Sitting of 19 July 1993

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

    Rural Post Offices
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the subject of rural post offices since 1 May; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Seventeen such representations have been received, including a petition with 1,098 signatures.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am not surprised that he received so many representations in one month. I have received 10,000 responses that have been directed at the Secretary of State for Social Security, to whom most reponses would be directed. Will the Minister talke to his right hon. Friend and ensure that the Secretary of State does not reduce payments through the Post Office but actively encourages those payments, because the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales have held their posts long enough to know that post offices are essential to rural areas in my constituency and those of other hon. Members in Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an assurance on 18 May that pensioners and other beneficiaries may continute to collect their benefit from a post office if that is their preference. That was confirmed the following day by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who explained during a debate on the matter that the new forms would make it clear that beneficiaries could collect their benefits from post offices.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Did not the question arise from the trial carried out by the Department of Social Security to see whether beneficiaries required to be paid through vouchers or credit to account? Is it not the case that the Department received an unequivocal answer from social security beneficiaries and that Conservative Members, who represent the overwhelming majority of rural areas, would have said the same in the first place?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend will be aware that that matter concerns my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. It is high time that we nailed that canard about automated credit transfer being compulsorily required.
    Mr. Hain: Surely the Government must concede that they are still pressing ACT through, although perhaps not by compulsory measures. That will threaten well over half the rural post offices in Wales. Does the Minister agree that, unless the Government provide alternative work for those sub-post offices that depend on benefit claimants as a lifeline for their business, his assurances are worthless?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Government business through the Post Office has increased in recent years. My right hon. Friends and I have said that ACT is not compulsory and that the choice whether to receive payments through a post office or through a bank or building society remains with the beneficiary.
    Mr. Dafis: Is the Minister aware that the possibility that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will allow newspapers to be distributed through supermarkets is another threat that is looming on the horizon for small post offices and shops? That might provide a short-term

    3
    improvement in the availability of newspapers, but the long-term effect would be damaging. Does the Minister agree that that would be a further blow to the shops and post offices that are essential to the community and the quality of life in rural areas?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: The Government are committed to maintaining a national network of post offices and that, of course, includes rural post offices. That does not mean to say, however, that some rural post offices may not be closed for business reasons. That is a matter for Post Office Counters Ltd.

    Single-parent Families
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the cost to public funds of supporting single-family families in Wales: and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of lone parents in Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I have had several hundred letters and messages, overwhelmingly in support of what I said—especially about teenage pregnancies.
    Mr. Thurnham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend. Has he seen the memorandum addressed to him on page 12 of today's edition of The Times? Does he agree that grandparents are not without some responsibility for the children of teenage single parents, as is the case in the United States, Italy, Germany and, I understand, France? Will he ask the Child Support Agency to extend its interest to include grandparents as well as parents?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that, wherever possible, all members of the family should help if a young lady is pregnant and in need of support from parents or others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is reviewing the matter and I am sure that he, too, will look carefully at what my hon. Friend said today.
    I hope that the Labour Members will take this opportunity to put it on record that they, too, would like to do something about teenage pregnancies—and especially for schoolgirls—and echo my comments that, wherever possible, we should encourage people to settle down and gain a little more experience before having babies.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. As I understand it, Question 2 is linked with Question 8. Is that correct? The Secretary of State did not announce that that was the case.
    Mr. Redwood: If you would like me to do so, Madam Speaker, I should be happy to link the two questions.
    Madam Speaker: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's Department that the two questions are linked.
    Mrs. Gorman: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have taken the trouble to read the remarks from his recent speech in Wales which have been so widely reported. Does he accept that I entirely agree with the gist
    4
    of his remarks, which was that the fathers of such children should be made responsible for them? Does he agree, however, that less than 15 per cent. of single-parent families were single-parent families when the births were registered, and that most single mothers were cohabiting when the children were born or they are widowed or divorced women who are bringing up children on their own?
    Does my right hon. Friend further agree that we should reform the provisions of the welfare state that allow fathers to walk away from their responsibilities, rather than create a witch hunt surrounding young women who are made pregnant by young men with no sense of responsibility for what they are doing?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend that the intention of Government policy is to pursue the fathers where possible and to ask them to make a contribution. We think that they should make a financial contribution. We should like them to make other kinds of contributions to family life, but that will not always be possible. My hon. Friend asked how many single parents there were in Wales. The answer is 68,000, and I confirm that not all of them are the teenage parents on whom my hon. Friend and I primarily concentrated our remarks.
    Mr. Hanson: Does the Secretary of State accept that his comments on single mothers have caused great offence throughout Wales and that, on reflection, he would have done better to spend his time in Cardiff talking about other matters? Will he take it from me that single mothers especially are often the victims of the effects of 14 years of Tory Government—homelessness, unemployment, poor quality of life and poverty? It would be far better if the right hon. Gentleman targeted the issues rather than single mothers.
    Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the connection between the points that I am making and the problems in which he claims to be interested, he ought to go back to the drawing board. His remarks are not surprising, coming as they do from a member of the nowhere party. Labour Members do not know what their view is on anything; they do not seem to have a view on single parenthood and what should be done to encourage people to have children in wedlock, after stable relationships have been formed. That is an important contribution to the social debate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon learn why it is important.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State did, indeed, address a serious problem; clearly, resentment exists on estates about alleged queue jumping. But, on more mature reflection, does not he think that he might have shown a little more compassion in his speech? If he wants to crusade, should not he crusade against the conditions and the environment on many of our estates, rather than against people who are the victims of those conditions?
    Mr. Redwood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know that I went to the estate in question to look at the conditions there. I promised people on the estate that if they came forward with sensible plans for improvement, I would view them with a kindly eye and see whether we could help. Of course I want to attack rotten conditions on housing estates; but I also want to open a bigger debate on

    5
    social conditions generally, because it is not just the Government but people—grandparents, parents and the whole of society—who should contribute to improvements.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the views of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) are not shared by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who sadly is not present, and who welcomed the remarks made by my right hon. Friend? Does my right hon. Friend agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that there is resentment over social housing allocation policy? If we are to address that issue, we must consider the needs of single parents; but ultimately, we need more social housing. May I therefore direct my right hon. Friend's attention to that issue? I urge him to announce further housing for those who are socially disadvantaged and who will never be able to afford to become home owners. unlike so many people in Wales.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased to announce that 487 dwellings, which are currently empty and not being used in the public estate, are to be brought forward for rent and sale from the NHS estate. I hope that will be widely welcomed in the House.
    My hon. Friend is right, as was the hon. Member for Swansea, East, in thinking that there are difficult issues of allocation for councils to consider, because we wish to encourage people to settle down in stable relationships and marriages before they have children.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State now acknowledge that his attack on single mothers was ill-judged and vindictive? Does not he realise that 70 per cent. of single parents are widowed, separated or divorced? Is he aware that 90 per cent. of single parents want a job and that the problem is not just the lack of jobs but the pathetic inadequacy of the child care system? Can he explain why one in four health authority family planning clinics has been shut and the Government have refused to insist on sex education as part of the school curriculum? Why does not he use a bit of common sense instead of crude scapegoating?
    Mr. Redwood: Once again, the nowhere party has not listened to what I have said and is not interested in the debate. I have always made it clear that when relationships have broken down, someone has died or a partnership has been forced apart, for reasons beyond the control of any individual, I am, of course, extremely sympathetic. That was not the issue that I was opening up in my speech. I was opening up the case of teenage pregnancies where there was no intention of the father playing a proper role in the family or trying to do so. I still wish to know whether the Labour party approves or disapproves of that.

    Welsh Language Education
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of Welsh school children are taught using Welsh as their first language; arid what assessment his Department has made on the progress of such children into further and higher education relative to those using English as their first language.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Welsh was the sole or main medium of instruction for 16 per cent. of primary school pupils in
    6
    September 1991, and 15·8 per cent. of secondary pupils in Wales were attending a Welsh-speaking secondary school. as defined by the Education Reform Act 1988. Provisional analyses of the information for the 1991–92 school year shows that 33 per cent. of pupils from Welsh-speaking schools went on to further or higher education. That compares with 30 per cent. of pupils from all local education authority and grant-maintained schools in Wales.
    Mr. Bruce: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that that shows that the Government's policy of keeping Welsh a living language has been extremely successful. What effect does he think that Labour's failure to support the Welsh Language Bill—and, indeed, the fact that Plaid Cymru has voted against it—will have on our excellent policy?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that all the progress in Welsh-medium education has resulted from the Education Act 1944. We sought to improve matters further through the Welsh Language Bill, which represents a considerable advance for Welsh speakers and will mean that guidelines will be prepared by the Welsh Language Board, under which local education authorities will state what provision they are making for Welsh medium education.
    Mr. Rogers: At some time in his busy schedule, will the Minister take time to instruct his stool pigeons who are brought forward to ask questions—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I consider that somewhat unparliamentary language, and I would be glad if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his comment. If he is going to put a question, will he do so?
    Mr. Rogers: I withdraw the remark, Madam Speaker.
    Will the Minister of State instruct those whom he has brought into the Chamber to fill up Question Time in the basic knowledge relating to the Welsh language? Perhaps he will tell the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who has crept into the Chamber and begun criticising Labour's policies on Welsh, that if it were not for the Labour party—particularly Labour-controlled authorities in south Wales—there would be no Welsh language in the form in which we are discussing it? Will the Minister also ask the hon. Member for South Dorset—whom he has dragged in to act for him this afternoon—to recognise that the outstanding results announced today follow the excellent work done to support the Welsh language in south Wales?
    Sir Wyn Roberts: If the hon. Gentleman's party has some responsibility for the success of the Welsh language, is not it curious that it did not support the Third Reading of the Welsh Language Bill? As for the hon. Gentleman's comments about my hon. Friends, I note that some hon. Members representing parts of the United Kingdom other than Wales are present on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps Welsh Opposition Members should table rather more questions; then they might have the same luck as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset.

    Defence Procurement
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effect of defence procurement on Welsh industry.
    Mr. Redwood: It was estimated in 1991 that defence procurement accounted for some 4,000 jobs, or 2 per cent. of manufacturing, in Wales.
    Mr. Fabricant: Has my right hon. Friend made any assessment of the effect on defence procurement jobs that would have resulted had the Labour party—the "caring party"—been elected at the last general election?
    Mr. Redwood: It was estimated at the time of the last general election—I do not believe that the Labour party has ever withdrawn the policies involved—that 115,000 jobs in defence-related industries would have been wiped out in the United Kingdom, to say nothing of the jobs lost in the Army, Navy and Air Force. We can truly say that, when it comes to jobs in Wales, the Opposition are the demolition men; we are standing up for Wales and winning new jobs for it.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that all Opposition Members welcome defence cuts? We also recognise, however, that they have a tendency to put people out of work. The truth is that the Government have not succeeded in turning swords into ploughshares. What is more, market forces will not cure the evil; we need active intervention by the Government.
    Mr. Redwood: I am sad to learn that the hon. Gentleman welcomes job losses. As for his second point, he is entirely wrong: we are taking steps to try to encourage companies to diversify. We are keen to diversify both the Welsh industrial base and the product ranges of individual companies. A Ministry of Defence secondee is currently helping the Welsh Development Agency with that important task. However, we also want the country to be well defended—and that is better news for jobs than it would be under Labour.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Wales is part of the United Kingdom's defence export industry, which creates thousands of jobs across this country? Those jobs would be destroyed if we listened to the Labour party. Does my right hon. Friend really believe that Government intervention could help, when historically it has proved very expensive and has ended up destroying jobs in many once fine companies, such as British Shipbuilders and Rover?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right: defence exports are important to Wales, as they are to the rest of the United Kingdom. Having sound defences here provides a platform from which we can export suitable products.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, over the past 10 years, 50 per cent. of the defence procurement budget has been spent in south-east England and an average of 2 per cent. in Wales? If cuts are made in Welsh military and defence establishments, will the right hon. Gentleman try to secure more investment expenditure from that budget? What is his policy in that regard?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course we will try to encourage Welsh companies to respond to procurement opportunities through the offer of support available from Ministry of
    8
    Defence expertise, the Welsh Development Agency and elsewhere. I will battle for more jobs for Wales over the months and years ahead, in the way that I have been doing since I was appointed.
    Mr. Murphy: Bearing in mind that many thousands of Welsh people who work in defence-related industries, including the royal ordnance factory in Glascoed in Gwent, depend very heavily on contracts from the MOD, does the Secretary of State agree that British forces should buy and use British equipment?
    Mr. Redwood: Wherever possible, that is desirable. We also have to think about European Community procurement rules and value for money. I want British companies to do well, to win the competitions and supply the goods. I will not be shy in arguing for British success.

    Coronary Heart Disease
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the incidence of premature coronary heart disease in Wales in 1980 and in the latest year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): There were 4,052 deaths of Welsh residents under the age of 75 from coronary heart disease in 1992, compared with 5,676 deaths in 1980.
    Mr. Coombs: I am sure that the whole House will approve the substantial improvement in the health of the Welsh people that those figures represent. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a very strong correlation between premature coronary heart disease and diet? Does he further agree that there is a link between people's eating habits and what they are taught at school? If he does agree, will he make representations. as the Minister responsible for the health of the Welsh people, to the Department for Education about the place of home economics in the core curriculum to ensure that schoolchildren in Wales are taught diet and nutrition as part of that curriculum?
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful for the welcome that my hon. Friend gave those figures. The work of health promotion in schools is already being undertaken by the Health Promotion Authority in Wales. I was in Rhondda on Friday, visiting one of the life education centres, and I saw how effective the authority is at promoting healthy living messages to schoolchildren, including the importance of balanced diets.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that there is a link between not only heart disease and diet but heart disease and poverty?
    Mr. Jones: We acknowledge the range of factors that are combating the fight against coronary heart disease, as we do other efforts to try to meet health-gain goals throughout Wales. A range of other measures has to be taken into account, including balanced diet, more regular exercise and anti-smoking campaigns. If the hon. Gentleman had studied closely the figures that we have set and our goals, he would know that in Wales, according to various health indicators, we have started from a low base and we have to reach a higher attainment level. We have set ourselves a target of a 33 per cent. reduction in premature death from cardiovascular disease over the next 10 years.
    Mr. Morgan: The level of premature heart disease is still very high in Wales. Open-heart surgery was invented in Wales, where Sir Magdi Yacoub carried out much of his earlier training before moving to Harefield. In January 1984, nine and a half years ago, the then Secretary of State for Wales, now Lord Crickhowell, made a promise to increase the number of open-heart operations in Wales from 500 to more than 1,100 a year. That promise has probably got whiskers on it, as the number of operations has not yet reached 600—indeed, it is so prehistoric that a dinosaur movie called "Thoracic Park" could be made about it.
    Mr. Jones: I thought that it was a representative of "Jurassic Park" posing that question. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not listen. If he had taken any opportunity to study this important matter, he would know that we have undertaken a £500 million expansion programme to increase to 800 the number of heart operations in the University hospital of Wales. Only four weeks ago, I announced from the Dispatch Box the go-ahead for a second cardiac centre at Morriston in Swansea to take the number up to 1,400.

    West Wales Task Force
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will convene a meeting of the strategy group of the West Wales task force.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The next meeting of the strategy group will he held in the autumn on a date yet to be decided.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that that answer is totally unsatisfactory? The last time the strategy group of the task force met was on 25 January, when the former Secretary of State for Wales, now the Secretary of State for Employment, assured the group that the new director would be in place as soon as possible, funded by the Welsh Development Agency. Is he also aware that, on 28 April, the right hon. Gentleman assured business men in my constituency that the director would be appointed in May? There is still no director for the task force. What is the Minister going to do about it?
    Mr. Jones: The question of the director for the task force is being urgently considered by that task force and all the other local authorities involved. It was appropriate for them to have an input concerning the sort of director that they wanted. There is no lack of activity, however, regarding implementation of the important objectives of the task force. This year, we committed £2·5 million under the rural initiative; £250,000 under the LEADER scheme; and £3·7 million to upgrade rural and urban development activities.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to reduce unemployment levels.
    Mr. Redwood: We intend to reduce unemployment by continuing our successful economic policies of low interest rates, a very competitive economy, low inflation, good road and rail links, good training and encouraging and promoting investment.
    Mr. Flynn: What is the Secretary of State's reaction to the figures that I sent him which show that, according to a new methodology used by the House of Commons Library, the unemployment percentage in Newport, West is the joint highest in Wales? What is his reaction to the fact that, last year, Newport, West witnessed the second-largest increase in unemployment in any Welsh constituency? In those circumstances, how can the Government or anyone else contemplate taking away assisted area status from Newport? Will he give an unequivocal answer this afternoon that that will not happen and that he is virgorously opposing that insane suggestion?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself a little longer. As soon as the European Community has completed its review of the Government's proposals, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will present them to the House. I hope that that will happen soon. The hon. Gentleman should wait and see the outcome. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I have, of course, argued a vigorous case for Wales, as he would expect me to do.
    Why does not the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that, since 1986, long-term unemployment in Wales has fallen by 40 per cent? Why does not he welcome the fact that the Welsh unemployment rate is below the United Kingdom average? Why does not he welcome the fact that it appears that the United Kingdom average has now fallen beneath the EC average? All that is good news and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get behind it.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policies of low inflation, low interest rates and a stable work force, which have been pursued by our Government, are the right prescription? Is not it time that the Opposition recognised that and supported the Government rather than carped and moaned about unemployment?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree that those are the right policies. My hon. Friend might like to know that, at noon today, an order was announced for 4 million new telephones worth £50 million. That is good news for jobs in Cwmcarn in Gwent where those telephones will be manufactured.
    Mr. Kinnock: I particularly welcome that last piece of good news and the efforts undertaken by the Welsh Office to encourage further orders for the Abercarn plant. Confidence in that plant is well established and it is wise to build on it. Is the Secretary of State aware, however, that, in the past year, the pharmaceutical industries of Wales have lost more than 500 jobs? Since 1985, because of the Government's introduction of the limited list for drugs for national health service prescriptions, pharmaceutical manufacturers have moved their development and production facilities elsewhere, which has meant, of course, that jobs have gone elsewhere.
    In the interests of the health of patients and the health of the economy, will the right hon. Gentleman use all possible offices to persuade the Government to review that limited list policy so that we create a much stronger domestic base for our pharmaceutical industry and thereby help the health of the nation and the health of the economy?
    Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remarks. I will look further at the

    11
    issues of pharmaceutical investment and job transfers from Wales, which were raised in a previous Question Time. I have asked for a review of the position. I am happy to meet the interested pharmaceutical companies to see whether there is anything that the Government can do to improve the climate further so that companies stay in Wales and invest there.
    Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that vacancies are appearing for chairmen of companies in Wales, one of which was recently snapped up by that champion of lost causes, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), although I do not recall the job being advertised? Does he agree that that may be the first sign that the Opposition are about to change their shadow Secretary of State and, possibly, have their fifth shadow Secretary of State before Christmas? Four of the shadow Secretary of State's predecessors are sitting on the Opposition Back Benches this afternoon.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. I can reassure him that, if that happened, it would not lead to an increase in unemployment, because no doubt there would be a replacement for the person going.
    Mr. Barry Jones: British Aerospace at the Broughton works in my constituency has announced 250 redundancies, which would bring the total number of job losses at that great plane-making plant to more than 1,000 in just over one year. Why must such highly skilled, loyal, able and very productive plane makers lose their jobs in that way? It appears to me that the Government and the Cabinet have no strategy for Britain's manufacturing industries. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the Government's policy continues as it appears to be doing, the United Kingdom will be denuded of a manufacturing base? What will he do to assist the plane-makers at Broughton, who are losing patience at the bleeding away of their jobs after doing everything that they have been asked to do for many years? They are the best, most loyal, most skilled and productive workers, so what will the Government do to assist them?
    Mr. Redwood: A productivity miracle is under way in this country—production is more than 10 per cent. up on the figures for the past year. It is desperately important that, as productivity rises that quickly—and we want it to —enough orders are won so that jobs are not lost and people can make many more products at the much better unit costs that have been established. I shall look at any proposition that the hon. Gentleman cares to put to me about the tragic situation in his constituency, because I do not like to see those job losses any more than he does. The problem is connected with cutting costs, which will mean that the company is more competitive in the future, and is obviously related to the demand for the planes. If there are ways in which the Government can help to promote more sales of planes—that is the only way to get these jobs—I am happy to do whatever is necessary and legal.
    Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend will probably not be aware that, in some cases, what is good news for reducing unemployment in Wales may be bad news for other parts of the country. He may not yet he aware that, in my constituency, Burtons Biscuits, which is a subsidiary of Associated British Foods, has a factory that has announced up to 600 redundancies, whereas it hopes to
    12
    increase production at its factory in Llantarman in Wales. Will my right hon. Friend join me in doing all that he can to ensure that any of my constituents who work at the factory and wish to take up vacancies at Llantarman are able to? Will he work with his right hon. Friends in other Departments to try to change the mind of the company so that it reduces or withdraws the redundancies in my constituency?
    Mr. Redwood: I am happy to look at my hon. Friend's suggestion about the transfer of workers. However, there will be times when rationalisation is needed to make a business competitive. Again, the best answer is to get out there and sell more of the underlying products so that we can have more jobs overall. It is a fearfully competitive world and unfortunately it is necessary for British manufacturing to continue to lower its costs and make improvements in its processes, or there will be no jobs at all in manufacturing. That is the essential first step to grow a bigger manufacturing base.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome the priority given by the Secretary of State to reduced interest rates to support the economy of Wales. Does he agree that that has come about through the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the exchange rate mechanism?
    Mr. Redwood: That and other factors obviously lay behind successive Chancellors' decisions on interest rates. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the current level of rates, which are low by European standards and are allowing the substantial recovery that we so desperately need. I hear good reports from some manufacturers about volume gains and I want to see them spread ever more widely. I want to see more British products sold in British shops.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I start by declaring my interest in a company which is registered as Quality Training Services. The people of my constituency will not thank the Secretary of State for his earlier remarks, in which he played politics with their jobs. Is he aware of the efforts that were made over the weekend to safeguard the dozens of jobs and the hundreds of training opportunities throughout south Wales which are threatened by the collapse of Commercial and Industrial Training Services Ltd. in my constituency? Is he aware that the well-known Tory quango-gatherer, Donald Walters, was chairman of the board of the failed company and that there is clear evidence of poor leadership and mismanagement?
    Will the Secretary of State join me in unequivocally appealing to the three training and enterprise councils of Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and Gwent to transfer the existing contracts with CITS to the new company, which was established this morning? That will create an opportunity for a fresh enterprise, with a vigorous and competitive approach, to safeguard jobs and training opportunities.
    Mr. Redwood: Of course, I share the hon. Gentleman's aims of protecting jobs and ensuring that proper training is available. I have not yet conducted a proper review of the proposal that he has just put to me, but I will do so and see whether his method is the right way to approach the problem. He can rest assured that I will do what I can to protect training and jobs.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Charter Marks
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charter marks have been awarded since the inception of the scheme.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): In 1992, the first year of the scheme, 36 charter marks were awarded to a wide range of public sector organisations which had demonstrated the highest standard of service to their customers. This year, the charter unit has received 411 applications, over 100 more than last year. Up to 100 awards will be made.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful for that answer, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of charter mark applications is every bit as important as the quantity? Therefore, will he tell us whether the quality of applications has increased over the past year and. if so, whether first-class applications, such as that made by the South Tees Benefits Agency in my constituency, have contributed to that welcome fact?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I happen to know that that application is before my colleagues in the Department and it will be judged along with the rest. My hon. Friend is right. As the scheme has become better understood, there has been an increase in the quality of applications and I welcome that and congratulate those involved.
    Ms Mowlam: In a week that I believe marks the second anniversary of the citizens charter, will the Minister comment on the validity of the charter marks, as well as his ability to deliver openness in central Government machinery—a subject on which he produced a White paper last week—given that his integrity as a Minister has been seriously put in question by the evidence produced last week that he misled the House over the Matrix Churchill affair?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw what she has said. No Minister misled the House.
    Ms Mowlam: I will withdraw the question on the Minister's integrity. However, I would like him to explain—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have asked the hon. Lady to withdraw her statement that the Minister has misled the House.
    Ms Mowlam: I will withdraw the statement that the Minister misled the House.
    May I ask the Minister instead whether he considers the evidence that came to light last week a contradiction to his job as Minister with responsibility for open government?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady asked about charter marks and I am happy to answer that question. Charter marks are welcomed widely in the public sector and are helping to represent the congratulations of the House and the British people on the high standards that are found in much of the public sector. On her latter point, I hope that the hon. Lady, who I am sure is a fair-minded person, will wait for the full evidence before making political capital out of important matters.

    Science and Engineering
    Mr. Coe: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from the British Association for the Advancement of Science since the publication of the science and engineering White Paper.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have been in regular touch with the British Association. I recently addressed a conference on science, technology and wealth creation, organised by the association's science and industry committee, and I was glad to hear the chairman of that committee, Sir Denis Rooke, give the White Paper a warm welcome.
    Mr. Coe: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. I know that he is keen to enhance the public's understanding of science and technology, a process which is central to re-establishing in the British psyche the importance of our manufacturing industries. Can I urge him to attend his summer's science festival, organised by the British Association?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The summer festival of the British Association is one of the major shop windows for science and technology, and has been very successful for a number of years. I look forward to addressing the festival on 2 September and I hope to attend every year.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Chancellor share my concern that the City has yet to take on board the impact of the White Paper? Is it correct that only nine City representatives turned up at the conference referred to by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe)? Does he think that more work has to be done to persuade the City of the importance of science and technology?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment. The British Association took the trouble to hold the conference in the heart of the City geographically and it was dissapointing that more people did not attend. It is essential that those who have power and investment in the country understand that long-term investment will best be protected in companies that carry out research and development properly.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Association was one of many representational bodies to comment on his White Paper and does he agree that the vast majority of comments have been favourable? Equally, does he agree that many such bodies look forward to a distribution between defence research and development and civil research and development? Has he any comment to make about the prospects on that front?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and believe that he is right that the White Paper has been broadly welcomed and accepted as a starting point. That is how I would answer my hon. Friend's second question. The White Paper must be seen as a starting point for further work. There is much more to do, and if the transformation that we need in our industry and society is to be achieved it will not be done overnight.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to extend the citizens charter to the regulatory authorities.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): Public regulatory authorities, like all areas of the public sector, are covered by the citizens charter.
    Mr. Hain: Is the Minister aware that there is increasing concern about the fact that the regulators of the privatised utilities are acting like tin gods, whose decisions are not accountable to Parliament or challengeable by ordinary citizens except by cumbersome legal proceedings? The Ofgas decision to break up British Gas will mean higher transportation costs to areas such as Wales compared with the north-east of England near the North sea gas shelf. In other decisions, competitive access has been given a higher priority than the interests of consumers and indeed the strategic national interest. Surely a review of the role of regulators is needed. Should not they be covered by the citizens charter and be answerable to Parliament?
    Mr. Davis: Before I address the nub of the hon. Gentleman's question, may I say that opening up industries to competition is in the interests of the consumer and has been the best guarantee of those interests. First, the regulators must operate within the regulatory framework laid down by Parliament. Secondly, the director-generals' performance of their statutory duties is subject to judicial review—I think the hon. Gentleman referred to that. Thirdly, the legislation requires utilities to have a licence and authorisation from the Secretary of State or a director before they can operate as utilities. Fourthly. directors are appointed by and are answerable, in broad terms, to the Secretary of State. If a director does not carry out his duties satisfactorily he can be replaced. Finally, those director-generals can also be called before a Select Committee of the House.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulators have done an excellent job in applying charter principles to the privatised utilities? Furthermore, does he recall that those industries have performed much better since they have been privatised and that the Labour party opposed privatisation, which has brought so many benefits to the people of this country?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is entirely right and I shall give a couple of examples. British Telecom's prices have fallen by one third since 1984 and 96 per cent. of call boxes work, compared with 75 per cent. previously. British Gas prices for domestic users have fallen 13 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Water!"] There are calls of "Water" from Opposition Members—the same people who would complain if the pollution levels of our beaches and rivers were not dealt with. The money for dealing with those problems must come from somewhere and it comes from the profits and capital of the water companies.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister must be aware that the real issue involves accountability for the former public utilities and the watchdogs of the utilities. Some parts of the country have been severely disadvantaged by the differential impact of the clean-up programmes, but it is not possible to request an Adjournment debate in the House on the issue because it is no longer deemed to be the responsibility of any Minister. As citizens charter Minister, will he try to find a way around that problem?
    Mr. Davis: It is a matter for Madam Speaker rather than me, but I imagine that it would be perfectly possible
    16
    to have an Adjournment debate about the regulators' behaviour, which is precisely the hon. Gentleman's point. Ofwat comments in the past few days on the effect of the clean-up on costs are an example of Ofwat exercising its powers and responsibilities properly.
    Mr. Fisher: Does not the Minister understand that the problem with Ofwat and other regulatory organisations is that they have no teeth? I and hon. Members from both sides of the House have taken cases to Ofwat, which has eventually found in favour of our constituents, and then the board—in my case Severn Trent—has said, "So what, Ofwat—nothing will happen and nothing will change." The problem is that the regulators have no teeth.
    Mr. Davis: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman speak to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who said that the regulators had too many teeth and too much power. The regulators can change the rules under which the licence works. If they cannot come to an agreement with the utilities, the matter can be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to provide back-up support.
    Mr. Riddick: Have not the regulators been just a component part of what has proved to be one of the Government's greatest successes: the privatisation of state-owned industries? Have not new private sector management and entrepreneurial skills been introduced to old, monolithic industries? Is not the flotation of further British Telecom shares on the stock market the most recent example of one of the Government's greatest successes, privatisation?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend makes his case very well. Popular capitalism continues to be popular in this country and will be for the rest of the decade.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of market-testing exercises has led to a reduction in costs.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Information collected from Departments over the five years to 1990–91 suggests that more than 80 per cent. of market tests resulted in savings. Savings have typically been around 25 per cent. of the original cost of the activity. Even if a market test fails to bring about savings, it is likely to lead to an improvement in the quality of the service being provided.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I wonder whether he has seen this month's edition of the Local Government Chronicle—a newspaper which I read avidly every time I go to sleep. It mentions that competitive tendering in local government has brought greater savings in the second round of competitive tendering. Does my right hon. Friend agree that similar savings could accrue from market testing in central Government?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry that the Local Government Chronicle has such a soporific effect on my hon. Friend. The report was accurate and was also carried in the Financial Times. It also accords with evidence from Berkshire county council, which revealed that, in many cases, the savings on the second placement of a contract were greater than those on the first placement. I believe

    17
    that, in future, contractors for central Government services will also bring more savings the second time the contract goes out to tender.
    Dr. Howells: Has the Chancellor had a chance to read any of the recent Public Accounts Committee reports about some of the problems that the Government are confronting over managerial consultancies when it comes to market testing? Does he agree that the latter offers an unparalleled opportunity for a descent into graft and corruption on the Italian scale?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Any report by the PAC must be very carefully examined and there must be a proper response to it, but the most recent one was about a service run in-house, Forward Civil Service Catering, showing that problems can arise both in the public sector and outside it.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What advice is the Department giving organisations going through market testing on dealing with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, which seem to be causing us some problems?
    Mr. Waldegrave: After consultation with other Departments, my Department issued guidance on that. As a matter of fact, after a period of delay early in the process, central Government Departments are now finding that TUPE is much less of a bar to the market-testing programme. Indeed, several successful market tests have been carried out in cases in which TUPE has covered the staff and they have worked perfectly well.
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made on the Government's market-testing programme.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Market-testing programmes for the period to September 1993 are making good progress. I shall report on the outcome of these as soon as possible after the period.
    Mr. McAllion: The Minister has again made claims for cost savings of about 25 per cent. for market testing. Is he aware that independent research carried out by the Audit Commission and by the university of Birmingham on behalf of the Department of the Environment—research into market testing in local government—has shown cost savings of between 6 and 7 per cent., or about one quarter of what he claims for the civil service? Will he therefore tell the House on what independent research his claim is based; or, if there is no such independent research, and the claim is unreliable, will he assure the House that he will authorise independent research into the impact of market testing in the civil service—before he opens his big mouth again and makes far-fetched claims that cannot be substantiated?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The figure of 25 per cent. is an assessment of the relatively small programme in central Government to date and it simply reports the facts. I am well aware of the lnlogov report, which showed 6 or 7 per cent. savings in compulsory competitive tendering for local government. The hon. Gentleman will recall that one such local government body was Bristol city council in my constituency, where there was a good deal of trouble with its CCT and there had to be re-tendering. Many Labour local authorities resisted the process and wasted a lot of money; they did not enter into the exercise with the spirit
    18
    and loyalty that the central Government civil service has shown. The hon. Gentleman would be ill-advised to use those local government figures for CCT when assessing the central Government programme.
    Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that market testing is extremely effective in the private sector and that it is a running cost, not an expense? All these myths about the inability of market testing to benefit companies or the civil service are ridiculous. We have to produce products and services that people want, at a competitive price and with the right quality, and we have to provide after-sales service. If we got all those things right, would not we beat the world?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. What is more, as the best of the public sector can beat the private sector, it should not he frightened of the process. There have been plenty of winning in-house bids. Instead of trying to resist the whole process, through Opposition spokesmen, the public sector unions should show more confidence in their members by recognising that they will win many of the bids.
    Mr. Winnick: On market testing, will not the real test come on Thursday when the Government face almost inevitable defeat? Perhaps the Chancellor should direct his mind to that top priority for the Cabinet.
    Mr. Waldegrave: That seems to go a little wide of my responsibilities, but I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his characteristic ingenuity.

    Public Services
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to encourage more public services to introduce a purchaser-provider split.
    Mr. David Davis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for extending the purchaser-provider split. It is this concept, the identification of the needs and wishes of the customer and clarity about the role and responsibility of the contractor, which underpins all our public service reforms. My Department remains committed to building on the progress made in Government agencies, the national health service, our schools and local authorities, and it is delivering better results.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that left-of-centre commentators, including Professor John Stewart of the Municipal Journal of recent mention, have endorsed the purchaser-provider split as a means of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our public services? Does he agree that it is about time that the Labour party came off the fence and endorsed it, too?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not seen that entry in the Municipal Journal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), perhaps I sleep too well. The best example of such acceptance by thoughtful commentators of the left is by John Willman. Writing in the "Fabian Review" he identified three virtuous consequences of the purchaser-provider split. He said:
    "First, it allows the purchaser … to become the advocate of the consumer rather than the defender of the producer … Second, it forces both sides to define the nature of the service and the quality standards which are to be provided. This locus

    19
    on standards and outcomes is essential if the quality of public services is to be improved … Third and most important, it allows the purchaser to buy in services from the private sector."
    20
    I recommend that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen learn from their colleagues.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any request from Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to report to the House on the delicate negotiations being conducted by Mr. Rolf Ekeus on behalf of the United Nations in Baghdad?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not been informed that any Minister wishes to make a statement.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will be able to help. On the first page of today's Order Paper there are 13 Welsh Office questions. Seven of them are from Conservative Members and six are from Labour Members. There are 38 Welsh Members.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): My mother is Welsh. [Interruption.]
Mr. Powell: On numerous occasions, I have been reminded that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. One of your predecessors, Viscount Tonypandy, used his influence to inform the House that Welsh Members have only rare opportunities to put questions to the Secretary of State for Wales, usually on a Monday and usually once a month.
Surely you could use your influence, Madam Speaker, either to change the computer to a Welsh one or to persuade Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies not to ask questions. Today, five Conservative Members and three Labour Members were called in the 35 minutes. However, 11 Welsh Members who were in their places did not have an opportunity to put their questions to the Minister. Will you use your ingenuity to devise a different system, so that Welsh Members have at least an opportunity to present their constituency problems?
Madam Speaker: I make it quite clear that I am not prepared to tamper with the ballot or with the computers in the House to see that some Members rather than others receive priority.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished.
On today's Order Paper, only 22 questions were tabled for the Secretary of State for Wales. Usually, 30 questions are printed. Insufficient questions were handed in to the Table Office.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. A substantive point has arisen. The Secretary of State for Wales has umbrella responsibilities for subjects such as education, roads, housing, local government and the Welsh Development Agency, which is of considerable importance. He is responsible for a whole gamut of subjects. Because Conservative Members with English constituencies put down questions, they dictate the subjects that are to be answered. Notwithstanding the fact that we can put
22
supplementaries, that limits the areas that can be discussed. That limits the oversight of the functions of the Welsh Office and its democratic answerability.
Is there any way in addition to Question Time—which clearly English Members want to get in on—such as additional time for questions in the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff, in which Welsh Members can get answerability from the Welsh Office?
Madam Speaker: I can answer the hon. Gentleman only by saying that he did not table a question today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Order. Indeed, 50 per cent. of his parliamentary party were called to put supplementaries.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Who is next? I am now crossing the Chamber and I call Mr. Bruce.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can we have some form of clocking on and off, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has often suggested? Two weeks ago, very few Welsh Labour Members turned up for social security questions, despite their being of interest to their constituents. They were thus not here to table Welsh questions for today and have only themselves to blame.
Madam Speaker: Whether or not we clock on, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not going to be the convenor.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Welsh questions, you ruled as unparliamentary the expression "stool pigeon", as it is your right to do. The matter can be confusing at times. I refer hon. Members to pages 381–2 of "Erskine May" so tht they can decide what is an unparliamentary expression.
"Erskine May" used to contain a list of unparliamentary words such as "blackguard", "curmudgeon", "dog", "rotter", "cad" and the and all the other words that we could apply collectively to Conservative Members. That list has now been removed, but it would help the House — I hope that this is a helpful point of order—if that list were reinstated. I have a number of words that I should like to run by you, and it would be helpful if they could appear in "Erskine May".
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has often used picturesque language. However, I feel that certain expressions are wholly unacceptable in a House of grown-up individuals who should be able to express themselves without using mediocre language.
Mr. Ron Davies: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), Madam Speaker. There is a genuine sense of anger about what has happened today. The views expressed by my hon. Friend reflect the views of many Labour Members when English Members of Parliament come here, not to pursue matters of concern to them, but to shield the Secretary of State from questions put by Welsh Members.
I very much endorse the view expressed by my hon. Friend Ogmore because of the first five questions on today's Order Paper were tabled by English Members with no constituency interest in Wales. Six of the top 10 questions were tabled by English Conservative Members.

23
Only three Welsh Members, during Welsh Question Time, had the opportunity to raise matters with the Secretary of State relating to questions that they had tabled.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to give careful consideration to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others. I believe that there is now a case either for extending Welsh questions—perhaps transferring the forum in which we can ask them—or using your good offices with the usual channels to get the Government to accept that, unless they are prepared to ask English Members voluntarily to desist from disrupting Welsh Question Time, the only conclusion must be that the Secretary of State is not prepared to face questions from Welsh Members.
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to extend Welsh questions, that is a matter for the usual channels, and he must take up the matter there. He also raised a point about the ballot. If the ballot system is to be changed, that must be agreed upon by the whole House. He knows that questions are not selected by me or by the Minister; they are selected by ballot.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, however many hon. Members representing English constituencies tabled questions. during the whole of Welsh Question Time only one Member from the Opposition Benches was called who did not represent a Welsh constituency. The remainder of supplementary questions were from Welsh Members.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I tabled a question, which became Question No. 9. I was only the third Welsh Member in the top 10, but we did not reach even Question No. 9. I did not seek to be called to ask a supplementary question on an earlier question, because I assumed that we would at least reach Question No. 9. In view of the imbalance, may I suggest that you should have endeavoured to move on, so that Members representing Welsh constituencies were called?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman reflects and reads the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that that is precisely what I did. If hon. Members take a long time to ask questions and Ministers take a long time to answer them, we shall not get through the Order Paper.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We should not mince words. As millions and millions of pounds of United Kingdom taxpayers' money goes to Wales for regeneration—and Wales is doing awfully well—we are entitled to a say—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. I remind hon. Members that they are taking precious guillotine time.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I was the person who called the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) a "stool pigeon" but, on your instructions, I withdrew my comment unequivocally. There is a feeling, however, that, because of his inadequacies, the Secretary of State for Wales is being protected, and that his Parliamentary Private Secretary or someone else is running around
24
looking for a person consumed with ambition to table questions in order to protect the right hon. Gentleman, the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and all the others—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. I do my best to protect the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he does not get into difficulties, and I asked him to withdraw. I am very much the hon. Gentleman's protector, and I shall take care of him in future, too.
Mr. Roy Hughes: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that I have spent some years in the House and, indeed, that I am a member of your Chairmen's Panel. It seems to me that Welsh questions have become rather farcical. I remind you that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said that, when in your Chair, Mr. Speaker Thomas, now Viscount Tonypandy, told English Conservative Members that he was reluctant to call them, and that Welsh questions had been instituted so that Welsh Members could question the respective Welsh Ministers, which I thought perfectly good advice.
Madam Speaker: As I said earlier in answer to a point of order, if the hon. Gentleman reflects and reads the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that that is what has happened. I can understand his disappointment. He had tabled Question No. 12; if hon. Members and Ministers did not take so long over their questions and answers, we might proceed much more quickly through the Order Paper.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I was one of the victims of this afternoon's Question Time. I drew Question No. 11 but, unfortunately, six of the first 10 questions were from English Conservative Members. My question was highly topical, being about the Welsh Development Agency, and other hon. Members would have liked to contribute.
May I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to comments by the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for The Wirral (Mr. Hunt), at a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff on 8 March this year? He also acknowledged that there was a democratic deficit in Wales, and envisaged a larger role for the Welsh Grand Committee. Simultaneously, the Secretary of State for Scotland was talking about an enlarged role for Scottish Question Time. Would you please look into these possibilities?
Madam Speaker: These are not matters for me. They are matters for the Procedure Committee, and the hon. Gentleman might like to take his points there.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I assure you that my question on the Order Paper was not planted by anyone else? It reflected my interest in heart disease. If Opposition Members are not interested in the state of the health of the Welsh nation, they should be.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Order. We will now make some progress. I have a statement to make which I am sure will he of interest to hon. Members.

Adjournment Motions
Madam Speaker: I remind the House that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Tuesday 27 July, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Wednesday. A ballot will be held on Thursday morning, and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

DISEASES OF ANIMALS
That the Diseases of Animals (Therapeutic Substances) (Revocation) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, 1331) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
Question agreed to.

Education Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [15th December] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments
1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the Order [15th December], each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE

Proceedings

Lords amendments

Time for conclusion

Nos. 1 to 6

6.00 p.m

Nos. 7 to 24

7.00 p.m

Nos. 25 to 177

8.00 p.m

Nos. 178 to 253

9.30 p.m

Nos. 254 to 333

10.30 p.m

Remaining amendments

midnight

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and, subject to sub-paragraph (2), shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment, as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by the Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question. That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) In the case of proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at midnight the Speaker shall, instead of putting any Question required by sub-paragraph (1)(b)(iii) above, put

27
forthwith with respect to all of the designated Amendments which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments.
(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Extra time
3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting for two hours after Ten o'clock.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
4.—(1) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings
5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
(7) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this paragraph, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
I start by apologising to the House on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his absence from this debate. I am sure that all hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend is indisposed and is unable to be here, as he would very much have wished.
I do not want to spend a great deal of time introducing this supplemental order. Even those hon. Members who enjoy the occasional wrangle over procedural matters will agree that our time would be much better spent by discussing the substance of the amendments made to the Bill in another place.
We have already spent an enormous amount of time on this vital Bill, and we are about to spend another eight hours or more on it this evening. A timetable is an essential tool if the business of the House is to be conducted efficiently, not least if we are to ensure that there is no delay in implementing important aspects of the Bill for the next educational term. To that end, we will be seeking Royal Assent before the end of the month—provided, of course, that the House accepts this order, and provided that we complete all the parliamentary stages in time.
We have already spent 150 hours discussing the Bill —including, at the Opposition's request, two days on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and a further two days on Report. In addition, the other place has given the Bill 114 hours of close scrutiny, including an additional day in Committee, which was again requested by the Opposition. That is a not insignificant amount of parliamentary time, especially when we consider that parts II and IV of the Bill are largely re-enactments, with a little tidying up, of earlier education legislation.
To help the House, I should take a few moments to categorise the 570 or so Government amendments made to the Bill in another place, which we will consider today. I can deal with rather more than half the lords amendments in one fell swoop. More than 300 of the Government amendments approved by the other place are purely technical consequential, drafting or tidying-up changes flowing directly from the Bill as it left this House. Such changes are inevitable in a Bill of this size and importance. I will give some examples to set that in context.
Amendment No. 395 revises the index to the Bill. That is an important element, but I very much doubt whether it is worthy of debate. Amendment No. 515 updates the definition of "school" in the Value Added Tax Act 1983 to take account of the definition in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
We also have 16 purely technical amendments on middle schools; 23 amendments to ensure that local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools, as appropriate, can pay for the provision of places at boarding and independent schools, so as to secure continuity with LEAs' existing ability to make such arrangements; 34 technical amendments to provide for the transfer of schools to new sites; and 40 amendments to provide for the detailed arrangements for grant-maintained school premises, covering the conveying of interest to trustees, the conditions of grant for premises and the details to be included in proposals.
I can already hear some hon. Members—I cannot, actually, but that is what it says in my notes—saying, "What about the rest?" As for the rest, they flow from three sources first, the White Paper. That included, as I am sure all hon. Members will recall, proposed new

29
arrangements for education, as the jargon goes, otherwise than at school. That of course, caters for the most vulnerable pupils on our schools.
We wanted to make sure that the proposals were absolutely right and took full account of an extended consultation period. That is why the introduction of these vital proposals took place in the other place, where indeed they received thorough scrutiny, as we would expect. Secondly, we made commitments in this House to amend the Bill in a number of respects. We promised amendments on grant-maintained acquisition, to shorten the ballot period, and on religious education and collective worship.
Thirdly, we have drafted many amendments as a result of points raised in the other place. For example, we have extended the range of options available to schools willing to enter into grouped arrangements. We have brought forward amendments to ensure that head teachers are properly informed about matters relating to their schools —amendments that are supported by the National Association of Head Teachers—amendments relating to securing value for money in grant-maintained schools, and, of course, amendments to clause 1.
Many amendments are the product of fruitful negotiations between my Department and the Churches. They reaffirm the importance of a continuing partnership between Church and state in the provision of public education. All those amendments are before us for consideration.
It is important that we have a timetable motion. I need hardly remind hon. Members who were unfortunate enough to have to endure the snail's pace of progress in Committee before Christmas of the lengths to which some hon. Members—I will not mention any names, of course —will go to avoid serious debate about education, and even evade careful scrutiny of the Bill. But that is in the past.
We have much to do in implementing the Bill, and there are reforms in it which we must not delay. For too long, too many schools have simply shrugged their shoulders at the problems which are clearly besetting them, and are causing them to fail to give their pupils an acceptable standard of education. We cannot allow that to continue.
Part V allows for a range of new measures to be taken when an inspection reveals that a school is at risk. The first inspections will take place this autumn, and we are determined that rapid and effective action should be taken as soon as possible thereafter. That is why we shall seek Royal Assent before the end of the month, provided that the House agrees the timetable motion and dispatches the business in the motion this evening.
The order is essential if we are to complete our proceedings on the legislation in a sensible and effective manner. The Bill puts in place a new framework for the organisation of our education system. It offers a new start to our most vulnerable children—those in failing schools, those with special educational needs and those whose needs cannot be met in school. I look forward to the proceedings following the motion, and I commend it to the House.
3.51 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Opposition object very strongly to the guillotine motion. The Minister is acknowledging that the Government are trying to rush through many amendments without proper consideration
30
—without any consideration at all, in some respects. The Government are making a farce of parliamentary procedures by asking the House to debate more than 580 amendments in eight and half hours. That works out at 53 seconds per amendment. How on earth can the House of Commons be expected to carry out its responsiblities with such a time scale? Of course, that is assuming that we will have no votes on any of the amendments. That is not proper parliamentary scrutiny; that is not what our constituents sent us here to do; it reduces our proceedings to a farce.
That is typical of the way in which the Government have behaved throughout the passage of the Education Bill. The Bill is based on a White Paper which was published on 28 July. That White Paper was supposed to be the basis for consultation. The consultation period opened during the parliamentary recess when schools were on holiday, and it finished at the end of September. In other words, the consultation was a total sham, and, since that time, the Government have proved that they have riot responded to the submissions that were made in that tight time scale. Indeed, the Government have not even published those responses, despite requests to do so.
The junior Minister said that this was a vital Bill. He acknowledged that the Opposition had been keen to press for as much time as possible to debate its vital provisions. We take legislation seriously. We take our responsibilities to scrutinise legislation seriously. That is why it is totally outrageous and unacceptable for such a time scale to be imposed at this stage.
The Bill was introduced in glowing terms by the Secretary of State for Education, who claimed that he had written it almost by himself. But he then failed to go on the Committee considering the Bill, which shows that he was treating the House with contempt and not treating the legislation as it deserved and required.
The contempt for parliamentary scrutiny went deep. This is the longest Education Bill ever to be presented to the House, yet it had the shortest debate in Committee. When the guillotine was imposed, it was the tightest ever imposed on any Education Bill. It allowed only two days for Report and is allowing us only one day—today—to debate 580 Lords amendments.
The timetable is especially outrageous because many of the issues on which the House has been asked to come to a conclusion this afternoon have been debated only in the House of Lords— they have never been debated in the House or in Committee. It may well be that some amendments will be accepted and some measures will become law without one word being spoken about them in the House. That is why the guillotine is a contempt of our procedures and of parliamentary scrutiny. However, it is typical of the arrogance and the attitude of Education Ministers.
The amendments that concern us are numerous. It is impossible to list all the areas where substantial changes have been made in another place, but the junior Minister mentioned some of them. There are some issues on which we hope to have a limited debate—because of the guillotine—later this evening. However, many issues may not be debated at all. I want to remind the Minister of some of the issues which have not been debated in the House or in Committee but which have been introduced by the House of Lords and should get significant time.
Amendments have been tabled on corporal punishment. the making of new curriculum orders, the imposition

31
of a ballot if there is a tied result, the reduction in the time scale for opting out and the new measures introduced by the Government to tip the scales even more in favour of pushing schools in the direction of opting out. I was interested to read in the 16 July edition of Education:
"The Department for Education is abandoning its 1,500 attainment target for GM schools".
In the future, the Department will not put pressure on schools. That is an admission on the part of the Government that it has not been as easy as they thought to persuade schools to take the GM route.
Mr. Forth: The truth is that that was always a projected figure—a target has never been mentioned. We are still confident that the projected figure will be reached at about the same time, so there will be no change whatever in that.
Mrs. Taylor: The Government are so confident that their projection will be reached that they have manoeuvred and put constraints on everyone who opposed a school becoming grant-maintained, and put everything in favour of those who advocated grant-maintained status. The amendment that limits the amount of spending of those who are opposed to GM status, while not limiting the spending of those who are promoting GM status, is a clear example of what has been happening.
There are other serious issues that should not become a matter of political debate but should be a matter of constructive consideration by the House. However, they could well be squeezed in our debates this evening. I am thinking of the suggestions on pupil referral units, the abolition of indefinite exclusions and other matters of genuine concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, where improvements could well be made to the Bill if parliamentary procedures allowed it and if we were not so short of time.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: As my hon. Friend knows, unfortunately I was not involved in the Committee or substantially involved in the Report stage. Will she confirm that the first intimation that Members of Parliament or, indeed, the education public had of the Government's intention to disagree with some of the amendments made in another place was at the weekend or even this very morning? If that is so, does it not show the contempt in which the Government hold the education processes which are the responsibility of government?
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to make that point. Significant amendments were made in another place which affect the rights of pupils with special needs, acknowledge the need for local authorities to have significant planning responsibilities and acknowledge the importance of nursery education. I hope that there will be full time to debate all of those issues, but there cannot be full time for all the issues in the timetable proposed by the Government. It would be difficult for us even to vote on all the issues which received so much time and consideration in another place and on which such constructive decisions were made. That is a clear example of the problems that arise with a timetable such as that proposed, covering issues which are so vital.
The House will also face difficulties later this evening with the Lords amendments on sex education. Many of us will have received letters from a wide range of organisations which are alarmed at the Government's
32
proposals for changes in the law on sex education. I have with me a collection of matters from the National Children's Bureau, the National Association of Governors and Managers, the British Medical Association, Norwich health authority and the Royal College of Nursing. Many of those organisations feel not only that they have not been consulted about the changes, but that they have a real interest in the proposals and could cast some light and give the benefit of their experience in establishing the way forward.
It seems that a minority in another place made a fuss about sex education. The Minister there, possibly without consulting other Ministers in the Department and certainly, I suspect, without consulting Ministers in the Department of Health, tabled amendments on sex education which simply have not been widely discussed with parents, teachers, governors or the medical profession. That is a clear example of the wrong way to go about making decisions on vital matters, but it is typical of what the Government have done with the Bill.
We are short of time even to discuss the guillotine motion. If the Bill is as vital as the Minister suggests, we should not discuss it on a time scale which allows us only 53 seconds for each amendment. Such an approach and a motion such as that which the Government have tabled today show the Government's contempt for parents, teachers, governors and everyone involved in education who expect better scrutiny of legislation than the Government are prepared to allow.
4.2 pm
Mr. Alan Howarth: I wish to speak on the allocation of time motion, because it is particularly unsatisfactory in respect of sex education, on which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has just touched.
It seems inevitable that this evening we shall not have a debate or vote on the amendments on sex education. The amendments have been placed at the end of a series of groups that are due to be debated between 9.30 and 10.30 pm. There are four groups of amendments in that series. The opening amendments may be technical, but there are three subjects for debate, and it is inevitable that we shall not have an opportunity to debate and vote separately on the extremely important issue of sex education. I regard that as extraordinary, because the Government have proposed immensely important changes in national policy on sex education.
The Government said in the other place—where it was approved by a vote—that teaching about HIV, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases will be taken out of the national curriculum and transferred to sex education outside the national curriculum. Sex education will become compulsory for schools, but parents will be able to withdraw their children from sex education. Those are important changes. They were introduced at a late stage in the legislative process. They should be debated in the House today.
Mr. Forth: I remind my hon. Friend that such motions are tabled broadly in agreement with the Opposition, and we have adhered to such a convention. Therefore, there has been no conspiracy or fix, in terms of the motion's shape, that may lead to what my hon. Friend has described.
Mr. Howarth: I note what my hon. Friend says, and shall return to it later,
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Opposition are totally opposed to a guillotine motion limiting debate of the Bill o one day. We believe that a range of issues need discussing, and that has been our case all along.
Mr. Howarth: Again, I note what the hon. Lady says.
Many people have strong views on sex education. Some think that a Mephistophelean group whom they refer to as "the sex educators" are systematically eroding family values. Some think—it is a view that I respect—that sex education is such a sensitive and private matter that they should be entitled to deal with it within the family, and that teachers should not deal with it for their children. Some feel that sex education in schools is an affront to their sincerely held Christian values. Others disagree with that view, and stongly believe that good-quality sex education in our schools is vital. They care every bit as much about family values, and they too would be concerned about so-called "value-free" education.
I hold strong views on the matter, and the strongest is that it is our responsibility, as far as we can possibly fulfil it, to ensure that no one dies of ignorance. "Don't die of ignorance" has been the theme of the Department of Health's important, valuable and, in many ways, effective public education campaign.
When I was a Minister in the then Department of Education and Science, I happened to have responsibility for sex education, and worked closely with my colleagues in the Department of Health. But I wonder whether my successors are now working as closely with their colleagues in the Department of Health. It is incredible that Ministers responsible for health should have connived at a policy that takes education about HIV and AIDS out of the national curriculum.
The Department of Health's document, "The Health of the Nation", suggested that HIV was the greatest public health challenge of this century. One of the pillars of the Department of Health's strategy in relation to HIV and AIDS is sex education. The Department is due to report on the progress of the policies of "The Health of the Nation" this September, and I fancy that officials will now be working hard during August to rewrite their report before it is published in September.
The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 set in place the essential lineaments of our sex education policy hitherto. It was amplified and clarified in circular 11/87, and further developed in the Education Reform Act 1988.
In November 1991, the then Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), made a speech at a conference organised by the National Aids Trust in London, where he rightly said:
"The challenge presented by HIV and AIDS is one that everyone must share. So far there is no cure and no prospect of a cure."
He went on to stress that the education service clearly has a significant part to play in achieving what must be our overall aim—to ensure that everyone is fully informed about the nature of HIV and AIDS, the risks that they present and what they can do to prevent their spread. He added:
"Education about HIV and AIDS will be effective only if all those who work in or with the education service accept their share of the responsibility and are sending out the same messages."
34
As a consequence, in August 1992—less than a year ago —the science orders of the national curriculum were amended to ensure that they incorporated the physical and emotional changes that take place in adolescence, and that the moral responsibilities that should accompany growing sexual maturity formed part of a young person's education within the national curriculum.
The Government's policy was again amplified in a draft circular issued in April 1993. The covering letter to that draft circular emphasised the need for effective sex education within a clear moral framework. I shall not quote at length from the document, Madam Speaker, because time is short, but it seems to me that the contents of the circular should satisfy those—surely including every hon. Member—who believe that there should be sex education, and that it should be in a moral context, promoting the values of family life and a sense of moral responsibility. That is, of course, already stipulated in section 46 of the Education Act 1986 and reinforced in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I agree with my hon. Friend, but does he agree that sex education and education about HIV and Aids cannot be compartmentalised and taken out of the teaching in a school? Does my hon. Friend agree that they must be part of the ethos and teaching of the school, and should go through the school's curriculum?
Mr. Howarth rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to intervene during hon. Members' speeches, but I must remind the House that this is a motion dealing with the allocation of time. Hon. Members should he debating whether they agree or disagree with the allocation of time, and should not become involved in a Second Reading debate.
Mr. Howarth: I will heed your warning, Madam Speaker. I am trying to explain why I consider that it is singularly unfortunate that the motion will most likely deny us the opportunity of debating the subject. I am trying to explain the importance of the subject.
Between 1986 and the spring of this year, there was a consistent development of policy in what I believe to he the right direction. More has been needed in terms of guidance, training and support for teachers and in terms of evening up local education authority standards, but it was right that every child should have the opportunity to be taught the facts and should be enabled, through his or her educational experience, to reflect upon the responsibilities associated with those facts. That was at the heart of the Government's policy, and that seemed proper.
Then an extraordinary thing happened. At the end of June and the beginning of July, the Government changed their policy. On 6 July—10 days before the consultation period on the draft circular was due to be completed—we were told that the policy was to be quite different. During the Third Reading debate in the House of Lords on 6 July, my noble Friend the Minister of State said that she believed that it was a "strange phenomenon" and "extraordinary" that education about HIV and AIDS had been, as she put it, "slipped into" the national curriculum in 1992.

35
My noble Friend also referred to "deviant behaviour". She went on to say that there had been a moral decline, and asked whether that was possibly because of some of the sex education in schools.
In that spirit, the Government have introduced three changes which are of the utmost importance and should be debated today. I believe that one of the changes is good, while the other two are bad. It is good that the Government propose that all schools should now be required to teach sex education. That builds on the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. However, I believe that it is bad for the Government to propose that parents should have the right to withdraw their children from sex education.
I believe that it is bad also that sex education which goes beyond the biological aspects of human reproduction —particularly education about HIV and AIDS—should be removed from the national curriculum. I note also that, since April 1 this year, the Government have discontinued the funding of health education co-ordinators.
Why is it so bad to deprive children of the right to be educated about HIV and AIDS? It is bad because AIDS kills. It ineluctably kills any individual who contracts the virus. That is why there is a quite exceptional and heavy responsibility upon us in relation to educating young people about AIDS. It is vital that every young person is informed and thinks about the peril. Otherwise, some young people, and their partners, and the partners of their partners, may die from ignorance. That is an unpleasant reality, but it is reality that ought to be faced.
I have every sympathy with those who wish to preserve childhood innocence for as long as possible, and I have no quarrel with the Government's policy in relation to primary education—that in that case the decision whether to provide sex education should be a matter for the governors, and that parents should have a right to withdraw their children.
But by the age of 11 the innocence of a great many children is sadly already fairly frayed; they hear a great deal in the media, and they hear their elders talk. The chances are that they will become confused and even alarmed by the smattering of understanding that they have gained of HIV and AIDS. They are on the threshold of adolescence and of sexual independence.
The statistics that we ought to consider in this context are quite grim, and are certainly food for thought: 35 per cent. of under-16-year-olds and 50 per cent. of 18-year-olds have had full sexual intercourse. A third do not use contraceptives in a sexual encounter with a new partner. Some 20 per cent. of HIV infections in Britain are in the 15 to 25-year-old age group.
The proportion of HIV infection derived from heterosexual activity, setting aside infection associated with drug abuse, has risen—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard from the hon. Gentleman why he feels that the allocation of time motion should be accepted. I need to hear reasons.
Mr. Howarth: I think that you will agree, Madam Speaker, that the facts that I am briefly stating are of the greatest importance in our national life and for the future of our children. We are debating an Education Bill—
Madam Speaker: Order. They may well be important, but we are dealing with a technical motion concerning the allocation of time. I want to hear from hon. Members why the allocation of time motion should be accepted.
Mr. Howarth: I am seeking to argue that there should not be an allocation of time, Madam Speaker—and certainly not an allocation of time that precludes our debating this extremely important subject. In emphasising the importance of the subject, I shall also be explaining why I am making the case.
The incidence of heterosexually derived HIV infections has risen, from 2 per cent. in 1985 to 28 per cent. now. That is why it is so important that our children and young people should be taught about the disease. Britain also has an exceptionally high proportion of teenage pregnancies: 8,500 under-l6-year-old girls become pregnant each year.
Parents may avert their gaze from those realities, but they are facts and they ought to be faced. Notwithstanding the statistics that I have just mentioned, in consequence of the very positive health education policy that we have had in Britain we have so far had a relatively low rate of HIV infection compared with that in other European countries. But that serves only to underline the importance of sex education and the importance of our debating it today.
To provide sex education is not to condone promiscuous behaviour, let alone to encourage it. In support of that assertion, I should like to offer the House some figures from the 19 studies recently reviewed by the World Health Organisation in connection with its global programme on AIDS in Geneva. The 19 studies indicate a clear trend.
No study found evidence of sex education leading to earlier or increased sexual activity among the young people exposed to it. Six studies found that sex education led either to a delay in the onset of sexual activity or to a decrease in sexual activity overall. Ten studies found that sex education increased the adoption of safer practices by sexually active youths. It is very important, Madam Speaker, that time should be made available today to enable the House to absorb those important realities.
Moreover, on the basis of its systematic international comparative studies, the World Health Organisation tells us that school-based sex education programmes are more effective when they are given before young people become sexually active and when they emphasise skills and social norms rather than knowledge.
If the state has a duty to educate at all, it cannot now duck responsibilty in this matter. The Government have already legislated to provide a moral context for sex education. If we are dissatisfied, the answer is to improve the nature and quality of sex education, and to match the standards that are already set forth as aspirations in policy.
I do not believe that the rights of parents in these matters outweigh the rights of children or the rights of society. A study by the Policy Studies Institute a few years ago suggested that 96 per cent. of parents wanted their children to receive sex education at school. The other 4 per cent.—this might be debated later today if we have the opportunity to defeat the guillotine motion—do not have the right to risk an increase in the spread of a lethal virus.
I do not believe—as my hon. Friend the Minister of State suggested in another place—that those who withdraw their children from sex education will always be discerning. Some will be highly conscientious people, but

37
some will be prejudiced, some will be ignorant and some, I fear, will be those who abuse their children. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has put that case to us. I do not wish to be melodramatic or alarmist, but I respect the views and fears of the NSPCC.
The 4 per cent. also do not have the right to undermine the education of the children of the 96 per cent. of parents. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who stressed the importance of sex education being integrated across the curriculum as a whole. It is meaningless to contemplate that it should not be so.
When being taught English literature, children are studying relationships; when being taught geography, they are considering the realities of life in modern Africa. It is totally absurd to suggest that their national curriculum studies should exclude them from awareness of HIV and AIDS.
The rights of children need to be considered, as distinct from the rights of the parents. That principle was upheld by the House of Lords in the judgment on the Gillick case, and it is also set out in chapter 41, part I(3)(a) of the Children Act 1989, as well as in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which we are a signatory.
Society has the right to be protected from the spread of a lethal virus, just as it has the right to be protected from lethal driving or any other homicidal activity. Nor is it appropriate to draw an analogy it would be important to debate the issue later this evening if the guillotine motion allowed us to do so—with religious education, as the Government used to recognise, and as Ministers argued in the context of the Education Act 1986. I am angry about the amendment and about the guillotine motion. This is no proper way in which to legislate.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State suggested that teaching about HIV and AIDS had been slipped into the national curriculum. I submit that the amendment was slipped into the Bill in the House of Lords. With the greatest respect to their Lordships, they have no constituents. The proposed change goes way beyond their proper responsibility as a revising Chamber—it is a major change.
On 6 July, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blatch said that the House of Commons would have the opportunity to consider and debate the subject. She said:
"That is the democratic process".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1993; Vol. 547, c. 1320.]
However, 580 amendments have been tabled, and we shall be lucky if many more than six are debated and voted on. Under the terms of the motion, the rest will receive a blanket approval.
The amendment to which I refer deals with whether young people may live or die. The national curriculum is the most cost-effective and far-reaching method of sex education we have: it is wrong that crucial aspects of sex education should be taken out of it, and wrong that the House should not have the opportunity to debate it.
Why are we to have no vote? Let me return to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and of the hon. Member for Dewsbury. In my time in government, it was the custom of Ministers to offer those on the Opposition Front Bench a choice of the key subjects that were to be debated under the terms of the motion. The motion was negotiated between the two Front
38
Benches. The House should be told who is responsible for preventing us from debating and voting on the issue of sex education this evening.
I will give way again to the hon. Member for Dewsbury if she will tell me whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary offered her the opportunity of a debate at the beginning of one of the blocks of amendments, under the timetable motion. If she was offered a choice, did she choose to decline that opportunity, and if so, why?
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. No offer or suggestion was made that arrangements for that debate should be changed. If the Government were not to disagree with the Lords amendment in the previous section, there could be time for that debate.
Mr. Howarth: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would confirm what has been said.
Mr. Forth: I do not think that we should become involved in an undignified wrangle. To clarify the matter, however, let me say that I—in the normal way, and as I have done throughout the Commons proceedings on the Bill—offered the Opposition a draft timetable, and welcomed their suggestions for change. No alterations were suggested, apart from some minor changes at the beginning.
Mr. Howarth: I shall say no more, except that I believe the Government have made a grievous mistake in introducing the amendment, and that it was wrong to introduce it in the House of Lords. I consider that we should be able to debate it here today. Surely that is the responsibility of those on both Front Benches. I am very disappointed that the Labour party has not taken the opportunity—which I believe was there—to ensure that we could debate and vote on the amendment.
4.24 pm
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Despite your valiant endeavours, Madam Speaker, the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) could not be described as "excursus interruptus".
I want to concentrate on why our debate should not be interrupted by the guillotine. The justification for my argument comes from none other than the Secretary of State, who has attributed some importance to the Bill. It was to have been the blueprint or coping stone for the legislation of the 21st century—an injudicious claim at the best of times, which probably should not be taken seriously.
What we have heard from the Government today is in keeping with their whole approach to this disreputable piece of legislation. The Secretary of State was in purdah for a matter of weeks before coming out with his White Paper "Choice and Diversity", for which he made such extravagant claims. When it was published on 28 July, it was subjected to the charade of consultation to which we have become accustomed under the present Government —which happened to coincide almost exactly with the period during which the whole education system was on holiday.
Finally, as a result of that inadequate process, a Bill was presented, containing 200 pages, 252 clauses and 17 schedules. It was guillotined on Second Reading and in Committee. It is no wonder that it hit the buffers when it

39
reached the House of Lords, returning ultimately with 580 amendments. We should be grateful to their Lordships for slowing down a headlong, almost indecent, rush into legislation, and for reminding us of the deficiencies in the Bill.
I mean the word "deficiencies" in two senses. First, it contains shortcomings: things have been done that ought not to have been done. Secondly. it contains omissions. The result is a labyrinthine catalogue of amendments, rivalled in recent history only by the amendments tabled to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
The House recently debated the estimates of the Department for Education. Much was made of the misdirection of Government investment, and the absence of the investment that was needed. The same criticisms apply to the Bill. It is not, in fact, about the choice and diversity that feature in the title of the White Paper on which it is based; it is all about enforcing one type of provision—the grant-maintained system. It might more accurately be called the Grant-Maintained Schools (By Hook or By Crook) Bill, with the emphasis on the word "crook".
The Bill involves a scandalous rigging of the rules to take responsibility for educational provision away from local authorities, and to draw schools from them one by one, like teeth. The main instrument of the process is the manipulation of funds, reinforced in the recently published DFE estimates that we debated not long ago. Important issues of accountability for funding are embedded in many of the amendments to the Bill.
The Bill misses the point; there is no logical connection between the administrative arrangements it sets out and the delivery of the quality that is properly referred to in its foreword. Rather than producing a Bill that is irrelevant to the educational needs of the country, it would have been better if the Government had spent money on teachers and resources for all the nation's schools. Instead, the Bill will ensure that money is spent on bribery and bureaucracy.
Clause 1, which refers to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, has a glaring omission, because it does not refer to nursery education. With the honourable exceptions of some local education authorities—mainly Labour ones, such as my own local authority of Knowsley —our national reputation for pre-school provision should make us hang our heads in shame. Because of the guillotine, there will not be enough time for that important issue to be adequately debated.
Important amendments have been tabled on special educational needs—a desperately important subject, given the evident inadequacies in the implementation of the Education Act 1981, which were exhaustively investigated by the Select Committee on Education. Those inadequacies have been compounded by the devil-take-thehindmost market philosophy that characterises the Bill and much of the Government's other legislation on education. The guillotine would by no means provide adequate time to do justice to such important matters.
Other examples of missed opportunities, which are the hallmark of the Bill, will not be subject to adequate debate if the guillotine is imposed.
The debate is important, but not in the sense intended by the Secretary of State. It is important not for its purpose of cementing in place the structure of education to take us
40
deep into the 21st century but in order adequately to demonstrate the dangers to which the nation's children are exposed. They are being used as guinea pigs in half-baked quack experiments in miseducation.
For those reasons, I strongly oppose the imposition of the guillotine.
4.33 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in expressing the hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shortly returns to the House and once more takes his place on the Front Bench.
The Bill has been already debated at great length. It had a two-day Second Reading debate; in Standing Committee E, it received a total of 122 hours consideration, and on Report it was considered for a further two days. It underwent a similar process in the other place: 62 hours were spent on Second Reading, with a further number of hours on Report and Third Reading. As a result, the Bill has already been debated for more than 275 hours.
Additionally, it has been discussed in schools and homes, by parents and teachers and by governors and councillors. It has been debated for months and by thousands of people. Only the Maastricht Bill has had more time devoted to it. But this Bill is fundamentally different, in that it is worth while and of benefit to the people of the United Kingdom.
We listened to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs.
Taylor) with some interest. She opposed the timetable motion, but I suspect that her principal reason was doctrinal: a fundamental dislike of grant-maintained status, the belief that the only good education is local authority education, and that only local education authorities can provide state education in a form suitable for the nation's children.
I believe that the Opposition are wrong. Grant-maintained status is popular; it is popular with parents. because it gives them the type of education that they want for their children. I need hardly remind hon. Members that it is necessary for a school to ballot its parents and receive a majority in favour before it gets grant-maintained status. That is democracy in action.
On the subject of democracy, it is worth while remembering that it was that great democrat, Michael Foot, who set the record for the number of guillotine motions, when he guillotined five separate Bills in one day, on 20 July 1976. Therefore, I believe that we should take no lessons from the Opposition when they talk about the use of the timetable motion.
We want this measure on the statute book in time for the next school year. If the Opposition have their way, they will delay matters until it is too late. Those who believe that I exaggerate the position should remember the debates that we had in Standing Committee E.
Time goes on and, although I should like to speak longer on this issue. I must leave time for the winding-up speeches.
Mr. Spearing: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he has mentioned—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman had already concluded.
4.36 pm
Mrs Ann Taylor: With the leave of the House, I shall make a few comments following the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), and draw his attention to a letter from Ministers that has gone out today. It says that Ministers hope that the key relevant issues will secure debate. It also says, not that they were willing to give the Opposition carte blanche to determine the timetable, but that they should discuss their proposals with us.
We have seen the Government's proposals, but do not think that there is enough time to discuss the sex education amendment, and many others. If the Government seriously consider those issues to be important, as we believe that they should, they would not table a motion that gives us only 53 seconds to debate each amendment.
The Labour party's position on the amendment that concerns the hon. Gentleman is clear. It is the only amendment on which we have tabled our own proposal, That this House doth disagree with the other place.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Did the hon. Lady, or did she not, receive from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) a draft guillotine motion which would have put the debate on sex education at the head of that block of time?
Mrs. Taylor: No, I did not. As far as I know, nor did anyone else on the Opposition Front Bench. There is still a possibility of reaching the debate that concerns and us, because we think that the Lords' proposals on sex education are damaging and wrong.
The block of amendments before the one that concerns us includes amendment Nos. 17 on special needs; 188 on the need for local authorities to review special needs provision; 189, which gives powers for local authorities to plan and review all special needs provision, including grant-maintained schools; 190 on the issue of access audits for access to schools for handicapped pupils; 191 on strategic planning; 192 on planning for nursery provision, especially for special needs children; 193, which concerns the need to have more attention for non-statemented special needs children; 196 on LEA services and the rights of special schools to buy them; and 199 on the relationship between grant-maintained schools and the LEA.
All those issues, which were debated at length in another place, are issues about which we feel that appropriate decisions were made. The Government intend to take the time of the House by insisting on reversing every one of those amendments.
Mr. George Walden: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has ended her speech.
4.39pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Once again, those of us who served on the Committee—I admit that I spent only half of that time in the Committee——
Mr. Forth: It seemed longer.
Mr. Boswell: I am conscious that my hon. Friend had to carry most of the burden of the Committee. However, most hon. Members who served on it had to endure the
42
Opposition complaining, whingeing, grumbling—grizzling would perhaps be an appropriate word—about the lack of time for consideration.
I know that there is always an element of ritual in guillotine debates, but it has been ritual with knobs on this afternoon. The Opposition case has no merit, and they have not advanced it with conviction. They have not carried the House with them.
The underlying problem for the Opposition is the deliberate confusion, which they have had to cover, between their synthetic indignation at the alleged curtailment—or orderly management—of debate on lines that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, are well precedented by the actions of the last Labour Government, and their inability to prioritise the subjects for the debate.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Does the Minister think that people and groups such as the Cheshire dyslexia association are making synthetic arguments when they write to me expressing serious concern that issues that have come up in the Lords will not be dealt with here in proper time?
Mr. Boswell: We have provided a great deal of time for debate on the Bill. All the substantive issues have already been well rehearsed, and all the issues that have been debated this afternoon, save one, on which I shall touch —sex education—have been debated in Committee. I am satisfied that the Bill has been given full consideration.
Mr. Don Foster: How many of the amendments that we shall be debating today does the Minister believe to be important and substantive?
Mr. Boswell: That is an absurd question, which is consistent with what we have heard before. Most of the amendments are purely technical and reflect consultation.
I shall now answer the debate. We face the usual dilemma for Governments, which is played on every time by the Opposition.
Mr. Walden: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an extremely strong case for the guillotining of all Bills—a measure that has been discussed elsewhere, and with which both Labour and Conservative Members agree? What matters is what the time is used for. If the Opposition were not engaged in a Brezhnevite retreat against the whole concept of variety in our schools in the form of grant-maintained schools, we could have a wider and better debate, including a debate on sex. In the case of nursery education, I should be on the side of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). The problem of time, which has led to the guillotining of the Bill, is the result of the stubborn Brezhnevite tactics of the Opposition.
Mr. Boswell: As ever, I agree with much of what my hon. Friend and neighbour has said. Let me take up his point about an early guillotine. I take issue with the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who seemed to be under the misapprehension that the Bill had been guillotined from Second Reading on. On behalf of my hon. Friends and those who served on the Committee, I can say only that many of us wished to God it had been. We went through the initial procedure and saw the long delays and waste of time.

43
The guts of the debate is simple. We are bent on the task of saving the Opposition from themselves. They are unable to prioritise their concerns or manage their time effectively or deploy their arguments. We must impose order on the structure of the debate. We are anxious to proceed with the debate and get on with the substantive issues——[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The behaviour of hon. Members at this point is not particularly good. It is certainly not an object lesson to any schoolchildren who may be watching.
Mr. Boswell: I hope that the House will note those strictures.
We wish to consider the issues. Only one new one—sex education—has been deployed this afternoon. The sooner that we get on the debate and stop continuing with the ritual, the better.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 222.

Division No. 338]

[4.44 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Clappison, James

Aitken, Jonathan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Alexander, Richard

Coe, Sebastian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Colvin, Michael

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Congdon, David

Amess, David

Conway, Derek

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Ashby, David

Cormack, Patrick

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Couchman, James

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Cran, James

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

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

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Baldry, Tony

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Day, Stephen

Bates, Michael

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Batiste, Spencer

Devlin, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Dickens, Geoffrey

Beresford, Sir Paul

Dicks, Terry

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Dorrell, Stephen

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Body, Sir Richard

Dover, Den

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Duncan, Alan

Booth, Hartley

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Boswell, Tim

Dunn, Bob

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Dykes, Hugh

Bowden, Andrew

Eggar, Tim

Bowis, John

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Brandreth, Gyles

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Brazier, Julian

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bright, Graham

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Evennett, David

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Faber, David

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Fabricant, Michael

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Budgen, Nicholas

Fishburn, Dudley

Burns, Simon

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Burt, Alistair

Forth, Eric

Butcher, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Butler, Peter

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Carrington, Matthew

French, Douglas

Cash, William

Fry, Peter

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gale, Roger

Chapman, Sydney

Gardiner, Sir George

44

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Merchant, Piers

Garnier, Edward

Milligan, Stephen

Gill, Christopher

Mills, Iain

Gillan, Cheryl

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Moate, Sir Roger

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Monro, Sir Hector

Gorst, John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Moss, Malcolm

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Nelson, Anthony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hague, William

Nicholls, Patrick

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Norris, Steve

Hanley, Jeremy

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hannam, Sir John

Ottaway, Richard

Hargreaves, Andrew

Page, Richard

Harris, David

Paice, James

Haselhurst, Alan

Patnick, Irvine

Hawkins, Nick

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hawksley, Warren

Pawsey, James

Hayes, Jerry

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Heald, Oliver

Pickles, Eric

Hendry, Charles

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hicks, Robert

Porter, David (Waveney)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Horam, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Rathbone, Tim

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Richards, Rod

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Riddick, Graham

Hunter, Andrew

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jack, Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jenkin, Bernard

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jessel, Toby

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Key, Robert

Sackville, Tom

Kilfedder, Sir James

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shersby, Michael

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

Sims, Roger

Knox, Sir David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Soames, Nicholas

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Speed, Sir Keith

Legg, Barry

Spencer, Sir Derek

Leigh, Edward

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spink, Dr Robert

Lidington, David

Spring, Richard

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Sproat, Iain

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lord, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Luff, Peter

Steen, Anthony

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stephen, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stern, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Stewart, Allan

Maclean, David

Streeter, Gary

McLoughlin, Patrick

Sumberg, David

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sweeney, Walter

Madel, David

Sykes, John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Malone, Gerald

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Marland, Paul

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mates, Michael

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Thurnham, Peter

45

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Wells, Bowen

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

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Tracey, Richard

Whitney, Ray

Tredinnick, David

Whittingdale, John

Trend, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Trotter, Neville

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wilkinson, John

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Willetts, David

Viggers, Peter

Wilshire, David

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Wolfson, Mark

Walden, George

Yeo, Tim

Waller, Gary

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Waterson, Nigel

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Tim Wood.

