Sitting of 2 February 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Josephine Richardson, Member for Barking, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss that we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Middle East
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent developments in the middle east.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Since I visited the region at the beginning of the year, negotiations between Israel and the PLO have continued and some progress has been made towards an agreement on Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho. President Clinton and President Assad met on 16 January, and I hope that this will give new impetus to the negotiations on the Syrian and other tracks. It may take some time yet, but I am clear that there is a determination now on all sides to work for, and to achieve, a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.
    Mr. Clappison: Given the encouraging signs of progress in the latest negotiations and the need to underpin the peace process with growth and prosperity, would not now be a good time to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade in the region, beginning with the wholly unjustified Arab boycott of Israel, the scrapping of which is long overdue?
    Mr. Hurd: The Arab boycott of Israel is gradually fading and eroding, as recent actions and words in the Gulf have shown. In terms of our own affairs, the rapidly increasing total of our exports to Israel tell their own story. They were up 50 per cent. in the first 11 months of last year.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Arab League is due to meet in March to decide on the removal of a number of companies from the boycott list on the basis that they will be doing business in Gaza and Jericho? Will the right hon. Gentleman please ensure that Britain will do everything that it can to ensure that all British companies are removed from that list forthwith?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that any justification for the boycott that there ever may have been—we never accepted that there was one —has now gone. The boycott is eroding fast and we shall do our best to help that process.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the years the Palestinians have, on occasion, experienced humiliation when crossing into the occupied territories from Jordan and vice versa? Therefore, does he further agree that, under any arrangement, the Palestinians should have the right to control access to the Jericho territory?
    Mr. Hurd: That is one of the points, perhaps the most difficult, that is still being thrashed out and it was argued between Mr. Arafat and Mr. Shimon Peres in Davos a few days ago. The Israelis feel—one must have some sympathy for them—that it is a matter of security for them to be able to exercise some control over people coming into Gaza and Jericho, given that once they are in there, they can go freely into Israel. However, the Palestinians are also sensitive about those areas, and they will feel a sense of indignity if they do not have control of the process. It is a matter of working out in detail procedures that are a compromise between those two views. I think that that end is in sight.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State agree that peace in the middle east depends to a large extent on encouragement by western leaders? Has Mr. Clinton not sent the wrong signal across the world from the United States by pandering to a terrorist leader such as Gerry Adams?
    Mr. Hurd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. Without following him too far, let me say that I had occasion yesterday, both in public and in private, to express my views on that. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that the test is whether the leader of Sinn Fein is now prepared, at last, to bring violence to a permanent end. He is a failed politician; he is no longer elected as a Member of the House and Sinn Fein has a limited share, as a minority of the minority vote in Northern Ireland. It would be quite wrong if he were given some special treatment simply because he has used the bomb and the bullet to disguise the fact that electorally he has not been successful.
    Mr. Dykes: Rather than letting the Arab boycott fade away, is it not time for the United States and the European Union countries to make a major effort to reward Israeli imagination and courage—and Palestinian courage, as trade will also benefit the Palestinians—by dismantling the boycott and suggesting that to the Arab League as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hurd: We have done that. However, Israel has some way to go before there is a full and comprehensive peace. Israel still occupies Gaza and Jericho, using methods which certainly do not help forward reconciliation. I agree that the time for the boycott is over and that we must work to bring about its disappearance, but I should not like it to be thought that no effort is required on the other side of the ledger, because it certainly is.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Everyone should welcome the meeting between President Clinton and President Assad, and every sensible person wants an end to the Arab boycott, but surely that can come only when the peace

    873
    process has been fully completed and there is mutual recognition between all the parties to the dispute. As we can proceed with economic reconstruction while the political dialogue is taking place, can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he has been able to make a positive response to the points that I put to him in December in support of the proposals that he has now received from the Palestinian Council for Economic Reconstruction and Development?
    Mr. Hurd: We have given a positive response to the needs of the Palestinians. When I was in Gaza on 5 January, I announced that our aid programme to the occupied territories would amount to £70 million over the next three years. Most of it goes to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and I was impressed by what it is doing in Gaza. A good share also goes to health, education and training.

