may—
( )").
Page 100, line 16, at end insert ("and
( ) make such other provision in connection with the establishment and continuation of the Tribunal as the Secretary of State considers necessary or desirable").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 167, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 168 and 169 agreed to.
Clause 17O [Tribunal procedure]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 227C and 227D:
Page 101, line 7, leave out ("of a tribunal").
Page 101, line 9, leave out ("of the tribunal").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 227DA:
Page 101, line 24, at end insert ("in particular those incurred by parents and parent befrienders in attending the tribunal").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. The desirability of reimbursing parents for the costs of attending tribunals was recognised by the Minister, Mr. Timothy Boswell, during the Bill's passage through the other place. He told the Committee in the other place on 28th January that the Government intended to pay parents' travel expenses to tribunals. He also told the Committee that the Government were open to representations on other matters relating to tribunals. That is welcome. Such costs can be considerable for parents, particularly those of deaf and deaf-blind children and children suffering other serious disabilities.
In recommending that commitment for legislation, I argue that it should be extended to cover the costs of parent befrienders. If a parent takes a solicitor to the tribunal, that solicitor's costs will usually be authorised. The National Deaf Children's Society and SENSE often support parents of deaf and deaf-blind children at tribunals. The staff of the National Deaf Children's Society have well over 1,000 cases annually and its volunteers deal with many hundreds more on a local basis. Many families lack the confidence to put forward clearly their case when they are in disagreement with their local education authority. For some from ethnic minorities or if the parents themselves are deaf, there are additional communication problems arising from the fact that English is not their first language. That may be so for those who are ethnically British who have sign as their first language; it does not necessarily mean those whose families originate from other parts of the world.
At present, such support is funded entirely from charitable sources. Why should solicitors be paid for helping parents at tribunals while members of charities, whose funding comes from voluntary sources, do not receive reimbursement from the tribunal? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The wording of Clause 170(2) already embraces the principle contained in the amendment in making a general provision for the awarding of costs and expenses. In addition, Clause
572
170(3) makes specific provision for the Secretary of State to pay such allowances to persons attending the tribunal,
"as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine".
That could include payment of expenses in the manner envisaged by the amendment.
I should make it clear that as a general rule the special needs tribunal will not award costs against an unsuccessful party to an appeal. Its role is to make educational judgments. We envisage that an order for costs would be made only when one of the parties had acted in a frivolous, vexatious or otherwise unreasonable manner, thereby putting both the other party and the tribunal to a great deal of wasted time and money.
However, I must emphasise that that power would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. I have said that the principles behind the amendment are already contained in the Bill. As my noble friend said, Ministers made a specific commitment to the payment of parents' travel expenses during the Commons Committee stage. It would be inappropriate to include those or other detailed provisions for the payment of costs and expenses in primary legislation. Detailed provision of the type envisaged should be dealt with in the regulations and we shall consult widely on those during the autumn. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I shall certainly withdraw the amendment. I hope that my noble friend and those who advise her will consider seriously granting the expenses of parents' befrienders and not just those of solicitors who would expect to be paid for legally representing the parents. Many people would not dream of going to a solicitor. In fact, the very idea frightens them. They would rather seek help from charitable organisations which, my noble friend will know—because I am sure that she has contributed—obtain their funds from voluntary sources. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 227E:
Page 101, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) for taxing or otherwise settling any such costs or expenses (and, in particular, for enabling such costs to be taxed in the county court)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 170, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 171 agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
Clause 172 [Special schools]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 227F:
Page 102, line 14, at end insert:
("(2A) An educational unit within a hospital which is, for the time being, being approved by the Secretary of State as a school, shall be a maintained special school falling within subsection (2) above.").
The noble Lord said: There is clearly a powerful need to ensure high quality provision in all hospitals whenever a child is able to participate in education. As I understand it, the Government are proposing to