Watts, John

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Eagle, Ms Angela

Ainger, Nick

Eastham, Ken

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Enright, Derek

Allen, Graham

Etherington, Bill

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Armstrong, Hilary

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Austin-Walker, John

Fatchett, Derek

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fisher, Mark

Barnes, Harry

Flynn, Paul

Battle, John

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bayley, Hugh

Foster, Don (Bath)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Foulkes, George

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Fraser, John

Benton, Joe

Fyfe, Maria

Betts, Clive

Garrett, John

Blair, Tony

George, Bruce

Blunkett, David

Gerrard, Neil

Boateng, Paul

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Boyce, Jimmy

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bradley, Keith

Godsiff, Roger

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Golding, Mrs Llin

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Gordon, Mildred

Burden, Richard

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Byers, Stephen

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Callaghan, Jim

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gunnell, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hain, Peter

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hall, Mike

Canavan, Dennis

Hanson, David

Cann, Jamie

Hardy, Peter

Chisholm, Malcolm

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clapham, Michael

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Henderson, Doug

Clelland, David

Heppell, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Coffey, Ann

Hinchliffe, David

Connarty, Michael

Hoey, Kate

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Home Robertson, John

Corbett, Robin

Hood, Jimmy

Corston, Ms Jean

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cousins, Jim

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cox, Tom

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Cryer, Bob

Hoyle, Doug

Cummings, John

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Dafis, Cynog

Hutton, John

Dalyell, Tam

Illsley, Eric

Darling, Alistair

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jamieson, David

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Janner, Greville

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Johnston, Sir Russell

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

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Dewar, Donald

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Dixon, Don

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Dobson, Frank

Jowell, Tessa

Donohoe, Brian H.

Kaufman. Rt Hon Gerald

Dowd, Jim

Keen, Alan

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Khabra, Piara S.

46

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Leighton, Ron

Prescott, John

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Primarolo, Dawn

Lewis, Terry

Purchase, Ken

Litherland, Robert

Quin, Ms Joyce

Livingstone, Ken

Reid, Dr John

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Loyden, Eddie

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Lynne, Ms Liz

Rooker, Jeff

McAllion, John

Rooney, Terry

McAvoy, Thomas

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McCartney, Ian

Rowlands, Ted

Macdonald, Calum

Ruddock, Joan

McFall, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McLeish, Henry

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McMaster, Gordon

Short, Clare

McNamara, Kevin

Skinner, Dennis

McWilliam, John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Madden, Max

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

Mahon, Alice

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

Mandelson, Peter

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marek, Dr John

Snape, Peter

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Spearing, Nigel

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Steinberg, Gerry

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Stevenson, George

Martlew, Eric

Stott, Roger

Meale, Alan

Straw, Jack

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Milburn, Alan

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Miller, Andrew

Tipping, Paddy

Morgan, Rhodri

Turner, Dennis

Morley, Elliot

Vaz, Keith

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Walley, Joan

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Wareing, Robert N

Mudie, George

Watson, Mike

Mullin, Chris

Wicks, Malcolm

Murphy, Paul

Wigley, Dafydd

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Wilson, Brian

O'Hara, Edward

Winnick, David

Olner, William

Worthington, Tony

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wright, Dr Tony

Patchett, Terry

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Pickthall, Colin

Pike, Peter L.

Tellers for the Noes:

Pope, Greg

Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of the House [15th December] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments
1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall he completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the Order [15th December]. each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, he brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE Proceedings

Lords amendments

Time for conclusion

Nos. 1 to 6

6.00 p.m.

Nos. 7 to 24

7.00 p.m.

Nos. 25 to 177

8.00 p.m.

Nos. 178 to 253

9.30 p.m.

Nos. 254 to 333

10.30 p.m.

Remaining amendments

midnight

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph I above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and, subject to sub-paragraph (2), shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment, as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by the Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) In the case of proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at midnight the Speaker shall, instead of putting any Question required by sub-paragraph (1)(b)(iii) above, put forthwith with respect to all of the designated Amendments which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments.
(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Extra time
3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting for two hours after Ten o'clock.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
4.—(1) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings
5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
(7) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings arc to be brought to a conclusion under this paragraph, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day
  Education Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 1

  GENERAL DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("his") and insert
  ("The Secretary of State shall exercise")
  4.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6.
  Mr. Forth: In speaking to these amendments, it would help if I reminded the House briefly of the background to the clause. It seems a long time ago, but, if my memory serves me right, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) first identified in Standing Committee the fact that the essence of the Bill, which has been before the House and another place for such a long time, was somewhat at odds with the principles and contents of the Education Act 1944. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) took up the matter and reinforced what the hon. Gentleman said. Both asked whether the Government would consider what could be done to resolve any differences or divergences that were beginning to emerge between the principles of the Bill and those of the 1944 Act.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister make it clear that I made the comments on the matter in a disapproving manner, unlike the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)?
  Mr. Forth: That may be so. I cannot remember specifically the disapproval of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), but of course I accept what he says. The great service that he did to the Committee and the House—it is not overstating the case to put it that way —is that he was the first to put his finger on the difference. We came increasingly to the view that it was essential to correct and to deal with the matter. The group of amendments from another place is a direct result of that process.
  In particular, there was a recognition—these are my words, and I shall no longer seek to associate the hon. Gentleman with my remarks—that education is no longer primarily the monopoly of the local education authority. Conservative Members are convinced that the best way to secure improved standards in education is to give individual institutions responsibility for deciding how best they can meet the needs of the people they serve—we have already made considerable progress on that. Those institutions are covered by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, in which we were happy to give the former polytechnics, now universities, their independence.
  50
  They have responded to that in full measure and with vigour, and have used that independence in the most positive way.
  The Act also took further education sixth form colleges out of local education authority control. Those institutions are using their independence to benefit the students whom they serve. The local and business communities also benefit from the work of those institutions and from the improved attainment levels of their students. The same process is taking place in our school system. We and, most importantly, parents and pupils are experiencing an increase in the benefits that that process brings.
  The Education Reform Act 1988 introduced local management of schools into the maintained school sector. Its introduction was much maligned by backward-looking Members, mainly Opposition Members. The policy of local management of schools has been grasped with enthusiasm by schools up and down the country. They have relished the opportunity that it has given them to take greater responsibility for managing their affairs in the interests of pupils.
  More importantly, the Education Reform Act also gave schools the opportunity to opt out completely of local education authority control. It should be no surprise that Opposition Members also opposed that measure, but we now have a flourishing grant-maintained, self-governing school sector, which will continue to grow in response to parental demand. Nearly 500 self-governing schools are already operating and another 140 or so have received approval from the Department of Education and the Secretary of State. In a further 260, parents have voted to approve applications or proposals for grant-maintained status. More than one in five secondary schools has now balloted on grant-maintained status. Those figures clearly demonstrate the continuing popularity of the reform.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend has made the important point that most of the great educational advances, which have been widely welcomed by teachers, parents, governors and pupils, have been opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition. Those initiatives include the technical and vocational education initiative and the local management of schools policy that my hon. Friend mentioned. Does he agree that the Opposition will oppose the current legislation tooth and nail in the House today, but, in a few years' time, their policy will be stood on its head and they will support the Bill?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. That is a problem for Opposition Members. They have to decide how long they can hold out against the tide of parental opinion and the strongly expressed views of parents. If Opposition Members persist in seeking to deny parents the freedoms that we provide—the elements of choice, the ability to ballot on grant-maintained status and the like —the Opposition will be the losers and we will be the beneficiaries.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: What does the Minister have to say to the ex-mayor of Calderdale, Tory Councillor Carpenter, who recently said that the education department in Calderdale had been placed in a financially perilous position by the opt-out? Councillor Carpenter warns that it will he the end of the local

  51
  education authority, if not the local authority, because of the double funding and the way in which finances are skewed towards the opted-out sector.
  Mr. Forth: In the friendliest possible way, I would tell that councillor to look closely at the way in which his local authority operates and uses its funds. He should seek the advice of some of his colleagues throughout local education authorities, many of whom have responded imaginatively and positively to the challenge of grant-maintained status. Some of them have encouraged schools to become grant-maintained, others have welcomed the competition and others have sought, hopelessly, to resist the trend. It would help him if he discussed the matter with his colleagues in other authorities and found out the secret to responding successfully and positively to the challenge. I am disappointed by his negative attitude, but he will be able to find succour and advice from many who have found the secret which has eluded him until now.
  In the grant-maintained schools, self-governing status has helped to release enormous, previously untapped potential. The parents, who have chosen and balloted for the freedom of grant-maintained status because they want the best for their children, recognise that. The Bill maintains the momentum. In particular, it establishes a coherent and stable framework which will allow self-governing schools, and prospective self-governing schools, to plan confidently for the future. While guaranteeing that the route to self-governing status will remain, via the parental ballot, the Bill rightly makes the transition simpler.
  Education law needs to be brought up to date to reflect the fundamental changes that have already taken place. Like the 1944 Act, it needs to be able to accommodate the changes still to come. That is precisely what clause 1 achieves. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the education of people in England and Wales. It encompasses all the key organisations which have, and will continue to have, important roles to play in the delivery of the highest-quality education—local education authorities, the Funding Agency for Schools, the Further and Higher Education Funding Councils and, most importantly, the individual schools, colleges and universities—without cluttering the clause with a long, unwieldy list.
  The clause establishes the key objectives of the Government: to improve standards, to increase opportunities for choice and to encourage diversity. The Bill will take us well into the next century. I have no doubt that, in the years to come, its praises will be sung throughout the House. Even Opposition Members may, on reflection, recognise the Bill's aims.
  I will now turn to the amendments brought from another place. A number of peers were concerned that the clause in some way extended the power of the Secretary of State over institutions in the higher education sector beyond those powers already given to him in existing statute. That was never the intention behind the clause—the genesis of which I have described. We did not believe that that was the effect of the clause. However, we recognised the force of the concerns expressed and were happy to table amendments which sought to allay those concerns.
  52
  The amendments brought from another place make it clear that the Secretary of State should have a general duty to promote the education of people in England and Wales, regardless of whether that education is provided in schools, colleges or universities. That aim is set out in new clause 1 which is entirely free standing. In turn, new clause 2, which is concerned with the use of the Secretary of State's powers, clearly applies only to schools and further education institutions and to primary, secondary and further education.
  I have set out the intentions of clause 1, which is important, but it goes no further than I have described. I hope that the House will agree to the amendments.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I wish to take up some of the issues raised by the Minister. In the last 30 seconds of his speech—which was obviously truncated by the guillotine motion—the Minister referred to amendments Nos. 1 to 6. He did not refer to them in the rest of his speech, but I shall concentrate on the amendments, as I wish to probe the Government's intentions when the clause was brought before the House and when it came before the other place. We have never had a satisfactory explanation about that.
  Just to ensure that the idea does not enter folklore, we must continually remind the Government that the Opposition do not oppose local management of schools and did not oppose it when it was introduced, but we rightly objected to the formula on which it was originally based. It is common ground between us that subsidiarity should apply and that decisions should be taken down to the level at which they can best be made. It is, however, a myth to claim that the Opposition opposed the principle. We merely opposed the formula and we were entitled to—we do not have to accept everything rammed down our throats by the Government.
  I remind the House that the 1944 Act was our Act. The Conservative party has no proprietorial rights over it. So let us all use language that we can understand and not perpetrate central office mythology.
  On report, on 2 March at column 161, the Secretary of State made it abundantly clear that this part of the Bill was intended to apply to the Higher Education Funding Council and the universities. Indeed, he went out of his way to specify that it was intended to cover higher education. That intention clearly showed through the drafting of both the clause and the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  It was not until the Bill left this House and went to another place that the issue was debated in detail. There was hardly any debate here, because the 6 pm guillotine fell during the second sentence spoken by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), as I know from having read the debate. There was no debate here about the effects on higher education and the Secretary of State's intention that universities be covered.
  Following the debates in the House of Lords and today's remarks by the Minister, we have still had no explanation of why Ministers intended to extend these powers into higher education. It would help us to guard against such moves in the future and be able to bring the Government to account if we were given an explanatory statement. Although the Government have backtracked in the meantime, it would still he useful to know their thinking on the matter.

  53
  This is our first opportunity to discuss the issue. Although we agree with the Lords amendments, we make it crystal clear that the Opposition do not see threats to university autonomy or academic freedom in the promotion of policies in respect of quality education, wider access to higher education and equity of treatment as between full or part-time students in further or higher education. We will not be dictated to; nor will we accept criticism from the university sector simply because we want to raise these issues, as they were raised in the Lords. They can be properly debated in a mature fashion, surely, without such accusations being tossed around the Chamber.
  For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out that it is quite legitimate to raise these issues in debates, here and in another place. No one is levelling charges at anyone about a diminution of academic freedom or autonomy. Higher education itself is about inquiry and change, phenomena which can be uncomfortable bedfellows for those in politics and higher education.
  We do not yet have the benefit of seeing a consolidated clause, although I have one with me drawn up by the Library. Nevertheless, the Lords amendments construct a composite clause. I have already declared an interest—not pecuniary—as a serving member of an FE college corporation, a post in which I served for 20 years before coming to the House. Neither I nor my hon. Friends know of any FE corporation that wants to return to the status quo ante—that is not in dispute. I have seen at first hand the changes that have occurred and the problems both before and after incorporation. It has not all been plain sailing.
  The borders between these sectors of education are becoming ever more blurred, the more so since further education is still included in the clause. We know that the Higher Education Funding Council for England directly funds no fewer than 77 FE colleges higher education courses. Given that the HE arrangements in further education colleges are either franchise-based or based on 3 plus 1 or 2 plus 2 degrees, we want to know how the Secretary of State will exercise his power in the FE sector without impinging on the commitments given in another place to the effect that he will not do so in the higher education sector. Almost a quarter of FE colleges use this arrangement—higher education takes place, in fact, in far more than 77 of them, although only 77 are directly funded for it. As some of these colleges work in partnership with the universities, we need to know the Secretary of State's intentions.
  5.15 pm
  As the summer will show, cuts in university places will become apparent when the brown envelopes do not drop through doors, but that is to be compensated for in part by the proposed expansion—of 25 per cent. over the next three years—in the number of further education places. Some of that number will clearly be in higher education—so much has emerged from the colleges and from ministerial statements. The clause will thus have an effect on the HE sector.
  I appreciate that the university lobby and its representatives in the House of Lords did not discuss this aspect. I was in the other place, in the Gallery, on 20 April, watching the kebabing of Baroness Blatch as she proposed the original clause. The vice-chancellors and their representatives rightly concentrated on their own
  54
  institutions, because there had been no consultation or debate in this place, nor had there been any warning that the Government intended, as it appeared, to take further powers over the higher education sector.
  I have been to the other place only a few times and I found it illuminating to see the House of Lords chock-a-block, with every speaker from every quarter attacking the Government. Even after the Minister had given way to their demands, they carried on for another hour pressing their case. Anyone waiting to speak on any other aspect of the Bill would have found himself trampled at the end of that debate, because so many people were leaving.
  I do not want to fall foul of anyone in the higher education sector, but I suggest that the next batch of working peers should be drawn exclusively from the further education sector, the better to represent its views—especially in view of the blurring of the two sectors. It would be useful to have more practitioners, heads of departments and principals from FE, and more heads of nursery schools, in the second Chamber, while it remains in its present form.
  That makes the debates more rounded, and it would allow those of us who tend to concentrate on higher education to understand that the lower tiers of education provide the seedcorn. It is wrong to compartmentalise each sector of education. I make this point for all party leaders as they draw up their lists of working peerages. Our higher education sector deserves a statement in greater detail than the Minister has been able to give so far about why they were included in the original clause.
  In principle we do not disagree with the new wider powers, but on behalf of those who will be on the receiving end of them we are entitled to ask how the Minister will exercise them. Will representatives of parents, teachers, students and pupils be consulted before these wide general powers are exercised? In the spirit in which the Government should conduct education policy, they should be prepared to say that there will be meaningful consultation because sometimes consultation is merely symbolic. More thought by the Government before presenting the new clause would have been helpful for all concerned.
  We do not oppose the amendments. We would have raised the same issues if we had had the opportunity when the Bill was going through this place. However, we did not have the opportunity to do that because the Government were not willing to allow time to debate the Bill in the detail that it deserves.
  Mr. James Pawsey: One of the Bill's principal objects is to make it easier for schools to apply for grant-maintained status. That was said in an earlier debate by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South Mr. O'Hara). I welcome grant-maintained status, although the hon. Gentleman did not. Opposition Members have made no secret of their hostility to grant-maintained status. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is in her customary place on the Opposition Front Bench, has said that, if Labour ever wins a general election, it will abolish grant-maintained status and put schools hack under local education authorities.
  Parental opinion expressed through a free and secret ballot apparently means nothing to the hon. Member for Dewsbury. It is odd that she is so far out of step with her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands,

  55
  East (Mr. Smith) and with her hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who are steadily moving away from the old clause 4 mentality that only state ownership and the LEA are right. The hon. Lady is in something of a time warp. Most believe that she will have to change her mind on this issue in precisely the way that she changed it on the sale of council houses.
  Does the hon. Member for Dewsbury seriously tell the House and the nation that, at a time when hundreds of schools have become grant-maintained and hundreds of thousands of the nation's children are being educated in them, she will abolish their status and return them to the control of local education authorities? Does she think that parents will stand for that? Does not she understand the magnitude of the upheaval and the damage that the change will do to innumerable children in the state sector? The hon. Lady is unwise, and it may be significant that already there are rumours that some of her hon. Friends think that she is wrong and will seek to change her mind before it becomes set in its customary concrete.
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Who?
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Who?" It is up to him to take soundings in his party. If he does not know who they are, it is not for me to tell him
  Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, as he usually does. When my party forms the Government in three years' time, it will return opted-out schools to the state sector.
  Mr. Pawsey: I wonder whether the House noted the silence with which the hon. Gentleman's intervention was received by his hon. Friends. Does he realise how isolated he is becoming in his party?
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Pawsey: Now they are queuing up
  Mr. Enright: We are getting close to the end of the hon. Gentleman's second speech and I have not yet heard one iota about his philosophy on education or anything about his aims or dreams or what he intends to do and what education is about. All that he can do is grub in the dirt.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to the debates in Standing Committee E. If he can remember that far back, he will recall that I spelled out in substantial detail my philosophy on education. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to take up more time by repeating purely for the hon. Gentleman's benefit what I said at length some time ago.
  Grant-maintained schools are successful because they are popular with parents and more parents want them; their wishes are expressed through a free and secret ballot. For such schools to be sacrificed to a political vision that is becoming increasingly abandoned by the more progressive thinkers in the Labour party would be a mistake on a par with Labour's expectations during the last general election.
  Mr. Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: I should like to make progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is obviously wound up on this issue. Will he give a commitment that the promises given to parents during the ballots on grant-maintained schools will be kept and that the funding of future grant-maintained schools will be on the same basis as the funding of those schools to which that status has already been granted?
  Mr. Pawsey: I acknowledge that funding will become increasingly tight. Conservative Members certainly accept that, because we understand the substantial deficit between Government revenue and expenditure. We appreciate what has to be done to rectify that deficit, but that does not damage the fundamental principle of grant-maintained schools. People vote for those schools, and they come into existence not because of the extra funding that they receive but because parents believe in them and appreciate the greater freedom and the greater choice that go with them. The hon. Gentleman should understand that.
  When the hon. Member for Dewsbury was shadow spokesman on the environment, she took a long time to accept the sale of council houses and accepted it only after several thousand had been sold. Given time and several thousand grant-maintained schools, I am certain that she will again see the light—perhaps not in a brilliant flash as on the road to Dewsbury, but rather sullenly and reluctantly—and she will be motivated by the knowledge that the abolition of grant-maintained status would be unpopular and a real vote loser.
  There is nothing like four lost general elections to concentrate even the most recalcitrant mind. Parents want grant-maintained schools and they will get them, but only from a Conservative Government. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends listen only to the trade unions and to the views and needs of their friends and comrades in local authorities. They must understand that grant-maintained schools offer genuine choice and genuine diversity to the nation's parents.
  One of our more interesting debates took place on 21 January; it was on specialisation. I make no secret of the fact that I support specialisation and believe that where governing bodies, parents and teachers want to specialise in technology, science or music, they should be allowed to do so. Specialisation adds additional choice, concentrates resources and challenges pupils, and it should be welcomed.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister said, about 640 schools have been approved for grant-maintained status, and a further 260 applications are in the pipeline. The vast majority of those are secondary schools. Currently, about 20 per cent. of secondary schools have applied for grant-maintained status and more than 350,000 of the nation's children are now taught in grant-maintained schools. That is a clear sign of the magnitude of the revolution taking place. For the first time in almost 100 years, the apron strings that secured schools to LEAs are being cut.
  I have long held the view that those who believe that the only acceptable form of state education is local authority education are mistaken. There is a place for the local education authority, but it is unwise to assume that only one form of education is right. It is also unwise to accept that all the nation's children should be educated in a single type of school, run by a single form of authority.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's assent.
  No one person and no single system has a monopoly on virtue. The old monolithic structure of the LEAs, which has survived for the best part of 100 years, is now under challenge—and rightly so. Parents are becoming more knowledgeable as a result of the Government's reforms and they are becoming more interested in their children's education. They have the right to exercise their opinions and their choice. We have made it possible for the educational establishment to be challenged and most parents are taking advantage of that.
  The Bill makes it easier for primary schools to emerge through the introduction of clustering. That will be of particular benefit to schools in rural areas. The concept of clustering will also assist denominational schools—for example, a Catholic secondary school will be able to apply for grant-maintained status with its feeder primary schools.
  I think it appropriate to quote from a letter that I received from the Catholic Education Service, dated 22 January. In that letter, the deputy director told me:
  "In Sheffield, where I learn this morning that three of our primary schools are about to embark upon the GM route, there is no doubt that the authority has consistently sold Catholic schools short when comparisons are made with the LEA funding with county schools of similar size. I am told that examples of the same can also be found in Derbyshire. Similar observation has been made in Staffordshire and Liverpool and, I regret, could be demonstrated elsewhere. Such disparities in provision, long suspected, became apparent with delegated budget provision."
  I am not especially surprised that some LEAs have consistently sold Catholic schools short. That may or may not have been deliberate policy, but, whatever the reason, it will be put right when such schools receive grant-maintained status. They will then receive their fair share of resources, with greater freedom added for good measure.
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for a second time.
  Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially as he has spoken for a second time. Could he explain why the Archbishop's spokesman, Bishop David Konstant, is opposed to grant-maintained schools and advises Catholic schools not to go down that route? For the hon. Gentleman's information, I have taught in Catholic schools under both Conservative and Labour authorities, both of which have always given excellent back-up to Catholic schools. I pay tribute to them for that.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he did not challenge the extracts that I quoted from the letter from the Catholic Education Service; clearly, he rightly accepts them as correct. On the question of Bishop Konstant, it may be that his opinion has more to do with his political beliefs than with anything else. I merely put that point to the hon. Gentleman for good measure. I certainly hope that more Catholic schools take the plunge and are reborn or rebaptised as grant-maintained schools.
  58
  Throughout the passage of the Bill, Labour Members have ridiculed grant-maintained status and have tried to reduce the significance of the numbers. I ask them again today, as I asked them in Committee: if grant-maintained status is as unsuccessful as they claim, why do they make such a fuss about it? The fact is that grant-maintained status is a substantial benefit.
  I want to discuss my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's admirable initiative in tackling failing schools. Education associations will take over where LEAs leave off. It is not always easy for an LEA to get to grips with a failing inner-city school, where the headmaster may be old or tired or nearing retirement. My right hon. Friend's solution will be of substantial benefit, so I hope that the amendment will receive the support of Labour Members.
  Education associations will be a longstop, rarely called into existence and then only when an LEA has failed, despite being given the appropriate time and opportunity to take remedial action. Membership of the education associations will be small and committed, and I believe that their attitude will be positive and substantial. They will be of great importance to a considerable number of children who otherwise might be let down by a particular school.
  The Bill continues the thrust of the Government's reforms. It picks up where the Education Reform Act 1988 left off. It builds on the independent schools inspectorate, and it confirms the national curriculum and testing. The aim of the Government's reforms is ambitious: it is no less than a genuine attempt to improve the quality and standard of state education where the majority of the nation's children are educated. I believe that to be a truly laudable objective.
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) spoke about the damage that the plans and policies of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) might do to children. If only he would, to use his own words, take soundings throughout the country, he would find that many people, including governors, parents and teachers, would tell him that the Government's current policies are already causing a great deal of damage to the education service.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about sacrificing the education service for political ideology. The ideology that he and his party support has already led to strife rather than consensus in the education service. The ideology that the hon. Gentleman, his party and his Government support has led to competition throughout the service, rather than the partnership that was such an important element of the 1944 Education Act, about which Conservative Members boasted so proudly only a few moments ago. They have had 14 years in office and have brought in 17 major education Bills, yet they still fail to get it right.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he truly believes that, if all schools opted out, 23,000 quasi-independent schools would add up to what he and I both understand to be an education service.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. The difference between us is not that I would drive 23,000 schools into one form of education or another—very simply, I want to give them the choice. Freedom to choose is what it is all about. It is what parents want and it is what they will get from the

  59
  Government. It would be helpful to know what the hon. Gentleman's party would do with grant-maintained schools. Are you going to go down the same route—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the rule that all remarks must be addressed to the Chair. I do not think that he intended to put that question to me.
  Mr. Pawsey: Certainly not. I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I intended to direct my remarks entirely to the hon. Gentleman who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Incidentally, it is significant that he is alone, enjoying no support from other members of his party. Perhaps that is a clue to what they think about their party's policies. Nevertheless, let me hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about grant-maintained schools and whether his party would keep them or abolish them.
  Mr. Foster: My Liberal Democrat colleagues have full confidence in all the remarks that I am likely to make. Hon. Members will, of course, note that there is a greater proportion of Liberal Democrats present than of Conservatives.
  The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth did not answer the question. Will 23,000 quasi-independent schools provide an adequate education service? The crucial issue is surely whether we believe that schools can take all the decisions affecting the education service or whether some issues should be decided by a body at a higher level than individual schools. The Liberal Democrats believe that we should continue to move towards giving more power and autonomy to individual schools but that schools should still be contained within a local and democratically accountable strategic planning framework. The proposals by the hon. Gentleman and his party would lose that framework to the detriment of education as a whole.
  I do not dissent from the amendments, but it is nevertheless important to reflect on the fact that the Under-Secretary of State said that it was the hon. Member for Hemsworth Mr. Enright) who had put his finger on a particular problem which it was "essential to correct". The Government's failure to recognise the problems identified by the hon. Gentleman shows all too clearly the haste with which the legislation was cobbled together. The need for amendment after amendment to be tabled in the House and in another place shows that the Government have introduced legislation that has not been thought through properly.
  It is important to remember how many amendments the Government have had to table. From the figures that I have been given, I understand that the Government had to table 278 amendments in Committee, 78 on Report, a further 258 in another place, 296 on Report in another place and a further 71 on Third Reading in another place. Today, the Government have tabled still more amendments. That works out at an average of three amendments per clause on a Bill that is already one of the longest ever to come before the House. It is clearly proof of the incompetence with which the legislation was put together.
  On our debate on the timetable motion, we heard about not only the incompetence with which the Bill was put
  60
  together but the incompetent way in which it has proceeded through both Houses. It is therefore no wonder that a report in The Guardian last week stated:
  "What is—or certainly should be—quite indisputable is that the process which has carried this bill thus far has been a disgrace to Parliament."
  I entirely concur with that sentiment.
  The clause and the amendments draw the attention of the House to the Secretary of State's increasing powers. Many members of the Opposition parties are extemely worried about those powers. The Secretary of State received 500 additional powers under the Education Reform Act 1988. The Secretary of State now has powers to open and close schools; powers over what should be taught in those schools and over the information that should be published about them; powers in respect of their funding and admission arrangements; and, indeed, powers over whether specialisation—often a euphemism for selection—can be introduced into those schools.
  Those powers are greater than those given to a comparable Minister in any other European country and mean that the Secretary of State for Education has more powers than any Minister with the exception of the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State's powers are being used to diminish the co-operation and partnership between local education authorities, governors, individual schools and teachers, which were developed as part of the Education Act 1944. The Secretary of State's increasing powers prove that the Government care more for their dogma than for the well-being of children.
  5.45 pm
  The amendments draw to our attention the way in which education is increasingly being run by quangos. Recent figures have revealed that about one fifth of all public expenditure is now controlled by quangos. In recent years, the Further Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council have been created, and the Bill will create new funding authorities for grant-maintained schools. It must be a matter of great concern to many hon. Members that the quangos have as members people who are not democratically elected but appointed by the Secretary of State. They can hold meetings in private at which they can take decisions for which there is no democratic accountability. More important, the quangos have no base in the local communities. The clause and the amendments signal the break-up of the co-operation and partnership created under the 1944 Act.
  The Under-Secretary said that he believed that many of us would come to welcome the Bill in retrospect. I must tell him that he is sadly mistaken, because, as I have said many times—this will cause a look of great pain to appear on the Under-Secretary's face—I truly believe that the Bill will bring chaos and division to our education service. I knew that he was wondering when that phrase would occur. Equally important, the Bill fails to deal with many of the important issues facing our education service, not least the underfunding of our schools and the crucial need to increase the availability of nursery education.
  The Bill, as reflected in the increased powers given to the Secretary of State, not only will be a short-term disappointment to us all but will certainly be a long-term disaster for the education service. H. G. Wells said:
  "Human activity becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe".

  61
  But, if the Bill is passed, education and catastrophe will be running neck and neck.
  Mr. George Walden: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to the extension of the Government's powers. That extension is undeniable, but it has become necessary because the co-operation and partnership of which he spoke so warmly sadly turned out to be a co-operation for mediocrity and a partnership in low expectations. That was the record of education during all the decades when the localities were in charge and when the centre—Governments of both parties—had very few powers. I believe that it has therefore become a regrettable necessity for the Government to take greater powers. That is obviously reflected—
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walden: No. I may give way later, but we are approaching the time limit on this debate.
  Clause 1 refers to the Secretary of State exercising his powers
  "with a view, among other things, to improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice."
  In the short time left to me, I want to address my remarks specifically to the problem of girls and women in education and how clause 1 affects them.
  I happen to be a feminist—of the most high-minded sort. One of the things that has seriously disturbed me in this country, in contrast to the achievements of other countries, is the appalling under-achievement and under-expectation of girls and women at every level of the education system. That is why I share the view of Opposition Members, and of some Conservative Members, that nursery education, which does not feature in the Bill and which is not mentioned specifically in clause 1, is a primary necessity, not just because of its general and social advantages, but specifically to make an early start to improve the expectations of girls from the age of two and a half upwards. I have seen that happen in other countries, most notably in France in the maternelles, which a daughter of mine attended.
  From the age of two and half, girls are treated intellectually—if one can use such a big word—and practically on the same level as boys. We all know that old-fashioned traditionalist practices pertain when girls are left in the home. In those early years, perhaps less is required of a little girl who is sent away with her dolls and such like and perhaps more is required of a boy. Removing a girl from that kind of background, particularly in traditionalist British society, is a positive good, quite apart from the other general arguments for nursery education. That is the first stage where we go wrong in this country and where girls begin to lose.
  I am in favour of the provisions for grant-maintained schools because they will enhance quality and expectations for all, and particularly for girls. Those who de facto have been in control of our education system for decades—not the Government, but the education establishment and local authorities—have failed to raise expectations for all and specifically for girls.
  Dr. Robert Spink: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he acknowledge that the majority of chief education officers in this country are men? In so far as the Bill promotes GM schools, those schools will be controlled by parents and governors. Many
  62
  parents and governors will be women. Indeed, at least half the parents will be women. Therefore, women will be able to take an active role in promoting the cause of education and equality for women in schools.
  Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend has made a good point, which supports the flow of my argument and which is yet another reason for being in favour of such schools.
  The national curriculum will help because girls, who traditionally tended to drop science or mathematics and were not encouraged to develop their talents in that area, will no longer he able to drop those subjects. I believe that we will gain benefits economically and as a society from that.
  However, if, despite our efforts, the intrinsic drive towards mediocrity which is so culturally deep seated in the education establishment of this country persists, we will have a system in which schools will fail girls relatively. That failure will continue. Indeed, I believe that we are seeing that already in higher education.
  With regard to higher education, there is still a huge disproportion in the number of girls studying what are broadly categorised as arts subjects—or "soft" subjects as they are sometimes called—as opposed to the harder subjects like physics. If the education system does not succeed in increasing diversity, to which clause 1 refers, particularly for women, an horrific prospect will loom before us.
  In respect of the historically vast and sudden expansion of higher education and the enormous and overdue expansion of the proportion of women in higher education—I believe that women now comprise about 50 per cent. of those in higher education—there is a general danger of standards being lowered if schools do not prepare pupils to maintain those standards. We run the risk of producing from our higher education establishments an enormous number of women graduates who will have been sold a pup.
  The standards required in those establishments, particularly in the arts subjects, are falling. Indeed, the slippage can already be noted with regard to A-levels. Some English papers are very slipshod. One can get by with just a few 20th-century authors and possibly one Shakespeare work. One need know nothing more about the history of English literature.
  Mr. Enright: Where is the evidence for that?
  Mr. Walden: In such circumstances, women will be very bitter, because they will emerge from higher education with a rather mediocre degree—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has made a most pathetic and unthinking intervention which, in a way, I rather expected from him. He said that what I am saying is sexist. What I am saying is pro-feminist. I am glad to see Members on the Opposition Front Bench nodding.
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walden: No. I will not give way until I have finished.
  I do not want to see the women of this country sold a pup in terms of higher education. I want them to have the highest possible standards and the highest possible expectations based on what is expected in schools so that they do not go through higher education, posssibly from a poor background and possibly the first generation in the family to do that, emerge with a crummy degree and end

  63
  up behind a typewriter or word processor. That would be a bitter disappointment for them and an extremely expensive way of producing people to work on word processors.
  Right from the word go, from the age of two and a half, we must change the culture of expectations, and of girls in particular, so that we do not sell them a pup progressively through the education system to the higher levels.
  Mr. Forth: With the leave of the House, I would like to reply to this brief debate as quickly as I can. I am tempted to take up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) although perhaps I will have a word with him afterwards.
  With regard to the key point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), it was never the Government's or the Secretary of State's intention to take the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) somehow to extend the Secretary of State's powers in some mystical way over higher education. Like the hon. Member for Perry Barr, I well recall the strength and violence of the debate in another place on this issue where those most directly concerned with higher education took the opportunity to re-emphasise their independence.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Perry Barr will accept that, while clause 1 states, as it should, the general responsibility on the Secretary of State for Education to promote education in its widest sense, clause 2 makes it explicit that that general responsibility will be expressed in the use of the powers of the Secretary of State solely in schools and in further education. That was our response to the concerns that were expressed in another place, in an effort to make that distinction as clear as possible.
  The hon. Member for Perry Barr made a good point about how the distinction would be carried through on the ground to the higher and further education sectors. The further and higher education funding councils are developing an understanding of the different roles of their sectors. They are beginning to identify, in that overlapping partnership, ways in which different institutions can make their best contribution. The developing role of the Secretary of State, which is outlined in clause 2, will sit well with that, led and guided by the role of the funding councils in order to make sure that we make the best possible use of that partnership which hon. Members welcome in the developing role of further education, working ever more closely with higher education.
  Clauses 1 and 2 are not threatening; they are a positive development. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend for the role that he played in this—
  It being Six o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
  Lords amendments Nos 2 to 6 agreed to.
  Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on the issue
  64
  of sub judice. It arises from current litigation in the High Court this morning—the Queen v. the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, ex parte the right hon. Lord Rees-Mogg. One is concerned with the view that the Government are taking of the issue of sub judice. It is reported that a Government spokesman has said:
  "The Government did not oppose the application. We will of course oppose the substance. Now that leave has been granted, the matter is sub judice."
  If that view were to prevail, and were it to be interpreted in the broad sense, it could inhibit the whole discussion in this honourable House on a matter of great public controversy. If it were a narrow interpretation of the minutiae of the litigation, our concern would be less. But if any litigant can go along to the High Court and seek for judicial review, which of course is a comparatively recent innovation, on a matter which is a current major political controversy, it would mean that this High Court of Parliament would be muzzled.
  Therefore, I ask that the Government immediately, in the person of the Attorney-General, clarify the matter and say whether it is the correct view that the Government regard the matter as sub judice.
  The whole House will be interested, whatever view is taken by No. 10 Downing street and its spokesmen of sub judice, to know what view would be taken by the Chair on the general position which might inhibit the whole discussion on Thursday and indeed possibly—I hope not—call it in question?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The House will be aware that the House has its own clear rules on the question of matters sub judice. This matter must be considered by Madam Speaker. It is not for me to prejudge the issue. I will of course ensure, if she does not know already, that Madam Speaker is made aware of this exchange. I do not think that the matter can be taken further at this moment.
  Mr. Morris: I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not my intention, I can assure you, to continue with the matter at this very moment. It has only recently been brought to our attention, and I am grateful for the indication that you have given. But two matters arise. I would hope to clear the air, lest some unfortunate and wrong conception be given to the world at large that a view is given in the course of the evening before we adjourn tonight. The Government should seek an opportunity to make a statement. I hope that Madam Speaker will also clarify what the Chair's view would be in the somewhat strange, novel and uncharted ground tonight.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that the Treasury Front Bench will have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words. No doubt Madam Speaker will shortly be aware of them, too. I cannot take the matter further now. I am also very conscious that we are working to a guillotine and that other important business is before us.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to take a further point of order on this matter.
  Mr. Marlow: It is a different point or order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If it is different.
  Mr. Marlow: It is a different point of order. Briefly, we are scheduled to have a debate on Thursday. That debate arises from clause 7 of what will be an Act of Parliament only if it receives Royal Assent. At the moment, that Bill is subject to legal doubts. Is it proper for a Bill which is subject to legal doubts to be put before Her Majesty for Royal Assent?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me in the Chair at this moment. We must now consider the next group of amendments.

Clause 2

  FUNDING AGENCY FOR SCHOOLS
  Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
  ("() persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of education in voluntary schools, or in grant-maintained schools having foundation governors")
  Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments: Nos. 8 to 10, 23 and 175.
  No. 177, Government motion to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
  No. 180 and Government amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d).
  No. 181 and Government motion to disagree.
  Nos. 397 to 399, No. 401 and No. 403.
  Mr. Forth: This group of amendments concerns the funding authorities; many of them are either technical or deal with minor omissions and tidying up. The main issues covered by the amendments are membership of the funding authorities and a new function for the Funding Agency for Schools in respect of 'value of money'.
  Let me deal first with the amendments on membership. In response to concerns expressed in the other place by representatives of the voluntary sector, the Secretary of State will now be under a duty to consult both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church before making any appointments to the Funding Agency for Schools. In reality, those organisations will be the Church of England General Synod Board of Education and the Catholic Education Service. In addition, the Secretary of State will be required to consider the desirability of appointing as a member of the funding agency for schools an individual representative of the voluntary sector.
  By virtue of amendment No. 8, the Secretary of State will have to consider the desirability of appointing as a member of both the FAS and the Schools Funding Council for Wales an individual with experience in providing for pupils with special educational needs.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has tabled two amendments which would tie the LEAs into the Funding Agency for Schools. I hope and expect—I have said this many times in Committee and in the House—that the FAS and LEAs will work together in close co-operation, but it would not be appropriate to place a requirement on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State should consult representatives of local education authorities before
  66
  making appointments to the FAS. That agency has a role in relation to grant-maintained schools, not to LEA-maintained schools.
  I refer now to amendment No. 177, which I cannot commend to the House. Of course the Government are wholly committed to ensuring that public funds are used with economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the growing grant-maintained sector. My noble Friend agreed in the other place that there should be a clear requirement on the face of the legislation for value-for-money studies to that end, but right hon. and hon. Members will realise that there are technicalities which need to be got right, which include safeguarding the valued independence of the National Audit Office.
  The fundamental problem with amendment No. 177, although I support its thrust, is that it places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations which could be regarded as biting on the independent role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I know that that would be of concern not only to hon. Members in general but to the Public Accounts Committee in particular.
  To rectify that defect, the Government propose a new clause in lieu of Lords amendment No. 177 in part 1, as set out on the Paper. That would place an explicit duty on the funding authorities to ensure value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools. That duty is already implicit in the monitoring roles proposed for the FAS and its Welsh counterpart, but the amendment will place beyond all possible doubt both the duty on the funding authorities and the importance that the Government place on accountability and the proper stewardship of taxpayers' money. The amendment would not trespass on the responsibilities and independence of the National Audit Office, whose recent report on financial controls in the grant-maintained sector I am sure hon. Members will have read with interest, as I did.
  Indeed, the NAO's responsibilities and independence of action in this matter are properly enshrined in Lords amendment No. 180, which I fully support. That places on the face of the legislation the Comptroller and Auditor General's right of access to the accounts of each and every grant-maintained school. That right is presently secured only through secondary legislation. The amendment also provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to report to this House each Session on whether he has carried out any value-for-money studies of GM schools, and if so, what are their results. In determining the programme of studies of the National Audit Office, he will also be required to take account of any relevant report published by the Audit Commission.
  That provision will have a dual effect. It will ensure that there is no unnecessary double banking. However, if the findings of the Audit Commission indicate that further investigations are warranted, the Comptroller and Auditor General may build on what has already been made public. I am sure that the increase in transparency—through the annual reports to Parliament and the encouragement for more professional scrutiny in a co-ordinated way—will be welcomed by hon. Members.
  Amendment No. 181 and the Government's amendment to amendment No. 180 are technical ones relating to definitions. Parliamentary counsel has advised that the approach in amendment No. 180 is preferable. Amendments (b), (c) and (d) to amendment No. 180 would

  67
  require grant-maintained schools to send their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General and for him to make them available for public inspection.
  I want to make two comments on that. First, the amendments are defective, unless the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) intended to place on schools the onerous burden of sending to the Comptroller and Auditor General not simply the audited accounts but all the supporting documentation of financial transactions during the year. Secondly, the amendments are unnecessary, because grant-maintained schools are already required to make their audited accounts available for inspection by any member of the public.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: We are discussing a wide group of amendments, but that is part of the difficulty with the time constraint under which we are operating this evening. The amendments to which the Minister referred initially—those relating to membership of the funding agency—are generally welcomed, not least because we made suggestions along similar lines in Committee and, indeed, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).
  In Committee, the Minister told us that it would be inappropriate to prescribe who should be on the funding agency and it should not be a "ragbag of individual interests". I am glad that he has changed his approach and is willing to accept that there should be some guidance with regard to the membership of the Committee.
  The Minister did not mention the amendment dealing with section 11 funding and the distribution of section 11 funds through the funding agency. I wish that he had said something about section 11 funding because many of us are waiting for Ministers to recognise the problems that the cuts in section 11 money are causing schools at present. The fact that the Government have reneged on their initial deal on section 11 funding is causing great and real hardship. I wish that we had more time to explore that fully and that the Minister had spoken about that aspect as well.
  The amendments that I want to concentrate on are those that the Minister dealt with at the end of his contribution—amendment No. 177 and the Government's amendments to the Lords suggestions. Clearly, there is a need for greater accountability for grant-maintained schools. After all, we are talking about public money. The recent debate, abeit a brief one, on the Select Committee report on education expenditure threw up many interesting items. One of the most significant items was the extent of double funding of grant-maintained schools and, indeed, the bias with regard to capital for grant-maintained schools.
  6.15 pm
  It is clear that GM schools had an unfair share of the cake in the past. The fact that there has been insufficient scrutiny of the distribution of funds is a cause for great concern and alarm. I remind the Minister that more than half the present 492 GM schools are double-funded with regard to their annual maintenance grant. Many of them gain considerable amounts of money at the expense of local education authority schools in that area—the budgets of local education authority schools are robbed to give grant-maintained schools extra provision.
  68
  It is a fact that the first schools to seek grant-maintained status got a higher degree of double funding and that advantage may be drying up. When the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) talked about funds for GM schools, he said that funding would become increasingly tight. That is the case. However, there is still a great deal of double payment, and the Government have done nothing whatever to redress that problem. The Government have acknowledged that that happens, yet they continue to pour money in that direction. When the civil servants appeared before the Select Committee recently to discuss the problem, they said that there had been a deliberate political decision by Ministers to double-fund GM schools because that was their political preference and they wanted to reward schools that went in that direction.
  The extent of the double-funding on an annual grant basis is £13·6 million. The highest beneficiary is St. Bartholomew's school in Newbury, which benefited to the extent of more than £200,000. Obviously, that did not pay off in terms of the by-election result in that area. I have not had an opportunity to find out whether any schools in the Christchurch area have had the advantage of double funding—perhaps the Government have already given up on Christchurch.
  There has been a stunning silence from the Government as to why grant-maintained schools are being double-funded at a time when public expenditure is so tight. It is clear from paragraph 22 of the Select Committee report that
  "The Government's plans for capital spending on schools appear to us to favour the GM sector rather than the LEA sector".
  The Minister is nodding. That is an admission that education funding is determined by political and ideological soundness, not by education need. That is a disgraceful situation, and Ministers should be ashamed of it. If they had any real interest in the educational development of children, they would not tolerate it for one moment.
  I return to the main point—the need for further scrutiny of grant-maintained schools with regard to both the money they receive and the way in which they spend it. Recently, the Audit Commission reported on some of the problems that LMS has created for many schools. The report detailed the way in which schools operate under LMS at present. We know from previous debates that all hon. Members support the principle of LMS.
  We must all acknowledge that there are many problems in terms of the formulae that have been created and the many difficulties that have arisen as a result. The report shows that there has been an increase in the pupil-staff ratio. Since LMS was introduced, class sizes have increased. That is partly a problem of the formulae and partly a problem of the arrangement that was imposed by Ministers with regard to the payment of staff salaries. Nevertheless, it is a significant problem that should be addressed in the future. It is right that the Audit Commission should be able to identify such problems with regard to local authority schools. It is also right for the Audit Commission to examine GM schools, identify such problems and warn us that those problems are arising.
  The Audit Commission report highlighted many of the anomalies, difficulties and problems that have arisen from LMS in terms of the tendering process and letting contracts. The press picked on the more sensational

  69
  aspects of the report, such as the odd occasions when head teachers let contracts to relatives and improprieties of that sort. Obviously, such matters should be brought into the open.
  There is a clear need for such constraints and scrutiny to apply to grant-maintained schools as well as schools in the local authority sector. Therefore, we do not accept that the amendment tabled by the Minister is an adequate substitute for amendment No. 177, which was passed in another place. The advantage of amendment No. 177 is that its intention and wording are clear, and it provides for a proper basis for scrutiny. The Minister's amendments fudge the real issue. They do not ensure the level of scrutiny that we require. Given all that has been said recently by the Prime Minister, Ministers in the Cabinet and junior Ministers about the need to remove secrecy from all levels of Government, it is about time that Ministers sought to remove secrecy from quangos and those who benefit from the money distributed by quangos.
  The Funding Agency for Schools will have a great deal of power and money at its disposal. It already has. It is essential that every aspect of public funding is open to the fullest scrutiny. We do not believe that the Minister's amendments will achieve that aim. We believe that Lords amendment No. 177 in particular should become part of the Bill because it will ensure a higher level of public accountability and we should be responsible for ensuring that that is achieved.
  Mrs. Mahon: I shall speak to amendment No. 177, which deals with value for money, and touch on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on double funding.
  Two years after the Government introduced changes to allow schools to opt out, we face a potential crisis in Calderdale local authority. The entire council structure is being undermined by the Government's changes. So alarmed are councillors from all parties that, as I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister, Calderdale council is to spearhead a national campaign to highlight the unfairness of the funding of grant-maintained schools. I may add that scrutiny and accountability come into that campaign.
  Tory-led Calderdale council claims that the current formula pumps thousands of pounds a year into grant-maintained schools at the expense of schools that remain under local authority control. From the way in which the Minister nodded, I suppose that he thinks that that is all right. It is worth emphasising that the campaign has all-party support and that the council is at present run by the Conservatives.
  I have already told the Minister the position of the ex-mayor on the matter. The ex-mayor said:
  "The education department had been placed in a financially perilous position by the opting-out legislation. A third of all secondary schools are now grant maintained in Calderdale and the proportion could rise to almost half by April next year."
  He also said:
  "If we do not do something about it, we could be committing our schools to a potentially disastrous situation."
  It is vital that we achieve the scrutiny and accountability that Lords amendment No. 177 would provide. The truth about the current unfairness in the financing of grant-maintained schools is that it takes place at the expense of local authority schools. I see the Minister nod in approval again. Grant-maintained schools are also
  70
  receiving extra capital. They receive a far more generous allocation of resources than the equivalent local education authority schools. Other LEA services are being deprived of resources to provide the additional funding for schools which have received grant-maintained status. Opposition Members believe that that is simply unfair.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury referred to capital grants. Earlier this year in Calderdale, we saw the real face of the Government's ideological commitment to one type of education, when they granted three grant-maintained schools in Calderdale over £400,000 in capital grants while the other 109 LEA schools received thousands of pounds less. One grant-maintained school received £225,000, which was £20,000 more than the other 109 schools put together. That is wrong.
  What does the Minister have against children in LEA schools? Why do the Government discriminate in that way? Why did that one school receive £225,000 more than all the other 109 put together? It is simply unfair. I submit that it was simply a crude bribe to encourage the other schools to opt out as they became desperate for funding
  Mr. Don Foster: In November 1992, the Secretary of State categorically stated:
  "Grant-maintained schools and local education authority schools must operate on equal terms."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 651.]
  Is the hon. Lady surprised to hear that, in view of what she has been saying?
  Mrs. Mahon: We have clear evidence that the Government do not intend all schools to operate on equal terms
  Mr. Steinberg: What the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has said seems remarkable. I am a member of the Education Select Committee. We wrote to the Secretary of State asking him what was the policy on capital expenditure in opted out schools. He categorically said that it was the Government's policy to ensure that opted-out schools received more money for capital expenditure than LEA schools. That was in a letter which he wrote to all members of the Select Committee. So he appears to say one thing at one time and something else at another time.
  Mrs. Mahon: That shows that the Government are willing to use children and their education as political footballs.
  I take this opportunity to congratulate the teachers, governors and parents of the excellent Ryeburn comprehensive school in Calderdale in my constituency who resisted the bribe. They voted two to one against opting out. The school was built for 600 pupils and now has more than 1,150. It is bursting at the seams. If there was accountability in distributing capital grants, the school would have more than qualified for the extra money that the Minister gave out so liberally to the other schools.
  I ask the Minister now whether he will treat Ryeburn school as generously as he treated Crossley Heath school, which received more grant than the rest of the schools put together and, if not, why not? He must answer that question because the children at those schools are all his responsibility.
  I have with me a report which I intend to send to the Minister after tonight's debate on the Lords amendments. It was produced by the financial department of Calderdale council and it deals with the financial implications for the

  71
  local education authority of grant-maintained schools. I ask the Minister to consider it carefully. It exposes the double standards—it is factually correct—if what is happening in Calderdale.
  The report expresses doubt about double funding. The extra money that goes to grant-maintained schools comes from an already grossly underfunded local education authority budget. It is a shrinking budget, thanks to the Government's cuts. Since 1979, we have lost about £160 million in grant from the Government. We were also unfairly poll tax-capped. But the inadequate budget for LEA schools has to provide for school meals, special needs and a host of other essential services for all LEA schools. It provides no luxuries.
  I submit that the Government are deliberately creating a two-tier system of funding. I can only conclude that their aim is to produce a segregated schools system. That will damage children's education. If Calderdale becomes the pilot for the funding agency, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury that parents will have to deal with Government appointees to a remote, unaccountable, secret quango. What will parents do when they want to appeal about which school their children attend or to complain about something?
  Next year, the LEA schools in Calderdale will face the possibility that their delegated budgets will be cut to fund grant-maintained schools. That would be an absolute outrage. It would be grossly unfair to children, teachers. parents and governors.
  I shall support the local authority's campaign, which will be led by a Tory education spokesman, to warn other authorities about exactly what is happening on the ground in terms of unfair, unaccountable funding and the creation of a two-tier system. If even a Tory council such as Calderdale recognises the iniquity of the system, there is something seriously wrong. Will the Government use the Bill's powers to end a potential disaster for children in Calderdale?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Several hon. Members have spoken about the Government's double standards in refusing to accept amendment No. 177. This is a fundamental issue and the principle seems to emerge in two areas. I suppose that we should be grateful that the Government are at least doing something consistent, but it is distasteful.
  Like schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), none of the schools in my constituency has yet been persuaded, despite enormous bribes, to accept grant-maintained status. Indeed, Whitby high school recently voted firmly against grant-maintained status. Many parents and teachers have started to worry about the Government's double standards.
  The Minister referred to the problems created by cutting across the role of the Audit Commission or the Public Accounts Committee. So what? Is not the essence of openness that those at the sharp end—the parents of the pupils and the teachers—should be entitled to the fullest information on what is happening in the school in question?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) commented on the Government's claim that they
  72
  seek to open society. Just last week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—who, a moment ago, fortuitously popped in, heard 30 seconds of this debate and left—introduced a White Paper on openness in government. Do the Government intend to provide access to information just in Whitehall? Are we to learn only about who was spying for whom 50 years ago, or will the Government get down to openness in current issues that affect real people, such as children in our society?
  The position can be compared to what is happening in the health service. I was recently berated by a Government employee—the chairman of a hospital trust—for having the temerity to publish a policy document from that hospital trust showing how £1·7 million-worth of cuts would be imposed. The public are entitled to such information.
  In another area of the Government's dogmatic approach—the creation of grant-maintained schools—are not the public entitled to know precisely what is happening? The only conclusion that one can draw from those two examples in the education service and hospitals is that the Government have a particular form of double standards. They will happily tell the public about certain pieces of information but, when it comes to the cost of implementing policies based on sheer dogma, they will not tell the public what is happening.
  I challenge the Minister to get his feet off the Dispatch Box and come clean. Is he simply saying that the only reason for keeping information about grant-maintained schools from the public domain is that it hides part of the Government's dogma and it would suit the Government not to tell? Everyone knows that that is so. If the Government were sincere, they would accept amendment No. 177.
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred to national health service trusts. May I draw his attention and, more important, that of the Minister to the importance, when applying for NHS trust status, of combining operational and financial details? As I said in Committee, if the governors were required, when applying for grant-maintained status, to provide full details of their financial projections for the next two or three years, that would go a long way towards resolving some of the concerns in schools.
  I rise to speak because of the Minister's comments in introducing this string of amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 extend the Secretary of State's responsibility not only to consider, as members of the funding authorities, those with experience of voluntary and grant-maintained schools and special educational needs, but to consult the Church of Engand and the Roman Catholic Church before appointing members of the funding authorities. The Minister said that he did not believe that it was necessary to consult local education authorities in the same way as the amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult those other bodies. He explained the rationale behind that as being that the funding authorities were set up to deal with grant-maintained schools.
  Will the Minister reflect not on anything that I may say on the issue but on what he said at various stages during the Bill's passage? For example, at the Committee's third sitting, on 19 November 1992, he said:
  "In other words, the duty of the FAS to secure sufficient school places need not. and should not, operate where it is

  73
  economically more sensible for an LEA to make provision in that way."—[Official Report, Standing Committe E, 19 November 1992; c. 82.]
  The Minister accepted the important liaison between the two bodies. At the eighth sitting, on 1 December 1992, he said:
  "Both bodies will be able to bring forward statutory proposals only in respect of their own sector. But, when considering the needs of their particular sectors, both bodies will have to take account of the provision that exists in the other sector."
  Again at the eighth sitting, the Minister said:
  "LEAs will need to carry out a more strategic planning role in partnership with funding authorities, if we are to ensure that there are sufficient school places."
  He went on to say:
  "An essential aspect of the activities of the funding agency for schools and of clause 7 is to provide a strategic planning framework for the grant-maintained sector alongside that of the LEA."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 1 December 1992; c. 337–39.]
  At the 10th sitting, the Minister said:
  "I expected the funding agency for schools to work in close harmony with LEAs".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 3 December 1992; c. 443.]
  Mr. Forth indicated assent.
  Mr. Foster: Given that the Minister nods his head and acknowledges his earlier comments, it is difficult to understand why he is willing to accept that it is important and relevant to consult the Churches, but not the local education authorities, when appointing members to the funding authorities. Although none of us fully understands how it will work, he seemed to be saying that there will be a close working relationship between those two bodies at a local level. It therefore makes sense, if not to accept our proposal, which would allow people with experience of LEAs to work in the funding authorities, at least to agree to the detailed consultation.
  Dr. Spink: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred in her opening remarks to section 11 funding. That is a Home Office grant directed towards the teaching of English—largely on a one-to-one basis—to pupils who may not have English as their first language. That grant will cut in 1994–95 and 1995–96. Does the hon. Lady realise that those areas that typically receive that grant get a higher level of standard spending assessment, and they are free to redirect part of that SSA to teaching those children?
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for asking that question and for allowing me to respond.
  The pressures on schools that require assistance from section 11 funding are significant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, when the Home Office and the Department of Education boasted about increasing section 11 money, they could do so because they said that the money would contribute to the education of children who needed help at a critical stage in their learning of English as a second language. I hope that he agrees that removing section 11 funding will cause more problems for the eduation service. If the Government are to give money for reading recovery schemes, the money that will be required for those schemes will be far greater if section 11 funding is reduced.
  Dr. Spink: I accept that section 11 funding is directed in a good area and is used effectively, as was reported by the Audit Commission a couple of years ago.
  Does the hon. Lady agree with me on two points? First, LEAs have it within their powers to redirect part of their funds towards continuing the teaching to which she refers if that teaching is so important. Secondly, a large number of children are being presented to school without a word of English because, after they are born in this country, they are sent abroad to live until they are of school age; their parents then bring them back to this country to attend school. Does the hon. Lady think that that is a responsible way for parents in this country to treat their children? Are not the parents giving their children a disadvantage? Should the British taxpayer be footing the bill?
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. First, local authorities do not have spare cash floating around that they can devote to replacing cuts in section 11 money, any more than they have spare cash for other reasons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the pressures that capping of local authorities is causing in many areas.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made a point about children from ethnic minority backgrounds who were sent abroad before the age of five. My constituency has a large ethnic minority population and children are not sent away in the way that is suggested by the hon. Gentleman. That is not the reason the children have problems with the English language. The problem is that their home language is not English. If there were investment in nursery education and pre-school provision, there would be far fewer language problems. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, and what the Minister is doing in cutting section 11 funding, will cost the education service more in the long run.
  Dr. Spink: The Minister is doing nothing of the sort. The grant to which the hon. Lady refers comes from the Home Office, not the Department for Education. No doubt the hon. Lady will look that up later.
  I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to have this very important micro-debate within the general debate. The general debate is about driving up standards of education. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dewsbury may laugh at me for saying that, but my constituents are not laughing. They want standards to be improved. They are fed up with a situation where three in 10 of this country's children leave school unable to read and write properly.
  The debate focuses on the standards of education. The hon. Member for Dewsbury will know that grant-maintained schools deliver 30 per cent. more children with five or more graded GCSE passes and 30 per cent. better results on average than all other schools. The Government are promoting grant-maintained schools because they give choice, opportunity and diversity in education. That is the way to drive up standards, and that is why my constituents welcome grant-maintained schools.
  In fact, my constituents have welcomed grant-maintained schools so much that every secondary school in my constituency and many of the primary schools are grant-maintained. South Benfleet primary school has just received a letter from the Minister, giving it permission to become grant-maintained from 1 September, and the school is delighted with that.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: On the basis of my hon. Friend's experience with the many grant-maintained schools in his constituency, what advice would he give to schools that are considering whether to do so?
  6.45 pm
  Dr. Spink: My advice is unequivocal—the schools should become grant-maintained as quickly as possible. It gives schools choice and the freedom to make decisions at a point where those decisions matter. It gives parents control over the education of their children. It brings real local democracy into schools, because grant-maintained schools are accountable every year to parent groups.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that it can be difficult to get the good news about the advantages of grant-maintained schools to parents when LEAs use every possible obstacle? Does he further agree that the truth should go out? The benefits are undeniable and the three schools in my constituency that have become grant-maintained have not regretted the move. They are telling the good news to other parents, and the parents are listening.
  Dr. Spink: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for her remarks, with which I agree. Grant-maintained schools are so successful that, by April 1994, the trend shows that there will be 1,500 grant-maintained schools. At that point, the Government will need help to perform the functions that are needed to care for the public funds and to ensure that there is intense scrutiny and audit in the schools. The system would become increasingly inefficient and inappropriate if all executive tasks were carried out by the Department for Education. As the diversity of the provision spreads, LEAs will find it difficult to accomplish those tasks. I therefore welcome the establishment of a new statutory body, the Funding Agency for Schools.
  Mr. Forth: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to a debate that has covered a wide range of subjects.
  For me, the highlight of the brief debate came when the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to the Funding Agency for Schools as a "remote body"—I think that was the term she used. She is obviously unaware that the funding agency is based in York. It strikes me that for her of all hon. Members to make that reference is charmingly eccentric, and I shall put it no higher than that—I shall leave the hon. Lady to account for her remark.
  The hon. Member for Halifax also made a lot about the differences in the Government's approach to funding the grant-maintained school sector and funding the LEA sector. Those of her hon. Friends who heard me speak in Committee will know that the Government have never made a secret of the fact that, in both capital and revenue terms, we have always sought to acknowledge the different role, nature and responsibilities of grant-maintained schools in their funding arrangements.
  We have made no secret of the fact that the capital funding regime will recognise that. We have always sought to ensure that, in revenue terms, through the annual maintenance grant, grant-maintained schools receive more money than their LEA counterparts; they have to, because they carry greater responsibilities.
  The cash protection provision—I think that that is what is causing such excitement among Opposition Members—rightly provides an element of protection
  76
  during schools' transition from their LEA incarnation to grant-maintained status. It is somewhat similar to the transitional arrangements that are rightly allowed for in local education authority local management of schools schemes, in respect of which provision is made to afford a degree of protection against violent oscillations or variations in the amount of money available to schools from year to year.
  Mrs. Mahon: May we get this clear? Is the Minister saying that it is all right if local education authority schools have their delegated budgets cut next year to fund the handful of grant-maintained schools? Does he believe that that is right?
  Mr. Forth: As I told the hon. Lady earlier, I am saying that it is for local education authorities to assess their own priorities and make their own arrangements, through their LMS formulae and through the funding for education in their areas, in respect of which they have a great deal of flexibility. That continues to be the case.
  Mr. Don Foster: The House deserves greater clarification than the Minister has given the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The hon. Lady has teased out of the Minister his acceptance that, during the undefined transitional period, grant-maintained schools get additional money to protect them. As the Minister well knows, that money comes from the local education authority. That means that an LEA's remaining schools suffer as a result of the additional transitional costs, which the Minister has now accepted exist.
  I have another question. Does the Minister accept that, in revenue terms, grant-maintained schools should receive only such additional money as is commensurate with their additional responsibilities—or will they receive money in addition to that extra money?
  Mr. Forth: We have always said that the additional money available on a revenue basis to grant-maintained schools was designed to reflect their additional responsibilities. I make no secret of that. It does not have to be teased or forced out of me; I say it gladly.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister said previously that that is what the additional income should he for. How, then, can he justify the many variations and the clear duplications in funding that have been thrown up by many surveys? Does he think it right that grant-maintained schools should be not only compensated for extra administrative costs but double-funded?
  Mr. Forth: I glory in variation. The fact that our White Paper was entitled "Choice and Diversity" and that, as has been said, we welcome specialisation means that I can readily accept what the hon. Lady says. I would go further: we have always welcomed the enormous variation in local management of schools schemes and formulae up and down the country. I think that I am right in saying that no two local education authorities in the land have identical LMS schemes. I do not shrink from—indeed, I positively welcome—the fact that there is a variety and diversity of provision in different authorities and different grant-maintained schools. Given that grant-maintained school funding is closely tied to the LEA funding—and will continue to be so. even under the common funding formula—that degree of variation will continue.
  Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, since 1979–80, funding per pupil in primary and secondary schools has increased by 45 per cent. in real terms? Does he agree that LEA schools have received their fair share of that real terms increase and that education has benefited while pupil-teacher ratios have fallen?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The only gloss that I would put on it, following my previous point, is that there are rightly variations between LEAs, some of which choose to fund way below their education SSA—which I know is only an indicative figure—and others of which choose to fund above it. That variation exists throughout the country. We can all have our own thoughts about it and, from time to time, one is tempted to draw attention to individual authorities that behave rather peculiarly in that respect. Nevertheless, the variations remain.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Forth: I shall give way once more; then I want to reply to other hon. Members.
  Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister now answer my question? Will he defend the £13·6 million in double funding that has been proved to take place? Does he think that that is a wise use of taxpayers' money?
  Mr. Forth: Yes.
  The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made much play of the need for openness. Had he sat through the long dark hours of the proceedings of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, he would have heard me speak at some length about non-departmental public bodies. I debated with people in my office whether I should bring with me today the document that I had at my disposal then. I thought that I would not need it on this occasion. I wish that I had brought it, because I could have displayed it proudly, as I did then.
  That document sets out in great detail the responsibilities of the NDPBs, of which the Funding Agency for Schools is one. Those Opposition Members who suffered with me—I am sorry, who enjoyed with me—the long proceedings of that Committee will be able to tell the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston the extraordinary extent to which those bodies are obliged to report and to make public their financial affairs and many of their other activities.
  That ties in with the openness that now exists in relation to grant-maintained schools—in some respect, much greater openness that occurs with LEA schools. Grant-maintained schools have to hold annual general meetings and produce annual reports. They have to produce annual accounts, which have to be audited and be available for public scrutiny. I would argue that the openness of the regime is there for all to see—at the level of schools and the funding agency, which will be constrained by the rules referring to NDPBs. There is great openness in the scheme, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston should welcome it.
  Mr. Stephen Byers: In that spirit of openness, will the Minister agree to place in the Library a copy of the internal report of his own chief accountant on the abuse of public money by the Grant Maintained Schools Centre?
  Mr. Forth: If I am not mistaken, that document has been made available to the Public Accounts Committee in commercial confidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] No, no, no. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said the other day, distinctions are rightly made between matters that are properly in the public domain and matters that need not be in that domain. I make no apology for that. I wholly agree with the distinction that my right hon. Friend made.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was kind enough to quote me in extenso. Like many hon. Members, I suspect, I always enjoy hearing my own words— especially pearls of wisdom of the kind uttered by me at many different sittings of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman made much play of the fact that the Funding Agency for Schools would be expected to co-operate with local education authorities and to exchange information with them as required in the Bill.
  I do not know whether we ever sorted out the difference between shared and parallel duties, although in the end I think that we understood very well what they meant. All that is right. However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that simply because different bodies have duties and obligations to work together, they should be cross-represented—that it is necessary for members of one body to serve on the other to achieve that degree of co-operation and that exchange of information.
  I believe that the degree of co-operation to which we referred in Committee should be achievable on the basis that we have identified. I think that we were right to make the concession that is contained in the Lords amendment— with which I hope the House will agree—which is designed to ensure that there is proper representation from the Churches, which are an important element, albeit a distinct element, very different from local education authorities and grant-maintained schools. That much I believe, but we cannot go as far as the hon. Member for Bath wanted us to go.
  I hope that, in the brief time available, I have answered the substantive points made by Opposition Members and that, in so doing, I have brought out the important distinctions, made across different areas, referred to in the amendments. I felt, if I may say so, that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston brushed aside the point that I made earlier about value for money and the concern that I expressed about possible infringement of the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Gentleman was almost cavalier about it. We must surely pay attention to the role, as defined and understood, of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as we must of the role of our own Public Accounts Committee.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's amendment honours that important—
  It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
  Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 24 agreed to.

  Clause 19

    "GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS"
    Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 9, line 11, leave out ("new").
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may consider also Lords amendments Nos. 39, plus the Opposition motion to disagree, and Nos. 40 to 42, 45, 166, 371, 409, 422 to 425, 541 and 547.
    Mr. Squire: I noted that in an earlier debate my fellow Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), felt that he must apologise for joining the proceedings of the Education Bill halfway through. If he felt that he needed to apologise for turning up at the eleven-and-a-halfth-hour, I must make more apologies— but I do so with enthusiasm.
    I shall be brief, because I suspect that several hon. Members may wish to speak. The Government believe that the other place was right to remove the threshold of the 10 per cent. trigger point so that promoters could present their own proposals to set up a new grant-maintained school anywhere in the country. That will promote choice and diversity for parents and pupils—one of the key elements of our educational reform.
    The other place decided, and we agree, that the Bill as originally drafted was unfair on those who wish to propose the establishment of new grant-maintained schools in areas where there is currently few or indeed no grant-maintained schools. I hope that hon. Members will not support the Opposition's motion to disagree, to which we obviously look forward. We cannot agree with the view that some promoters should be prevented from putting forward their own proposals simply because they happen to be in areas where it is unlikely that there would be any GM schools in the foreseeable future.
    My right hon. Friend will look closely at all applications for new GM schools, and in doing so will continue to apply broadly similar criteria to those that apply when promoters wish to establish a new voluntary school. In line with our policy of tackling the problem of surplus places, my right hon. Friend will look carefully at the need for additional school places in the area, as well as denominational need where appropriate. Promoters will have to demonstrate that there will be a projected shortage of places in the LEA and GM sectors in the near future.
    We shall consider whether a school is able to provide the national curriculum and offer equal opportunities to girls and boys. We will need to see that the premises are suitable, and will note whether the funding authority supports the proposals.
    Mr. David Jamieson: Will the Minister confirm that amendment 397, on which we have just agreed, in effect gives power to the funding agency to obtain compulsory purchase orders to provide land for private promoters of schools? Has he thought of all the ramifications that that could have?
    Mr. Squire: With the leave of the House, I will willingly come back to the specific question of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a significant difference
    80
    between the role of the promoters and that of the funding agency. The amendment refers to the promoters and not to the funding agency.
    I was about to say that amendments Nos. 25, 42, 166, 371, 422, 423, 425, 541 and 547 are all technical, to ensure that promoters are able to propose the establishment of new GM schools, including establishing a new GM school in place of existing independent schools. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: I wish to carry on where the Minister left off in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). I hope that he will take my hon. Friend's remarks seriously, because he raised an important point in this context. My hon. Friend referred to schedule 1, which says:
    "The Secretary of State may authorise a funding authority to compulsorily purchase any land required for the purpose of implementing any proposals under section 45 or 92 of the Act which are required to be implemented."
    Of course, there is a further amendment which extends that power of compulsory purchase to the promoter, to which my hon. Friend referred.
    I hope that the Minister understands that one of the promoters, who proposed the group of amendments that we are discussing, expressed the view that failing independent schools—those that cannot make a living in the independent sector—should be allowed to opt into opting out. Those independent schools would be able to ask the Secretary of State for power, in effect, compulsorily to purchase land owned by the local authority. That has serious consequences.
    Without casting any aspersions on the Minister's knowledge of the Bill, let me say that he clearly did not know that that was the case. A major power is being given to independent schools. The Minister should seek some guidance from his officials at this stage, because it is ridiculous to propose something with such far-reaching consequences.
    For example, an independent school could propose, through the Secretary of State, that it take over a cricket field from the local authority. It could decide that that cricket field was surplus to requirements and then begin to develop part of it for housing developments or whatever, and gain the advantage of those capital receipts. That would be an abuse of the system, but one entirely consistent with the reading that we are able to make of the Bill, as it stands amended at that late stage in the Lords. The Minister ought to respond to the House.
    We were told when the Bill was introduced that it was about giving schools back to parents to ensure that parents had control of schools. When the Bill completed Second Reading, Committee and Report, we were assured that the funding agency would begin to have any role only once the 10 per cent. threshold had been reached by those schools that had chosen to opt out of local authority control. The Minister justified that by saying that it was right and proper that parents vote for that change and, in the end, that should bring into being the funding agency.
    The Minister has told us tonight, however, that any ideas that the funding agency should come into being because of parental demand have gone out of the window. The Minister said that it would be unfair on promoters, if they were not allowed to develop schools in areas where "it is unlikely there will be grant-maintained schools in the foreseeable future."