    Eastern Europe (Embassies)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which newly formed states in eastern Europe he proposes to set up embassies; and what is the budget for this in the next financial year.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We have no plans at present to open further missions in the region, but this is kept under review. Since the end of the cold war, the Foreign Office has opened 13 new embassies in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe as well as a consultate-general in St. Petersburg. The cost in the next financial year is expected to be about £9·5 million.
    Mrs. Gorman: Given the volatile and possibly ephemeral nature of many of the newly emerging states from the former Soviet Union, should not we be using public facilities such as hotels for mounting our diplomatic mission or sharing with our European partners? Is he aware that in Kiev, which I recently visited, we have acquired two large and elaborate buildings, one of which is being equipped to the standards to which I suppose the diplomatic staff are accustomed? When I inquired what the other building was for, I was told that it was to be done up so that, should the Secretary of State pass through, he would have somewhere to stay because he could not possibly use the hotels in Kiev.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is obviously right to urge on the Foreign Office the need to be as cost effective as possible. On the matter of sharing with our European partners, I had not expected that question from my hon. Friend, but the answer is that we do co-locate, for example both in Minsk and Almaty. Neither had I expected my hon. Friend's suggestion about using hotels, but we do use them, for example in Baku. In Kiev, there are two buildings in Desyatinna street, one is No. 9 and the other is No. 12. We acquired No. 12 because No. 9 is held on a very short lease. We shall certainly make the most cost-effective use of No. 12, including co-location with other European countries, if that is what we want, but we shall give serious attention to as and when, depending upon the needs of other posts in the region.
    Mr. Rogers: But, seriously, substantial issues are involved. When the Government are thinking of opening
    874
    diplomatic missions, will they consider changing their diplomatic missions staffing policy? In the past year they have been getting rid of the specialists in trade, industry and technology who were helping to develop our contacts in those countries and replacing them with public relations staff. Why do the Government not encourage British industry to invest in eastern Europe?
    Mr. Hogg: You will not be surprised to hear, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. We have placed enormous emphasis on the commercial policies of the Foreign Office. One reason for opening diplomatic missions in Almaty, Tashkent and Baku was the commercial opportunities there, and we shall continue to use every method at our disposal to promote British industry in those countries and elsewhere.

    European Community (Enlargement)
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards the enlargement of the European Community.
    Mr. Hurd: The accession negotiations with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden are going well. Some difficult issues remain, including agriculture and regional policy, but we are committed to the target of March 1994 for completing negotiations.
    Mrs. Lait: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) about the volatility of the states in the old Soviet empire, does my right hon. Friend agree that the sooner the applicants for European Union membership from central Europe join, the better for democracy? Does my right hon. Friend believe that Poland, Hungary and the Czech republics should join before they are economically ready to do so?
    Mr. Hurd: It would not be sensible to encourage countries in central and eastern Europe to join before they are economically ready to do so, as that would lead to tears, but there are plenty of things that we can do meanwhile. For example, Britain and Italy have launched a joint initiative to associate those countries with the work of the European Union on the two pillars of security and foreign policy and home affairs. Even more important than that is the need to liberalise trade with them. We are pressing hard and there has been some progress. Imports into the European Union from the Visegrad countries, Poland, Hungary, the Czechs and Slovaks, rose by 44 per cent. between 1990 and 1992, but there are still too many restrictions and there is scope for more liberalisation of our market towards the east even before those countries achieve full membership.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: In the light of the Foreign Secretary's reply to the specific point about eastern Europe, as the Western European Union is the defence component of the European Union and the European pillar of NATO, will he give a guarantee that, specifically in the case of the Visegrad countries, the Soviet Union will not be able to exercise a veto over their entry into the European Union as it appears to be doing over their entry into NATO?
    Mr. Hurd: There is no Russsian veto in either case.

    Subsidiarity
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Council of Ministers last discussed subsidiarity; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: The Council last discussed subsidiarity on 6 December last year, in preparation for the Brussels summit. The Commission presented a subsidiarity report to the Council which would affect some 25 per cent. of EC legislation. Some laws will be repealed completely, others replaced by simpler measures. The Commission's report also agreed with 17 of the 24 items on the Anglo-French subsidiarity list, including the bathing and drinking, water directives and directives regulating professional qualifications. The European Council called for the Commission to bring forward early proposals for the implementation of the report and for swift action. We welcome that.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of subsidiarity must be pursued with utmost vigour, to ensure that all European Governments are committed to devolving decision making to national level wherever appropriate? Is that not in contrast to the policy of the Opposition, who appear to be committed to ensuring that decision making is passed to European institutions?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree. We shall hear more on that theme in the coming months from all my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is plenty of work still to be done, but it is interesting that the number of Commission proposals for new legislation has dropped rapidly, from more than 140 in 1991 to about 70 last year—that is, it halved.
    Mr. Shore: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor after that Brussels summit, to the effect that subsidiarity was to be applied to the expensive directives on bathing water and water quality? Is he aware that since then, a Member of the European Parliament—Mr. Collins—has corresponded with the Chairman of the Commission, and that Mr. Delors stated emphatically that there is no such agreement about the bathing water and water quality directives. Who is right?
    Mr. Hurd: It may be that the right hon. Gentleman and others are confused. After the report, the Commission undertook to bring forward proposals to revise existing directives on drinking water, bathing water, surface water quality, fresh water management and ground water. It did not refer to the urban waste water directive, and I do not believe that anyone has claimed that there are plans to replace that. There may be understandable confusion between those different measures in the correspondence to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, much as we may wish a continuing decrease in the intrusiveness of the Commission's decisions in terms of regulations, on occasions—for example, when it opposes protectionism and favours competition—it acts in this country's interests? Is the key not to attack the Commission but to ensure that its competencies are clearly defined, and to keep it out of the hands, and free of the influence, of socialists in the European Parliament?
    Mr. Hurd: Exactly—my hon. Friend puts it well. Much Community legislation is the result of pressure from
    876
    British firms in respect of the single market and from British groups concerned with the environment. That is why subsidiarity is not entirely a straightforward concept. We must continue to winnow it out and to encourage the Commission to dispense with the unnecessary, but with a will to go further down the road that has been started. That will be an issue in the next few months and in the elections.