573
provide a statutory basis for the education of children not in school. That is to be done by grouping all such provision under the heading of "pupil referral units".
However, the education of children in hospital is very different from that provided for those children who are likely to be the main recipients of education at "pupil referral units". Children are often in hospital for short periods of time and flexibility is required to meet their educational and social needs. The pupil referral units appear to be designed principally for children who have been excluded from school and who are likely to be in attendance at them for medium to long term periods. Both PRUs and hospital tuition units will have the objective of following the national curriculum, but that may not be so easily obtainable for children who are in hospital for short periods of time.
Both PRUs and hospital tuition units will require expert liaison between the unit and the pupils' home schools, although once again the nature of it will be different. For hospitals, the object will be to integrate the child back into the school straightaway, while with the pupil referral unit it may be a process that takes several months; indeed, in the end it may not prove possible.
The proposal in Amendment No. 228 to establish a grant-maintained school in each hospital for the education of children is surely an unduly cumbersome and even unduly bureaucratic way of making appropriate provision in hospitals. The Minister will be able to confirm the figures, but I believe that there are approximately 40 hospital schools that have been approved special schools and 150 other hospitals where there are sufficient children as in-patients to merit some form of professional educational input. Frequently, that may be only one person working on a part-time basis, but the larger departments will have a full-time staff attached to the school. Indeed, there may be provision for out-patients and day patients. However, the provision of many hospitals will have to be flexible because of the varying nature of paediatric caseloads. The establishment of a school at those hospitals, whether it be grant-maintained or LEA-maintained, with the additional cost and support that schools require is difficult to justify.
The intention of Amendments Nos. 227F and 228ZA is to require a hospital education unit to be set up in hospitals where children are normally admitted. It is hoped that regulations made by the Secretary of State would be able to specify the amount of educational provision that a child should receive in hospital and that regulations made under Clause 255 ("Inter-authority recoupment") will recognise that the home LEA of pupils has to pay the maintaining LEA the cost of educating the children.
I suggest that regulations should specify matters such as the minimum length of stay before a child can be educated. For example, can a child be educated for a stay in a hospital as short as a half day, especially where there are repeated admissions, as with children on dialysis? Can children who are day patients, perhaps in psychiatric out-patient units, be educated? What is the appropriate staffing ratio for hospital provision? I believe that there is now no current
574
guidance on the pupil-teacher ratios in hospital provision as the 1974 circular covering the matter was replaced in 1990.
It should be noted that there are no cost-control mechanisms in Amendment No. 228 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young. We would all wish that children in hospital should have one-to-one teaching provision, but, frankly, that seems to us to be unrealistic. Therefore, the Government need to say how much they are prepared to ask LEAs to pay for education in hospital.
The Government's amendments, for their part, do not seem to take account of hospital schools, although the financial problems that they face may be covered by Clause 255 ("Inter-authority recoupment"). The problems with hospital schools seem to be London problems, following the abolition of ILEA. There are hospital schools in all our greater metropolitan cities that have achieved a happy relationship with their maintaining LEA and they do not report any significant problem in their financing.
However, that is not the case in London; for example, there have recently been press reports that in one hospital school the maintaining LEA has decided to reduce the staff from 12 to six without there being any apparent reduction in the caseload of the school. One of the reasons given for this reduction is the difficulty that the LEA has of collecting the money from the home LEA of pupils in the hospital school. In putting forward these amendments, I hope that in her comments the Minister will be able to clarify the Government's position on hospital education and on how it will be properly financed. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I rise briefly to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It appears to me that special schools that are attached to hospitals would be far better off if they were attached to local authorities as there are constantly changing demands on them in terms of their pupils' needs. An LEA would surely be better placed to meet this constantly changing demand. On those grounds alone, surely the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is sensible.
Lord Young of Dartington: I am pleased to be supported in my amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, had to leave earlier and she asked me to apologise for that but she has to go to Poland early tomorrow morning. She assured me of her full support for this amendment.
I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the consideration that she and the Secretary of State have given to this matter since the Second Reading despite the 1,001 problems the Minister has had to deal with. I also wish to thank the officials in the Department for Education, who have wrestled with what is admittedly a difficult matter, and the many devoted hospital teachers who have helped myself and my colleagues.
I want to put the general case for this amendment to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in particular, and to my noble friends as well as to Members on the other side