    81
    In those areas where parents do not want those schools and where parents may vote consistently against such schools, the Minister is saying that he will defer to any little clique in that area with no involvement and no direct interest—it may not even be in that area—who may say that they do not care what the parents think, that they do not care about the local views of the merits or demerits of opt-out schools.
    An amendment tabled by Lord Skidelsky led to the tabling of the group that we are now considering. He made his position clear on a number of issues: for instance, in discussing the type of school that should be allowed to come under the aegis of the Bill, he made it clear that what he was considering bore no relation to Ministers' earlier assurances in the House of Commons. He said:
    "First, we have in mind existing independent schools which wish to obtain state funding."
    It is plain that, in its present form, the Bill allows independent schools to do just that. Many independent schools are dependent on the assisted places scheme, but their financial margins are diminishing. Such schools— which may now be feeling the cold winds of recession as fee-paying pupils become harder to attract—will be thrown a lifeline by the Bill, and by the ideological persuasions of Lord Skidelsky and Conservative Members of the House of Commons. It is outrageous that we should bail out such schools.
    Lord Skidelsky went on:
    "The second type of school that I have in mind is one that does not exist at the moment but one which could be started and would be started to take advantage of a market opportunity if funding were available."
    That is clear language. The noble Lord referred not to the educational needs of young people, or to the need for skills, training and all the other things that most of us used to think schools were for, but to "a market opportunity".
    He continued:
    "What kind of promoters are likely to be attracted to setting up new schools? Some will be religious bodies, some … will he groups of parents, while others will be entrepreneurs either as individuals or organised into companies".
    That does not even leave us the concept associated with the city technology colleges—the concept of sponsorship by great commercial names such as Dixons, which saw this as simply a marketing opportunity. It is now envisaged that entrepreneurs will move into education. Does that mean that the Government now intend grant-maintained schools to become part of the profit-making enterprise and business system? That, after all, was Lord Skidelsky's instruction to them.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Did not Lord Skidelsky also contradict the Government's policy on surplus places? He said that, in the spirit of entrepreneurism, he would provide the places that parents wanted. That would run contrary to any notion of rationalising surplus places throughout local education authority areas. In accepting Lord Skidelsky's amendment and advancing a proposal along similar lines, have not the Government adopted a policy that conflicts with their established policy on ridding the system of surplus places?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right; moreover, she has anticipated what I was about to say. I hope that the Minister is paying attention, because this is an important point.
    82
    Lord Skidelsky's vision of a brave new world of education featured more than entrepreneurs and failed independent schools drifting into the opted-out sector. He said that, as things stood,
    "There will not be any new grant-maintained schools established, or at best just a token few.
    There are two main reasons for this. The first was given by the Secretary of State in another place when he said that he would consider applications for new schools to enter the state sector only if there were no surplus places in the area concerned. This is an old departmental orthodoxy. Applications to supply new places will he entertained only if there is a so-called basic need."
    Lord Skidelsky said:
    "an overall surplus of places is quite consistent with the existence in parts of the country of shortages of schools which parents want their children to attend."
    He added, however, that the Government must place emphasis on "demand, not supply". The amendments that he tabled—proposals replicated in the Bill as it now stands —were designed to achieve that end.
    We know that the 10 per cent. rule has now been abolished. We know that Lord Skidelsky and others who —like the Minister of State, Baroness Blatch—were sympathetic to the market-oriented view were happy to accept the argument that promoters should be allowed to come in at any stage. The House of Lords was happy—as are the Government tonight—to accept that independent schools should be able to come in. Will the Minister now tell us where in the Bill is a guarantee that, in areas where grant-maintained schools are unlikely to be established otherwise, such schools can be created only if there are no surplus places? As far as I know, no such guarantee exists in writing.
    7.15 pm
    The Minister may say that the Secretary of State has given such a commitment. The Secretary of State gave a commitment that no promoter would be allowed to introduce a new grant-maintained school below the 10 per cent. threshold; that promise has gone out of the window, as have so many of the promises incorporated in the Bill in Committee and on Report. The Secretary of State's word is worth almost nothing.
    Ms Estelle Morris: Less than 10 per cent.
    Mr. Lloyd: Indeed—especially in the light of the pressure imposed on the Secretary of State by the House of Lords and the DFE, whose voices, ultimately, are louder than that of the Secretary of State. Normally, he gives way to such pressure.
    The Minister must convince us that we have any reason to believe that the Secretary of State is big enough to stand up to those who favour market forces. In the speech that I quoted earlier, Lord Skidelsky said:
    "there are the awesome requirements relating to school premises. At present there are independent schools occupying premises which would be called unsatisfactory but which nevertheless achieve very good education for their children. Others may comply fully with fire, safety and health regulations but fail to meet the required square meterage per pupil, or some other provision of the 1991 school premises regulations."—[Official Report, House of Lords: 22 April 1993, Vol 544, c. 1812–14.]
    I assume that Lord Skidelsky meant that schools now occupying premises that would he deemed unsatisfactory were precisely the schools that did not comply fully with the fire, safety and health regulations. The Government's new approach to accommodation standards suggests that people such as Lord Skidelsky are right. That is why the

    83
    Secretary of State is now consulting on a number of aspects of accommodation. Those are what Lord Skidelsky has described as the "hassle costs" of entering education and those are the ideas of a Government who talk of an entrepreneurial view of education and the marketing need of those who wish to enter the system.
    The amendments are simply an extension of the confusion already written into the Bill. We know that they are designed to bail out the failing independent schools; we know that they are designed to allow unrepresentative people—perhaps even commercial bodies—to become involved in education. The Minister shakes his head, but he has a long way to go if he is to identify provisions in the Bill that will prevent that.
    We know that, basically, the Government are in the business of bowing to those who want market forces to dictate the position and we know that the Minister can give us no guarantees that surplus places will ultimately prevent the existence of grant-maintained schools: he and his colleagues are intent upon producing a grant-maintained revolution. There will be planning confusion between local authorities and the funding agency at a much earlier stage, because the funding agency need not consult a local authority when a promoter puts forward a school below the 10 per cent. barrier.
    Nothing in the Bill forces either promoter or funding agency to consult local authorities properly. The confusion in the planning mechanisms on which we insisted in the Bill's early stages—a confusion that Ministers said could not happen—is not being removed, but actively extended. Amendment No. 371 concerns the position where an independent school can no longer make its living in that sector, and comes running for aid from an ideologically sympathetic Government, who will prop up failure in the independent sector at the taxpayer's expense.
    The Government have made it clear that, uniquely, when people who are employed by independent schools transfer to schools in the grant-maintained sector—the opted-out schools—the transfer of undertaking provisions will come into force and offer protection to those teachers and other staff. I asked in Committee on a number of occasions why that protection could not be given to teachers in local authority schools who found themselves transferred to grant-maintained schools. We were told at that time that that could not be done and that it was not necessary. Why do we have such an odd contrasting approach? Why will those in the independent sector be given protection and those in the local authority sector denied it?
    The Minister will understand why we believe that, in many respects, this is an ideological Bill. Fundamentally, the Bill is not about extending choice to parents. The Under-Secretary of State for Schools has already said that, where parents reject the option of grant-maintained schools, he will allow promoters to put forward plans for those schools. The Under-Secretary of State for Education looks puzzled about that. Perhaps he was not here when his colleague said that it would be unfair to deny promoters an opportunity to establish grant-maintained schools in areas where their establishment was otherwise unlikely.
    Parents do not want grant-maintained schools, but the Government say that we have to have them. This is an
    84
    ideological Bill, and the amendments are ideologically inspired. The Minister and his colleagues have caved in to the lunatic Tory right in the House of Lords; they have given in to those who think that education is like a tin of baked beans, a commodity to be bought and sold. That is not the case.
    Many Conservative Members must be squirming in their seats. They know that the Government, following pressure from the right wing in the House of Lords, have now ratted on the promises they made when the Bill was going through its initial stages. The Minister should be ashamed of himself.
    Ms Estelle Morris: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd).
    There was a lot of argument in Committee about whether the funding agency should be responsible for providing schools in an area. We spent many sittings deciding whether the entry point at which the agency should share provision of providing places should be 10 per cent., or more or less. There was general agreement that 10 per cent. was an arbitrary figure.
    A study of the Hansard report of the Committee stage, however, reveals that the Government always said that 10 per cent. did at least reflect parental wishes within an area. When the point was reached at which 10 per cent. of parents in an area had children in grant-maintained schools, it was stated that the funding authority had the right to provide education in that area. The amendment lessens that democratic accountability, little as it was.
    The funding agency will now operate within an area where less than 10 per cent. of parents have expressed a wish for a school to opt for grant-maintained status. We may see a situation where zero per cent. of parents in an area have expressed a wish for their children to be educated in a grant-maintained school, yet they will find that the funding agency still intervenes.
    How can the Government equate that scenario with their expressed desire to make parental wishes count in their plans for education in the next decade? That exposes the Government's claim that they are there to reflect parental wishes as the myth that we have always supposed it to be.
    It is worrying that the schools set up by promoters in an area will then contribute to an educational provision locally—they will be responsible for 10 per cent. or up to 75 per cent. of pupils—and contribute to the funding agency. They may share the responsibility for securing places in schools or take over that responsibility altogether.
    The democratic deficit inherent in the Bill will be worsened, because it now seeks to get the funding agency operating in an area by the back door. One of the most disappointing things for those of us involved in education, in observing the way that the Government have acted over the past few years, is that they have moved from their stated aim of trying to reflect parental wishes and letting people exercise choice about who should run their schools. After a series of decisions, the Government now openly say, "We have every intention, through any means in our power, of making sure that the LEAs have less power, and that the funding agency and central Government become the organisations with responsibility for securing educational provision in an area."
    First the Government weighted funding towards grant-maintained schools—to encourage schools to

    85
    become grant-maintained—and then the full force of Government propaganda was exercised at parents to encourage them to vote that their school should be grant maintained. Those two actions failed to secure the desired numbers of grant-maintained schools in given areas, so the Government now intend to start grant-maintained schools within an area whether or not parents have expressed a wish for such schools or for the funding agency to operate.
    Gone are the heady days when the Bill was about parental choice and reflecting local wishes. The amendment represents the end of a long line of Government changes, because—as we always suspected —the Government have every intention, by whatever means, of removing an LEA's ability to provide schools in an area. The intention is to transfer that task to the hands of an undemocratic, unelected, funding agency and central Government.
    New schools can now be established in an area where the responsibility for dealing with surplus places and making sure that education is provided for children, still rests with the LEA, yet the provider of that new school will not have a responsibility to consult with the LEA before deciding to set it up. The LEA will have the legal responsibility for getting rid of surplus places and the statutory responsibility for providing places for children in an area. An individual may come along, however, and set up a grant-maintained school without having any statutory responsibility to consult the LEA about whether that is desirable or whether surplus places need to be taken into account. That represents another means of removing from the LEAs a job that they have done successfully for many years.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford said, Lord Skidelsky made it clear in his comments in the House of Lords that his amendment was concerned with making it possible for existing independent schools to obtain state funding should they wish to do so. He argued against surplus places. He brought into the open the right-wing argument that education is about the marketplace; it is all about schools filling places; if they cannot fill those places, they go to the wall.
    It will be seen from the debacle this summer about the marketplace, testing and league tables, that that is not the way forward for our schools, and will not drive standards up. That is not what parents, teachers and communities want. The Government should learn a lesson from that. They should accept our amendment tonight, and not the arguments of their right-wing friends in the other place. They should say that what they want is a rationalisation of surplus places; that they want the LEAs to fulfil properly their role in providing sufficient places in their given areas. They should make it clear that they do not want to pursue marketplace economics and marketplace education, but that they will provide the suitable education for our children in the future.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: In Committee, I suggested that the threshold should be done away with, so I welcome the fact that the House of Lords has seen fit to do that. The Government were wrong originally in saying that the variety that can be provided by people who want to set up grant-maintained schools can be achieved only if there is a general expression of interest in grant-maintained schools in an area, thereby denying it to others. That may have been administratively convenient, but it is not a logical way to extend choice and diversity,
    86
    which is what the Bill is all about. Baroness Blatch and her fellow peers have done a service for choice and diversity in education. I hope that that will be the outcome.
    7.30 pm
    I was under the impression that, whether we call the process right-wing market forces or not, good education mainly comes about if children are taught in the schools that parents think appropriate for their children. I should like to see, as a result of the Bill, specialisation in individual schools and different types of schools, whether they are in the grant-maintained sector or local authority. I happen to know that quite a few schools, which I regard as extremely rigorous in terms of the kind of education that they provide, would like to move into the grant-maintained sector but would have been barred by that previous 10 per cent. rule.
    That is true of some Church schools. It seems illogical that in some parts of the country there are empty spaces in church schools yet there is a huge demand outside the area for such schools. If schools, whether denominational or specialist, are unable, throught the lifting of the threshold, to set up as grant-maintained schools, the parents should have the opportunity to find a place for their children at the school of their choice and, as a result, get the standards of education that they desire.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is worrying that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the Bill. Nothing about the lifting of the 10 per cent. rule will allow a school to apply for opted-out status which the unamended Bill would have prevented. For individual schools, the mechanism is the ballot. The 10 per cent. refers to something different. The hon. Gentleman should look at what the Bill says, because he is not supporting the Government on this. Any school can apply to opt out as long as the parents vote on that. the 10 per cent. rule is not involved.
    Mr. Coombs: I appreciate that, but it is precisely those parts of the country where 10 per cent. of schools under the previous provision had not opted for grant-maintained status that would be debarred from setting up a grant-maintained school. That was an artificial restriction that has now been removed by the House of Lords.
    I would not like to see the amendment as a means of moving into the public sector those independent schools that are not able to attract sufficient parents in order to be successful. That would be wrong, and I am sure that the Government do not intend it to be such. I see the amendment as a means of allowing schools that are successful, but are not able, for financial or other reasons, to move into an area where there would be a demand for their places, and I can think of examples in my constituency. That would extend choice and diversity, and would therefore be good for standards of education.
    I caution my hon. Friend on one of the points made earlier by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) about the powers provided for compulsory purchase by the funding agency. Like him, I would not like to see that as a licence for property development for new grant-maintained schools. I should like to hear the Minister say that he will insist that if compulsory purchase were allowed—to which I have an ideological aversion —by the funding agency for the new grant-maintained schools, it would be accompanied by conditions that would not allow that abuse to take place in future.
    Mr. Jamieson: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) tell the House that he is not in favour of the 10 per cent. threshold. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I recall him voting for it in Committee and again in the House later on. I am glad that, although we may disagree on that, we agree on the compulsory purchase of land, particularly in the case on which I will dwell in a moment.
    The amendments are about the failed policy for going grant-maintained. The Government have realised that their policy has failed and have brought in measures during the passage of the Bill to try to prop it up and encourage more schools to become grant-maintained. I recall that Baroness Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, promised that, by April 1992, half the schools in this country would be grant-maintained. We have somewhere near 1,000 schools, which is a long way short of the promised 12,000. That was one of the many broken Government promises about which I am rather pleased.
    The policy has failed despite all the bribes that have been given to grant-maintained schools and all the cajoling that has gone on in Tory local authorities—in the days when we had Tory local education authorities. Pressure has been applied in various ways to grant-maintained schools. For example, we have heard the Minister tell us this evening that he is in favour of extra funding going to those schools. In answer to a question, he said that he thought that that was wise.
    Amendment No. 39 would bring into the Bill more incremental change to allow grant-maintained schools to come about more easily—in this instance, of course, without any recourse even to parental ballots. We had already abandoned the idea of LEAs or people through their local councillors having a say. Now we are moving down the road of not even having recourse to a ballot of parents with children in those local schools. That will be a recipe for total education anarchy in certain areas. If I may resurrect an expression that both Ministers may have forgotten—one was not with us for part of the Committee proceedings and the other was not there at all—it will create chaos and confusion.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments about schools entering a state of chaos and anarchy. Can the hon. Gentleman name a single school that has gone grant-maintained and that has any regrets whatever? As far as I can see it, schools are leaping on board and parents cannot be held back.
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Lady will remember that in Committee I gave one good example of a school in Dorset that wished that it had not gone grant-maintained. It was one of the first schools to opt out. A parent rang me and asked whether there was any way of going back. There are certainly such schools. If she will allow me to develop the point, she will see that the clause gives promoters of schools the power, through the funding agency and even, through compulsory purchase, to set up their own schools.
    I hope that the Minister will take note of that point and in summing up perhaps even mention it. When schools are set up by promoters and have their land compulsorily purchased for them, will he be asking whether they are over-subscribed already in that area and whether there are empty school places? Will it be another recipe for the waste of taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Robin Squire: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in full flow, as I know that it is an impressive sight, but I made that point clear in my opening remarks.
    Mr. Jamieson: I am glad that the Minister is impressed by what I am saying. I hope that I shall be equally impressed by what he says when he winds up.
    Entrepreneurs—they may be, as my hon. Friends have said, people who have already failed in independent or private schools—will be able to go to the funding agency before even the 10 per cent. point is reached and have land purchased on their behalf so they can set up their own grant-maintained schools.
    Will the funding agency necessarily have any local knowledge of what is needed in the area? We know that it is already difficult for some of the larger education authorities, such as county authorities, to keep track of every single need in every area. What will the funding agency do for my part of the country, Cornwall, where there are no opted-out schools, or for Devon, where only I per cent. of schools have opted out? What will the funding gency—tucked away in York—know about people's needs and how it can respond sensitively?
    The proposal's worst flaw is that it puts into the hands of private entrepreneurs—groups with no local accountability—the power to spend taxpayers' money without having to account to local people. All funding for such grant-maintained schools will come from the aggregate school budget and will not be available for other schools. The taxpayer will have to foot the bill for the right-wing prejudice of the people who put those clauses in the Bill.
    Mr. Robin Squire: Let me begin by reiterating as strongly as I can that this is not an ideological Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] Unless matters of standards and choice are ideology, and if they are, Opposition Members stand condemned by their own words. The debate on this part of the Bill is about a considerable and growing success story —that of the grant-maintained schools. That is the background, and I fear that the debate is underpinned by Opposition Members' inability to accept GM schools. In some areas they are even working against parents' applications to seek GM status. I think the House knows that.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that in my area—the Cambridgeshire local education authority—increasingly large numbers of schools are choosing not to opt out of local authority control? Recently, parents of pupils at Netherhall secondary school in Cambridge voted overwhelmingly to stay within the local education authority. Now that schools have seen through the Government's bribes, especially on funding, it is becoming increasingly transparent that they wish to stay with local authorities.
    Mr. Squire: One of the differences between the hon. Lady and myself is that I am relatively relaxed if parents of pupils at a school ultimately vote no when all the facts have been put to them. I think that they are mistaken, but that is their choice. The hon. Lady and her colleagues on the Opposition Benches would deny parents that choice.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Squire: Let me finish the point first.
    I have no difficulty in defending a position where that choice should be extended. Even in the short time that I

    89
    have been a Minister in this Department, I have spoken to between 100 and 200 head teachers of GM schools. If the hon. Lady believes that the primary reason for schools adopting or proposing grant-maintained status is financial, she is severely mistaken. The people behind such applications are motivated by the greater freedom to determine their priorities.
    Mr. Lloyd: The Minister has made a clear statement that he believes that the system should be motivated by parental choice. That debate obviously runs through the Bill, but his position is consistent with the line of rhetoric followed by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. The Minister has to accept that the amendment that he wishes the House to agree to does nothing to encourage parental choice. It will mean that, in an area where parents have chosen consistently in every ballot not to have opted-out schools, the Minister and his colleagues will be able to allow a proposer to open a new school which will be opted out, counter to the wishes of any parent whose views have been assessed. How can he justify that?
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Squire: Rather easily. Indeed, to echo my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), that is the distinction between individual ballots at individual schools, which I willingly concede will sometimes lead to no ballots, and the general position within an education authority area, which the hon. Member seems to overlook.
    If the hon. Member and the Labour party had their way, they would deny anyone in any education authority that had not opted for their existing school to be grant-maintained in each of those separate ballots, the right to have a new GM school. That is the difference between us. Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is denying parents the choice that the Government are prepared to extend to them.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Squire: There seems to be a competition. I shall give way to the hon. Lady first.
    Ms Estelle Morris: May I take the Minister back to some comments that he made when I tried to intervene a minute ago? He said that he was fairly relaxed about parents who chose not to opt out after a ballot on grant-maintained status and then stressed that the important thing was that they were given access to information about the choice that they were to make in the ballot. Will he therefore tell the House what the Government have done to tell parents about the benefits of staying with the local education authority before grant-maintained ballots?
    Mr. Squire: It is my experience that local education authorities are generally not backward in explaining why they wish to retain schools. Even in provisions that we are not discussing in this block of amendments, there is nothing to prevent the LEA from making a reasonable case, as I am sure the authorities would anyway. The hon. Lady may have been referring to the fact that elsewhere the Bill seeks to prevent an unreasonable abuse of public spending by the LEA.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that something of a red herring is coming from Opposition Members, who suggest that
    90
    parents are applying for schools to opt out purely on financial grounds? Does he agree that parents are really looking for the freedom to manage schools as effectively as possible, to direct the most resources to where they should be targeted, so that there are more teachers per pupil, more books and better standards—in other words, less interference from the town hall tyrants?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has spoken to a number of head teachers and governors of GM schools and her wise words will have been heard by the House—at least by Conservative Members—with total support.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    l9nt
    Mr. Squire: I see that a queue is still forming. I shall allow interventions subject to time. If Opposition Members doubt that that is the view of schools that have gone grant-maintained, they cannot be visiting those schools.
    Mr. Greg Pope: Under the terms of the Bill, governing bodies will be forced to discuss holding a ballot on opting out every year until parents decide to vote yes to opt out, when they will not be allowed to hold a ballot ever again to discuss opting back in. Where is the parental choice in that?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Member himself said that the Bill will provide for a choice by governors once every year and that they may exercise that choice in favour or against. I do not think I can improve on the answer that I gave.
    Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister help to clarify what is beginning to be a confusion, in my mind at least? He agreed, as I understood it, with the comments of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who said that a grant-maintained school could have more books, more equipment, and more teachers. Yet, earlier in our debate, the Minister told us that a grant-maintained school gets additional money only for its additional responsibilities. Will the Minister explain that contradiction?
    Mr. Squire: For one moment I thought that that question might be asked in innocence, but if the hon. Gentleman was twirling his cloak in front of me, expecting me to charge, he will be disappointed.
    There were two separate elements in the hon. Gentleman's question. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) was rightly talking about what I would describe as better husbandry, which is often, although not exclusively, evident in grant-maintained schools. Our policy allows those schools a greater say over their priorities than schools that are still reliant on the LEAs.
    Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Squire: Hold on—if the hon. Gentleman asks a question he should give me the chance to finish answering it.
    The second point, which referred to earlier comments, was referring specifically to the fact that, as comparing GM to LEA schools, there are of course continuing functions, even under considerably devolved LMS budgets of LEAs, which are carried out by those LEAs and for

    91
    which, in GM schools, they must be responsible. For those functions, it is right and proper that they should have extra funding; that is the difference between the two.
    Dr. Tony Wright: I am provoked by two factors. One is the Minister's reference to better husbandry. Every time he uses words like that—sometimes Conservative Members talk about higher standards in grant-maintained schools—does he not realise how profoundly insulting that is to the vast majority of schools?
    Only 1 per cent. of the primary sector has opted out. Some 99 per cent. of primary schools in this country are in the maintained sector. Every time the Government and Conservative Members speak in the way they do, they insult by implication all the parents, head teachers, governors and teachers who are involved in those schools. That attitude will not do. It is time that we heard the Government and Conservative Members celebrate excellent schools, wherever they find them. They should end their silly ideological belief that only one type of structure produces results and another type does not.
    When the Minister talks about saving money and greater costings, is he aware that vast quantities of public money have been transferred as a result of opting out? Just this week. I found out that £1 million has been transferred to the Electoral Reform Society. The Government pay money to run ballots which nobody wants, but which the Government insist must take place. When the results do not satisfy the Government, they fix the process to try to hold the ballot again. The Government must understand that that is not acceptable.
    Mr. Squire: I am not sure that it would assist debate on the group of amendments if l were to go too far into the subject of the hon. Gentleman's questions. As someone who served for many years in a local authority and who was proud to lead that authority, I take no lessons from anybody about praise for local authority actions and the excellence of many local authority schools.
    I should not even need to say that and the hon. Member does not assist his argument by raising the matter. He made his comments in the context of a debate which takes place primarily because Opposition Members refuse to accept any variation from LEA schools. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that nobody wants ballots. If my memory is correct, as of this morning, 954 separate schools have voted yes, so we presume that, in those instances, those ballots were welcome.
    I shall repeat the assurances that I gave in my opening comments and which have been repeated in the other place about the guidelines that the Secretary of State will follow in considering applications. It has been made clear that surplus places have a prominent role in the guidelines. Even in the time that I have been a Minister, some applications for grant-maintained status have been declined on the grounds of the existing position on surplus places. We do not need to prove our position.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister is making an important point about a change of tack by the Department of Education on the issue of creating grant-maintained schools where there are surplus places. We had a serious problem in Gwent when two out of three applications for grant-maintained schools were allowed in
    92
    direct opposition to the county's plan to reduce surplus places. Will he give an assurance that, where a sponsor brings forward a plan for a grant-maintained school in an area where a local authority is looking at its surplus place problem, such an application will be dismissed out of hand?
    Mr. Squire: I have looked at what I said at the beginning of the debate, which was that, specifically in line with our policy of tackling the problem of surplus places, my right hon. Friend would look carefully at the need for additional school places in the district as well as, where appropriate, denominational need. I said that promoters would have to demonstrate that there would be a projected shortage of places in the local education authority and grant-maintained sectors in the foreseeable future. If the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is a reasonable man, he will accept that as a reasonable position.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is a fundamental issue—it is not trivial. The Minister accepts that the issue of surplus places must be addressed. The words that he used are open to two interpretations: first, that the proposer must demonstrate that there is a shortage of places in the local authority and the grant-maintained sector taken together; or secondly, that the proposer has to demonstrate that there is a shortage in either the local authority sector or the grant-maintained sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked a straightforward question. If surplus places are available in an area, will the Secretary of State rule out any proposal out of hand? The question demands a yes or no and if the Minister is consistent he should say yes.
    Mr. Squire: Most of the issues cannot be dealt with simply by saying yes or no. Without subjecting the House to a third attempt to read what I said, may I say that I specifically stated from the Dispatch Box that the subject of surplus places was important. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, in a prominent speech in recent weeks my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary stressed the importance of tackling the problem of surplus places. He stressed the attention that the Secretary of State would give to that issue when applications were made—that is on record. We can add little to the exchange by pursuing the subject now.
    The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) criticised the impact of the abolition of the 10 per cent. trigger and Implied that it would undercut the local education authority's planning role. That will not happen. The removal of that trigger will not mean that the Funding Agency for Schools immediately shares responsibility for providing new school places in every local authority district. That can happen only at the second stage. Most importantly, if it so chooses, the LEA will be a statutory objector to any or all such proposals. My right hon. Friend will consider carefully all statutory objections when considering any proposal from promoters for a new grant-maintained school.
    The hon. Member for Stretford also commented on teachers' pay. He specifically asked why amendment No. 371 did not include a counterpart for teachers transferred from LEA schools when a school became grant-maintained. The answer is that clause 36 of the Bill provides for those increasingly common circumstances.
    The answer to the question about compulsory purchase is a straightforward yes. The compulsory purchase powers

    93
    that we have provided responded specifically to the concerns expressed by the Churches, which wanted to ensure that land could be made available for new Church schools to parallel the position in the LEA sector, where the LEA can compulsorily purchase land. The relevant amendments simply ensure that the Funding Agency for Schools can discharge its statutory functions by having the power compulsorily to purchase, subject to the usual planning procedures and consent from the Secretary of State.
    Sadly, our debate has revealed a refusal by the Labour party to recognise the great success of grant-maintained schools. That success is based not on Ministers' words, but on the achievement of those schools.
    It is based on an increase in confidence and on the way in which the heads and parents at these schools are responding to the new challenges which the GM regime offers the schools.
    What we said today may or may not affect the numbers of schools becoming grant maintained. I hope very much that it will increase the numbers that apply for GM status, because everything that I have seen so far convinces me that that status is the way, in the later part of the 20th century, in which we should arrange state education. The Bill improves our ability to deal with these matters and the ability of parents who want to take this step to do so. That can only help these schools and develop choice and maintain standards in the state system.
    The Government are quite clear about this: we stand four square—
    It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 38 agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 39 agreed to. [Special Entry]
    Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 176 agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 177 disagreed to.
    Government amendment (a), in lieu of Lords amendment No. 177, before clause 145, insert a new clause —Value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools—
    '.—(1) Each funding authority shall make arrangements for carrying out such value-for-money studies of grant-maintained schools in England or, as the case may be, Wales as in their opinion are required or as the Secretary of State may direct.
    (2) The authority shall, in particular—

    (a) in forming an opinion as to whether any value-for-money study is required to be carried out in pursuance of this section, have regard to the desirability of value-for-money studies being carried out at regular intervals, and

    (b) in determining the scope of any value-for-money study to be carried out in pursuance of this section otherwise than on the direction of the Secretary of State, have regard to the scope of any value-for-money study which is being or has recently been carried out.

    (3) In this section "value-for-money study", in relation to any grant-maintained school, means—

    (a) any examination into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the governing body of the school have, in discharging their functions, used grant made by the authority, and

    (b) any study designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the management or operations of the school.'—[Mr. Forth.]

    Read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Clause 146

    PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY GOVERNING BODY
    Lords amendment: No. 178, in page 88, line 38, at end insert—
    ("() in relation to the planning of special educational provision as provided in section 151 or")
    Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With
    this it will he convenient to consider also Lords amendments No. 188 and Government motion to disagree, No. 189 and Government motion to disagree, No. 190 and Government motion to disagree, No. 191 and Government motion to disagree, No. 192 and Government motion to disagree, No. 193 and Government motion to disagree, No. 196 and Government motion to disagree, No. 199 and Government motion to disagree, No. 209 and Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although your predecessors in the Chair may have used the form of words that you have just used, when people come to read this debate, will they be able to see the selection sheet, or the list on the amendment paper? My impression is that, although the selection sheet is useful to us in the short term, it is not the sort of document that can just be quoted for the record.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer is that we find it useful because it saves time.
    Mr. Forth: The amendments move us on to part III of the Bill. The principal aim of part III is to improve the arrangements for all pupils who have special educational needs. The Government are determined that the new SEN regime should benefit all pupils with special needs—those with and those without statements—and that it will be fully compatible with the new arrangements envisaged by the Bill, and as agreed by the House and another place, for the management of schools generally.
    Ever since we issued our consultation document "Access to the System" and our White Paper "Choice and Diversity" last summer, we have been at pains to listen carefully and with an open mind to all the views of those involved with children with special needs. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minster of State and I have discussed the issues over many meetings with representatives of the special needs organisations as well as with teachers in schools, mainstream and special, around the country. In particular, the Special Educational Consortium has played a constructive part in that dialogue. The Bill, as it incorporates the Government amendments made in another place, provides for the enhanced SEN regime which we want to see established.
    Our principal aim will be to improve the arrangements for pupils who might need assessments and statements and to give additional rights to their parents while also dealing with provision for pupils who have special needs but do not require statements. Our proposals therefore assign important roles to both local education authorities and schools.
    I want to make it clear that LEAs will retain substantial responsibilities in this area. They will conduct assessments and make statements. They will arrange appropriate

    95
    provision and ensure that it is closely monitored and reviewed. They may, as a result of a Government amendment, provide support services to all maintained schools. Until stage 3 of the development of the Bill's proposals, they will have important planning responsibilities for the provision of school places. At all stages, LEAs may establish new special schools and they must always keep the arrangements that they make under review.
    Schools, too, have vital responsibilities to all pupils with special educational needs. All schools, LEA maintained as well as GM, are increasingly responsible for their own affairs. It is at the school level that parents and pupils have direct contact with those who can most effectively and quickly assess and meet special educational needs. Thus, all maintained schools will henceforth be required to draw up policies for all pupils with special needs and to report annually to parents on the implementation of those policies. Furthermore, their work will be inspected every four years, and inspectors will pay particular attention to the special educational provision that they make. Moreover, by introducing a code of practice, the Bill establishes a new common framework for special educational provision.
    Both LEAs and—as a result of a Government Lords amendment—all maintained schools will be required to have regard to that code, which will therefore serve to promote common expectations and co-operation and consistency of practice among all directly concerned with SEN pupils. My right hon. and noble Friend and I have maintained that the code, provisions elsewhere in the Bill and our commitment to provide clear guidance to all interested parties make for a more coherent and comprehensive framework for the effective development and delivery of special educational provision in future.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: How does my hon. Friend envisage local authorities being best able to provide these services? At present, local authorities have teams of educational psychologists with proper back-up. Will that remain in place and under the control of local authorities, or will it float away and turn into some other sort of arrangement?
    Mr. Forth: By and large, that sort of provision will continue to be made by the local education authority, because we have ring-fenced this area of specialist provision and made it an exception to the usual trading restrictions that will be placed on LEAs—that is an important feature of what we have done. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the chance to stress it.
    Some concern remained in another place that responsibility for special educational provision should be concentrated purely on LEAs. That is why the other place passed a number of amendments on the subject. I have no doubt that the intention was good, but I believe that the amendments went too far. Their fundamental effect would be to impose a duty on LEAs to plan all arrangements for special educational needs. That would severely erode the right of schools that have opted to leave their LEAs to run their own affairs. The Government cannot accept that; it cuts across the whole philosophy of GM schools.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister assure us that schools that prefer GM status—he said a few moments ago that he hoped that many more schools would choose it—and want
    96
    to "run their own affairs" will not exclude pupils with special educational needs, thereby imposing an even greater responsibility on LEAs?
    Mr. Forth: Not as I understand the question. Our proposals in the Bill, together with the amendments tabled in lieu of the Lords amendments, will make the necessary provision for children with special educational needs, with or without statements, in the GM sector. That will run in parallel with provision in local education authority schools.
    I accept the basis for the concern expressed in another place; indeed, my colleagues who take a great interest in these matters left my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me in no doubt about those concerns. That is why my right hon. Friend tabled amendments in lieu of those agreed in the other place. I hope that they will achieve the objectives that my hon. Friends have in mind and will also deal with the concerns that were expressed in another place. Those concerns gave rise to the Lords amendments, which go too far.
    Amendment (a) would require the authority to consult the Funding Agency for Schools and the governing bodies of any maintained schools—local authority or grant maintained, mainstream or special—for the purpose of co-ordinating special educational provision. That duty would be part of the duty to keep their arrangements under review and would impose a clear requirement for the co-operation and consultation that the Bill envisages.
    Amendment (b) would place a similar duty on the governors of maintained schools. They would be required to consult other governors, the authority and the funding agency for the purpose of co-ordinating special educational provision for their pupils. The LEA would have a similar duty in respect of nursery schools.
    The amendments deal with the broad strategic considerations and with day-to-day issues that affect schools. Thus the authorities' reviews of the arrangements that they would make would be informed by the views of the funding agency and the schools in the area. At the same time, all schools would discuss with each other and with the appropriate authorities the steps that they would take to meet pupils' special educational needs. In each case, the explicit aim is to promote the fullest possible consultation and co-ordination.
    Alongside those arrangements, clauses 6 and 18 already require the funding agency and the LEA to provide each other with reports, returns and information. That matter was dealt with at great length in Committee. Hon. Members will recall that we amended clause 18 to require that in making regulations under that clause the Secretary of State must ensure proper provision for information about the education of children with special educational needs.
    Clause 146 ensures that the governing bodies of self-governing schools must provide LEAs with whatever relevant information they require in relation to the school or registered pupils at that school. Additionally, our amendments would require the parties to consult each other for the purpose of co-ordinating special educational provision. Therefore, the planning system w ill ensure proper and sensible coverage of special educational needs in an area between those responsible for making that provision. It will also allow grant-maintained schools the

    97
    freedom to participate in considering that provision without intruding on their autonomy, which is their essential characteristic.
    I stress that this House and the other place agreed to the Bill's provisions for the overall planning and management of autonomous and self-governing grant-maintained schools. It does pupils with special educational needs no service at all to try to make the arrangements for them separate from the arrangements for those who require mainstream schooling.
    Our amendments give the added reassurance that has been sought in another place and by my hon. Friends about the Bill's system for special education needs while maintaining a school's proper autonomy within the management and funding structure for schools generally. I ask the House to agree to the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend and to disagree with the Lords amendments.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: This part of the Bill proved the most fruitful in Committee in terms of getting the Government to make some significant changes in their approach. Part of that was due to the help of the Special Educational Consortium, which pointed out the Government's errors in dealing with special educational needs. All hon. Members were helped by the consortium.
    Because he wanted to accentuate the positive, the Minister spoke about some of the welcome concessions that were made in Committee. Despite those concessions, the organisations and the hundreds of people who presented material for the debates to the Special Educational Consortium are still concerned about the gaps in the Bill on special educational needs.
    We have just an hour and a half to debate 95 amendments in five groups. Even if we exclude the group containing what are described as technical amendments, there is still a great deal of ground to cover. In the group being considered, there are 11 amendments and 10 of them contain important issues of principle about the way in which special educational needs are delivered. We are debating not only the roughly 2 per cent. of children whose needs are considered so great that they require statements but, the 18 per cent. of children who will need special individual help. That is a considerable part of the school population.
    Amendment No. 178 requires governors in grant-maintained schools to provide information in their annual reports on special educational needs. Amendment No. 188 places a duty on local education authorities to plan and to review their provision, and amendment No. 189 makes it clear that they must examine not just what they need to provide, because in some ways that is a narrow definition and we should like to broaden it.
    8.15 pm
    Amendment No. 190 seeks to make sure that schools carry out audits to show whether their schools are accessible to children with special needs. Amendment No. 191 is an omnibus new clause that would give the LEA an important planning role, especially in terms of special educational needs. Amendment No. 192 focuses on the provision of nursery education for children with special needs and amendment No. 193 introduces an important power for an annual review of the needs of non-statemented children.
    98
    Amendment No. 196 places a duty on LEAs to ensure that special educational needs, goods and services are available to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools. Amendment No. 199 examines the relationship between LEAs and grant-maintained special schools, and amendment No. 209 lays down a duty to direct governing bodies to make provision for special educational needs of children who do not have statemented provision. That means that the LEA can check on that in grant-maintained schools. Amendment No. 220 is technical.
    Those are important, fundamental amendments and many of them are supported by the Special Educational Consortium. Its concern is that the special needs of all children and not just the 2 per cent. who require statements should be attended to. It also wants to see special education provision within a sound planning framework. By an amendment in Committee, the Government ensured that all schools will publish their policy on special educational needs. In Committee here, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools and in another place Baroness Blatch made commitments about a code of practice which, if adhered to, will be helpful. The terms of that code are improvements on the Bill's original terms. However, by themselves such improvements are insufficient.
    Circular 7/91 currently governs, and provides guidance on, what steps need to be taken to meet special educational needs. As that circular is a few years old and was introduced at a time when there were few grant-maintained schools, it is valid to argue that it covered all children who needed special educational provision.
    In Committee, we tried to persuade the Government to accept amendments similar to the Lords amendments, but unfortunately they were rejected. However, in the other place the Government made what is now obviously a tactical retreat, which has no real meaning. They accepted most of the amendments without a vote, but now they want this House to reject them and instead accept their weaker alternatives.
    Clause 151 provides only that a local education authority should review its arrangements for special educational provision. That will take in children with statements and other children who have special educational needs, but are not statemented, in local authority schools. Although nationally that is a small minority, in some local education authorities there are a number of such schools, especially at the secondary level. So the local education authority will have virtually no role.
    It is important to ensure that within each local authority area there is an overall strategy to meet special educational needs. It is a question of partnership between the LEA and the schools in its area. That does not affect the autonomy of grant-maintained schools, which is what the Minister appeared to fear in his remarks. The GM schools would have a positive role to play in contributing to the development of policy and to any review. The strategy would avoid the duplication of services and effort.
    Amendment No. 191 is, in fact, a new clause, under which the strategic plan would include looking at the provision in GM schools; the direction and development of nursery, primary and secondary education in the area; the type and size of schools; and the catchment area of schools. In many ways, all those factors would turn the LEA into an enabling authority, set in a framework in

    99
    which the schools, maintained or grant-maintained, would provide the service. There would be consultation with the funding agency, where it had a role.
    The approach embodied in the amendments would create a new partnership that would truly set the scene for the rest of the century and the first decade and beyond of the next century, something about which the Government are fond of talking. I remind them that they accepted the amendments in another place. It is the one part of the Bill where the amendments, if accepted, would play an important part in creating a clear and stable framework in which the LEA, the funding agency, the Funding Council for Wales—if it is ever created—and both maintained and grant-maintained schools would all have a role.
    Of course, under the proposed new clause the final word would still lie with the Secretary of State. Nothing could be done that he felt was unacceptable. The new clause also provides for very wide consultations with anybody who has the remotest interest in education in his local authority area. Therefore, given the aim behind it, we cannot understand why the Government want to reject it and substitute amendments (a) and (b), which are weaker.
    Amendment No. 190 raises a specific issue that lies outside the general thrust of the amendments that aim to provide a coherent planning framework. It deals with access arrangements and would ensure that there was a regular review of them. That is an urgent requirement. The National Union of Teachers and the Spastics Society have commissioned one of the Government's favourite firms, Coopers and Lybrand—on which they relied so much for the development of their LMS provisions—to carry out an access review, which eventually saw the light of day in a report entitled "Within Reach". It highlighted the fact that there is a paucity of information, in both local authorities and the DFE, about school buildings. Local authorities tended to have on file only the original plans of a school. The DFE had little idea of the size of schools, the number of floors or the age profiles of pupils. The same applies to the Welsh Office.
    The survey shows that 16 per cent. of primary schools and 17 per cent. of secondary schools felt that they were wholly inaccessible to children with special educational needs, while 46 per cent. of primary schools and 18 per cent. of secondary schools said that three quarters of their space was inaccessible. In the secondary sectors there were, and still are, some glaring access problems, with 41 per cent. of libraries and 30 per cent. of science, art and music rooms being inaccessible. Some 55 per cent. of secondary schools and 65 per cent. of primary schools do not have suitable toilets for children with special educational needs.
    There is no doubt that if the duty in the amendment were included in the Bill, it would ensure a regular review. It would enable the Funding Agency for Schools—and the funding council, if it were to be created in Wales—and local education authorities to determine their capital grant allocations. They would be able to see where their priorities lay. It is important that the amendment be sustained because although they try to cover the general planning issues, Government amendments (a) and (b) do not cover the specifics.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman's heart is in the right place. He makes an important point in saying that there must be proper access for disabled children and
    100
    others, but one cannot go the whole distance with him. People will assume that he believes that there should be 100 per cent. access in all schools, which is unachievable.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Griffiths: In fact, that is what I did not say, although I might like it to be true. I am not arguing that case, nor does the amendment. The amendment states only that local education authorities should review the accessibility of schools and that the schools themselves should consider their accessibility. If they have the money and deem it appropriate to do so, they should take steps to carry out the necessary changes. It is not only a case of spending money on, for example, fitting ramps or lifts; it is a case of raising the awareness of schools and their governing bodies of how to make their schools more accessible.
    Accessibility can often be achieved by constructing the timetable in a way that is more sympathetic to children with special educational needs and who have access problems. Let us not run away with the idea that the amendment aims to ensure that every school has 100 per cent. access in a relatively short time. We may reach that point one day, but for the moment the amendment would ensure that reviews of accessibility are carried out.
    Amendment No. 192 deals with the broad provision of nursery education for children with special educational needs. Local education authorities already have a duty to provide nursery education for children over two with such needs. Some local authorities are already examining the broad provision, but there should be a duty on local authorities to carry out that task. It would be of great value in reducing special educational costs later in a pupil's career because the sooner a pupil's special problems are tackled, the better. Amendment No. 192 neatly deals with a problem which is not specifically mentioned in the Government's amendments, other than briefly in paragraph (b) of amendment (b).
    Lords amendment No. 196 would give local education authorities the power to ensure that there is a full range of special educational provision available on which grant-maintained schools can draw. The Government have already accepted an amendment allowing local education authorities to sell special educational goods and services to grant-maintained schools, and we are grateful for that.
    The amendment underlines that provision, but would give local authorities an additional duty which is to ensure that a full range of services is available on which grant-maintained schools can draw to meet their special educational needs. It will not necessarily mean that they will be goods and services that the local education authority will provide, but there will be a duty to ensure that a full range of services is available—what could be called a safety net. Although the Government have tabled their own amendment, we hope that they may, even at this late stage, have a change of heart and accept the Lords amendment.
    The Special Educational Consortium already has evidence that schools are buying cheaper services and that unqualified adults are being used to help to mind children with special educational needs. I hope that it will provide the Department for Education with chapter and verse on those important points. A survey of 40 local education authorities, which was published only last week, revealed that 40 per cent. of them were already cutting spending on

    101
    teachers employed to aid children with learning difficulties, and that services such as remedial reading, the educational psychology service and support for children with behavioural difficulties were all threatened and being cut.
    The Minister may say that, under the statementing provisions, that should not be possible, because statements mean that needs must be provided for. Staff must be available to meet those needs, either by making the statement or by ensuring that it is adhered to. Many children, however, do not qualify for statements but still have special needs. Clearly, they are suffering because of the existing pressures on the system.
    The Lords amendments are to be preferred to the Government's amendments which are weak because they set a limitation which could be the subject of endless litigation. With reference to the co-ordination of services, the same phase appears in Government amendments (a) and (b), both of which mention the extent to which
    "it appears necessary or desirable for the purpose of co-ordinating provision for children with special educational needs".
    We believe that it is desirable to provide the co-ordinating role, with no qualification; there should be a duty in the Bill to do so. We hope that the Government will go a little further along the path that they are already travelling and give all children with special educational needs the high quality service that they should have.
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: The House has benefited from the erudite and intellectually stimulating speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools and, equally, from the vigorous and challenging speech by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)—which, I understand from my hon. Friends who served with him on the Committee, he has made before.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I urge the Government to adopt a much more generous attitude to the provision of nursery schooling. Like some colleagues in another place, I believe that there are few things that the Government can do which will have a greater effect on a child's attitude to schooling and which will influence the effect of that schooling on the rest of his life than the funding of nursery schooling. In that regard, I realise that I am not completely in accord with my hon. Friend the Minister. However, in my heart of hearts, I hope that the Government will reconsider this issue.
    Amendment No. 191 returns the responsibility for the strategic planning of education to locally elected education authorities. Like the hon. Member for Bridgend, I believe that that would help to plot the future for LEAs as enablers rather than providers. At this late stage, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider his decision to disagree with amendment No. 191 and to substitute something which, at the best is more bland, and at the worst, undercuts the principle of the amendment.
    My second point is about amendment No. 192, which relates specifically to the provision of nursery services for children between the ages of three and five who have special educational needs. It is not limited to children with statements. The amendment is designed to ensure that, within three years of the Bill becoming an Act, the Secretary of State will review the provision arid the desirability of extending nursery provision to all three and five-year-olds and the parents of those children.
    Most LEAs prioritise nursery places to children with special educational needs. Therefore, for most LEAs, the new duty would involve no increase in provision. It would
    102
    make explicit what LEAs are already providing. The few LEAs which do not follow that course would be directed to provide such provision. Even at this late stage, I urge my hon. Friend even after his excellent explanation of the Government's intentions with regard to the Bill, to reconsider that particular point.
    Mr. Pope: Having served on the Standing Committee which examined the Bill, I am grateful for this opportunity to make a final brief contribution to the debate. When I spoke on Second Reading last November, I said that the most vulnerable children at school are not the 2 per cent. of children who have statements, but those in the wider group of 18 per cent. of children who have special needs and do not have statements. I expressed concern that the Bill as it was then worded did not protect the needs of those children.
    It should come as no surprise to those of us who served on the Committee that, more than eight months after Second Reading, the Government are trying to remove from the Bill amendments Nos. 188 and 189 which seek to protect the children whom I have described. The Minister said that the Government believe that amendments Nos. 188 and 189 impinge on the autonomy of GM schools. However, the people who are running GM schools, the teachers, head teachers, governors and parents, recognise the need for a wider strategic function across the LEA area, especially with regard to children whose special educational needs fall outside the particular expertise of a particular school.
    With regard to amendment No. 191. I am all too well aware that including "local education authority" and "plan" in the same sentence is ideological anathema to the Minister. Mentioning LEA in an amendment is bad enough, as we learnt to our cost in Committee. However, to mention planning as well is calculated to cause outrage on the Government Benches.
    The Government have not made clear to the House or to the Committee how the relationship between LEAs and the new Funding Agency for Schools will operate. Members of the Committee will recall the rather unconvincing performances of the Minister as he tried to explain how that relationship would work. The Minister began by saying that the functions would be shared. He then said that the funding agency and LEAs would work in parallel. As parallel lines do not meet, that does not seem to be a very sensible way to provide for and plan our children's education.
    8.45 pm
    At least amendment No. 191 outlines a mechanism under which LEAs and the funding agency could work well together. Without amendment No. 191, the FAS and the Secretary of State would be working in the dark. That is not unusual for the Secretary of State, but I do not see why we should force that on the FAS.
    Local education authorities have been a success because the role that was carved out for them by the Education Act 1944 was one of partners with schools. The 1944 Act lasted so long because it commanded consensus. The Government's opposition to amendment No. 191 shows that they are not interested in creating consensus. If they were interested in doing that, this Bill would not be the 18th or 19th piece of legislation to come before the House since 1979. The Government are much more committed to ideology and to seeing LEAs withering on the vine. If the

    103
    Government want the Bill to work and to avoid the ideology-driven fiasco that we saw over testing. they should, even at this late stage, reconsider and accept amendment No. 191.
    The thrust of amendment No. 192 refers to children with special needs who do not have statements. Under the Education Act 1981, there is already a duty on LEAs to provide appropriate education for pre-school children who have a statement of special needs. Most LEAs—and certainly most Labour-run LEAs—prioritise nursery places for children with special needs who do not have statements.
    The crucial point relates to the remaining LEAs which do not provide such nursery places. Amendment No. 192 would force those LEAs to prioritise nursery places to ensure that they are available first to children with special needs who do not require the protection of a statement. There is a great deal of evidence that that would bring wider acknowledged benefits to many children with special needs and provide them with the benefit of nursery education which they would not otherwise receive if the amendment is disagreed to. Amendment No. 192 is a common-sense amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it, at least in principle.
    Sir John Hannam: I, too, pay tribute to the work of the Special Educational Consortium and Paul Ennals, who has kept us so well informed of the needs of children with special educational problems. I fully support the Bill's aim of giving all children the educational opportunities that they deserve and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on all that he has done to try to meet the needs of a very important group of children—those with special educational needs. We are taking big steps forward in part III and my concern is to ensure that we do not leave any gaps in local provision through which various handicapped groups might fall.
    The Lords amendments would strengthen various aspects of provision, for example, for the under-fives and those attending different types of schools. I accept that the amendments might not be exactly right. However, I have been reassured by statements made by the Minister of State in the other place, Baroness Blatch, particularly when she underlined parental choice for special schools. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall my amendments on Report and our discussions at meetings in the Department. I thank him for the steps that have been taken to reassure our excellent special schools that, because of their independent or trust status, they will not be obscured from parental choice.
    However, I am concerned about two problems. One has been mainly resolved by Government amendments (a) and (b), which move us some way towards addressing a problem that we identified earlier—the need for a coherent framework for planning and co-ordination of special needs provision throughout a local authority area.
    The fear has been widespread that, in pursuing academic excellence, grant-maintained schools would do their best, overtly or covertly, to keep out some children who need more of their attention. Several organisations have made representations to us about that matter and some evidence of that has already been identified by one or two representative organisations. Unless there is a collaborative overview of local provision, such gaps could develop still further.
    104
    I welcome most warmly the Government amendments: first, requiring a local education authority, when reviewing its own provision for children with special educational needs, to consult other bodies in the area; and, secondly, requiring governing bodies to consult LEAs and other bodies in carrying out their duties towards children with special educational needs. However, it would help if my hon. Friend the Minister spelt out one or two practical implications of the amendments.
    For instance, will there be guidance outlining the decisions that a governing body would be required to consult on? One example is of a grant-maintained school which, for some reason, is gradually running down its specialist facility for children with special educational needs in order to improve its examination results, and in so doing would not be proposing a change of character of the school and therefore would not have to publish its proposals. Would the guidance ensure that such an intention would require consultation? If such a proposal was discussed with the funding authority or the local education authority and was objected to, what would happen? Would it go to the Secretary of State for his decision, or would the governing body still be able to carry out its original proposal?
    Under the Office of Standards in Education four-yearly school inspection programme, will it also be required to consider the degree to which the special educational needs policy is being undertaken in accord with the local authority's review? It would be extremely helpful if Ofsted could be asked to consider the appropriateness of the governing body's policy in the light of any comments already made by the local education authority or other consulted bodies. If I could have reassurance on the working of my hon. Friend's helpful compromise proposals, I would be very happy to support them.
    A rather more disquieting Government amendment is No. 203, on the duty of the district health authority or the local authority to help the local education authority. We are again considering collaboration between statutory agencies. Many concerns have been expressed about the problem of bringing together statutory agencies in order to carry out Government policies. The problem has been expressed many times by hon. Members.
    The Children Act 1989 recognised the importance of that matter, with the requirement that local education authorities, district health authorities and other relevant bodies should co-operate with a social services department when a need is identified. In the legislation. there was a perfectly respectable and reasonable let-out clause for circumstances in which the local education authority did not consider that the help that was requested of it was necessary or that offering such help was incompatible with its other duties. We might have expected such a let-out clause in this legislation. It was anticipated that there would be something similar in the Bill.
    Hon. Members have often discussed problems of families who are desperate for speech therapy and other services. Unseemly quarrels have developed between various authorities that are unable to agree exactly where responsibility lies. The Bill provides the opportunity to clear up such confusion. Amendment No. 203 allows a new, unprecedented let-out. Under subsection (3) (a), even when the need for help has been established—for example, for speech therapy, which is essential for hearing-impaired children—the district health authority can still claim lack

    105
    of resources as an excuse for non-provision. The subsection allows the district health authority to determine whether it is reasonable for it to comply, unlike elsewhere in the Bill, and certainly in subsection (3) (b), where the local authority is not given the same excuse of lack of resources.
    I must therefore ask my hon. Friend why the national health service executive, on behalf of the district health authorities, has been able to negotiate a much more comprehensive let-out clause in this Bill than other local authorities have. I refer in particular to housing and social services. I also ask my hon. Friend to consider leaving out subsection (3) (a) and putting district health authorities on the same footing as local authorities, or, alternatively, spelling out exactly when it might be reasonable for a district health authority to plead lack of resources. We need that transparency in the Bill. I hope that the Government can accept the thrust of those concerns. On all other points I warmly support what is being done for children with special educational needs.
    Mr. Spearing: In the second half of his speech, the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) identified the loophole which should not exist. His remarks will receive widespread support. However, in the first part of his speech he referred to amendment No. 209 and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. The hon. Gentleman spoke of consultation, instead of their Lordships' suggestion that a duty be laid upon the local education authority and on the Secretary of State.
    Although the hon. Gentleman wants reassurance on consultation, there is surely nothing in statute better than a duty that is securely identified. As I understand it, no such duty is laid upon any body or person to secure the coherent development and oversight of all education in a local education authority. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but it seems that earlier Bills and this one withdraw the authority that was laid on individuals or bodies in the 1944 Act to achieve a purpose that the whole nation and all hon. Members wish to see. That is one of the main flaws in the Bill.
    When I first spoke in the House from the Labour Benches, in the mornings I was winding up my duties to about 500 young people between the ages of 12 and 18 who were my responsibility, not as a head but as a housemaster in a large secondary school. Many of those young people were unhappy. I spoke about unhappy young people and our duty to them.
    The commonplace in the staff room was that it was possible for young people who were unhappy at home to cope, provided that they were happy and making progress at school. It was possible for young people who were not making progress and who were unhappy at school to make progress if they were happy at home. However, if they were unhappy in both places, there was a poor outlook. That was more than 20 years ago.
    Today, I fear that there is a higher proportion of unhappy young people in that age group. The problems that all of us face in our constituencies at least will not be lessened by that fact and the platform that they have in future for learning to become responsible and happy adults and parents will thereby be diminished.
    106
    9 pm
    My hon. Friends—others wish to speak, so I shall be brief—have spoken of special needs. All children in schools have special needs. However, the distinction is that some pupils have more special needs than others. Pupils are not categorised. Their needs are a continuum. We all know that pupils have different needs.
    The problem is that figures such as 2 per cent. and up to 20 per cent. of pupils who have needs that are not statemented covers the fact that, in any learning group in any school, there may be up to a third or more pupils who are not making progress, especially at the secondary stage where, obviously, there are alternative attractions.
    I suggest that the Government's refusal to take special needs as defined by statute seriously enough to accept the Lords amendments is a backward step. They will be either contributing to more unhappy pupils or not relieving the unhappiness that already exists.
    There is an equally important provision in amendment No. 191 relating to the overall planning of education in any one area. The amendment states:
    "(2) A local education authority, and the governing body of any school with duties under this Parliament … shall implement the terms of any plan approved by the Secretary of State under this section and shall bring forward as appropriate relevant proposals for this purpose.
    (3) A strategic plan compiled under this section shall have effect for such period of not less than four years as the Secretary of State shall specify."
    How can one plan for the effective education of all pupils in an area—that is what parents want—without some coherent forward planning based on birth rate, the rising fives, form entry and the geographical location of different schools so that at least teachers and those responsible for that education know what is coming? If there is any uncertainty in any learning environment, the quality of learning is likely to be diminished. Many of the provisions in this Bill will programme uncertainty.
    One thing that could help is acceptance of the fundamental responsibility for coherent planning for the total educational resources of the area. That is what parents want. As a result of not supplying that planning and not accepting the amendment, and by breaking up some of the fundamentals of the 1944 Act, the Government are doing a disservice not only to the pupils
    of today but to those of tomorrow and the population as
    a whole.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I am fully aware of the time, so I intend to be brief. The Government have taken the correct approach. I am relieved that my right hon. and hon. Friends have objected to this group of amendments. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, this builds on the 1944 Act—it does not destroy it.
    I am especially concerned about amendments Nos. 188 and 199. It is wrong to say that the insertion or deletion of a couple of words would not make a difference to clause 151. It would move the provision from a review to direct involvement and, especially in my local area of Waltham Forest, interference. I shall dwell on that in a moment. The Government have clearly identified the power to interfere and, by objecting to the amendments, tackled it.
    In that context, amendment No. 199 provides for the insertion of a new clause after clause 156. That new clause would make this part of the Bill unbalanced. The wording

    107
    would make the Bill far too wide and place far too heavy a burden on the schools. I am glad that the Government have spotted that and tabled their own amendments.
    The two amendments that my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled will do the job that is required. That is essentially what Conservative Members should welcome. The amendments give a far better definition and get rid of the anxiety that I and others in the educational establishment who are involved with special needs children have about the ability of local authorities to interfere in what they believe might be their responsibilities if and when schools opt for grant-maintained status.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I shall not give way, because I am conscious of the time and I believe that others wish to speak.
    I wish to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister a problem that is not tackled specifically or well by this section of the Bill. I wish to highlight the matter and ask the Department to examine it. Since the 1988 Act, the processes for becoming grant-maintained have become well understood by schools and local authorities. Whether the proposal to opt out is opposed or the school takes up the option, people understand how to go through the process.
    The process which leads into the run-up to opting for grant-maintained status is the setting of a formula for local management of schools. Schools may at some point express an interest in moving towards grant-maintained status. Whitefield school in my area has expressed such a desire. My hon. Friend the Minister has visited it. Such schools are at the mercy of an ill-disposed local education authority which wishes to oppose opting out early on, even before the LMS stage. I wish to highlight that problem.
    Recently, my local education authority decided that its special education budget was overspent and demanded that cuts of some 2·5 per cent. be made by special schools in the borough. Without becoming too political, one accepts that such decisions have to be made, whatever the complexion of the local authority.
    Whitefield school, which my hon. Friend knows, is a national institution, which provides an excellent set of standards, as well as teacher training to degree level. The local authority, understanding that the school has a desire or intention to consider grant-maintained status, has skewed the requirement to make cuts so that Whitefield will bear the brunt of the cuts. It will have to make cuts of some 4 per cent. rather than 2·5 per cent., as was originally mooted in discussions.
    I am worried that the school has already begun to wind back certain areas of provision. Such cuts will drag away provision in certain teaching departments. As my hon. Friend knows, the loss of staff will be a savage blow to such a centre of excellence as Whitefield. I use the case to demonstrate to my hon. Friend how an LEA can use the scope it already has. I am glad that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have not allowed that scope to be increased by the Lords amendments, but there is still much scope for such practices to continue.
    In conclusion, I request that my hon. Friend take note of the problem, and that the Department pay particular
    108
    attention to local education authorities which are ill disposed to the process of opting out and to schools which have expressed an interest in becoming grant-maintained, although not necessarily a commitment to it. The Department should watch them carefully to see that they do not step over the line by imposing requirements, interfering and making cuts on a scale which is unfair to such schools.
    Given the complexity of some of the arrangements for special needs schools to become grant-maintained, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will take into consideration the possibility of steering a flagship school through the procedures, linking them carefully with the Department, once it has applied, so that we can test the requirements as the school goes through the process, and the school gets it right from stage to stage. Others who wish to follow might well learn from the experience. That experience would be publicised and could perhaps be put on a fast track. We could then understand more clearly where the difficulties lie.
    I strongly support allowing special needs schools to go grant-maintained if they so choose, but we do not have the scope to make mistakes and alterations as we go along, as we have done since the 1988 Act. I urge my hon. Friend to take note of that and seek, in the course of practice rather than legislation, to see whether it would be possible.
    Mr. Miller: When I returned from a civic service yesterday, I saw the Prime Minister on television. I was expecting to see something on "Jurassic Park". but unfortunately found myself watching something pre-Cambrian. However, in his considered words, he said that he wanted to work with teachers, and the whole House will welcome that statement.
    In accordance with the Prime Minister's statement, the Minister might like to consider the National Union of Teachers' brief on amendments Nos. 191 and 192, which makes the same point as the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) did in his considered contribution.
    If the Government want to take the words of neither the hon. Member for Lewes nor the National Union of Teachers, they may consider a letter that I received this week from the Cheshire dyslexia association, which is worried about what may happen to learning support services in the Cheshire area as a result of the Bill. It urges support for amendments Nos. 191 and 192, and says:
    "The first amendment aims to ensure that the LEA have a planning responsibility for provision for SEN children. The teaching of dyslexic children requires particular skills and understanding and Cheshire has recognised this by providing a training course for its teachers under the initiative of the Head of its Learning Support Service".
    The letter then illustrates how the approach that has been adopted by the other place helps SEN children. It says:
    "Without such a planning agency we feel that the services may collapse and dyslexic children would no longer receive appropriate teaching."
    The letter goes on:
    "The second amendment aims to ensure that nursery education is available for all children aged 3–5 years with special educational needs. The social, moral and economic arguments for early intervention for children with learning difficulties are very strong. This provision would be targeted at those most in need"—
    and argues the moral case for such a provision.
    Those are powerful words by a charitable foundation in the Cheshire area, which is doing an extremely good job for the people whom it seeks to represent. If the Minister

    109
    is not prepared to accept the word of the Opposition, professional teachers or the hon. Member for Lewes, I hope that he will take those words into account.
    The Government amendments will not make the necessary provision. The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) invited the Minister to spell out precisely what he meant, but the Lords amendment sought to do that in a constructive way. If the Minister accepted it, he would not have to spell out what he meant, because it would be built into statute, which would he a much better way to deal with the problem.
    As my wife works part-time with special educational needs children, I am not sure whether I need to declare an interest, but I certainly have an interest in the matter.
    I hope that the House, and indeed the country, will listen carefully to the points that have been raised in this part of the debate. The Minister will be aware that there are great arguments in my area about whether the Government are providing proper funding for education. An all-party delegation met Government officials recently to talk about standard spending assessment expenditure, and that debate will go on; but however long that debate goes on, we should not be distracted from making sure that the proper provision is made to those who are most disadvantaged.
    I shall explain why I think that the strategic plan envisaged in the Lords amendment is necessary by referring to three cases—clearly, not by name—of children whose parents reside in an army camp within my constituency. The changing domestic circumstances of, and the pressures on, armed forces personnel make that a difficult subject, and the lack of strategic planning creates a disadvantage for those people.
    9.15 pm
    If one finds such a simple illustration in one constituency, I am sure that it can be multiplied many times over in other constituencies. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, also represent an area with military personnel in the population, and I am sure that the argument can be found all over the country.
    The hon Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that the debate was not about statemented children—it is about all children who have special needs. It is a subject in which strategy and partnership are necessary to overcome the problems that are faced by children in rural areas and children whose domestic circumstances are difficult to handle, such as those in military areas.
    The Minister must spell out his views, and I urge him in the few minutes available to think carefully about the issues raised by the noble Lords. They have hit the nail on the head on this subject, and I urge the Minister to accept amendments No. 191 and No. 192.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I wish to respond briefly to the debate. I must remind the Government that the amendments were accepted in the Lords, and they must know that virtually everyone concerned with the provision of special educational needs backs the amendments.
    The Government have produced amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 178, 188, 193, 196, 199 and 209, and have also produced their own amendment. But it remains an extremely weak alternative, and the original reaction of Baroness Blatch to accept the amendments was right. Concerns have been expressed by
    110
    hon. Members of all parties about what might happen if the Bill is passed with amendments (a) and (b) and the rest of the clauses.
    Fears have been expressed to hon. Members by a wide range of people involved in provision for special educational needs. The fear is that there is a need to have a planning duty and to have regard to special educational needs and nursery education to make sure that the best provision exists. Perhaps just as important is the fact that the amendment relating to the review of access to schools has been omitted from the Government's amendment in lieu, and that the proposal is not covered in a precise way anywhere else. Although it may become the subject of the developments outlined in the Government's amendment in lieu, there is no guarantee that the issue will be looked at specifically.
    When we debated in Committee questions relating to research, the Government accepted—in clause 18(3)—the need for specific account to be taken of special educational needs. We believe that within special educational needs there is a case for taking account of the access issue. Although we have been constrained this evening by the Government's timetable motion and have not had a chance to debate even this group of amendments fully, we hope that they will reverse their decision to disagree with the amendments. We certainly propose to exercise our right to vote on what we consider to be most important issues.
    Mr. Forth: First, I take issue—if that is not too strong a phrase—with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who said with a flourish, "All pupils have special needs; all pupils have different needs." I made a careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said, and no doubt he meant it in his own terms. He puts an interesting gloss on the subject. I must in all fairness refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 148, which says:
    "for the purposes of the Education Acts, a child has 'special educational needs' if he has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to he made for him."
    We are not talking about the individual needs of children in the classroom in mainstream education, which I would never dispute. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knew that, but I thought I had better put that straight in case he was just being mischievous.
    Mr. Spearing: I think that I agree with the spirit of the Minister's reply. I was merely pointing out that all pupils who are not making progress and are therefore unhappy and are therefore not learning have special needs, although they may not be statemented as such.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
    It has been alleged that the Government accepted the amendments in the other place only to oppose them thereafter. The first amendment in the group was agreed to against the will of the Government. I need not remind Opposition Members of that, as it was one of their greatest moments during our proceedings on the Bill. In line with convention, the Government then chose not to oppose the remainder of the amendments—not least to give us a chance to study their implications and to decide what we wanted to do about them.
    The hon. Member for Bridgend rather seductively tried to convince the House that, where there is a partnership between local education authorities and grant-maintained

    111
    schools—as he claimed is specified in the amendments with which I have asked the House to disagree—it need not affect the autonomy of grant-maintained schools. That was also the thrust of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone).
    I must remind the House of the text of the amendment. It refers first to a local education authority submitting for approval a strategic plan for the purposes of section 151 and of the progressive development of educational provision—which means general educational provision, I assume—"including special needs." The amendment goes on:
    "A local education authority, and the governing body of any school with duties under this Part, including a grant-maintained school, shall implement the terms of any plan"—
    the House will note the reference to the LEA implementing the terms of the plan—
    "and shall bring forward as appropriate relevant proposals".
    The proposed subsection (6) says:
    "A plan compiled under this section shall contain proposals on the following matters … the number and size of mixed and single sex schools in the authority concerned: the number and size of comprehensive or, as the case may be, selective schools in the area: the number of places available in all maintained and grant-maintained schools".
    That is why the hon. Gentleman cannot persuade me that that need not affect GM school autonomy. The words of the amendment from another place say precisely the opposite.
    Mr. Griffiths: I pointed out that this was a partnership, and that there were two reasons why that view could be justified. First, to reach an agreed plan, there would be wide consultation, so it would be necessary for all the schools involved to agree to the plan. Secondly, it would require the approval of the Secretary of State for Education of the day. Given those two criteria, which are also in the amendment—as is nursery education, which the Minister did not mention—there is every reason to believe that a successful partnership can be developed which will not affect the autonomy of any school.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman misses the whole point. Given the words that I have just quoted, it runs directly counter to the whole thrust and philosophy of GM schools. In allowing parents a chance to ballot on whether their school becomes grant maintained, we are offering them a chance to get out from under the local education authority. The amendments would run counter to that and would undermine, as they were intended to do, the whole purpose and thrust of grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Forth: No, I will not give way. I want to try to answer as many points that have been raised as I can.
    The hon. Member for Bridgend went on to ask about amendment No. 190. I should remind the House that there are provisions on the face of the Bill that make that amendment unnecessary. Clause 18, for example, empowers the Secretary of State to require information relating to primary or secondary education as necessary from both the funding authority—if a section 10 order applies to the area—and local education authorities. Clause 18(3), from which the hon. Gentleman quoted a moment ago, specifically mentions special educational
    112
    provision in relation to those powers. It is probably self-evident that amendment No. 190 would be superfluous if the Secretary of State used the powers outlined in clause 18, as I fully envisage he would.
    We are strongly committed to encouraging the growing grant-maintained sector to apply for capital grants to improve access for the disabled. We will shortly be inviting all self-governing schools to consider the needs for that purpose. Projects to allow disabled pupils access to self-governing schools will be given the highest priority. I made that point in Committee, but I am happy to reiterate it.
    Mr. Griffiths: How many of the 400 GM schools that currently exist have made capital requests to improve facilities for disabled pupils?
    Mr. Forth: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information offhand, but I will be only too happy to do so. In the continuing round of bidding, we expect priority to be given to disabled facilities, as I have just said, and we will look extremely sympathetically at all bids made under that aegis.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) asked me if we should give special treatment—he used the term "assistance", then the term "fast track"—for a special school that wanted GM status. In fairness, I do not think that we can single out particular schools for that sort of special treatment. My Department. however, will always give the maximum help, assistance and co-operation to any school that wants to know what its rights are, and how to exercise those rights and use the procedures available.
    I must remind my hon. Friend and the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is duty bound carefully to consider all proposals on their merits and to consider any objections that may be made to them, so I cannot promise the kind of treatment that my hon. Friend had in mind. I suspect, knowing the school that he has in mind, that it will do its homework extremely well and that, were it to make such proposals, it would do so extremely effectively. I cannot say any more than that, and I do not want to prejudice my right hon. Friend's duty under legislation to ensure that things are dealt with as they should be.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) has unparalleled knowledge and expertise in this regard. I am very grateful for the help that he has given my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my noble Friend the Minister of State and me: indeed, it was in no small part thanks to him that we tabled the alternative amendments welcomed by him, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and others. I am grateful for their comments as well.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter asked me some specific questions about the mechanisms for consultations. We envisage issuing guidance to the governors of self-governing schools on their duties under the law, including all the duties newly laid down under part III of the Bill, such as the provision about consultation. We shall also revise the—
    It being half-past Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order this clay, put the question already proposed front the Chair, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 252.

    Division No. 339]

    [9.30 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Dover, Den

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Duncan, Alan

    Alexander, Richard

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dunn, Bob

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Amess, David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arbuthnot. James

    Eggar, Tim

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Elletson, Harold

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ashby, David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Evennett, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Faber, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Fabricant, Michael

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bates, Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Forth, Eric

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Body, Sir Richard

    French, Douglas

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fry, Peter

    Booth, Hartley

    Gale, Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    Gallie, Phil

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Bowden, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Bowis, John

    Gill, Christopher

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brazier, Julian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bright, Graham

    Gorst, John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Burt, Alistair

    Hague, William

    Butcher, John

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Butler, Peter

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Cash, William

    Harris, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hawkins, Nick

    Churchill, Mr

    Hawksley, Warren

    Clappison, James

    Hayes, Jerry

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heald, Oliver

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hendry, Charles

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hicks, Robert

    Colvin, Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Congdon, David

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Conway, Derek

    Horam, John

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Couchman, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cran, James

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jack, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Day, Stephen

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jessel, Toby

    Devlin, Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dicks, Terry

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    114

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Key, Robert

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knapman, Roger

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Sackville, Tom

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knox, Sir David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shersby, Michael

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Sims, Roger

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Legg, Barry

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Leigh, Edward

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lidington, David

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lightbown, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Spring, Richard

    Lord, Michael

    Sproat, Iain

    Luff, Peter

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Steen, Anthony

    Maclean, David

    Stephen, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stern, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stewart, Allan

    Madel, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Sumberg, David

    Malone, Gerald

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mans, Keith

    Sykes, John

    Marland, Paul

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Thomason, Roy

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Merchant, Piers

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mills, Iain

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Tracey, Richard

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Tredinnick, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Trend, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trotter, Neville

    Nelson, Anthony

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Viggers, Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Walden, George

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Waller, Gary

    Norris, Steve

    Ward, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Waterson, Nigel

    Ottaway, Richard

    Watts, John

    Page, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Paice, James

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Whitney, Ray

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Whittingdale, John

    Pawsey, James

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Pickles, Eric

    Wilkinson, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Willetts, David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wilshire, David

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wolfson, Mark

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Yeo, Tim

    Richards, Rod

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Riddick, Graham

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Robathan, Andrew

    Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    115

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Flynn, Paul

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Ainger, Nick

    Fraser, John

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Allen, Graham

    Galloway, George

    Alton, David

    Garrett, John

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    George, Bruce

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Gerrard, Neil

    Ashton, Joe

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Austin-Walker, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Barnes, Harry

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Barron, Kevin

    Gordon, Mildred

    Battle, John

    Gould, Bryan

    Bayley, Hugh

    Graham, Thomas

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Beggs, Roy

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bell, Stuart

    Grocott, Bruce

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Gunnell, John

    Benton, Joe

    Hain, Peter

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hall. Mike

    Betts, Clive

    Hanson, David

    Blunkett, David

    Hardy, Peter

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Bradley, Keith

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Henderson, Doug

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Heppell, John

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

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Burden, Richard

    Hinchliffe, David

    Byers, Stephen

    Hoey, Kate

    Caborn, Richard

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Home Robertson, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cann, Jamie

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hutton, John

    Clelland, David

    lllsley, Eric

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ingram, Adam

    Coffey. Ann

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jamieson, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Janner, Greville

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cox, Tom

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cryer, Bob

    Keen, Alan

    Cummings, John

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Dafis, Cynog

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Leighton, Ron

    Darling, Alistair

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Lewis, Terry

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Litherland, Robert

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Livingstone, Ken

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

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dewar, Donald

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Dixon, Don

    Loyden, Eddie

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Dowd, Jim

    McAllion, John

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McCartney, Ian

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Macdonald, Calum

    Eastham, Ken

    McFall, John

    Enright, Derek

    McKelvey, William

    Etherington, Bill

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McLeish, Henry

    Fatchett, Derek

    McMaster, Gordon

    Fisher, Mark

    McNamara, Kevin

    116

    McWilliam, John

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Madden, Max

    Rogers, Allan

    Mahon, Alice

    Rooker, Jeff

    Mandelson, Peter

    Rooney, Terry

    Marek, Dr John

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Martlew, Eric

    Sheerman, Barry

    Meacher, Michael

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Meale, Alan

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Short, Clare

    Milburn, Alan

    Simpson, Alan

    Miller, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith. Andrew (Oxford E)

    Morgan, Rhodri

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

    Morley, Elliot

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

    Morris. Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Snape, Peter

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Mudie, George

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mullin, Chris

    Stevenson, George

    Murphy, Paul

    Stott, Roger

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Straw, Jack

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Tipping, Paddy

    Olner, William

    Turner, Dennis

    O'Neill, Martin

    Tyler, Paul

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Vaz, Keith

    Patchett, Terry

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Pickthall, Colin

    Walley, Joan

    Pike, Peter L.

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Pope, Greg

    Wareing, Robert N

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Watson, Mike

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Wicks. Malcolm

    Prescott, John

    Williams. Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Williams. Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Purchase, Ken

    Wilson, Brian

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Winnick, David

    Radice, Giles

    Worthington, Tony

    Randall, Stuart

    Wray, Jimmy

    Raynsford. Nick

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Redmond, Martin

    Young. David (Bolton SE)

    Reid, Dr John

    Rendel, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. John Spellar.

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 180, after clause 146, insert the following clause—Inspection of accounts and reports to Parliament—
    (".—(1) The accounts of the governing body of any grant-maintained school shall be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    (2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall, in each session of Parliament, report to the House of Commons—

    (a) whether he has carried out under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 any examinations in respect
    of grant-maintained schools, and if he has,

    (b) the results of such examinations.

    (3) The first report under subsection (2) above shall cover a period beginning with the commencement of this section and each subsequent report shall cover a period beginning at the end of the period covered by the preceding report.
    (4) In determining whether to carry out any examination under that section in respect of grant-maintained schools and. if he determines to do so, the nature of the examination, the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have regard to any relevant published report of any study promoted or undertaken by the Audit Commission under section 220 of the Education Reform Act 1988.")"
    Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 180, in lieu of Lords amendment No. 181, in line 19, after 'Commission' insert
    'for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales'.—[Mr. Forth.]
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 180, as amended, agreed to. [Special Entry]
    ("() 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")
    Amendments made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 3, at end add 'and'.
    (b), in line 6, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 7.—[Mr. Forth.]
    Lords amendment No. 185, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 181 and 186 disagreed to.
    Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 186
    agreed to.

  Clause 151

    REVIEW OF ARRANGEMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 188, in page 91, line 21, after ("shall") insert ("plan and")
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 245.

    Division No. 340]

    [9.50 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Alexander, Richard

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Amess, David

    Burns, Simon

    Arbuthnot, James

    Burt, Alistair

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Butcher, John

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Butler, Peter

    Ashby, David

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Churchill, Mr

    Baldry, Tony

    Clappison, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Bates, Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

    Batiste, Spencer

    Colvin, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Congdon, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Bitten, Rt Hon John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Body, Sir Richard

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Couchman, James

    Booth, Hartley

    Cran, James

    Boswell, Tim

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

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bowis, John

    Day, Stephen

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Devlin, Tim

    Brazier, Julian

    Dicks, Terry

    Bright, Graham

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Clause 149

    CODE OF PRACTICE
    Lords amendment No. 185, in page 90, line 42, leave out from ("of-) to end of line 43 and insert—
    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 189, in page 91, line 22, leave out ("by them").
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 240.

    Division No. 340]

    [9.50 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Alexander, Richard

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Amess, David

    Burns, Simon

    Arbuthnot, James

    Burt, Alistair

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Butcher, John

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Butler, Peter

    Ashby, David

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Churchill, Mr

    Baldry, Tony

    Clappison, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Bates, Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

    Batiste, Spencer

    Colvin, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Congdon, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Bitten, Rt Hon John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Body, Sir Richard

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Couchman, James

    Booth, Hartley

    Cran, James

    Boswell, Tim

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

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bowis, John

    Day, Stephen

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Devlin, Tim

    Brazier, Julian

    Dicks, Terry

    Bright, Graham

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Dover, Den

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Duncan, Alan

    Hunter, Andrew

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Jack, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Eggar, Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Elletson, Harold

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Key, Robert

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Evennett, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Faber, David

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

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

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Knox, Sir David

    Forman, Nigel

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Forth, Eric

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Legg, Barry

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Leigh, Edward

    French, Douglas

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Fry, Peter

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Gale, Roger

    Lidington, David

    Gallie, Phil

    Lightbown, David

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Lilley. Rt Hon Peter

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Garnier, Edward

    Lord, Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Luff, Peter

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gorst, John

    MacKay, Andrew

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Maclean, David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Madel, David

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Malone, Gerald

    Hague, William

    Mans, Keith

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Marland, Paul

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Marlow, Tony

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Harris, David

    Mates, Michael

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Merchant, Piers

    Hawksley, Warren

    Milligan, Stephen

    Hayes, Jerry

    Mills, Iain

    Heald, Oliver

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hanfs NW)

    Hendry, Charles

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Horam, John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Neubert, Sir Michael

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

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    119

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Stephen, Michael

    Norris, Steve

    Stern, Michael

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Stewart, Allan

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Streeter, Gary

    Ottaway, Richard

    Sumberg, David

    Page, Richard

    Sweeney, Walter

    Paice, James

    Sykes, John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Pawsey, James

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Pickles, Eric

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Thomason, Roy

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Rathbone, Tim

    Thurnham, Peter

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Richards, Rod

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

    Riddick, Graham

    Tracey, Richard

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Tredinnick, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Trend, Michael

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Trotter, Neville

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Viggers, Peter

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Walden, George

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Waller, Gary

    Sackville, Tom

    Ward, John

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Watts, John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wells, Bowen

    Shersby, Michael

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Sims, Roger

    Whitney, Ray

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Whittingdale, John

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Smith, Tim (Beaconstield)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Soames, Nicholas

    Willetts, David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wilshire, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wood, Timothy

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Yeo, Tim

    Spring, Richard

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Sproat, Iain

    Squire. Robin (Hornchurch)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Derek Conway.

    Steen, Anthony

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Burden, Richard

    Ainger, Nick

    Byers, Stephen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Caborn, Richard

    Allen, Graham

    Callaghan, Jim

    Alton, David

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Austin-Walker, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cann, Jamie

    Barnes, Harry

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Barron, Kevin

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Battle, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Bayley. Hugh

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Clelland, David

    Beggs, Roy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Beith. Rt Hon A. J.

    Coffey, Ann

    Bell, Stuart

    Cohen, Harry

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Connarty, Michael

    Benton, Joe

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Betts, Clive

    Corbett, Robin

    Blunkett, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Boateng, Paul

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Cousins, Jim

    Bradley, Keith

    Cox, Tom

    Bray. Dr Jeremy

    Cryer, Bob

    120

    Cummings, John

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Leighton, Ron

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Lewis, Terry

    Dalyell, Tam

    Litherland, Robert

    Darling, Alistair

    Livingstone. Ken

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Loyden, Eddie

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

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Dewar, Donald

    McAllion, John

    Dixon, Don

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    McCartney, Ian

    Dowd, Jim

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McFall, John

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McKelvey, William

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Eastham, Ken

    McLeish, Henry

    Enright, Derek

    McNamara, Kevin

    Etherington, Bill

    Madden, Max

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Mahon, Alice

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mandelson. Peter

    Fisher, Mark

    Marek, Dr John

    Flynn, Paul

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Martlew, Eric

    Fraser, John

    Meacher, Michael

    Fyfe, Maria

    Meale, Alan

    Galloway, George

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Garrett, John

    Milburn, Alan

    George, Bruce

    Miller, Andrew

    Gerrard, Neil

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Morley, Elliot

    Godsiff, Roger

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Gordon. Mildred

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Gould. Bryan

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Graham, Thomas

    Mudie, George

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Mullin, Chris

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Murphy, Paul

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Grocott, Bruce

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Gunnell, John

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hain, Peter

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hall, Mike

    Olner, William

    Hanson, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hardy, Peter

    Patchett, Terry

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Pickthall, Colin

    Heppell, John

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Pope, Greg

    Hinchliffe, David

    Powell. Ray (Ogmore)

    Hoey. Kate

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Prescott, John

    Home Robertson, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hood, Jimmy

    Purchase. Ken

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Quin. Ms Joyce

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Radice, Giles

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Randall, Stuart

    Hoyle, Doug

    Raynsford, Nick

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Redmond, Martin

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Reid. Dr John

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Rendel, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Hutton, John

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    lllsley, Eric

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jackson. Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Rooker. Jeff

    Jamieson, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Janner. Greville

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Rowlands, Ted

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Jowell, Tessa

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Keen, Alan

    Short, Clare

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Simpson, Alan

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

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

    121

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

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Spearing, Nigel

    Watson, Mike

    Spellar, John

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Stevenson, George

    Wilson, Brian

    Stott, Roger

    Winnick, David

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Worthington, Tony

    Straw, Jack

    Wray, Jimmy

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Tyler, Paul

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Vaz, Keith

    Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Gordon McMaster.