    Committee of the Regions
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a date has yet been set for the inaugural meeting of the European Committee of the Regions.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): No firm date has been agreed for the inaugural meeting of the European Committee of the Regions.
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the Minister is aware how important it is that the representations chosen to serve on that Committee know at an early date when it is likely to meet. That is important in the context of the whole Maastricht treaty. Does the Minister acknowledge that many representations from other European Union member states will be regarded as regional representatives, while those representing the constituent nations of the United Kingdom will be regarded as local representatives? There is always the danger that local authority representatives will not have the same powers, status or authority as those representing regions and regional bodies in Europe. Can the Minister give an assurance that when the Committee is established, United Kingdom representatives will not be regarded as second-class members?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I believe that a provisional date in early March has been set for the first meeting of the Committee. I assure the hon. Gentleman that United Kingdom representatives will have exactly the same powers, responsibilities and duties as any other members of the Committee, as prescribed in the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend estimate the cost of the Committee's first year of operation, if it ever does start work? Have estimates been made of the potential cost of translating such regional languages as Welsh, Breton and Basque?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To make the Committee of the Regions as cost effective as possible, we are encouraging it to share various facilities, including translation facilities, with the Economic and Social Committee. The figure that has already been budgeted for the Committee of the Regions in 1994 is 12 million ecu.
    Sir Russell Johnston: As the Government operate the United Kingdom in a pretty centralised way and are entirely opposed to any domestic devolution, how will they respond if the Committee of the Regions advocates greater powers for regions within Europe?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The powers within the United Kingdom and their distribution is a matter for the House. It would be a denial of the subsidiarity principle, which we discussed in answer to an earlier question, if the European institutions were to try to interfere in the domestic arrangements of member states in that regard.
    Ms Quin: I hope that, on reflection, the Government will congratulate the Opposition on our victory in the House during the Maastricht debate, when we ensured that the representatives on the Committee would be elected local councillors. However, is not it regrettable that the Government have failed to follow the advice of the local authority associations on the political balance of representation to the Committee of the Regions from this country, and that the balance does not reflect the strength of the opposition at local level in Scotland, Wales or England? Will the Government now renounce their shabby deals with the nationalist parties and allow the Committee of the Regions to reflect accurately the political balance at local level?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry that the hon. Lady is still squabbling with other members of the Opposition about the composition of the Committee. I can assure the House that the party balance on the Committee is entirely fair and represents the party balance at local authority level. After the next local government elections, no doubt the balance will change back in our favour. I look forward to the next Committee of the Regions having more Conservatives on it.

    Growth, Competitiveness and Employment
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with his European counterparts about implementation of the proposals in the Delors White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: A progamme of action was agreed at the European Council on 11 December of last year. A discussion on progress is on the agenda for the Foreign Affairs Council on 7 and 8 February, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will attend.
    Mr. Miller: I am grateful for that reply, but will the Minister explain why, against the background of the Conservative party's views on the Delors proposals, a company within a country where those proposals are well advanced can raise enough money to bid for the Rover Group? Does his Department agree with the President of the Board of Trade, who said in 1987 that if the Government did not keep some control over those matters, the British motor industry would be up a cul-de-sac?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment has nothing to say about the bid for Rover. That we are a magnet for overseas investment demonstrates the competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy. I look forward to BMW making an even greater success of the Rover Group.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that Mr. Delors' package, far from creating more employment would create more unemployment, far from creating faster economic growth would restrain the rate of economic growth and far from improving the Community's competitiveness would make us less competitive? Does he further agree that one has only to look at Spain, where the policies espoused by Mr. Delors have been pursued, to see the disastrous consequences that they would have?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The White Paper, which is being pursued and turned into an action plan, has been
    878
    agreed by all member states of the European Council. It turns its attention to the European economy and excessive cost and regulation. One of the agreements coming out of the plan is that, where Community legislation inhibits employment through over-regulation or excessive cost, it will now be dealt with.
    Mr. Salmond: Will not the Delors proposals on growth and employment be completely frustrated if European markets are not open? Has the Minister any information about today's action in Roscoff against fish products from Scotland, and is he aware of the threat of a total blockade against such products in the French market after this Friday? Given the vital importance of fish products to many small businesses around the coast, has he made any approaches to the French authorities to ensure that access to the French markets is allowed?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We believe in a single market; we also agree that trade barriers inhibit general wealth creation. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of the incidents that he has mentioned, I will ensure that they are taken up by the appropriate Department.
    Mr. Bellingham: When the Minister next meets Mr. Jacques Delors, will he ask why Britain is securing the overwhelming bulk of inward investment in the European Community? Will he also ask why Black and Decker is closing its plant in Germany and relocating all its operations in Durham? Will he tell Mr. Delors that what Europe needs are the Government's policies, not those of Mr. Delors?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall not ask Mr. Delors those questions, because I think that I know the answers —and I think that my hon. Friend does as well. Having lowered inflation and interest rates and controlled public expenditure, we are now a magnet for overseas investment; that is why we are one of the few European Union countries firmly on the road to economic recovery.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy towards the conflict in Bosnia.
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in Bosnia.
    Mr. Hurd: With our European Union partners, we continue to support the co-chairmen's efforts to bring the parties to a negotiated settlement. The Bosnian parties met in Geneva on 18 and 19 January and are due to meet again on 10 February. With other UNPROFOR contributors, we are continuing the humanitarian relief effort. On my visit to Bosnia recently, I saw the first-rate contribution that our troops and civilians are making despite the obstacles and dangers that they face. We are committed to maintaining that effort through the winter. We are considering the future of UNPROFOR with others concerned, and I carried that further in New York and Washington yesterday and the day before; but no decisions have been taken.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that in view of the continuing tragedy in Bosnia there can be no justification for allowing the British troops to leave?