575
of the Committee. That case is that the Government should make the educational service for sick children hospital-based rather than LEA area-based.
I illustrate the case by reference to a particular boy, James Warham, whose parents have, I gather, also written to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. James's parents have given permission for his name to be used in this debate. James shows how vitally needed is an educational service for sick children. He lives in the borough of Haringey but has for many years been a patient at Guy's hospital in the borough of Southwark. He has chronic renal failure and has to attend Guy's hospital three times a week for dialysis, which takes about 20 hours a week of his time. Over most of his life the famous Evelina hospital school at Guy's has received excellent support from ILEA, and as a result of that James is now coming up to his GCSE. If he does not get it, his parents fear that he could be on the dole for life. Qualifications are even more important for handicapped children than for non-handicapped children.
But the Guy's school is now the prime responsibility of Southwark Council and that council last week took the decision to cut down the staffing by about 50 per cent. at another great hospital school in the same borough for children with psychiatric problems at the Maudsley Hospital. Are cuts at Guy's also on the way as they are rumoured to be? If they are, Guy's school could be crippled and there could be nothing there for children from Haringey or from any other part of the country. Even if Southwark keeps up its payments, there is the business—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned this—of Southwark recouping the costs for James from Haringey Council.
In some parts of the country this business of reimbursement is proving an obstacle to proper education for sick children. Some Members of the Committee may have received a submission from the organisation Action for Sick Children in which reference is made to the action of Cumbria County Council in announcing that children treated in hospitals outside Cumbria—which is a considerable number—should not be provided with schooling unless prior written approval has been given by Cumbria. Such bureaucracy will inevitably cause delay, as it already does, in children receiving education in hospital which should be part of their rehabilitation and their rights as citizens. That is happening elsewhere as LEAs which are strapped for cash try to make ends meet.
The Government have decided—and the two speakers who immediately preceded me seem to agree—that the whole problem should be managed by replacing the power of LEAs to provide education for sick children by a duty. That is evident from a new amendment—Amendment No. 301A—which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has tabled in the past few days. That could bring about some improvement but not enough so long as the duty is to be pushed on to LEAs. Most LEAs have already been too knocked about by the Government to jump to it when they are required as a duty to do something of this kind, which for some will mean doing something they have never
576
done before. They will ask what use is a duty without resources, and there is no sign of any additional resources. That is the first serious fault with the Government's position.
Not all of the 600,000 or so children who are hospital in-patients in a year are away from their ordinary schools long enough to require special provision; but many are. Whether they receive any education depends at present upon the whim of geography. Some LEAs do nothing, others have one home tutor and no hospital schools. Thirty-eight per cent. of hospitals in the country with children's wards have no teaching service, and the provision of home tutoring is patchy, to say the least.
To remedy that extreme geographical injustice will require a new start, and in some cases a start from zero. But how is it to be done? How can one envisage that LEAs will be able to jump to do the job? Even though they will receive guidance, which I welcome, I do not believe that it will be possible for there to be enough precision about the new duty to make it stick. What standard of education will LEAs have a duty to provide for sick children: one home tutor for a whole county or a series of hospital schools? I am afraid that there will be endless argument and no doubt also court cases.
The other grievous fault with the Government's position is that sick children are being lumped in with disruptive children who have to be excluded from schools. All are to be looked after together by LEAs in accord with their new duty. But the needs of the two types of children are quite different and they should surely not be lumped together.
It appears to me that the situation in that respect has become worse since Second Reading. The Government appear to be proposing in Amendment No. 301A that hospital schools which are not already special schools, such as, for example, the North Tyneside General Hospital School as it is called although it is not a special school, should in future be called "pupil referral units" and subject to discipline and all kinds of inappropriate rules which may be suitable for truants but not for the sick. It is as though hospital schools, too, are to be "sin bins", as the pupil referral units will no doubt continue to be called. In the past it was sometimes thought that sickness is due to sin, but that was many centuries ago.
My amendment goes in the other direction, on the premise that education for sick children should be hospital based rather than area based. Mr. Eric Forth, the Schools Minister went a good way towards recognising that area boundaries should no longer be of such importance in his comments last year on the Greenwich judgment. In another place he stated:
"With the increasing delegation of power and influence to the school from the LEA, and in particular with more and more schools taking grant-maintained status and opting out of LEA control, the school and its local area are now of much more relevance than the LEA boundary. It would be odd to seek td reinforce such boundaries at this stage".
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Forth and believe that it is even more odd to reinforce such boundaries for sick children instead of basing the service on hospitals which can have children from all over the place, and across numerous LEA boundaries. The