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Walley, Joan

    Division No. 341]

    [10.1 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Clappison, James

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Alexander, Richard

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Amess, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Congdon, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Conway, Derek

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Ashby, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Couchman, James

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Cran, James

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

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

    Baldry, Tony

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Davies, Ouentin (Stamford)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bates, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Batiste, Spencer

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bellingham, Henry

    Devlin, Tim

    Bendall, Vivian

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dicks, Terry

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Dover. Den

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Duncan, Alan

    Booth, Hartley

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Boswell, Tim

    Dunn, Bob

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Eggar, Tim

    Bowden, Andrew

    Elletson, Harold

    Bowis, John

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bright, Graham

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Evennett, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Faber, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Burns, Simon

    Forman, Nigel

    Burt, Alistair

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Butcher, John

    Forth, Eric

    Butler, Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Carrington, Matthew

    French, Douglas

    Carttiss, Michael

    Fry, Peter

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gale, Roger

    Churchill. Mr

    Gallie, Phil

    122

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Milligan, Stephen

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Mills, Iain

    Garnier, Edward

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gill, Christopher

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gorst, John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hague, William

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Norris, Steve

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hannam, Sir John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Page, Richard

    Harris, David

    Paice, James

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hawkins, Nick

    Pawsey, James

    Hawksley, Warren

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hayes, Jerry

    Pickles, Eric

    Heald, Oliver

    Porter. Barry (Wirral S)

    Hendry, Charles

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Horam, John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

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

    Richards, Rod

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Hunter, Andrew

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jack, Michael

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Key, Robert

    Sackville, Tom

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shersby, Michael

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

    Sims, Roger

    Knox, Sir David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Legg, Barry

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Leigh, Edward

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Spring, Richard

    Lidington, David

    Sproat, Iain

    Lightbown, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lord, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Luff, Peter

    Stephen, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stern, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Allan

    MacKay, Andrew

    Streeter, Gary

    Maclean, David

    Sumberg, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Sweeney, Walter

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Sykes, John

    Madel, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Malone, Gerald

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mans, Keith

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Marland, Paul

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Thomason, Roy

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mates, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Merchant, Piers

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

    123

    Tracey. Richard

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Tredinnick, David

    Whitney, Ray

    Trend, Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Trotter, Neville

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Willetts, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Wilshire, David

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Walden, George

    Wolfson, Mark

    Waller, Gary

    Yeo, Tim

    Ward, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wardle. Charles (Bexhill)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Watts, John

    Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Timothy Wood.

    Wells, Bowen

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Ainger, Nick

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

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dixon, Don

    Allen, Graham

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Alton, David

    Dowd, Jim

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Ashton, Joe

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Austin-Walker, John

    Eastham, Ken

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Enright, Derek

    Barnes, Harry

    Etherington, Bill

    Barron, Kevin

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Battle, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Bayley, Hugh

    Fisher, Mark

    Beckett. Rt Hon Margaret

    Flynn, Paul

    Beggs, Roy

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bell. Stuart

    Galloway, George

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Garrett. John

    Benton, Joe

    George, Bruce

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Gerrard, Neil

    Betts, Clive

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Blunkett, David

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Boateng, Paul

    Godsiff, Roger

    Boyce. Jimmy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bradley, Keith

    Gordon, Mildred

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Gould, Bryan

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Graham, Thomas

    Burden, Richard

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Byers, Stephen

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Caborn, Richard

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Grocott, Bruce

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gunnell, John

    Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hall, Mike

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hanson, David

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hardy, Peter

    Cann, Jamie

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Heppell, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clelland. David

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Home Robertson, John

    Coffey, Ann

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cohen, Harry

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Connarty, Michael

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes. Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cox, Tom

    Hutton, John

    Cryer, Bob

    Illsley, Eric

    Cummings, John

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jamieson, David

    Dafis, Cynog

    Janner, Greville

    Dalyell, Tam

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Darling. Alistair

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Davies. Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    124

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Prescott, John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Keen, Alan

    Purchase, Ken

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Radice, Giles

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Randall, Stuart

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Leighton, Ron

    Redmond, Martin

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Reid, Dr John

    Lewis, Terry

    Rendel. David

    Litherland, Robert

    Robinson. Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rogers, Allan

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Rooker, Jeff

    Loyden, Eddie

    Rooney, Terry

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McAllion. John

    Rowlands, Ted

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ruddock, Joan

    McCartney, Ian

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Macdonald, Calum

    Sheerman, Barry

    McFall, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McKelvey, William

    Simpson, Alan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    McLeish, Henry

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McMaster, Gordon

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

    McNamara, Kevin

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

    Madden, Max

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mahon, Alice

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mandelson, Peter

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Marek, Dr John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stevenson, George

    Martlew, Eric

    Stott, Roger

    Meacher, Michael

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Meale, Alan

    Straw, Jack

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Milburn. Alan

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Miller, Andrew

    Tipping, Paddy

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Turner, Dennis

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Tyler, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

    Vaz, Keith

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Walley. Joan

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mudie, George

    Watson, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Murphy, Paul

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Winnick, David

    O'Hara, Edward

    Worthington, Tony

    Olner, William

    Wray, Jimmy

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Patchett, Terry

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Pickthall. Colin

    Pike, Peter L.

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pope, Greg

    Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 190, in page 91, line 22, at end insert
    ("and the arrangements made for school premises to be made accessible to children requiring special educational provision within the area of the local education authority.")
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 242.

    Division No. 342]

    [10.15pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Alexander, Richard

    Arnold. Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Ashby. David

    Allason. Rupert (Torbay)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Amess. David

    Atkinson. David (Bour'mouth E)

    125

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Faber, David

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Baldry, Tony

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Forman, Nigel

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bates, Michael

    Forth, Eric

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    French, Douglas

    Biffen. Rt Hon John

    Fry, Peter

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gale, Roger

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gallie, Phil

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Booth, Hartley

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Boswell, Tim

    Garnier, Edward

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gill, Christopher

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bowden, Andrew

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bowis, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gorst, John

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Brazier, Julian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bright, Graham

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hague, William

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Burns, Simon

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Burt, Alistair

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Butcher, John

    Hannam, Sir John

    Butler, Peter

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hawkins, Nick

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Cash, William

    Hayes, Jerry

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Heald, Oliver

    Chapman. Sydney

    Hendry, Charles

    Churchill, Mr

    Hicks, Robert

    Clappison, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Horam, John

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Colvin, Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Congdon, David

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

    Conway, Derek

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jack, Michael

    Couchman. James

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cran, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

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

    Jessel, Toby

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Key, Robert

    Devlin, Tim

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dicks, Terry

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knapman, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dover, Den

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Duncan, Alan

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

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Knox, Sir David

    Dunn, Bob

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Eggar, Tim

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Elletson, Harold

    Legg, Barry

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lidington, David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lightbown, David

    Evennett, David

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    126

    Lord, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Luff, Peter

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Maclean, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Madel, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spring, Richard

    Malone, Gerald

    Sproat, Iain

    Mans, Keith

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Marland, Paul

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Steen, Anthony

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stephen, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stern, Michael

    Mates, Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Merchant, Piers

    Streeter, Gary

    Mills, Iain

    Sumberg, David

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Sykes, John

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thomason, Roy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Norris, Steve

    Thurnham, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

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

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tracey, Richard

    Page, Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Paice, James

    Trend, Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Trotter, Neville

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Pawsey, James

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Viggers, Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Walden, George

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waller, Gary

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Ward, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Watts. John

    Richards, Rod

    Wells, Bowen

    Riddick, Graham

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Whitney, Ray

    Robathan, Andrew

    Whittingdale, John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wilkinson, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Willetts, David

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Wilshire, David

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sackville, Tom

    Wood, Timothy

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Yeo, Tim

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Shersby, Michael

    Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

    Sims, Roger

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bayley, Hugh

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Ainger, Nick

    Beggs, Roy

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bell, Stuart

    Allen, Graham

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Alton, David

    Benton, Joe

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Betts, Clive

    Ashton, Joe

    Blunkett, David

    Austin-Walker, John

    Boateng, Paul

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Barnes, Harry

    Bradley, Keith

    Barron, Kevin

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Battle, John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    127

    Burden, Richard

    Home Robertson, John

    Byers, Stephen

    Hood, Jimmy

    Caborn, Richard

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Callaghan, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hutton, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Clapham, Michael

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Jamieson, David

    Clelland, David

    Janner, Greville

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Coffey, Ann

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Corbett, Robin

    Keen, Alan

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Cousins, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cox, Tom

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Cryer, Bob

    Leighton, Ron

    Cummings, John

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Lewis, Terry

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Litherland, Robert

    Dafis, Cynog

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Darling, Alistair

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McAllion, John

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

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dixon, Don

    McCartney, Ian

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dowd, Jim

    McFall, John

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McKelvey, William

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    McLeish, Henry

    Eastham, Ken

    McNamara, Kevin

    Enright, Derek

    McWilliam, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Madden, Max

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Mahon, Alice

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mandelson, Peter

    Fisher, Mark

    Marek, Dr John

    Flynn, Paul

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Martlew, Eric

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Meacher, Michael

    Fraser, John

    Meale, Alan

    Fyfe, Maria

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Galloway, George

    Milburn, Alan

    Garrett, John

    Miller, Andrew

    George, Bruce

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Gerrard, Neil

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Morley, Elliot

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Gould, Bryan

    Mudie, George

    Graham, Thomas

    Mullin, Chris

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Murphy, Paul

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Grocott, Bruce

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Gunnell, John

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hain, Peter

    Olner, William

    Hall, Mike

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hanson, David

    Patchett, Terry

    Hardy, Peter

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Pike, Peter L.

    Heppell, John

    Pope, Greg

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hoey, Kate

    Prescott, John

    Hogg. Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    128

    Purchase, Ken

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Stevenson, George

    Radice, Giles

    Stott, Roger

    Randall, Stuart

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Raynsford, Nick

    Straw, Jack

    Redmond, Martin

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Reid, Dr John

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Rendel, David

    Tipping, Paddy

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Turner, Dennis

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Tyler, Paul

    Rogers, Allan

    Vaz, Keith

    Rooker, Jeff

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Rooney, Terry

    Walley, Joan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wareing, Robert N

    Ruddock, Joan

    Watson, Mike

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sheerman, Barry

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wilson, Brian

    Short, Clare

    Winnick, David

    Simpson, Alan

    Worthington, Tony

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wray, Jimmy

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wright, Dr Tony

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

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Gordon McMaster.

    Spellar, John

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 191, after clause 151, insert the following clause—Strategic' plan by local education authority—
    (".—(1) A local education authority shall submit to the Secretary of State for approval a strategic plan for the purposes of section 151 above and of the progressive development of educational provision including special needs within their areas.
    (2) A local education authority, and the governing body of any school with duties under this Part, including a grant-maintained school, shall implement the terms of any plan approved by the Secretary of State under this section and shall bring forward as appropriate relevant proposals for this purpose.
    (3) A strategic plan compiled under this section shall have effect for such period of not less than four years as the Secretary of State shall specify.
    (4) The Secretary of State may approve any plan submitted to him under this section with such modifications as he considers appropriate having regard to the interests of pupils.
    (5) Any proposals contained in any plan submitted under this section shall have regard to the need to promote the interests of children with special educational needs.
    (6) A plan compiled under this section shall contain proposals on the following matters—

    (a) a broad direction and development of nursery, primary and secondary education respectively within the authority concerned, having regard to the requirements of section 152 below;

    (b) the number and size of mixed and single sex schools in the authority concerned:

    (c) the number and size of comprehensive or, as the case may be, selective schools in the area, taking account of the requirments of section 152 below:

    (d) the number of places available in all maintained and grant-maintained schools, and City Technology Colleges, together with targets for numbers of entry from their catchment areas;

    (e) the range of goods and services to be provided by the authority under sections 154 and (where applicable) 265 below; and

    (f) any other matter which the authority may consider appropriate or the Secretary of State may specify.

    (7) Any local education authority shall consult any neighbouring local education authority, and such representatives of parents, headteachers, teaching and non-teaching staff and other community organisations as appear to it to be concerned before submitting any plan under this section.")
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment. —[Mr.
    Forth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 241.

    Division No. 343]

    [10.28 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Devlin, Tim

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Alexander, Richard

    Dicks, Terry

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amess, David

    Dover, Den

    Arbuthnot, James

    Duncan, Alan

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Dunn, Bob

    Ashby, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Eggar, Tim

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Elletson, Harold

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Evennett, David

    Bates, Michael

    Faber, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Forman, Nigel

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Forth, Eric

    Body, Sir Richard

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Booth, Hartley

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Boswell, Tim

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bottomley. Peter (Eltham)

    French, Douglas

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Fry, Peter

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gale, Roger

    Bowis, John

    Gallie, Phil

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Brazier, Julian

    Garnier, Edward

    Bright, Graham

    Gill, Christopher

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gorst, John

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Burns, Simon

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Burt, Alistair

    Greenway, John (Ryedalel

    Butcher, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Butler, Peter

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hague, William

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Cash, William

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hannam, Sir John

    Churchill, Mr

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Harris, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Colvin, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Congdon, David

    Hayes, Jerry

    Conway, Derek

    Heald, Oliver

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hendry, Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Horam, John

    Couchman, James

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cran, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

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

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hunter, Andrew

    130

    Jack, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jessel, Toby

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Key, Robert

    Sackville, Tom

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shersby, Michael

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

    Sims, Roger

    Knox, Sir David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Legg, Barry

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Leigh, Edward

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Spring, Richard

    Lidington, David

    Sproat, Iain

    Lightbown, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lord, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Luff, Peter

    Stephen, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stern, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Allan

    MacKay, Andrew

    Streeter, Gary

    Maclean, David

    Sumberg, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Sweeney, Walter

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Sykes, John

    Madel, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Malone, Gerald

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mans, Keith

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Marland, Paul

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Marlow, Tony

    Thomason, Roy

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mates, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mills, Iain

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

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tracey, Richard

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Tredinnick, David

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Trend, Michael

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Trotter, Neville

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Moss, Malcolm

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nelson, Anthony

    Viggers, Peter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Walden, George

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Waller, Gary

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Ward, John

    Norris, Steve

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Waterson, Nigel

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Watts, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Page, Richard

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Paice, James

    Whitney, Ray

    Patnick, Irvine

    Whittingdale, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Pawsey, James

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wilkinson, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Willetts, David

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wilshire, David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Yeo, Tim

    Rathbone, Tim

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Richards, Rod

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Riddick, Graham

    Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    131

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Fraser, John

    Ainger, Nick

    Fyfe, Maria

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Galloway, George

    Allen, Graham

    Garrett, John

    Alton, David

    George, Bruce

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Ashton, Joe

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Austin-Walker, John

    Godsiff, Roger

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Barnes, Harry

    Gordon, Mildred

    Barron, Kevin

    Gould, Bryan

    Battle, John

    Graham, Thomas

    Bayley, Hugh

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Beggs, Roy

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bell, Stuart

    Grocott, Bruce

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Gunnell, John

    Benton, Joe

    Hain, Peter

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hall. Mike

    Betts, Clive

    Hanson, David

    Blunkett, David

    Hardy, Peter

    Boateng, Paul

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Heppell, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hinchliffe, David

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Hoey, Kate

    Burden, Richard

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Byers, Stephen

    Home Robertson, John

    Caborn, Richard

    Hood, Jimmy

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hutton. John

    Clapham, Michael

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld. H)

    Clelland, David

    Jamieson, David

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Janner, Greville

    Coffey, Ann

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Cohen, Harry

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Corbett, Robin

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Keen, Alan

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Cousins, Jim

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Cox, Tom

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cryer, Bob

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Cummings, John

    Leighton, Ron

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Lewis, Terry

    Dafis, Cynog

    Litherland, Robert

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Livingstone, Ken

    Darling, Alistair

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

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

    McAllion, John

    Dixon, Don

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    McCartney, Ian

    Dowd, Jim

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McFall, John

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McKelvey, William

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Eastham, Ken

    McLeish, Henry

    Enright, Derek

    McMaster, Gordon

    Etherington, Bill

    McNamara, Kevin

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McWilliam, John

    Fatchett, Derek

    Madden, Max

    Fisher, Mark

    Mahon, Alice

    Flynn, Paul

    Mandelson, Peter

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Marek, Dr John

    132

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Martlew, Eric

    Rowlands, Ted

    Meacher, Michael

    Ruddock, Joan

    Meale, Alan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Milburn, Alan

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Miller, Andrew

    Simpson, Alan

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Skinner, Dennis

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Morley, Elliot

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

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

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

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Mudie, George

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mullin, Chris

    Stevenson, George

    Murphy, Paul

    Stott, Roger

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Straw, Jack

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Olner, William

    Tipping, Paddy

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Turner, Dennis

    Patchett, Terry

    Tyler, Paul

    Pickthall, Colin

    Vaz, Keith

    Pike, Peter L.

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Pope, Greg

    Walley, Joan

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Prescott, John

    Watson, Mike

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Purchase, Ken

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Radice, Giles

    Wilson, Brian

    Randall, Stuart

    Winnick, David

    Raynsford, Nick

    Worthington, Tony

    Redmond, Martin

    Wray, Jimmy

    Reid, Dr John

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Rendel, David

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rogers, Allan

    Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. John Spellar.

    Rooker, Jeff

    Rooney, Terry

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 192—insert the following new clause—Planning of nursery provision for pupils with special needs—
    (".—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 165 below, a local education authority shall plan and keep under review, and secure the provision of, nursery education in respect of any child to whom subsection (2) below applies.
    (2) A child to whom this section applies is a child who is aged not less than three nor more than five years and who has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him.
    (3) The Secretary of State shall within three years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act review and publish his conclusions on the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of provision under this section (including its impact on the education of pupils with special eduction needs in schools which are not special schools) and the desirability or otherwise of the extension of the duty referred to in subsection (1) above to include the planning and review of, and the securing of the provision of, nursery education in respect of all pupils aged not less than three nor more than five years whose parents wish it.")
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]
    The House deivided: Ayes 296, Noes 239.

    Division No. 344]

    [10.41 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Alexander, Richard

    Amess, David

    133

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evennett, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Faber, David

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Forman, Nigel

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Forth, Eric

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Baldry, Tony

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bates, Michael

    French, Douglas

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fry, Peter

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gale, Roger

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gallie, Phil

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Garnier, Edward

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gill, Christopher

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Booth, Hartley

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Boswell, Tim

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gorst, John

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bowis, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bright. Graham

    Hague, William

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hannam, Sir John

    Burns, Simon

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Burt, Alistair

    Harris, David

    Butcher, John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Butler, Peter

    Hawkins, Nick

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Carrington, Matthew

    Heald, Oliver

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hendry, Charles

    Cash, William

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Horam, John

    Churchill, Mr

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clappison, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

    Coe, Sebastian

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Colvin, Michael

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Congdon, David

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jack, Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Couchman, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Cran, James

    Jessel, Toby

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

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Day, Stephen

    Key, Robert

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Devlin, Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Knapman, Roger

    Dicks, Terry

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

    Dover, Den

    Knox, Sir David

    Duncan, Alan

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Elletson, Harold

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Legg, Barry

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lidington, David

    134

    Lightbown, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lord, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Luff, Peter

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Maclean, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Madel, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spring, Richard

    Malone, Gerald

    Sproat, Iain

    Mans, Keith

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Marland, Paul

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Marlow, Tony

    Steen, Anthony

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Stephen, Michael

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stern, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stewart, Allan

    Mates, Michael

    Streeter, Gary

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Sumberg, David

    Merchant, Piers

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mills, Iain

    Sykes, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thomason, Roy

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

    Norris, Steve

    Tracey, Richard

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Tredinnick, David

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Trend, Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Trotter, Neville

    Page, Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Paice, James

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Patnick, Irvine

    Viggers, Peter

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Pawsey, James

    Walden, George

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Waller, Gary

    Pickles, Eric

    Ward, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Watts, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wells, Bowen

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Whitney, Ray

    Richards, Rod

    Whittingdale, John

    Riddick, Graham

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wilkinson, John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Willetts, David

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Wilshire, David

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Wood, Timothy

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Yeo, Tim

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Sackville, Tom

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Derek Conway.

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Barnes, Harry

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Barron, Kevin

    Ainger, Nick

    Battle, John

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Allen, Graham

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Alton, David

    Beggs, Roy

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bell, Stuart

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ashton, Joe

    Benton, Joe

    Austin-Walker, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Betts, Clive

    135

    Blunkett, David

    Heppell, John

    Boateng, Paul

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Hinchliffe, David

    Bradley, Keith

    Hoey, Kate

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Home Robertson, John

    Burden, Richard

    Hood, Jimmy

    Byers, Stephen

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Caborn, Richard

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hutton, John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Illsley, Eric

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Clapham, Michael

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Clelland, David

    Jamieson, David

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Janner, Greville

    Coffey, Ann

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Cohen, Harry

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Corbett, Robin

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Keen, Alan

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Cousins, Jim

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Cox, Tom

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cryer, Bob

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Cummings, John

    Leighton, Ron

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Lewis, Terry

    Dafis, Cynog

    Litherland, Robert

    Dalyell. Tarn

    Livingstone, Ken

    Darling, Alistair

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

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

    McAllion, John

    Dixon, Don

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    McCartney, Ian

    Dowd, Jim

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McFall, John

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McKelvey, William

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    McLeish, Henry

    Eastham, Ken

    McMaster, Gordon

    Enright, Derek

    McNamara, Kevin

    Etherington, Bill

    McWilliam, John

    Evans. John (St Helens N)

    Madden, Max

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mahon, Alice

    Fisher, Mark

    Mandelson, Peter

    Flynn, Paul

    Marek, Dr John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Martlew, Eric

    Fraser, John

    Meacher, Michael

    Fyfe, Maria

    Meale. Alan

    Galloway, George

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Garrett, John

    Milburn, Alan

    George, Bruce

    Miller, Andrew

    Gerrard, Neil

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Morley, Elliot

    Godsiff, Roger

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Gould, Bryan

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Graham, Thomas

    Mudie, George

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Mullin, Chris

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Murphy, Paul

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Grocott, Bruce

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Gunnell, John

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hain, Peter

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hall, Mike

    Olner, William

    Hanson, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hardy, Peter

    Patchett, Terry

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Pickthall, Colin

    136

    Pike, Peter L.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Pope, Greg

    Spellar, John

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Prescott, John

    Stevenson, George

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Stott, Roger

    Purchase, Ken

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Straw, Jack

    Radice, Giles

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Randall, Stuart

    Tipping, Paddy

    Raynsford, Nick

    Turner, Dennis

    Redmond, Martin

    Tyler, Paul

    Reid, Dr John

    Vaz, Keith

    Rendel, David

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Walley, Joan

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Rogers, Allan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Rooker, Jeff

    Watson, Mike

    Rooney, Terry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wilson, Brian

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Winnick, David

    Sheerman, Barry

    Worthington, Tony

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wray, Jimmy

    Simpson, Alan

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Skinner, Dennis

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

    Tellers for the Noes:

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

    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Jack Thompson.

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Clause 153

    DUTIES OF GOVERNING BODY ETC. IN RELATION TO PUPILS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
    Lords amendment: No 193, in page 91, line 46 after ("him") insert—
    ("() secure that, where a registered pupil with special educational needs is not the subject of a Statement of Special Educational Needs maintained by an education authority, there shall be a review of the provision made for the child within the period of twelve months beginning with the making of the provision, or as the case may be, with the previous review,").
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—Mr. Forth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 240.

    Division No. 345]

    [10.53 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Alexander, Richard

    Body, Sir Richard

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Amess, David

    Booth, Hartley

    Arbuthnot. James

    Boswell, Tim

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Ashby, David

    Bowden, Andrew

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bowis, John

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Brazier, Julian

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Bright, Graham

    Baldry, Tony

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Bates, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Bellingham, Henry

    Burns, Simon

    Bendall, Vivian

    Burt, Alistair

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Butcher, John

    137

    Butler, Peter

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hayes, Jerry

    Carttiss, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Cash, William

    Hendry, Charles

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Churchill, Mr

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Clappison, James

    Horam, John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Coe, Sebastian

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Colvin, Michael

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

    Congdon, David

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Conway, Derek

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jack, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cran, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

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

    Jessel, Toby

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Davis, David (Boothlerry)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Key, Robert

    Devlin, Tim

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dicks, Terry

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knapman, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dover, Den

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Duncan, Alan

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

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Knox, Sir David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Eggar, Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Elletson, Harold

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Legg, Barry

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Evennett, David

    Lidington, David

    Faber, David

    Lightbown, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lord, Michael

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Luff, Peter

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Forman, Nigel

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Maclean, David

    Forth, Eric

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Madel, David

    Fox. Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Maitland. Lady Olga

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Malone, Gerald

    French, Douglas

    Mans, Keith

    Fry, Peter

    Marland, Paul

    Gale, Roger

    Marlow, Tony

    Gallie, Phil

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Garnier, Edward

    Mates, Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Merchant, Piers

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mills, Iain

    Gorst, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hague, William

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Norris, Steve

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Harris, David

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    138

    Ottaway, Richard

    Streeter, Gary

    Page, Richard

    Sumberg, David

    Paice, James

    Sweeney, Walter

    Patnick, Irvine

    Sykes, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Pickles, Eric

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Thomason, Roy

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Thurnham, Peter

    Richards, Rod

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Riddick, Graham

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

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Tracey, Richard

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Trend, Michael

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Trotter, Neville

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Viggers, Peter

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Walden, George

    Sackville, Tom

    Waller, Gary

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Ward, John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Watts, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Sims, Roger

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Whitney, Ray

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Whittingdale, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Wilkinson, John

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Willetts, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wilshire, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Spring, Richard

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sproat, Iain

    Wood, Timothy

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Yeo, Tim

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Steen, Anthony

    Stephen, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stern, Michael

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

    Stewart, Allan

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Caborn, Richard

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ainger, Nick

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Campbell. Menzies (Fife NE)

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Alton, David

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cann, Jamie

    Ashton, Joe

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Austin-Walker, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Clapham, Michael

    Barnes, Harry

    Clelland, David

    Barron, Kevin

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Battle, John

    Coffey, Ann

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cohen, Harry

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Connarty, Michael

    Beggs, Roy

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bell, Stuart

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Corbett, Robin

    Benton, Joe

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Betts, Clive

    Cousins, Jim

    Blunkett, David

    Cox, Tom

    Boateng, Paul

    Cryer, Bob

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Cummings, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Burden, Richard

    Darling, Alistair

    Byers, Stephen

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    139

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

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

    McAllion, John

    Dixon, Don

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    McCartney, Ian

    Dowd, Jim

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McFall, John

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McKelvey, William

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Eastham, Ken

    McLeish, Henry

    Enright, Derek

    McNamara, Kevin

    Etherington, Bill

    McWilliam, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Madden, Max

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mahon, Alice

    Fisher, Mark

    Mandelson, Peter

    Flynn, Paul

    Marek, Dr John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Fraser, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Fyfe, Maria

    Meacher, Michael

    Galloway, George

    Meaie, Alan

    Garrett, John

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    George, Bruce

    Milburn, Alan

    Gerrard, Neil

    Miller, Andrew

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Godsiff, Roger

    Morley, Elliot

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Gould, Bryan

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Graham, Thomas

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Mudie, George

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mullin, Chris

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Murphy, Paul

    Grocott, Bruce

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Gunnell, John

    O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)

    Hain, Peter

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hall, Mike

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hanson, David

    Olner, William

    Hardy, Peter

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Patchett, Terry

    Heppell, John

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hinchliffe, David

    Pope, Greg

    Hoey, Kate

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hogg. Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Home Robertson, John

    Prescott, John

    Hood, Jimmy

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Purchase, Ken

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Radice, Giles

    Hoyle, Doug

    Randall, Stuart

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Redmond, Martin

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Reid, Dr John

    Hughes. Simon (Southwark)

    Rendel. David

    Hutton, John

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Illsley, Eric

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Jamieson, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Janner, Greville

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Rowlands, Ted

    Jones. Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Jowell, Tessa

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Simpson, Alan

    Keen, Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Khabra, Piara S.

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

    Kilfoyle, Peter

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

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Leighton, Ron

    Spearing, Nigel

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Lewis, Terry

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Litherland, Robert

    Stevenson, George

    Livingstone, Ken

    Stott, Roger

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Straw. Jack

    140

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wilson, Brian

    Turner, Dennis

    Winnick, David

    Tyler, Paul

    Worthington, Tony

    Vaz, Keith

    Wray, Jimmy

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Walley, Joan

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Watson, Mike

    Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Gordon McMaster.

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Clause 154

    PROVISION OF SEN ASSISTANCE
    Lords amendment: No 196, in page 92, line 35, at end insert—
    ("() The local education authority shall ensure the availability of goods and services to assist governing bodies in their duties under section 153(1)(a) of this Act.")
    Motion made, and question put, That this House doth disaggree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 240.

    Division No. 346]

    [11.5 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Cash, William

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Alexander, Richard

    Churchill, Mr

    Alison. Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Clappison, James

    Amess, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Coe, Sebastian

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Colvin, Michael

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Congdon, David

    Ashby, David

    Conway, Derek

    Aspinwall. Jack

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Couchman, James

    Baldry, Tony

    Cran, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Bates, Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Day, Stephen

    Bendall, Vivian

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Devlin, Tim

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Dicks, Terry

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Dorrell. Stephen

    Booth, Hartley

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Boswell, Tim

    Dover, Den

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Duncan, Alan

    Bottomley. Rt Hon Virginia

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bowden, Andrew

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bowis, John

    Eggar, Tim

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Elletson, Harold

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Bright, Graham

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Evennett, David

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Faber, David

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fabricant, Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Burt, Alistair

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Butcher, John

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Butler, Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Carlisle. John (Luton North)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Forth, Eric

    Carrington, Matthew

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Carttiss. Michael

    Fox. Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    141

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Madel, David

    French, Douglas

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Fry, Peter

    Malone, Gerald

    Gale, Roger

    Mans, Keith

    Gallie, Phil

    Marland, Paul

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Marlow, Tony

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Garnier, Edward

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Gill, Christopher

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Mates, Michael

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Merchant, Piers

    Gorst, John

    Mills, Iain

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hague, William

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Norris, Steve

    Harris, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hawkins, Nick

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hawksley, Warren

    Page, Richard

    Hayes, Jerry

    Paice, James

    Heald, Oliver

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hendry, Charles

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Pawsey, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Horam, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

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

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Richards, Rod

    Hunter, Andrew

    Riddick, Graham

    Jack, Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jessel, Toby

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Key, Robert

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Sackville, Tom

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shersby, Michael

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

    Sims, Roger

    Knox, Sir David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Legg, Barry

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Leigh, Edward

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Spring, Richard

    Lidington, David

    Sproat, Iain

    Lightbown, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lord, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Luff, Peter

    Stephen, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stern, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Allan

    MacKay, Andrew

    Streeter, Gary

    Maclean, David

    Sumberg, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Sweeney, Walter

    142

    Sykes, John

    Waller, Gary

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Ward, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Watts, John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wells, Bowen

    Thomason, Roy

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Whitney, Ray

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Whittingdale, John

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Wilkinson, John

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

    Willetts, David

    Tracey, Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Tredinnick, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Trend, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Trotter, Neville

    Yeo, Tim

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Viggers, Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

    Walden, George

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Dafis, Cynog

    Ainger, Nick

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Darling, Alistair

    Allen, Graham

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Alton, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Armstrong, Hilary

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

    Ashton, Joe

    Dixon, Don

    Austin-Walker, John

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dowd, Jim

    Barnes, Harry

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Barron, Kevin

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Battle, John

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Bayley, Hugh

    Eastham, Ken

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Enright, Derek

    Beggs, Roy

    Etherington, Bill

    Bell, Stuart

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fatchett, Derek

    Benton, Joe

    Fisher, Mark

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Flynn, Paul

    Betts, Clive

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Blunkett, David

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Boateng, Paul

    Fraser, John

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Fyfe, Maria

    Bradley, Keith

    Galloway, George

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Garrett, John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    George, Bruce

    Burden, Richard

    Gerrard, Neil

    Byers, Stephen

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Caborn, Richard

    Godsiff, Roger

    Callaghan, Jim

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Gould, Bryan

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Graham, Thomas

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Cann, Jamie

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Gunnell, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Hain, Peter

    Clelland, David

    Hall, Mike

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hanson, David

    Coffey, Ann

    Hardy, Peter

    Cohen, Harry

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Connarty, Michael

    Heppell, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoey, Kate

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Home Robertson, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cox, Tom

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cryer, Bob

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cummings, John

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hoyle, Doug

    143

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Patchett, Terry

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hutton, John

    Pope, Greg

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jamieson, David

    Prescott, John

    Janner, Greville

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Radice, Giles

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jowell, Tessa

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Redmond, Martin

    Keen, Alan

    Reid, Dr John

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Rendel, David

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Rogers, Allan

    Leighton, Ron

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rooney, Terry

    Lewis, Terry

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Litherland, Robert

    Rowlands, Ted

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Sheerman, Barry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Simpson, Alan

    McAllion, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McCartney, Ian

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

    Macdonald, Calum

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

    McFall, John

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McKelvey, William

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Spellar, John

    McLeish, Henry

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    McMaster, Gordon

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stevenson, George

    McWilliam, John

    Stott, Roger

    Madden, Max

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Mahon, Alice

    Straw, Jack

    Mandelson, Peter

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Marek, Dr John

    Tipping, Paddy

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Turner, Dennis

    Martlew, Eric

    Tyler, Paul

    Meacher, Michael

    Vaz, Keith

    Meale, Alan

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Walley, Joan

    Milburn, Alan

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Miller, Andrew

    Wareing, Robert N

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Watson, Mike

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Morley, Elliot

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Wilson, Brian

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Winnick, David

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Worthington, Tony

    Mudie, George

    Wray, Jimmy

    Mullin, Chris

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Murphy, Paul

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Eric Illsley.

    O'Hara, Edward

    Olner, William

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 199, after clause 156, insert the following clause—Relationship of local education authority and grant-maintained special school—
    (".—(1) The funding authority shall consult any local education authority which has in the previous three years named in a statement a school which is or has become a grant-maintained special school.
    (2) A grant-maintained special school shall assist the authority in any inspection and review carried out under section (Duty to direct governing body to make special educational provision) below.
    144
    (3) The funding authority and governing body of a grant-maintained special school shall consult any local education authority to which subsection (1) above applies on the range and type of provision at the school and of any proposals for a change of character.")
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 238.

    Division No. 347]

    [11.17pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Day, Stephen

    Alexander, Richard

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Devlin, Tim

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Amess, David

    Dicks, Terry

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Dover, Den

    Ashby, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Eggar, Tim

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Elletson, Harold

    Baldry, Tony

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bates, Michael

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Evennett, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Faber, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fabricant, Michael

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Booth, Hartley

    Forman, Nigel

    Boswell, Tim

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Forth, Eric

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bowden, Andrew

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bowis, John

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    French, Douglas

    Brazier, Julian

    Fry, Peter

    Bright, Graham

    Gale, Roger

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gallie, Phil

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Garnier, Edward

    Budgen. Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    Burns, Simon

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Burt, Alistair

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Butcher, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Butler, Peter

    Gorst, John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Cash, William

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Gummer. Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Chapman. Sydney

    Hague, William

    Churchill, Mr

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Clappison. James

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Colvin, Michael

    Hannam, Sir John

    Congdon, David

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Harris, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hawksley, Warren

    Couchman, James

    Hayes, Jerry

    Cran, James

    Heald, Oliver

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

    Hendry, Charles

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hicks, Robert

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Higgins. Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    145

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Pickles, Eric

    Horam, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Richards, Rod

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hunter, Andrew

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jack, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jessel, Toby

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Sackville, Tom

    Key, Robert

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shersby, Michael

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Sims, Roger

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Knox, Sir David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Legg, Barry

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Leigh, Edward

    Spring, Richard

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Sproat, Iain

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lidington, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lightbown, David

    Steen, Anthony

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Stephen, Michael

    Lord, Michael

    Stern, Michael

    Luff, Peter

    Stewart, Allan

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Streeter, Gary

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Sumberg, David

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sweeney, Walter

    Maclean, David

    Sykes, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Madel, David

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Malone, Gerald

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mans, Keith

    Thomason, Roy

    Marland, Paul

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Marlow, Tony

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mates. Michael

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

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Tracey, Richard

    Merchant, Piers

    Tredinnick, David

    Mills, Iain

    Trend, Michael

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Trotter, Neville

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Viggers, Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Nelson, Anthony

    Walden, George

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Ward, John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Watts, John

    Norris, Steve

    Wells, Bowen

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Whitney, Ray

    Ottaway, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Page, Richard

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Paice, James

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Patnick, Irvine

    Wilkinson, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Willetts, David

    Pawsey, James

    Wilshire, David

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    146

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wood, Timothy

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Yeo, Tim

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Derek Conway.

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Fisher, Mark

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Flynn, Paul

    Ainger, Nick

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Allen, Graham

    Fraser, John

    Alton, David

    Fyfe, Maria

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Galloway, George

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Garrett, John

    Ashton, Joe

    George, Bruce

    Austin-Walker, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Barnes, Harry

    Godsiff, Roger

    Barron, Kevin

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Battle, John

    Gordon, Mildred

    Bayley, Hugh

    Gould, Bryan

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Graham, Thomas

    Beggs, Roy

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Bell, Stuart

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Benton, Joe

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Gunnell, John

    Betts, Clive

    Hain, Peter

    Blunkett, David

    Hall, Mike

    Boateng, Paul

    Hanson, David

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Hardy, Peter

    Bradley, Keith

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Heppell, John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Burden, Richard

    Hinchliffe, David

    Byers, Stephen

    Hoey, Kate

    Caborn, Richard

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Home Robertson, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cann, Jamie

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Clelland, David

    Hutton, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Illsley, Eric

    Coffey, Ann

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jamieson, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Janner, Greville

    Cook. Robin (Livingston)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cox, Tom

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cryer, Bob

    Keen, Alan

    Cummings, John

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Leighton, Ron

    Darling, Alistair

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Lewis, Terry

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Litherland, Robert

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Livingstone, Ken

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

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dixon, Don

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Dowd, Jim

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McAllion, John

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    McCartney, Ian

    Eastham, Ken

    Macdonald, Calum

    Enright, Derek

    McFall, John

    Etherington, Bill

    McKelvey, William

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Fatchett, Derek

    McLeish, Henry

    147

    McMaster, Gordon

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    McNamara, Kevin

    Rogers, Allan

    McWilliam, John

    Rooker, Jeff

    Madden, Max

    Rooney, Terry

    Mahon, Alice

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Rowlands, Ted

    Marek, Dr John

    Ruddock, Joan

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Martlew, Eric

    Sheerman, Barry

    Meacher, Michael

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Meale, Alan

    Simpson, Alan

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Milburn, Alan

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Miller, Andrew

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

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morley, Elliot

    Spearing, Nigel

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Stevenson, George

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Stott, Roger

    Mudie, George

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Mullin, Chris

    Straw, Jack

    Murphy, Paul

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Turner, Dennis

    O'Hara, Edward

    Tyler, Paul

    Olner, William

    Vaz, Keith

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Patchett, Terry

    Walley, Joan

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wareing, Robert N

    Pope, Greg

    Watson, Mike

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Prescott, John

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Wilson, Brian

    Purchase, Ken

    Winnick, David

    Quin. Ms Joyce

    Worthington, Tony

    Radice, Giles

    Wray, Jimmy

    Randall, Stuart

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Raynsford, Nick

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Redmond, Martin

    Reid, Dr John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rendel, David

    Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lord amendment: No. 209, after clause 162, insert the following clause—Duty to direct Governing Body to make special educational provision—
    (". (1) Where it has come to the attention of the local education authority that the governing body of a county, voluntary or grant-maintained school is not fulfilling its duties under section 153 of this Act in respect of a pupil for whom a statement of special educational needs is maintained under section 159 of this Act then the local education authority shall direct that the governing body make the special educational provision specified in the statement.
    (2) In order to carry out its duty under this section, the local education authority shall have the power to inspect the special educational provision and require the governing body to supply such reports as the local education authority may require.
    (3) After a period of two months after the making of a direction under subsection (1) above, the local education authority shall review the special educational provision made for the pupil for whom the direction was made and, where it appears that the provision has not been made, the local education authority shall review the educational needs of the pupil under section 162 of this Act.
    (4) Where, as a consequence of a review under subsection (3) above, a new statement of special educational needs is made under section 159 that names a different school, the Governing Body shall pay to the local education authority the cost of educating that pupil for the remainder of the financial year. the cost of reassessment and such compensation to the parents of the pupil as the local education authority deems reasonable.")
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Forth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 243.

    Division No. 348]

    [11.29 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (Easf Surrey)

    Dicks, Terry

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Alexander, Richard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dover, Den

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Duncan, Alan

    Amess, David

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Arbuthnot, James

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Eggar, Tim

    Ashby, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Aspinwall. Jack

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Baldry, Tony

    Evennett, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Faber, David

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bates, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Batiste, Spencer

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bendall, Vivian

    Forman, Nigel

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Forth, Eric

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Booth, Hartley

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Boswell, Tim

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    French, Douglas

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Fry, Peter

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gale, Roger

    Bowis, John

    Gallie, Phil

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Brazier, Julian

    Garnier, Edward

    Bright, Graham

    Gill, Christopher

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gorman. Mrs Teresa

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gorst, John

    Burns, Simon

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Burt, Alistair

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butcher, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butler, Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hague, William

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Cash, William

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Churchill. Mr

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clappison, James

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Harris, David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Colvin, Michael

    Hawkins. Nick

    Congdon, David

    Hawksley, Warren

    Conway, Derek

    Hayes, Jerry

    Coombs. Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Heald, Oliver

    Coombs. Simon (Swindon)

    Hendry, Charles

    Cope. Rt Hon Sir John

    Hicks, Robert

    Cormack, Patrick

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Couchman, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Cran, James

    Horam, John

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

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

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

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Day, Stephen

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Hunter, Andrew

    149

    Jack, Michael

    Richards, Rod

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jessel, Toby

    Robathan, Andrew

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Key, Robert

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Sackville, Tom

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shersby, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Sims, Roger

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

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Knox, Sir David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Legg, Barry

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Leigh, Edward

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Spring, Richard

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sproat, Iain

    Lidington, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lightbown, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Steen, Anthony

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Stephen, Michael

    Lord, Michael

    Stern, Michael

    Luff, Peter

    Stewart, Allan

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Streeter, Gary

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Sumberg, David

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sweeney, Walter

    Maclean, David

    Sykes, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Madel, David

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Malone, Gerald

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mans, Keith

    Thomason, Roy

    Marland, Paul

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Marlow, Tony

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mates, Michael

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

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Tracey, Richard

    Merchant, Piers

    Tredinnick, David

    Milligan, Stephen

    Trend, Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Trotter, Neville

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Viggers, Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Walden, George

    Moss, Malcolm

    Waller, Gary

    Nelson, Anthony

    Ward, John

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Waterson, Nigel

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Watts, John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wells, Bowen

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Norris, Steve

    Whitney, Ray

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Whittingdale, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Page, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Paice, James

    Willetts, David

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wilshire, David

    Pawsey, James

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wolfson, Mark

    Pickles, Eric

    Wood, Timothy

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Yeo, Tim

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rathbone, Tim

    Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Michael Brown.

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    150

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Fraser, John

    Ainger, Nick

    Fyfe, Maria

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Galloway, George

    Allen, Graham

    Garrett, John

    Alton, David

    George, Bruce

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Ashton, Joe

    Godsiff, Roger

    Austin-Walker, John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Barnes, Harry

    Gould, Bryan

    Barron, Kevin

    Graham, Thomas

    Battle, John

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Beggs, Roy

    Grocott, Bruce

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Gunnell, John

    Bell, Stuart

    Hain, Peter

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Hall, Mike

    Benton, Joe

    Hanson, David

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Hardy, Peter

    Betts, Clive

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Blunkett, David

    Heppell, John

    Boateng, Paul

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Hinchliffe, David

    Bradley, Keith

    Hoey, Kate

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Home Robertson, John

    Burden, Richard

    Hood, Jimmy

    Byers, Stephen

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Caborn, Richard

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hutton, John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Clapham, Michael

    Jamieson, David

    Clelland, David

    Janner, Greville

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Coffey, Ann

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Corbett, Robin

    Keen, Alan

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Cousins, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Cox, Tom

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Cryer, Bob

    Leighton, Ron

    Cummings, John

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Lewis, Terry

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Litherland, Robert

    Dalyell, Tam

    Livingstone, Ken

    Darling, Alistair

    Lloyd, Tony (Strettord)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

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

    McAllion, John

    Dewar, Donald

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dixon, Don

    McCartney, Ian

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dowd, Jim

    McFall, John

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McKelvey, William

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    McLeish, Henry

    Eastham, Ken

    McMaster, Gordon

    Enright, Derek

    McNamara, Kevin

    Etherington, Bill

    McWilliam, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Madden, Max

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mahon, Alice

    Fisher, Mark

    Mandelson, Peter

    Flynn, Paul

    Marek, Dr John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    151

    Martlew, Eric

    Pope, Greg

    Meacher, Michael

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Meale, Alan

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Michie. Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Prescott, John

    Milburn, Alan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Miller, Andrew

    Purchase, Ken

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Radice, Giles

    Morley, Elliot

    Randall, Stuart

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Redmond, Martin

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Reid, Dr John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Rendel, David

    Mudie, George

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Mullin, Chris

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Murphy, Paul

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Rogers, Allan

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Rooker, Jeff

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Rooney, Terry

    O'Hara, Edward

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Olner. William

    Rowlands, Ted

    Orme. Rt Hon Stanley

    Ruddock, Joan

    Patchett. Terry

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Sheerman, Barry

    Pike. Peter L.

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    152

    Short, Clare

    Vaz, Keith

    Simpson, Alan

    Walker. Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Skinner, Dennis

    Walley, Joan

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

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

    Wareing, Robert N

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

    Watson, Mike

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Snape, Peter

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Spellar, John

    Wilson, Brian

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Winnick, David

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Worthington, Tony

    Stevenson, George

    Wray, Jimmy

    Stott, Roger

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Straw, Jack

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jack Thompson.

    Turner, Dennis

    Tyler, Paul

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some Special Entry.
    Lords amendment: No. 334, after clause 227, insert new clause—Temporary procedure for making certain orders—
    (".—(1) Where this section applies in relation to any proposals by the Secretary of State to make an order under section 3(4) or 4(2)(a) or (b) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (orders relating to foundation subjects, key stages and attainment targets), or regulations under section 17 of that Act (exceptions from National Curriculum)—

    (a) the Secretary of State shall make such arrangements for consultation about the proposals as he considers appropriate, and

    (b) sections 20 and 21 of that Act (procedure for representations in relation to England and Wales) shall not apply.

    (2) Where, at any time after the commencement of this section and before 1st September 1996, the Secretary of State proposes to make such an order or such regulations, this section applies in relation to the proposals unless, at any time before the commencement of this section—

    (a) they were referred under section 20(2) of that Act, or

    (b) notice of them was given under section 21(2) of that Act.

    (3) Where the Secretary of State proposes, at any time on or after 1st September 1996, to make such an order or such regulations, this section applies in relation to the proposals if arrangements under this section for consultation about the proposals were made before that date.")
    11.45 pm
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 12, leave out
    'after the commencement of this section and before 1st September 1996'
    and insert
    'during the temporary procedure period'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss amendments (a) to (d) to the Lords amendment and the consequential amendment, Lords amendment No. 335, Lords amendment No. 336 and amendment (a), Lords amendments Nos. 337 to 341, No. 384, 479 to 486, 488, 504, 528, 529, 534, 535, 549 and 580.
    Mr. Griffiths: We shall obviously have to be brief to give the Government a chance to respond to the debate on the amendment. The amendment is important because in the Bill the Government propose to reduce the period of three years during which statutory consultation is required on changes in the national curriculum. They argue for that reduction on the grounds that the Dearing review, which is non-statutory consultation, will produce a consensus which will make it unnecessary to go through the two-stage process of consultation under sections 20 and 21 of the 1988 Act.
    We believe that, however well Sir Ron Dearing carries out the review, there can be no guarantee that his proposals will represent a consensus of the views delivered to him, nor can we guarantee that the Government will accept all that comes out of his review. Therefore, we feel that it is not wise to allow a three-year period in which the level of consultation will be reduced. We support the Lords in their proposal that the fixed period for reduced consultation should be covered by a one-year term to August 1994. That one-year term will be renewable for two further one-year terms by affirmative order. The reduced consultation should be covered by parliamentary scrutiny.
    We are also worried because sections 20 and 21 of the 1988 Act mainly cover subject orders. The Dearing review deals with not only subjects in the national curriculum but matters of assessment. Those matters are too important to be left to a reduced consultation period. We accept that
    154
    there would be advantages for children and teachers in securing rapid implementation of fairly simple, consensual changes, but it is not right to let that happen in a way that would not be subject to any parliamentary review for a full three years.
    Through the Lords amendments, we want to ensure that we have an annual review by affirmative order. We hope that the Government accept that that is not too onerous a burden and that they will be prepared to accept Lords amendment No. 334.
    Mr. Robin Squire: It is a bit rich, after what we have experienced in the past two hours-plus, to be advised by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that we need significant time to discuss this group of amendments. An independent observer of our proceedings would conclude that Opposition Members have no arguments on the Bill and are reduced to using their feet instead of their mouths. None the less—before you call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the intention behind Lords amendment No. 334, which was tabled in another place following my right hon. Friend's statement to the House of 11 May, is to be able to respond quickly and positively to the recommendation of Sir Ron Dearing's review on the broad principles of the national curriculum and assessment to remedy the current unmanageable situation.
    I share the concern of the hon. Member for Bridgend to secure adequate consultation on the new curriculum orders. He also spoke about the importance of putting into effect the proposals that may arise from the review. Their Lordships propose to lift the current requirements for just long enough to complete reviews of individual orders in the light of the full and wide-ranging consultation on broad principles.
    Opposition Members wish to ensure that this temporary measure is even shorter than we propose—one year—unless Parliament grants extensions of one year by affirmative resolution. I do not believe that their aims will be compromised by the Lords amendment. I do riot propose to lift the requirements for longer than is strictly necessary, and the Government have already given assurances in another place about the nature of such consultation.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Squire: I should like to continue speaking, as I have waited for some time for this opportunity.
    We must, however, be prepared to respond properly and, depending on the scale of Sir Ron's recommendations, that may take more than the year allowed by the Opposition's amendments, particularly as Sir Ron's report will not be completed until the end of this year.
    It would be a mistake if a widely recognised need for change, reflected in the work of Sir Ron's review, could not be put in place as quickly as is reasonably possible. At the same time, we must allow for a planned series of changes rather than a "big hang" approach, if that is what schools feel would work best. That might mean issuing proposals for changes to be introduced by, at the latest, the beginning of September 1996, the date set in the amendment. The extension of the proposed consultation arrangements until 1996 will, therefore, allow us to present a coherent package to schools in the light of Sir Ron's review.
    I should also give the same assurances to the House that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State was concerned to give in another place about the nature of consultation. Once the current consultation arrangements are suspended, I assure hon. Members that, wherever possible, although there will he no statutory requirement to do so, we intend to follow the procedures set out in sections 20 and 21 of the Education Reform Act 1988 and to hold both rounds of consultation. Where we need to proceed more quickly, and use the flexibility introduced by the clause to hold only one round of consultations, we would intend to consult at least as widely as is required in the Education Reform Act—
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: And Parliament'?
    Mr. Squire: I shall come to Parliament in a moment.
    We would expect to consult more widely, allowing adequate time for consultation appropriate to the organisations that we consult on any particular proposal.
    Furthermore, although I respect the desire of Opposition Members to secure parliamentary scrutiny of any extensions to the suspension beyond 1994, their concerns are misplaced. Any revised orders will still require parliamentary approval before being introduced; we will simply he able to bring them before Parliament earlier than before.
    Lords amendment No. 336 concerns consultation. Nobody would wish to suggest that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority should not consult, and those of us who are following Sir Ron Dearing's review will have noted his personal commitment to widespread consultation. But it is for the authority itself to decide how best to consult, and with whom. There is no need to lay down statutory requirements in this regard.
    Of the other amendments in the group, amendment No. 335 was tabled by the Government at Third Reading in another place in response to concerns expressed on Report there that the criteria for the appointment of members to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority should he set out more explicitly.
    Other amendments concerned with the new authority and with the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales—Nos. 337 to 341, 479 to 486, 487 to 488, 504, 528 to 529, 534, 535. 549 and 580—are technical amendments
    156
    tabled by the Government dealing with the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the National Curriculum Council and the Schools Examination and Assessment Council, the charitable status and payments to members of the new authorities in England and Wales and the financial year of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 84, Noes 259.

    Division No. 349]

    [11.53 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Illsley, Eric

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Ingram, Adam

    Alton, David

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Barnes, Harry

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Battle, John

    Lewis, Terry

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Loyden, Eddie

    Beggs, Roy

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Betts, Clive

    McFall, John

    Boyce, Jimmy

    McMaster, Gordon

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

    Marek, Dr John

    Burden, Richard

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Caborn, Richard

    Miller, Andrew

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Morley, Elliot

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Mudie, George

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    O'Hara, Edward

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Olner, William

    Coffey, Ann

    O'Neill, Martin

    Connarty, Michael

    Patchett, Terry

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Pickthall, Colin

    Cox, Tom

    Pike, Peter L.

    Cryer, Bob

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Raynsford, Nick

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

    Reid, Dr John

    Dewar, Donald

    Rendel, David

    Dixon, Don

    Rooker, Jeff

    Dowd, Jim

    Rooney, Terry

    Enright, Derek

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Short, Clare

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Simpson, Alan

    Fraser, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Hall, Mike

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Hanson, David

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Henderson, Doug

    Turner, Dennis

    Heppell, John

    Watson, Mike

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

    Hutton, John

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bendall, Vivian

    Alexander, Richard

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Amess, David

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Arbuthnot, James

    Booth, Hartley

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Boswell, Tim

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Ashby, David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bowden, Andrew

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bowis, John

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Brazier, Julian

    Baldry, Tony

    Bright, Graham

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Bates. Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Batiste. Spencer

    Butcher, John

    157

    Butler, Peter

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

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

    Carrington, Matthew

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cash, William

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Jack, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Colvin, Michael

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Congdon, David

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Conway, Derek

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Key, Robert

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Cormack, Patrick

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Couchman, James

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Cran, James

    Knapman, Roger

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

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

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

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Day, Stephen

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Devlin, Tim

    Legg, Barry

    Dickens. Geoffrey

    Leigh, Edward

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Dover, Den

    Lidington, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Lightbown, David

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lord, Michael

    Eggar, Tim

    Luff, Peter

    Elletson, Harold

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Malone, Gerald

    Faber, David

    Mans, Keith

    Fabricant, Michael

    Marland, Paul

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Merchant, Piers

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Milligan, Stephen

    Forman, Nigel

    Mills, Iain

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Forth, Eric

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Moss, Malcolm

    French, Douglas

    Nelson, Anthony

    Gale, Roger

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Gallie, Phil

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Gamier, Edward

    Norris, Steve

    Gill, Christopher

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Ottaway, Richard

    Gorst, John

    Paice, James

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hague, William

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Richards, Rod

    Hannam, Sir John

    Riddick, Graham

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Harris, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hawkins, Nick

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Hawksley, Warren

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Heald, Oliver

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Hendry, Charles

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Horam, John

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    158

    Sackville, Tom

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thurnham, Peter

    Shaw, David (Dover)

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

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Tredinnick, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Trend, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Trotter, Neville

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Viggers, Peter

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Walden, George

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Ward, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spring, Richard

    Watts, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Wells, Bowen

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Whitney, Ray

    Steen, Anthony

    Whittingdale, John

    Stephen, Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stern, Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart, Allan

    Willetts, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Wilshire, David

    Sweeney, Walter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sykes, John

    Wood, Timothy

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Michael Brown.

    Thomason, Roy

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to order yesterday, then put the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Question agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 334 accordingly agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with special entry.]

  Clause 247

    SPONSOR GOVERNORS FOR AIDED SECONDARY SCHOOLS
    Lords amendment proposed: No. 354, in page 148, line 6, at end insert—
    ("(8) In this section "direction'. means a direction contained in an order made by the Secretary of State"")
    Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 3, after 'State' add
    'hut section 63(1) of this Act shall not apply to the power of the Secretary of State to make orders under this section.' —[Mr. Forth.]
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 88.

    Division No. 350|

    12.6 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Alexander, Richard

    Bates, Michael

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Amess, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Arbuthnot, James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Ashby, David

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Booth, Hartley

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Baldry, Tony

    Bowis, John

    159

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Hendry. Charles

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Brazier, Julian

    Horam, John

    Bright, Graham

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

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

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Burns, Simon

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Butler, Peter

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Carlisle. John (Luton North)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hunter, Andrew

    Carttiss. Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Cash, William

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Clappison, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Colvin, Michael

    Key, Robert

    Congdon, David

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Conway, Derek

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Knapman, Roger

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Couchman, James

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Cran, James

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

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

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Legg, Barry

    Day, Stephen

    Leigh, Edward

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Devlin, Tim

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lidington, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lightbown, David

    Dover, Den

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Duncan, Alan

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lord, Michael

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Luff, Peter

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Eggar, Tim

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Elletson, Harold

    MacKay, Andrew

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Maclean, David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Malone, Gerald

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Mans, Keith

    Faber, David

    Marland, Paul

    Fabricant, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Merchant, Piers

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Milligan, Stephen

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Mills, Iain

    Forman, Nigel

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Forth, Eric

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Nelson, Anthony

    French, Douglas

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Gale, Roger

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Galhe, Phil

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Ganier, Edward

    Norris, Steve

    Gill, Christopher

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Ottaway, Richard

    Gorst, John

    Paice, James

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Pawsey. James

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Pickles, Eric

    Hague, William

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hannam, Sir John

    Richards, Rod

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Riddick, Graham

    Harris, David

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Hawkins, Nick

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hawksley. Warren

    Roberts. Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    160

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Thomason, Roy

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

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

    Sackville, Tom

    Tredinnick, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Trend, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Trotter, Neville

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sims, Roger

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Viggers, Peter

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Walden, George

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Waller, Gary

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Ward, John

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Watts, John

    Spring, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Sproat, Iain

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Squire. Robin (Hornchurch)

    Whitney, Ray

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Whittingdale, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stephen, Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Stern, Michael

    Willetts, David

    Stewart, Allan

    Wilshire, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wood, Timothy

    Sykes, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Hutton, John

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    lllsley, Eric

    Alton, David

    Ingram, Adam

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Barnes, Harry

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Battle, John

    Lewis, Terry

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Beggs, Roy

    Loyden, Eddie

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Betts, Clive

    McCartney, Ian

    Boyce, Jimmy

    McFall, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Mackinlay, Andrew

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

    McMaster, Gordon

    Burden, Richard

    Mahon, Alice

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Marek, Dr John

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Miller, Andrew

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Morley, Elliot

    Clapham, Michael

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Clelland, David

    Mudie, George

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    O'Hara, Edward

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Olner, William

    Cox, Tom

    O'Neill. Martin

    Cryer, Bob

    Patchett, Terry

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Pickthall, Colin

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

    Purchase, Ken

    Dixon, Don

    Raynsford, Nick

    Dowd, Jim

    Rendel, David

    Enright, Derek

    Rooker, Jeff

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Rooney. Terry

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Sedgemore. Brian

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Short, Clare

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Snape, Peter

    Hall, Mike

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hanson, David

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Henderson, Doug

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Stott, Roger

    Hughes. Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Hughes. Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Turner, Dennis

    Hughes. Simon (Southwark)

    Wareing. Robert N

    161

    Worthington, Tony

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wray, Jimmy

    Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. John Spellar.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended. —[Mr. Forth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 69.

    Division No. 351]

    [12.18 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dykes, Hugh

    Alexander, Richard

    Elletson, Harold

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatiield)

    Amess, David

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Ashby, David

    Faber, David

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fabricant, Michael

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Baldry, Tony

    Forth, Eric

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bates, Michael

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Batiste, Spencer

    French, Douglas

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gale, Roger

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gallie, Phil

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Garnier, Edward

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gill, Christopher

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Booth, Hartley

    Gorst, John

    Boswell, Tim

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Bowis, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Hague, William

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Brazier, Julian

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bright, Graham

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Burns, Simon

    Harris, David

    Butler, Peter

    Hawkins, Nick

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Carrington, Matthew

    Heald, Oliver

    Carttiss. Michael

    Hendry, Charles

    Cash, William

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Horam, John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clappison, James

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

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dlord)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Congdon, David

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Conway, Derek

    Hunter, Andrew

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Couchman, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Cran, James

    Jopiing, Rt Hon Michael

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

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Key, Robert

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Day, Stephen

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Devlin, Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Dover, Den

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

    Duncan, Alan

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    162

    Legg, Barry

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Leigh, Edward

    Shepherd. Colin (Hereford)

    Lidington, David

    Sims, Roger

    Lightbown, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lord, Michael

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Luff, Peter

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    MacKay, Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Maclean, David

    Sproat, Iain

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Malone, Gerald

    Steen, Anthony

    Mans, Keith

    Stephen, Michael

    Marland, Paul

    Stern, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stewart, Allan

    Merchant, Piers

    Streeter, Gary

    Milligan, Stephen

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mills, Iain

    Sykes, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thomason, Roy

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V,

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

    Norris, Steve

    Tredinnick, David

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Trend, Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Trotter, Neville

    Patnick, Irvine

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Pawsey, James

    Viggers, Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Waller, Gary

    Pickles, Eric

    Ward, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waterson. Nigel

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Watts, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wells, Bowen

    Richards, Rod

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Riddick, Graham

    Whittingdale, John

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Robathan. Andrew

    Wilkinson, John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Willetts, David

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Wilshire, David

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sackville, Tom

    Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Alton, David

    Hall, Mike

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Hanson, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Heppell, John

    Battle, John

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Beggs, Roy

    Ingram, Adam

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Betts, Clive

    Lewis, Terry

    Bradley, Keith

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    McFall, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Clapham, Michael

    Mahon, Alice

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Meale, Alan

    Cox, Tom

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Cryer, Bob

    Miller, Andrew

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

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

    Mudie, George

    Dixon, Don

    Olner, William

    Dowd, Jim

    O'Neill, Martin

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Patchett, Terry

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Pickthall, Colin

    163

    Pike, Peter L.

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Raynsford, Nick

    Stott, Roger

    Rendel, David

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Turner, Dennis

    Rooney, Terry

    Wareing, Robert N

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Short, Clare

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Gordon McMaster.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Spellar John

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 354, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 363, as amended, agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining amendments involving privilege:—
    The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 58.

    Division No. 352]

    [12.30 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Alexander, Richard

    Devlin, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amess, David

    Dover, Den

    Arbuthnot, James

    Duncan, Alan

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Ashby, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Baker. Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Baldry, Tony

    Faber, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bates, Michael

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forman, Nigel

    Bendall, Vivian

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Forth, Eric

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Booth, Hartley

    French, Douglas

    Boswell, Tim

    Gale, Roger

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gallie, Phil

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gamier, Edward

    Bowis, John

    Gill, Christopher

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brazier, Julian

    Gorst, John

    Bright, Graham

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Butler, Peter

    Hague, William

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Cash, William

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clappison, James

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Harris, David

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Colvin, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Congdon, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Conway, Derek

    Hendry, Charles

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Horam, John

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Couchman, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cran, James

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

    Hunter, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    164

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Key, Robert

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Sackville, Tom

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Knight. Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Sims, Roger

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Legg, Barry

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Leigh, Edward

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lidington, David

    Spring, Richard

    Lightbown, David

    Sproat, Iain

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lord, Michael

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Luff, Peter

    Stephen, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stern, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Allan

    Maclean, David

    Streeter, Gary

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Sweeney, Walter

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Sykes, John

    Malone, Gerald

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mans, Keith

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Marland, Paul

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Thomason, Roy

    Milligan, Stephen

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Tredinnick, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Trend, Michael

    Nelson, Anthony

    Trotter, Neville

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Viggers, Peter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Waller, Gary

    Norris, Steve

    Ward, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Patnick, Irvine

    Watts, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wells, Bowen

    Pawsey, James

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Whittingdale, John

    Pickles. Eric

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wilkinson, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Willetts, David

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Richards, Rod

    Wood, Timothy

    Riddick, Graham

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dixon, Don

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Dowd, Jim

    Alton, David

    Foster. Rt Hon Derek

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Barnes, Harry

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Battle, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Hall, Mike

    Beggs, Roy

    Hanson, David

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Betts, Clive

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Lewis, Terry

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Clapham, Michael

    Loyden, Eddie

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    McFall, John

    Cox, Tom

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Cryer, Bob

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dalyell, Tam

    Mahon, Alice

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

    Meale, Alan

    165

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Miller, Andrew

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mudie, George

    Spearing, Nigel

    Olner, William

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Turner, Dennis

    Pike, Peter L.

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Raynsford, Nick

    Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Eric Illsley.

    Rendel, David

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 350, 365, 377, 404, 407 410, 460, 503, 532, and 556 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
    Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining amendments:—
    The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 59.

    Division No. 353]

    [12.42 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Alexander, Richard

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Elletson, Harold

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Amess, David

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Faber, David

    Ashby, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Forth, Eric

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bates, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bendall, Vivian

    French, Douglas

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gale, Roger

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gallie, Phil

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Garnier, Edward

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    Booth, Hartley

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Boswell, Tim

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gorst, John

    Bowden, Andrew

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bowis, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Brazier, Julian

    Hague, William

    Bright, Graham

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Burns. Simon

    Hampson. Dr Keith

    Butler, Peter

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carrington, Matthew

    Harris, David

    Cash, William

    Hawkins, Nick

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hawksley, Warren

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heald, Oliver

    Clappison, James

    Hendry, Charles

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Horam, John

    Colvin, Michael

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Congdon, David

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Couchman, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Cran, James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Day, Stephen

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Devlin, Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knapman, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dover, Den

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Duncan, Alan

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

    166

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Legg, Barry

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Leigh, Edward

    Sims, Roger

    Lidington, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lightbown, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lord, Michael

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Luff, Peter

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spink, Dr Robert

    MacKay, Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Maclean, David

    Sproat, Iain

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Maitland. Lady Olga

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Malone, Gerald

    Stephen, Michael

    Mans, Keith

    Stern, Michael

    Marland, Paul

    Stewart, Allan

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Streeter, Gary

    Merchant, Piers

    Sweeney, Walter

    Milligan, Stephen

    Sykes, John

    Mills, Iain

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thomason, Roy

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Trend, Michael

    Norris, Steve

    Trotter, Neville

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Ottaway, Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Patnick, Irvine

    Viggers, Peter

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Waller, Gary

    Pawsey, James

    Ward, John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Pickles, Eric

    Waterson, Nigel

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Watts, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wells, Bowen

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Whittingdale, John

    Richards, Rod

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Riddick, Graham

    Wilkinson, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Willetts, David

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Wood, Timothy

    Robinson. Mark (Somerton)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Derek Conway.

    Sackville, Tom

    NOES

    Abbott. Ms Diane

    Hall, Mike

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Hanson, David

    Alton, David

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Barnes, Harry

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Battle, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Ingram, Adam

    Beggs, Roy

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Betts, Clive

    Lewis, Terry

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    McFall, John

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    McMaster, Gordon

    Clapham, Michael

    McWilliam, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Mahon, Alice

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Cox, Tom

    Miller, Andrew

    Cryer, Bob

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Mudie, George

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

    Olner, William

    Dixon, Don

    Pickthall, Colin

    Dowd, Jim

    Pike, Peter L.

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Rendel, David

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Rooker, Jeff

    167

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Alan Meale.

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Turner, Dennis

    Question accordingly agreed to.

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

    MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION (LEVY)
    That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1993. which was laid before this House on 7th June, he approved.—[Mr. MacKay.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    SET-ASIDE.
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6744/93 and 7033/93, relating to set-aside; notes the Commission's intention to produce further proposals, in particular for the implementation of non-rotational set-aside; and supports the Government's objective of securing rules which, whilst maintaining the effectiveness of set-aside, give United Kingdom farmers flexibility in managing their set-aside land and enable them to do so in ways which benefit the environment.—[Mr. MacKay.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

    BIOTECHNOLOGICAL INVENTIONS
    That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 4148/93, relating to the patenting of biotechnological inventions; and supports the Government's view that the draft Directive will need substantial amendment, including improved safeguards for animals, if it is to be acceptable.—[Mr. MacKay.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

    Ordered,
    That Sir Michael Marshall he added to the Select Committee on Procedure.—[Mr. MacKay.]

    Globe Theatre Project
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
    12.51 pm
    Mr. Robert Banks: I am most grateful for this opportunity to draw attention to an important international project of immense significance not only to London and Southwark but everyone who is interested in the works of the greatest English playwright, William Shakespeare. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is in his seat tonight. He has taken a keen interest in this project and, of course, has tabled many questions about it.
    The area on the southern bank of the Thames known as Bankside was once the liveliest and most entertaining place in the kingdom. Elizabethan Londoners thronged to this notoriously boisterous stretch of the Thames around the southern approach to London bridge, making for its bull and bear-baiting rings, cockfighting pits, hostelries and brothels. But the most popular attraction were Bankside's four theatres, the Rose, the Swan, the Hope and—the most successful of all—the Globe.
    The Globe was built in 1598 to a roughly circular design of 20 bays around the stage. A thatched roof lay over the bays around the perimeter of the theatre and the central area, where it cost a penny to stand and watch a play, was open to the sky. The bays stood three floors high and were made of oak frames coated in lime plaster. Londoners of all callings and occupations frequented Bankside's great theatres. After all, this was the cradle of perhaps the most exciting and important period of English drama.
    Although, in many people's minds, William Shakespeare is firmly associated with Stratford upon Avon, he chose to live and work at Bankside for the most creative years of his life. He chose the Globe as the venue for performances of his masterpieces, and it was there that "Hamlet", "King Lear", "Othello" and the Scottish play was first enacted.
    During a performance of Henry VIII in 1613, the Globe burned down, set ablaze by a spark from the stage cannon. It was rebuilt on its original foundations, but in 1642 the Puritans forced its closure, together with the other attractions at Bankside of which they disapproved so strongly. Two years later, the Globe was torn down to make way for new tenements in the area, and the character of Bankside quickly changed, becoming duller as the memory of its glorious, if sometimes notorious, attractions faded.
    Since then, the South Bank has seen many changes. In places, the area's theatrical tradition has been revived, with the restoration of the Old Vic and opening of the National Theatre, but not at Bankside, where the world's most famous playwright lived and his greatest plays were first performed. More than three centuries later, Shakespeare's work is cherished for incomparable insight, wit and drama, not only by English-speaking peoples but throughout the world.
    Nothing of significance marked Bankside's unique and colourful history until Mr. Sam Wanamaker, the American film actor and director, was inspired by his love and knowledge of Shakespearean theatre to end this sorry neglect. Visiting the 1934 international world fair at Chicago, Mr. Wanamaker was much impressed by

    169
    Britain's contribution of a mock Globe theatre. Since then, he has seen the success that mock Globes have had across the United States and in many other countries.
    As a dramatist and trained actor, he understands particularly well that the beauty and artistry in Shakespeare's language is most clearly expressed when his plays are performed in authentic fashion and in the relatively unadorned setting for which the great bard intended them. Driven by his passion for Shakespeare, Mr. Wanamaker came to London in 1949 searching for evidence of the original Globe. Astonished and indignant at finding only a blackened plaque on a brewery wall to mark the spot, Mr. Wanamaker was convinced that the Globe should be reconstructed at Bankside.
    In 1970, the Globe Playhouse Trust was formed. Soon after, a small museum and theatre were built at Bankside's Bear gardens. The museum exhibits many unusual items of theatrical interest, including several intricate models of the Globe and other open-air theatres of its time. Thousands of schoolchildren from across the country and abroad have visited the small theatre connected to the museum to take part in its wonderfully enjoyable drama workshops and productions.
    It was not until 1982, after a pioneering struggle to raise support for the Globe project, that a 125-year lease was signed with Southwark borough council for a riverside site opposite St. Paul's cathedral. The site had been a bear-baiting pit during the 16th century, and the foundations of the original Globe lie only 200 yd south of the Bear gardens beyond a block of offices. Those foundations and the foundations of the Rose theatre were unearthed in 1989. The original Globe is now largely covered by listed Georgian buildings, so it cannot be further excavated.
    After years of planning and fund raising, the project to build the most authentic Globe theatre in the world was ready to commence. I say the most authentic, not only because of its location but because of the extent to which authentic materials and craftsmanship would be used and the depth of historical research that went into the new Globe's design were unprecedented.
    When part of the original Globe's foundations were uncovered, the project's architects were able to improve significantly on the previous best guesses as to the construction and appearance of the Globe. The theatre is to be the focal point of the much more extensive Globe centre. The centre will incorporate a large museum and exhibition. with an audio-visual achive and library. These, together with the Globe education centre, will offer visitors a unique chance to learn about Shakespeare, his plays and his times.
    A grand piazza is to be surrounded by shops, flats and restaurants. The centre will also boast the !nig° Jones theatre, built to the great architect's elegant design. It will be used to stage plays by Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and for concerts, poetry readings, lectures and recitals. With these plans, the Globe centre is set to become a cultural, educational and recreational attraction of international importance.
    The project also offers significant commercial opportunities which private business will be keen to develop. However, before work could start, Mr. Wanamaker and the Globe trust had to contend with the destructive opposition of a newly installed extreme left Labour council at Southwark: 340 years alter the puritans had forced Bankside's theatres to close, the ideologues of Southwark
    170
    borough council claimed that the Globe project and even the study of Shakespeare were elitist. They tried to tear up the Bear gardens lease.
    Thankfully, after four frustrating years of battle, the site was won back for the Globe, when Southwark borough council realised that it could not hope to defend its actions succcessfully in a court of law. Prince Philip presided over the Globe's ground-breaking ceremony in 1987, and construction began in earnest in 1989. Since then, a great deal has been achieved.
    A major cost of the project was the construction of massive foundations 6 in deep to cope with a tidal river. Those foundations, and the shell of a vast subterranean Globe museum and exhibition, are now complete.
    May I offer my warmest appreciation to those members of the general public and companies and others whose generosity has enabled the project to progress so far? I pay a special tribute to Mrs. Elizabeth Tompkins, widow of the late Richard Tompkins, who donated £250,000 for the construction of the Globe's stage, which is to be named after her late husband. Many companies, including Reuter's and Glaxo, have provided sponsorship and materials at greatly reduced prices. Others have given their expert advice free of charge. Donations in cash and kind have come in from the Governments of New Zealand, Denmark, Canada, Japan and the state of Bremen in Germany, demonstrating the great international interest in the project.
    Unfortunately, no public body exists at present with responsibility for helping to fund theatre building. The Globe theatre project may be able to apply to the Millenium fund for financial assistance, but not for some years to come. Meanwhile, construction of the theatre remains dependent on donations and sponsorship. His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has donated oaks from Great Windsor park to build the Globe's bays and tiered seating. Timber was also given by the Forestry Commission from the New Forest and the forest of Dean. More English oak is desperately needed, and I hope that the Government will be able to inspire and encourage the Forestry Commission and other landowning public bodies to supply the oak still needed to complete the Globe.
    There is also a shortfall of steel. British Steel made a contribution, and Marais Steel of California donated 100 tonnes of reinforced steel. But 250 tonnes more are required to finish the project, and I hope that British Steel can be encouraged to step in with a further contribution.
    The Globe offers many opportunities to Southwark, London and the whole country. The centre is set to become one of London's foremost tourist attractions and, as such, will bring large numbers of new jobs to Southwark.
    The English tourist board estimates that, once completed, the Globe will be visited by more than 600,000 people each year—many, no doubt, from Yorkshire. With typical confidence, Sam Wanamaker predicts a figure closer to a million. What is certain is that shops, pubs and restaurants in Southwark will all benefit enormously from an influx of high-spending visitors.
    The Globe centre itself will become a significant long-term employer for the area, with staff needed in its shops, restaurants, theatres and at the education centre, museum and exhibition. As I said earlier, not only is the Globe centre a great cultural project: it also offers important opportunities to private business.
    At present, Bankside is dominated by office blocks and derelict warehouses and, as a result, the area is virtually

    171
    deserted after office hours and at weekends. The Globe centre brings new recreational and educational facilities, new trading and employment opportunities and is helping to revive some of the bustling vitality that Bankside enjoyed in the days of the original Globe.
    The Globe project has received all sorts of terrific support, but, alas, it has not escaped the economic difficulties of recent times. Authentic materials and building techniques are no less than this project deserves, but they are also very costly. For example, the bricks laid at the base of the theatre are the same shape and size as those of the original Globe, and have to be specially fired. Despite the brickmaker's generosity in halving the price he would charge. these special bricks still cost four times as much as standard bricks. Thatching and lime plastering, which can only be done during the summer months, are similarly expensive.
    Some £7·5 million has been raised and spent so far, to lay down the Globe's foundations. Another £2·5 million is needed to complete the Globe theatre's reconstruction. Now that the theatre itself is rising, the private sector will have a sound opportunity to participate in building the surrounding restaurants, shops and flats, to complete the project, designed by Theo Crosby of Pentagram Design.
    The bulk of the money needed to finish the centre will continue to come from donors, sponsors and the private sector. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State shares my high opinion of the Globe's merits, and that he will look very carefully into the ways in which the Government could make a significant contribution, in cash or materials, to help boost the Globe project through to completion.
    Then, despite fire, closure, destruction, and three centuries of neglect, the Globe will once again stand at Bankside, thanks to the inspiration, exceptional efforts and dogged determination of one man, Sam Wanamaker. Perhaps I hear Pericles in the wings:
    "Now do I long to hear who to thank
    Besides the gods, for this great miracle".
    1.4 am
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) realises that tonight's debate is particularly timely because this is the eve of the first South Thames festival. but we are in any case grateful to him for using this opportunity to draw attention to the case for completing the reconstruction of the Globe theatre, which is situated in one of the most historic parts of our capital city, which it is my great privilege to represent.
    The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say—I thank him for it—that I, like many other hon. Members, have throughout been highly supportive of the Globe project. and wish it a speedy completion. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those who have sought to achieve Sam Wanamaker's dream. Sam Wanamaker has been involved for longer than my lifetime, and there have been many others—most recently Sir David Orr, who was for many years the chairman and key promoter of the fund-raising project.
    Let me correct what may have been an unintended misrepresentation on the hon. Gentleman's part. Whatever the earlier history. it is certainly now the case that all three political parties on Southwark council—the
    172
    majority Labour group of 34 councillors, the Liberal Democrat opposition group of 22 councillors and the third-party Conservative group of six councillors—all support the project. The project is thus entirely endorsed by the representatives of the local community, including the local councillors who represent the cathedral ward of the borough; indeed, the borough has made the area a regeneration area, creating a particular partnership between the local authority, the private sector and the local community.
    I should add that there is a resident local community; we are not talking only about offices and open space. The rebuilt Globe site is also on the river, and the Countryside Commission has just completed a further stretch of the Thames path.
    Perhaps the case for the Globe is best made if the House and the country appreciate the importance of Bankside as a whole: it embodies Shakespeare's England in all its glory —best if it can be enjoyed in the future as it was in the past.
    May I say to the Minister and through him to his ministerial colleagues that his Department and others can help if they consider all that can be done for the area. So much could he done if the Government gave the area their full support. We could have the money to complete the Jubilee line extention and other public transport access, making the area much more accessible; we could have highly imaginative development of the Bankside power station site when that comes on the market next year; and we could have the continuing support of—and, it is to be hoped, the anticipated finance from —English Heritage, to ensure that the adjacent Rose theatre site, of which I am a director and trustee, is brought back to the public view.
    I hope that the Globe will rise again very soon, and I hope that the Government will be very supportive of all that will bring Bankside back to its previously resplendent place on the London riverside.
    1.7 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) on his good fortune in securing this evening's debate and on the erudite way in which he has presented the case for the replica of the Globe theatre that is at present being constructed in Southwark. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his assiduous support of this and related projects.
    I have heard much about this ambitious undertaking, and I look forward to meeting Mr. Wanamaker and his colleagues in September. I know that the proponents of the scheme—most notably Mr. Wanamaker—have been tireless in their efforts on its behalf. Successive Arts Ministers—including, as recently as February this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). now Minister for Roads and Traffic, have considered with the greatest care the not infrequent requests that have been made for a Government contribution towards meeting the costs of the project. On each occasion, the Government have warmly endorsed the efforts of Mr. Wanamaker and his distinguished colleagues, but have been unable to provide the financial support that they have been seeking.
    Having listened intently to what my hon. Friend has said this evening, I have to tell him that I have not yet been persuaded of the need for any change in that response. None the less. I very much welcome the opportunity to

    173
    explain to the House the Government's position on the Globe project, in wider context of our support for those who uphold and build upon our matchless Shakespearian heritage.
    Before doing so, I should like to congratulate Mr. Wanamaker on his appointment by Her Majesty the Queen as an honourary Commader of the British Empire. By a happy coincidence, the award was annouced earlier today. It was made in recognition of Mr. Wanamaker's remarkable contribution to relations between Britain and the United States of America, and all that he has done on behalf of the Globe.
    Mr. Wanamaker has achieved distinction as an actor, director and producer, in films, television and the theatre, both here and in the United States. He has made a significant contribution to the cultural life of both countries and, in so doing, has strengthened the links between them. His award is well deserved, and will give much pleasure to many people on boths sides of the Atlantic.
    I also greatly admire Mr. Wanamaker's commitment to the Globe project. He has long stalked the corridors of Whitehall seeking Government support for the scheme. He must therefore have viewed the advent of the Department of National Heritage with renewed hope. For the first time, policy responsible for the two areas that are most closely associated with the Globe project—the arts and tourism—have been combined within the remit of a single Department. The connection between the two is self-evident; it is, indeed, a primary aim of the Department to seek out ways of utilising and enhancing the links as a means of developing coherent policies that add value to both the arts and tourism. That is one of the new—and, to my mind, without doubt the most far-reaching—of the changes that have taken place.
    But there is also an important element of continuity. Day-to-day responsibility for programmes, for which the Department is accountable, remains the preserve of a wide range of specialist agencies. In practice, that means that all but a very small proportion of the Department's budget of £1 billion or so is distributed through those sponsored bodies.
    It is for that reason that the Department and its predecessor Departments have consistently held the view that any hid for support for the Globe project must be addressed to those bodies within the arts funding system, and by the tourist authorities, which have a direct interest. These bodies are clearly best placed to assess the priority that might be accorded to such an application, within the framework of their own policies and plans and the resources that have been made available to them.
    Wholly exceptionally, the Government have made funding directly available, within these areas, for projects that are indisputably of outstanding national significance, such as the new British library at St. Pancras. Another example is the special grant that was made to secure a permanent home for one of our great opera companies. I must tell my hon. Friend that I share the view of successive Ministers that the Globe project does not fall within that category. That conclusion is heightened by the overriding need to exert the firmest controls on public spending.
    As my hon. Friend will know, approaches on behalf of the Globe project have been made to a range of bodies funded by central Government. In February 1989, the English tourist board offered the Shakespeare Globe centre a grant of £200,000. The money was to have
    174
    contributed towards the cost of constructing and fitting out an exhibition centre, and the substructure of the Globe and Inigo Jones theatres.
    The grant was awarded on condition that those elements of the project were completed by June 1991; however, by January 1992 the work had yet to begin, and —as it was obliged to do—the English tourist board withdrew the offer. I know that that must have been extremely disappointing for the Globe. I fear that it will not be possible to return to that potential source of funding, because that English tourist board scheme has now come to an end.
    I know that Mr. Wanamaker and his colleagues have for some time been engaged in discussions with the Arts Council and the London Arts Board. Neither body is in the business of making capital grants, but both have welcomed the opportunity to know more of the Globe's plans for the productions that will be mounted there, and for the kind of educational work in which it will be engaged.
    I am advised that the Arts Council's drama department would certainly be prepared to consider any proposal related to the use of the Globe that Mr. Wanamaker might wish to put forward—subject, it must be said, to the usual grant application criteria, and to available funding. Similarly, the London Arts Board has had a number of meetings with representatives of the Globe. Clive Priestley, its chairman, met Sam Wanamaker about a year ago; and, more recently, officers of the Globe have met the London Arts Board's drama team.
    I understand that, at present, it is unlikely that the Globe could be offered revenue funding, but that project funding, through drama or education, would of course be considered. The Globe representatives have been encouraged to talk to the board's education team about Shakespeare in the national curriculum.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is there any truth behind the stories in the weekend press that the. Government are seeking to restore to themselves the right to pay grants to such organisations, as against leaving that funding to the existing responsible bodies?
    Mr. Sproat: I feel sure that, if anyone would know the answer to that question, it would be me, and I have heard no such rumours other than those that I read in the press.
    The national lottery might offer more hope to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate. It is at the forefront of the minds of many people with ambitions for capital projects like that of the Globe theatre. The most important thing about the national lottery is that it will not be a substitute for the £1 billion-worth of public expenditure of the Department. All the money that is made available from the proceeds of the lottery will be a bonus to the Department's existing public expenditure. New capital projects will be able to get off the ground where. previously, no money was available.
    The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will be keen to know, however, that the Department's role in deciding the beneficiaries of the national lottery will be akin to its role in the present funding structure. When it comes to individual funding decisions, it will maintain its arm's-length role.
    We have said, however, that there will be a presumption towards those capital projects where it is hoped that revenue cost support would be found from other sources,

    175
    particularly from the private or voluntary sectors. Projects with clear plans for revenue costs would be favourably placed to be considered for lottery funds.
    I am wholly at one with my hon. Friend, and indeed with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in acknowledging the absolutely central place of Shakespeare within the cultural heritage of this country; and, of course, there can be no doubt of the universal prominence and significance of our greatest playwright and poet. The Globe project is dedicated to the study, appreciation and excellence in the performance of Shakespeare's plays. I strongly endorse those aims; and I equally strongly endorse the idea that everything possible should be done to safeguard and enjoy our Shakespearean inheritance.
    The Government, through the Arts Council, play a major part—one might say the major part—in ensuring that performances of the plays continue to be available by companies large and small, in all parts of the country. The superb work of the Royal Shakespeare Company, and the Royal National Theatre, attracts large audiences in London, and, in the case of the RSC, also in Stratford. But it is worth noting that, with its grant from the Government, the Arts Council is able to support a number of tours of Shakespeare's plays, as well as productions at the great regional theatres.
    With the support of the drama and touring departments of the Arts Council, in the past 18 months in this country, 55 companies put on 74 productions of 25 of William Shakespeare's plays—proof indeed of the value of this marvellous inheritance. There are also highly praised productions in the commercial theatre of the west end. At this present moment, "Much Ado About Nothing" is playing at the Queen's theatre, and "Romeo and Juliet" is being performed at the Open Air theatre in Regent's park.
    176
    William Shakespeare's importance as our greatest writer is reinforced by his unique position in the national curriculum. With the introduction of that curriculum, study of the work of Shakespeare, for the first time in this country, became compulsory for all pupils as part of English studies at key stages 3 and 4—that is, pupils between the ages of 11 and 16. Shakespeare is the only author in the English language whose work is an essential part of the national curriculum—study of the work of any other author is discretionary.
    The Government have therefore led the way, directly and indirectly, in encouraging both the performance and the study of the works of Shakespeare. The reconstructed Globe would be a welcome addition to this already very lively and expanding scene.
    Mr. Robert Banks: I am delighted to hear of my hon. Friend's commitment to Shakespeare, but would he be kind enough to go to see the project for himself, because he is so near? I know that that would be a great joy to those who are working so hard on it.
    Mr. Sproat: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. If he wants to pursue that matter with me in more detail later on, I would be happy to meet him.
    On behalf of the Government, I commend again the outstanding and prodigious efforts of Sam Wanamaker and his fellow trustees. I wish them well in meeting the challenges that remain, and in completing the daunting tasks that they have set themselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I stand ready to continue to offer what help we can.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past One o'clock.