    879
    Indeed, what the right hon. Gentleman has just said confirms that. Any troops who left would leave Bosnia's civilian population entirely at the mercy of the local warlords.
    Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the fact that the international community has so far failed to end the aggression perpetrated by the Serbs and Croats may, unfortunately, encourage others in various unsettled parts of Europe to carry out similar acts of aggression and ethnic cleansing? The tragedy does not affect Bosnia alone.
    Mr. Hurd: I think that I am right in believing that the hon. Gentleman has consistently—or at any rate, for a long time—advocated military intervention, or at least air strikes. How does he reconcile that stance with urging us to continue our current military and humanitarian efforts? We must ensure that we have the right balance between the effectiveness of our troops and the effectiveness of the aid effort and find ways of improving both; we need to make a calm judgment on the basis of the latest evidence.
    I have encouraged the Secretary-General of the United Nations to report on the new thinking of the new staff whom he has on the ground. On the basis of that report, and in consultation with allies and partners, we shall be able to reach a considered conclusion on the right balance—probably next month.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending condolences to the family of Paul Goodall, the aid worker who was so brutally murdered last week, together with our sympathy to the families of the two men who were shot? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those aid workers were sent out to Bosnia through the Crown Agents in Sutton in my constituency? Does he recognise that aid workers are largely unsung heroes in Bosnia? Moreover, the message that has come back to me is that they are determined to continue their work, which they consider to be a moral imperative.
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. I know of her interest in the matter through the Crown Agents in her constituency. It is striking that, despite the tragic murder of Mr. Goodall, his comrades have clearly said that they want to continue. So the Overseas Development Administration has decided, after a temporary suspension of our convoys, to resume its work, which is clearly the wish of the people who drive. I saw for myself that, despite all the obstacles and the dangers that they run, they rightly believe that the aid that they get through contributes substantially to reducing the suffering, the cold and the hunger, of the people whom they help.
    Mr. Corbett: While joining in the expression of sympathy to the family of Paul Goodall, may I commend the courage of my constituent, Simon King, who was injured in the same incident and may I thank, through the Foreign Secretary, all those concerned with Mr. King's rescue and care? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that Mr. King and his colleagues are expected back in the United Kingdom on Saturday and that all proper arrangements have been made for them? In thinking about the future of our part in the humanitarian effort in Bosnia, will the Foreign Secretary pay special regard to the wish of Mr. King, his colleagues and many others that it should continue?
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have ensured that the two survivors of that tragedy are
    880
    properly looked after. We must consider not just whether to continue the humanitarian and military effort but whether it is as well organised as it could be or whether improvements can be made. Three new minds are at work on the problem that the hon. Gentleman raises: Mr. Akashi, whom I saw in Split, acting on behalf of the United Nations Secretary-General did a good job in Cambodia and is looking at the civilian side; General Sir Michael Rose, who everybody knows is an outstanding and thoughtful soldier; and the new French general, General de la Presle. We must consider not just whether we should continue, but, if we and the other troop contributors continue, how we can improve the present balance of effort so that more help reaches the people who need it.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Bosnia still has a Government in which Croats, Serbs and Muslims serve together? Will he admit that the British Government recognise that as the legitimate Government of Bosnia? In that context, is it not unfair to treat it merely as a warring faction?
    Mr. Hurd: We regard the Bosnian Government as one of the parties that need to reach a negotiated settlement. We believe that the Serbs are mainly responsible for the fighting, but the Croats joined in later and are also to blame. All three sides have committed atrocities. But the point that is emerging more and more clearly and on which there is total agreement in Washington is that a negotiated settlement is needed. Yesterday in Washington, I was trying to explore how the United States can be associated more clearly and openly with the negotiations, not in discussing a settlement imposed on the Bosnian Government in Sarajevo but in trying to associate the Americans more completely with the search for an answer that all three parties will freely accept so that it can last and bring the war to an end. It is clear to me that there will be no military victory. If a settlement is to be negotiated, the sooner it is done the better.
    Mr. Wareing: We all share the view of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) that it is tragic that an aid worker has been shot and others have been injured. Will the Foreign Secretary inform the House on the progress that has been made in investigating who the murderers were in that case? Is it true that they were probably members of the 7th Muslim Brigade, made up of what are colloquially termed "mujahedin"? If that should prove to be so, will he call for the disbandment of that brigade?
    Mr. Hurd: I cannot answer accurately about that matter. We asked the Bosnian authorities at once to investigate the murder, and they did so. It is reported that a number of people have since been shot on Mount Igman. We are asking the Bosnian authorities for particulars of exactly what occurred, and who the people involved were. It has been reported that one of them may have been carrying a United Kingdom passport—a document which may or may not have been genuine. There is much obscurity and murkiness about this episode, but we are trying to have light shed on it. I will let the hon. Gentleman know how we get on with our inquiries.
    Sir Michael Marshall: What opportunity has my right hon. Friend had to take stock of the current state of sanctions in Serbia and Croatia? In particular, does he feel