577
money should surely follow the child, to use one of the clichés of our debate, and not have to cross over LEA boundaries on the way.
The argument for hospital schools is strong as the foundation of an educational service for sick children. There are four specific reasons.
First, a school is recognised as the nub of the educational system. Everyone knows what a school is. Secondly, hospital schools have full-time teachers on their staffs with an understanding of their special tasks. They know from experience the best ways of helping a seriously ill child whose response to education may be intermittent and unpredictable but for whom the teachers should be available when needed. The hospital teachers who have to interact with the medical staff know most about the problems generated by an illness and are therefore in the best position to draw up a curriculum plan for each child related to the national curriculum. They are also best placed to train and, up to a point, to supervise the part-time home tutors whose experience has previously been in ordinary classrooms. Thirdly, a hospital school, whether or not made up of units, can have enough teachers to cover both primary and secondary stages and the main subject groups.
Fourthly, it is not much use a hospital school drawing up a curriculum plan unless it is carried through when the child leaves the hospital in the period of convalescence. That is more likely to happen if the home tutor is on the staff of the hospital school.
All those reasons favour hospital schools as the nub and heart of the service. They all point to the advantages of grant-maintained status being open to such schools, whether or not they are already special schools. If the new funding agency were responsible for the funding, they would have to work to a national policy which does not exist now, and is so much needed, whereby it would be decided which hospitals, and groups of hospitals, should have schools, in particular which should have new schools, and how the home tutoring service should be organised around the schools. The new National Association for the Education of Sick Children, which we hope to set up partly as a consequence of the Bill, will be ready to advise on such a plan and, all being well, will be heard from before the Bill has left this House.
Finally, I have to acknowledge that despite all the arguments I am—I believe with the Minister—in a paradoxical position on the amendment. The two sides of the House have, as it were, changed places. The whole drift of the Bill, and of the Minister's arguments on its behalf, is to promote grant-maintained schools. Yet the Government are turning their back on possibly over 100 new hospital schools which would wish to become grant maintained, and saying, "No, we don't want you. The job must be one for LEAs, so the scope of LEAs needs to be enlarged". Perhaps equally strangely, my position is to the contrary. I am generally opposed to ordinary grant-maintained schools and I am a strong supporter of LEAs with their often dedicated administrative staff and their unrivalled knowledge of local conditions and needs. But in this very special case that I have been arguing I believe that grant-maintained
578
status could be of special benefit for the education of sick children. I have therefore had to modify my main position and give hospital schools, which are not already special schools, the option of GM status, but just as an exception.
I hope that my colleagues on these Benches—even the noble Lord, Lord Judd, himself—will bear with me, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not see my olive branch as a dagger just because it comes in the first place from this side of the House. It is certainly not meant to be.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say, not that the detail of the amendment is right, but that she is prepared to take it back and have another look at the whole matter and that she will show some flexibility of mind when the issue comes back to this Chamber. If she is able to do so, there will be a wide body of support among many devoted teachers and others who agree with Her Royal Highness Princess Diana when she spoke two days ago about sick children in her capacity as president of the National Children's Hospital at Great Ormond Street, which is at present the special responsibility of the London Borough of Camden. She spoke of the need,
"to encourage and guide, to nourish and nurture, and to listen with love to their needs in ways which clearly show our children that we value them. They in their turn will then learn how to value themselves".
I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: In supporting the amendment, I have had to consolidate what I was going to say because the time is so late. It is very unfortunate that such important amendments come at this late hour. There is great concern on the part of many people, including teachers, some of whom have taken early retirement, over the many changes in health and education. One example is that of the trust hospitals, which have started charging for hospital school premises. Amendment No. 228 deals with the most brave and deserving children in our country, children with leukaemia, renal disease, muscular dystrophy, spinal injury, severe burns and numerous other problems.
Let us think for one moment of a recent orthopaedic tragedy: a girl who recently lost two of her friends when they walked back from a sweetshop and were killed by a driver. That girl now lies in a hospital in Teesside with both her legs amputated. She has to pick up the strands of her life, and education will help her do that.
Our amendment aims to remedy the lack of consistency in the education of sick children. It also tries to put a positive direction in the Bill. I hope that the proposal of a hospital-based and medically referred home education service will produce a more ordered system than the present, rather disjointed one. The last research on hospital schools showed that provision is very varied and patchy, ranging from 28 per cent. to 76 per cent., depending on the location of the hospital.
I feel that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, are rather too narrow. Many children with specialised conditions often go to hospitals far from their home. They go to supra-regional specialising