Health

  Clinical Medical Officers
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of consultant community paediatricians, clinical medical officers and senior clinical medical officers in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Community health service medical staff—England 30 September each year

  Consultant community paediatrician

  Senior clinical medical officer (all specialties)

  Clinical medical officer (all specialties)

  1987

  n/a

  1,133

  1,713

  1988

  n/a

  1,188

  1,669

  1989

  n/a

  1,181

  1,653

  1990

  n/a

  1,151

  1,620

  1991

  n/a

  1,158

  1,509

  Notes:

  1. n/a means not available.

  2. Most clinical medical officers work in paediatrics, and provide child health surveillance. The decline in their numbers reflects the growing number of general practitioners taking on this work. We estimate that over 60 per cent. of children under five are now receiving these services from their GP.

  Sugar-free Drugs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of drugs used by children are available in a sugar-free form.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  In respect of oral liquid medicines, records held by the United Kingdom Licensing Authority show that 1,797 products are currently licensed for human use but not all of these would be indicated for use in children. Within these 1,797 licensed products, 218 are sugar free.

  Neonatal Units
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts or directly managed units had neonatal units in 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991–92, 27 trusts and 172 directly managed units provided cots intended for neonatal intensive care.

  Source: SD2A; KHO3 return.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neonatal intensive care beds there are; what is the average time a baby spends in such cots; and how many babies used such cots in 1991–92.
  2
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the. Member to the reply I gave her on 21 June at columns 27–28. Information about the number of babies using these cots and their length of stay is not available centrally.

  Dentists
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much funding for national health service dentists has increased in real terms in the past three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The latest information is shown in the table:

  NHS Dental Services: Gross Expenditure1 England

  Year

  Gross expenditure (cash £ million)

  Gross expenditure (real terms £ million2)

  Percentage increase (real terms) Year on year2

  Percentage increase (real terms) 1988–89 to 1991–922

  1989–90

  1,118·4

  1,288·4

  3-5·4

  —

  1990–91

  1,229·6

  1,311·5

  1·8

  —

  1991–92

  1,521·0

  1,521·0

  16·0

  311·7

  Sources: Information for the general dental services (GDS) is from the relevant year's appropriation account. Information for the hospital dental service (HDS) and community dental service (CDS) are from the annual health authority accounts up to 1990–91 and from health authority annual financial returns for 1991–92.

  Notes:

  1 Total expenditure on national health service dental services combines gross expenditure on the GDS, HDS and CDS, respectively. Gross expenditure includes income from patient charges, net of refunds.

  2 Gross domestic product deflator used to calculate real terms at 1991–92 prices.

  3 Compared with real terms figure of £1,361·5 million for 1988–89.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what period of notice dental practitioners are required to give patients before they are removed from their national health service register; and in what form the notice is required to be.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Dentists are required by their terms of service to give a patient three months notice in writing of their intention to terminate a continuing care or capitation arrangement. Exceptionally, a dentist may make a written application to the family health service authority for permission to terminate an arrangement sooner.

  Insulin Treatment
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the insulin pen and the needles it uses are available on prescription.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Insulin pen injection systems and the needles they use are not available on prescription. Their inclusion in the general practitioner prescribable list must, like all new additions to the list, be subject to the availability of resources.

  Community Pharmacists
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to require community pharmacists to provide additional services without receiving additional payment;

  (2) to what extent she intends to fund the new professional allowance for community pharmacists from the new existing global sum.
  3
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The 1993–94 pay settlement will be as a first step towards specifically recognising the professional services many pharmacists provide. The detailed elements of the pharmacists' remuneration structure, of which the proposed professional allowance would be one, are all funded from within the global sum.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis her proposed threshold of 2,000 NHS prescriptions per month for payment of the professional allowance to community pharmacists was calculated.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is her policy that community pharmacies make a demonstrable contribution to the national health service only if they dispense more than 2,000 prescriptions per month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A threshold of 2,000 national health service prescriptions per month was one part of one element of the original pay offer for the transitional year of 1993–94 which was designed as an interim step towards a longer-term structure. We are reviewing the terms of that offer in the light of discussions with the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether her proposal of a 2000 NHS prescription per month threshold for payment of the new professional allowance to community pharmacists has been formally withdrawn;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the rate of progress of the negotiations with the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee on remuneration for community pharmacists; and what steps she is taking to put further proposals to the committee.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) why the proposed meeting between her officials and the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee on 13 July did not take place;

  (2) when she expects her Department to put a new set of proposals concerning the remuneration of community pharmacists to the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The rate of progress of the negotiations with the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee on pharmacists' remuneration for 1993–94 has been much slower than we would have wished. The pay offer made on 12 March remains on the table, but the Government are considering the points made in discussions with the committee since then and hope to be in a position to table a revised offer shortly. We were not ready to do so by 13 July and so that meeting provisionally rescheduled for that day was postponed.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the proposed increase of 1·5 per cent. for 1993–94 in the global sum for payment of community pharmacists is intended to cover the increased drug costs and other expenses incurred by community pharmacists on behalf of the NHS as well as provide for an increase in their reumuneration; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The proposed increase is intended to cover both the labour and overheads elements of pharmacists' remuneration. The reimbursement of the cost of the drugs they dispense is dealt with separately.
  4

  Managers' Salaries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 182, if she will provide comparable information on the average annual cost of employing (a) a district general manager group 1, (b) a district general manager group 2, (c) a district general manager group 3, (d) a unit general manager group 1, (e) a unit general manager group 2, (f) a unit general manager group 3 and (g) a unit general manager group 4.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  GP Partnership Staff
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner partnerships employ a psychologist and counsellor.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As at 1 October 1992, general practitioners in England employed 169 counsellors—whole-time equivalent. Details are not available centrally on the number of psychologists, as a separate category, who may be similarly employed.

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney Health District
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has received on the proposal to split the Great Yarmouth and Waveney health district; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will make it her policy to consider putting the Waveney part of the Great Yarmouth and Waveney health district into a new authority comprising Great Yarmouth and Norwich rather than the plans proposed by the East Anglian regional health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  East Anglian regional health authority has commenced public consultation on its proposals to merge parts of Great Yarmouth and Waveney health authority with neighbouring health authorities and we have received two representations on these proposals. They were from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney himself and from the chairman of the Great Yarmouth and Waveney General Practitioners Forum. When this period of formal consultation is completed it will be for East Anglian regional health authority to consider the response, including any alternatives that may have been put forward. The goal of purchasing health authorities is to improve health and health services, and to improve and extend standards of clinical care, and to prevent illness. To achieve this local health authorities need to work for and with local people. This is what we expect the East Anglian regional health authority to bear in mind before making recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Generic Drugs
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives her Department employs to encourage general practitioners to prescribe generic drugs; and how much has been spent in each of the last three years on such incentives.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have a range of initiatives to encourage general medical practitioners to prescribe more
  5
  effectively including, where appropriate, generic prescribing. These include, from 1991–92, incentive schemes which cost £100,000 in their first year of operation.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of drugs prescribed per annum are generic.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, 43 per cent. of drugs were prescribed generically.

  Child Migrant Scheme
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 533, what records are retained relating to the child migrant scheme.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department holds some 105 files relating to policy on the child migrant schemes, dating from 1910 to 1959. Fifty of these have been opened to the public under the normal provisions of the public records legislation. The remainder are closed. So far as we are currently aware, the Department does not hold case files on individuals who emigrated under the child migrant schemes, but we are making further inquiries about this.

  NHS Reforms
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 23 November,Official Report, columns 496–98, if she will update the table provided on the cost of implementing the NHS reforms.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The reforms are firmly in place, and much of the spending referred to is now absorbed in purchasers' baselines and providers' prices. It is for them to decide how they allocate these resources.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from hon. Members during(a) the first quarter of 1992 and (b) the first quarter of 1993 to delay the removal of passengers refused entry at British ports of entry and, for both periods, how many representations resulted in (i) the delay of the passenger's removal for up to a week, (ii) the delay of the passenger's removal for more than a week and (iii) reversal of the immigration officer's decision.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British citizenship under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 have been(a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused in each quarter since January 1992; and how many of those granted have been on the grounds of service in the armed forces.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  One application was received in June 1992, one in November 1992 and one in January 6
  1993. Of these, one has been granted, one has been refused and one has not yet been decided. The application which was granted was made on the grounds of service in the armed forces.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken by his Department to investigate cases referred from overseas posts in order to assess whether the maintenance and accommodation requirements of the immigration rules have been met.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available. Staff are instructed to give priority to cases referred by overseas posts for decision or for inquiries to be made.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the sums paid to the London borough of Tower Hamlets under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 in each year since 1990; and what is the estimated payment for the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The amount of section 11 grant provision payable direct to Tower Hamlets in respect of each financial year from 1990 is set out in the table:

  Financial year

  £

  1989–90

  297,795

  1990–91

  4,732,150

  1991–92

  6,486,671

  1992–93

  8,202,381

  The figures for the year 1989–90 relate to grant in service areas other than education. It is not possible to isolate precise figures for the grant payable to the inner London education authority during this period in respect of education provision within Tower Hamlets. The grant figure for 1990–91 includes education provision transferred from ILEA.

  The figure for the year 1993–94 is a prediction based on best estimates as supplied by Tower Hamlets. It is not possible to give details of figures for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96 at this stage.

  Genetic Engineering
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of Home Office inspectors have an expert knowledge in the genetic engineering of animals; and what account has been taken of the extent of unpredictability of this technology in deciding how to evaluate the likely suffering endured by animals during scientific procedures involving genetic engineering.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Three inspectors—14 per cent. of the inspectorate—have genetic engineering as a specialist area, but all inspectors are well briefed on the techniques used and the likely consequences of transgenic technology.

  Inspectors are aware of the potential for unpredictable problems associated with the manipulation of genetic material and all applications for such work are carefully

  7
  considered and monitored to ensure that the earliest appropriate end points are set and observed for any work authorised. The independent Animal Procedures Committee considered the issues raised by work in transgenics in detail during 1990 and considered the existing controls of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 adequate.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in stimulating private sector interest in crime prevention initiatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The cornerstone of the Government's approach to crime prevention is partnership and we will continue to encourage participation by the private sector. Current indications of the private sector's interest include the following.

  The private sector provided support, estimated at the equivalent of more than £13 million, to Car Crime Prevention Year and continues to contribute to the campaign in a number of ways; Crime Concern, the independent crime prevention organisation, has been successful in encouraging the involvement of the private

  Spouses and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent initially refused entry clearance and those subsequently granted on appeal1 on partly and wholly primary purpose grounds, 1990–92.

  Initial refusals on primary purpose grounds

  Of whom: Granted on appeal

  solely

  partly

  solely

  partly

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Bangladesh

  Husbands and fiances

  210

  90

  120

  60

  40

  80

  10

  20

  70

  +

  —

  20

  Wives and fiancees

  10

  +

  10

  10

  +

  10

  10

  —

  —

  +

  —

  +

  Pakistan

  Husbands and fiances

  770

  860

  800

  1,160

  730

  610

  270

  260

  180

  250

  320

  220

  Wives and fiancees

  30

  50

  40

  30

  40

  40

  +

  +

  10

  +

  +

  10

  India

  Husbands and fiances

  460

  480

  450

  40

  40

  40

  120

  100

  130

  —

  —

  —

  Wives and fiancees

  170

  200

  250

  20

  30

  60

  10

  40

  60

  —

  —

  +

  Total Indian sub-continent

  Husbands and fiances

  1,440

  1,430

  1,360

  1,250

  810

  720

  400

  380

  390

  260

  320

  240

  Wives and fiancees

  200

  250

  310

  60

  70

  100

  30

  40

  70

  10

  +

  10

  1 Initial refusals and numbers granted on appeal do not necessarily refer to the same individuals as an appeal may not be decided in the same year.

  All figures rounded to nearest ten.

  + equals less than 5.

  These figures include some revisions.

  Vigilantes
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken in Wales to discourage action by vigilantes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government do not condone the formation of vigilante groups. Vigilante action may lead to an offence and has to be treated by the police in the same way as any other offending behaviour. In Wales, and in other areas, the police have used the media and public meetings to advise members of the public about the danger of taking the law into their own hands.
  8
  sector, raising £1·9 million in general sponsorship from this source in 1992–93; the membership of National Board for Crime Prevention which holds its first meeting on 26 July includes three senior executives from the private sector; local business and industry is represented on the steering committees of each of the 20 safer cities projects. The private sector has contributed sponsorship and is involved in other ways in local crime prevention schemes promoted by safer cities projects; the Dixon Group plc has seconded to the Home Office one of its directors for a period of two years to carry out an assignment on business crime.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases entry clearance was refused to applicants from(a) Pakistan, (b) India, (c) Bangladesh and (d) the Indian subcontinent as a whole on grounds of the primary purpose rule in the last three years; and how many of these applicants were (i) men and (ii) women.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is given in the table.

  National Lottery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to amend the present legislation relating to lotteries so as to increase the maximum prize money before the first draw in the new national lottery takes place.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We intend to bring those provisions of the National Lottery Etc. Bill which amend the law relating to existing societies' and local authority lotteries —including the provisions of clause 51 which increase the prize limit for such lotteries—into force as soon as practicable. A period of time will, however, be needed to make consequential changes to the Lotteries Regulations and to enable societies to register with the Gaming Board under the new schedule 1A to the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. We aim to keep the delay in bringing these provisions into operation to a minimum.
  9

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason tracker dogs are not being used by the investigative team as an aid to their recent inquiry in the Falklands into alleged infringements of the Geneva convention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for the commissioner.

  Court Escort Duties
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of the contract with Group 4 covering court escort duties in Humberside and east midlands over five years; and if he will set out the cost of this service for the previous five years.

  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 Philippa Drew to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated July 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me in the temporary absence of Mr. Lewis, the Director General, to reply to your recent Question asking about the cost of the contract with Group 4 covering court escort and custody duties in Humberside and East Midlands over five years; and the cost of this service for the previous five years.I am not sure that I can add substantively to Mr. Dunbar's letter of 4 May to you in response to a Question from you covering similar ground [Official Report 5 May, columns 75–76, copy attached].The information in that letter was collected as a result of special survey work to separately identify time spent on court escort and custody duties by police and prison officers in the area, which was then costed. Information on the cost of the court escort and custody service is not routinely collected by either the police or the Prison Service, and would have varied over the previous 5 years with the size of the task. This in turn would have varied with the number of persons brought in custody before the courts for first appearance; the prison population and prison catchment areas; and changes in numbers and locations of court rooms and police stations. Similarly, the costs under the contract will vary over the coming 5 years as the size of the task varies. I am confident, however, that the figures given in Mr. Dunbar's letter represent a genuine comparison between the costs of the current service and the pre-existing one.

  Strangeways Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the successful tenderer for Strangeways prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) on 15 July, at columns 583–84.

  Sheehy Report
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the temporary drop in police manpower caused by the elimination of middle management posts and the creation of additional constable posts proposed by the Sheehy report;
  10
  (2) what account he will take in future decisions on the starting salaries for constables of the stage at which constables are required to patrol on their own;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the proposal in the Sheehy report for existing employees to be obliged to enter into a fixed-term contract upon accepting promotion and to be obliged to move from the current 30-year pension scheme to a scheme based on 40 years' service; and what estimate he has made of the extent to which officers will refuse promotion as a result;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposals within the Sheehy report in regard to overtime payment on the response of officers to incidents taking place at the end of the working day;

  (5) what advantages he expects to arise from the change recommended in the Sheehy report from a 30-year pension to a 40-year pension; and what effect he expects this to have on the average age of police in service;

  (6) what plans he has to allow appeals against decisions of chief constables on the desirable age profile of a police force.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy in implementing any of the recommendations made by the Sheehy report to ensure that there is no reduction in the total police manpower.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In considering the implications of all the recommendations made in the report of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards, my right hon. and learned Friend will take into account the comments received during the consultation period.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect on morale in police forces in the United Kingdom of the publication of the Sheehy report.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is aware that many police officers hold views on the recommendations of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards. There will be full consultation with the police and other interests before my right hon. and learned Friend, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reach conclusions on the inquiry's report.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) wives and (b) children refused entry in the Indian subcontinent in 1991 and 1992 appealed against the refusal; how many of these appeals were (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed, (iii) withdrawn and (iv) are pending; and if he will give this information for each post.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The immigration appellate authorities record appeals by wives and children against refusal of entry clearance together in a category that also includes appeals by other dependent relatives and returning residents. The information requested is as follows for appeals in that category:

  Appeals from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh1

  1991

  1992

  Received

  1,843

  891

  Allowed

  355

  390

  Dismissed

  1,059

  1,554

  11

  1991

  1992

  Withdrawn

  529

  577

  Pending2

  n/a

  n/a

  1 It is not possible to show the information according to individual posts.

  2 Pending figures cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Parole Board
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is now his policy on replacing part-time members of the Parole Board with full-time paid officials; when this policy was announced; and what consultations he undertook in respect of changes in his policy.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am currently considering proposals to appoint a small number of full-time members of the Parole Board, in addition to existing part-time members. Any such appointments will be made as members of the Parole Board and will not be officials of the civil service. We announced the possibility of such appointments to members of the Parole Board at their annual general meeting on 9 March. The chairman of the board was consulted on the subject both prior to the announcement and since that date, and I hope to meet him shortly in order to discuss the matter further.

  Child Migration Scheme
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what passports were provided for children sent to Australia, Canada or Rhodesia under the orphans migration scheme from 1963; and what provisions now exist for people sent out under that scheme to establish their claim to British passports and British citizenship.

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

  It will take some time to establish what documentation was provided under the orphans migration scheme and I will write to the hon. Member about that in due course.

  However, anyone who can establish a claim to British citizenship will be issued with a passport in the normal way under the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gulf War
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to be able to provide a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for North Cornwall dated 18 January about the cases of the three Gulf war widows, Mrs. Lyn Hicks, Mrs. Liz Weeks and Mrs. Anne Lennox.

  The Prime Minister
  A reply will be sent shortly.

  Vietnamese Prime Minister (Visit)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister what specific human rights issues he raised with the Prime Minister of Vietnam during his recent visit.

  The Prime Minister
  At my request, the Minister for Overseas Development expressed our concern about 12
  Vietnam's human rights record with the Vietnamese Prime Minister during his visit to the United Kingdom of 3 to 6 July. We also handed over a short list of specific human rights cases.

  Child Migrants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, columns 506–7, if he will make available to the Child Migrant Trust personal record files relating to British child migrants for use in confidence in counselling migrants and tracing relatives in the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to write to the hon. Member.

  Overseas Debts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister how many countries which qualify for relief under the Trinidad terms owe money to the United Kingdom; what is their total debt to the United Kingdom; what proportion of that debt could be(a) wiped-out or (b) rescheduled; and what is the total value of debt which could be (i) wiped out and (ii) rescheduled.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: Fourteen of the 17 countries that have qualified for Trinidad terms from the Paris club have debt outstanding to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, totalling £774 million.

  Countries receiving Trinidad agreements get debt reduction or debt service reduction equivalent to half the value of eligible debt due over the periods of the agreements. Some £174 million of these countries' debt to ECGD has been rescheduled under these arrangements, and the equivalent value of the reduction in those countries' debt to ECGD is therefore around half that figure.

  Of the 17 countries given Trinidad terms, only Nicaragua has debt outstanding to the ODA, amounting to some £0·6 million. Seven of these countries—Tanzania, Bolivia, Uganda, Honduras, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia and Mozambique—have already received retrospective terms adjustment—RTA—writing off their ODA debt. RTA has also recently been announced for Zambia and Guyana. These agreements, which are awaiting signature, will write off debt of £55·9 million and £53·4 million respectively.

  There are further severely-indebted low-income countries which may qualify for Trinidad terms in future, for example once they have agreed reform programmes with the IMF. The Paris club will also consider giving countries which have Trinidad agreements the equivalent of up to 50 per cent. reduction of the remaining stock of debt, provided they establish track records of debt servicing and economic reform over the periods of the agreements. Under present rules this could produce further debt reduction up to 50 per cent. of the total debt to ECGD then outstanding. But the United Kingdon is pressing the Paris club to go futher, in line with my original Trinidad proposals, and give immediate stock of debt reduction of up to 80 per cent. for the neediest eligible countries on a case by case basis. In response to United Kingdom pressure, the recent Tokyo summit asked the

  13
  Paris club to continue reviewing the question of debt relief for these countries, and especially to consider earlier reductions in their stock of debt.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recent trend in the amount of electricity imported and exported via the channel interconnector, and on the prospects for the remainder of 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  Net imports across the interconnector in the three months from February to April 1993 were 4·29 TWh. The future pattern of trade will depend on the operation of commercial contracts, including a contract for the export from the United Kingdom of increasing quantities of electricity at periods of peak demand in France during the winter.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what certificates are required for spent nuclear fuels before they may be reprocessed at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Certificates are not required for spent nuclear fuels before they may be reprocessed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made of Japanese technical capacity to process spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the Government of Japan and the appropriate commercial undertakings in that country, subject to compliance with Japan's relevant international agreements and regulatory requirements respectively.

  Nuclear Material (Safeguards)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by Euratom since July 1985 in establishing a common interpretation of safeguards on nuclear material transferred for non-nuclear uses.

  Mr. Eggar
  Pursuant to article 22 of regulation 3227/76, on receipt of a request from the user, the Commission may grant derogations and exemptions from reporting. This would include nuclear material which was used exclusively for non-nuclear purposes.

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 291, on reviewing the operation of the recognised supervisory bodies, what plans he has to invite the public to comment on the operations of the bodies and to public hearings on such matters.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The arrangements for the review have not yet been finalised.
  14

  Company Receivers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will propose legislation under which he will have powers to examine the fees paid to company receivers.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce the new non-fossil fuel obligation orders for renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Eggar
  I hope to make an announcement soon about a further renewables order under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Sizewell C
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has had with Nuclear Electric about plans for Sizewell C power station in Suffolk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I regularly meet the chairman and chief executive of Nuclear Electric to discuss a range of issues affecting the company, including the company's wish to build a twin pressurised water reactor station at Sizewell C.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the economic and energy contributions to the national and local economies of building Sizewell C power station in Suffolk.

  Mr. Eggar
  No decisions about the construction of new nuclear stations beyond Sizewell B will be made before the Government review the future prospects for nuclear power. A further announcement about the review will be made in due course.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about(a) the nuclear energy review in general and (b) Sizewell C power station in Suffolk, in particular.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received representations from the nuclear industry, local authorities, MPs, members of the public and other interested parties about the nuclear review, and about Nuclear Electric's proposals at Sizewell C.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the nuclear industry; and when he expects to make further announcements on planning of individual power stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  An announcement about the review of the future prospects for nuclear power will be made in due course. No decisions about the construction of new nuclear stations beyond Sizewell B will be taken before the review has concluded.
  15

  Company Directors
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which statutes govern the responsibilities of administrative receivers called in to British companies, with particular reference to the realisation of the value of assets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The statutes which govern the responsibilities of administrative receivers are the Insolvency Act 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act and secondary legislation made thereunder. Certain duties including those in relation to the realisation of assets are governed by common law.

  Technology Transfer
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funding followed the transfer of responsibility for technology transfer from the DTI to the Office of Science and Technology.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There has been no movement of responsibility for technology transfer from DTI to the Office of Science and Technology—OST—and therefore no transfer of funding.

  The recent White Paper on science, engineering and technology—Cm 2250—sets out mission statements for both the OST and DTI. Part of OST's role is to stimulate transfer of technology between the science and engineering base and industry, for example through the LINK programme. DTI continues to have a wider responsibility for technology transfer between industry and all other providers of science and technology whether based in the United Kingdom or overseas.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to change the monitoring arrangements for firms that receive regional financial selective assistance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the membership, and where appropriate the relevant companies, of each of the working parties established under his deregulation initiative.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A complete list of deregulation task force members is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the principles guiding the work of his Department's deregulation unit with specific reference to(a) the interests of consumers and (b) of employees.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) on 7 July,Official Report, column 151.
  16

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Industry Minister's meeting held on 8 July with the European Commissioner, Karel van Miert, on the subject of the draft United Kingdom assisted areas map.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I met Vice-President van Miert on 8 July to discuss the Government's proposals for a new assisted areas map. The discussions were helpful and I hope that the Commission's clearance will be given in time for me to announce the results in the House before the summer recess.

  Price Marking Order 1991
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will bring forward proposals to amend the Price Marking Order 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My D epartment is going out to public consultation today on a draft amendment order, guidance note and compliance cost assessment on possible amendments to the Price Marking Order 1991.

  We wish to deal with the concerns which traders have raised. The aims of the amendment order would be to simplify existing provisions while reflecting more closely the EC directives which the order implements. Our proposals would allow complete flexibility on how prices may be shown subject only to meeting the basic obligation of the directives. They would also deal with some more detailed points such as indicating postage and packing charges and the time allowed to adjust individual price indications to take account of changes in the rate of VAT.

  Some detailed provisions now considered to be outside the scope of the directives would be removed from the order. The treatment of goods in shop windows would be clarified, as would the position on price indications for perfumes and cosmetics.

  These proposals are in line with our present policy of reviewing regulations and reducing the burden on business wherever practicable. But they also aim to have due regard to our obligations under the relevant EC directives and to the interests of the consumer, and by clarifying the position to assist enforcement.

  We shall welcome views from all those who have an interest in them, but we would expect to proceed further only if in the light of consultation it is clear that amending legislation would produce worthwhile gain.

  Comments are sought by 29 October 1993.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Regional Development Funds
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the British contribution to the regional development banks is used for projects that(a) directly benefit the poorest people in developing countries and (b) helps meet the goals established at the world summit for children.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Kingdom contributions are used to support the overall operations of regional development banks. It is not possible to estimate what proportion can be attributed to projects of this kind.
  17

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lockerbie Bomb
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what classes of information concerning the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie have not yet been released(a) to the relatives of the victims and (b) into the public domain.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information of the following nature has not been released to the relatives of victims or otherwise into the public domain:(1) information the protection of which is necessary to ensure effective security at present and in the future in the United Kingdom;
  (2) information the disclosure of which would impair the effective investigation, detection and prosecution of crime in general;
  (3) information which is relevant to questions of criminal responsibility which may arise in criminal proceedings and the disclosure of which might prejudice criminal proceedings.

  Thailand (Heroin Cases)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the strength of evidence that heroin was planted on Karen Smith and Patricia Cahill; and if he has had an exchange of correspondence with the Prime Minister of Thailand on the cases.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have seen no convincing evidence that the heroin was planted on the girls. Unsupported allegations of planted evidence, corruption and miscarriage of justice are irresponsible in themselves and damaging to the prospects for the girls' release.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote in February 1993 to his Thai counterpart to support the girls' royal pardon petitions. In his reply, the Thai Prime Minister acknowledged our support for the petition and gave assurances that the Thai Government are doing their best for the girls' well-being.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking on the European Parliament's resolution of October 1991 calling for a re-examination of the case of Karen Smith.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We do not support the resolution. We have no reason to believe that either Karen Smith or Patricia Cahill had an unfair trial or were unjustly convicted. Both girls have been well treated in prison. Their sentences are long but by no means harsh compared with those given to others convicted of similar offences in Thailand. We want to help Karen Smith and Patricia Cahill take advantage of every opportunity that Thai law allows them to try to bring about their early release, and to this end we shall continue to do all we can for them.

  Cyprus
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact he has had with the United Nations Secretary-General regarding the failure of the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Rauf Denktash, to agree a limited package of confidence-building measures; and if he will make a statement on the Cyprus problem.
  18
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 16 July, at column 727.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many reports he has received from United Nations personnel of alleged rapes of Muslim women by Croatian forces since the beginning of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Lord Owen regarding the selective lifting of sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; what is the Government policy on this issue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in regular contact with Lord Owen about a variety of issues on the former Yugoslavia. including the question of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. As Heads of Government made clear at the Tokyo economic summit on 7 to 9 July, sanctions will continue to be upheld against Serbia and Montenegro until conditions in the relevant Security Council resolutions are met.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of Muslim forces using noxious gas against Croat forces in the villages of Prosje and Busovaca in central Bosnia; if he will raise this activity at the next meeting of the United Nations Security Council; and what representations he plans to make to the Government of President Izetbegovic.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have seen media reports alleging that Muslim forces used improvised grenades containing non-lethal riot control gas against Croats in central Bosnia. We deplore the use of such weapons which we believe are held by all three parties. Regular reports about fighting on the ground are submitted by UNPROFOR to the United Nations. We are not proposing to raise specific incidents of this kind in the Security Council, but we shall consider raising them in future discussions with Bosnian Government officials.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the monitors agreed by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe are now in place in Kosovo; which nations have contributed; and when the remainder are expected to be in place.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  By 30 June 1993, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe's long-term missions in Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina consisted of 20 monitors from Norway, Canada, Finland, Sweden, France, Greece, United States of America, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Turkey, Japan and the United Kingdom. At that time, there were 10 monitors in Kosovo, one of whom was British. Belgrade having refused to renew the memorandum of understanding covering the missions, their future is in doubt and, as monitors have departed on leave or completion of assignment, they have not been replaced. There are now only 11 monitors in all three areas.
  19
  The United Kingdom had provided two monitors and we had hoped to appoint a further three. The chairman in office of the CSCE remains in contact with Belgrade. We hope that agreement will be reached on renewal of the mandate and that the mission numbers will be built up once more.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reservations were expressed by the Japanese Government in regard to indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during discussions held with Foreign Minister Kabun held at the G7 summit in Tokyo.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Like other members of the G7, the Japanese Government agreed to the political declaration of the summit which stated:"We reiterate the objectives of universal adherence to the NPT as well as the Treaty's indefinite extension in 1995 and nuclear arms reduction."

  Bilateral Treaty Obligations
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the common foreign and security implication of all bilateral treaty obligations entered into by EC member states with non-EC countries are fully consistent with Britain's national interests; and if he will conduct a systematic review of the bilateral treaty obligations of each EC member state with non-EC countries in order to ascertain whether Britain's interests are liable to be affected by the common foreign and security policy in the light of the effect of the declaration on voting in the field of the common foreign and security policy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under the common foreign and security policy, member states will reach agreed common positions by unanimity. The declaration on voting in the field of common foreign and security policy attached to the treaty on European union does not undermine this requirement for unanimity. Declarations are not part of the treaty, but evidence of a political commitment undertaken by the parties to the treaty. There is no need to conduct a review of the bilateral treaty obligations of individual member states with non-EC countries. Each member state will be responsible for ensuring that it can live up to commitments it makes under the common foreign and security policy, and where there is no agreement on common positions, member states will continue to be free to pursue national policies. The unanimity requirement means that the United Kingdom can ensure that all decisions taken under the common foreign and security policy are consistent with our national interests.

  Tibet
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is proposed to be taken by the Council of Ministers on the resolution on Tibet which was passed recently by the European Parliament, with particular reference to regulations allowing journalists and international human rights agencies access to Tibet.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are deeply concerned about the situation in Tibet, including the human rights issues 20
  mentioned in the European Parliament resolution, and are in close contact with our European Community partners about further measures to follow up the EC statement of 1 June. We support the principle of free access by journalists and humanitarian agencies.

  Entry Clearance Applications (DNA Tests)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time for the results of DNA tests taken for the purpose of establishing relationships in cases of entry clearance applications to become available to entry clearance officers in Islamabad.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The average time for the results of DNA tests to become available to entry clearance officers in Islamabad is three months.

  Iran
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 240, how many women who are United Kingdom citizens are employed in any capacity in the British diplomatic service in Iran; and what representations he has made to the Government of Iran on the subject of their obligations towards the Islamic dress code.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Three female diplomatic service staff and four female locally employed staff who are United Kingdom citizens are currently employed in the British embassy in Tehran.

  We have made no representation to the Iranian Government about the obligation on female British diplomats to conform to Islamic dress code. All women in Iran have to observe the Islamic dress code when in public, including the female diplomats at all embassies.

  Mr. Ghazanfer Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 24 June to the hon. Member for Bradford, West concerning the case of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali, what information he has obtained about the outcome of the latest court proceedings in Pakistan held on 27 and 29 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The cases have been further adjourned to 31 July and 19 August respectively.

  South Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards United Nations, Commonwealth and European Community military sanctions and non-co-operation with South Africa; and what restrictions are imposed under the sanctions on the landing of South African air force aircraft on British soil.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government adhere to the UN arms embargo against South Africa and other related EC and Commonwealth restrictions. Any request for a South African air force aircraft to land on British soil would be considered in the light of the circumstances of the request and the sanctions then in force.
  21
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken to encourage and support the transition to non-racial democracy in South Africa.

  Mr. Hurd
  The British Government have been following the multi-party negotiations in South Africa closely, and are glad that agreement has been reached to hold fully democratic elections on 27 April 1994.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had useful talks with both Nelson Mandela and Chief Buthelezi during their recent visits to London. We made clear that the British Government strongly support the need for a successful outcome to the constitutional negotiations and will help where we can. We are in regular touch with President de Klerk.

  The British Government are already helping in practical ways. We helped to arrange the sending of international observers to South Africa—from the UN, EC and Commonwealth—and led the troika visit of EC Foreign Ministers last autumn, which set the seal on the EC observer mission. We have contributed the services of five senior policemen; two with the EC mission, one with the Commonwealth mission, one to help the Goldstone Commission task force, and another to help with the investigation into the assassination of Mr. Chris Hani. The mandates of the UN, EC and Commonwealth missions to South Africa have all been extended. Their work is greatly appreciated in South Africa and theya are making a significant contribution towards containing the violence. We have also made clear, through the EC, that we would be willing to join in any international effort to provide observers for the elections if this is the wish of all the parties.

  We are also heavily involved through our aid programme. Last financial year we spent over £11 million in bilateral aid, plus a similar amount as our share of the EC positive measures programme. We expect our aid to increase during the transition. Our aid provides for the training of more than 1,100 black South Africans in the United Kingdom and South Africa, including tailor-made courses in public administration for future senior black civil servants. It also supports many projects in education, health, and the promotion of small businesses in the townships, and in rural development. Last month we opened a new regional aid office in Pretoria to run our aid projects in South Africa.

  Only South Africans themselves can build a new, united non-racial, democratic South Africa, but we are doing what we can to help.

  Slovak Republic
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation Her Majesty's Government have in in the Slovak Republic; what is that state's present representation in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's Government are represented in the Slovak Republic through an embassy, headed by a chargé d'affaires, Mr. Michael Bates. Her Majesty's ambassador to the Slovak Republic is Mr. David Brighty, who is concurrently ambassador to the Czech Republic and resides in Prague. He visits the Slovak 22
  Republic regularly. It is our intention to appoint a resident ambassador to Bratislava once the embassy is properly established.

  Following the dissolution of the Czechoslovak Federation, on 31 December 1992, separate Czech and Slovak embassies were established in London. On 1 January 1993, the former Czechoslovak ambassador was accredited to the Court of St. James as Slovak ambassador. Mr. Vilikovsky is supported by six diplomatic and three administrative and technical staff.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Torture
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what procedures exist for an individual to present a petition or application for permission to prosecute under sections 134 and 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to him for his consideration;

  (2) what procedures exist for obtaining his consent to prosecutions under sections 134 and 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 concerning the prosecution of those accused of torture present in the United Kingdom;

  (3) how many times he has consented to prosecutions being brought under sections 134 and 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 since its enactment;

  (4) on what criteria he bases his decision to grant or withhold consent to prosecutions under sections 134 and 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  The Attorney-General
  The criteria applicable to applications for my consent to proposed prosecutions under sections 134 and 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are the same as for any other criminal offence. First, there must be sufficient admissible and reliable evidence to afford a realistic prospect of conviction; secondly, the circumstances must be such that it would be in the public interest for there to be a prosecution.

  The prospective prosecutor must submit to my office evidence in proper form to satisfy the evidential test described above together with sufficient background information to satisfy me that a prosecution would be in the public interest. This procedure applies to prosecuting authorities—likely to be the Crown Prosecution Service —as well as to individuals.

  No proceedings have been authorised under section 134 and 135 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 since its enactment.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  National Audit Office Reports
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make arrangements for hon. Members to be notified in advance of publication dates of National Audit Office reports.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  National Audit Office reports are listed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons when they are laid before Parliament prior to publication. They are also recorded on the daily papers list produced by the Vote Office which lists all parliamentary papers published on a particular day. This list is displayed in the Members' Lobby.
  23
  The National Audit Office also give notification of its intention to publish reports in a monthly press notice. This is supported by press notices on each individual report which are released under embargo 36 hours in advance of publication. All these press notices are available at the press notice desk of the House of Commons Library.

  An advance press notice listing forthcoming reports in August will be published within the next two or three weeks.

  "The Best of Northern Ireland"
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "The Best of Northern Ireland" to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 6 to 10 December.

  Daylight Saving
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what consideration he has given to an application for an exhibition relating to daylight saving to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 19 to 23 July.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "Schizophrenia—The Facts" to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 29 November to 3 December.

  Disabled Staff
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the total number of staff employed by the Commission throughout the Palace of Westminster and its associated buildings; how many of these are registered disabled; and how many are registered disabled due to hearing difficulties.

  Mr. Beith
  The Commission employs 1,232 staff, of whom 16 are registered disabled. Of these, four have hearing difficulties.

  Secretarial Allowances
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members have their secretarial allowance paid into private limited companies.

  Mr. Newton
  Approximately two thirds of all Members have, this year, authorised payments from their office costs 24
  allowances direct to companies or other organisations, including constituency associations. It is not always possible to identify the precise status of these companies or organisations.

  EC Legislation
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans the Government have to give greater prominence to costs to business in the information provided to Parliament on Community legislation.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government prepare compliance cost assessments—CCAs—in order to assess the impact of legislative proposals on business costs. From 19 July, CCAs will accompany all explanatory memoranda—EMs —relating to EC proposals with significant cost implications for business. This will aid parliamentary scrutiny by affording an early opportunity to take account of such implications in considering particular proposals. It will also put CCAs in the public domain on a consistent basis and will thus help other interested parties make their own assessment. It is not intended, however, that the new arrangements should hold up the submission of EMs; if a full CCA cannot be prepared to the time scale for EMs, the EM will carry the best possible initial assessment and the CCA will follow as quickly as possible.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Companies
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he is undertaking with other European Community member states about mergers and takeovers of television companies, including issues of competition and regulation; what proposals have been made concerning these issues; and what position is taken on these proposals by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Brooke
  Officials of my Department are playing an active part in the work of a Council of Europe committee of experts on media concentrations and pluralism, on which a number of other EC member states, as well as the European Commission, are represented. The committee has yet to produce firm proposals.

  We have also drawn the Commission's attention to what appear to be. discriminatory provisions in the legislation of a number of EC member states concerning ownership of broadcasters. The European Court has recently found against Belgium on this issue; and the Commission has opened proceedings against Portugal.

  Arts Bodies, Merseyside
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the names, addresses, occupations, current employers and addresses of any chairmen and any appointees which are within his power to make for any boards, trusts or other form of arts or heritage body on Merseyside and to grant with any payment, expenses or other form or remuneration which they receive.

  Mr. Brooke
  While I do not appoint the chairman of North West Arts, which is the regional arts board covering the Merseyside area, my consent is required before such an
  25
  appointment can be made. This post is unpaid and is currently vacant. There is no equivalent regional body responsible for heritage matters.

  National Lottery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is now the proposed starting date of the national lottery.

  Mr. Sproat
  We hope that the National Lottery Etc. Bill will receive Royal Assent later in the year; and the licence will be awarded after that. It is not possible to predict the date of the first draw, but we hope that the lottery will be up and running by around the turn of the year 1994–95.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the possible impact of the national lottery on small stake recreational wagering industry gaming machines; and if he will make it his policy to consult industry organisations of any sectors of the gaming industry adversely affected by the national lottery in order to find ways of alleviating adverse effects on their enterprises.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations from the gaming machine industry about the impact of the national lottery on their businesses and officials from my Department have met representatives from the industry.

  We do not believe that this or other sectors of the gaming industry will be adversely affected by the introduction of the lottery. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is always ready to consider, on their merits, proposals for changes to the regulatory regime under which the industry operates.

  Description of Item

  Valuation £

  Outcome

  A painting 'St. Peter Penitent' by Jusepe de Ribera

  850,000

  Export licence granted

  A drawing 'St. John the Baptist pointing to the Saviour', by Annibale Carracci/ Gianangelo Canini.

  150,000

  Export licence granted

  A painting, 'David with the head of Goliath', by Guido Reni

  2,000,000

  Export licence granted

  The ledgers and account books of Messrs

  4,080

  Purchased by Westminster

  Fribourg and Treyer 1764–1816.

  City Archives

  A George III library table 1778 designed by Thomas Chippendale.

  315,000

  Decision deferred until after 26 July 1993

  A pair of candelabra by Matthew Boulton.

  80,820

  Decision deferred until after 4 August 1993

  A painting, 'Van Tromp, going about to please his masters, ships at sea, getting a good wetting', by J.M.W. Turner.

  11,000,000

  Decision deferred until after 26 July 1993

  A painting, 'the Fortress of Königstein' by Bernardo Bellotto.

  6,290,781

  Export licence granted

  Details of the items on which decisions were deferred were given in press releases issued at the time of the reviewing committee's recommendations were accepted.

  Welsh Writers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions grants have been made by the Welsh Arts Council under its(a) bursaries to writers scheme and (b) writers in residence
  26

  Royal Armouries Project, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the progress towards obtaining private sector funding for the royal armouries project at Leeds.

  Mr. Sproat
  I am pleased to say that the royal armouries has identified a potential lead investor, who is in active discussion with the armouries and other interested investors. This lead investor has nominated a chairman and chief executive designate for the proposed operating company. They are currently verifying the business plan and developing a package on which commitments can be made. This is good news for the project and for Leeds.

  Art Exports
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art during the half year ended 5 July, specifying in each case the valuation and whether an item was exported or retained, with particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institution; if he will list any items for which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case(a) the valuation and (b) the relevant time limit; and if a press notice will be issued by his Department covering the information given in his reply, including that relating to the outcome in individual cases.

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows:

  scheme during the last five years to applicants who were neither resident in Wales nor had any previous connection with Wales.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 14 July 1993]: The information requested is as follows: (a) none, (b) three, of a total of 36 grants.
  27

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Media Sector
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the financial size of the media sector of the British economy.

  Mr. Nelson
  There is no generally accepted definition of the coverage of the media sector. However, information on the newspaper printing and publishing industry is given in "Business Monitor PA475—Printing and Publishing". Information on film and recording studios, cinemas, radio and television is included in the "Business Monitor SDA29 —Service Trades", but is not separately identifiable. These annual publications are available from the House Library.

  Full Employment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the establishment of full employment.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's aim is to achieve high levels of employment consistent with low inflation, through broadly based growth and labour markets which are competitive and flexible.

  Drug-related Offences
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been detained for drug-related offences in Harwich by HM Customs and Excise in the past three years.

  Sir John Cope
  Over the period June 1990 to date, 688 people have been detained by Customs at Harwich for drug-related offences.

  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much extra revenue would be raised in a full year if tax relief were confined to the 20 per cent. rate for(a) occupational pension schemes and (b) contributions to personal pensions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated full year yields at 1993–94 income levels are as follows:

  Restriction to 20 per cent. £ million

  Relief for:

  Employee's contributions to occupational pension schemes

  700

  Personal pensions contributions1

  300

  1 Includes retirement annuity premia and free standing additional voluntary contributions.

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

  Income Tax
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was raised by income tax levied at 40 per cent.; and how many income tax payers were chargeable at 40 per cent. in the last financial year for which figures are available.
  28
  Mr. Dorrell
  At 1993–94 levels of income, it is estimated that individuals' tax liability at the 40 per cent. rate will be £12·8 billion and that 1·6 million taxpayers will be liable at this rate.

  Pharmaceutical Companies
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the total tax take from pharmaceutical companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information is not available. Classification of companies by industry for corporation tax is by the summary trade classification within which pharmaceutical companies are included with all other chemical companies.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of Inland Revenue forms(a) 11K (1993) and (b) 12FR (1993) he has had printed.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue printed 99,000 copies of form 12FR (1993) and 98,685 copies of form 11K (1993).

  Pensions
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield in 1993–94 and 1994–95 from capping all qualifying incomes for pensions at £75,000, including those employees who joined schemes prior to 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available.

  Betting Duty
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of whether the conditions attached to the decision to extend the reduction of pool betting duty announced in March 1992 by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) have been met; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  In the 1990 Budget, pool betting duty was reduced from 42·5 to 40 per cent. for five years to help finance the implementation of the Taylor report, and in particular the achievement of all-seating at football grounds. The former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has since made it clear that the Government will be prepared to extend the reduction to the year 2000 provided that the football leagues and football clubs produce satisfactory financial plans for their own contribution to further necessary ground improvements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will shortly be presenting a costed case to the Treasury, based on information supplied by the Football Trust and the clubs themselves, in support of an extension of the reduction.

  Additionality
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards additionality of EC funds with respect to the Government's own regional and structural funding.
  29
  Sir John Cope
  At the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 July, member states agreed new additionality regulations to ensure that Community funds were genuinely additional to domestic public spending. The United Kingdom will be implementing them fully.

  EC Membership
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will prepare a table for the last financial year showing the debit and credit accounts of United Kingdom membership of the EC.

  Sir John Cope
  Details of the United Kingdom's EC transfers on a balance of payments basis, for the period up to and including the first quarter of 1993, were published on 22 June in the Central Statistical Office's balance of payments press notice CSO(93)90.

  Concessionary Coal (VAT)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East of 12 July,Official Report, column 371, whether the VAT on concessionary coal will be paid by British Coal or by the recipients of coal allowances.

  Sir John Cope
  VAT on concessionary coal will be paid by British Coal.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated average household cost of adding VAT to fuel bills in each region.

  Sir John Cope
  The latest estimates of average weekly household spending on domestic fuel and power in each region are published in table 25 of the 1991 family expenditure survey. The average cost of VAT on domestic fuel bills will depend on future levels of fuel prices and on the effect of the introduction of VAT on household consumption patterns.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek the agreement of the European Commission that it will not seek to challenge in the European Court the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that they have full entitlement to retain zero rates for VAT after 31 December 1996; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  There is no need for the Government to seek such an agreement.

  At ECOFIN on 24 June 1991, all member states agreed that, under transitional arrangements to last at least until the end of 1996, member states which at 1 January 1991 applied to certain goods and services zero rates for VAT in accordance with the provisions of Community law in force, would have the option of retaining them.

  The sixth VAT directive 77/388/EEC, as amended by Council directive 91/680/EEC, provides that the transitional period will continue beyond the end of 1996 if there is not unanimous agreement on the definitive VAT system to operate from that date. The United Kingdom has made it clear that one of the conditions for such an agreement must be our right to retain zero rates.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the items subject to zero rate for 30
  VAT purposes which have resulted in applications to the European Court; and what was the result of such applications.

  Sir John Cope
  The following zero-rated items resulted in applications to the European Court:

  (i) animal feeding stuffs, seeds, live animals yielding food for consumption (all supplies);

  (ii) sewerage services and water (supplies to industry);

  (iii) news services (all supplies);

  (iv) fuel and power (supplies other than to final consumers);

  (v) construction of buildings (supplies other than to final consumers);

  (vi) protective clothing and footwear (supplies to employers).

  The Court ruled that zero-rating is lawful in respect of:

  private housing;

  animal feeding stuffs, seeds, live animals yielding food for consumption.

  However, the Court ruled that the following zero rates did not comply with Community law:

  construction of buildings for industrial and commercial use and in the community and civil engineering sector;

  fuel and power other than to final consumers;

  sewerage services and water supplied to industry;

  news services to undertakings which themselves provide services which are not zero-rated;

  protective boots and helmets supplied to employers.

  The United Kingdom implemented the Court's judgment with effect from 1 April 1989 in the case of construction, news services and protective clothing and from 1 July 1990 for fuel and power and water and sewerage services.

  British Telecommunications plc
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Government's sale of substantially all of its residual shareholding in British Telecommunications plc.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am pleased to report that the Government's combined offers of BT shares were successfully completed this morning when dealings in interim rights started on the London stock exchange.

  As a result of bids received in the international offer, the price of the third instalment for all investors in the combined offers was set at 120p per share.

  Accordingly, the price for interim rights purchased in the United Kingdom public offer was 410p per share, comprising 150p paid on successful application, 140p to be paid by 1 March 1994 and 120p to be paid by 11 October 1994.

  The price for shares purchased in the international offer was 420p per share, comprising 160p paid on successful application, 140p to be paid by 1 March 1994 and 120p to be paid by 11 October 1994.

  The Government offered for sale up to 1,220 million shares in the combined offers.

  Some 1·67 million applications were received in the United Kingdom public offer for a total of some 1,057 million shares. This represented some 1·73 times the shares initially expected to be sold in the UK public offer. In response to this demand, the Government increased the total number of shares allocated to the UK public offer to 732 million shares. At this level, the number of shares applied for in the UK public offer represented some 1·44 times the shares available.

  Over 95 per cent. of applicants in the UK public offer received an allocation of BT shares. Over 55 per cent. of

  31
  applicants had their applications met in full. Some 97 per cent. of applications made through share shops were allocated shares.

  More than 785,000 qualifying BT shareholders and more than 23,000 eligible BT employees made applications in the United Kingdom public offer. All such applicants received an allocation of BT shares. 488 million shares were allocated to bidders in the international offer. This number does not include any shares that S. G. Warburg Securities may have over-alloted in connection with the international offer. The extent of any such over-allotment will not be disclosed. As already announced, S. G. Warburg Securities may also effect stabilisation transactions.

  For these reasons, details of the percentages of shares allocated to each geographic region in the international offer may not be available until after 18 August 1993. However, the United Kingdom accounted for some 62 per cent. of the shares sold by Her Majesty's Treasury in the international offer. Individual investors bidding in the United Kingdom retail tender bid for some 104 million shares. Of this, some 44 million shares were in respect of PEP applications.

  In addition to the shares sold in the combined offers, S. G. Warburg Securities, as global co-ordinator for the sale, holds an option to acquire from Her Majesty's Treasury up to a further 91·5 million shares for the purpose of meeting any over-allotment made by it in connection with the international offer. This option must be exercised by 18 August 1993.

  Total gross proceeds from the combined offers amount to some £.4·97 billion, of which some £3·53 billion is expected to be received in this financial year.

  Total gross proceeds may be further increased by a maximum of £0·38 billion to the extent that, if at all, S. G. Warburg Securities exercises its option to acquire further shares.

  Details of the costs of the share sale will be published shortly.

  Following the combined offers, and assuming the exercise in full of the option over BT shares granted by Her Majesty's Treasury to S. G. Warburg Securities, Her Majesty's Treasury expects to hold not more than 1·5 per cent. of BT's issued share capital. This would comprise principally shares that may be needed to meet share bonus entitlements under the BT3 United Kingdom public offer and as a result of the Government's sale of BT shares in December 1991.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the real level of public expenditure on(a) education, (b) health, (c) personal social services, (d) housing and (e) social security in each year since 1973–74 until the latest date available; and what proportion such expenditure makes up of the gross domestic product in each case.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: The information can be found in tables 2.3 and 2.4 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1992 Autumn Statement", Cm 2219. Figures are not available on a consistent basis for years prior to 1978–79.
  32

EDUCATION

  Additional Educational Needs Grant
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what study his Department has undertaken in relation to additional educational needs grant; and when he plans to publish the findings;

  (2) what arrangements he has made for consultation with local education authorities to discuss the impact of proposed changes in additional educational needs grant.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We are at present reviewing the additional educational needs allowance as part of a wider-ranging review of standard spending assessments —SSAs—in the light of 1991 census data that have recently become available. We are studying the statistical evidence and underlying rationale for various options. The Government have already made available to the local authority associations preliminary statistical findings from the review and is consulting them on the implications for authorities. Consultations are taking place through the SSA sub-group of the local government finance settlement working group.

  Education Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total education standard spending assessment for the London borough of Tower Hamlets in each year since 1990; and how much of this is represented by additional educational needs grant.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The figures set out in column 1 the education component of Tower Hamlets' standard spending assessments and in column 2 the amounts within those figures for the additional educational needs cost allowance.

  (Column 1) Education component of SSA (£ million)

  (Column 2) Additional educational needs allowance (after adjustment for area costs) (£ million)

  1990–91

  91·292

  43·378

  1991–92

  112·110

  50·363

  1992–93

  123·695

  55·658

  1993–94

  115·580

  51·655

  The 1993–94 figures are lower than the 1992–93 figures, for Tower Hamlets as for all local education authorities, because of their loss of responsibility for most further education to the Further Education Funding Council.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for January for each year from 1988 to the latest year for which figures are available, the number of pupils aged five to 15 years with statements of special educational need(a) in maintained special schools, (b) in non-maintained special schools and independent schools under arrangements made by the authority and (c) in maintained primary, middle and secondary schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about pupils with statements of special educational needs by age is not available centrally.
  33
  Figures showing the total numbers of pupils with statements since 1988 for mainstream and for independent schools and since 1991 for special schools are shown in the table.

  Pupils with statements of special educational needs in schools in England 1988–92

  Position as at January of each year

  Maintained schools

  Non-maintained schools

  Year

  primary, middle and secondary schools

  special

  special

  independent1

  1988

  40,931

  n/a

  n/a

  6,144

  1989

  47,262

  n/a

  n/a

  5,597

  1990

  54,299

  n/a

  n/a

  5,623

  1991

  61,992

  80,367

  5,265

  5,621

  1992

  71,246

  79,190

  4,942

  5,388

  1 Includes pupils in City Technology Colleges.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for January for each year from

  Full-time pupils aged 5 to 15 in maintained primary, middle, secondary and special schools in England Position as at January each year

  Ages at previous 31 August

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Mainstream

  Special

  Mainstream

  Special

  Mainstream

  Special

  Mainstream

  Special

  Mainstream

  Special

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  171

  0

  171

  0

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16,209

  312

  16,613

  316

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28,127

  652

  28,495

  629

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19,409

  594

  19,661

  588

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12,199

  455

  12,232

  402

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17,266

  289

  18,044

  300

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,609

  83

  7,647

  73

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,713

  810

  21,023

  768

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25,643

  454

  25,096

  437

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24,971

  433

  24,837

  437

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25,282

  429

  26,146

  454

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,716

  680

  20,240

  630

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13,205

  146

  13,313

  145

  ILEA

  227,073

  5,841

  226,022

  5,623

  227,745

  5,517

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barking

  19,539

  200

  19,345

  179

  19,309

  169

  19,463

  152

  19,742

  145

  Barnet

  32,076

  305

  32,113

  297

  32,240

  275

  32,644

  267

  33,137

  277

  Bexley

  28,096

  266

  27,710

  224

  27,480

  217

  27,584

  229

  27,762

  232

  Brent

  26,069

  313

  25,483

  297

  25,153

  302

  25,693

  308

  26,341

  294

  Bromley

  30,914

  379

  30,264

  358

  30,059

  336

  30,246

  320

  30,960

  303

  Croydon

  35,702

  476

  35,037

  459

  34,841

  443

  34,293

  458

  34,494

  476

  Ealing

  29,941

  440

  29,728

  420

  29,932

  375

  30,381

  357

  30,307

  384

  Enfield

  31,604

  379

  31,026

  366

  31,265

  339

  31,531

  335

  32,103

  346

  Haringey

  20,436

  283

  19,927

  257

  20,225

  250

  20,855

  265

  21,475

  280

  Harrow

  22,169

  239

  22,292

  215

  22,583

  210

  22,909

  194

  23,250

  185

  Havering

  31,631

  310

  31,013

  275

  30,570

  229

  30,326

  207

  30,132

  191

  Hillingdon

  27,031

  340

  26,720

  300

  26,790

  323

  26,994

  316

  27,143

  336

  Hounslow

  24,438

  470

  24,268

  413

  24,474

  422

  25,037

  372

  25,600

  362

  Kingston upon Thames

  14,077

  229

  13,795

  229

  13,713

  227

  13,779

  212

  14,078

  211

  Merton

  16,976

  247

  16,594

  230

  16,250

  223

  16,501

  209

  16,975

  218

  Newham

  29,589

  459

  29,512

  375

  30,177

  397

  31,182

  369

  32,021

  286

  Redbridge

  25,927

  358

  25,824

  356

  26,163

  367

  26,652

  343

  27,155

  340

  Richmond upon Thames

  14,674

  152

  14,713

  158

  14,817

  166

  15,154

  146

  15,326

  132

  Sutton

  19,208

  271

  19,036

  259

  18,929

  259

  19,093

  275

  19,351

  278

  Waltham Forest

  25,463

  595

  24,965

  577

  25,014

  634

  25,442

  614

  25,805

  639

  Birmingham

  139,215

  2,341

  137,668

  2,307

  137,648

  2,235

  138,723

  2,337

  140,185

  2,438

  Coventry

  39,817

  773

  38,873

  786

  38,538

  752

  38,661

  711

  39,091

  729

  Dudley

  39,895

  497

  39,173

  500

  38,785

  489

  38,805

  519

  39,154

  516

  Sandwell

  40,222

  766

  39,482

  782

  39,111

  769

  39,380

  763

  39,866

  732

  Solihull

  27,941

  262

  27,241

  237

  26,750

  222

  26,719

  215

  27,133

  236

  Walsall

  37,722

  500

  37,026

  488

  36,588

  480

  36,833

  469

  37,174

  475

  Wolverhampton

  34,584

  428

  33,742

  415

  32,998

  436

  32,755

  443

  32,809

  442

  Knowsley

  22,535

  541

  22,108

  559

  21,924

  599

  21,798

  561

  21,866

  561

  Liverpool

  62,345

  1,478

  61,366

  1,485

  61,484

  1,340

  62,268

  1,363

  63,029

  1,375

  St. Helens

  25,836

  422

  25,222

  398

  24,610

  412

  24,261

  413

  24,207

  414

  Sefton

  37,639

  384

  37,223

  393

  37,084

  377

  37,205

  396

  37,519

  382

  Wirral

  43,040

  656

  42,524

  643

  42,108

  634

  42,465

  625

  42,539

  637

  Bolton

  36,481

  425

  35,935

  405

  35,676

  390

  35,795

  395

  36,176

  418

  Bury

  22,414

  238

  22,181

  238

  22,189

  245

  22,346

  248

  22,578

  267

  34
  1988 to the latest year for which figures are available (a) the number of full-time pupils aged five to 15 years in (i) maintained primary, middle and secondary schools and (ii) special schools maintained by the local education authority and (b) the number of pupils aged five to 15 years belonging to (i) other local education authorities but attending special schools maintained by the local education authority, (ii) the local education authority but attending special schools maintained by other local education authorities and (iii) the local education authorities attending non-maintained special schools and independent schools for the purposes of special educational treatment.

  Mr. Forth
  The numbers of full-time pupils aged five to 15 years in maintained primary, middle, secondary and special schools in each local education authority in England for the years requested are shown in the table. The information requested at(b) can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  35

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Mainstream

  Special

  Mainstream

  Special

  Mainstream

  Special

  Mainstream

  Special

  Mainstream

  Special

  Manchester

  54,549

  1,602

  53,907

  1,479

  54,119

  1,418

  54,825

  1,246

  55,600

  1,509

  Oldham

  31,809

  445

  31,662

  452

  31,967

  479

  32,572

  454

  33,195

  446

  Rochdale

  29,348

  483

  28,985

  465

  28,631

  476

  28,816

  481

  28,822

  447

  Salford

  28,885

  607

  28,148

  580

  27,916

  543

  28,086

  423

  28,386

  386

  Stockport

  36,575

  346

  35,576

  328

  35,014

  348

  35,053

  355

  35,122

  357

  Tameside

  29,474

  346

  29,198

  340

  29,048

  355

  29,321

  356

  29,771

  363

  Trafford

  25,575

  353

  24,975

  341

  24,707

  326

  24,752

  330

  25,291

  330

  Wigan

  43,773

  675

  42,896

  663

  42,211

  720

  41,972

  740

  41,880

  776

  Barnsley

  29,565

  227

  28,931

  179

  28,498

  166

  28,418

  147

  28,420

  126

  Doncaster

  39,841

  596

  39,509

  611

  39,338

  626

  39,513

  628

  40,123

  632

  Rotherham

  36,285

  534

  35,502

  524

  35,202

  530

  35,175

  548

  35,252

  558

  Sheffield

  61,140

  825

  59,056

  794

  58,139

  768

  58,032

  758

  58,552

  789

  Bradford

  68,758

  825

  68,303

  764

  68,491

  681

  68,903

  653

  69,510

  614

  Calderdale

  26,604

  205

  26,332

  203

  26,031

  186

  26,092

  164

  26,153

  151

  Kirklees

  52,466

  557

  51,255

  574

  50,820

  578

  50,785

  588

  50,998

  589

  Leeds

  89,319

  1,114

  88,029

  968

  87,110

  894

  87,070

  823

  87,838

  805

  Wakefield

  41,173

  631

  40,559

  592

  40,172

  562

  40,481

  560

  40,892

  545

  Gateshead

  25,355

  409

  24,761

  384

  24,487

  348

  24,334

  323

  24,363

  314

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  31,416

  562

  31,164

  519

  30,952

  497

  31,219

  512

  31,435

  640

  North Tyneside

  24,642

  349

  24,466

  322

  24,255

  327

  24,356

  342

  24,342

  362

  South Tyneside

  20,175

  242

  19,919

  240

  19,934

  250

  20,306

  261

  20,724

  284

  Sunderland

  42,078

  502

  41,250

  485

  40,879

  505

  41,124

  529

  41,332

  568

  Isles of Scilly

  260

  0

  251

  0

  250

  0

  261

  0

  267

  0

  Avon

  111,966

  1,909

  109,708

  1,845

  108,689

  1,809

  108,814

  1,811

  109,681

  1,850

  Bedfordshire

  72,380

  1,003

  71,378

  1,002

  70,825

  981

  71,040

  986

  71,945

  1,006

  Berkshire

  93,520

  1,249

  91,909

  1,253

  90,986

  1,268

  91,034

  1,350

  91,550

  1,452

  Buckinghamshire

  83,347

  1,427

  82,259

  1,386

  80,860

  1,340

  80,865

  1,335

  81,348

  1,390

  Cambridgeshire

  83,544

  998

  82,694

  937

  82,364

  877

  82,913

  824

  83,692

  822

  Cheshire

  128,510

  1,186

  126,655

  1,111

  125,579

  1,075

  125,853

  1,103

  126,235

  1,163

  Cleveland

  82,140

  1,409

  81,160

  1,388

  80,935

  1,123

  81,323

  1,167

  81,792

  1,155

  Cornwall

  58,913

  234

  58,770

  236

  58,216

  232

  58,274

  243

  58,336

  243

  Cumbria

  62,764

  387

  61,927

  374

  61,362

  332

  61,197

  277

  61,205

  227

  Derbyshire

  121,453

  1,319

  119,594

  1,226

  118,061

  1,193

  117,649

  1,128

  117,849

  1,094

  Devon

  117,300

  1,576

  116,606

  1,521

  115,705

  1,524

  116,042

  1,526

  117,466

  1,554

  Dorset

  71,726

  1,062

  70,725

  1,043

  70,087

  976

  70,469

  970

  71,178

  981

  Durham

  78,975

  934

  77,676

  927

  77,448

  882

  77,345

  937

  77,704

  948

  East Sussex

  68,879

  1,241

  68,490

  1,212

  68,049

  1,171

  68,950

  1,191

  69,959

  1,197

  Essex

  200,769

  2,436

  195,914

  2,294

  193,008

  2,281

  191,240

  2,246

  191,394

  2,267

  Gloucestershire

  64,532

  1,121

  63,639

  1,116

  62,722

  1,122

  62,918

  1,094

  63,572

  1,144

  Hampshire

  187,640

  3,368

  185,134

  3,258

  183,287

  3,236

  184,172

  3,193

  185,749

  3,159

  Hereford and Worcester

  85,884

  1,048

  84,354

  1,055

  83,513

  1,073

  83,252

  1,060

  83,610

  999

  Hertfordshire

  126,567

  1,827

  123,610

  1,762

  122,012

  1,699

  121,514

  1,672

  122,332

  1,721

  Humberside

  119,116

  1,229

  117,259

  1,185

  116,628

  1,120

  116,584

  1,040

  117,129

  1,079

  Isle of Wight

  14,491

  212

  14,544

  220

  14,562

  192

  14,502

  187

  14,575

  182

  Kent

  197,013

  3,041

  192,901

  2,996

  190,284

  2,903

  188,776

  2,860

  189,486

  2,848

  Lancashire

  182,720

  2,940

  181,159

  2,852

  180,963

  2,847

  180,998

  2,859

  182,029

  2,893

  Leicestershire

  118,477

  1,013

  116,899

  947

  116,164

  884

  116,430

  884

  117,096

  911

  Lincolnshire

  74,025

  1,061

  72,648

  1,017

  71,904

  983

  71,969

  992

  72,548

  967

  Norfolk

  91,020

  804

  89,347

  758

  87,988

  736

  87,580

  739

  87,982

  762

  North Yorkshire

  84,512

  925

  83,565

  901

  82,884

  917

  82,942

  911

  83,586

  853

  Northamptonshire

  80,070

  1,050

  78,947

  1,033

  78,224

  990

  78,209

  956

  78,348

  968

  Northumberland

  40,588

  511

  39,997

  479

  39,966

  471

  40,106

  487

  40,318

  452

  Nottinghamshire

  129,051

  2,140

  126,938

  2,087

  125,185

  1,917

  125,297

  1,745

  126,490

  1,519

  Oxfordshire

  65,312

  718

  64,001

  727

  63,340

  700

  63,534

  643

  64,318

  672

  Shropshire

  53,768

  586

  53,348

  563

  52,843

  509

  52,655

  467

  52,807

  441

  Somerset

  55,405

  607

  54,573

  559

  54,004

  544

  53,909

  544

  54,640

  548

  Staffordshire

  137,329

  1,741

  135,439

  1,655

  133,993

  1,646

  134,096

  1,723

  134,782

  1,811

  Suffolk

  79,320

  640

  77,574

  639

  76,713

  625

  76,363

  624

  76,451

  649

  Surrey

  104,480

  1,811

  101,633

  1,661

  99,308

  1,581

  98,974

  1,553

  99,106

  1,585

  Warwickshire

  61,323

  1,235

  59,948

  1,194

  59,003

  1,117

  58,793

  1,065

  58,975

  1,069

  West Sussex

  80,885

  1,092

  79,548

  1,071

  78,686

  1,084

  78,695

  1,116

  79,531

  1,108

  Wiltshire

  70,572

  682

  69,515

  643

  68,797

  608

  68,877

  626

  69,497

  661

  ENGLAND

  5,951,670

  84,470

  5,861,770

  81,443

  5,816,540

  79,211

  5,830,912

  78,098

  5,874,560

  78,657

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) of 7 July,Official Report, column 163, what is her assessment
  36
  of the relative weight to be attached in measures to prevent over-exploitation to (a) effort limitation and (b) technical conservation measures; what is her estimate of the contribution made in other EC states towards achieving the multi-annual guidance programme effort targets by (i) decommissioning schemes, giving the amounts involved and the number of vessels taken out in each case and (ii) days-at-sea limitations.
  37
  Mr. Jack
  Effort limitation and technical conservation both have a role to play in preventing the over-exploitation of fish stocks, and are to some extent interchangeable. Member states are still considering how they will achieve their 1996 MAGP targets, but even those which rely on decommissioning are required to hold fishing effort within limits.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) of 7 July,Official Report, column 163, what calculation she has made of the reduction of (a) access rights and (b) actual catches of (i) other member states and (ii) third parties which the United Kingdom secured in the 1983 settlement of the common fisheries policy.

  Mr. Jack
  Prior to the 1983 CFP settlement, other member states held historic rights to fish within six to 12 miles of the United Kingdom territorial sea in respect of 1,999 miles of our 2,667 miles of coastline. No other countries had such rights. The settlement reduced the rights of other member states to 558 miles. It is not possible to calculate the effect on catches by other member states and third countries in the six to 12 mile belt.

  Lupin Seed
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice she has received from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes about the uses of lupin seeds, in particular lupinus angustifolius; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has received two submissions in respect of the use of lupins in food. Further data were requested from the applicants and in respect of lupinus angustifolius additional studies have been commissioned. Meanwhile, the committee is not in a position to formulate its advice.

  Decommissioning Grants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances foreign-owned fishing boats registered as British qualify for decommissioning grants.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 12 February,Official Report, column 790, and 29 January, Official Report, column 896.

  Set-aside (Renewable Energy)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will announce the areas set aside specifically dedicated to woodland for renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Jack
  The cereals management committee on 15 July voted on a draft Commission regulation allowing certain perennial crops to be grown for non-food uses on set-aside land. This regulation would permit short rotation coppice to be grown as an energy crop on set-aside land. We expect the regulation to be adopted formally by the Commission in time to come into force on 1 September.
  38

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she accepts the recommendations of the EC Court of Auditors' report on milk quotas in so far as it affects the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We are currently examining the EC Court of Auditors' report on milk quotas and the Commission's response. We will be paying particular attention to any comments and recommendations which have a bearing on the way in which the quota system is operated in the United Kingdom.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure on coastal protection measures in each year since 1979 in(a) cash terms and (b) constant 1993 prices.

  Mr. Jack
  The Ministry offers grant aid to local coast protection authorities in England for capital works to reduce the risk to people and the developed and natural environment from coastal erosion. Grant-aided capital expenditure on coast protection by those authorities for each financial year since 1979 was as follows:

  Actual outturn £ million

  Outturn at 1992–93 prices (using GDP deflator) £ million

  1979–80

  8·2

  19·6

  1980–81

  11·5

  23·3

  1981–82

  13·6

  25·1

  1982–83

  18·0

  31·0

  1983–84

  16·0

  26·3

  1984–85

  15·4

  24·1

  1985–86

  16·7

  24·8

  1986–87

  17·9

  25·7

  1987–88

  14·8

  20·2

  1988–89

  20·9

  26·6

  1989–90

  20·4

  24·3

  1990–91

  29·2

  32·2

  1991–92

  30·8

  31·9

  11992–93

  16·9

  16·9

  1 Provisional.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Post Office Robberies
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the post offices which have been robbed in Northern Ireland this year, with the value of cash and other items stolen in each case.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The requested information is as follows:

  Post Office Robberies

  Amount Stolen £

  Shore Road, Belfast

  500

  Garvaghy Post Office, Banbridge

  2,672

  Anderstown Road, Belfast

  64

  Main Street, Ballycarry

  1,078

  39

  Post Office Robberies

  Amount Stolen £

  Upper Malone Road, Belfast

  3,500

  Derryboy Post Office, Crossgar

  3,000

  Tassagh Post Office, Keady

  30

  Crumlin Road, Belfast

  1,000

  Attempted Robberies

  Main Street, Glenavy

  Nil

  Mossley Post Office, Newtownabbey

  Nil

  Schools
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the maintained schools and (b) the controlled schools which are not included in the "Making Belfast Work" area.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 9 June 1993,Official Report, columns 269–70, for details of the maintained and controlled schools within the area of the Belfast education and library board which are excluded from the "Making Belfast Work" initiative.

  There are more than 1,000 other schools outside the Belfast education and library board area which are not included in the initiative.