    881
    that the apparent grinding down of the problems faced in Croatia can play a part in helping to end the tragedy in Bosnia?
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure that we must maintain sanctions at full force against Serbia until the authorities there comply with the Security Council resolutions. We have to take very careful account of the way in which Croatia has handled the matter in recent months. There is no doubt that this question will be considered again by the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday.
    Dr. John Cunningham: We all join in the expression of condolence to the family of Mr. Goodall. However, is not the inescapable conclusion of the past few months that all the objectives set by the London conference on Bosnia have failed—with the possible exception of the humanitarian aid effort, which itself is now in some difficulty? Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) right when he says that, regrettably, the failure to confront not just Serbian but also Croatian aggression in Bosnia is a clear signal to like-minded people in other areas of instability in eastern Europe? Does that not pose a grave threat to the security of central and western Europe too?
    Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that when he vacillates about whether to take the troops out or leave them in, he encourages Serbs and Croats to maintain their aggressive stance in Bosnia? If we are to come out of this terrible tragedy with any credibility at all, should not the international community at the very least maintain, if not improve, the humanitarian aid programme, and is that not impossible without the presence of troops on the ground?
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman's last point may prove to be accurate. This is one of the things that we have to change. There is no vacillation here. I do not think that the Opposition or the country wants us to act suddenly or unilaterally, leaving others in the lurch. We have to consult countries such as Canada, whose Foreign Minister I talked to on Monday. We have to work with those who are in a similar position. The situation has to be weighed up. In today's world, we cannot do everything in secret. I have been completely open with the House and with the public as to the stage that we have reached.
    I should have thought that that was a reasoned process. It is quite contrary to the way in which the Opposition —the Labour party recently and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) constantly—have performed. Once again the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has used the word "confront" when talking about how to deal with the Serbs and the Croats. What does he mean? Is he talking of air strikes? There is a case for air support for operations like those to relieve the Canadians in Srebrenica and to open Tuzla airport. However, if the right hon. Gentleman is seriously saying that problems like the siege of Sarajevo and that entire tragedy can be solved permanently by bombing from the air, as he has suggested in the past, he is at odds not only with military opinion here but, as I discovered in Washington yesterday, with a much wider body of opinion. People who advance such arguments in such a vague way need to be pinned down as to what they propose. Otherwise, their advice is less than helpful.
    Mr. Elletson: During his recent visit to Bosnia, did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to calculate the
    882
    amount of British humanitarian aid that is reaching the people for whom it is intended? Is he aware that many people in this country now believe that humanitarian aid is merely fuelling the warring factions and keeping the war going? Is it not time for us to ask ourselves what on earth Britain is doing in Bosnia?
    Mr. Hurd: What we are doing is keeping people alive who would otherwise be dead. What we are doing is providing some assurance of heat and electricity for some hours a day for people in the fearful communist high-rise flats in which many in Bosnia live. What we are doing is providing food that will keep people alive who might otherwise die. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that there are obstructions and that not all of the requirements —indeed, much less than we would wish—get through. What we have to judge is whether we can remove the obstructions, bureaucratic and otherwise, and improve our effort or whether it cannot be improved and whether the risks are so great that we should pull out. However, my hon. Friend should be in no doubt about the consequences in humanitarian terms of an abrupt and unconsidered decision to withdraw.