579
centres; they may be extra-contractual referrals. Education brings normality and continuity to those children.
Children in hospital vary greatly in ages and educational ability. Some will be taking examinations; others will be at the primary stage. There needs to be flexibility. Hospitals do not fit into local authority districts. That, I fear, is one of the problems with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
We have heard a lot from Ministers, particularly health Ministers, about the money following the patient. I should just like to know whether in this case the money will follow the patient. These are children and very important patients.
Lord Kilmarnock: I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 228. I respect the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has chosen a better route. The main question, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said in the briefing on his amendment that he circulated, is:
"LEA or hospital school?"
He gave very good reasons why hospital based schools or clusters of hospital units serve the needs of children better. A real school with an identity and outreach facilities will be better than a dispersed LEA service. The noble Lord, Lord Young, said that the concept of the school was the nub of the issue. I think he was right.
A number of briefings have been circulated on this group of amendments advocating different solutions. Action for Sick Children wants to place a duty on the LEA to provide education for such children in order to bring children sick in hospital into legislative parity with children with special educational needs, which in fact they do not enjoy at present. On the other hand, it is rather persuasively argued by the National Standing Conference of Hospital Teachers that the burden of excluded pupils that LEAs are increasingly having to pick up will:
"leave insufficient funds to provide education for what could arguably be described as a sizeable and silent proportion of the most vulnerable group of children in the education system—those who are medically incapacitated".
The same paper goes on to call for:
"the creation of a structured, coherent, non-bureaucratic, amalgamated hospital and medical home education service".
I agree that that is a bit of a mouthful, but that body states earlier on and rather more simply that the suggestion of grant-maintained status for this branch of the school system is visionary. I repeat the word "visionary". I rather reject the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it would be more cumbersome or more bureaucratic than what exists at present.
On practical grounds I therefore support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young. But I am also attracted to it on other grounds. In using the combined concepts of the grant-maintained school and the possibility of clustering, it works within the spirit of the Bill, as he suggested. I think that that is clever and constructive. It makes it more difficult for the Government to resist.
I am also intuitively attracted to the amendment on the ground that it seeks to loosen up a little the rigidities and time hallowed categories of the system.
580
It addresses a particular, very special and rather complex need and endeavours to find a solution for it within the framework of the Bill—as the noble Lord speaking for his amendment suggested. I like that because it is a useful pointer to the direction in which the Government should go.
I do not want to muddy the waters of the noble Lord, Lord Young. He has a special limited objective and I support him fully in trying to achieve it. But I hope that it may also be the beginning of the opening up of the Government's mind toward greater flexibility in the creation of new types of school for various types of need, which will be the subject of later amendments during the course of the Bill in this Chamber.
So I hope very much that the process will begin here and that the Government will give a very sympathetic hearing to this batch of amendments.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Committee for the contributions to this important debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, it is late and that is not at all satisfactory. However, we probably went round the houses rather too much earlier in the day.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has taken a particular interest in these matters and has commissioned some impartial research. I have listened extremely carefully to the arguments. The Committee will have to forgive me, but I find the support wholly inconsistent in that noble Lords have totally and consistently opposed grant-maintained status—after all, it is a form of self-government and there is no intellectual defence for approving it for these schools and not for any others. What is the difference? I am at a loss to understand the logic of the noble Lord's argument.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Is it not that trust hospitals are now self-governing, and therefore it sounds as though it would be sensible to have the hospital school self-governing?
Baroness Blatch: Noble Lords opposed self-governing hospitals too. It is the inconsistency I find difficult to understand. We are talking of hospitals right across the country and many are not self-governing. I find an inconsistency in the notion that self-government should apply to this specific sector—with its problems which are not as straightforward as schools that are to become self-governing—and not others.
Lord Kilmarnock: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness, though I know it is pushing one's luck at this time of night. This is, in fact, a cross-party amendment. If the noble Baroness will cast her mind back to the speeches at Second Reading, she will recall that not everybody whose name is attached to this amendment was necessarily opposed to grant-maintained status, and I count myself among them. So I slightly resent what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Blatch: I am talking of noble Lords who, in the course of this debate, said that they oppose grant-maintained status but for this specific purpose they believe it to be a good idea.
I am glad to be able to assure noble Lords that the Bill before this House will lead to a better co-ordinated and more responsive regime for the education of sick children. The department, in consultation with all those concerned, will be taking steps to ensure that this is so. But I choose my words "better co-ordinated and more responsive" with care. A uniform regime would not be appropriate, given the variety of the needs and circumstances of sick children. The objective for their education should be a common one. The means of delivering that objective will differ for each child and from hospital to hospital. The Bill makes two important changes to improve the current situation.
Not much has been said about parents' views in the matter. I happen to be somebody who had a child who died one month before his 15th birthday and who spent some time in and out of hospitals. I have to say that I would have been distraught if I had gone into hospital and found teachers sitting at his bedside on those days when he was probably well enough to do other things. It seemed to me that I should have had a choice in deciding whether or not he should be taught during those periods.
First, special schools established in hospitals will be able, once necessary regulations have been introduced, to opt for self-governing status. They include equally eminent institutions across the country. Self-governing status for a hospital school will be a helpful option for those schools which may consider they have the management and other expertise that they will need to make a go of things without the day-to-day supervision of an LEA. It could offer them greater freedom to manage their own affairs and run their own budgets, obtaining better value for money from the resources available to them.
The Bill offers a second important benefit for the education of sick children. As noble Lords are aware we have tabled a number of amendments to the Bill which will replace with a duty LEA's existing powers to secure the education of pupils otherwise than at school. That duty will apply to the education of sick children alongside those who may opt out of school for less worthy reasons and will require LEAs to develop and implement a coherent and considered policy for their education, setting that within the context of their schooling as a whole. The department will prepare guidance on the operation of the new "education otherwise" duty in so far as it affects the education of sick children, whether at home or in hospital. Continuity should be achieved through close liaison between the school, the hospital and the family. That should be the case whether or not formally constituted hospital schools exist in the area in question.
Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Young, that there is no question of "education otherwise" in hospital being known as "pupil referral units". That
582
was his expression not mine. "Education otherwise" in hospital will be part of the local authority's sick children's service.
There is, I believe, a substantial degree of agreement between us on these matters. We agree that those who work on behalf of sick children do an admirable job which may not have been sufficiently recognised in the past. We agree that the ability to acquire self-governing status will contribute to improving provision for children in hospital. The noble Lord has pointed to what he sees as a degree of variability between local authorities in the extent to which they provide education outside school for children who are sick. But I hope we agree that the reform of the provision of education otherwise than at school, backed up by the guidance which we shall issue on the education of sick children, will serve to secure better co-ordinated and more coherent provision for these children.
I must, however, take issue with one of the fundamental premises underlying the noble Lord's amendment. He takes the view that self-governing hospital schools should take over from local education authorities as centres for supervising the long-term education of sick children. He believes that in effect such schools should become centrally funded sick children's services. He has explained his view that hospitals, with their acquired knowledge of children's needs and case histories, are better placed than LEAs to undertake the central co-ordinating role. He argues that promoters should be able to establish schools in hospitals where teaching is provided as education otherwise and that those schools should have general responsibility for the education of sick children in the area.
This is a radical and forceful idea but I believe is misconceived. I take the point that while a child is in hospital the teaching staff there will be uniquely placed to judge his educational needs, informed in part by their knowledge of his medical condition. But we must bear in mind the need for continuity between the child's mainstream school, his education while at home and his education in hospital. It is the LEA which is best placed to take a long-term, overarching view of the education of any given sick child, encompassing the school, the home and the hospital. As the grant for GM schools is recovered from the LEA, the kind of regime which the noble Lord has in mind would reduce the amounts available to authorities for the provision of education otherwise and significantly lessen their scope to do so in cost-effective ways which took account of opportunities for financial planning and economy of scale.
In summary, I understand the force behind the noble Lord's arguments. He shares our concern to achieve the most we can for sick children who have to spend a good deal of their time outside school. I also find it gratifying that, in this context at least, he shares our general belief in self-governing status as a way forward for maintained schools. But I do not share his view that the self-governing hospital school is the appropriate place from which the education of sick children outside school should be overseen and