  Loyalist Parades
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Government of the Republic of Ireland last raised with him the matter of the routeing of orange institution and other loyalist parades.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: The subject of such parades was last raised by the Government of the Republic of Ireland at the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 8 July 1993. Beyond the contents of the resulting communiqués; the proceedings of the conferences are confidential. The right hon. Member may wish to note, however, that Her Majesty's Government have no jurisdiction in relation to the routeing of parades. Only a senior police officer, where he believes that the circumstances of a procession are such that it may result in serious disorder, damage, disruption or lead to intimidation, may give directions imposing conditions on it, including conditions as to the route.

  Student Unions
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funds are allocated to students' unions in Northern Ireland; and what information he maintains on the numbers and functions of persons employed by students' unions, using such funds.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: Public funds are not allocated direct by the Government to students' unions in Northern Ireland. The amounts allocated to the students' unions by the universities and colleges of education in Northern Ireland are set out in the reply of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 2 November 1992, Official Report, column 50. Details of the numbers and functions of persons employed by the students' unions using these funds are a matter for the unions and institutions concerned.
  40
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the oral statement by the Secretary of State for Education, of 1 July,Official Report, columns 1118–9, on students' unions, to what extent he considers campaigns by students' unions in Northern Ireland against (a) the national anthem and (b) the annual Remembrance day ceremony to amount to political activity.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: It is not unusual for students to express strong opinions on matters which may be of a political nature and the Government judges individual campaigns accordingly.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on political activity by students' unions in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: I fully support the principle of the package of students' unions reforms to be made in England, Scotland and Wales. However, in view of the differences in practice and approach in Northern Ireland, I propose to consult interested bodies before deciding on the way forward.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charters
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received in 1993 in respect of possible future charters.

  Mr. David Davis
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members for charters to cover: constituents, people with disabilities, pensioners, banks and small business. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 June 1993,Official Report, column 654, that new charters in prospect include the further and higher education charters; and that the Benefits Agency customer charter and parents charter will be updated and improved.

  Freedom Of Information
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he has made with his plans to promote freedom of information.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have now published a White Paper on open government, which explains the Government's approach and sets out new proposals for increasing openness.

  Master of Science Teaching
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he has sent to the letter of the chairman of the biological sciences advisory committee of the university of Edinburgh, Professor John Dale, setting out the problems of MSc teaching for a research-oriented university; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I wrote to Professor Dale today thanking him and his colleagues for letting me have their views. I am pleased that his advisory committee broadly welcomes the thrust of our proposals for postgraduate training. We recognise that universities, other higher
  41
  education institutes and funding bodies will need time to develop plans for implementation of the policy set out in paragraph 7.21 of the White Paper.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other EC nations on the issue of citizens charters; and what meetings of the Council of Ministers he has attended, and in what capacity.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have met a number of my European counterparts to discuss public service reform. The citizens charter has aroused considerable international interest, but it has not been discussed in meetings of the European Council of Ministers. I shall also shortly be visiting the United States of America to discuss the reform of public services with the Vice-President.

  Last year's service for the citizen conference, held as one of the events to mark the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC, attracted delegates from 21 countries. A similar event is being planned for later this year.

  Public Appointments (Female Shortlists)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans the public appointments unit has to introduce all-female shortlists for future appointments to public bodies.

  Mr. David Davis
  None.

  Passive Smoking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce a charter for non-smokers in respect of protection from the effects of passive smoking in public places.

  Mr. David Davis
  No. The Government have already published a detailed code of practice on smoking in public places, with the express intention of protecting nonsmoking members of the public. It is our aim to have at least 80 per cent. of public places covered by effective non-smoking policies by 1994.

  Public Records
  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures his Department is taking to increase the availability of formerly secret public records.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The White Paper on open government was published on 15 July. We have provided, in chapter 9, information about measures designed to increase the number of public records which are made available in the Public Record Office.

  These include:

  a "harm test", which requires records to be released after 30 years unless to do so would cause actual damage,

  more exacting criteria for withholding records for more than 30 years,

  a reduction in the periods for which such material can be withheld beyond 30 years,

  improved procedures for the management of records, and,

  a commitment by all departments, subject to the availability of resources, to re-review all records currently withheld for more than 30 years.

  42
  All Government Departments including the Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service and Science—will put these measures into effect as soon as possible.

  Research Councils' Director General
  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is to be the new Director General of Research Councils.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The post of Director General of Research Councils will be filled through open competition, and an announcement about the arrangements for this will be made shortly.

  Civil Service College
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the performance of the Civil Service College during 1992–93.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The college enjoyed its most successful year to date; achieving and in many cases handsomely exceeding the performance targets that it is required to meet as an agency. I have today arranged for copies of the annual report to be placed in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Colorectal Surgery
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of colorectal surgery specialists for each hospital and the number of vacancies at each hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  Consultants in the specialty of general surgery may practise colorectal surgery, but information on consultants' special interests is not available centrally.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to assist areas with rising unemployment, in particular areas of high concentrations of defence-related industry; what special programmes are available for such areas; and what plans he has to increase such assistance.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government are commited to tackling unemployment in all parts of the country by pursuing policies which lead to sustained economic improvement. As the recovery of the economy gathers pace, we shall continue to direct our policies towards creating the conditions in which new businesses can compete and prosper in world markets.

  Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, through their schemes of training and business support and advice, place special emphasis on programmes which take account of the economic and employment consequences of changing military requirements. Scottish Enterprise launched in September 1992 its Scottish defence initiative, providing a strategy geared towards helping companies and local enterprise companies devise a flexible response to the new challenges and opportunities offered by rapidly changing defence markets. Scottish Enterprise has the flexibility to meet relevant needs arising from changes in the defence industry within its very substantial budget, which is £452 million in the current financial year.
  43
  Further assistance is, or is expected to be, available from the European Community, under the PERIFRA and KONVER initiatives, in areas affected by the contraction of defence-related industries and military installations.

  Hospitals (Capital Building Programme)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes there have been to his commitments on the capital building programme for hospitals for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Stewart
  Capital allocations to two health boards for their building programmes in 1993–94 have increased slightly; Forth Valley health board by £222,000, the Western Isles health board by £65,000. There have been no changes to trust external financing limits—which include trusts' capital provision—for 1993–94. There have been no changes to provisional allocations for 1994–95, for either boards or trusts.

  Drug Stocks
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidance he has issued to hospitals as to the use of drugs after their use-by date;

  (2) what evidence he has of hospitals using drugs which are past their use-by date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 July 1993]: The Scottish Office Home and Health Department issued guidelines on safe and secure handling of medicines in October 1988 commending hospital staff to return all out-of-date drugs or medicines to the pharmacy for disposal. I have no evidence that this guidance has not been adhered to.

  Health Services, Glasgow
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish Greater Glasgow health board's own submissions on the options for change in its acute and maternity services.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Any proposals for change in the organisation of acute and maternity services for Glasgow must be approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Before any proposals can be presented, the health board is required to carry out a lengthy public consultation exercise.

  The Greater Glasgow health board continues consideration of this issue.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland have been detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: Section 2 of the Mental' Health Act 1983 does not extend to Scotland.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount each health board has been notified as its capital expenditure programme in the current year and next year; and what change there has been in each case from the original figures.
  44
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: Capital allocations to health boards for their building programmes for 1993–94 and provisional allocations for 1994–95 are as follows:

  £ million

  Health Board

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Argyll and Clyde

  12·405

  6·258

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0·585

  0·010

  Borders

  3·070

  0·205

  Fife

  5·623

  2·219

  Forth Valley

  6·573

  2·783

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2·801

  0·929

  Grampian

  0·109

  0·040

  Greater Glasgow

  25·996

  20·048

  Highland

  5·201

  2·819

  Lanarkshire

  9·381

  9·895

  Lothian

  24·429

  18·580

  Orkney

  1·296

  1·347

  Shetland

  2·231

  2·256

  Tayside

  10·621

  4·050

  Western Isles

  1·507

  0·340

  State Hospital

  4·080

  5·881

  The figures provided for 1994–95 are not directly comparable with those for 1993–94. Health boards have been given provisional allocations for 1994–95 which reflect only the consequences in that year of the 1993–94 allocations and make no provision at present for projects starting in 1994–95.

  Two boards' allocations have been increased—Forth Valley's by £222,000 and Western Isles' by £65,000—in both cases to deal with problems with existing hospital buildings. There have been no other changes.

  East Lothian (Local Authority Areas)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from residents of East Lothian supporting the division of the district between separate local authority areas.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: My right hon. Friend received a range of representations about the future arrangements for the area at present served by East Lothian district council under a single-tier structure of local government.

  "Investing For Our Future"
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the respondents to the consultation paper, "Investing For Our Future", favoured the options outlined therein by each category from(a) to (g); and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 July 1993]: Most of the 4,834 correspondents did not specify a preference for any particular option. Of those who did, 182 preferred option (a), 61 preferred option (b), 13 preferred option (c), 64 preferred option (d), 23 preferred option (e), 15 preferred option (f) and nine preferred option (g). An analysis of the responses to the consultation paper is contained in the summary of responses which was published by my right hon. Friend on 8 July.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations and individuals who, during the consultation on reorganisation of local government in
  45
  Scotland, made representations in favour of (a) an all-Ayrshire council, (b) retaining Kyle and Carrick as a council and (c) combining Cunninghame, Kilmarnock and Loudon and Cumnock and Doon Valley as one council.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 July 1993]: A total of 56 individuals and organisations commented upon the proposed structure of local government in Ayrshire. Of these, 28 supported an all-Ayrshire council which was included as a unit in both the 15 and 24 unit illustrative structures shown in the consultation paper "Shaping the New Councils". Nine responses supported a council based upon the existing area of Kyle and Carrick district council, which was included as a unit in the 51-unit illustrative structure. A unit comprising Cunninghame, Kilmarnock and Loudon and Cumnock and Doon Valley was not included in the consultation paper and no comments were offered on this option. The organisations and individuals who supported the other two options are as follows:

  All-Ayrshire Council

  J. Mack Wilson

  Kilmaurs Community Council

  Moscow and Waterside Community Council

  Irvine Development Corporation

  Hurlford and Crookedholm Community Council

  Dalrymple and District Community Council

  Colonel Sir Bryce Knox

  Grange Howard Community Council

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley Constituency Labour Party

  John Campbell

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley Conservative Association

  Prestwick Community Council

  Peter M. Robertson

  Cunninghame District Council

  Kilmarnock and Loudon Labour Group

  Symington Community Council

  Enterprise Ayrshire

  Grange and Howard Community Council

  Coylton Community Council

  Cunninghame North Constituency Labour Party

  Cunninghame District Labour Party

  Kyle and Carrick Labour Party

  Ayrshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Kilmarnock and Loudon Conservative Unionist Association

  Euan D. Llewellyn-Jones

  Brodick Primary School Board

  George Foulks MP

  Kyle and Carrick

  Robert Fullarton

  Avril and T. Livingstone

  Treetops Tenants and Residents Association

  C. I. Young

  Kyle and Carrick District Council

  Phil Gallie MP

  John L. Rennie

  Sir Donald Maclean

  Janet Fullarton

  Teachers
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the progress by regional councils towards having teachers appraised by the target date; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 July 1993]: The National Co-ordinating Committee for the Staff Development of Teachers has the task of monitoring progress on the implementation of staff development and appraisal schemes for teachers in Scotland. Last year, the
  46
  committee advised me that every education authority expects to meet the implementation timetable of the end of the school session 1995–96.

  The co-ordinating committee will shortly seek from authorities an update on progress and I expect to receive its further advice later this year.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the denial of concessionary travel privileges and related concessions to those persons aged 60 years or more who are in receipt of invalidity benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 July 1993]: Local authorities' powers to provide concessionary travel to certain eligible categories of person are discretionary. It is for individual local authorities to determine which of the eligible categories will quantify under their arrangements, the level of concession and any restrictions on use. My Department has no information regarding the denial of concessionary travel and related privileges to persons aged 60 years or more who are in receipt of invalidity benefit.

  Shetland and Orkney Islands Councils
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) Shetland Islands council and (b) Orkney Islands council which would arise if his proposal to rename the respective councils as Shetland council and Orkney council is implemented.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: My Department has made no such estimate. The White Paper "Shaping the. Future—The New Councils" makes it clear that I will be prepared to consider representations about the appropriate name of particular authorities and if Orkney Islands council or Shetland Islands council have concerns they wish to express, we shall be pleased to receive these.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest number of general practitioner fund holders in each health board area; and how many he estimates there will be in July 1994.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: The latest information from health boards indicates the numbers of general practitioner fund holders as set out in the table.

  Health board

  Current number of fund holders

  Estimated number of fund holders by July 1994

  Argyll and Clyde

  5

  7

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3

  5

  Borders

  1

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  2

  Fife

  1

  5

  Forth Valley

  2

  6

  Grampian

  25

  35

  Greater Glasgow

  3

  10

  Highland

  1

  2

  Lanarkshire

  8

  15

  Lothian

  7

  11

  47

  Health board

  Current number of fund holders

  Estimated number of fund holders by July 1994

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  8

  10

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Total

  64

  110

  48

  Arts Council
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions grants have been made available by the Scottish Arts Council under its(a) bursaries to writers scheme and (b) writers in residence scheme during the last five years to applicants who were neither resident in Scotland nor had any previous connection with Scotland.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 14 July 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows: (a) none, (b) nine, of a total of 69 grants.
  49

WALES

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the number of male jobs in manufacturing created during(a) the last 12 months and (b) the last five years (i) in the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency and (ii) in Mid Glamorgan; and what are the corresponding figures for the number of jobs lost during the same period.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, according to the 1987 and 1991 censuses of employment, in 1987 in the manufacturing sector there were 4,900 males employed in the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency and 32,700 in Mid Glamorgan. The corresponding figures for 1991 were 4,600 and 31,500.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of grants which Wales has received from the European regional development fund in the past three years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The total amount of ERDF allocated to Wales for the 1991–93 calendar years is £205·8 million.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future funding of the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  Decisions on the agency's resources for future years will be decided in the course of the public expenditure survey in the usual way.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the figure for male unemployment in Newport, Gwent, and Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The unadjusted numbers of male unemployed claimants for the borough of Newport, Gwent and Wales for June 1993 are 5,978, 16,538 and 100,186 respectively.

  Tourism
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to promote tourism in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  With the full support of my Department, a plan for the development of tourism in Wales, the "Tourism 2000" strategy, is currently being developed by the Wales tourist board. Following extensive consultation with interested parties it is expected that the plan will be published towards the end of the year.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about recent progress in inward investment in Wales.
  50
  Mr. Redwood
  Great progress continues to be made. Figures recently announced by the Invest in Britain Bureau show that Wales recorded 20 per cent. of foreign inward investment projects for the United Kingdom in 1992–93. Since then, major projects by Aiwa and ASAT have been announced which promise some 1,500 new jobs at Crumlin.

  Manufacturing Industries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policies to safeguard and develop manufacturing industries in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Manufacturing industry has been a most significant factor in Wales' success in recent years—output has risen by 30·2 per cent. since 1985 compared to a United Kingdom rise of 13·5 per cent. and, in the first quarter of this year, by 2·7 per cent. compared to the United Kingdom's 2·1 per cent. We must continue to build on this by improving manufacturing industry's productivity and the quality of its goods.

  Neath and Port Talbot General Hospital
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now announce his conclusions on his review of the future of Neath and Port Talbot general hospital.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce a decision on the way ahead for health services in the relevant part of West Glamorgan before the summer recess. His decision will be informed by the outcome of the investment appraisal being undertaken by the Audit Commission.

  Forest Enterprise
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the future of Forest Enterprise in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced to the House on 30 March that the Government have established a group of officials to review the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry and options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands. The review will be concerned with the position throughout Great Britain. We expect the review group to submit its report to Ministers by the end of the year.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received this year on the proposals for the boundary between the Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan unitary authorities.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since publication of the local government reorganisation White Paper on 1 March, we have received 164 written representations relating to the proposals for the boundary between the proposed Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan unitary authorities.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on current income levels for hill farmers in Wales.
  51
  Mr. Redwood
  The latest farm business survey shows that the average net farm income of less-favoured area livestock farms was £12,254 in 1991–92. This represents a rise in real terms of 37 per cent. compared with 1990–91. Incomes for 1992–93 are forecast to rise further in real terms.

  Single-parent Families
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many single-parent families there are currently in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is estimated from the 1991 census that there were 68,000 single-parent families in Wales.

  Pharmaceutical Industries
  Mr. Kinnock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to promote the development of the pharmaceutical industries in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A wide range of measures to support the industry and encourage further inward investment in the sector to Wales, is already available through the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and training and enterprise councils.

  Housing
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many houses are owned by local authorities in each of the parliamentary constituencies in Wales; and what proportion of the housing stock these figures represent;

  (2) how many holiday or second homes there are in each parliamentary constituency in Wales; and what proportion of the housing stock they represent;

  (3) how many houses in each parliamentary constituency in Wales are owner-occupied; and what proportion this figure represents of the housing stock.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Results from the 1991 census for parliamentary constituencies, providing details of the tenure of dwellings, will become available towards the end of 1993.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total budget of Tai Cymru in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93; and what proportion of this money was spent in north Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  Total grants to housing associations £ million

  Proportion spent in Clwyd and Gwynedd Per cent.

  1990–91

  116·0

  16·0

  1991–92

  132·6

  22·0

  1992–93

  174·0

  21·0

  Schools (Redundancies)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many compulsory redundancies in schools have taken place in Wales in 1992 and to date in 1993; and if he will publish figures for each secondary and primary school in Wales and figures for each local education authority area.
  52
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The table shows the number of teachers aged 50 and over who retired prematurely for reason of redundancy from maintained schools in Wales and claimed their superannuation benefits. Information on other redundancies—those aged under 50 or those who do not claim their pension—is not held centrally. Data for the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 are as follows.

  Financial Year

  Local Education Authority

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Clwyd

  1

  1

  Dyfed

  2

  1

  Gwent

  86

  42

  Gwynedd

  2

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  8

  Powys

  0

  2

  South Glamorgan

  1

  0

  West Glamorgan

  18

  8

  Wales total

  111

  65

  Source:

  Teachers Pension Agency.

  Out-patient Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Wales to enhance the provision of out-patient cancer treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In addition to the NHS in Wales's ongoing development programme funded from resources allocated to health authorities, recent centrally funded developments include the provision of replacement linear accelerators at Singleton hospital, Swansea at a cost of some £2 million and at Velindre hospital, Cardiff, at a cost of £1·4 million. In addition, I announced on 22 June the development of a dedicated cancer treatment centre for north Wales at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, Bodelwyddan to provide a full range of palliative and curative care, including radiotherapy. Many of the estimated 2,000 patients treated annually will be out-patients.

  Fishing Licences
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to ensure that all freshwater anglers purchase a fishing licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Responsibility for rod licensing rests with the National Rivers Authority.

  Agriculture (Self-sufficiency)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of self-sufficiency in Wales in the production of(a) butter, (b) milk, (c) beef and (d) sheepmeat.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest available estimates, for 1990, of self-sufficiency—production in Wales as a percentage of consumption in Wales—are as follows.
  53

  1990

  Consumption

  Production

  Production as a percentage of consumption per cent.

  Butter

  27,901

  —

  —

  1 3163·8

  —

  —

  Milk and Butter

  3491·5

  31,530

  311·30

  Beef

  218,011

  266,000

  366·46

  Sheepmeat

  215,674

  274,000

  472·12

  1 Figures are not available for the volume of butter produced from Welsh milk. Butter consumption estimates have therefore been converted into raw milk equivalent and included with liquid milk consumption.

  2 Tonnes.

  3 Million litres.

  Truancy (Clwyd)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Clwyd to reduce the number of children playing truant from school; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Parents, schools and local education authorities share legal responsibilities in respect of school attendance. Local authorities must ensure that parents are fulfilling their statutory obligations as to their children's education including, where necessary, by action through the courts. Details of the measures by which local authorities achieve this are not, however, held centrally.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Wales to divert traffic away from environmentally sensitive areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Full account is taken of environmentally sensitive areas when planning and designing trunk road schemes.

  Hospital Stays
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average length of a hospital stay in Wales in 1979 and in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Advances in medical technology have made it possible that while the average length of stay of patients for all specialties in hospitals in Wales was 19·1 days in 1979 it was 10·4 days in 1991–92. The average length of stay for acute specialties, excluding geriatric, maternity and psychiatric specialties, was 9·5 days and 6·2 days respectively. Consequently, more patients than ever before are now receiving better care under the national health service in Wales.

  Hospital Waste
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to ensure the safe disposal of hospital waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All health authorities in Wales were issued with the Secretary of State's guidance "Clinical Waste Incineration Processes under 1 Tonne an Hour" in March 1991.
  54
  Guidance and a code of practice were issued in March 1992 detailing responsibilities under the "duty of care" requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which places stringent requirements on all who create, transport and dispose of "controlled waste".

  It is for the local authority environmental health officers, as the statutory enforcers, to control and monitor the activities of health authorities and NHS trusts.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the subject of rural post offices since 1 May; and if if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Seventeen such representations have been received, including a petition with 1,098 signatures.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for January for each year from 1988 to the latest year for which figures are available, the number of pupils aged five to 15 years with statements of special educational needs(a) in maintained special schools, (b) in non-maintained special schools and independent schools under arrangements made by the authority and (c) in maintained primary, middle and secondary schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Pupils with statements of special educational needs

  Year

  Maintained special schools1

  Non-maintained special and independent schools

  Maintained primary and secondary schools2

  31988

  3,953

  134

  7,462

  31989

  3,737

  149

  7,454

  31990

  3,668

  150

  7,147

  31991

  3,620

  169

  8,858

  41992

  2,628

  143

  9,916

  1Data for 1988–1991 include pupils in special units (other than those attached to schools).

  2Data for 1992 include pupils in grant-maintained schools.

  3Data are pupils of all ages.

  4Data are pupils aged 5–16 with ages at 31 August the preceding year.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for January for each year from 1988 to the latest year for which figures are available(a) the number of full-time pupils aged five to 15 years in (i) maintained primary, middle and secondary schools and (ii) special schools maintained by the LEA and (b) the number of pupils aged five to 15 years belonging to (i) other LEAs but attending special schools maintained by the LEA, (ii) the LEA but attending special schools maintained by other LEAs and (iii) the LEA attending non-maintained special schools and independent schools for the purposes of special educational treatment.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is given in the tables.
  55

  (a) the number of full-time pupils aged 5 to 15 years1

  Maintained primary and secondary schools2

  LEA maintained special schools

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Clwyd

  54,407

  53,737

  52,992

  52,993

  53,043

  661

  634

  629

  630

  642

  Dyfed

  45,254

  45,727

  45,597

  45,652

  45,754

  258

  254

  232

  199

  210

  Gwent

  59,960

  59,142

  59,008

  59,438

  60,149

  351

  336

  316

  320

  307

  Gwynedd

  31,663

  31,047

  30,496

  29,956

  29,782

  263

  255

  215

  211

  234

  Mid Glamorgan

  76,143

  75,244

  75,054

  75,214

  75,615

  646

  587

  589

  565

  597

  Powys

  15,574

  15,498

  15,467

  15,331

  15,335

  110

  109

  122

  122

  125

  South Glamorgan

  52,131

  52,128

  52,038

  52,730

  53,703

  655

  624

  588

  575

  537

  West Glamorgan

  48,584

  48,505

  48,350

  48,769

  49,002

  218

  194

  181

  177

  175

  Wales

  383,715

  381,028

  379,002

  380,083

  382,383

  3,162

  2,993

  2,872

  2,799

  2,827

  1 At January each year, with ages at 31 August the preceding year.

  2 Includes grant-maintained schools.

  (b) The number of children aged 5 to 15 belonging to:

  (i) other LEAs but attending special schools maintained by the LEA

  (ii) the LEA but attending special schools maintained by other LEAs

  (iii) The LEA but attending non-maintained special and independent schools1

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Clwyd

  30

  25

  38

  37

  42

  33

  29

  25

  24

  24

  3

  2

  4

  2

  8

  Dyfed

  11

  12

  13

  2

  3

  15

  15

  17

  16

  13

  10

  16

  8

  12

  21

  Gwent

  14

  16

  11

  6

  4

  48

  45

  38

  24

  26

  36

  45

  56

  69

  32

  Gwynedd

  15

  18

  15

  11

  8

  15

  8

  10

  8

  7

  8

  8

  7

  8

  6

  Mid Glamorgan

  32

  29

  23

  16

  19

  48

  42

  37

  31

  19

  52

  53

  58

  61

  51

  Powys

  4

  7

  5

  4

  3

  7

  7

  2

  3

  3

  14

  22

  18

  20

  18

  South Glamorgan

  81

  73

  58

  48

  36

  17

  17

  13

  5

  3

  6

  9

  7

  9

  5

  West Glamorgan

  5

  7

  11

  12

  11

  12

  16

  8

  11

  12

  17

  15

  9

  12

  2

  1 Data for 1988–91 include children of all ages. Data for 1992 include children aged 5 to 16 years with statements for special educational needs only. Data include children being educated outside of the authority in which they are registered.

ENVIRONMENT

  Pollution, Helpston
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to prevent further pollution of groundwater at Helpston, Cambridgeshire, following the identification of the cause and source in August 1992.

  Mr. Yeo
  The National Rivers Authority took immediate action in 1992 to ask the waste regulatory authority to vary the waste disposal licences for the landfill sites from which the pollution came. Subsequently, in October 1992, the NRA commissioned studies to identify the options available to contain and remedy the pollution. The final report on this is expected shortly, and will help the NRA to decide what further action is necessary and feasible.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what grounds the National Rivers Authority has decided not to publish the three existing reports identifying the cause and source of groundwater pollution at Helpston, Cambridgeshire.

  Mr. Yeo
  Investigations into the groundwater pollution at Helpston are not yet complete. The reports received so far have been judged, by the NRA, to be subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. Apart from any legal restrictions, the NRA plans to release as much factual information as possible, when it is appropriate.
  56
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which authority will be responsible for funding the clean-up of pesticide pollution at Helpston, Cambridgeshire.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is for the National Rivers Authority and the courts to consider whether there may be any criminal liability in respect of the contamination. The NRA also has power to take remedial action should that be appropriate, and can seek to recover its costs. It is for anyone adversely affected to consider any claims for civil damages.

  Special Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list by year, for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste arisings and deposits;

  (2) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste arising (a) within the county and deposited within the county, (b) within the county and exported out of the county and (c) outside the county and deposited within the county.

  Mr. Yeo
  The tables below show the amounts of special waste arising within the English counties, the amounts imported to and exported from each county, and the amount deposited in each county since 1987–88. Special wastes may be imported and re-exported as part of the treatment and disposal process. The information available on exports and deposits does not identify the sources of the waste.

  Figures relate to financial years ending 31 March, and are in tonnes. In 1987–88 and 1988–89 not all counties provided returns. We have revised the figures for those

  57
  years that were published in the "Digest of Environmental Protection Water Statistics No. 15 (1992)" following further validation exercises.

  Special waste statistics: England by county 1987–88

  County

  Arisings

  Exports

  Imports

  Deposited

  Avon

  17,787

  17,991

  842

  638

  Bedfordshire

  4,337

  1,585

  57,643

  60,396

  Berkshire

  4,873

  4,231

  758

  1,400

  Buckinghamshire

  4,362

  2,962

  4,492

  5,893

  Cambridgeshire

  15,417

  9,954

  2,508

  7,970

  Cheshire

  207,179

  128,857

  132,973

  211,295

  Cleveland

  363,432

  57,759

  12,540

  318,213

  Cornwall

  567

  413

  0

  155

  Cumbria

  9,366

  1,718

  462

  8,110

  Derbyshire

  73,856

  33,576

  23,982

  64,263

  Devon

  4,180

  1,954

  3,250

  5,476

  Dorset

  4,376

  3,269

  319

  1,107

  Durham

  31,600

  7,940

  58,330

  81,990

  East Sussex

  2,443

  2,440

  2,230

  2,233

  Essex

  35,284

  15,284

  118,204

  138,204

  Gloucestershire

  14,062

  9,716

  385

  4,731

  GMWDA

  78,803

  47,968

  127,933

  158,768

  Hampshire

  13,687

  29,387

  10,281

  5,419

  Hereford and Worcester

  12,429

  538

  0

  11,891

  Hertfordshire

  128,859

  106,898

  2,840

  24,801

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  67

  50

  0

  18

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  146,594

  57,224

  5,043

  94,413

  Leicestershire

  13,146

  6,110

  3,654

  10,690

  Lincolnshire

  2,065

  1,867

  111

  309

  LWRA

  60,629

  57,249

  368

  3,748

  Merseyside

  17,625

  27,128

  20,176

  10,672

  Norfolk

  12,193

  11,024

  63

  1,232

  North Yorkshire

  4,461

  4,074

  260

  647

  Northamptonshire

  4,132

  3,376

  14,771

  15,528

  Northumberland

  16,411

  2,620

  5,625

  19,416

  Nottinghamshire

  16,099

  13,625

  2,125

  4,598

  Oxfordshire

  3,941

  2,999

  2,813

  3,755

  Shropshire

  6,850

  5,658

  2,820

  4,012

  Somerset

  7,927

  5,610

  0

  2,317

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  25,009

  23,153

  6,402

  8,258

  Surrey

  2,356

  1,743

  225

  838

  Tyne and Wear

  80,732

  72,469

  12,741

  21,004

  Warwickshire

  14,045

  7,287

  29,205

  35,962

  West Midlands

  244,893

  59,498

  188,213

  373,608

  West Sussex

  4,953

  4,220

  335

  1,069

  West Yorkshire

  212,147

  43,052

  19,691

  188,786

  Wiltshire

  4,553

  4,243

  621

  931

  Total

  11,927,725

  898,717

  875,233

  1,914,761

  — = no return made.

  GMWDA = Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority.

  LWRA = London Waste Regulation Authority.

  1 Totals relate to reporting districts only.

  Special waste statistics: England by county 1988–89

  County

  Arisings

  Exports

  Imports

  Deposited

  Avon

  18,049

  16,237

  5,613

  7,425

  Bedfordshire

  4,164

  1,586

  30,588

  33,166

  Berkshire

  16,143

  5,031

  1,399

  12,511

  Buckinghamshire

  4,869

  3,955

  1,884

  2,798

  Cambridgeshire

  17,668

  12,838

  5,996

  10,827

  Cheshire

  62,678

  27,146

  204,163

  239,695

  Cleveland

  245,500

  58,800

  800

  187,500

  Cornwall

  619

  378

  0

  240

  Cumbria

  6,088

  3,588

  319

  2,819

  Derbyshire

  65,390

  24,011

  25,873

  67,252

  Devon

  5,755

  2,847

  3,825

  6,733

  Dorset

  7,267

  6,774

  458

  951

  Durham

  49,680

  27,944

  92,574

  114,310

  East Sussex

  939

  930

  7,298

  7,307

  Essex

  23,756

  3,698

  103,631

  123,689

  58 59

  County

  Arisings

  Exports

  Imports

  Deposited

  Gloucestershire

  16,920

  11,640

  924

  6,204

  GMWDA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  21,339

  14,767

  14,190

  20,762

  Hereford and Worcester

  12,572

  12,541

  0

  30

  Hertfordshire

  27,165

  19,672

  2,818

  10,311

  Humberside

  15,675

  10,115

  273

  5,833

  Isle of Wight

  75

  64

  0

  11

  Kent

  202,678

  19,261

  1,557

  184,914

  Lancashire

  33,179

  24,071

  7,711

  16,818

  Leicestershire

  12,281

  6,092

  3,961

  10,150

  Lincolnshire

  2,321

  2,216

  83

  189

  LWRA

  51,636

  44,529

  440

  7,547

  Merseyside

  26,518

  26,519

  18,121

  18,119

  Norfolk

  15,528

  11,856

  53

  3,725

  North Yorkshire

  6,131

  5,737

  719

  1,113

  Northamptonshire

  3,828

  2,451

  18,310

  19,688

  Northumberland

  19,485

  4,147

  5,380

  20,718

  Nottinghamshire

  18,389

  17,479

  460

  1,370

  Oxfordshire

  4,274

  2,368

  2,701

  4,607

  Shropshire

  7,150

  6,018

  2,443

  3,575

  Somerset

  9,979

  8,341

  0

  1,638

  South Yorkshire

  67,327

  43,159

  17,579

  41,747

  Staffordshire

  36,647

  29,234

  61,459

  68,872

  Suffolk

  31,989

  30,646

  4,807

  6,150

  Surrey

  9,340

  8,740

  1,461

  2,061

  Tyne and Wear

  62,959

  48,095

  4,905

  19,769

  Warwickshire

  8,601

  7,840

  9,947

  10,708

  West Midlands

  246,991

  82,858

  212,050

  376,183

  West Sussex

  3,819

  3,301

  90

  608

  West Yorkshire

  158,819

  56,105

  5,434

  108,148

  Wiltshire

  1,732

  1,266

  673

  1,139

  Total

  11,663,911

  756,891

  882,969

  1,789,928

  — = no return made.

  GMWDA = Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority.

  LWRA = London Waste Regulation Authority.

  1 Totals relate to reporting districts only.

  Special waste statistics: England by county 1989–90

  County

  Arisings

  Exports

  Imports

  Deposited

  Avon

  17,102

  15,264

  2,607

  4,445

  Bedfordshire

  3,485

  1,448

  78,904

  80,941

  Berkshire

  7,545

  6,383

  1,636

  2,798

  Buckinghamshire

  7,035

  5,964

  714

  1,785

  Cambridgeshire

  17,668

  12,838

  1,496

  6,327

  Cheshire

  92,780

  34,888

  121,869

  179,761

  Cleveland

  510,781

  49,698

  8,602

  469,685

  Cornwall

  656

  558

  0

  98

  Cumbria

  7,277

  4,163

  200

  3,314

  Derbyshire

  68,996

  33,551

  16,058

  51,503

  Devon

  3,565

  2,040

  4,000

  5,525

  Dorset

  3,131

  2,694

  354

  791

  Durham

  30,676

  21,557

  35,004

  44,123

  East Sussex

  3,238

  3,218

  21,363

  21,383

  Essex

  88,277

  60,101

  127,040

  155,216

  Gloucestershire

  18,498

  12,834

  992

  6,656

  GMWDA

  138,168

  54,876

  135,040

  218,332

  Hampshire

  37,583

  29,017

  27,889

  36,455

  Hereford and Worcester

  17,230

  17,229

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  22,495

  12,302

  5,660

  15,852

  Humberside

  21,077

  11,677

  444

  9,845

  Isle of Wight

  1,954

  1,946

  0

  8

  Kent

  67,866

  63,954

  22,597

  26,508

  Lancashire

  68,058

  34,939

  26,564

  59,682

  Leicestershire

  12,273

  6,034

  4,154

  6,238

  Lincolnshire

  2,973

  2,873

  80

  180

  LWRA

  107,112

  98,846

  1,242

  9,508

  Merseyside

  34,046

  28,857

  29,022

  30,310

  Norfolk

  9,296

  8,115

  232

  1,413

  North Yorkshire

  7,692

  7,058

  4,057

  4,691

  Northamptonshire

  4 387

  2,998

  17,122

  18,511

  Northumberland

  20,312

  6,102

  9,807

  24,017

  Nottinghamshire

  5,279

  4,407

  712

  1,583

  Oxfordshire

  4,274

  2,368

  2,701

  4,607

  Shropshire

  7,676

  6,687

  2,346

  3,335

  60 61

  County

  Arisings

  Exports

  Imports

  Deposited

  Somerset

  6,621

  5,331

  0

  1,290

  South Yorkshire

  90,954

  55,750

  17,736

  52,941

  Staffordshire

  29,800

  26,400

  25,500

  28,900

  Suffolk

  29,088

  27,819

  5,009

  6,278

  Surrey

  12,427

  11,191

  3,882

  5,119

  Tyne and Wear

  22,460

  14,757

  21,373

  29,076

  Warwickshire

  11,676

  5,717

  15,799

  21,758

  West Midlands

  226,763

  82,642

  174,203

  318,324

  West Sussex

  5,180

  4,137

  58

  1,102

  West Yorkshire

  235,749

  54,144

  11,357

  192,962

  Wiltshire

  5,144

  3,580

  2,590

  4,154

  Total

  2,146,323

  958,952

  988,015

  2,167,330

  GMWDA = Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority.

  LWRA = London Waste Regulation Authority.

  Special waste statistics: England by county 1990–91

  County

  Arisings

  Exports

  Imports

  Deposits

  Avon

  12,828

  11,497

  2,702

  4,033

  Bedfordshire

  4,745

  3,554

  103,602

  104,794

  Berkshire

  6,905

  6,279

  4,260

  4,886

  Buckinghamshire

  6,917

  6,441

  431

  906

  Cambridgeshire

  13,493

  16,290

  11,108

  8,311

  Cheshire

  147,664

  61,061

  172,769

  259,372

  Cleveland

  417,539

  72,910

  30,949

  375,578

  Cornwall

  311

  272

  0

  39

  Cumbria

  7,944

  4,343

  463

  4,064

  Derbyshire

  75,675

  39,178

  36,082

  752,579

  Devon

  4,145

  1,970

  3,470

  5,645

  Dorset

  2,881

  2,564

  307

  624

  Durham

  35,420

  26,230

  21,570

  30,760

  East Sussex

  12,532

  12,508

  8,258

  8,282

  Essex

  26,168

  6,815

  118,296

  137,649

  Gloucestershire

  15,457

  10,728

  1,874

  6,603

  GMWDA

  136,464

  61,932

  136,232

  210,764

  Hampshire

  25,780

  18,274

  17,553

  25,059

  Hereford and Worcester

  12,655

  12,568

  0

  87

  Hertfordshire

  35,179

  28,840

  6,573

  12,912

  Humberside

  21,831

  12,995

  10,369

  19,205

  Isle of Wight

  267

  256

  0

  11

  Kent

  698,543

  696,059

  13,387

  15,870

  Lancashire

  146,361

  19,640

  29,592

  156,312

  Leicestershire

  13,165

  9,150

  1,935

  4,015

  Lincolnshire

  2,083

  1,915

  73

  240

  LWRA

  160,211

  143,077

  1,248

  18,382

  Merseyside

  36,619

  35,451

  14,974

  16,142

  Norfolk

  10,154

  8,897

  259

  1,516

  North Yorkshire

  7,008

  6,585

  7,939

  8,363

  Northamptonshire

  5,189

  4,823

  15,844

  16,210

  Northumberland

  28,619

  11,769

  3,488

  20,338

  Nottinghamshire

  15,863

  13,513

  2,420

  4,780

  Oxfordshire

  4,691

  2,742

  4,086

  6,035

  Shropshire

  9,286

  9,184

  2,611

  2,714

  Somerset

  12,557

  11,218

  0

  1,340

  South Yorkshire

  36,565

  26,193

  23,034

  33,406

  Staffordshire

  39,667

  39,427

  11,630

  11,870

  Suffolk

  21,590

  21,079

  423

  933

  Surrey

  13,098

  12,115

  4,894

  5,877

  Tyne and Wear

  30,812

  14,401

  16,171

  32,582

  Warwickshire

  9,957

  9,688

  30,275

  30,544

  West Midlands

  215,959

  75,028

  164,188

  305,119

  West Sussex

  8,256

  6,505

  42

  1,792

  West Yorkshire

  180,495

  89,654

  14,772

  105,613

  Wiltshire

  3,137

  2,284

  4,154

  5,008

  Totals

  2,732,683

  1,687,900

  1,054,305

  2,777,164

  GMWDA = Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority.

  LWRA = London Waste Regulation Authority.

  62 63

  Special waste statistics: England by county 1991–92

  Tonnes

  County

  Arisings

  Exports

  Imports

  Deposits

  Avon

  9,865

  7,973

  10,314

  12,206

  Bedfordshire

  5,319

  3,288

  896,554

  898,585

  Berkshire

  5,214

  4,877

  2,109

  2,446

  Buckinghamshire

  6,525

  6,250

  203

  477

  Cambridgeshire

  16,830

  17,088

  4,956

  4,698

  Cheshire

  121,387

  60,285

  149,491

  210,593

  Cleveland

  357,852

  45,278

  14

  312,588

  Cornwall

  1,216

  1,053

  12

  162

  Cumbria

  6,167

  5,993

  62

  237

  Derbyshire

  68,138

  33,390

  42,129

  76,877

  Devon

  5,525

  2,230

  3,315

  6,610

  Dorset

  3,951

  3,653

  247

  545

  Durham

  17,766

  10,109

  12,308

  19,965

  East Sussex

  1,608

  1,559

  11,272

  11,321

  Essex

  23,703

  5,086

  102,374

  120,997

  Gloucestershire

  8,903

  5,825

  12,155

  15,233

  GMWDA

  61,365

  36,904

  144,716

  206,081

  Hampshire

  26,787

  21,608

  28,989

  39,603

  Hereford and Worcester

  13,680

  13,126

  0

  554

  Hertfordshire

  150,856

  142,827

  6,155

  14,185

  Humberside

  22,846

  14,981

  6,948

  14,813

  Isle of Wight

  105

  103

  0

  3

  Kent

  759,769

  757,948

  14,129

  15,954

  Lancashire

  136,121

  24,468

  29,280

  140,933

  Leicestershire

  29,753

  23,842

  1,717

  7,629

  Lincolnshire

  2,185

  1,983

  181

  383

  LWRA

  133,807

  113,383

  2,416

  22,840

  Merseyside

  33,743

  30,184

  25,292

  28,851

  Norfolk

  7,847

  7,038

  1,927

  2,736

  North Yorkshire

  7,518

  7,079

  1,996

  2,435

  Northamptonshire

  6,116

  4,844

  25,442

  26,713

  Northumberland

  29,568

  13,842

  1,000

  15,725

  Nottinghamshire

  39,082

  39,809

  4,177

  3,450

  Oxfordshire

  5,575

  3,401

  3,398

  5,571

  Shropshire

  12,171

  12,171

  1,668

  1,669

  Somerset

  6,767

  5,480

  100

  1,287

  South Yorkshire

  37,432

  15,009

  27,915

  50,338

  Staffordshire

  40,470

  40,040

  10,000

  10,430

  Suffolk

  18,116

  17,964

  422

  556

  Surrey

  20,199

  18,987

  1,819

  3,031

  Tyne and Wear

  30,299

  14,416

  11,782

  27,654

  Warwickshire

  8,273

  8,088

  38,305

  38,490

  West Midlands

  198,601

  83,267

  155,764

  271,098

  West Sussex

  6,167

  5,993

  62

  178

  West Yorkshire

  180,000

  89,000

  17,000

  108,000

  Wiltshire

  6,118

  5,267

  16,325

  17,176

  Total

  2,691,306

  1,786,988

  1,826,438

  2,771,905

  GMWDA = Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority.

  LWRA = London Waste Regulation Authority.

  Depleted Uranium Shells
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the environmental effects of the test firing of depleted uranium shells.

  Mr. Yeo
  Ministry of Defence premises are exempt from the requirements of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, but controls equally stringent to those exercised over other users of radioactive materials are applied on an administrative basis by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. This includes a programme of inspection by HMIP inspectors. As part of this regulatory function, HMIP has received regular reports containing results of the environmental monitoring programme carried out by the MOD. HMIP is currently in the process of assessing the effects of test firing this ammunition on the environment.
  64

  Water (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has recently received from the chairman of the National Rivers Authority in regard to the effectiveness of prosecutions under the Water Resources Act 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  I regularly discuss a variety of topics, including pollution control, with the chairman. Details of the NRA's achievements in its enforcement activity are set out in its annual water pollution incidents report. The most recent information, relating to 1991, was published by the NRA last September.

  London (Policy Developments)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the policy developments relating to London since August 1992.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have carried through the policy initiatives set out in our general election manifesto. The
  65
  Cabinet sub-committee on London— EDL(1)— continues to co-ordinate Government policy on London and to take a strategic view of the impact of all our policies on the capital. We have convened the London Forum to promote London internationally as a centre for business, tourism and culture. This private sector body was launched formally on 29 March and is now developing its promotional plans. The transport working group chaired by the Minister for Transport in London has met on three occasions since August 1992 to discuss the co-ordination of public transport in London.

  Together, these initiatives will help to maintain and enhance London's position as a thriving national capital and leading world city. I am currently taking this forward by seeking the views of Londoners and their representative groups on the capital so that we can build on our successes and enhance our reputation.

  Housing Association Grant
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed reduction of housing association grant to 55 per cent. by 1995.

  Sir George Young
  My Department has received more than 300 letters from Members of Parliament, individuals and organisations about our objectives to reduce grant rates to 60 per cent. in 1994–95 and 55 per cent. in 1995–96.

  Green Belts
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the procedure adopted by his Department in consideration of applications for land to be granted green belt status.

  Mr. Curry
  Green belts are designated through the development plan process. In drawing up their plans, local planning authorities must have regard to our guidance on the designation of green belts, set out in paragraphs 6 to 11 of planning policy guidance note 2.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the clarity of the language used in his departmental publications.

  Mr. Gummer
  Clarity of language and accuracy have the highest priority in the production of publications intended for wide use. From time to time, market research is used to test drafts of publications and also to test the effectiveness of the final product.

  In 1992, the Department was awarded the Plain English Campaign's crystal mark. This was for the council tenants charter.

  Urban Environment Initiative
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the Association of Municipal Engineers to discuss developing an urban environment initiative.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have set up the Central and Local Environment Forum to enable us to maintain regular contact with local authorities on environmental matters, including the development of their "Local Agenda 21 66
  Initiative", which I welcome. I have no plans to open separate discussions with the Association of Municipal Engineers.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what level his Department was represented at the Institute of Energy conference on how climate change will affect business held in London on 7 July.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gave the key note address to the conference. The director general of the Energy Efficiency Office attended the conference for most of the day and participated in the open forum discussion session at the end of the morning.

  Noreast Building Management
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out(a) the proceeds of the sale of Noreast Building Management to John Mowlem and (b) the amount of money set aside to cover possible redundancy costs.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers given on 8 July Official Report, column 419–20, and 13 July, Official Report, column 232.

  Area Cost Adjustments
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Association of County Councils about the fairer calculation of area cost adjustment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received a number of representations from the Association of County Councils about the area cost adjustment. Its evidence will he considered carefully as part of our review of standard spending assessments.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission will continue to operate under the provisions of section 13 of the Local Government Act 1992. We are keeping its programme under review.

  Sparks Bakery Site, Stockton
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions were attached to the grant made to Stockton borough council in 1988 to purchase the Sparks Bakery site; and whether any prohibition was placed on the division of the Sparks bakery site in Stockton-on-Tees by his Department when the grant was made to Stockton borough council to purchase it.

  Mr. Baldry
  Approval for Stockton borough council to use urban programme resources to acquire Sparks bakery site to create a business centre was granted subject to one
  67
  condition: that the urban programme grant will be clawed back if the land and/or buildings are eventually used for some other purpose or if a scheme accepted by the Department for urban programme funding has not been started by 3 March 1990.

  No restrictions were placed on the division of the site when the grant was made.

  PSA Property Management (Scotland)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the price difference between the SERCO bid for PSA Property Management (Scotland) and the next nearest offer; and what undertakings have been sought to ensure the retention of headquarters management and staff in Scotland.

  Mr. Curry
  Details of bids from unsuccessful bidders are commercially confidential. Serco's objective in acquiring BM Scotland is to expand its business based in Scotland as a separate Scottish company.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) of 8 July,Official Report columns 233–35, what was the position of each member state on the votes on (a) volatile organic compound emissions and (b) the text of a directive on new exhaust emission standards for light commercial vehicles below 3·5 tonnes maximum weight; and what was the Government's position in the discussions on (i) the wild birds directive and (ii) the packaging and waste directive taken at the European Community's Environment Council held on 8 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  No formal votes were taken at the Environment Council held on 28 and 29 June. On wild birds, the Government supported a compromise acceptable to 10 other member states. On packaging, the Council held a policy debate rather than a discussion of detail, during which I emphasised the need for early agreement on the directive on the basis of realistic targets, particularly in the light of the unintended effects measures in one country might have on other member states.

  Churchyards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for which closed churchyards the liability of maintenance has been taken over by a local authority under section 215 of the Local Government Act 1972.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer Friday 16 July]: This information is not held centrally.

  Scientists' Training
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the safety executive initiative in respect of the training of scientists to assess environmental risks.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive is developing an MSc in environmental toxicology with the university of Central Lancashire. The course will utilise the university's expertise in toxicology and allied environmental sciences
  68
  and HSE's regulatory experience. At present there are 12 students; 10 are HSE staff and the other two are graduates from the Merseyside area.

  Defence Research Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibilities the Defence Research Agency has to respond to requests for information under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. A. R. Chisholm to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 19 July 1993.
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding the Defence Research Agency's responsibilities under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.The DRA is wholly owned by the Secretary of State for Defence and must conform to the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 in just the same way as any other public body. What this means in practice is that we would endeavour to respond positively to all requests for environmental information.

EMPLOYMENT

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to stimulate growth in the availability of apprenticeships to school leavers in(a) the steel industry, (b) the aerospace industry and (c) the construction industry.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are keen to promote and encourage the growth of apprenticeships in these industries and others. The Government already support some apprenticeships and similar training arrangements through youth credits and youth training, and keep their policies under regular review.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has to assist in retraining and job creation in west Cumbria in the event of THORP being further delayed or cancelled.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Department, through the employment service (ES) and Cumbria training and enterprise council (TEC) are offering a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to assist unemployed people in West Cumbria including those previously employed at THORP. The TEC is starting redundancy counselling sessions at THORP soon which will include job search counselling, financial advice and general redundancy counselling, ES and TEC programmes are designed to be flexible in order to take account of special local circumstances such as this to help people find the best and quickest route back to employment.

  Both the employment service and Cumbria TEC are monitoring the situation at THORP closely and are

  69
  working in partnership with BNFL plc and the West Cumbria development agency to address the particular training and job search needs of THORP employees as they arise and to encourage new enterprise activity in the area.

  Youth Training
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has received in the past 12 months on the supply of and demand for youth training places in each TEC area; and what has been made public.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the availability of youth training (YT) places is not collected nationally. Information on the total demand for YT places is also not collected, but the number of young people who are registered with Careers Services in England and who are covered by the YT guarantee, has been collected since August last year. Information on the number of these young people who have been waiting for a YT place for eight or more weeks in March and April has been released in response to previous questions in the House. Updated information is provided in the following table:

  Young people wailing for 8 or more weeks for a place on YT: 1993

  TEC

  March1

  April2

  May3

  June4

  Avon

  88

  117

  9

  6

  AZTEC

  156

  95

  65

  41

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  36

  35

  69

  91

  Bedfordshire

  115

  164

  71

  48

  Birmingham

  110

  131

  21

  38

  Bolton and Bury

  41

  19

  0

  0

  Bradford

  15

  18

  8

  9

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  18

  15

  28

  30

  CAMBSTEC

  69

  54

  55

  21

  Central England

  14

  19

  15

  23

  Central London

  136

  153

  71

  42

  CEWTEC

  18

  12

  9

  13

  CILNTEC

  143

  109

  108

  73

  County Durham

  62

  71

  61

  70

  Coventry and Warwicks

  79

  86

  88

  87

  Cumbria

  33

  6

  12

  33

  Devon and Cornwall

  66

  71

  56

  27

  Dorset

  23

  15

  12

  12

  Dudley

  2

  1

  2

  1

  ELTEC

  19

  29

  25

  14

  Essex

  373

  329

  195

  199

  Gloucester

  28

  11

  5

  1

  Greater Nottingham

  32

  35

  18

  9

  Greater Peterborough

  23

  17

  22

  21

  Hampshire

  207

  304

  251

  63

  HAWTEC

  19

  30

  9

  7

  Heart of England

  15

  24

  20

  19

  Hertfordshire

  107

  164

  108

  107

  Humberside

  47

  36

  25

  30

  Isle of Wight

  37

  28

  37

  29

  Kent

  338

  183

  134

  103

  LAWTEC

  40

  28

  23

  17

  Leeds

  37

  26

  32

  32

  Leicestershire

  27

  31

  22

  19

  LETEC

  439

  380

  310

  233

  Lincolnshire

  19

  39

  19

  19

  Manchester

  106

  93

  58

  61

  Merseyside

  42

  47

  55

  25

  METROTEC

  21

  6

  12

  0

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks

  32

  42

  35

  43

  Norfolk/Waveney

  4

  31

  27

  49

  NORMIDTEC

  13

  9

  14

  8

  North Derbyshire

  42

  39

  19

  9

  North London

  66

  79

  59

  74

  70

  TEC

  March1

  April2

  May3

  June4

  North Nottinghamshire

  91

  55

  37

  22

  North West London

  111

  107

  82

  99

  North Yorkshire

  79

  59

  49

  42

  Northamptonshire

  62

  39

  5

  27

  Northumberland

  47

  58

  62

  65

  Oldham

  36

  48

  28

  6

  QUALITEC

  20

  16

  25

  17

  Rochdale

  18

  15

  6

  8

  Rotherham

  4

  9

  3

  2

  Sandwell

  10

  20

  28

  28

  South and East Cheshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Sheffield

  156

  147

  277

  46

  Shropshire

  19

  24

  13

  16

  SOLOTEC

  206

  194

  76

  37

  Somerset

  97

  114

  103

  125

  South Derbyshire

  25

  29

  28

  8

  South Thames

  476

  451

  339

  67

  Staffordshire

  4

  6

  7

  6

  Stockport and High Peak

  16

  19

  12

  9

  Suffolk

  13

  13

  14

  10

  Surrey

  94

  99

  28

  13

  Sussex

  66

  86

  60

  59

  Teesside

  45

  56

  65

  100

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  185

  198

  205

  228

  Tyneside

  60

  59

  56

  54

  Wakefield

  18

  18

  16

  13

  Walsall

  3

  12

  6

  5

  Wearside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West London

  36

  48

  29

  19

  Wiltshire

  68

  68

  47

  41

  Wolverhampton

  2

  6

  3

  5

  Sources:

  1 Information from Careers Service Management return (Supplement) 11 March 1993.

  2 Information from Careers Service Management return (Supplement) 8 April 1993.

  3 Information from Careers Service Management return (Supplement) 13 May 1993.

  4 Information from Careers Service Management return (Supplement) 10 June 1993.

  Full Employment
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secetary of State for Employment what part he plans to play in the proposed European Commission into Full Employment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Commission's communication, "Community-wide Framework for Employment". The Social Affairs Council which I attended on 1 June 1993 welcomed the communication as a valuable contribution to the process of seeking solutions to unemployment, whilst recognising that the primary responsibility for employment policies lies with the member states. The United Kingdom awaits specific proposals from the European Commission.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths occurred as a result of asbestos-related illness in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest figures for deaths due to asbestosis and mesothelioma published in "Health and Safety Statistics 1990–91", are in the following table:
  71

  Asbestosis

  Mesothelioma

  1990

  163

  862

  1991

  1163

  11,017

  1 Provisional.

  The figures are taken from death certificates. Mesothelioma is thought to have a natural background incidence of about 100 cases per year; the rest are presumed to be asbestos-related.

  Since April 1985, under cetain conditions, lung cancer in asbestos workers has been a prescribed disease under the industrial injury scheme. The number of cases diagnosed under this scheme since 1990 for which figures are available are as follows:

  Asbestos-related lung cancer

  1990

  58

  1991

  55

  1992

  154

  1 Provisional.

  Lung cancer deaths attributable to asbestos are known to be considerably understated, mainly because many cases may not be recognised as asbestos related by the sufferers or their doctors. Studies suggest that the actual number of lung cancers attributable to asbestos exposure is likely to be more than 1,000 per year.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table setting out for each Minister in his Department a full list of all meetings and official engagements to be undertaken by each Minister during the week beginning 19 July, broken down by hourly segments of each day.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide statistics on the basis of the latest analysis of households below average income, for the long-term sick and those on disability benefit to correspond with statistical data for pensioners, recipients of income support and unemployed given in tables A4 and A5 in the latest households below average income report.

  Mr. Burt
  Estimates are in the tables. The households below average income— HBAI— dataset, the family expenditure survey— FES— does not identify all long-term sick or disabled people, and its identification of receipt of disability benefits is imperfect. The estimates are susceptible to these imperfections as well as sampling errors. The results reported in the tables may, therefore, reflect changes in the categories of long-term sick or disabled people identified in the FES, as well as changes in the incomes of such people.

  Where figures are particularly uncertain due to sampling error and where the confidence intervals exceed pie-determined limits, the estimates are bracketed or
  72
  omitted. Further information about the effects of sampling errors can be found in appendix 5 of HBAI, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The figures in the tables are presented in line with tables A4 and A5 in "Households Below Average Income 1979–1990–91".

  Changes in real income for long-term sick and those on disability benefits1

  Real changes in median incomes 1979 to 1990–91

  Long-term sick or receiving disabilty benefits Per cent.

  Income before housing costs

  Bottom quintile

  (4)

  Second quintile

  (14)

  Third quintile

  (*)2

  Whole group (Mean)

  26

  Income after housing costs

  Bottom quintile

  (*)3

  Second quintile

  (14)

  Third quintile

  (*)4

  Whole group (Mean)

  30

  1 People who reported receipt of Invalidity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance, Attendance Allowance or Mobility Allowance or people not in work who reported long-term sickness or disability.

  2 95 per cent. confidence interval is +9 to +30.

  3 95 per cent. confidence interval is -7 to +15.

  4 95 per cent, confidence interval is +12 to +36.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the guidelines for withholding benefit under the Child Support Act 1991 could result in parents of dependent lone parents losing benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  No. A lone parent who is classed as a child for income support purposes, and whose own parents are paid benefit for her and her child, is not required to authorise action to seek maintenance.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of lone parents in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne; and how many income support claimants are lone parents.

  Mr. Burt
  The number of lone parents with dependent children within the metropolitan borough of Newcastle upon Tyne is 9,0001.

  Records are not kept of the number of lone parents on income support in individual locations. However, the total number of lone parents on income support in GreatBritain is 985,0002; and the total number of lone parents in Great Britain is 1·24 million1.

  1 Source 1991 Population Census— Provisional estimates.

  2 Source Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiry 1992.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total social fund budget available for 1993–94 to his Department's manager at the Blackfriars, London office.

  Mr. Scott
  Blackfriars, London office is known as London Southwark and is part of the Benefits Agency
  73
  district of Bankside. Details of gross discretionary budget allocations for all districts for the current financial year are in the Library.

  Pensions and Divorce (Working Group)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received From the working group on pensions and divorce appointed by the Pensions Management Institute in agreement with the Law Society; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The working group's report was published on 19 May. Departmental officials have recently met Sir Alec Atkinson, chairman of the working group, to discuss matters arising from the report.

  We are studying the working group's report with interest. We are awaiting the report of the Pension Law Review Committee, chaired by Professor Goode, which may also make recommendations on these and related issues. The committee is due to report by the end of September this year.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount spent by local authorities in Wales on housing benefit in the last three available financial years.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  241

  1991–92

  300

  1992–93

  350

  (excludes expenditure on Community Charge Benefit)

  Source 1993 Departmental Report data.

  Disability Benefits
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women who qualify for severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance will receive their full entitlement following the European Court of Justice's decision C328/91; when they will receive payments; if the payment of arrears will extend to periods of time before April 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Claims from women who qualify for severe disablement allowance or invalid care allowance as a result of the above case, are currently being adjudicated and may be paid with any arrears due for up to a maximum of 12 months before the date of claim.

  State Pension
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the Government's policy at the present time towards the contribution of the state pension.

  Mr. Hague
  We are firmly committed to maintaining the value of the basic pension as a solid foundation for retirement. In addition we are improving choice and flexibility in pension provision so that now 67 per cent. of recently retired pensioners have income from occupational pensions; and we have targeted additional resources on poorer pensioners through increases to income-related benefits.
  74

  National Insurance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security further to the information provided in table 8, page 16 of "The Growth of Social Security", if he will show for each year 1993–94 and 1999–2000 the level of combined employer/employee national insurance contributions that would be required to balance the national insurance fund, assuming 1·5 per cent. real earnings growth per annum.

  Mr. Hague
  In 1993–94, to achieve a balance between national insurance contribution income and the benefit and administration expenditure associated with the national insurance fund it is estimated that a combined employer/employee national insurance contribution rate of 22·6 per cent. would be required. Currently a lower rate of 19·4 per cent. applies, the availability of a Treasury grant enables the NI fund to be kept in balance.

  The case two projection for benefit expenditure shown in "The Growth of Social Security" provides an estimate of £88·4 billion for total benefit expenditure in 1999–2000. The level of combined contributions required to achieve a balance of national insurance contribution income with benefit and administration expenditure is estimated to be 20·5 per cent., assuming 1·5 per cent. real earnings growth per annum.

  Pension Age
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the information provided in figure 7, page 77 of "Options for Equality in State Pension Age", giving figures also for 1993–94, and including estimates of contribution rates under the assumption of earnings uprating.

  Mr. Hague
  The information contained in figure 7, page 77 of "Options for Equality in State Pension Age" is the most up-to-date available. The data underlying that information is currently being updated. New information will be available later this year. The information requested for the year 1993–94 is not available.

TRANSPORT

  Regional Air Routes
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the priority of regional air routes in the US-United Kingdom bilateral negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Liberalisation of routes from the US to regional United Kingdom airports has been a consistent priority. We have made offers to the US which included total or partial liberalisation of such routes. We were disappointed that these were rejected. The interests of the regions will continue to be borne in mind as the liberalisation negotiations progress.

  Aircraft (Terrorist Attacks)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures have been taken at national level and in a European context to prevent a repetition of the kind of terrorist attack made on Pam Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.

  Mr. Norris
  Much has been, and is being, done to improve aviation security in order to prevent an attack like
  75
  Lockerbie happening again. Our national aviation security programme has been considerably strengthened since December 1988. Current major initiatives involve proposals for screening all hold baggage on international flights, for requiring airlines to account for and authorise for carriage all the baggage they carry— unaccompanied as well as accompanied— and for improving the security of air cargo, mail and courier traffic.

  The United Kingdom also plays an active role in both the European Civil Aviation Conference and International Civil Aviation Organisation to seek improvement of security standards in Europe and internationally.

  M25
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the design free flows in passenger car units per hour for each section of the M25 motorway, other than the Dartford crossings and their approaches, and the related increase in design flow for those sections for which widening of that road has already been programmed, or placed in the first phase; and if he will list the approximate capital cost for that widening and associated approach road works for each increase of 100 passenger car units per hour, together with any cost benefit calculations made in respect of any such increase.

  Mr. Key
  The design flow for a section of motorway will vary depending on factors such as the mix of traffic, its distribution throughout the day, the proportions of traffic joining or leaving at junctions and gradients. However, a level of 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour can be taken as a resonable average value and a suitable starting point for design. Figures in passenger car units are not available.

  M25 traffic flows between junctions 12 and 16 (1991)

  Average weekday 16 hour

  Average weekday 24 hour

  Maximum peak hour

  North hound

  South bound

  North bound

  South bound

  North bound

  South bound

  Junction 12–13

  71,800

  73,100

  72,100

  73,600

  7,500

  7,100

  Junction 13–14

  78,600

  79,200

  79,300

  80,300

  8,300

  8,100

  Junction 14–15

  72,900

  74,000

  74,300

  75,600

  6,800

  6,700

  Junction 15–16

  69,600

  68,600

  74,300

  73,700

  6,100

  6,200

  The sections between junctions 12 and 15 are dual four lanes and the section between junctions 15 and 16 is dual three lanes.

  Sainsbury Store, Worthing
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is paying for the alteration to the road layout on the A27 near Worthing in relation to the Sainsbury store; what assessment he has made of the extent to which this scheme will reduce the size of the lay by in front of the small shops opposite; and what proposals he has to stop this happening or compensate the shop owners affected.

  Mr. Key
  The full cost of these highway alterations, and the full cost of satisfying any valid claims made under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 arising from the execution of the works, will be met by J Sainsbury plc.

  Regrettably, the roadworks have reduced the length of the layby on the A27 by Sompting Road. My Department's agents have now instructed the contractor to restore the layby to its former size as soon as practicable.
  76
  Widening from dual three-to dual four lanes and the provision of dual three lane link roads would provide for an additional two-way flow of approximately 3,600 and 10,800 vehicles per hour respectively. The widening costs requested are:

  £ million/km

  £/km per 100 vehicles/hour

  Dual 3 to dual 4 lanes

  5

  140,000

  Dual 3-lane link roads

  12

  110,000

  No cost/benefit calcualtions are available in the form requested.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the proportion of delays to free flow conditions on the M25 occasioned by(a) excess demand of traffic over saturated lane flows, (b) accidents, (c) road works and (d) shed loads or breakdowns or other causes.

  Mr. Key
  No estimate of this type has been made.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the average traffic flows, in both crude vehicles per hour and passenger car units per hour, northbound and southbound on the M25 between its intersections with the M3 and M40 for the peak 12 and 18 hour weekday and weekend periods; and what measurements have been made of delays for traffic wishing to join that road between these points during those periods.

  Mr. Key
  The information is as follows:

  BR Finance
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when an announcement will be made regarding the £150 million lease finance package for British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I expect British Rail to announce what rolling stock it intends to lease later in the summer.

  Disabled Drivers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received from motoring organisations regarding the operation of the orange badge scheme for disabled motorists;

  (2) what guidance he issues to local authorities in respect of provision for visiting drivers in parking schemes for disabled drivers.

  Mr. Key
  The main representations we have received concern restrictions on access for orange badge holders' vehicles into pedestrian zones and the difficulties that can arise when local authorities introduce their own local schemes of parking concessions.
  77
  Guidance in respect of access into pedestrian zones is contained in local transport note 1/87. Orange badge holders' vehicles should not normally need to be exempted from access restrictions if a sufficient number of convenient parking places can be provided. If this is not possible, there may be a case for allowing some form of access for orange badge holders' vehicles. Advice on local schemes is contained in local authority circular 3/91, Department of Transport. This circular highlights the unnecessary and inconvenient restrictions such schemes can place on badge holders, and asks local authorities that have introduced their own schemes to review their position in the light of the new arrangements introduced in March 1992 to the national scheme which were designed to ensure that only those with a genuine need receive a badge.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 423, to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) concerning the future of the west coast main line, what is the approximate cost of the refurbishment of (a) fixed and (b) rolling equipment necessary to bring each to standards comparable with those extant at the completion of its electrification; and what areas of increased efficiency in operation by private management he expects to yield sufficient revenue to cover the costs of purchases and refurbishment to be defrayed by the purchasing interest.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail estimates that it will cost about £450 million to renew the infrastructure of the west coast main line, and about a further £350 million to replace the rolling stock.

  While we hope that using a joint venture to re-equip the line will result in efficiency gains, the joint venture will not need to rely on these alone in order to remunerate its investment. Were the line to be re-equipped using public funds, Railtrack would be expected to recover its investment through access charges for the use of the line. That income from access charges would, directly or otherwise, be made available to the joint venture to remunerate its investment.

  Bridge Closures, London
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions bridges for which he is responsible between and including Hammersmith bridge and Tower bridge have been closed for essential maintenance for periods of more than 24 hours since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  None of the bridges between and including Hammersmith bridge and Tower bridge is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The information that the hon. Member requires concerning these bridges is not held by the Department. Consultation between my officials and the Association of London Borough Engineers and Surveyors continues regarding proposals to improve the co-ordination of works involving the Thames bridges.

  Network SouthEast
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what possibilities exist in the short and medium terms for the Network SouthEast London to Tilbury and 78
  Southend line slam-door trains to be replaced in the event of Network SouthEast not being successful in obtaining the £150 million lease finance;

  (2) what impact the award of the £150 million lease finance to Network SouthEast would have on the re-equipment of the London to Tilbury and Southend line rolling stock.

  Mr. Freeman
  New outer suburban trains for Network SouthEast are one of two options being considered by BR for the £150 million leasing facility. Should BR decide on that option, I understand that some of the new trains will be used on NSE's great northern division, allowing modern rolling stock to be released to the London to Tilbury and Southend line. This would enable all 112 of the oldest vehicles on LT and S to be withdrawn from service.

  BR is expected to announce its preferred leasing option later in the summer. Whatever the outcome, I shall be looking to support further leasing deals, provided they comply with the Treasury's guidelines.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safe working life is now put on the Network SouthEast London to Tilbury and Southend line slam-door trains.

  Mr. Freeman
  The safe working life of the trains in the LT and S fleet will vary from vehicle to vehicle. For this reason, each unit is assessed by BR engineers on a regular basis. It is also possible to extend the life of vehicles by refurbishment.

  River Safety
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which recommendations in the marine accident investigation branch report into the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle have now been implemented and what action has been taken on the recommendations in the report of the inquiry into river safety, the Hayes report.

  Mr. Norris
  The MAIB report into the loss of the Marchioness contained 27 recommendations. All have now been implemented.

  The Hayes report contained 22 recommendations, and action is in hand on all.

  Copies of schedules which give details of the up-to-date progress on each recommendation in both the MAIB report and the Hayes report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Early morning Flights, Gatwick
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many more early morning flights will he made at Gatwick in the winter of 1993–94, as a result of the change in the end of the quota period if it is assumed that the number of movements is the same as last winter.

  Mr. Norris
  No significant increase or shift in movements is likely to occur in the winter season 1993–94.

  Night Traffic
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what surveys his Department has conducted to measure the volume of night traffic using motorways starting from London since the European internal market arrangements came into force on 1 January.
  79
  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: The Department of Transport has not conducted any surveys specifically to measure the volume of night traffic on motorways since 1 January.

  Residential Properties (Insulation)
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to modify regulations affecting the elegibility for financial assistance towards the cost of insulating residential properties affected by significantly increased levels of noise that have occurred since the prescribed time limit for initial claims expired; and what representations he had had on this subject.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 16 July 1993]: I have no plans to modify the regulations to admit claims for increased noise outside the present time limits. I and my predecessors have received a number of representations.

DEFENCE

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) of 25 June,Official Report, column 307, what assessment he has made of the extent to which the procedures to be followed for the discharge of toxic waste were not adhered to in the case of contamination of soil at Aldermaston court from a pipeline.

  Mr. Aitken
  The low level contamination of soil at Aldermaston court was not the result of AWE failing to follow procedures for the discharge of toxic waste. In all cases where AWE has a requirement to discharge or dispose of toxic materials, the statutory requirements and need for authorisations, consents or licences are observed.

  Test Ranges
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what applications his Department has received to date under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 in regard to the test ranges operated by his Department; and what charging arrangements exist for provision of information released.

  Mr. Aitken
  No applications have been received in regard to the test ranges. For any information supplied under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, there is no charge if the costs of answering the inquiry do not exceed £50; where the costs exceed £50 charges will be raised up to a limit of £200.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what headings in his departmental report, United Kingdom Defence Statistics 1993, his Department's expenditure on(a) environmental research and (b) environmental clean-up and restoration is covered.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department does not have separately funded environmental research or clean-up and restoration programmes. Much practical work is carried out 80
  which may produce environmental data. These costs are not always readily identifiable and do not lend themselves to presentation as discrete elements of the programme.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many requests for information have been made to his Department under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; what proportion have been answered in full; and if he will make a statement on the criteria adopted for withholding information requested.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Ministry of Defence has received one request for information which was answered in full. It is our policy to make environmental information available wherever possible. The criteria adopted in deciding whether to withhold information accord with the regulations and take account of the guidance issued by the Department of Environment.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of the provision of the 20,000 pages of documents to the Scott inquiry, to which reference is made at paragraph 633 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993, Cm 2270.

  Mr. Aitken
  The direct cost of the provision of documents to the Scott inquiry to date is estimated to be approximately £50,000.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what heading in figure 12 in his Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993, Cm 2270, his Department's protected expenditure on nuclear testing is included.

  Mr. Aitken
  It would not be in the national interest to reveal the costs of the Defence nuclear programme. For this reason such costs are not separately identified in the statement on the defence estimates.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding nuclear testing in the light of the announcement of a further testing moratorium by President Clinton.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the response that I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 13 July,Official Report, column 470.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 520, when the quantity of clostridium perfringens beta-toxin was transferred from the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down; for what reason it was transferred; what safety precautions were taken during the transfer; and which British safety authorities, American safety authorities and British local councils were informed beforehand of the transfer;

  (2) when nerve agent was last transported from the Ministry of Defence establishment at Nancekuke to Porton Down;
  81
  (3) pursuant to his answer of 12 May, Official Report, column 516, when his Department carried out research on animals using BZ; what number of each species of animals were involved; and what was the conclusion of these tests;

  (4) what work Porton Down has done on evaluating pyrroles as an incapacitating agent; when this work was carried out; how many tests and studies were carried out on animals and service volunteers; what was the conclusion of the studies and tests; when the results were shared with the United States of America; and through which defence agreement this scientific information was exchanged;

  (5) how the defence agreement outlined in his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on 21 May 1992, Official Report, column 255–56, will be affected by the chemical weapons convention;

  (6) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 2 February, Official Report, column 156, if he will list the external suppliers which have supplied chemical and biological compounds for prophylactic research at Porton Down since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  These are matters for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework documents and I have asked the chief executive to reply.

  Letters from Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 19 July 1993:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his answer of 12 May, Official Report, column 520, when the quantity of Clostridium perfringens beta-toxin was transferred from the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, for what reason it was transferred; what safety precautions were taken during the transfer; and which British safety authorities, American safety authorities and British local councils were informed beforehand of the transfer (Question 9, Order Paper 9 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The sample of clostridium perfringens beta-toxin was transferred from the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment on 5 August 1992. The sample was packed and transported in accordance with the IATA regulations for air transport of such materials. Import of the sample into the United Kingdom did not require an import licence and there was no requirement to advise British safety authorities, American safety authorities or British local councils beforehand of the transfer.

  3. The sample was used for experimental work to investigate the molecular biology of the beta-toxin with the objective of designing gene probes and testing antibodies to detect the beta-toxin.

  4. Prior to commencing work at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment with the sample of beta-toxin, an assessment of the risk posed was carried out under the HSE Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. This assessment was reviewed and accepted by a local Safety Committee. In view of the very small quantity of the toxin, the risk to individuals was considered to be low and the sample was handled appropriately in a microbiological laboratory.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him when nerve agent was last transported from the Ministry of Defence establishment at Nancekuke to Porton Down (Question 17, Order Paper 9 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. Nerve agent was last transported from the Ministry of iefcncc Establishment at Nancekuke to Porton Down in May 1977. The quantity concerned was small and appropriate
  82
  precautions were taken to ensure that there was no hazard to the public.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his Answer of 12 May, Official Report, column 516, when his Department carried out research on animals using BZ; what number of each species of animals were involved; and what was the conclusions of these tests (Question 20, Order Paper 9 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectivenes of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. Research into BZ was carried out between 1960 and 1975. About 350 animals were involved in this research. These were mostly rats, mice and guinea pigs. The conclusion of the research was that BZ possessed high psychotomimetic (incapaciting) properties. The studies also showed the BZ induced effects could be effectively antagonised by the anticholinesterase drug physostigmine.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what work Porton down has done on evaluating pyrroles as an incapacitating agent; when this work was carried out; how many tests and studies were carried out on animals and service volunteers; what was the conclusion of the studies and tests; when the results were shared with the United States of America; and through which defence agreement this scientific information was exchanged (Question 23, Order Paper 9 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. Studies in the early 1960s indicated that simple pyrrole derivatives might show pharmacological effects that might be used by an aggressor as an incapacitating agent. Several classes of pyrroles were studied in the early 1960s using small laboratory animals. No studies were carried out with Service volunteers. The results of the work indicated that pyrroles did not appear to present much hazard as an incapacitating agent.

  4. The information arising from these studies was part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would therefore be part of the technical database drawn upon in cooperation with the United States of America under The Technical Cooperation Programme and its predecessors.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how the defence agreement outlined in his Answer to the honourable Member for Brent East on 21st May 1992, Official Report, column 255–56, will be affected by the Chemical Weapons Convention, (Question 32, Order Paper 9 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. As all the agreements referred to in the previous answer relate to the provision of chemical and biological defence, the signing of the Chemical Weapons Convention and its entry into force will have no effect on these agreements.

  3. Indeed Article X of the Chemical Weapons Convention states that nothing in the Convention shall be interpreted as impeding the right of any State Party to conduct research into, develop, produce, acquire, transfer or use means of protection against chemical weapons. It goes on to encourage the fullest possible exchange of equipment, material and scientific and technological information concerning means of protection against chemical weapons and requires the

  83
  provision annually to the Technical Secretariat of information on States Parties programmes related to protective purposes.

  4. It is becoming apparent that the provision of effective protective measures is an essential element of the web of deterrence which also includes arms control and export monitoring and controls. The provision of effective protective measures not only reduces the utility of chemical weapons to a potential aggressor but also reduces the range of chemicals that might be used as chemical weapons and hence need to be subject to arms and export controls.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him, pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Blaenau Gwent on 2 February, Official Report, column 156, if he will list the external suppliers which have supplied chemical and biological compounds for prophylactic research at Porton Down since 1979 (Question 34, Order Paper 9 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. The normal practice at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down is to purchase any required chemical and biological compounds from commercial suppliers when these are commercially available. If they are not commercially available then the Establishment will synthesise the appropriate compounds.

  4. In order to support the programme of work, chemical and biological compounds are purchased from a number of commercial suppliers. We do not maintain records which enable us to identify which suppliers provided the compounds used for prophylactic research.

  Trucks (Drop Tests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many drop tests have been carried out on the truck cargo heavy duty mark II vehicles, or components thereof, operated by his Department; when they were carried out; and what was the total cost of these tests.

  Mr. Aitken
  The prime contractor conducted three drop tests on full size vehicle sections and II other impact tests on vehicle sections, sub-assemblies and component parts during the period March 1988 to February 1992.

  It is not possible to identify the total costs of these tests since they were not separately priced in the contract. However, one drop test, using a full size vehicle section, was priced individually at approximately £300,000.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the expenditure, so far, on projects to evaluate the options for the future theatre nuclear weapon.

  Mr. Aitken
  Expenditure to the end of March 1993 on studies of possible vehicles has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1989–90

  928,518

  1990–91

  1,372,329

  1991–92

  1,870,285

  1992–93

  2,658,471

  Expenditure on the warhead programme cannot be released for reasons of national security.
  84

  British Manufacturing and Research Company
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department has had with BMARC since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  Comprehensive records for the period in question are no longer available. Current records show that BMARC received 36 contracts with a total value of £42,100,000 between September 1985 and July 1991. This includes contracts placed during the period—1989–1991 — when BMARC was known as Astra Defence Systems Ltd.

  A1-Yamamah Project
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total expenditure by Her Majesty's Government in support of administration of the A1-Yamamah contracts to the most recent available date.

  Mr. Aitken
  None. the cost of my Department's administration of A1-Yamamah contracts is met by the Government of Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total expenditure by Her Majesty's Government in promotion of project A1-Yamamah to the most recent available date.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not practicable to apportion the costs of the Defence Export Services Organisation to individual projects.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amounts have been paid to British Aerospace in connection with the A1-Yamamah agreement with Saudi Arabia; and on what dates.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on detailed matters concerning individual defence export sales.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total expenditure by Her Majesty's Government on brokerage fees or commissions in support of the A1-Yamamah contracts.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has not employed business agents in connection with A1-Yamamah contracts and has consequently paid no fees or commissions.