    Subsidiarity
    Mr. Cunliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his French counterpart to discuss the principle of subsidiarity.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I last formally discussed subsidiarity with my opposite number at the Anglo-French summit on 26 July last year. Since then, the Government have co-operated closely with the French on implementation of the subsidiarity principle. This was instrumental in ensuring that the Commission's subsidiarity report to the Brussels European Council was a substantial document.
    Mr. Cunliffe: When will the Minister and the Government be prepared to come clean about the secret hit list of European Community measures that have been agreed by the British and French Governments? The measures deal mainly with environmental and social policy and, if enforced, will adversely affect the vast majority of the British people. In view of the Government's clandestine methods and tactics, does not their consistent preaching of the gospel of open government to the House and the people smell of hypocrisy and cant?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is nothing secretive about the process. All member states have let the Commission know their priorities for making a success of the practical implementation of the subsidiarity principle. I well understand that such an exercise may not appeal to the centralising tendencies of Labour Members, who may be prepared to let more issues be decided in Brussels. We not only got it written into the treaty that there should be a subsidiarity test, but we wish to see it carried forward into practical effect. That is why we were pleased that the great majority of our proposals have now been accepted by the Community as a whole.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members at any rate are delighted to hear that he makes no apology for the lists submitted by the British and French Governments? Will he give us an update on progress so far in amending or abolishing EC

    883
    directives and assure us that he and the French Government will take forward the principle in respect of any future unnecessary and intrusive legislation?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The treaty requirement is to apply the subsidiarity test only to future proposals, but, beyond that, it was agreed voluntarily that the Commission and Council should look back at the existing EC statute book. The Commission itself estimates that 25 per cent. of the existing volume of legislation will be amended or repealed in the light of the subsidiarity exercise.

    Peru (Death Penalty)
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Peruvian Government regarding implementation of the death penalty in that country following the national referendum in October 1993.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have made no representations.
    Mr. McFall: The Minister will be aware that a central issue in the report by the parliamentary group for human rights, which I shall present next week, is the death penalty. Is he aware that the death penalty is administered by military judges who have no legal qualifications and who convict more than 95 per cent. of the people who come before them? Will he accept from me that the young people whom I met in the Huallaga valley last September will be the innocent victims of that penalty and that their only crime is to find themselves crushed between Sendero Luminoso and the army? Will he therefore impress on Peru that it is in violation of its international obligations under the American convention and that what is needed is not the death penalty but an independent and untainted judiciary?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Last year, Peru amended its constitution to permit an extension of the death penalty and to apply it to terrorist offences. That constitution was agreed in a referendum and it is up to the people and the Government of Peru to apply their own laws in their own way. I can give the hon. Gentleman one assurance: the new constitution refers to the use of the death penalty being in conformity with the laws and treaties to which Peru subscribes, which may answer the second point that he made.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a referendum on the death penalty in Bermuda about three years ago, but that did not seem to prevent the Government on that occasion from interfering and recommending that Bermuda should change its mind about the death penalty?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The international status and relationship with this country in the case of Bermuda are rather different to those in the case of Peru, as the hon. Gentleman surely knows.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that we ought to get rid of the death penalty from our own statutes so that we could then campaign around the world to get rid of that barbaric practice in all countries?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Whatever our views about the death penalty, Conservative Members believe that it is up to sovereign states to amend their constitutions in their
    884
    own way. As I have said, in this case that was done by referendum and we respect that judgment of the Peruvian people.