583
co-ordinated. Their education is properly part of a continuum. Hence the importance of the new general duty on LEAs to which I have referred.
We have set in hand measures for this group of children. These break significant new ground. We must give them a chance to work.
I suggest that Amendment No. 227F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is unnecessary. It is open to local education authorities to serve notice of proposals under Clause 173(2) for the setting up of a hospital special school where the educational provision was previously in the form of a unit. For the reasons I have already explained, it would be inappropriate to provide for units in hospitals which currently had the status of education otherwise to be able to apply direct to the Secretary of State for the status of special school or to be accorded that status automatically. The local education authority, with the central role which I have described, must be the most appropriate body to judge the circumstances in which such action is necessary. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw this amendment.
I have given your Lordships assurances that under this Bill the education of children in hospital will be safeguarded. I have said that it will lead to a better co-ordinated and more responsive regime, and I choose those words with care. A uniform regime would not be appropriate, given the variety of the needs and circumstances of sick children. The objective for their education should be a common one. The means of delivering that objective will differ for each child and from hospital to hospital. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed tonight.
Lord Judd: Again, we have had a courteously full reply from the Minister, which I am sure we all appreciate. I believe that this is much too important a debate to hold at one o'clock in the morning and it would be unreasonable to pursue the matter to a Division in the small hours.
I believe that we all wish to put on record our genuine appreciation to my noble friend Lord Young, not only for what he has said tonight but for the forthright and imaginative way in which he has brought to the attention of the nation a very real problem and challenge and the dangers that face both children and the committed staff who work with them in the hospitals. I cannot say too powerfully how important my noble friend's stand has been.
There is no difference across the Floor of the Committee about the importance of this issue and the need to respond to it convincingly. The issue is how we do it. I ask my noble friend to think a little more deeply about our own approach. What we have consistently argued from this side of the Committee during long sessions on the Bill is that our approach to education is a community approach. We believe that the local community is terribly important in the nation and that children in hospital are a sensitive part of community responsibility. To contract out of that sense of community responsibility and make some special ad hoc administrative arrangement would be unfortunately remiss in our general position.
584
However, as it is clear that we shall not pursue this to a Division—I do not know whether my noble friend will pursue his amendment to a Division; that is his choice—perhaps I may say to the Minister that there is an issue here. There is a problem of funding, there is a problem of acute pressure and of cutting staff when we should be talking about how the service is improved. I wonder whether, in perhaps a word or two, she will give an indication that she will look hard at the issue and say whether she is prepared to consider direct funding to preserve the role of education in hospitals or, if she is not prepared to do that, whether she will, with her tough approach to so many matters, intervene to ensure that the arrangements for recoupment where there are hospitals that take children from a wide area are made effectively to apply.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. We announced last month our intention to do away with financial recoupment for the majority of pupils who receive education outside of their home LEA. Clause 255 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to do that. The future funding of hospital provision must be considered as well in this context. The Government will shortly publish a consultation document on recoupment which will seek the views of everyone on this point.
Lord Young of Dartington: I thank my noble friend and the noble Baroness for what they have said. I agree fully with my noble friend about the importance of education being in the community and responsible to the community. But I put it to him that those sentiments do not apply with any great force to the education of sick children. It is partly because children go from all over the country to hospitals perhaps hundreds of miles away. They go from North Yorkshire to hospitals in Newcastle, from Cornwall to hospitals in Bristol, and so on, according to their health needs and where they will get the best attention. That being so, the ordinary considerations that apply to educational policy cannot really apply to this sphere.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked how I could be so inconsistent, as she claimed I was. I am not, in my own view, any more, I imagine, than she thinks herself inconsistent. I am against grant-maintained status for ordinary schools because there is a system of which I do on the whole approve which covers the whole country. To take ordinary schools out of the control of the LEAs is potentially to destroy what is good and what is already there. In the case of education for sick children, there is no system. It is patchy and there are many holes in it. It needs to be built up almost from scratch.
I agree that at this stage of our proceedings we should not continue further to accuse each other of inconsistency. I plead again that the Minister be prepared to engage in some fresh thinking on what she in her remarks admitted was a very difficult matter. I hope that fresh thinking might be able to come through even before the Bill is enacted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 227G not moved.]
Clause 172 agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 228 and 228ZA not moved.]
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 173 [Establishment, etc. of maintained or grant-maintained schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 228A and 228B:
Page 103, line 29, leave out ("References in this Part of this Act") and insert:
("In this Part of this Act—
( ) references").
Page 103, line 31, at end insert ("and
( ) references to an alteration to a school include the transfer of the school to a new site.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 173, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 174 [Procedure for dealing with proposals]:
[Amendments Nos. 229 and 230 not moved.]
Clause 174 agreed to.
Clause 175 agreed to.
Clause 176 [Maintained special school becoming grant-maintained special school]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I now call Amendment No. 230A in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk.
Lord Northbourne: Amendment No. 230B comes before Amendment No. 230A in the Marshalled List.
Noble Lords: It does not.
Lord Northbourne: It is grouped for it. However, I shall move Amendment No. 230A.
Page 105, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) Additionally, regulations may make provision for non-maintained denominational special schools to become grant-maintained special schools.
( ) Regulations shall require, before a non-maintained denominational special school becomes a grant-maintained special school in pursuance of the regulations—