  Guard Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of the MoD Guard Service who are transferred to contractors under the market testing programme will still be required to attend training provided by his Department and apply for career and promotion opportunities within the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Aitken
  Should members of the MGS be transferred to contractors under the market testing programme they will cease to be civil servants, and will no longer be part of the Department's training programme and career structure.

  Operations West
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to ensure that if Operations West is run by a contractor(a) in the event of

  85
  the failure of the contractors, the operation can be brought back into his Department and (b) where the contractor buys the site and equipment that his Department or other contractors will be able to compete for a successor contract.

  Mr. Aitken
  The contract contains provisions against failure on the part of the contractor, ranging from financial penalties to cancellation of the contract. The site is to be leased rather than sold; the lease will end if the service contract is terminated. Title to the computer equipment will remain with my Department for the duration of the service contract.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to ensure that the investment appraisal model which will be used for the market testing exercise at Operations West(a) conforms to the latest management accounting rules and (b) includes the cost of transferring staff to other posts who do not wish to work for the successful contractors.

  Mr. Aitken
  Prior to the market test, the Operations West market testing project team was advised on an investment appraisal model format which conformed to the latest management accounting rules. Under the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, my Department has no obligation to find alternative employment for staff who do not wish to transfer to a contractor. It was therefore assumed, for the purposes of comparing bids, that no staff would be transferred elsewhere in the MoD.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why he is proposing to contractorise the Ministry of Defence Guard Service at Operations West; and what support his Department is giving to the in-house bid for Operations West.

  Mr. Aitken
  Following the market testing of the service undertaken by Operations West, it has been decided that the whole of the undertaking, including the guard service, should be contractorised as this offers the best value for money. The in-house bid was fully resourced and supported by expert consultants.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to ensure that the successful contractor who takes over Operations West under the current market testing exercise will be able to ensure(a) the security of personal information relating to his Department's staff held on the computer system and (b) the security and commercial confidentiality of information held on the press system.

  Mr. Aitken
  The security standards applicable to Operations West have not changed. The security policy which will be implemented at the site will be the same as that which applied when the site was operated by my Department. Contractors employed on defence work are required, as a condition of contract, to safeguard information to which they might have access in the course of their work, and to adhere to security requirements and procedures laid down by my Department.

  Site Security
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he will ensure the security and safety of sites which pass to the custody of private contractors as a result of the market testing programme.
  86
  Mr. Aitken
  Where a site passes to the custody of private contractors as a result of the market-testing programme, the contractors are required to conform to strict guidelines. Their adherence to these is monitored closely and regularly.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish the investment appraisal models for market testing exercises.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. There are no standard investment appraisal models for market-testing exercises; appraisal models are designed for specific market tests and may therefore contain commercially sensitive material. Each appraisal is conducted in accordance with the Department's investment appraisal and market testing accounting rules.

  Maritime Refitting and Repair
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the management of(a) Rosyth and (b) Devonport concerning the future of the British maritime refitting and repair industry.

  Mr. Aitken
  Officials from my Department have regular meetings with the commercial managers at both Rosyth and Devonport dockyards, although it is not our policy to discuss the future of other United Kingdom commercial yards with them.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths or accidents requirng treatment in hospital have occurred in his Department's chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down in each of the last 30 years.

  Mr. Hanley
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework documents and I have asked the chief executive to reply.

  Letter from Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 19 July 1993.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how many deaths or accidents requiring treatment in hospital have occurred at his Department's chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down in each of the last 30 years (Question 35, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down has its own small hospital to support the volunteer programme, which is the focus for occupational health in the Establishment. Consequently any members of staff requiring first aid treatment attend the Establishment hospital.

  3. The records of the Safety Section of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, and before that the Chemical Defence Establishment (1972–1991) and before that the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment (1953–1972) go back to 1965. Prior to 1988, the Safety Section only has records of more serious accidents for which local enquiries were held.

  4. There have been no deaths or permanent disability cases in the past 30 years. The number of accidents involving treatment at the Establishment hospital for each year since 1965 and recorded in the Safety Section records are tabulated below:

  87

  Year

  Number

  1965

  1

  1966

  nil

  1967

  1

  1968

  nil

  1969

  nil

  1970

  nil

  1971

  nil

  1972

  1

  1973

  nil

  1974

  1

  1975

  1

  1976

  1

  1977

  4

  1978

  nil

  1979

  1

  1980

  1

  1981

  nil

  1982

  1

  1983

  1

  1984

  2

  1985

  1

  1986

  1

  1987

  3

  1988

  1

  1989

  5

  1990

  4

  1991

  8

  1992

  2

  1993

  4

  The apparent increase from 1988 is due to improved reporting procedures for accidents. Most of the accidents since 1988 have been fairly minor injuries, not associated with chemical or biological warfare agents, requiring first aid treatment.

  Vaccines
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel volunteered to accept vaccination against biological agents during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Hanley
  All vaccinations for service personnel are given on a voluntary basis. Information relating to measures against biological warfare agents is classified.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom possesses stocks of vaccine against penicillin-resistant anthrax.

  Mr. Hanley
  As I stated in the answer I gave the hon. Member on 12 July,Official Report, column 366, details relating to all vaccines giving protection against biological warfare agents are classified.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) grade 3 and (b) grade 5 civil servants were in post in his Department at the latest available date; what were the comparable figures for the same month in 1980; and if he will publish the equivalent data for the armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Civilian staff in post

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1980

  Grade 3

  50

  81

  Grade 5

  355

  396

  88

  Service staff in post

  1 April 1993

  1 January 1980

  Major Generals (and equivalents)

  128

  1172

  Brigadiers (and equivalents)

  371

  1395

  1 Service data at 1 April 1980 are not available.

  RAF Anniversary, Fairford
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what invitations have been issued to the South African air force to participate in the Royal Air Force 75th anniversary at Fairford on 24 and 25 July and on what basis; and what response has been received;

  (2) whether aircraft and/or crews will be participating at the RAF's 75th anniversary on 24 and 25 July from (a) the South African air force and (b) citizen force aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 17 June,Official Report, column 1006. The RAF benevolent fund has also issued an invitation to the South African chief of air staff. We understand that no South African aircraft—civilian or military—are able to take part in the airshow, but the South African CAS will attend.

  RAF Stornaway
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the contract to expand the residential facilities at RAF Stornoway is expected to be announced.

  Mr. Hanley
  The activation of RAF Stornoway as a forward operation base for RAF aircraft is under review. The requirement for additional residential facilities depends upon the outcome of that review. A decision on whether or not to proceed with the contract will be announced once the review is complete.

  Hong Kong Garrison
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the Hong Kong garrison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Broad plans have now been finalised for the withdrawal of the Hong Kong garrison by 30 June 1997. Units of all three services—the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force will remain in Hong Kong until then. The garrison will, however, continue to reduce in stages over the period, as local forces assume responsibility for its former operational tasks. In the latter part of 1994, the 1st Battalion the Black Watch will return to the United Kingdom and the two Gurkha battalions will merge to form the 1st Battalion the Royal Gurkha Rifles. One battalion will remain in Hong Kong until June 1997.

  The strength of logistic and other supporting units will be reduced in line with that of front-line units. The three Royal Navy patrol craft currently in Hong Kong will remain until 1997. Royal Air Force helicopters will also remain in Hong Kong until 1997, although their numbers may be reduced. The plans mean that for the final two years of British sovereignty the garrison will be about 3,000 strong. It will comprise a headquarters, an infantry battalion group, logistic support, naval patrol craft and Royal Air Force helicopters.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Iraq
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consult the Government of the United States of America to assess the threat to the security of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia imposed by the build-up of arms by Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are in close touch with the US Government on all aspects of policy towards Iraq.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I am glad to hear that that contact is being maintained but many people are asking whether that is enough. Kuwait was occupied and the Iraqis were removed by the Americans and British through the magnificent endeavours of the RAF. However, Kurds, Shi'ites, Kuwaitis and Saudis are now living under another threat. Is it not time for the United Nations, perhaps with Britain and America taking a lead, to remove that awful threat?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are determined to keep up the pressure on Iraq to implement in full all the relevant United Nations resolutions. We wish to see Iraq fulfil its obligations and we shall not hesitate to use force if necessary to ensure compliance with United Nations resolutions which Iraq flagrantly defies across the board at present.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assessment of the effectiveness of UN sanctions against Iraq? Will she also inform the House as to whether the Minister of State, Mr. Douglas Hogg, who is currently—I believe, today—in Jordan, will be taking up the issue of sanctions with the Jordanians as it appears that a number of goods are crossing the Jordanian-Iraqi border?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend Mr. Hogg will take up those matters with Jordan. We believe that sanctions have had an effect, but I should point out straight away to the House that food and medicines to Iraq are permitted under the sanctions regime. We do not believe that sanctions should be lifted until Iraq complies fully with the relevant Security Council resolutions.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the Iraqis have now agreed to the latest arrangements for inspection? How do the
514
Government assess the effect of the inspections for example, is it now accepted that all Iraq's nuclear facilities have been destroyed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, it is not yet certain that Iraq has agreed to the work that Ambassador Ekeus has been doing there. He is hopeful that he will convince Iraq that it must meet its obligations. The Security Council statement of 18th June set out what Iraq must do or it must face serious consequences. Ambassador Ekeus is still in Baghdad. As the inspections have not been carried out fully, we must carry those matters further. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asks me further about what is going on there. I must say to him that we must wait a few more days.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there was a report on the news on the radio at noon today which confirms what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said in his question?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret that I did not listen to the news at 12 noon or at one o'clock—I was busy doing other things. We hear many reports and we usually wait 12 to 24 hours; to find out whether or not they are confirmed. Therefore, it would be unwise for me to comment further.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that almost the whole world realises that Saddam Hussein completely ignores any demand of the United Nations? Therefore, he is not merely damaging relations between one nation and another; he is damaging the name and constitution of the United Nations. Would it not be better for the United Nations to indicate with its vigilance that it is not impossible that United Nations military resistance to any threat made by Saddam Hussein will be made a reality? It appears that Saddam Hussein knows no other language than that used by the Americans and British when they thrust him right out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are long way on from what happened in 1991 with one major exception, as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said; that is, that Saddarn Hussein has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, we continue to work for that. But the responsibility for what continues to happen in Iraq lies solely with Saddam Hussein. Sadly, it is the ordinary Iraqi people who are suffering so very greatly.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in the event of the threat to the security of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia intensifying and in the event of it becoming necessary to consult with our partners in the European Community about that, will the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that, in view of Belgium's previous attitude towards the conflict in the Gulf, the complete co-operation of the Belgian presidency will be forthcoming?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, unless I am severely misinformed, I do not think that any

515
action that was necessary in the Gulf would actually be carried out by Belgian forces. It is far more likely to be carried out by French forces, with whom we have good co-operation, and United States forces. Therefore, the position of the current presidency of the European Council of Ministers will probably not come into the matter at the decision-taking stage.

Schools: Complaints Procedures
2.43 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What procedures are in place for parents to complain about their children's education in both grant-maintained and local authority maintained schools.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, there are statutory appeals and complaints mechanisms in the areas of the curriculum, admissions to schools, exclusions from schools and special educational needs. The Education Bill includes various provisions to improve those mechanisms. Parents may also raise concerns about any other aspects of their children's education with school staff, the school governing body and, where appropriate, with the local education authority.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, there are areas where there is no statutory requirement and it is that which I believe worries some parents as they have been encouraged to complain in line with the arrangements under the Citizen's Charter. Therefore, would it not be wiser to have statutory requirements for the other areas not already covered or, indeed, to make the ombudsman available —as he states in his review he wishes to be —to deal with the other complaints?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness probably knows that the functions of the ombudsman have been extended to cover the grant-maintained school sector, comparable to those that apply to the LEA-maintained sector. We also believe that many of the complaints from parents are very informal and can be dealt with by the teacher, the head of department, the deputy heads, the heads of school governing bodies; and, indeed, also by the inspectorate. When the registered inspection teams visit the schools the very first people they consult are the parents, whether or not, as the case may be, they are satisfied with the school. Parents are allowed both severally and individually to voice any complaints they may have about the school.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say in what document or documents such procedures will be laid down?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the statutory provisions are based in law; for example, I am referring to the statutory appeals provisions in the areas of the curriculum, admissions to schools and exclusions. Indeed, as and when the present Bill going through Parliament receives Royal Assent, further improving
516
measures will come into force. However, I am making a distinction between what is statutory and formal and what is informal and can be left as very much a matter between parents and schools.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister's replies are most helpful in clarifying the situation as the Government see it. However, does she agree that it is not just a matter of "either/or" and that, although we obviously want a flexible approach, it is also important to have a statutory provision to support such an approach? Does the Minister also agree that it is an extremely good example of the role that can be played both positively and helpfully by local education authorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important to note, first, that schools are now more open and more accountable than they have ever been. They are required to have public meetings and show their annual reports to parents. Parents have never had more or greater opportunity to voice their complaints to schools, whether informally or formally. As I have already said, they can also go to the teacher, to heads of department, to deputies, to heads, to the governors and to the local education authority. Moreover, in the case of grant-maintained schools, parents can even go to the Secretary of State. Further, there is an inspectorate system which takes the case of the parent and child most seriously. There are annual reports and annual meetings; an information bank; the ombudsman with extended functions; and, indeed, a tribunal system for children with special educational needs.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the statute book is already overcrowded with unnecessary directives? Parents have ample opportunity to complain or suggest to schools what they want without having to go through the whole parliamentary procedure and getting themselves tied up in red tape.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. Certainly the statute book is more than overcrowded. I believe that it would be a very depressing day if absolutely every activity, however informal, was covered by legislation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that if parents are uneasy about, say, the quality of the education provided for their children they require information upon which to base any such complaint? Does she also agree that an important part of that information is the publication of examination results so that parents can see clearly how their children's classes are getting on in relation to the whole school and how that school performs in relation to others in the country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in two words: yes and yes. Perhaps I may also supplement that rather curt answer by referring the House to a league table, if I may put it that way, in today's edition of The Times which shows, at the end of the day, what parents can really do; namely, exercise choice and go to a school that is more responsive to the needs of children.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important for parents to know exactly what is going on as regards testing but that one should also ensure that the testing is right in the first place?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that there is a review under way to look at the testing system. I shall no doubt be reporting to the House before very long with the results.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, reverting to the complaints procedures, in view of the many different procedures listed by the noble Baroness in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady David, can the Minister say how parents are made aware of the different and complex complaint systems?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must, first, apologise to the House if I made it sound complicated. I was actually referring to a hierarchy of where one can go with a complaint, starting with the classroom teacher and working one's way up through the system. Clearly, one could end up in the courts if one took the matter very seriously.
The noble Baroness makes an important point, too. The Citizen's Charter has gone out of its way to explain to parents their rights, and indeed their responsibilities, and to help them through the complaints procedure. We are insisting that schools do the same with their parent bodies; that they help them to make sure that the schools are aware of complaints and that the schools should, as far as possible, respond to those complaints.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Citizen's Charter.If the Citizen's Charter task force recommends that there should be a statutory requirement for other complaints procedures to be included within this field, will the Government then agree to make statutory requirements?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not in the business of pre-empting something that has not actually happened. Certainly the noble Baroness has mentioned the task force, which is there to monitor the system and to make sure that it is working. Clearly, if it makes recommendations to Her Majesty's Government it will be for the Government to consider those recommendations when they are made.

Harbel Massacre
2.50 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consult the United Nations Secretary-General about the possibility of establishing an international commission of inquiry into the massacre of 700 people at Harbel, Liberia, on 5th June.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the UN Secretary-General has set in hand a full investigation into this appalling incident. That inquiry is still in progress and we await its findings.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the preliminary report by Mr. Trevor Gordon-Somers was in the hands of the Secretary-General as long ago as 1st July? Why has it not been published? Would the noble Baroness care to say anything about the suggestion which we have made that forensic experts, and particularly ballistic experts, be employed so that they can identify the weapons that were used in this appalling massacre which, on a prima facie case, seem to have been those of the armed forces of Liberia —the former remnants of President Doe's forces—who were in charge of guarding the compound?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no clear evidence yet as to who was responsible. There are different accounts from survivors of the massacre. I do not believe it would be right to anticipate the findings of the UN Secretary-General's inquiry. I hope, however, that the further investigations which the UN is no doubt conducting will get the facts right. Speed is not the priority; getting the facts right is.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that this truly appalling story illustrates the importance and urgency of establishing standing international machinery for dealing with war crimes because in internal conflicts of this kind there should be no doubt on the part of those who perpetrate massacres, or any other atrocities, that they will be brought to book by the international community?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we support the study of the UN International Law Commission on the possibility of establishing an international criminal court with universal jurisdiction in the longer term. But the establishment of a UN international criminal court is unlikely to take place just yet because the work is still in its very early stages. I understand that there are significant legal and administrative difficulties to be overcome but I have much sympathy with the view that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, expressed; namely, that we must do all that we possibly can to overcome the difficulties.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we wholeheartedly agree that the priority should be getting the facts right? In that connection will she say how many times Mr. Gordon-Somers has been to Harbel and how many experts he has employed—whether police or ballistics experts—to try to identify the facts, and how many witnesses of the offence he has personally interviewed? Will the noble Baroness answer my first question on whether or not Mr. Gordon-Somers is employing ballistics experts and whether the weapons belonging to the AFL troops who were guarding the compound have been impounded so that they can be subjected to examination?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, much as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, might wish it, Mr. Gordon-Somers is not answerable to me; he is answerable to the United Nations Secretary-General. I therefore do not have details of all the things that he has done, the people that he has taken with him or the

519
investigations that he has undertaken. What I can tell the noble Lord is that we are quite determined, as are all those involved in ECOWAS, that a proper outcome which establishes the true facts shall be achieved. I know that the United Nations Secretary-General is well aware of the demand for this.

Nuclear Weapons: Non-Proliferation
2.54 p.m.
Lord Jenkins Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the reply given by Viscount Cranborne (HL Deb. 1st July, col. 932), to which enemies comfort and aid would be given were Her Majesty's Government to say in what circumstances they would consider it safe to give up nuclear weapons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, despite the changes of recent years in the strategic environment many uncertainties remain. We are committed to maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent for as long as it is required for the security of this country.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Viscount's observations are, of course, of great interest but he does not happen to have answered the Question. Will he be so good as actually to answer the Question on the Order Paper?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the persistence with which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pursues matters nuclear does him great credit, if I may say so. However, he reminds me increasingly of Cassandra in his persistence. Unfortunately I suggest to your Lordships that he does not resemble Cassandra in one important respect which is that, unlike Cassandra, he is never right. I would merely point out to the noble Lord that if he believes that the world and the strategic environment have substantially improved during the past two or three years, he and I are living in a completely different atmosphere.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, given that Ministers have admitted, first, that the warhead for Trident is safe and reliable; secondly, that the warhead for the existing WE177 free-fall bomb is safe and reliable: and, thirdly, that the development of a new sub-strategic warhead could be completed without any further nuclear testing taking place, will the Minister add the Government's support to President Clinton's extension of his testing moratorium and his objective of achieving a comprehensive test-ban treaty by September 1996?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, again, I think that we have cantered over this particular course many times before. However, I point out to the noble Lord that we have made it indeed absolutely clear, as he suggested, that we are satisfied that Trident is already one point safe and that any subsequent tests that we might have made would be focused on preparedness
520
for subsequent test bans and long-term safety assurance. However, we are not entirely wedded to this and there are alternatives which we are exploring.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the nub of this Question this: the technology required to make nuclear weapons of one kind or another is easily available to those with scientific knowledge and the means to do so are also equally available to those with scientific knowledge? We do not know how many powers may be in a position to obtain them before a few years have passed. It would be insane to regard it as safe to give up our own nuclear weapons so long as that situation lasts.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always my noble and learned friend is absolutely right and I can add nothing to what he has said.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister seems not to like the questions being asked by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney. But surely it is right that my noble friend should ask questions about the nuclear deterrent, especially at a time when our ground forces in the Army are being reduced and also our naval presence is being reduced. Is it not right that there should be a proper balance between those forces and any nuclear forces which we might decide to have? My noble friend is therefore doing the country and indeed the Government a service in asking these questions.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, far be it for me to have the impertinence to suggest either that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, should be guided in any way by me as to the questions that they might or might not ask. I would be the first to concede that the nuclear deterrent is a perfectly proper question for noble Lords to address. Indeed in view of its importance as the bedrock of our strategic defence policy, far from complaining about the noble Lord asking these questions I welcome the opportunity once again to put the Government's policy. As regards the noble Lord's point about balance, of course he is absolutely right. The balance is important and we endeavour to get it right.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that Britain and her allies cannot possibly renounce nuclear weapons unless they are absolutely certain that no other country has them or is likely to acquire them? Does he also agree that as a minimum requirement there must be an international authority with effective powers of inspection and enforcement? Finally, does he agree that, therefore, unfortunately this Question is academic at present?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it gives me unaccustomed pleasure to be able to agree with every single word the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said. I shall not tempt fate by commenting further on what he has just asked.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question of testing. If the three hypotheses put to the Minister by my noble friend Lord Morris are

521
correct—and I think that they are because they seem already to have been accepted by the Government at different times—what on earth is the point of Britain not welcoming President Clinton's moratorium and not sharing his objective of a comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996? If the bomb works—and we know that it works—why can we not go along with that?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have already said, not only this afternoon but in previous exchanges with other noble Lords if not to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that we do not rely entirely on testing for the purposes which I have already explained. There are other alternatives, which we are endeavouring to perfect in the wake of the President's decision. Testing would indeed be a convenience for us in this country, but we do not rely on testing alone. If we did, we would be a great deal more worried than we are.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does that mean that the Government go along with the objective of a test ban treaty by 1996?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we have always regarded a complete test ban as a laudable and desirable objective. At the same time we have to be perfectly clear that it is not the fact of a treaty which matters. The question is whether it works. It is perfectly clear that those who have signed up either to non-proliferation treaties or test ban treaties have it within their power to cheat. Therefore, it is equally important that not only the treaty should be signed but that proper machinery for verification should exist.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we have had an interesting discussion but the Question remains unanswered? Is he aware that this is Question Time and the purpose of his being at the Dispatch Box is to answer questions? Will he be so kind as to answer the Question?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always, I rely substantially on my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in these matters. It seems to me that he has already given a very clear answer to the Question, even if my own attempt at an answer did not satisfy the noble Lord. I shall merely give the noble Lord one example. It is one that 1 have given to your Lordships before. We estimate that in the former Soviet Union alone Russia has about 7,000 strategic warheads which remain operational, the Ukraine about 1,500, Kazakhstan 1,200, and Belorussia 80. They are not alone in the world in having those facilities.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that there are also at least 10 other countries in the world which have nuclear weapons potential and many others which have the potential to manufacture ballistic missiles to deliver those weapons? Is that not relevant to the Question which the noble Lord asked? Does not the Minister also think it relevant to point out, in the light of one of his previous answers, that no one who knew what the facts were ever paid the slightest attention to what Cassandra said?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I agree in principle with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. would pray in aid the example of South Africa which has now, as I understand it, destroyed its nuclear capability. However, that capability was produced successfully under the noses of the international community.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that, in addition to our possession of these horrendous weapons helping to maintain peace and keeping peace on the agenda, it is possible that the fact that we have nuclear weapons enables us to go to the conference chamber and start world discussions on when we can begin to dismantle them and get rid of them?
Viscount Cranborne: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that the philosophy expounded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, effectively provides an incentive for every other country in the world to acquire nuclear weapons? In effect, we are saying that such weapons are important for our defence. Is that not a lesson which other countries can learn and will they not unfortunately go down that road? Would it not be much more beneficial for the future stability and peace of the world if the Government were to commit themselves to getting rid of nuclear weapons on a worldwide basis and involve themselves in discussions to that end rather than saying that we shall hang on to ours because they are needed for our defence?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the ultimate objective is certainly a ban on nuclear weapons. However, getting from here to there is a little more difficult than the noble Lord suggests. I say to the noble Lord that, in terms of getting rid of our nuclear weapons meanwhile, he ought to remember that we are accepted as a nuclear power in the nonproliferation treaty, which in itself does not preclude other countries from acceding to that treaty and not acquiring nuclear weapons of their own.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that neither the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, nor I propounded a philosophy? We simply tried to persuade people of the facts of life.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, of course I accept what my noble and learned friend says.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the Question asks the Government:
"in what circumstances they 'would consider it safe to gave up nuclear weapons".
Does the Minister not realise that the reasons he has given seem to imply that there are no circumstances under which we would give up nuclear weapons?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I was riot aware that what I said meant anything of the kind. Circumstances change. At the moment I find it difficult to envisage that they will change sufficiently to achieve that state of nirvana which the noble Lord suggests.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Railways Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations 1993, the Partnerships and Unlimited Companies (Accounts) Regulations 1993, the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1993 and the Committee stage (on Re-commitment) of the Statute Law Repeals Bill will be taken.

Railways Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): 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 into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a matter of procedure on the Motion and of business management.
Schedule 10 of the Railways Bill deals with some 350,000 pensioners, who have put their life savings in some respects into those pension schemes. It is their entitlement. The size of the schemes which will be dealt with is some £8.5 billion. The committee on delegated legislation looked at Schedule 10 and produced a report, which I understand will be considered on Wednesday. That will be followed later by consideration of the various amendments to Schedule 10. It was only close to midday today that I became aware of the amendments which the Government have laid on the Marshalled List. It seems to me that they pretty well rewrite the whole of Schedule 10. They are all highly technical. This is a matter which is beyond party political conflict. This House is seeking to find some way in which the redistribution of and amendments to the pension schemes should fall equitably among those who have worked all their lives or continue to work for British Rail.
It seems to me—it may seem so to others who have considered the amendments—that it would be difficult to do justice either to the House or to the pension schemes if the matter were to be taken on Wednesday. The amendments may be very helpful; at this moment it is too soon to say. There may be other amendments yet to be laid. I hear that that is a possibility.
Therefore, I put a plea to the Chief Whip as to whether he and the usual channels will have a serious and urgent discussion on the best way in which this important subject can be dealt with in justice to all those people who are affected and also in justice to this House. It is a revising Chamber. At this moment in time it has the final responsibility so far as concerns Schedule 10 since it has been passed by another place.
I make only one suggestion for consideration. Having listened tomorrow to what the Government
524
have in mind, perhaps there could be a very firm commitment from the Government that Schedule 10, and that part of the Bill dealing with the pensions, should be recommitted to the House after the Summer Recess. However, I urge upon the Chief Whip and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that in the light of our own responsibility and the seriousness of the issues that are confronted in Schedule 10 the matter cannot be dealt with on Wednesday. I hope that noble Lords will bear that factor in mind.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is not a party matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. I was very puzzled when I saw on the Marshalled List page after page of amendments to Schedule 10. It is quite obvious that this House's function as a revising Chamber could not possibly be discharged as early as Wednesday in respect of this mass of amendments which will involve a great deal of hard work by those who are studying them. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will have something to say to meet the point that has been put. A promise of recommitment seems a possibility. However, simply to plug ahead with all the amendments next Wednesday would be not only letting the House down but also treating somewhat irresponsibly the interests of the thousands of people whose future depends on a proper handling of their pension arrangements.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may draw attention to what has been amended in the Bill. The issue deals with the pensions of British Rail staff past and current, as has already been said. The Government have had this complex problem for a long time. Nothing new has emerged in relation to those schemes. I ask the Minister to comment on this. The first item deals with the transfer of pension rights and corresponding assets and liabilities. That is the crux of the entire governmental policy towards those pension schemes affecting almost 400,000 people, as has already been said. More than three-quarters, the vast majority, of that section of the Bill relating to the transfer of the pension rights, assets and liabilities has been redrawn and rewritten in the amendments.
The next part relates to the powers of protection of the pensioners. Again, large quantities of the measure have been amended. It is very difficult indeed for the Government—they must have had months of discussion on the issue—to expect people to take part seriously in a debate when they find the ground rules changed at this stage.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, these Benches support noble Lords who have already spoken. Quite apart from the difficulties to which reference has already been made, the Minister could not reasonably expect any of your Lordships to be able to take expert advice, which is critical in these matters in particular from the point of view of the Opposition parties. How on earth could we do that before next Wednesday?
Since I became a Member of this House, albeit only three years ago, I can recall no issue on which I have had such an immense post bag from people who express deep anxiety about these matters. I am sure

525
that a number of your Lordships who have been interested in the passage of the Bill will share that experience. It reflects a deep and abiding anxiety because it is the future of those people which is at stake and they are naturally worried about it. I believe that it would put your Lordships' House in a somewhat unseemly situation if we were to debate such matters of considerable importance, difficulty arid technical significance without having access to reasonable and expert opinion. Therefore, the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Shepherd should commend itself to the House. I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister says.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I support what has been said. I have tabled Amendment No. 126. It would be quite wrong for me to argue the case for it now Amendment No. 126 was drafted with one matter in mind; namely, to give effect as nearly as possible in plain words to the clear promise made by the Government in the White Paper that the position of pensioners would not he altered as a result of a privatisation measure.
There is plenty of room for argument about much of what is in the Bill. However, there can be absolutely no room for argument as to where the rights and wrongs lie when it comes to fulfilling the promise made very solemnly in a formal document to pensioners, to people who have retired, who can do nothing to protect themselves and whose position will be altered as a result of government action, wise or foolish. It is really a very solemn obligation upon the Government to make sure that that position is not in any way prejudiced.
Without wishing to delay matters, I believe that the consideration of the long series of amendments now put forward on this subject demands postponement, unless, of course, in the interval it is possible for those who are carrying out the argument to realise the impossibility of doing anything other than giving full protection to the pensioners.
For the life of me I cannot understand what the reason or delay is. Again and again we have this penny pinching attitude which in the end reflects nothing but discredit on the Government. It must be extremely embarrassing to the Ministers who have to put forward the measure. I hope that my noble friend will complain to his right honourable friend —he has had the courtesy to invite me to see him tomorrow evening —that it is high time that the discussions were ended in the only way in which they can be ended respectably and with honour.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I support what has been said. I do not in any way wish to go into the substance of the amendment. Noble Lords may be interested to realise that we are talking about Amendments Nos. 126ZA onwards, which cover about five pages of today's Marshalled List. This may well be—I am sure that the Minister will say that it is the case—in response to the promises that were made in another place in order to sort out the problems which already existed with Schedule 10. If that is the case, then it is to be welcomed that the Government have at last made a move on this subject.
526
If this is the answer, it has taken a long Lime; but it is an answer. But none of us is in a position. certainly not today, and almost certainly we will not be by Wednesday, to comment on whether this is an adequate response from the Government to the questions that were raised in another place.
I have a proposal on the Marshalled List that seeks to omit Schedule 10. If we get to that, I shall have no idea which Schedule 10 we are talking about. We are in an unusual position. I hope that the Government can listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, and perhaps use the time between the end of the Recess and the overspill in order to get this whole matter tidied up, to the great credit of the Government and of this House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with care to what was said, particularly by the noble Lord', Lord Shepherd. I am sorry that he did not receive the amendments until lunchtime today. They were in fact tabled on Thursday. They were available to all noble Lords on Friday. That is a considerable and decent length of time in which the amendments could be studied. The important point is that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is right. Those noble Lords who have followed this discussion with care will realise that there are three groups of amendments tabled by the Government. Two amendments follow commitments given in another place, which should be welcomed by all noble Lords. One indeed fulfils a commitment given to the honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the Member for Wrexham. If the noble Lord does not want to support his honourable friend from Wrexham, that is up to the noble Lord. But it was a matter that the Government said that they would bring forward in this House. 1t is an amendment to specify that the views of the trustees will be made available to noble Lords before any affirmative order is discussed. I am sure noble Lords will welcome that. The Government said that they welcomed it and would bring forward an amendment.
Other amendments also fulfil a commitment to give those with pension rights the indefeasible right to stay in a joint industry scheme. We shall go into the details of this, but again it is to fulfil a commitment made in another place.
The third group of amendments alters and improves the definition of a protected person. Again, I believe that noble Lords will welcome that. The amendments are all designed to protect and improve the position of the pensioner. My noble friend Lord[ Peyton of Yeovil referred to a totally different: amendment from that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I look forward to discussing that matter with him on Wednesday.
I do not believe that there is any difference between any of us in this House as to what the Government's commitment was, is, and remains. What we seek to do —and we are still in discussion at this precise moment with the trustees and the British Railways Board—is to make sure that the Bill as presented to your Lordships will, together with the government assurances, provide the necessary reassurance to all the pensioners. We have said that that is what we seek to achieve. We remain totally of that view; so there is

527
nothing between Members in this House in trying to get to that position. But that is a different question from the one posed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Obviously, this is a matter for the usual channels. My noble friend the Chief Whip has listened to the discussion and we shall obviously wish to reflect upon it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, further to what the Minister has said, it is not really sufficient to say that we have had a reasonable time in which to consider amendments of this technicality and detail. He says that they were tabled on Thursday and were available on Friday. Many of us were not able to be here on Friday. I saw the amendments this morning for the first time. Perhaps I am blameworthy in that. Had I seen them on Thursday, or Friday morning, I think that I would have been none the wiser.
The Minister says that the amendments are largely in fulfilment of commitments that were made in another place. I do not in any way suggest that he is wrong. But the detail is all important in these matters. It is the detail that will affect whether the Government have got it right or wrong; and most particularly whether the pensioners will feel that their case has been properly and adequately considered by this House. With great respect I say to the Minister: he has said that he will consider the matter through the usual channels, and we are grateful to him for that, but I impress upon him the need to think basically about the timetable for this matter. In my view it is not adequate to continue to discuss these matters on Wednesday.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to that point, perhaps I may take up with him his statement that this is a matter for the usual channels. With respect, I do not think that it is. I think that it is a matter for the House. The usual channels may or may not be interested in the careful study and analysis of highly complicated and very important amendments. But this House is interested. If this House is to do its job as a revising Chamber on a matter of considerable public importance, it must have the time to study these amendments. With respect, whether the usual channels agree or not, I suggest to my noble friend that this House has its own duties to perform, and cannot perform them if these amendments are to be taken on Wednesday.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I understood my noble friend the Minister to say that the Chief Whip had listened to the discussion and would certainly consider the matter. Surely the only way that it can be considered by this House—With all possible respect to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—is for it to be planned according to the wishes of the House through the usual channels. There is no other way. If that is the wish of the House, I understand; and I am bound to say that I feel deeply about the railway pensioners for very obvious reasons. I, too, feel that we must be seen in this House to be genuinely looking after the interests of a lot of people who are naturally very worried. I only wanted to welcome the fact that the Chief Whip, having heard the discussion, will look
528
into it with his noble friend. It seems to me that through the usual channels we ought to be able, as a House, to get what we all believe we want in this case.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may add that as a Member of the House who is intimately involved in dealing with the Bill, and as a Member of the usual channels, I believe that I may act as a useful interface.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not think that I can improve on what my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
House again in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Boston of Faversham) in the Chair.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 125AF:
After Clause 90, insert the following new clause:
("Safety provisions
Before disposing of any subsidiary of the Board under the provisions of section 82 above, the Secretary of State shall require the transferee to disclose his safety record and policies.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, for the convenience of the Committee it would be useful to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 125AP and 125AQ.
This group of amendments deals with the issue of safety in the railways, and in particular with safety under the new regime that the Government envisage. The culture of safety is a matter of the greatest concern. One needs only to go back to the appalling recollection of the "Herald of Free Enterprise", when the old P&O company was indicted from top to bottom because it failed to exercise that culture of safety. In that situation, irresponsibility and negligence permeated the company right down from the top to the bottom. Yet one had there a system of regulation which people failed to observe.
With the greatest goodwill in the world, however sophisticated the system of regulation may be, safety in any industry—particularly so far as concerns the railways—ultimately depends not so much (although it is important) on an enforceable and enforced system of regulations, as primarily on dedicated and experienced staff and managers—people who are properly trained, but who are also devoted to their calling. We are talking about train drivers, panel operators, shunters, supervisors and technicians—the whole gamut. The public depends on them.
Those highly experienced, dedicated men and women, who have kept safe our old, out-dated signalling and rolling stock, have worked under immense pressure—pressure from staff levels being cut and the reduction of British Rail in preparation for privatisation. There has unquestionably been inexorable pressure to cut costs, drive down support payments and deny British Rail access to private funds which exist elsewhere. That is a debate that we have had on previous occasions and I shall not go into it now. The reality is that thousands of members of British Rail staff —I believe approximately 7,500—

529
have left the service of the railways recently. They had an average length of service of something like 30 years. That is a direct result of pressures that have come from the Government, with further uncertainties and probably job losses adding to problems of morale.
British Rail staff operate in an environment that is increasingly constrained by cash limits which, in my judgment and the judgment of those far more expert than I, are far too rigid. That is not conducive to establishing the high safety standards that the public demands.
We can reflect that a few years ago the safety culture on British Rail was a matter of the highest significance. I do not suggest that among management and staff it has substantially diminished now. But those other factors to which I have just referred have to be taken into account. There are fewer train crews, fewer staff at stations and fewer people to look after the customers. To some degree there is a relaxation of some aspects of the BR rule book. All that combines to make it increasingly difficult to keep a check on safety. BR gets by largely because of the dedication of staff, to which I referred.
What happened at Clapham and King's Cross led to very sharp criticisms of the railway inspectorate being made by the inspectors—lack of attention to London Underground issues in the latter case. But, with respect to the inquiry, I do not believe that sufficient attention was addressed to the issue of the inspectorate itself being understaffed and too small to discharge its public responsibilities. Some of us have expressed concern also about inspectorates in other areas; for example, the Department of Transport's surveyors in relation to shipping who have been reduced very substantially over recent years.
What emerged from the inquiries was a picture of an organisation at breaking point, stretched and demoralised by constant reorganisation, not least because of impending privatisation. That is a constant pressure that has been brought about by the Government. The Hidden Report stated at Recommendation 50:
"BR shall ensure that the organisational framework exists to prevent commercial considerations of a business led railway from compromising safety".
Safety clearly requires team work of the highest order. It requires clear lines of command. It has to extend to a multitude of issues, including the ownership of the infrastructure, the requirement to pay for essential safety on trains, proper dissemination of information concerning safety, examination of track and bridges and so on. Anything that increases the chances of misunderstanding between operatives on the ground can easily lead to a fatal compromise with safety.
The anxieties on this side of the Chamber are that privatisation will further fragment an organisation that is probably too fragmented already. Safety validation is very helpful if the regime is well established; but it is not and cannot be the sole or even main protector of safety. I certainly do not say that all potential franchisees will be thirsting for reductions in safety standards. I know only too well that in all areas of transport there are excellent employers in the private sector. Many of them recognise the desirability
530
of combining with trade unions, not simply for collective bargaining purposes but also to ensure high safety standards and in the context of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 the role of trade unionists is extremely important.
Such companies would have nothing to fear from a scrutiny of their safety policies. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 125AF, which seeks to expose the safety policies of prospective purchasers of BR subsidiaries to the scrutiny of employee representatives and the public. In my submission that cannot be an unreasonable idea. But not every employer can face up to the scrutiny to which the best employers can face up. That is an issue which I believe is absolutely critical for the public and indeed for existing BR employees.
I turn to Amendment No. 125AP. Its purpose is to incorporate into the legislation the Health and Safety Commission's recommendations on future safety. Obviously the Government felt deeply concerned about safety implications in relation to their privatisation proposals and indeed the fragmentation of British Rail. That is why, faced by considerable criticism from within both Chambers and outside—from pressure groups and trade unionists—as well as from the Transport Committee in another place, the Government said that they must examine the matter with the Health and Safety Commission. In consequence, the Health and Safety Commission made 37 recommendations to which If shall turn in a moment. The Government said that they accept all of them and we are very happy that that should be the case. I do not believe that it is necessarily sufficient and that is why we propose these amendments today.
Let me turn to some of those 37 recommendations. Obviously I cannot go through all of them and the Committee will in any event have access to them. Perhaps I can summarise the situation. First, the Health and Safety Commission and its Executive should be supreme on safety matters. Secondly, Railtrack will validate the safety arrangements of all train and station operators. Thirdly, Railtrack's own safety arrangements will be scrutinised by the Health and Safety Executive. Fourthly, there will need to be procedures for settling disputes. Fifthly, there should be arrangements for assessing the competence of certain safety-critical staff, especially drivers. Next, consideration should be given to controlling the hours worked by drivers. Lastly, the Health and Safety Executive and Railtrack should have sufficient resources to carry out their work. In my submission that goes to the very heart of the role of the HSE. The Health and Safety Commission were making that point in the recommendations. It said that it was imperative that there had to be enough staff and resources available if that system—I add, with all its imperfections—is to be made to work from a safety point of view.
In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the report one sees a good deal of underlying scepticism about the whole process. I quote:
"Companies with little or no previous experience of operating on the railway and managers with limited experience of railway safety issues will enter the railway industry as the BR monopoly is broken. Many changes in

531
traditional working arrangements may be proposed. Control of railway operations will be divided between many different organisations and this will generate a need to define the extent of the responsibilities of each party and to ensure effective management of safety (including emergency planning), particularly at the numerous interfaces between parties. Unless considerable care is taken to set up systems to ensure that new operators are properly equipped and organised there can be no confidence that risk will be effectively controlled right from the start and that important matters do not fall between the safety arrangements of the various parties. The consequences of failing to achieve adequate systems of control will be seen in increased risk on the railway system and the likelihood of an increase in the numbers, and possibly also the severity, of accidents".
That is a very critical paragraph in the report. The commission has done its job well. It is right that we should also reflect on another transport area where standards have slipped—not in all respects but certainly in some. I refer to the privatised bus industry. We therefore have to ensure that we do not have a recurrence of that state of affairs on the railways.
As far as concerns the future role of British Rail's safety organisation, overall responsibility for the strategy remains centred on the corporate headquarters of the British Railways Board. But the separation of track and train management envisaged in the Bill, together with the involvement of private sector train operators and maintenance contractors, threatens to create fragmentation. That could have an effect on overall safety policy. When the matter was being debated in Committee in another place on 18th March the Minister said (at col. 836 of the Official Report) that the BR standards unit—responsible for standards of construction for new rolling stock, locomotives and track—would be moved with the BR safety auditing organisation to Railtrack. Whether or not BR eventually becomes a franchisee in its own right, the corporation will continue to operate as a residual train operator for some considerable time. So we have to ask the question: who is to perform these safety functions for BR if the expertise has gone out and has been transferred to Railtrack? Will we have duplicate organisations, which undoubtedly would be very expensive? The Government should answer that question in this debate.
There remains a strong possibility that some franchises will be let on a vertical basis to cover trains, tracks, stations and maintenance depots. That appears to be the purpose underlying the plans for the Isle of Wight service. If Railtrack is to have no involvement, who will validate the safety arrangements of the train operators? In Committee in another place the Minister said:
"Although the Isle of Wight railway company will be responsible for running the passenger trains and looking after the infrastructure for the period of the franchise, Railtrack will still be responsible for validating the safety case of the Isle of Wight railway company for passenger operations and maintenance of the infrastructure". —[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 18/3/93; col. 834.]
The fact is that Railtrack will normally be able physically to prohibit access by a train operator to any track until the safety case has been approved. Can that be the situation with a vertically integrated franchise? Will it be the case? I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
I wish to say a few words about hours of work because when the inquiry was held into the Clapham accident excessive working hours—and constant overtime in particular—were stated to be,
"a clear minus factor as far as safety is concerned".
BR was recommended to monitor overtime working. Then BR introduced a number of proposals, which I shall not go into now. One of them was that a working week was not to exceed six days or 72 hours. Perhaps we shall be talking about this on Thursday but in this day and age to be talking about working weeks in this context of up to 72 hours' duration seems utterly outrageous. Of course that is not the general level of hours, but that too is very high indeed. In a Written Answer on 5th July the Secretary of State said that for the week ending 26th June this year the average hours worked were 47.8 for drivers and 50.8 for signalmen. Here we have people with the greatest responsibility in terms of safety having to work quite excessive hours, which could easily have a damaging effect on safety.
Our case is that there is a risk—it is a risk that is by no means fanciful—that safety standards could be eroded. We are looking for firm guarantees from the Government that they will not simply use their best endeavours but that this situation will be averted. The Government must take seriously the fact that some prospective private operators will not follow the safety precepts of British Rail and that there will be a temptation, particularly in times of financial difficulty, to trade off conditions of the workforce, extend working hours and impair conditions in our railway system.
During the Committee stage in another place the Minister said that he would reflect on the proposed 28-day time limit for Railtrack .to consider a train operator's safety case. He said:
"Should we give Railtrack and the Health and Safety Executive sufficient time to consider an application so that they are not under pressure to decide?".
He also promised to,
"have something further to say about research".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 18/3/93; col. 836.]
I have not seen any follow-up to that. Perhaps the Minister will be able to put me right.
I turn to the resourcing of the Health and Safety Executive. If the executive is not properly resourced then clearly dangers will arise. We need to have the clearest assurances from the Government today that there will be no question of underfunding as regards the railway responsibilities of the HSE. The Minister must not rely on the fact that, whatever happens to this Bill and whether or not it becomes law eventually, there will be a lessening of the furore that applies at the present time. Will proper resourcing apply throughout the lifetime of our future railway service?
How is the HSE to operate? Will we have a system comparable to classification societies in shipping? That area is fraught with difficulties. As the Minister knows only too well, the European Community is having to consider anxieties about some of the activities of classification societies. Will there be a reduction in the number of surveyors, as has happened in the shipping industry? Checks are one thing but the everyday conditions of the safety environment are something else.
The basic problem that could arise in this new development of the railways is that an accident or a series of accidents —if there was another Clapham or another King's Cross—might mean that a franchisee simply could not afford to put matters right. The option will then be almost open-ended government subsidy. We do not know what the terms of repayment will be. That is a major question. The franchisee may go under, or threaten to do so. We may have a situation where the franchising director has to look for another franchisee. That reverts to the old debate that still remains open. The situation is fraught with practical difficulties.
As far as Amendment No. 125AQ is concerned, the Government have given assurances that the Health and Safety Commission report, Ensuring Safety on our Railways, will be implemented and that Railtrack will be responsible for safety validation of railway operators. Discussion of those arrangements has been made very difficult by the fact that Railtrack is not mentioned in the Bill. The new clause proposed by Amendment No. 125AQ will require regulation of working hours and rest periods for safety-critical staff. The Government have promised that. It is not in the Bill. However, in fairness to the Government the Health and Safety Commission's document, Draft Proposals for the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations purports to deal with that situation. There is a statutory instrument annexed to that document which will regulate the hours of many railway workers. First impressions of this recently published document are that it will provide a reasonably safe framework for working hours in the rail way industry. But we need an assurance from the Government that they will implement the statutory instrument and incorporate any changes that may come from the consultation process in which they will be engaged over the course of the next few months.
I conclude by asking a question that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. It vitally affects people who are engaged in litigation, particularly if it is likely to be long drawn out. BR has very properly adopted the policy of making interim payments for damages to mitigate hardship, particularly where litigation is likely to be long drawn out. Are the Government prepared to take any steps to ensure that that practice will also be honoured by franchisees? I believe that future litigants will hope that the answer to that question will be a very robust "Yes". I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: In rising to support this amendment I do not intend to say very much more than has already been said comprehensively and very properly by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. This is an issue of great concern. If the new system does not get health and safety right on the railways we will have failed. In regard to Amendment No. 125AQ, I am particularly attracted by the publication of a code of practice by the Health and Safety Executive so that there will be a continuing review of the yardsticks laid down.
My main point relates to Amendment No. 125AF, which is a requirement on a transferee to disclose his safety record and policies before subsidiaries of the board are disposed of. I spent most of my working life
534
in the chemical industry. That was a very dangerous place in which to be, though not where I was working. I refer to the laboratories and factories of the chemical industry. That industry has a very good safety record. It has that record because there is a consciousness in that industry of the need for health and safety. Over the past few years the Chemical Industries Association has worked very hard on a programme that it calls Responsible Care. It is that attitude which is very important in the whole health and safety area. The places where there are serious problems are those in which the top-level management or board of a company does not take safety as seriously as it ought to do. In a safe company there has to be an understanding that the people at the top of the organisation regard safety as a very high priority—a priority greater than the bottom line of the profit and loss account. Unless one has that attitude accidents will happen, and when they happen they will be serious ones.
It is important that the transferee should disclose his safety record and policies on safety. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the bus industry. It is true that since the deregulation of that industry safety standards have declined in some areas. Standards in other areas have also declined, but it is particularly so in the case of safety. That applies to some, though not all, of the smaller bus companies. Some of them are the very people who may wish to take out franchises in the new railway network. It is because of that that it seems to me to be wise that before transfers are made very close scrutiny is made of anybody who wishes to bid for a franchise or one of the subsidiaries of the board.
Baroness O'Cathain: I have a great deal of sympathy for this amendment. Perhaps one way of tackling the matter would be to recommend the procedure followed by airlines, which have an air safety committee of the same status as the remuneration or audit committee of the board. I believe that to make such a committee a statutory requirement may cause too many legal problems or place too many constraints upon franchisees. However, where safety is paramount and there is genuine public concern about safety of transport, perhaps the Government may see fit to recommend that in the case of privatisation the franchisee should, in effect, have responsibility for formulating a rail safety committee. I put forward that suggestion to the Committee.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I agree with all who have spoken to this amendment on the importance of safety. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has moved these amendments because it provides the Committee with its first opportunity to consider in detail the very important matter of railway safety.
Before I address the terms of the amendments before us, I hope that your Lordships will find it helpful if I say a little about the arrangements that the Government propose to ensure that safety on the

535
railways is maintained. I make absolutely clear at the outset that safety has been of paramount concern in the formulation of proposals. That is why we have sought the independent expert advice of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) which is and will continue to be the railway safety regulatory authority. Its report on the safety implications of our proposals was published earlier this year. That report recognised the possible safety implications of privatisation. Thus, it made safety recommendations to ensure that there would he no diminution of safety standards. It contained 37 detailed recommendations that covered all aspects of railway safety.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, not only did the Government accept those recommendations but, it is worth stressing, BR also accepted all of them and said that they were the right recommendations for the future. We do not want to lose the expertise that exists in BR. That is why the BR rail safety organisation will be retained and transferred to Railtrack as a unit. There will be no diminution of expertise. We welcome that and believe it to be right. I am sure that your Lordships will also welcome it. If BR were to run a franchise it would be subject to safety case regulations in the same way as any other operator. The new safety regime is based upon that —a system of preparation and validation of railway safety cases. All operators, including Railtrack, will need to have a validated safety case before operations commence.
Just to be absolutely clear: before operations commence a railway safety case will have to be produced. That safety case will set out how the operator intends to meet all necessary safety requirements. It will include safety policy, risk assessment and a description of safety management systems. Railtrack will have primary responsibility for safety of operations on the network and will validate the safety cases of operators wishing to come onto the network. Railtrack's own safety case will be validated by the Health and Safety Executive. Therefore, even if one offered a potential franchise to someone who had not until that moment been involved in the railways, before that person could be granted the franchise he would have to satisfy the stringent tests of a railway safety case.
The statutory framework for the new safety regime will be provided in regulations to be made not under the Bill, but under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. A consultation exercise on the three sets of draft regulations was launched by the HSE earlier this month. It is the intention that the regulations should come into force at the beginning of next year. The Government, HSE and BR are confident that the new safety regime will ensure that there is no diminution of safety standards following privatisation.
Turning to the amendments before us, I shall deal first with Amendment No. 125AF, which provides that before the disposal of any BR subsidiary, the Secretary of State shall require the transferee to disclose his safety record and policies. From what I have already said, Members of the Committee will understand that I have no difficulty with the
536
sentiments underlying the amendment. Nobody will be able to operate on the rail network without having previously demonstrated that he can do so safely. Therefore when a transferee takes over a company which was previously a BR subsidiary, there will have to be in place a validated railway safety case. This is not just a one-off exercise. The safety case will need to have shown how the operator will continue to meet the necessary safety requirements. Compliance with the safety case will be the subject of monitoring by Railtrack and the HSE. The HSE will continue to enforce standards across the industry.
However, the mechanism for achieving that is not through the Railways Bill, but through the HSWA regulations. A provision such as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is inappropriate for this Bill and unnecessary because its intent is already being met under a different Act.
In responding to Amendments Nos. 125AP and AQ, I think it would be helpful to say just a little about what lies behind Clause 110. The HSC's report recommended that appropriate parts of the existing legislation relating to railway safety should be made "relevant statutory provisions" under the HSWA. Clause 110 fulfils that recommendation. Its effect is to enable the statutory provisions and regulations made under them to be progressively replaced by a system of regulations and approved codes of practice. The legislation listed in the clause relates to the proper construction and safe operation of certain transport systems, of the vehicles used on those systems, and the protection of railway employees or the general public from personal injury and other risks. Thus, the regulations to implement the HSC's report are being made under the HSWA.
Amendment No. 125AP seeks to limit the effect of Clause 110 only to the extent necessary to implement the HSC's recommendations. We believe that that would tie the hands of the HSE, which is and will continue to be the railway safety regulatory authority. The HSE and HM Rail Inspectors are the safety experts and if they see a need to develop or modify regulatory control or issue codes of practice on matters related to railway safety, they must be free to do so. I hope Members of the Committee are agreed on that. The production of HSWA regulations is a process involving consultation with all interested parties, as I have already mentioned. I hope that the Committee will therefore understand why I cannot agree with Amendment No. 125AP.
Amendment No. 125AQ relates to a specific aspect of the new safety regime and a matter that was dealt with in some detail in the HSC's report. The amendment would require the HSE to publish a code of practice setting out maximum working hours and minimum rest periods for railway staff. It would require operators to employ staff on terms which comply with that code of practice.
The HSC report made a number of recommendations in respect of personal safety factors including the selection, training and certification of staff and also in relation to avoidance of fatigue. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis kindly admitted that we had taken action and, as a result, the draft HSWA regulations

537
propose a new general duty on operators to ensure safety critical staff do not work excessive hours that may compromise the safe performance of their duties. That would be in addition to the general duties on employers under the HSWA which include ensuring protection against risks arising from fatigue caused by working excessive hours. The HSE has gone further in the case of train drivers where the job requires constant vigilance over extended periods and the ability and skill to react to events in all circumstances. For consultation purposes, specific limits on the hours of duty to be worked by drivers have been proposed based on existing BR limits modified to provide greater flexibility.
It is important also to make clear that there is little objective evidence in this area. Indeed the HSC report concludes that it is unlikely that truly objective general limits could be defined on the basis of current knowledge. Nevertheless, the consultation exercise demonstrates that it is an issue of importance and one on which the views of all those with an interest are being sought.
Amendment No. 125AQ is therefore premature. A code of practice for dealing with hours of work is not the way of current HSE thinking, although it will want to take account of all views expressed on this matter. I can assure the Committee that operators will have to comply with whatever is included in the final regulations.
I turn to some of the points of detail raised by Members of the 'Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about vertical integration. Although the HSE regulations propose that the HSE rather than Railtrack should validate the safety cases of infrastructure controllers, it is proposed that Railtrack will validate the safety case of the Isle of Wight. As that is a small, self-contained operation, Railtrack will keep the freehold of the infrastructure. I therefore confirm what I said earlier to the noble Lord. I do not see the difficulty that he sees in that issue.
The future of British Rail research is the subject of current discussions between the Government and the board. Those discussions are taking place in the context of a wider examination of the research requirements and capacity of the future rail industry. We intend to commission studies of those wider issues and will make the final decisions in the light of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the important question of resources. In responding to the HSC's report, the Government confirmed their commitment to ensure that adequate resources are made available to enable the HSC and the inspectors to fulfil the tasks that they will need to carry out their work following the privatisation measures.
I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, regarding the introduction of a rail safety committee. Perhaps she will allow me to give the matter further consideration with my right honourable friends the Minister for Public Transport and the Secretary of State before replying more fully. I can then write to her on that matter.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, decides what he is going to do about
538
this amendment, I should like to thank the Minister for what he has said this afternoon. It is a very reasoned response to the genuine questions which have been raised. As I said before, this is a matter which must exercise Members in all parts of the Committee. It is not a party issue. The answers are somewhat complicated. I hope that it will be possible to take this matter away and return to it, if necessary, at a later stage, but it is entirely in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister and to those who have participated in this debate; and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for the suggestion which she made, which is certainly worth considering. I am glad that the Minister has said that he will reflect on it with his colleagues. The precedent for that is encouraging. It can do no harm and it could do a power of good. Therefore, I am grateful that this debate has led to that very positive suggestion and I am sure that the Committee will acknowledge that. I do not for one moment dispute the Minister's and the Government's commitment to safety, but perhaps we have a different approach. I shall certainly read with care what the Minister has said.
I wish to raise one or two matters which emerged from his reply. Going to the heart of the first amendment is the concept of transparency and to what extent the Health and Safety Executive, in its consideration of these matters, will also reflect on the importance of taking into account the views of the public—and here the role of the safety committee, if implemented, could be very useful—and also those of the staff. They have everyday experience of working on the railways. I am sure that through their trade unions and as individuals they can make the most useful responses to questions raised by the HSE and could themselves also have some useful innovative ideas.
The Minister said that as regards working hours there was little objective evidence. The problem has been rather better dealt with on the railways than it has been in terms of road haulage. The Minister and I—I believe it was the Minister in his earlier capacity when I was in the commission—and certainly Ministers from his Government were engrossed in many hours of debate over the question of drivers' hours and rest times. Today we have a very unsatisfactory regime. It is not properly policed and it is certainly not properly enforced. Many abuses exist. As commissioner, I remember that Ministers overrode the commission's objections to their amendments, which were carried unanimously against the will of the commission. I warned at the time that an unsatisfactory regime would follow and that has happened. Therefore, we must take note of the evidence that occurred in that particular case. I am sure that the Government will do that in this context.
As regards resources, this Government in particular have made promises of adequate resources in other respects, but the promises have gone a little wanting. But we can only tell in the future whether that will be the case. This is a matter to which the

539
Commission gave enormous emphasis. The Government would be very foolhardy if they sought to reduce the resources in any shape or form.
Before I sit down I shall invite the Minister to comment on the question I raised concerning litigation and the very worthwhile practice of interim payments by British Rail at the present time. Is the Minister able to say that he will make any recommendations in that regard to the franchising director so that this matter would become an important condition under which the new franchisees will operate? Does the Minister believe that it is a matter of practice which ought to be maintained? I certainly do. I am certainly prepared to give way to the Minister to enable him to say something about that. If he is not in a position to do so, maybe he will write to me and then, as usual, put a copy of the letter in the Library.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, knows a lot more about litigation than I do. He thrives on it and I do not. On this particular issue, I am quite happy to take it away, have a look at what he says, and then write to him.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister. I no longer thrive on litigation as I used to. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is very sad about that. I was an extremely capable litigator in my time. I hope that the Minister will reflect on this matter. Having regard to the way in which the Minister replied to the debate, as much as to the substance of it, I am prepared to reflect further on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Schedule 7 [Transfers by transfer scheme]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 125AG:
Page 154, line 8, at end insert:
("Perfection of vesting of foreign property, rights and liabilities
—(1) This paragraph applies in any case where a transfer scheme provides for the transfer of any foreign property, rights or liabilities.
(2) It shall be the duty of the transferor and the transferee to take, as and when the transferee considers appropriate, all such steps as may be requisite to secure that the vesting in the transferee by virtue of the transfer scheme of any foreign property, right or liability is effective under the relevant foreign law.
(3) Until the vesting in the transferee by virtue of the transfer scheme of any foreign property, right or liability is effective under the relevant foreign law, it shall be the duty of the transferor to hold that property or right for the benefit of, or to discharge that liability on behalf of, the transferee.
(4) Nothing in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above shall be taken as prejudicing the effect under the law of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom of the vesting in the transferee by virtue of a transfer scheme of any foreign property, right or liability.
(5) The transferor shall have all such powers as may be requisite for the performance of his duty under this paragraph, but it shall be the duty of the transferee to act on behalf of the transferor (so far as possible) in performing the duty imposed on the transferor by this paragraph.
540
(6) References in this paragraph to any foreign property, right or liability are references to any property, right or liability as respects which any issue arising in any proceedings would have been determined (in accordance with the rules of private international law) by reference to the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
(7) Duties imposed on the transferor or the transferee by this paragraph shall be enforceable in the same way as if the duties were imposed by a contract between the transferor and the transferee.
(8) Any expenses incurred by the transferor under this paragraph shall be met by the transferee.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 127J. These amendments are essentially of a technical nature. Amendment No. 125AG is a revised version of paragraph 3 in Schedule 12, dealing with transfers of foreign property when a transfer scheme is made under the Bill. The main alterations are the deletions of references to the "transitional period" during which the provisions of the paragraph are to apply. We need them to apply without any time limit. The new paragraph is to be inserted into Schedule 7, which contains the other detailed provisions concerning the making of transfer schemes.
Amendment No. 125J tidies up the ensuing loose end by deleting the existing paragraph 3 in Schedule 12. These are not controversial amendments, and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses Nos. 91 to 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Target investment limit for Government shareholding in certain successor companies]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125AH:
Page 100, leave out line 29.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak to Amendment No. 125AJ. The object of Amendment No. 125AH is to remove the presumption that the public stake in partially privatised undertakings will be allowed only to contract. Clause 94 permits the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of shares retained by the nation in privatised railway companies. That power can vary and be very useful to a future government hoping to increase public control of the railways. However, subsection (4) (a) insists that the degree of state ownership can be varied only in a downward direction. It is that provision which we seek to delete.
How can we tell what will happen in future? Other countries in the world have had to take over more and more of their railway undertakings. It is not as though increased public control and public investment in railways is something which can be done by stealth. It will be a matter for open public discussion. But there could be a situation where more public investment, and therefore some increased public participation, will be the only way to sustain a rail network. In the present fluctuating state of transport and the problems of traffic in conurbations, it will be wise to have this provision as a stopgap for a future government.
Amendment No. 125AJ is to prevent the Secretary of State utilising the disposal powers contained in

541
Clause 94 to privatise non-British Rail undertakings such as London Underground, Glasgow Underground, the Docklands Light Railway or the Tyne and Wear Metro.
The definitions of "operating company" and "public sector railway company" in subsection (10) could permit the Secretary of State to reduce the public stake in railway companies not owned by BR. That may be an unintended consequence of the Bill being made a "Railways Bill" rather than a "British Railways Bill", which is what many of us thought that it should have been. On the other hand, if it had been called the "British Railways Bill", Madam Speaker could have decided that it was hybrid. The provisions may herald a so far undeclared intention to extend privatisation beyond British Rail and its subsidiaries. It would be a very sad day if the present purpose of Glasgow Underground, London Underground, the Docklands Light Railway and the Tyne and Wear Metro, were to be removed. That purpose is to relieve congestion and to make some kind of attempt at providing integrated transport in urban areas. We believe that this amendment is of vital importance. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has explained that the effect of Amendment No. 125AH would be to remove from Clause 94 the requirement that any new target investment limit for the government shareholding in a privatised operating company must be lower than the one it replaces. The intention of that requirement, in subsection (4) (a), is that a privatised company which has a fixed government shareholding knows that shareholding can only decrease through time. The effect of the amendment would be that the Government would be in a position to renationalise such a company by revoking an existing order and making a new one with a higher government investment limit. This would provide a considerable deterrent both to innovation in the company and to investment by other shareholders.
It is our policy that the role of the private sector in the railways should increase through time and this amendment would provide unacceptable uncertainty as to the future. If a future Government wished to renationalise the railways—and we very much hope that they would not—then it is only right that they should have to pass primary legislation in order to do so.
Amendment No. 125AJ deletes publicly-owned railway companies from the meaning of "public sector railway company". The effect of this deletion is that a target investment limit for the government shareholding could not apply to a company which became a government-owned company before privatisation. Railtrack will fall into this category. The target investment limit could only apply to a direct privatisation of the board or one of its subsidiaries.
We see no reason for singling out government-owned companies in this amendment. We believe that the arguments in favour of this clause, which I have already outlined, apply both to privatisations of British Rail subsidiaries and to those of companies such as Railtrack.
542
In each case, we want to encourage private sector ownership and investment, not to deter it. And in each case, we believe that if a future Government wish to renationalise a privatised railway company, then they should have to pass primary legislation in order to do so.
I therefore cannot commend either of these amendments to the Committee, and invite the noble Lord to withdraw them.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that that was a disappointing reply. In effect, he is taking all flexibility away from an industry which, as I tried to say earlier, is in a state of flux and which needs, in certain areas, to be flexible enough to try to solve some of the problems of the urban areas.
If a future government were so minded, it would be possible for them to take more of the equity into public ownership. That could be done. In the future, we could end up with a crisis in which government money would be desperately needed. I have tried to draw that scenario for the Committee. l believe that the future lies with dedicated transport and with rail transport in the large urban areas.
The Minister did not answer my question about the fact that the well developed underground systems in London, Glasgow and Tyne and Wear, and the Docklands Light Railway could be targeted if the Government decided to take no interest in them or to pass the public service railway companies over to private enterprise. Before I decide whether to withdraw or press the amendment, I wonder whether the Minister could give me some reassurance on that point.
Viscount Goschen: I apologise for my omission in my reply. Perhaps I may explain further that Clause 94 would not allow the Secretary of State to privatise London Underground Ltd, Tyne and Wear Metro or the other companies which the noble Lord mentioned. The provisions relate only to holdings in certain public sector railway companies, not to London Underground Ltd. I draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (1) of Clause 137.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for that explanation. It is the one reassurance that we have had today and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125AJ not moved.]
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Government lending to certain successor companies]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125AK:
Page 101, line 46, leave out ("for the time being").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to try to elicit from the Government an assurance that it is not their intention to write off loans when Railtrack is privatised, thus providing a particularly good buy for anyone wishing to invest in it. This is a probing amendment which seeks to delete

543
from Clause 96 the definition of any successor company (by which the Government mean Railtrack) as one which is for the time being wholly owned by the Crown. The significance of this will not be lost on the Committee in that the position of a loan may vary between it being triggered when it was wholly owned by the Crown and after privatisation when it becomes a private company and the loan has to be repaid.
I am sure that the Committee would welcome a comment from the Minister on whether there is any intention, if necessary, to sweeten the sell-off of Railtrack in the future by indicating that the Government may write off loans which they accorded that company while it was wholly owned by the Crown.
Railtrack will be the keeper of the infrastructure of the railways and it will need massive investment to sustain that infrastructure. Therefore, the sums involved could be substantial in themselves and we feel that Clause 96 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide privatisation incentive. Given the new force of law that may be applicable to statements made in both Houses, we are looking for the Government to give a categoric assurance that that is not the intention of the clause and that under no circumstances will loans not be repaid in the proper time and at appropriate interest rates.
Certainly, there has to be a clause which provides for the transition period and the necessity for an input of government money, but it is money that should remain in the public domain and which should not be lost with any assets to a private undertaking. Our request in this amendment is fairly straightforward. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: I cannot accept Amendment No. 125AK. The purpose of Clause 96 is to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to successor companies wholly owned by the Crown. Railtrack will be such a company before, in time, it is privatised. The clause would not allow loans to be made by the Secretary of State to a privatised successor company which had formerly been wholly owned by the Crown.
We do not believe that the amendment would change the effect of the clause, but it might make it less clear that loans can be made under this Clause only while a successor company is wholly owned by the Crown. In the light of that explanation, I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am sorry, but I find the Minister's reply unsatisfactory. The Minister is saying that a loan will be made to a company wholly owned by the Crown, but there is no suggestion that immediately after privatisation there will be any obligation on the new company to repay what might be vast sums of money. It is all very well saying that that will be taken into account when deciding the price. It would be wrong if those willing to become involved in the purchase of railway property or services know that that sort of money will be spent, and that they will be able to get out from under the
544
loan. I believe that it would cause a great furore. The Minister seems to have something to say to me, perhaps he would like to intervene.
Viscount Goschen: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. Clause 96 enables the Secretary of State to make loans, not to write them off. Clause 99 deals with the restructuring of debt.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The restructuring of debt is what we are worried about. I shall take away the Minister's remarks for consideration and perhaps return to the matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clauses 97 and 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Extinguishment of certain liabilities of successor companies]:
On Question, Whether Clause 99 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I wish to raise a matter in relation to Clause 99 which concerns the writing off of the railways' debts. I am somewhat worried about that, and I should like the Government to be rather more open than has been the case in the past. We know from experience that the privatisation programme in which the Government have indulged has cost no less than £13 billion in terms of the debts written off over the past 14 years.
I rely upon a Written Answer given by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer of 3rd March 1992, in which he gave full particulars of the amounts that had been written off in relation to British Aerospace, the National Freight Corporation, the British Transport Docks Board, British Telecommunications, where nearly £2.8 billion was written off. With British Airways, BAA and British Steel, about £3.5 billion was written off. Nearly £5 billion was written off in respect of water holding companies and Scottish electricity companies.
The explanatory notes as to the financial effects of the Bill, which the Minister will see at page xi, state:
"The proposals in this Bill are not expected to lead to major reductions in public expenditure in the short term".
They can say that again! I do not envisage that there will be much scope for public expenditure reductions in the middle or long term, having regard to the open-ended subsidies that the Government will be forced to make in this rather crazy scheme.
It would be wholly inappropriate—putting it in the most neutral terms consistent with the elegance of this place—if the public were to find that the writing off of BR's debts would lead to substantial further losses. I understand that BRB's accounts for 1992–93 indicate that capital liabilities to the Secretary of State amount currently to nearly £1.9 billion. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a reasonable assurance that the public will not be in for another outrageous amount as a result of the Government's proposals.
Viscount Goschen: We cannot accept the deletion of Clause 99 from the Bill. That would prevent the

545
Secretary of State from extinguishing liabilities of successor companies which are for the time being wholly owned by British Rail or the Crown.
Clause 99 enables the Secretary of State to secure any necessary capital restructuring of successor companies by converting public sector loans into securities. The effect of removing the clause would be to take away the ability of the Government to write off debt of successor companies in return for the allotment of shares in that company or for some other forms of security such as a debenture.
The Government's long-term intention is to privatise such companies. It needs powers such as this to restructure them in preparation for sale. It would certainly not improve the Bill to remove Clause 99, and I ask the Committee to agree that the clause stand part, especially in the light of the fact that the debt is written off in return for the allotment of shares on some other form of security.
Lord Tordoff: I do not intend to start being a financial expert, but it is all very well for the Government to say that they have to do that. All that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is pointing out is what an expensive exercise it is. Perhaps taxpayers should be made aware that they are funding an expensive exercise.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his intervention. The Minister was shrouding whatever facts may be in this brief with remarkable expertise. I learnt nothing from what he said. I had asked him what were the Government's plans in relation to writing off British Rail's indebtedness. The Minister said nothing about it. He spoke of possibilities. The public need to know, and the Government have been coy about this. What is the truth of the matter? I shall not press a Division on the deletion of Clause 99—the Minister can take comfort in that fact—but I want to know, and the massed ranks on the Benches behind me want to know.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Goschen: It is too early to say how much debt, if any, might be written off using the powers contained in this clause. That can only be considered in the light of the restructuring scheme in question.
Lord Tordoff: The Minister is asking this place to write a blank cheque for the Government.
Viscount Goschen: The debt can only be written off by order, so it will be with the consent of Parliament.
Lord Tordoff: Although orders may be debated in this place, they are not voted against and cannot be amended. So by allowing the clause to stand part, we are today writing a blank cheque for the Government.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Are we talking about something like £2 billion?
Viscount Goschen: I have stated clearly that it is too early to say how much debt, if any, might be written off using the powers contained in the clause.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, the Minister must have some idea. Are we talking about £50,
546
£1,000 or £2 billion? It seems to me from the BRB's own statement that it rather looks as though it is the latter.
Viscount Goschen: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, invites me to speculate as to the amount. I have been absolutely clear that at present I cannot say how much debt, if any, will be written off.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It is fairly clear that the public will catch another heavy weight as regards the indebtedness and it will have to pick up the bill. That is extremely unsatisfactory. I have listened to the Minister's response which is just about as unsatisfactory as it could be, although expressed in the nicest possible terms. I know that the Minister always tries to be helpful, but on this occasion, he has not been. However, I do not wish to press the matter any further.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clauses 100 and 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Grants to the Board]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125AKA:
Page 106, line 22, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall every year lay before Parliament his criteria for and the method of calculating the total payments to be made to passenger service operators by virtue of any provision of the public service obligation regulations. The Secretary of State shall include with this information an estimate of the payments to be made by virtue of any provision of the public service obligations for each of the next five years.
() In this section "the public service obligation regulations" means Council Regulations (EEC) No. 1191/69 on the public service obligations in transport, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1893/91.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment asks that:
"The Secretary of State shall every year lay before Parliament his criteria for and the method of calculating the total payments to be made to passenger service operators by virtue of any provision of the public service obligation regulations".
The public service obligation payments to the railway are paid as compensation for the cost of operating socially necessary railway services required by the Secretary of State. As the costs of providing a railway service are easily quantifiable, it should be possible for the Secretary of State to quantify the PSO payments required to meet the objectives which he sets for the railway operators.
At present, the PSO appears to be calculated on the basis of the minimum which the Government believe that they can get away with in any particular year. Private operators will have to plan over a number of years—perhaps over a longer period than the Government tend to plan—and it seems reasonable that the Secretary of State should publish art important part of that information in order that the privatised companies can plan their future services. That seems to be self-evident common sense.
Now that the Government have decided to privatise, the privatised companies will he expecting that a number of the lines which already receive .PSO grants will continue to do so. As many of the lines will be feeder lines for the main services, it is rather important that some idea should be given as to the

547
amount of money which the Secretary of State is likely to allocate to those lines. If it varies too much, it could greatly affect the privatised companies. Despite the impression that we may have given because of our opposition to the Bill, we still want the railways to work properly and as efficiently as possible. Therefore, we believe that it is only fair to include such an undertaking on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: On these Benches, we support the amendment. It seems only fair that as the Government have stated that privatisation will make the system cheaper to run, the subsidies to be supplied to the privatised companies should be scrutinised. It would seem odd indeed if after privatisation the costs should rise steeply and the Government would have to pay more subsidies to a service which they consider to be cheaper. It is possible that in the future some privatised companies may run a service because of the subsidies available and for no other reason.
Viscount Goschen: As the noble Lord said, the amendment is aimed at requiring the Secretary of State to publish his criteria for making, and his methodology for calculating, payments to be made to passenger service operators by virtue of the public service obligations, as defined in the amendment. In addition, it seeks to require the Secretary of State to make an estimate of payments to be made by virtue of those regulations in the following five years. I should say that PSO grant will continue to be paid, under the powers in Clause 123.
Under the current system, the Government pay BR a block. PSO grant to compensate them for running loss-making but socially necessary services. In future we intend that the franchising director will enter into separate franchise agreements covering the whole network, under which grant will be paid in respect of specific groups of services. Prospective franchisees will bid for the subsidy they believe they will require on the basis of forecasts of costs and revenues.
The Government want to increase transparency. Under the new regime, we will therefore have franchise agreements and franchise contracts which will contain the details of the subsidy to be paid for specific groups of services, rather than having one very large subsidy for the whole railway.
Prior to franchising, services which continue to be operated by BR will continue to receive PSO subsidy. But as BR sets up subsidiaries in preparation for franchising, we expect the franchising director will move away from block grant so that the arrangements closely resemble how they will be once the service has been franchised.
As regards the overall budget for passenger railway subsidies, the Chancellor will announce, as part of the unified budget, the funds which will be made available to the franchising director for the following year, and the provisional figures for the following two years. That is consistent with the treatment of other public expenditure.
548
I hope that the noble Lord will be content with the explanation that I have given and agree that no further provision is necessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I listened carefully to the Minister's reply. He will realise that it is not one in which we can see too much reason. We believe that the Secretary of State should be much more specific about detailing the PSO. However, I shall look at the Minister's reply and decide what is the best way to handle the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clauses 103 to 105 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 106 [Objectives of the Secretary of State and corresponding duties of the Board]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 125AL:
Page 107, line 20, at end insert:
("() ensuring efficient transport of goods by rail, if necessary by using his powers under sections 124 and 126.").
The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, does not wish to move this amendment; but Members of the Committee will remember that at an earlier stage of the Bill we sought to put general objectives into the Bill. We were then referred to Clause 106 in Part II and a different clause in Part I. It seems to me very important as no general objectives are to be written into the Bill—the Committee rejected that proposition—that we should make sure that Clause 106 is adequate. I believe that the fact that there is very little reference to freight in this part of the Bill is an omission. I certainly would not wish to press the amendment, but it is very important that since we failed to convince the Committee that there should be overall objectives, we should get the objectives right at this stage. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: If I understand the amendment correctly, its purpose is to ensure that the privatisation of BR's freight services does not prejudice the future carriage of goods by rail. First, the objectives which are listed in Clause 106(2) already include the desirability of maintaining efficiency in the provision of railway services. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the term "railway services" includes services for the carriage of goods. I should also remind the Committee that my noble friend explained that the term "railway services" included services for the carriage of goods by railway in response to Amendment No. 110AV on 7th July. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was good enough to accept the Minister's assurance on that point.
Secondly, Clauses 124 and 126 provide the Secretary of State with a mechanism for tipping the balance in favour of rail versus road where there are clear benefits from doing so. The amendment neither adds to nor subtracts from those important provisions.
Of course, we have made it plain on a number of occasions that the purpose of privatisation is to unshackle rail freight from state control and allow it to develop away from bureaucratic intervention. The industry faces many challenges as its traditional

549
markets contract and its road haulage competitors adapt to meet today's distribution needs. Privatisation will release the energy of managers to develop creative solutions to rail freight problems. In the light of that explanation, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that response. I believe that it illustrates the fact that those of us on this side of the Committee need to look further at Clause 106 before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. If it is the only part of the Bill that deals with objectives, I am not at all satisfied that it is as comprehensive as it ought to be. However, I shall leave the matter there for the present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 [Parliamentary disqualification]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I must point out to Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 125AM is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 125AN.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 125AM:
Page 108, leave out lines 22 to 27 and insert:
(""Director of a company—

(a) which, within the meaning of Part II of the Railways Act 1993, is a successor company wholly owned by the Crown, or

(b) which, within the meaning of that Act, is wholly owned by the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising,

being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown, the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising or any other person acting on behalf of the Crown".").
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 125AM is essentially technical. It plugs a possible loophole in Clause 108 (which is a standard provision in legislation) that directors of companies owned by the Crown should be disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons. There is a potential gap which Clause 108 at present leaves open. It need not necessarily be the case that a company wholly owned by the franchising director will be a "successor company", as defined in Clause 91 of the Bill. There may be cases in which property, rights and liabilities are not vested in it in accordance with a transfer scheme under the Bill—they may be vested in the company by other means. The government amendment removes a possible loophole by ensuring that the directors of any company wholly owned by the franchising director will be subject to parliamentary disqualification.
I turn now to Amendment No. 125AN. Its effect would be to extend parliamentary disqualification to directors of wholly-owned British Rail subsidiaries. It would not disqualify directors of companies which BR sells to the private sector; nor will it apply to the directors of private sector franchisees. The definition of "successor company" in Clause 91(1) makes that clear.
In practice, we doubt whether many directors of wholly-owned BR subsidiaries will be Members of the other place. But there is no reason to prevent that
550
happening. The convention is that paid servants of the Crown should be disqualified from sitting in another place. British Rail and its subsidiaries are not emanations of the Crown. We do not see any need to go against the conventions by extending parliamentary disqualification in that way. I would ask the noble Lord not to press this amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 125AM.
Lord Clinton-Davis: In tabling Amendment No.25AN, I was simply seeking to probe a point that turns, at least in part, on the Government's amendment. As I understand it, the legislation prevents a Member of Parliament from being a director of a successor company owned by the Crown. The current amendment extends that provision to include directors of all railway operating companies.
At the end of the privatisation process which is being undertaken by the Government and after the passing of the legislation, the Secretary of State and, to some extent, Parliament, together with the appointees of the Secretary of State—namely, the regulator and the franchising director —are bound to be able to exercise enormous collective and individual influence over the railway operating companies. Therefore, in such a situation is it appropriate for Members of Parliament to be capable of influencing the opportunities of competing private companies when they may in fact be directors of rival companies? I merely tabled the amendment in order to give myself the opportunity to ask that question.
Lord Tordoff: We are now entering an area of great complexity. In the past people have been caught by being members of organisations where they did not realise that they would be disqualified. I raise the point because it was such a situation that caused a Bill to be passed retrospectively in another place which allowed Lord Winstanley to retain his seat when he was the Member for Cheadle. I mention that fact because it gives me an opportunity to do something that I would wish to do; namely, to pay tribute to Lord Winstanley who died on Saturday. I should like to say how much we on this side of the Committee—and I am sure Members on all sides—regret his passing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am far from clear as to what the position is under the two amendments. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can make it clear whether or not I am right in suggesting that it is proposed that, where a company has been privatised, it is possible for one or some of its directors to be Members of another place, but that, where a company has not been privatised, the prohibition will still operate. Can my noble friend clarify whether I am right in that assumption or whether I have misunderstood the position?
Viscount Goschen: My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is basically correct in what he said. Amendment No. 125AN seeks to extend parliamentary disqualification to directors of wholly-owned British Rail subsidiaries. However, the point is that it would not disqualify the directors of companies which BR sells to the private sector; nor will it apply to the

551
directors of private-sector franchisees. Therefore, what my noble friend said is correct as regards what would be the effect of Amendment No. 125AN.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should like to take the opportunity, albeit not strictly speaking in order, to pay my own tribute, and that on behalf of this side of the Committee, to Lord Winstanley who so sadly and prematurely passed away over the weekend. He was a great servant of both this and another place. It was, indeed, an untimely death.
As I said, I simply tabled the amendment as a probing measure. I think that I have probed sufficiently. I shall not move my amendment.
Viscount Goschen: I should point out that I have moved Amendment No. 125AM.
Amendment No. 125AM agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125AN not moved.]
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 110 [Safety of railways and other guided transport systems]:
[Amendment No. 125AP not moved.]
Clause 110 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125AQ not moved.]
Clause 111 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 125AR:
After Clause 111 , insert the following new clause:
Security: power of Secretary of State to give instructions
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may from time to time give—

(a) to any person who is the owner or operator of a relevant asset, or

(b) to any person who provides railway services, such instructions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that relevant assets within Great Britain, or persons or property on or in any such relevant asset, are protected against acts of violence.