    Middle East
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest prospects for a comprehensive peace in the middle east.
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to promote peace in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Lebanon, Israel and the occupied territories and Jordan from 3 to 6 January. The Prime Minister met Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan in London on 11 January. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary held discussions with the Lebanese Prime Minister in London on 25 and 26 January. I am encouraged by the determination of all the parties to make progress towards a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.
    Mr. Luff: Against the background of the great courage being shown by Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Syria and Jordan in furthering the peace process, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the welcome for the Government's decision to extend £50 million of export credit to Lebanon? Can he confirm that that credit will be used in part to build civil defence orders, which will further enhance the security of the region? Against that background, does he not feel that the time has come for the British Government to drop the arms embargo on Israel, an embargo which Britain applies uniquely among European Community nations?
    Mr. Hogg: In the case of the arms embargo on Israel, which was imposed following the invasion by Israel of south Lebanon, there is an obligation on Israel under the provisions of UN resolution 425 to leave south Lebanon. I hope that that will happen soon. It will be much easier to relax the arms embargo so far as Israel is concerned when that happens.
    Mr. Burden: While welcoming the continued progress being made in peace talks between Israel and the PLO, does the Minister agree that it is rather dangerous that the Israeli Premier has been saying that peace is still some way off, and that that could send out entirely the wrong message? Does he agree that confidence-building measures are vital and that for the Palestinians, who have been under occupation since 1967, a good confidence-building measure which Israel has in its power to institute is the release of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners who remain in Israeli jails?
    Mr. Hogg: There has, indeed, been progress by Israel in releasing prisoners and that is very much to be commended. There are people who are still held and we should like there to be further progress in that area.
    On the subject of Prime Minister Rabin's comments, it is important that Prime Minister Rabin is realistic, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should like there to be an early agreement on this stage of the talks.
    Mr. Batiste: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, as and when the British Government wish to invoke it, they have powers under the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 to prevent British companies providing information to the Arab Boycott Office for the purpose of the boycott of Israel, in just the same way as the Government invoked those powers against the United States some years ago?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is right about the effect of the legislation to which he refers, but I will certainly write to him. I think that persuasion is the best way forward, and I am pleased by the encouraging signs that we see among the Gulf Co-operation Council countries concerning a relaxation of the boycott, especially in its tertiary and secondary phases.
    Mr. Worthington: Has the Minister read the speech by Prime Minister Rabin to the Council of Europe on 26 January, which in some respects could have been delivered by Yasser Arafat? Prime Minister Rabin called on Europe to contribute to the transformation of the region through economic development and co-operation, by rehabilitating refugees, developing water and natural resources, overcoming environmental hazards and regulating arms control. Is it not true that Europe has still not measured up to that task, and what does the Minister intend to do about it?
    Mr. Hogg: I have not read Prime Minister Rabin's speech, but I shall be happy to do so, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought it to my attention. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it plain that the United Kingdom is contributing about £70 million over the next three years. Implicit in the question was a suggestion that the United Kingdom Government should increase our own public expenditure in the occupied territories. That sounds awfully like an additional commitment to additional public spending that has not been cleared by what the Opposition amusingly call their Treasury Front Bench.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that ultimately an enduring peace in the middle east will depend on a sense of religious toleration in all countries, which has previously been conspicuous by its absence? In particular, has he seen recent reports by Middle East Watch, Amnesty International and the Jubilee Campaign on the increasing oppression of the Christian minority of 200,000 people in Iran, culminating in the death of Bishop Hovsepian Mehr of the Assemblies of God only 10 days ago? Will my right hon. and learned Friend urge the Iranian Government to allow the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to send in a special rapporteur to examine the position of Christian minorities in that country?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. I am afraid that the state of human rights in Iran is a matter for considerable concern. We need to take every opportunity not only to impress upon the Government of Iran our concern about those matters but to expose to international opinion what is going on there.

    Bangladesh
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the Government of Bangladesh about human rights issues in the Chittagong hill tracts.
    The Parliamentary Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We regularly remind the Bangladesh Government of our concerns about human rights in the Chittagong hill tracts.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister make further representations to the Government of Bangladesh about the illegal arrests, torture and rape taking place there, as well as the massacre of tribal people that occurred on 17 November 1993? Will he also make representations to the Indian Government to allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other aid agencies access to the refugee camps to which many of the indigenous people have escaped?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I last made representations about the problems in the Chittagong hill tracts to the Bangladeshi Finance Minister less than two weeks ago when he was in London. Our high commissioner made representations to the chairman of the special committee responsible for discussions with representatives from the Chittagong hill tracts, who is a Minister in Bangladesh. So we are continuing to make representations. As for United Nations involvement, that is not the wish of either of the Governments concerned. However, the hon. Lady will be pleased to learn that there are strong signs that refugees in India wish to return to the Chittagong hill tracts. The fact that they are contemplating doing that shows that the situation must be improving.

    Brazil
    Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department is doing to promote trade with Brazil.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Like all Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts, those in Brazil have export promotion as a top priority. They seek out export opportunities, advise British companies on the business to be won in their markets, lobby on their behalf for major contracts and against discrimination, organise visits by Ministers and trade missions with the specific objective of winning business, among other tasks. I am happy to say that our exports to Brazil were up by more than 50 per cent. in 1993 compared with 1992.
    Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is he aware that that positive answer is endorsed by news that Westland Helicopters has secured a £150 million order to supply nine Superlynx helicopters to the Brazilian navy? Does he agree that that demonstrates not only the strength of the defence industry in Britain, beating off tough competition from the United States and France, but the healthy trade relations that we enjoy with Brazil?
    Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, 1994 has got off to an excellent start in our exports to Brazil and I welcome the announcement by Westland of