(a) the submission to the Secretary of State of proposals for the purpose by the governing body of the school, and its trustees, and

(b) the approval of such proposals, as originally submitted or as modified by the Secretary of State (whether before or after they are approved).

( ) If the proposals are so approved, a governing body of the school shall be incorporated in accordance with Schedule 10 to this Act on the date of approval (referred to in this Part of this Act as the "incorporation date").
( ) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may apply any provision of—

(a) Chapter II or III of Part II of this Act,

(b) section 174 of this Act, or

(c) section 249 of this Act,

with or without modification.".
The noble Lord said: Clause 17.6 provides that by regulation, maintained special schools may become grant-maintained special schools. There is no equivalent provision on the face of the Bill for non-maintained denominational special schools.
There are 17 Roman Catholic non-maintained special schools meeting the needs of about 1,200 children who are sent to these schools by a number of LEAs, including authorities remote from the schools themselves. Their fees are competitive and most of these schools receive children from more than one
586
LEA. Why then should they not be considered as candidates to be taken into the national family of grant-maintained schools?
A number of these special schools now report that in some instances LEAs are increasingly reluctant to refer Catholic pupils to them because they need these children to fill their own LEA special schools despite the fact that that may not be in the best interests of the children. If the policy of the Government is genuinely to secure the best and most appropriate provision for children with special educational needs at the most competitive cost, surely it is reasonable and sensible to ensure that their family of grant-maintained schools is developed by taking from the best of the existing schools, whatever their current status may happen to be.
If the Government believe in choice and diversity, surely they should aim to maintain a variety of denominational provision in this delicate area of special schools where sensitivity, familiarity and loving care are so important to the children. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is speaking just to Amendment No. 230A?
Lord Northbourne: Yes.
Baroness Blatch: There are some 74 non-maintained special schools of which I believe some 21 would count as denominational schools. I believe that about 11 of those are Catholic schools. Nearly all the others have a non-denominational Christian ethos. All are associated with major charities, including the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Barnardos, and other such organisations. It would be impossible in terms of the character and the type of special provision which all these schools make to distinguish between the case for denominational and 'nondenominational non-maintained special schools becoming grant-maintained; and where could the line be drawn? There are very many independent schools which are approved to cater for children with special educational needs. It would be very hard to justify excluding these from the opportunity to become grant-maintained special schools if we accepted this amendment.
Let me explain the general case why the Government believe, after very careful consideration, that non-maintained special schools should not be able to become grant-maintained. Non-maintained special (and approved independent schools) should continue to be substantial providers of publicly funded special education if they provide efficient education, meet the demands of parents and attract custom from LEAs. There is no need therefore for such schools to become grant-maintained. They are part of the system already. Their future is properly controlled by the market and not by the Government or their agencies, which would be the case if they became grant-maintained. Non-maintained special schools embody the long-standing voluntary contribution to special education, and should continue to do so.

587
An essential thrust of our policy to allow local authority-maintained schools to apply for self-governing status is that they will be able to seek autonomy in running their own affairs, which is already the lot of non-maintained special schools. This argument cannot apply to non-maintained special schools: they already enjoy this freedom. I know that it is very late, but I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Elton: I do not want to prolong things, but I am puzzled by subsection (1) which makes provision for the Secretary of State to approve a special school not being a maintained or grant-maintained school. I assume that there is some reason why that does not give the access which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, understandably wanted.
When my noble friend returns to this on Report, I hope that she will bear in mind - it is scarcely fair to ask her to do so now—that earlier she was speaking to the Committee about the apartheid that had sprung up between the independent and the state sector in education and the need to fill that gap. It seems that what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is suggesting goes some way towards filling that gap and would not be something that one would wish to resist in principle.
Baroness Seear: I absolutely hate to prolong things, but if a school is in relative financial difficulties, can it not then apply? Supposing that it went completely broke, the Government would have to take it on -would they not? - because they have an obligation regarding the education of those children. Does it not make sense to say that they can enter and have some of the funding provided through this system, instead of being told that they cannot enter it in any way?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I can clear up the two points raised by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. If those schools are losing customers and are not receiving children, that is usually because the LEAs are not sending children to them. The main providers of children to non-maintained special schools are the local authorities. They are the ones using them. Their record is good and I believe that it will be strengthened under the Bill.
Grant-maintained status is self-governing status. These schools have wholly self-governing status. If a self-governing grant-maintained school within the system equally started to lose customers, it too would be in trouble, and if it lost them to the degree where it was a serious problem it would actually close. So the effect would be the same where customers were lost. There would be no question of an LEA funding a grant-maintained school without having children there. The money follows the child. It follows the child into a grant-maintained special school and it follows the child into a non-maintained special school. Therefore, the degree of self-government is slightly greater for non-maintained special schools.
Lord Northbourne: I thank the noble Baroness. If I may say so, her last point was a very good one. Although there are issues that will need to be raised at
588
Report stage in relation to ensuring that local authorities are absolutely fair in allocating pupils and do not give advantage to their own institutions because of pressure from trade unions or for any other reason, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 230B:
Page 105, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) Where it seems to him to be in the interest of the pupils of the proposed school to do so, the Secretary of State may waive or vary the terms of this Act in relation to curriculum or premises.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 230B. I shall try to be brief but there is an issue here that needs raising. This is a probing amendment to find out the intention of the Government in relation to innovative educational methods for children with special educational needs. I am particularly concerned here about children with emotional and behavioural disturbances and particularly because so many of those children are often truanting.
To give an idea of the size of the problem, I have statistics here that 200,000 British children play truant every day; in urban areas one in five, and sometimes as many as one in three, of 12 to 16 year-olds play truant; seven out of 10 habitual truants leave school with no qualification; and 6 million people in the United Kingdom workforce are below recognised standards of numeracy and literacy such as to enable normal communication to occur. These are figures given by an organisation called Cities in Schools which I use as an example of the kind of situation to which my question relates.
This body, which at the moment is sponsored by Grand Met, Laing and certain other organisations, is a charitable organisation with a parent company in the United States. It uses an innovative method to pick up children who are truanting from school; help them to follow an educational programme and, with luck, get them back into the mainstream educational system.
Cities in Schools, as it calls itself, encourages parents to become involved in their children's development right from the start, and parents in turn are supported by volunteers and by the local community. A network of contacts is built around the children. Projects may be on site in an existing school or they may be off site in some situation which is less threatening to the children such as in one case a corner of a supermarket.
I want the noble Baroness, if possible, to satisfy me that the Act will enable such an organisation to obtain funding support in some way from government. I am concerned that an organisation of this kind, which is accessing charitable funds, should not use these funds simply to relieve the local education authority of its responsibilities to educate these young people with the taxpayers' money, which it is being given for the purpose, so that the local authority can simply put this in its pockets for more street lighting, or whatever else it may be.
Organisations which provide innovative, effective and economical education for this difficult and