(2) An instruction may be given to any person who appears to the Secretary of State to be about to become such a person as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above, but an instruction given to a person by virtue of this subsection shall not take effect until he becomes such a person and, in relation to an instruction so given, the provisions of this section shall apply with the necessary modifications.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, an instruction may, in particular, require the person to whom it is given ("the recipient")—

(a) not to cause or permit any persons, or any designated persons, or more than a specified number of persons or designated persons, to enter any relevant asset or any designated relevant asset, or not to cause or permit them to do so unless they submit to a search or unless or until some other specified condition is complied with;

(b) not to cause or permit any goods, or any designated goods, or more than a specified quantity of goods or designated goods, to be brought or loaded on to or into any relevant asset or any designated relevant asset, or not to do so unless the goods in question are subjected to a search or unless or until some other specified condition is complied with;

552

(c)to run no trains, or to restrict the running of trains, or to run no train unless it is subjected to a search, or unless or until some other specified condition is complied with;

(d) to secure the carrying out of a search of—

(i) any designated relevant assets, or

(ii) any persons or designated persons who, or any goods or designated goods which, are on or in any such assets;

(e) to furnish to the Secretary of State such information as he may require for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above;

(f) to prepare plans specifying action to be taken by the recipient and his servants or agents—

(i) in the event that an act of violence of a specified description occurs, or

(ii) in times when there is an increased likelihood of such acts occurring,

and to conduct, at specified intervals, exercises in connection with the implementation of such plans;

(g) to employ specified numbers of suitably trained staff for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of acts of violence;

(h) to meet specified requirements with respect to the construction of, or to make specified modifications to—

(i) any relevant assets, or any designated relevant assets, of which the recipient is the owner or operator, or

(ii) any apparatus or equipment, or any designated apparatus or equipment, on or in any such assets.

(4) Where an instruction requires the carrying out of a search, it may also specify—

(a) the kind of search which is to be carried out;

(b) the manner in which the search is to be carried out; and

(c) the persons, or the class or description of persons, who are to carry out the search.

(5) Where any person refuses to submit himself or any goods in his possession to a search required by an instruction, any person authorised to carry out that search may take any steps that are necessary, including the use of reasonable force—

(a) to prevent the person concerned from entering the relevant asset in relation to which the search is being carried out; or

(b) to eject him, and any goods in his possession, from that asset;

but this subsection is without prejudice to any other powers of the person carrying out the search.
(6) An instruction—

(a) shall be in writing;

(b) shall specify the time at which, or the period within which, it is to be complied with, and the period during which it is to have effect;

(c) may be varied or revoked by the Secretary of State.

(7) No instruction shall have effect in relation to any rolling stock which is for the time being in use in police service or in the service of the armed forces of the Crown.
(8) A person who is the owner or operator of a relevant asset or who provides railway services shall be under a duty to comply with an instruction given to him under this section, notwithstanding the requirements of any other enactment or instrument relating to him or to—

(a) the use of, or the exercise of rights over, the relevant asset,

(b) the management of the relevant asset, or

(c) the railway services,

as the case may be, and notwithstanding any other duty or obligation to which he may be subject.
(9) In this section—

"act of violence" means—

(a) any act which constitutes, or

(b) any potential act which, if carried out, would constitute,

the offence of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide, assault, real injury or

553
malicious mischief. or an offence under section 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 or 29 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, under section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 or under section I of the Criminal Damage Act 1971;

"designated" means specified in an instruction, or of a class or description so specified;

"instruction" means an instruction given under this section, and any reference to an instruction includes a reference to an instruction as varied under subsection (6) (c) above;

"operator" and "owner" have the same meaning as in section 111 above;

"relevant asset" has the same meaning as in section 111 above, and any reference to such an asset includes a reference to any part of any such asset;

"specified" means specified in an instruction;

and, subject to that, expressions used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 125A R I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 125AS, 125AT and 127AA. The recent terrorist campaign has underlined the need for effective protective security arrangements. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that present railway security practices can be maintained following privatisation, and that powers exist to adapt these as necessary to any changes in the level of threat.
Currently BR is responsible to the Secretary of State for the safe operation of the railways. With regard to security, this means that the board maintains an awareness of any risks or threats to that safe operation, and ensures that best security practices are implemented so as to minimise such risks. The co-ordination of counter-terrorist security on the railways is undertaken at board level with a single chain of command to individual managers. This enables the responsible BR manager to ensure that appropriate day-to-day and contingency arrangements are in place, and to give fast and precise directions in the event of an actual emergency.
We believe that the current arrangements are effective, and the Government also believe that their essence must be maintained following privatisation. We must ensure that there is a continuity of best security practice during and beyond the transition to the private sector. We intend to ensure continuity by transferring the board's responsibility for the supervision of railway security to Railtrack. At the same time, the key BR personnel dealing with security will be transferred to Railtrack. Finally, there will be a Railtrack board member with responsibility for security matters, just as there is a BR board member with those responsibilities at present. Railtrack will operate the security command structure and implement BR's current security standards. We expect that Railtrack will continue to review and adapt these standards in consultation with operators and will inspect and check on the effectiveness of their implementation.
It might be helpful to stress that the role of the British Transport Police in providing guidance on dealing with threats and their key input into the planning and implementation of security arrangements will be unchanged by our proposals. The only difference will be that the transport police will provide
554
assistance to Railtrack rather than to British Rail. The other security authorities will continue to co-ordinate the counter-terrorist effort.
In order for the existing day-to-day security procedures to continue to work effectively and to be improved and developed, we need to give them statutory backing. We expect the railway operators and owners who will enter the industry to be responsible people who will be keen, to implement thorough security procedures. For such people, our proposals will be positively beneficial, not just because they will make their part of the railway safer, but because they will ensure that all operators are working to the same standards, thus ensuring that the whole railway is as safe as we can practicably make it.
Our amendments follow closely the precedent of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. This Act already gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State an important role in aviation and maritime security. The Act has worked well in practice and there is no reason to think that its principles will not apply to railway security. Standards of security in the maritime and aviation sectors are improving; only 10 enforcement notices have been issued against airports and seaports and air and sea carriers in the three years since the Act was passed, and there have been no prosecutions to date. By introducing a similar regime to the railways we will be able to draw upon the experience which has been built up in aviation and maritime security, particularly within the Department: of Transport, and will be able to strengthen the co-ordination of security across all modes of transport. That is why we have tabled these amendments. If any Member of the Committee so requires, I can go into detail on any of the amendments. Meanwhile, I beg to move Amendment No. 125AR.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am a little puzzled as to why the Government have suddenly woken up and have tabled this long and complicated series of amendments so late in the day. The Minister said that the recent terrorist campaign as regards the railways was what had motivated the tabling of the amendments. I am sure that that is right and I am not challenging the need for these provisions; I merely wish to raise certain questions. My first question is this. As terrorism, or threatened acts of terrorism vis-à-vis the railways and railway stations in particular, have been taking place for a considerable period of time, why have the Government omitted the inclusion of these provisions in the original Bill? I believe that is a perfectly legitimate question to raise.
I wish to ask questions on certain other parts of the provisions. Is none of this covered by existing criminal law, particularly in relation to the powers of search? If these provisions are simply duplicating powers, that is undesirable. In what respect does the present law not encompass that which is set out as regards the carrying out of searches under, in particular, the proposed new subsection (3) (d)? That states:
"to employ specified numbers of suitably trained staff for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of acts of violence".
That seems to be a strangely worded provision. How do the Government ever know what is to be the

555
appropriate number of staff to be available in such circumstances? How are they to be suitably trained? Who is to train them? Are we contemplating the employment of private security firms? Save us, please, from Group 4 in such a context. The proposed new subsection (4) states that an instruction may specify,
"the kind of search which is to be carried out".
It may also specify,
"the manner …and the persons, or the class or description of persons, who are to carry out the search".
Why is that different from the provisions of the proposed new subsection (3) (g)? The proposed new subsection (7) states:
"No instruction shall have effect in relation to any rolling stock which is for the time being in use in police service or in the service of the armed forces of the Crown".
I should have thought, with great respect, that that is somewhat otiose. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to respond to the points that I have just raised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am a little puzzled by the necessity for this amendment. Obviously responsibility for security must remain with the Secretary of State, but is it necessary to legislate in such detail to secure that? Is there any comparable legislation in effect now in respect of other forms of transport such as aviation, buses or the like, or are they treated as being covered by the ordinary law and the ordinary duties of the Government to provide security? If they are, why is it necessary to have a special provision in respect of the railways?
Lord Tordoff: I also wish to make a general point on this matter and that is that I am always extremely leery of bits of legislation on matters of personal liberty being slipped into Bills at a late stage. I have frankly not given this matter the attention I ought to have done and I will now do so. I will draw it to the attention of people who know more about these things than I. This is one of those cases where I fear we may legislate in haste and repent at leisure if we are not careful. It seems a curious collection of clauses.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I do not deny the need for the Government to have in position such security measures as are necessary to deal with the threats that we face. However, the fact that the Secretary of State "may from time to time" do a whole series of things is rather worrying in the context of civil liberties. I for one should like to look more closely at this clause before the next stage.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may explain a little more about the need for the amendments to which I spoke. They are naturally of concern to the Committee because they relate to an area which we all want to get right.
Under the existing procedure, there is no formal arrangement with regard to security. It does not require statutory backing. The Secretary of State can give directions, and the British Rail Board will be able to take such measures as are necessary to carry out the policy they consider fit and appropriate. When one transfers that responsibility to the private sector, there is a necessity for legislation. I can say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the Aviation and
556
Maritime Security Act was necessary to cover these particular areas of concern in relation to aviation and maritime transport. I confirm to my noble friend that the Aviation and Maritime Security Act has been used as a model for the new clauses. Therefore, this Chamber has seen something very similar before.
I had expected the difference between the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to emerge. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why we needed the detail concerning the number of people involved, exactly what they will do and the question of training. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, as I knew he would, that he was anxious about civil liberties—and quite rightly so. Therefore, we thought that the more we spelt out clearly the type of work that needs to be done the better, having had the experience of the earlier Act.
I can confirm that the Bill does not alter the existing powers of search of the police or the British Transport Police, but it extends those powers to the operator, where appropriate. It is right to be aware that the new clauses cover a much wider range of matters than search. For example, it is possible to stop trains, and there have to be evacuation procedures, for which there is no present legislation. In order to continue the present regime which British Rail has built up and operated so well in the past and continues to do so —which I am sure is an objective which is endorsed by all Members of the Committee—we believed that it was right to spell out the detail which is necessary, and which is well precedented.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister seeks to divide me from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in a situation in which the difference between us is undetectable. I merely asked the Minister to justify certain aspects of the amendments, which have been thrust on us very late in the day. As I understand it, there was no suggestion in another place that this was necessary. I may be wrong about that, and I stand to be corrected; but it seems extremely late in the day. I posed a question to the Minister, to which he did not reply. Why was this omitted from the original Bill? Why was it not raised earlier in the debates which have taken place? According to the Minister, it is a matter of great substance. The Minister did not respond to a question from his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter as to why this should be done in the case of the railways and not in the case of buses. However, perhaps there is a specific technical argument in relation to that point.
I am not raising any issue of principle with the Minister. It is right that much of this should be done; but I question some of the detail being imposed on the Committee at so late a stage. We shall certainly want to reserve our position so that we can reflect on the sort of questions which troubled the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and which trouble me.
The Minister did not deal with the points which I raised specifically. I asked him a perfectly reasonable question: is it contemplated by the Government that they will use private security firms to undertake some of these duties, particularly in relation to subsection (3) (g)? The Minister did not respond to that question. It is important that the Committee should know who is to be obliged to undertake these very important

557
obligations, which affect the operation and enforcement of the criminal law in very sensitive circumstances. We are contemplating potential acts of terrorism.
The Minister did not answer the point which I raised in relation to subsection (7). There is no point in introducing into legislation that which already exists or is perfectly obvious. Therefore, I ask whether it is necessary to refer to rolling stock in use in the police service or the armed forces of the Crown. That seems to me to be otiose.
Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to deal with those points.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: It is true that the amendments were riot tabled as soon as we would have liked. The precise arrangements had to be considered carefully, although there was the precedent of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act. We also had to await and consider the full implications of the determination of the safety responsibilities and the full role of Rail track.
The noble Lord asked who would undertake this work. That is a very general question. I do not want to duck giving the answer; but it depends on the context in which the noble Lord poses that question. When I moved the amendment, I alluded to some of the people who would be involved. It is possible that in certain circumstances the private sector could be involved, just as the private sector is involved in security in aviation and the maritime world, which are the two areas of the department which I know best. However, when one is dealing with an issue such as this, I would need to have a specific case in mind in order to give the noble Lord a specific reply.
As regards the points he raised, I too query from time to time why certain things are necessary in legislation. The noble Lord is a lawyer. He will often understand the necessity far more clearly than I will.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for seeking to go into the issues further. I take it that he is a little puzzled about subsection (7). If he is not puzzled by it, he ought to be. I should like to know why he does not think that it is otiose.
That is not the real substance of the points I am seeking to raise. The Minister placed the burden on me —which I thought rather strange—to produce a specific case to suggest that it would be inappropriate to use subsection (3) (g). I ask him a simple question. In what context would the Minister expect trained staff—and he said that it might be necessary to use private security firms—to be used in this area? Are we to see private security firms deployed on our railway stations in future to carry out security checks? At present security checks, so far as they are carried out at all, are undertaken by the British Transport Police.
I believe that when one is dealing with the particular circumstances of the railways, and with people using the railways, it is appropriate that that is where the obligation should rest. Unless the Minister is able to justify it, I should not like to see a situation whereby we could have a Group 4, or whoever,
558
carrying out searches on members of the public. It is difficult to contemplate the same situation applying on the railways as applies to our airports. If the Minister asks, "Why", one has only to go to any railway station to see the vast number of people assembled in railway stations at any given time. It is difficult to consider the issue in those terms.
I do not complain about the matter at this stage. I merely ask the Minister to provide us with further and better particulars. Perhaps he will indicate with a shake of the head "yea" or "nay". I understand that he can go further today. I shall let him do so.
The Earl of Caithness: Further I shall go. The noble Lord said that I should be concerned about subsection (7). I do not understand why I should be concerned about subsection (7). I am perturbed that the noble Lord is so concerned. Perhaps the police or the armed forces might charter their own train. If they do so, they would have their own security arrangements. They are answerable to the Secretary of State for Defence or the Home Secretary. Therefore there is no need to extend the powers of the Secretary of State under those provisions to cover the police and military services. That seems absolutely logical.
Lord Tordoff: The feeling underlying the discussion is not necessarily that private security forces are bad in themselves, although they have a poor record at present. However, with the breaking up of the British Transport Police as the network of security in our railway system, quite naturally we all have worries about the introduction of outside bodies into that network and about how such matters will be co-ordinated.
The Earl of Caithness: If I heard the noble Lord correctly, I believe that he referred to the breaking up of the British Transport Police.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may rephrase that. referred to the fact that the British Transport Police will not necessarily cover the whole field in the future. Private firms may come into individual franchisee's operations. I understand that the British Transport Police will not be broken up. Nevertheless, the cohesion of the activities carried out by the British Transport Police in association with police forces throughout the country will be in a different situation once the regulations come into effect.
Lord Clinton-Davis: British Rail has found it unnecessary, so far as I know, to use private security firms on railways in the past. Presumably that is found to be impracticable. The British Transport Police, backed presumably by other police forces in a situation of emergency, has been found to be the best organisation to undertake those tasks. I am sorry that the Minister seems to move away from that proposition or to indicate the possibility that under the new regime that will no longer wholly prevail. There may be something to be said for private security firms. If Group 4 in particular operates, certainly our trains will escape on time! Perhaps that is all that one can say.
The Earl of Caithness: We are going around in circles. I believe that we all seek to get to the same place. Let us hope that we can get on to the right track and straighten out the bend on which we seem to have become stuck. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, dislikes that form of words.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Nothing that we shall do will affect the British Transport Police. There will be no change. It will stay as a unified force with the same role, but in the future advising Railtrack. It is important to be absolutely clear on that.
The reason that I tried to elucidate more from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is this. Given that that is the British Transport Police's main role, there are various other roles for which the private sector firms could be brought in. For instance, at present they are brought in on London Underground. It might be appropriate to search a train before it leaves the station. It might be better to do that by using the private sector than by using the police force. The same job can be done, but the British Transport Police will have, and will continue to have, a very important role in the future.
I do not believe that the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the difference between Heathrow and a railway station stands up to any scrutiny. Private security is used at Heathrow. It can be used extremely effectively. However, the important issue is that the British Transport Police will continue to stay a unified force.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 125AS:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause:
Security: enforcement notices
(".—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a person upon whom an instruction has been served has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with that instruction, he may serve on that person a notice (in this section referred to as an "enforcement notice") containing such provision as the Secretary of State may consider requisite for the purpose of ensuring that the person complies with the instruction and specifying, in particular—

(a) the things, or the description of things, which the person is required to do, or refrain from doing, in order to comply with the instruction;

(b) the time within which, or after which, the person must do, or refrain from doing, those things; and

(c) the period during which the person is to do, or refrain from doing, those things.

(2) The Secretary of State may vary or revoke an enforcement notice, and any reference in this section to an enforcement notice includes a reference to such a notice as varied under this subsection.
(3) Where the Secretary of State varies or revokes an enforcement notice under subsection (2) above he shall serve notice of the variation or revocation on the person on whom the enforcement notice in question was served.
(4) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to do anything required of him by an enforcement notice is guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or to both.

560
(5) No proceedings shall be instituted in England and Wales in respect of an offence under subsection (4) above except by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(6) Section (Security: power of Secretary of State to give instructions)(8) above shall have effect in relation to an enforcement notice as it has effect in relation to an instruction.
(7) Expressions used in this section and in section (Security: power of Secretary of State to give instructions) above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 125AT:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause:
Security: inspections
(".—(1) For the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to determine whether to give an instruction to any person, or of ascertaining whether any instruction or enforcement notice is being or has been complied with, a person authorised for the purpose by the Secretary of State in writing (in this section referred to as "an authorised person") shall have power, on production (if required) of his credentials, to inspect any relevant asset.
(2) An authorised person inspecting a relevant asset under subsection (1) above shall have power—

(a) to subject any property found by him on or in the relevant asset, or any apparatus or equipment installed in the relevant asset, to such tests as he considers necessary for the purpose for which the inspection is carried out;

(b) to take such steps as he considers necessary for that purpose—

(i) to ascertain what practices or procedures are being followed in relation to security; or

(ii) to test the effectiveness of any practice or procedure relating to security; or

(c) to require the owner or operator of the relevant asset to furnish to him such information as the authorised person considers necessary for that purpose;

but nothing in paragraph (a) above shall entitle an authorised person to subject any rolling stock, or any part of any rolling stock, to any test.
(3) An authorised person, for the purpose of exercising any power conferred on him by subsection (1) or (2) above in relation to any relevant asset, shall have power—

(a) to board any rolling stock and to take all such steps as are necessary to ensure that it is not moved; or

(b) to enter any land or other property comprised either in any track or in a network, station or light maintenance depot;

but nothing in this subsection authorises any use of force.
(4) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) intentionally obstructs an authorised person acting in the exercise of any power conferred on him by this section;

(b) fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement imposed on him under paragraph (c) of subsection (2) above to furnish information to an authorised person; or

(c) in furnishing any information required under that paragraph, makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) above shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.

(6) No proceedings shall be instituted in England and Wales in respect of an offence under subsection (5) above except by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

561
(7) Expressions used in this section and in section (Security: power of Secretary of State to give instructions) or ( Security: enforcement notices) above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 112 [Carriage of mail by railway]:
[Amendment No. 125C not moved.]
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Railway heritage]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125CA:
Page 112, line 41, leave out ("A publicly owned railway company") and insert ("Any company which is the operator of a railway asset").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 125CA to 125CC deal with railway heritage and in particular, although not exclusively, the National Railway Museum at York. The National Railway Museum at York was established about 10 or 15 years ago because the British Railways Board believed that its job was to provide railway services and not museums, although it was willing to help a great deal. In fact the railways gave the two excellent roundhouses in York for the museum. Because of what the British Railways Board believed, and because of the importance of railways to the history of the country in the past 150 years, it was considered that the museum should be taken over as a national museum. It was taken over by the National Museum of Science and Industry to give a comprehensive insight into the development of railways in the United Kingdom with items from primitive railways predicting the first public railways covering all periods through to the Channel Tunnel and CharterRail multi-modal freight vehicles.
York was almost the perfect place for the museum. It was originally the heart of the railway industry. The industry began in the York area. Anyone who has visited the museum will realise how far back its history goes and what is meant by primitive railways.
The Bill provides for publicly-owned railway companies to submit records and artefacts to the collection. It is silent on the private sector. If the Government's hopes are fulfilled, it must be expected that important developments in railways in the future are more likely to arise in the private sector than in the public sector.
Therefore the proposed amendments do two things. First, they redefine the companies that must offer historic material for preservation to include all owners of railway assets, whether items connected with networks, trains or depots, which may have significance for heritage purposes. Secondly, to avoid conflicts of interest, the amendments transfer responsibility for the committee which will guide the selection of items for preservation from the board to the Secretary of State. That is simply because of the widening of scope to include the private sector.
The private sector has made many crucial contributions to the National Railway Museum and other collections, including railway artefacts. The basis of the national collection was established by private railway companies preserving locomotives, rolling stock and other items for their own purposes
562
from the mid-19th century onwards. Nearly all of them have now been brought together, and the most significant parts have been brought together in the National Railway Museum in York. Some prototype locomotives manufactured for demonstration purposes by private builders have been preserved. It is interesting that the Deltic Diesel in the Science Museum at Kensington is, I believe, one such gift. Private companies have been generous supporters of the railway preservation movement through donations of surplus items or by making these available for acquisition on reasonable terms. Therefore, there is nothing new in the principle that the private sector should contribute to railway heritage.
There are also locomotives and rolling stock running on British Rail tracks that are already in private ownership, and which may be judged to have significant historical interest. Foster Yeoman Limited have imported locomotives built in America which, because of their radically different style of manufacture to British locomotives, may well he worthy of preservation in due course. Many modern freight wagons are privately owned and all will be so if this Bill is passed. The Channel Tunnel display at the National Railway Museum has already been mentioned. This includes a complete ring of the tunnel lining and a mock-up of the Eurostar train.
I must emphasise that nothing in Clause 113 precludes fair terms being agreed between the owners of the artefacts designated by the committee for preservation and the museum or other preservation bodies. It is difficult, therefore, to understand why the Government have hitherto resisted including private owners and operators within the. terms of the clause. Restricting its application to the public sector threatens the continued work and effectiveness of the National Railway Museum and related collections. We are suggesting that there should be some body equivalent to that which decides whether works of art should be sent abroad. When there is so much railway heritage and so much material on the origin of the railways in this country, we feel that the committee should be given first refusal. I hope that we shall continue to build on this important heritage. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: As so often on this Bill, I have sympathy with what the amendrnents moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, are seeking to achieve. We all want to ensure that our railway heritage continues to be preserved, and I am very pleased to be able to pay tribute to the fine work of the National Railway Museum, in particular, in safeguarding our railway history and presenting it to the public.
As the clause stands, it would extend the ability of the heritage committee to claim, for no consideration, items which are entirely privately owned and have never been in the public sector. Unless such items are excluded, or unless suitable provision is made for their owners to be properly compensated, I could not accept such a widening of the provisions.

563
Clause 113 at present only applies to disposals of items which are firmly in the public sector. We are considering how we can extend its scope to items which are currently in the public sector, but which will be transferred to the private sector as privatisation progresses. In considering how to do that, we have concluded that there must be provision for them to receive fair compensation. Unless compensation is available in such circumstances, the provisions could amount to confiscatory legislation and may therefore be in breach of European human rights provisions.
Officials of my department and of the Department of National Heritage had discussions on 14th July with the head of the National Railway Museum to explain the Government's position and to discuss how the interests of the National Railway Museum can now best be advanced. In conjunction with the NRM, we will do all that we can to make provision which is as favourable as possible to the museum, but the Committee will understand that the provisions of this Bill must respect legitimate rights to private property. My right honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport will be writing formally to the National Railway Museum as soon as the position is clearer, and I shall of course arrange for a copy of that letter to be available to Members of the Committee and for a copy to be put in the Library.
In essence, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and the Government are on the same side. We would like to see as many assets as possible go to the museums. Our difficulty with this amendment is that, by insisting on the private sector, one has confiscatory legislation. That is the problem that we are trying to overcome; namely, that assets which are at present in public ownership will be transferred into private ownership. I hope that the noble Lord will bear with us while we try to solve this matter to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned. We are all heading in the same direction and want to get to the right solution. I shall of course keep the noble Lord informed.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Obviously, I can see the dilemma that the Minster feels he is in. I had hoped that he would at least suggest that the first refusal would be given to the national museums and that there should be some way of ensuring that would happen. I also said that there was no question of confiscation; a fair price would be offered by some form of adjudication. But I am pleased to the extent that the Minister is obviously as concerned as is possible about such important heritage items being kept in this country. Therefore, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 125CB and 125CC not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 125D:
Page 113, line 8, at end insert ("or any franchise operator").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 125E, which is also in my name. Both amendments cover the same point. At the outset of his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on previous amendments, I
564
noticed the Minister looking in my direction. I should have been pleased to take part in one debate, but I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that when we received the agreed groupings I was a little apprehensive that possibly, had I joined in, it might have spoiled my noble friend's replies. Certainly, if he wishes to make only a very brief reply, I would he more than happy, since most of the points have been very handsomely answered by my noble friend and I am very grateful for that.
I should like to refer to one point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in his amendments —both of us are speaking virtually to the same end, and I am certainly concentrating my remarks on the National Railway Museum in York. I believe that the noble Lord hoped that there would be some method whereby artefacts, documents and other records could be kept. So far as I am aware, in Clause 113, certainly in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5), there is both a committee and a scheme which would seek to preserve these records, documents and artefacts, which are at present held by the British Railways Board and their wholly owned subsidiary. That would safeguard the position of these artefacts and records whereby the National Railway Museum, or perhaps the National Museum of Science and Industry, would receive first call when these artefacts or records are to be disposed of.
I believe that Clause 113 in the Bill goes back to Section 144 of the Transport Act 1968. Indeed, when the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was speaking, it occurred to me that perhaps the Transport Act 1968 might have been part of the noble Lord's previous activities in another place. I am not too sure about that, but certainly Clause 144 of the 1968 Act relates to the,
"Transfer and disposal of historical records and relics".
It gave the National Railway Museum first claim, at no cost to these records, artefacts and relics. It would seem that in subsection (1) sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) gave the then Science Museum certain powers, which I now understand have been derogated to the National Railway Museum.
I am grateful that my noble friend pointed to the fine relationship with the records officer of the British Railways Board and the National Railway Museum in York. That relationship has resulted in 90 per cent. of the records, drawings and artefacts acquired by the York museum going to that museum free of charge without any problem. Indeed, the museum is most grateful and very proud of the collection. The remaining 10 per cent. of the objects acquired by the museum since 1975 have been acquired by gift or purchase from private owners.
Section 144 of the 1968 Act mentions four times the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I do not see that provision set out in Clause 113 of the Bill. That is the main thrust of Amendments Nos. 125D and 125E, to which I briefly speak. The main object is that there should be no impingement on any private rights by amendments to Clause 113. We seek to establish that position and the safeguards in Section 144 of the 1968 Act on the face of the Bill so far as possible.
I am grateful for the immense help that was given to the National Railway Museum by officials of my noble friend's department, as he mentioned last week (I believe it was on 14th July). I should be more than happy to take up what my noble friend said and, if it is permissible, take part in discussions with him and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, together with the National Railway Museum. If my noble friend has nothing further to say on the matter, I shall withdraw the amendment. At this stage I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend was right. I turned to him on the last amendment and wondered whether he would be interested in joining the discussion. Let me reassure him that if he had joined us, he certainly would not have spoiled the discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and myself. Indeed, when my noble friend joins in, it enhances the discussions that we have on this matter.
I cannot add greatly to the position that I set out to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, as my noble friend will understand. I shall keep him also in touch with the discussions that are taking place and all the work that is being undertaken to find a satisfactory resolution to this problem.
Section 144 of the 1968 Act, which my noble friend mentioned, gave rights not to the museum but to the Secretary of State. Let me assure my noble friend that the new clause will also be overseen by the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
Although my answer is brief, in essence it is the same as that given to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. We are still working on this problem but, like my noble friend, we also wish to see a satisfactory resolution to it.
Lord Lyell: I am grateful to my noble friend. I recall that in an earlier incarnation I had singular problems when noble Lords did not adhere to the grouping on the list. I do apologise. I am grateful for my noble friend's answer. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps he could give me advice—write to me or point me in the right direction—on one matter. At the bottom of page 113 of the Bill, in lines 48 to 50 I was fascinated to see mentioned:
"the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937 as records belonging to Her Majesty".
The same provision occurs in Section 144 of the 1968 Act. Perhaps I should direct my remarks at another department—the Scottish Office or my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. But I wonder whether my noble friend has anything in his notes on this point and, if so, perhaps he would write to me later, certainly not tonight. I thought it an interesting arid curious point. Having made that point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 125DA and 125E not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125F:
Page 113, line 26, leave out ("the Board with the approval of").
The noble Lord said: This clause concerns the artefacts for a national museum. We want a committee that has power, but I believe that the most effective way to achieve that would be for the Secretary of State to be the person who appoints the people to it. This is a great national museum. Much of it was established by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was quite correct in that I was very much involved with it and received a great deal of help from the Minister for the Arts at that time, Jenny Lee. She was very enthusiastic about it. There was a lair amount of difficulty with the London people in getting the museum away from Clapham (which, incidentally, was a totally unsuitable place for it) and moving it up to York. That is one of the reasons why I feel that it would be better for the Secretary of State to be the person who picks people from all over the country for appointment to the committee rather than the board itself.
I should like the Minister's opinion on the proposal. Perhaps he can say why he believes it important that the members should be appointed by the board,
"with the approval of the Secretary of State".
Obviously the Secretary of State will consult the board, but I should like to put the emphasis in the other direction. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said on this amendment. I believe that he has a point. I hope that he will let me go away and think about the matter. We are thinking about heritage matters in general at the moment and it is an area that we. want to get right. In want to study with care what the noble Lord said and perhaps discuss the matter with him between now and another stage in order to get an agreement that suits us all.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the Minister for his suggestion to take away the amendment and consider it further. I know too well that Ministers do not accept amendments except in very special circumstances. In view of his goodwill, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125G not moved.
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 [Power of the Board to provide business support services for other operators]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125H:
Page 115, leave out lines 20 to 34.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to debate the continuance of the board's role in providing national technical standards and services both in the context of the British Railways Board's ability to bid for franchises and of privatising a key asset closely linked to safety. We hope that the Minister will be able to give the Committee a definition of what is meant by "desirable" in line 23 on page 115. To me it is confusing. Can the Minister tell the Committee under

567
what circumstances the Government regard it as no longer desirable that the board should provide any business support services of any class or description.
To many people subsection (3) (b) could be seen as a provision which has more to do with dogma than with logic and safe running of the railways. Much has already been said about the importance of safety. We all accept that safety is of vital importance to any transport industry and particularly the railways. It should be made clear that there must be some sort of general transfer of information backwards and forwards, rather than to say that the possibility of having such information transferred backwards and forwards may not any longer be desirable, and for the board to have the power to provide the wherewithal for it. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: It may help the Committee for me to begin by briefly explaining the purpose of Clause 115. It is intended to allow British Rail to provide business support services to other operators in the transitional period during which BR's businesses will be transferred to the private sector. It might be beneficial to, say, a franchisee or a private sector freight operator to buy certain business support services from BR, either before he makes his own arrangements or before the relevant part of BR is sold to the private sector. We wish to allow that. Indeed, we intend to bring forward amendments on Report which will widen the number of railway operators to whom the board will be able to sell such services.
Amendment No. 125H would remove the Secretary of State's power, by order, to remove BR's power to supply business support services, either in full or in part. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 115 are intended to ensure that the Secretary of State can remove powers when their use is no longer needed. That is perfectly sensible. Once the private sector is supplying services in a satisfactory manner, there will be no need for British Rail to continue doing so, or for it to have a reserve power to re-enter that market in future.
Those services, while they generally have a railways component to them, are not central to the running of a railway. There is no reason why the private sector should not be able, very quickly, to provide services to railway operators in areas such as marketing, property management or business information systems. Equally, there is no reason why the relevant businesses within BR should not operate in the private sector, where they will have the freedom to diversify into non-railway activities.
We think it is sensible to allow the Secretary of State to reduce, and finally to remove, the board's power to supply business support services as and when it becomes apparent that the power is no longer needed.
Finally, the amendment would also delete subsection (5) of the clause. That applies to Clause 115, the definitions of "railways" and "railway services" used in Part I of the Bill. Its deletion would leave those expressions open to interpretation, thus causing unnecessary confusion. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention.
568
The noble Lord asked about the specifics of the definition of the word "desirable". We do not envisage that a future Secretary of State will need to make use of the expression "no longer desirable" in subsection 3(b). It will generally be evident that the power to supply any specific support services may not be necessary. In the light of my explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I do not understand why, if the need is going to wither on the vine, it will be necessary to take positive action to order the board to cease to use the power. On the one hand, one is understandably saying that it will no longer be necessary over a period of time; but then it is said that it must be ordered to stop. That is where the "no longer desirable" part comes in. At what point does the Secretary of State say that it has gone on long enough and must stop? How can we be sure that the necessity has disappeared at that stage? What criteria will the Secretary of State use?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. At one point the Minister said in his reply that he did not want to introduce any more confusion. However, I found a fair amount of confusion in his response.
The Minister said also—if I heard him correctly —that he would introduce some amendments to clear up the position or to elaborate on the intention. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, if the Government are so convinced that the private sector will ultimately use all its own machinery, it would appear to be unnecessary to put this sledgehammer in to stop it doing so or to decide that the British Railways Board is no longer able to participate.
Unless the Minister wishes to add to what he has already said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Bye-laws]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 125J:
Page 115, line 35, after ("operator") insert ("in consultation with the Regulator").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 125J I shall speak also to Amendment No. 125K. These amendments seek to achieve a measure of uniformity in establishing by-laws. When we are dealing with a proliferation of franchisees, some commonality in that regard is necessary. Under the new regime we could have a large number of different rules prevailing in regard to different portions of the track. Different rules could affect smoking, penalty fares, the carriage of bicycles and so forth. In order to achieve some measure of understanding on the part of the ordinary customer as to what can happen, it is important for there to be a provision for consultation with the regulator prior to railway operators introducing their own by-laws.
If the amendment were agreed, the regulator—who has a national remit in dealing with the franchise director and franchisees—would have to be consulted over by-laws. In that way we could look forward to achieving some measure of consistency throughout the system. In terms of practice, one knows that with

569
the destaffing of stations, for example, more and more passengers will riot be able to buy tickets on the stations. Customers may board a train in one part of the country owned by a station operator having a ticket vending machine which is out of operation and honestly intending to pay the fare when they arrive at their destination. But when they arrive they may find themselves charged with some kind of penalty fare because another train operator is running that route. The whole system would be not only confusing but also thrown into disrepute.
I am referring to a natural corollary of the fact that we are introducing a fragmented railway system instead of a national network. At present by-laws are introduced by British Rail. There is total uniformity because there is only one set of by-laws. That is a much more sensible position than to have a lack of conformity as would arise under the new system. Effectively. I am suggesting that there should be a single organisation responsible for by-laws for the whole network, regardless of the ownership of specific parts of it. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: There must be some mechanism for setting up model by-laws in this situation; otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested, there could be all kinds of anomalies.
I notice that in Clause 116(2) (d) the operator may make by-laws for the receipt and delivery of goods. Perhaps the Minister could explain what is meant by that. Presumably it will not always follow that the person who receives the goods and the person who delivers them are in the same part of the network; in other words, one may have two separate by-laws dealing with the transport of the same goods. Basically, there does not appear to be any provision to achieve consistency among by-laws. I believe that the suggestion contained in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is a worthy one. If it is not acceptable, perhaps the Government can tell us how they intend to produce some kind of, not necessarily uniformity, but perhaps continuity in the by-laws. If people are operating on the railways today, they know that there are by-laws. They very rarely read them. They would probably be horrified if they did read them. The truth is that there is one set of by-laws for British railways across the length and breadth of the country. If we are to have different by-laws every time we pass from one section of the new system to another, we will all be in big trouble.
Earl Attlee: It never occurred to me that the operators would have their own by-laws. I assume that the regulator would himself be making by-laws.
Lord Tordoff: If the noble Lord looks at Clause 116 it says quite clearly that an independent railway operator may make by-laws regulating a number of separate things. Presumably, that means that any independent operator can make his own by-laws in whichever part of the system he is working.
Earl Attlee: I quite agree. I am amazed that the operator can do it. I had read it incorrectly.
Viscount Goschen: As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has stated, these amendments would introduce a requirement on any independent railway operator wishing to make by-laws under this clause to consult the regulator. We do not believe that this is a necessary requirement. Subsections (4) and (5) of this clause apply subsections (3) to (12) of the Transport Act 1962. That will have the effect of imposing requirements on the operator to give public notice of his intention to seek confirmation of by-laws at least 28 days before doing so; to make available copies of proposed by-laws for public inspection; and to supply copies on request. Further, it gives persons affected the right to make representations to the Minister, who may confirm or modify the by-laws or refuse to confirm them.
These are well-established procedures which ensure appropriate advance publicity and opportunity for affected parties to make representations. In so far as the regulator has an interest in such matters, it will be open to him to keep himself informed by this means. But we do not see a formal role for the regulator there. The regulator has no evident locus in by-laws, which are primarily concerned with regulating the conduct of railway passengers. It is for the Secretary of State to confirm the by-laws and to ensure consistency of approach, as necessary, across the railway.
A number of noble Lords across the Chamber raised the question of consistency. I emphasise that this is provided by the Secretary of State who has to approve all of these by-laws. In the light of that explanation, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I find that explanation less than satisfactory, to say the least. with great respect, to talk in terms of a well-established practice in what is a totally new scenario is inaccurate.
Viscount Goschen: When I referred to well-established procedures I was talking about the actual procedures by which notice of by-laws had to be given.
Lord Clinton-Davis: En this situation it will be possible to have proliferation of different draft by-laws submitted to the Secretary of State. As a consequence, an enormous burden of bureaucracy will fall upon him. That encapsulates the absurdity of the whole system of fragmentation upon which the Government are embarking. We will have perhaps 50, 60, 70 or 80 different franchisees, each capable of applying for their own by-laws according to the new system. The clause provides:
"(1) An independent rail operator may make bye-laws regulating…the use and working of, and travel on or by means of, any relevant assets … the maintenance of order … and … the conduct of all persons while on any relevant assets".
I illustrated in the few examples that I gave how there might be a lack of conformity. As I understand it, the burden falls upon the Secretary of State to ensure conformity of practice. It seems to me to he an absurdly complicated and bureaucratic way of going about it. If that is the best that the Government can do because of the situation that they have decided to impose upon us, I suppose that we must put up with

571
it. I believe that the Minister has to concede that this is potentially a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I do not believe that commonsense could dictate that a situation of this kind should prevail, but in this Bill commonsense has been thrown out of the window.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may press the Minister on the question of having a model set of by-laws. It seems to me that whoever is to do it—whether it be the regulator or Secretary of State—there ought to be a model against which the new by-laws can be judged. Surely, it ought to be possible for the Secretary of State at least to consider that possibility.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask what harm will be done by incorporating a provision for consultation with the regulator. Might that not save the Secretary of State some trouble?
Earl Attlee: Perhaps the Minister could also say why there should not be just one set of by-laws. A passenger, if he was so minded, could read one set of by-laws and know exactly where he stood throughout the network.
Viscount Goschen: To answer the question raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the point is that it is not really within the locus of the regulator. There is not really a role for him in this procedure. I have already stated that there is a double-pronged approach in that there are the established notice and consultation procedures. There is also the double back-up of being able to go to the Secretary of State. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, most of the operators will be taking over BR's existing by-laws. We will therefore consider by-laws modelled on the existing BR situation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, the noble Viscount has not satisfactorily answered the point as to what harm will be done if the suggestion we have made is adopted. It is a constructive suggestion that is designed to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, upon which apparently the Minister seems to have embarked. I hope that he will avoid the suggestion in the brief to resist and instead say to the Committee that he is prepared to consider it further. I believe that it is worth giving further consideration to what is a perfectly practical proposition to avoid an unconscionable amount of bureaucracy.
Viscount Goschen: Of course we are prepared to look at this matter further in the light of what has been said in Committee this afternoon. Nevertheless, the involvement of the regulator will mean more rather than less bureaucracy at another stage. I reaffirm to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the regulator's duties are clearly set out in Clause 4 of the Bill (which was debated at an earlier stage) and this is not one of them.
Lord Tordoff: When the noble Viscount says that he is prepared to look at the matter again, is he perhaps touching on the question of model by-laws.
Viscount Goschen: Indeed. However, in saying that we will look at it again, we do so with no firm commitment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I accept that there is no firm commitment, but I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will review the position. It is desirable to review it. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125K not moved.]
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 [Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 not to apply to certain agreements]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 125L:
Leave out Clause 118 and insert the following new clause:
Modification of Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 in relation to certain agreements relating to the provision of railway services
.—(1) The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (the "1976 Act") shall not apply to an agreement relating to the provision of railway services if the making of the agreement, and the inclusion in it of each provision by virtue of which the 1976 Act would (apart from this subsection) apply to the agreement, is required or approved—

(a) by the Secretary of State or the Regulator, in pursuance of any function assigned or transferred to him under or by virtue of any provision of this Act (other than this section);

(b) by or under any agreement the making of which is required or approved by the Secretary of State or the Regulator in pursuance of any such function; or

(c) by or under a licence granted under Part I above.

(2) In subsection (3) below, "relevant agreement" means an agreement—

(a) which relates to the provision of railway services; and

(b) to which (notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) above) the 1976 Act applies.

(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State—

(a) that those provisions of a relevant agreement, or of relevant agreements of some particular class or description, by virtue of which the 1976 Act applies to that agreement or those agreements do not have, and are not intended or likely to have, to any significant extent the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition, or

(b) that all or any of those provisions have, or are intended or likely to have, that effect to a significant extent, but that the effect is not greater than is necessary for—

(i) the protection of the interests of users of railway services,

(ii) the promotion of the use of any railway network in Great Britain or elsewhere for the carriage of passengers and goods or the development of any such railway network,

(iii) the promotion of efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing railway services, or

(iv) the promotion of measures designed to facilitate the making by passengers of journeys which involve use of the services of more than one passenger service operator,

he may give a direction to the Director requiring him not to make an application to the Restrictive Practices Court under Part I of the 1976 Act in respect of that relevant agreement or, as the case may be, any relevant agreement of that class or description.

573
(4) The Secretary of State may vary or revoke any direction given under subsection (3) above if he is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances such that—

(a) the grounds for the direction have ceased to exist; or

(b) there are grounds for giving a different direction; and where the Secretary of State so varies or revokes any direction, he shall give notice of the variation or revocation to the Director.

(5) In this section "agreement" has the same meaning as in the 1976 Act; and, subject to that, expressions which are used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.").
The noble Viscount said: This new clause replaces the existing Clause 118 on restrictive trade practices. Under the new structure of the railway industry there will inevitably be a considerable number of agreements between the players, and some of these could well have effects on competition and thus be subject to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. We do not want to find that agreements which are necessary to the proper running of the industry—for example, agreements about through ticketing or other network benefits—are at risk of being found to be illegal.
The purpose of this new clause is to make rather more specific provision on restrictive trade practices, setting out some criteria for exempting agreements. In particular, we do not want the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to apply to agreements which are approved or required, either directly or indirectly, by the regulator or Secretary of State in pursuance of any of their functions under the Bill. The new clause therefore helps to avoid double jeopardy for those agreements; it would not be sensible if an agreement which had been approved or required by the regulator —one of whose duties is the promotion of competition —could then be subject to separate scrutiny by the competition authorities under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
However, not all agreements within the railway industry will necessarily be approved or required by the regulator or Secretary of State. Subsection (3) of the new clause therefore provides that the Secretary of State may give directions to the Director-General of Fair Trading not to take particular agreements or classes of agreement to the Restrictive Practices Court, which could declare the relevant restrictions to be against the public interest and therefore void. The agreements or categories of agreement which can be treated in this way are those which either do not have any significant effect on competition, or if they do affect competition significantly, which do so only to the extent necessary to meet one of the objectives set out in subsection (3) (b) of the new clause. As the Committee will see, these objectives are closely based on the duties of the Secretary of State and the regulator in Clause 4(1) (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Bill.
I hope the Committee will agree that, by providing a more detailed set of criteria for excluding agreements from the scope of the 1976 Act, the new clause is a helpful way of proceeding. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Again I must ask the Minister why the Government have had second thoughts about this issue at so late a stage in our Committee proceedings. Is it that they have had substantial representations? Is it wholly due or almost entirely due to the problems that were raised on these Benches
574
about through ticketing and the impact that this might have as far as concerns the Restrictive Trade Practices Act? The Minister has not explained how it came about that the Government changed their thinking about this. I think that it would be helpful for the Committee if he were so to do.
Am I to understand that it is the Secretary of State who will determine what is and what is riot in the public interest with regard to all these issues? He is to have the first and last word about it. Is it suggested that the Secretary of State is without a vested interest in these matters in that he can provide a better and more independent judgment than the Office of Fair Trading? I simply do not understand what has caused the Government to change their mind. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to give us an indication.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I may clarify the position. The new clause was brought in as a replacement to the old Clause 118 to make the issue absolutely clear. It is more specific than was previously the case. The added benefit of having a more specific clause basically means that the law will be made clearer and there will be less of an element of doubt. The original clause was too wide-ranging in its application. The present revision reflects further detailed discussions with the competition authorities and with the Department of Trade and Industry.
In answer to the noble Lord's question, it will be the Secretary of State who will have to form a view using his duties under Clause 4.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should like to know when the Government became alerted to the problem. Was this drawn to their attention by the Director-General of Fair Trading? Who was responsible for causing the Government to have second thoughts about tits, because second thoughts they have certainly had? There can be no questioning that. While I perceive a problem as far as concerns the Restrictive Trade Practices Act in relation to the issue that I raised earlier, I wonder whether it is appropriate to give the Secretary of State these very wide-ranging powers. As I have indicated, he is not exactly an independent person in relation to this matter. He has a clear vested interest. The Director-General of Fair Trading, on the other hand, is an independent and objective person.
What the Secretary of State does under these provisions is to give a direction to the director-general which effectively excludes any competence that he may have in dealing with these various issues. Having regard to the fact that it is so wide in its effects, can it really be something that should commend itself so promptly to the Government? And 'why at such a late stage?
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: The new clause improves the Bill. I must restate the answer that I gave earlier. The revision under discussion reflects the further detailed discussions with the specific competition authorities and with the Department of Trade and Industry. I should also add that the approach in subsection (3) is based on a precedent in Section 127 of the Financial

575
Services Act 1986. The effect is not to exclude the agreements under consideration from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, but to remove them from the scrutiny of the court under Part I of that Act. The requirement for registration still applies in these cases.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We shall want to reflect further on these provisions and on the observations that the Minister has made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 125M:
After Clause 118, insert the following new clause:
("Permitted Development
. For the purposes of section A.I(c) of Class A in Part 17 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, franchise rail operators and owners or franchise operators of railway stations and other structures on operational railway, who are not concerned with the movement of traffic by rail, shall not be deemed to have permitted development rights for the construction or erection of any structure as part of or within that station or structure.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee it may be convenient if I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 125N. While the extent to which the public service implications of permitted development rights should be transferred to new owners of competitive privatised utilities has always been a matter of debate, the way in which the operational parts of British Rail are proposed to be privatised may lead to considerable confusion about which bodies should assume the existing transport undertaking rights. Some of these companies may not actually touch trains, yet they will be involved in servicing the needs of rail customers, or other companies involved in rail operations. A clear statement by Ministers, and preferably something in legislation, would be required to ensure that all doubt and uncertainty are removed.
The Government are keen on competition in the long term. If franchises for operational and other current BR activities are to be for relatively short periods, it is vital that franchisees should not be permitted to erect or demolish structures which may affect adversely the plans or viability of future franchisees, or impact on the viability of the wider network; for instance, block potential through track space.
Presumably, Railtrack will be given some control and will have to be asked by franchisees for permission to change the structure of rail buildings. The situation could be prevented by application of the normal planning processes which of course have an appeal mechanism as a safety valve.
That leads to Amendment No. 125N which concerns consultation on method and timing of work. By their very nature and history, railways go right into the heart of urban areas where so many people and representative bodies become involved with them. When one considers some of our older cities it is quite inconceivable that railways would be built now as they were originally—for example, I am referring to the way that the track swings round at roof height in
576
many cases and much closer to domestic and commercial residences. That would never be permitted in respect of the construction of roads.
So planning is required for these measures and also consultation with local people. There can be considerable nuisance because railways tend to involve fairly heavy civil engineering. There is nuisance, noise, lighting at all times of night, and road traffic to the site because, presumably, while certain repairs are taking place the railways will not be able to be used. There may be bridges and tunnels, level crossings and embankments, consolidation and pile-driving and things of that nature. Therefore, there is no doubt that there will need to be some control over the work which is done.
I do not know whether the Minister will be able to tell us whether planning permission from local authorities is not now essential. Can the Minister say whether that will come under ordinary planning law? If planning permission is not essential, it is vital that there is consultation with the local authorities and the others specified in Amendment No. 125N. Railway development is quite different from other types of development such as ordinary buildings. Railways tend to be much heavier in their structure in any case because of the historic need for it. I hope that the Minister can give us some help in consoling the people who will be affected by these measures and that at least they will have some rights before the work is commenced. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for explaining these amendments. Perhaps I may deal with Amendment No. 125N first and associate with that the matter of Section 16 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 which is also involved in this matter.
Most of the national rail network has been constructed under powers contained in private Acts of Parliament, including Section 16 of the 1845 Act, as incorporated into those Acts. That provision is still relied upon for repair and maintenance works on the railway. Indeed, most buildings that adjoin the railway post-date its construction. One may have some sympathy with regard to the disturbance that residents of adjoining premises may suffer from this, particularly as maintenance work may have to take place at unsocial hours, to limit disruption to railway services. But householders and other occupiers of property adjoining the railway must surely take this into account in deciding where to live and locate. It can hardly be reasonable to introduce severe restrictions on the railway operators, who were not only there first, but also there by the authority of Parliament.
As regards new railway construction, we now have the Transport and Works Act 1992, which provides for the authorisation of new railway works by Ministerial order, and establishes procedures to ensure that any who may be affected by the proposals have a fair opportunity to make representations. The Secretary of State, in approving an order, may include conditions dealing with working practices during

577
construction, including, where appropriate, conditions relating to, for example, the carrying out of works at night. Furthermore, there is a model clause prescribed under the 1992 Act which is designed to provide a modern substitute for the 1845 Act provision.
Amendment No. 125M would seem to limit the extent to which bodies involved in the future railway can benefit from permitted development rights under the general development order. I can give the Committee an assurance that the absence of anything on the face of the Bill does not mean that these matters have been overlooked. We recognise that some consequential changes may be needed to the town and country planning legislation, in the light of this Bill. My officials are in discussion with their opposite numbers in the Department of the Environment about the most appropriate way forward.
The present position is that British Rail, as a statutory undertaker within the meaning of the town and country planning Acts, enjoys permitted development rights under Class A (railway or light railway undertakings) of Part 17 of Schedule 2 to the 1988 general development order. This is consistent with the well-established practice of allowing statutory undertakers to carry out certain minor and routine development without the need to apply for a specific planning permission in every case. These concessions are already fairly limited: they do not extend, for example, to the actual construction of a railway, or to the erection of a station or bridge. Nor do they permit the construction or erection of offices, shops, car parks etc. otherwise than wholly within a railway station. For all such development, normal planning procedures apply. The permitted development rights are further limited to development on operational land, and to development required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail.
In short, the main use made by BR of permitted development rights is in connection with development such as the erection of gantries for signalling and electrification, other lineside equipment and minor station development within the limitations described earlier; and with repair and maintenance works of the kind we have discussed under Amendment No. 125N. Even in such circumstances, statutory undertakers have agreed to follow the procedures recommended by the Department of the Environment for advance publicity or consultation. (Circular 15/92). There is no need to alter the broad principles of the present arrangements.
Future arrangements will need to reflect the fact that we intend the ownership of railway track and infrastructure, including stations, to be vested in Railtrack. Railtrack will therefore be the natural inheritor of these powers. Franchisees will not normally he owning track or infrastructure and it may therefore he inappropriate for them generally to have access to permitted development rights. The Government are looking carefully at that point.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, will agree that what I have said is sufficient to reassure him in terms of our intentions. Any consequential amendments that are needed—for
578
example, amendments to the definition of "statutory undertaker" in the Town and Country Planning .Act 1990 to ensure its application to Railtrack—can be made by order under Clause 139. Consequential amendments to the general development order would probably also be needed. These matters can, we believe, safely he left to secondary legislation.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The Minister seemed to be in agreement with me in spirit and I am grateful for that. The explanations were very long and full. They will certainly bear examination before the next stage of the Bill. A responsible body like British Rail inherited much of its feeling of responsibility to the local community and that is all right. What we are concerned about is people who are frequently described as "cowboys" who could come in and, relative to British Rail, would be much less responsible. Perhaps they would try to make a quick buck by jumping in and making certain developments. The Minister conveyed the idea that it is unlikely that anyone would be able to do that because of the power that Railtrack will have ultimately. For that I am grateful. We are grateful for his warm and basically helpful answer which needs studying as regards the amendments that we have put forward. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125N not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Clause 119 [Schemes .for the organisation etc. of transport police]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 125NA:
Page 121, line 10, at end insert:
("() Operators of railway services shall be required to co-operate with the transport police in the provision of services set out in any agreement with any operator of railway services entered into by virtue of subsection (3) above.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment., I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 125N B. These amendments relate to the British Transport Police. We are concerned about the provision in the Bill suggesting that separate companies might employ, or might not employ, British Transport Police as they wish. That provision requires further clarification from the Government. We think that it is desirable to include a provision for a requirement to use the British Transport Police and for the franchisees to co-operate with them. A fraud inquiry relating to ticket evasion might cross the interests of a number of franchisees. Difficulties could arise if one operator was somewhat reluctant to co-operate. Furthermore, vandalism and hooliganism are undertaken by people who, by definition of the activities that they carry out, are not encumbered by distinctions of whose territories they are on. The British Transport Police need to be mobile and able to travel to incidents. I believe that the power to provide such cover should be enshrined in the Bill and should not be left simply to Government undertakings.
Perhaps I may turn to a number of other matters which also relate to the amendments. I understand from our previous debate that the Government are not

579
proposing that the British Transport Police should have a monopoly in matters such as security guard duties and cash security. I do not object to such provisions for cash security matters although I have some reservations about wider security duties being undertaken. Clearly, the British Transport Police should not be involved in any way as a private force to counter terrorism. Security relating to terrorism should, in my view, be outside the BTP's remit.
I believe that a police committee is to be established. I should be grateful if the Minister could say something about it. I understand that the chief constable would report to that committee, but who would appoint its members? Would they be recommended entirely by the regulator or would the Secretary of State have responsibility for their appointment or for the appointment of some of them? These matters are of considerable importance but the situation is far from clear at the moment. It is for that reason and to probe the Government's intentions that we have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for tabling this amendment because it gives me the opportunity to state that the spirit of these amendments is close to our stated intention that operators be required to use the services of the British Transport Police for law and order purposes. It is important to have that on the record, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to state that. It will be a condition of operators' licences that they should be compelled to enter into an agreement and there will be levels of policing laid down which operators will be required to provide.
We return to a position we have encountered many times in connection with this Bill. We agree that this is an important point. There is nothing between us on that. However, noble Lords opposite seek to put such provisions on the face of the Bill while we believe that the right place is in a licence. Many such matters will need to he included in licences—and it is important to make it clear that they will be in the licences. However, I am sure that much as Members of the Committee have enjoyed discussing this Bill, the Committee would feel that the extra time that would be involved in discussing each and every such provision if it had to be included on the face of the Bill might wear the patience of even the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, a little thin. As I said, I think that we are at one on that point and I can reassure him about the licences.
We consider that the British Transport Police is an efficient and effective police force. We have no plans to end the arrangements whereby the BTP is responsible for law and order on the railways. However, if it is to continue to be effective, the BTP will need to adapt to the new structure of the rail industry. We recently sought the views of interested parties and the public on the way forward and will publish our conclusions once we have considered all the representations that have been made.
Lord Clinton-Davis: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to say whether he hopes to be able to publish those conclusions before we have
580
completed our deliberations on the Bill in this House? We probably have until December or January to do that. I ask that because I am enjoying these debates almost as much as I enjoyed the Maastricht debates.
The Minister has been very helpful. There is, indeed, an area of disagreement but on these issues, at least, we are absolutely ad idem. That is useful. I am not entirely convinced that all such provisions should be in a licence, but I should like to consider that point further. I agree with the Minister that some should be in a licence although I think that there may be areas which ought to be in a statute. However, I shall return to that later. I believe that the Minister wants to say something else.
The Earl of Caithness: Although the noble Lord would like to continue discussing this until January next year, perhaps I may reassure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that I hope to get the results of our consultation to your Lordships well before then so that we can terminate such discussions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I suppose that late November will suffice. In the light of the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125NB not moved.]
Clause 119 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 120 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) Regulations 1993
6.38 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the draft regulations laid before the House will, if your Lordships approve them, be made under Section 210A of the Companies Act 1985. They will amend the Companies Act provisions that require someone who has an interest in a public company's shares to disclose to the company when that interest reaches certain levels.
The draft regulations, in spite of their length and apparent complexity, do not change the basic structure of the existing disclosure regime. Disclosure from a minimum threshold of 3 per cent. will continue to be the normal rule. What the regulations do is to modify the exemptions from disclosure and to introduce a higher minimum threshold of 10 per cent. in certain very limited circumstances.
The regulations' main purpose is to take account of the EC directive on the information to be published when a major holding in a listed company is acquired

581
or disposed of—known as the major shareholdings directive for short. The directive sets minimum standards for a disclosure regime, but in most respects these are somewhat less strict than our existing disclosure laws.
However, the directive does not contain as many exemptions from disclosure as we currently have in Section 209 of the Companies Act. Rather than simply revoke the exemptions, we have sought to preserve as much of their effect as possible by taking advantage of the more limited scope of the directive.
We have worked closely with representative organisations, and that has helped ensure that any burdens arising from new requirements we have had to impose as a result of the directive have been minimised. The directive's impact will be greater in most other member states, many of which previously had either very limited disclosure rules or none at all. The directive is therefore good news for UK investors as it will improve market transparency within the Community. At the same time, we have been able to keep the basic structure of our disclosure regime, with relatively minor modifications, and we have been able to use these regulations to make some other worthwhile changes which will remove some unnecessary disclosure requirements. I therefore commend these regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount St. Davids.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Peston, I can tell the House that he has no objection to the passage of the regulations.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the regulations will enable us to contribute to greater transparency regarding the control of listed companies throughout the Community while limiting to a minimum the regulatory burden on UK business. I hope that the House will now approve them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Partnerships and Unlimited Companies (Accounts) Regulations 1993
6.41 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st June be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to implement EC Directive No. 90/605/EEC which was adopted in 1990. The directive is described as one that amends the fourth company law directive on annual accounts and the seventh company law directive on consolidated accounts, as regards the scope of those directives.
Accounting requirements for companies in the European Community have been harmonised, principally through the fourth and seventh company law directives; but there was concern that companies in some member states were avoiding the disclosure
582
requirements of those directives by conducting business through the equivalent of partnerships. The Council therefore adopted the partnerships directive to bring partnerships between limited companies, and unlimited companies owned by limited ones, within the scope of the accounting directives—that is to say, to require them to produce and publish accounts.
In Great Britain the directive, and thus these regulations, apply to partnerships, limited partnerships and unlimited companies where all the members having unlimited liability are limited companies. That means partnerships or unlimited companies whose membership is entirely made up by limited companies, and limited partnerships where all the general partners are limited companies. The regulations will not apply to most 'partnerships in Great Britain, such as those between accountants, solicitors and small traders, where one or more of the partners is an individual, not a company.
Partnerships between limited companies, or where the general partners are limited companies, are not thought to be particularly common in Great Britain. The department consulted business and others on the line to be taken in the negotiation of the directive. The conclusion of that consultation was that such partnerships were not being used as a vehicle to avoid disclosure. As that is the problem which the directive is seeking to address, the department negotiated sufficient options in the directive to ensure that existing practice in Great Britain could continue to be followed, as far as possible.
The Department of Trade and Industry also consulted on the method of implementation, and the approach taken in these regulations was welcomed by the organisations that responded. The department has estimated that the compliance costs will be low. To give companies and partnerships the maximum time to adapt to the requirements, the directive permits member states not to apply its provisions to financial years commencing before 1st January 1995. The regulations would take advantage of this. The regulations implement the directive in a most light-handed way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st June be approved [35th Report. from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount St. Davids.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, once again, in his absence, my noble friend Lord Peston has asked me to say that he has no objection to the passage of the regulations.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like the noble Viscount to repeat that persons who enter a partnership in which they have full liability (there is no limitation of liability) do not need to disclose their accounts.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the regime which is pertinent to the normal running of partnership practice with doctors and accountants continues. The new regime is implemented only where the partners themselves are incorporated and have limited liability.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1993
6.46 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it might be helpful if I begin with a few words about what the Meat and Livestock Commission does. The MLC was set up under the Agriculture Act 1967 to promote greater efficiency in the livestock industry and improve the demand for meat and meat products. Its work ranges from improving the efficiency of production on farms and elsewhere in the meat marketing chain and developing the market for meat. Many of your Lordships will have seen the MLC's advertisements, but there is much other work of a more subtle nature involving in-store promotions, magazine articles and so on. The commission also supplies chargeable services to the industry including carcase classification in abattoirs, grading of livestock in markets and on-farm herd and flock recording schemes.
The order has two features, as set out in the schedule. Paragraph 2 of the schedule would amend the levy ceilings and paragraphs 3 to 6 will enable exporters of live animals, who pay their levy direct to the MLC, to recover parts of it from their suppliers, either farmers or auctioneers.
I should like, first, to explain the changes in the levy ceilings. The levy has two components. The general levy finances the running of the MLC and the generic promotion of meat. The species levy finances specific promotions of beef, pork, bacon and lamb. The MLC sets its levies each year within the ceilings set out in orders such as this one. Responsibility for advising the commission on specific activity with beef, pork and lamb rests with species promotion councils. There is a council for each species consisting of producers and others and they decide on the kind of promotion campaign they wish to see for their product and make recommendations about the level of finance necessary to pay for it. The Pork and Bacon Promotion Council wishes to increase its promotion work on pigmeat and proposed a doubling of the levy ceiling in order to provide the necessary finance. The opportunity provided by this amending order has enabled other small increases to be made to the general levy ceilings but there is no proposal to increase the species levy for beef and lamb.
No proposal for a levy increase would ever be welcome but, at the moment beef, sheep and pig prices could modestly be described as reasonable owing, at least in part, to demand from the rest of the European Community for British meat and livestock. Beef exports are now 30 per cent. higher than they were at the same time last year. They amounted to £265 million in 1992. Pork exports have also risen sharply with particular growth in sales of pork cuts to France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy. Sheep exports in 1992 were 22 per cent. up on the previous year and
584
rising in 1993. The MLC estimate is that exports are 38 per cent. up on the same period in 1992. The MLC has played a prominent role in encouraging exports. Its work in promoting demand for meat will also have improved prices.
The second part of the schedule provides for exporters of livestock to be able to recover levy from the persons from whom they have purchased their animals. This is the same right as slaughterers already enjoy. Ever since the levy was extended to live exports in 1979, exporters have passed the levy back by agreement with few problems. But it is now right to give a more formal power, given that exports make up a significant proportion of the market.
I should also remind your Lordships that the Meat and Livestock Commission is currently undergoing a quinquennial scrutiny review. Staff of the agriculture departments are engaged in the review and I expect to have their report later this year. The review provides an opportunity for the meat industry organisations, and individuals, to offer their formal and less formal thoughts on the future direction of the MLC.
There has been a vigorous debate in the meat industry about the job that the MLC should be doing. It is tempting to conclude the review before making this order but it would be wrong. The pig industry wants to increase its spending now on meat promotion and this order would allow it to do so. And the proposal to extend to exporters the right to recover levy from their suppliers would achieve a necessary and consistent treatment between exporters and slaughterers. The measures are necessary. They have been broadly welcomed by the industry in two rounds of consultation. I ask your Lordships to support the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved. [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. As he said, the MLC was set up under a Labour Government in 1967. It has done a good job generally, particularly under its current chairman Mr. Geoffrey John. It is to be congratulated on its promotional work and other development activities.
We have no quarrel at all with paragraph 2 which amends the levy ceilings in the usual way. I assume that the usual consultations have been conducted. As a director of a farming company with a large pig enterprise, I suppose that I should declare an interest in the pig promotion levy. Indeed, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, has just had his first litter. I take this opportunity to welcome him to the pig cycle.
However, there are some serious questions which arise—and I know that the Minister is aware of the anxieties in this respect—as regards paragraphs 3 to 6. They enable exporters of live animals who pay levy direct to the MLC to recover parts of it from their suppliers, whether they be farmers or auctioneers.
The Minister will be aware of the very real problems which it is feared that that will create. The matter was discussed in another place at some length.

585
The British Association of Sheep Exporters has been particularly active in drawing our attention to the problems.
It seems that with the deregulation of the beef and sheep regimes, it is now difficult to define any criteria for store markets as opposed to slaughter markets. The same traders attend both and the quality definition depends entirely on the anticipated outlet. As a consequence, many sheep for export are purchased by traders in store auctions where up to now it has not been the practice for farmers to pay any levy. Traders in live sheep have many outlets and I believe that none of them trade specifically in sheep for export only. Therefore, it is impossible for a producer or auctioneer to establish the purpose for which the sheep have been purchased.
Therefore, it seems that we have a situation in which, if the draft order is approved, sheep traders will be authorised in effect to recover the levy from the producer or the auctioneer on sales of store lambs in addition to lambs that are due for slaughter or export.
There is a further complication. I understand that at present there are about 16 live sheep exporters who are challenging the MLC's right to charge a levy on exported sheep. I understand that those cases are not likely to be brought for trial for about 18 months. During that time, it is unlikely that those exporters will he paying levy to the MLC. While it would be unwise to prejudge the outcome, it is fair to say that at present there is at least considerable doubt over the legalities of the practice. I should be interested to know the effect of the order on that situation.
It seems that there will be a situation in which live sheep exporters will, in their own interests, have to collect the levy on all purchases, whether direct from producers or auctioneers and whether they operate store or slaughter sales. I suppose that they will find it necessary to hold the money pending the outcome of the court case which I understand may take two years. Only then will they he in a position to decide whether to return the levy to the producers or pay it to the MLC. It is a complicated situation and I am not sure that the order has made the matter any simpler.
The Minister said that the consultations are proceeding. It is difficult to know why the decision has been made not to await the outcome of the proceedings. I understand that the report of the review procedure will be published later this year. The effect is that the MLC has rather jumped the gun as regards that aspect of the order which deals with live exports. I find it difficult to see why the Government did not take the usual power to increase the levy, which is entirely straightforward and we have that every so often, and then consider the problem of live exporters as a separate matter and attempt to deal with that in a separate order.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has drawn attention to the problem of recovery of part of the MLC levy by live sheep exporters trading through auction markets. I am aware that some livestock exporters and organisations representing them have made representations on that point.
586
Noble Lords will be aware that the MLC levy has been payable on exports of live animals since 1979. Currently the arrangements at auction markets whereby slaughterers exercise their statutory powers to recover part of the levy from producers have been widely applied, by agreement, to sales to exporters. Live animal exports, in particular live sheep exports, have now reached significant levels and the time is now right for all live animal exporters to have the same legal powers to recover part of the levy as are enjoyed by slaughterers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, there are some practical problems for some parts of the trade. Representations have been made on that point as part of the Government's review of the MLC. Those problems are understood. They relate to the practicalities of recovery of the levy from producers if some of the lambs which are to be exported are traded at store markets, where normally animals are sold for further fattening, rather than in fatstock markets where they are sold for slaughter. Levy is currently recovered only at fatstock markets but exporters being liable for payment of the levy to the MIX will wish to exercise their right of recovery wherever they buy their lambs.
The noble Lord also raised the possibility of exporters collecting contributions to the MLC levy and not subsequently paying them to the MLC. That is a potential difficulty as the less scrupulous dealers can be hard to track down. However, that should not prevent us from providing powers of recovery to those exporters who comply with the legal and moral requirements to contribute towards the costs of the benefits that they receive from the, MLC by paying the levy. They are entitled to expect the same legal powers to recover part of the levy from producers as are enjoyed by slaughterers.
There are some practical problems for some parts of the industry in the recovery of the MLC levy by exporters, but for the majority, those who trade through the fatstock or slaughter markets, the matter is straightforward. The Government will look into those problems where they exist as part of the current review of the MLC. They are not central to the principles of the issue that exporters of live animals, because they benefit from the activities of the MLC, are liable to pay the levy and so should have the same powers of recovery as slaughterers already enjoy. This order achieves that by removing art element of discrimination which currently exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked about the effect of the order on outstanding objections. The simple answer is that there is none. The levy is payable following the 1979 order. This order gives exporters the right to recover the levies for which they are liable. In the past the levy has been largely recovered by voluntary agreement. Exports of live animals have now reached such a scale that it is appropriate to provide legal powers.
The noble Lord also asked why we do not wait for the outcome of the review of the MLC that is currently being undertaken. The pig meat industry needs extra funds for promotion as soon as possible. There is widespread industry support for the increase in the

587
levy ceilings. The review of the M LC is one of the routine Government reviews of non-departmental public bodies. It would not be fair to those exporters who pay the levy to make them wait for the outcome of, and any action on, the review before giving them the same right of recovery as slaughterers already have.
The measures are necessary. They have been broadly welcomed by the industry. I trust that I have answered the noble Lord's points and I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statute Law Repeals Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Commit tee (on recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The Lord Murton of Lindisfarne in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the amendment:
Schedule 1, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
("Group 2—Piracy

11 Will 3 c. 7

Piracy Act 1698.

The whole Act.

8 Geo. 1 c. 24

Piracy Act 1721

The whole Act.

18 Geo. 2 c. 30

Piracy Act 1744

The whole Act.")

The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to restore to the schedule to the Bill a number of repeals relating to the Piracy Acts which were not approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills as the consultation procedure on them had not been fully completed in time. The joint committee reported that the repeals appeared to be of no practical utility and expressed the opinion that they could be included in the Bill if no objections were raised on consultation. I am glad to report to your Lordships that the consultation on those repeals has been completed without any objections being raised. I am, therefore, proposing that the provisions be restored to the Bill.
However, the amendment does not restore the repeal of the Piracy Act 1837. Section 2 of that provision provides for the death penalty for piracy where murder is attempted. The Law Commission proposed that Section 2—so far as it applies to England and Wales—should not be repealed as matters to do with capital punishment are not appropriate for inclusion in statute law repeals legislation. However, it was proposed that Section 2 should he repealed in relation to Scotland because the death penalty there for piracy was repealed more than a century ago.
The view was expressed during the hearing of evidence by the joint committee that the retention of this provision for one part of Britain and not for another would be controversial on a topic on which there is a variety of strongly-held views.
I agree with the Law Commission's view that a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for discussing issues relating to the issue of capital punishment. It is important that Bills that do no more than tidy up the statute book should avoid matters of controversy, however relevant those matters may be in other contexts. The procedures appropriate to Statute Law (Repeals) Bills are not intended to deal with matters of controversy. Accordingly, the amendment does not seek to restore the Piracy Act 1837 to the schedule of repeals in the Bill.
I should add that the amendment has been seen by, and has the approval of, the chairman of the joint committee. I believe that it gives effect to the wishes of the joint committee, subject to the special point that I mentioned about the 1837 Act. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, took an interest in such matters in the joint committee. I have sought to keep them in touch with what I propose. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: As I was the member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills who first raised the issue, I hope that it is appropriate if I say that I support the amendment. I hope that it meets with the approval of the Committee. The difficulty arose because the Law Commission not only proposed to repeal, as obsolete, the three piracy Acts mentioned in the amendment, but it also proposed to repeal three-quarters of a fourth piracy Act; namely, the 1837 Act. The one-quarter that the joint committee did not propose to repeal was Section 2, which provides for the mandatory death penalty for pirates; not only if they kill, intend to kill or attempt to kill, but even if they were to scratch someone in the course of a piratical enterprise. It appeared to me to be quite out of the question that Parliament should repeal three parts of an Act but not expressly repeal a fourth part relating to that particular offence, thereby implying that, in some way, Parliament in 1993 was suggesting that the section was not obsolete.
The latter was clearly a wholly unsatisfactory position. It would have given rise to a debate on the abolition of the death penalty in extraordinary circumstances. Such an event could have occurred as a result of a report of the Law Commission on a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill as considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. That would be a wholly absurd way in which such an issue should be raised again, if indeed anyone ever wants to raise it again. The 1837 Act has been dormant now for well over a century. The proposal by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor allows it to go peacefully back to sleep. I suggest to Members of the Committee that we all agree to leave it there.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the clarity of his exposition; and, indeed, if I may say so

589
on behalf of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, for the courtesy of his correspondence with her. We also welcome the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that the Piracy Act can go back to sleep. I think that we would welcome a little more than that —possibly, euthanasia.
I imagine that no one who was party to the consultations actually wanted the death penalty on a mandatory basis for something which was less than the crime of murder. It is important—although, possibly, not of world-shattering importance—that the matter be tidied up. I entirely concur with the noble and learned Lord that the mechanism suggested was not appropriate. I should be most grateful if some indication could be given that at a fairly early stage Section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837, for the United Kingdom other than Scotland, may be disposed of peacefully, harmoniously and consensually.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for the reception afforded to the amendments by both noble Lords who have spoken. It is a strange quirk that, while Scotland sometimes complains that it does not have as much of a legislature as England and Wales, it should in this particular matter do, something like a century ago, what we are talking about now in respect of Section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837. It is part of the recondite history of our legislative system which consideration of a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill sometimes puts forward.
590
I am certainly of the view that such procedures are not appropriate for dealing with the matter. I am grateful to the Committee for accepting the solutions which we have proposed.
In reference to the question about consultation asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I should add that the Law Commission did not propose Section 2 for repeal. The consultation was on the question of whether the repeals proposed were satisfactory. Therefore, the particular point was not raised until, I believe, the matter reached the joint committee where it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Therefore, the consultation did not really raise any points on the matter.
Obviously, the matter requires consideration. As I said earlier, such issues sometimes stimulate considerable debate. I think that Members of the Committee will understand that I cannot give any guarantees as to when it may be possible for the matter to be reviewed. Certainly, for my part, I shall not forget it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.

  WASTE MANAGERS: CERTIFICATES
  WASTE MANAGERS: CERTIFICATES
  HONG KONG GARRISON
  HONG KONG GARRISON
  SOUTH AFRICA
  SOUTH AFRICA
  ANGOLA, MOZAMBIQUE, ERITREA AND ETHIOPIA: UK AID
  ANGOLA, MOZAMBIQUE, ERITREA AND ETHIOPIA: UK AID
  BR JOINT VENTURES: REGULATION
  BR JOINT VENTURES: REGULATION
  AIRCRAFT RADIO: FEE ARRANGEMENTS
  AIRCRAFT RADIO: FEE ARRANGEMENTS
  EC LEGISLATION: BUSINESS COSTS
  EC LEGISLATION: BUSINESS COSTS
  PRICE MARKING ORDER: CONSULTATION
  PRICE MARKING ORDER: CONSULTATION