589
disruptive group of children should be entitled to their share of the taxpayers' money in one way or another, which would then be supplemented by the charitable money so as to enable them to extend their work to more and more of this needy group. One way this could be done would be to allow them to acquire grant-maintained status, and this could possibly be the best way. I should be grateful for any guidance that the noble Baroness can give me about the Government's attitude to this kind of situation, and I use that particular organisation only as an example. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the regulation-making power in relation to grant-maintained school status has been drawn widely to allow for particular circumstances. The general application of this Bill's enactments, as provided in Schedule 10, paragraph 14, means that the terms of this legislation can, if necessary, be applied with or without modification. Again, this will be done through regulations. The noble Lord will appreciate that I can give no guarantees at this stage that what he is seeking will be possible, but matters in connection with these regulations will be subject to the widest possible consultations.
The noble Lord raises another important point that is exercising all our minds at this time. He will also know that it is not as simple as just applying this part of the Bill, because so much about what causes truancy, or why children find it a better alternative to stand on street corners rather than being in the classroom, is subject to a number of other aspects of education. Nevertheless, we attach particular importance to regular school attendance. Schools should regard maximising attendance as one of their key tasks. We are helping by supporting projects to a value of some £9 million in 70 local authorities under the grants for educational support and training schemes for this year, 1993–94.
Money is being directed to those schools experiencing particular difficulty in maintaining high levels of attendance. Other organisations can also play their part, and Cities in Schools is, I know, doing some valuable work in the Tower Hamlets area of London. It is to be congratulated on its efforts to date. We are also working with City Challenge. We have recently built in an educational component to its work. There is much going on in that field, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: Will the Minister give me an assurance that under some enactment the local authority will be obliged to make a contribution to that work?
Baroness Blatch: I cannot give a guarantee about that but between now and Report stage I shall give some thought to it to see what scope there is within this provision of the Bill, and I may write to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the amendment is withdrawn, would the Minister care to advise the Committee whether it is proper for Back-Benchers to consult officials in the Box?
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 176 agreed to.
Clauses 177 and 178 agreed to.
Clause 179 [Provision of education at non-maintained schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 231 to 233:
Page 107, line 5, at end insert ("and that it is appropriate for the child to be provided with education at the particular school").
Page 107, line 6, at end insert ("the local education authority shall").
Page 107, line 7, leave out ("the authority shall").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 234 and 235:
Page 107, line 8, leave out ("in pursuance of the arrangements, and") and insert ("for him at the school").
Page 107, line 9, after ("school") insert:
("pay the whole of the fees payable in respect of the board and lodging, and
( ) if board and lodging are provided for the child otherwise than at the school").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 235A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 107, line 18, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 179, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 237 not moved.]
Viscount Astor: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past one o'clock.

  TORT OF INTIMIDATION
  TORT OF INTIMIDATION
  INFLATION RATES
  INFLATION RATES
  BEER PRICES
  BEER PRICES
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: ARMED FORCES ABROAD
  FORMER SOVIET UNION: ARMED FORCES ABROAD
  CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PREVENTION: TARGETS
  CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PREVENTION: TARGETS
  PROFOUNDLY DEAF PEOPLE: PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
  PROFOUNDLY DEAF PEOPLE: PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
  WINDSOR CASTLE: RECONSTRUCTION
  WINDSOR CASTLE: RECONSTRUCTION