    887
    its success in the £150 million order to supply helicopters to the Brazilian navy. Our embassy in Brazil supported the negotiations throughout.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Minister has confirmed that there are arms exports to Brazil. Will he clarify whether Britain also gives aid to Brazil? If the answer is affirmative and bearing in mind the fact that the former Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Younger, and the former Malaysian foreign
    888
    Minister said that there were links between aid and arms to Malaysia, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that such links will not be established with Brazil?
    Mr. Goodlad: The aid programme to Brazil is running at about £4 million a year. Its priorities cover forestry, the urban environment, health and help to non-governmental organisations engaged in rural and urban poverty, including those that help street children. Of course there is no connection between the aid programme and arms sales.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you and the Secretary of State for Employment notice of the matter that I intend to raise. It arises from the ethyl chloride leak and subsequent flash fire at the Associated Octel company in Ellesmere Port in my constituency.
Have you, Madam Speaker, had any request from the Secretary of State to make a statement on the health and safety implications of that serious incident, which could have had dire effects on my constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad)? Had the wind changed, it would also have affected the constituents of the Secretary of State himself and those of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).
In raising the point of order, I am sure that the House would want to congratulate the Cheshire fire service on the bravery and skill of the work it did, as well as the efforts of the emergency services and emergency planning team, who carried out splendid work last night.
Madam Speaker: The latter comments of the hon. Gentleman are not a matter for the Chair, nor are they a point of order.
I have not heard from the Secretary of State that he is seeking to make a statement on that matter. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it has been referred to the Health and Safety Executive. He may like to find other methods of pursuing it in the House.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the Votes and Proceedings of the House, which are published in the House papers today? On Monday, the Secretary of
890
State for Transport tabled the important Draft Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994, only to withdraw it on Tuesday and replace it with another order. I have tried to ascertain from the Department of Transport what were the differences between the orders and what were the errors which, I assume, existed in the first order, and it was unable to tell me. I went to the House of Commons Library to see whether any communication had been made, and still found no explanation of the alterations.
Do you have any capacity to require the Secretary of State to withdraw the second order and get it right? Even the second order is altered manuscript, and it seems indicative of the sloppy nature of the way in which the Secretary of State is handling the channel tunnel business. He should be given 5 minus for effort. I hope that the matter can be taken away and looked at again.
Madam Speaker: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, that is not a matter for the Chair. Had he pursued his inquiries a little further, he would have found that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments exists to look into such matters.

BILL PRESENTED
  PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Sir John Hannam, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Sir Trevor Skeet, Ms Liz Lynne, Sir James Kilfedder, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Ms Angela Eagle, Sir Richard Body and Mr. Ken Livingstone, presented a Bill to amend the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 for the purpose of permitting the title of podiatrist to be used as an alternative to that of state registered chiropodist under the terms of that Act: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 4 February, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

  Registration of Small Children's Homes
  3.30pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of a children's home where accommodation is provided for one or more children, and for connected purposes.
  At the moment, private children's homes that accommodate four or more children are required to register with local authorities under the Children Act 1989 and are subject to regular inspection by the local independent inspection unit. Where minimum standards are not being met, registration can be withdrawn so that no children can be placed in the unit in question. Where three or fewer children are accommodated in an establishment, it cannot be registered under the Children Act. Moreover, the fostering regulations do not apply because staff are employed on a rotational basis.
  Although the Arrangement for the Placement of Children Regulations and the Review of Children's Cases Regulations apply, providing placement, representation and review procedures, children placed in such homes do not enjoy the additional protection that registration and regular inspection provide.
  My involvement in the issue arises from a constituency problem brought to my attention by Dr. and Mrs. Lloyd, who had sublet their house and who found out, after thousands of pounds' worth of vandalism and damage had been done, that it had been used as a small children's home by an organisation called Parallel Parents. Some excellent investigative journalism by the local paper, the Stockport Express, and an in-depth documentary on BBC Manchester's "Close Up North" programme uncovered serious causes for concern.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and I saw the Minister at the time, and expressed our concern. A study by the social service inspectorate was requested by the then Under-Secretary of State in March 1993. The conclusions of that report were placed in the Library earlier this month.
  The report looked at 17 authorities in the north-west, of which only six used unregistered children's homes. Those undertaking the study had difficulty in identifying the number of homes in existence; there is no way of knowing how many of those homes are in existence or of monitoring their standards of care or quality, because there is no requirement to register.
  Given the recommendation of the Warner report that there should be a national directorate of children's homes with a national code of practice laying down minimum standards, it is incredible that a loophole in the law allows small children's homes to operate with no means of enforcing a consistent minimum standard of care—something demanded of larger homes.
  The SSI study said that there was cause for concern about unregistered homes run by organisations such as Parallel Parents. It made the point that children placed in such homes were very difficult children and young people, who had failed to respond in local authority establishments: children with extensive criminal records: children with personality disorders; disturbed children; abused and abusing children; and children with drug and alcohol problems.
  892
  Asked on "Close Up North" about his child care approach, Sean Fitzpatrick, the proprietor of Parallel Parents, said:
  "We say, 'Tell us your dreams, and we'll make your dreams come true.'"
  What on earth does that mean?
  As for what it means in practice, the SSI study stated tellingly that, in small homes, the most difficult and vulnerable young people were receiving care from staff with the least experience, the least skill and the least training. It expressed concern about young untrained staff undertaking therapy with very difficult children, and about the fact that those staff received little supervision, support or training.
  Staff turnover was high and recruitment haphazard. Poor material standards were identified in some of the homes. There was evidence that proprietors were operating with fewer than four children to evade the stringencies of registration, particularly in relation to fire safety. For example, inspectors were appalled to find young people living in a unit that had been refused registration for six children because of a substantial fire risk.
  The agencies concerned had clearly moved into providing services in unregistered homes because it had been simpler to set them up than to go through the process of registration. Some agencies were operating satellite unregistered homes in addition to a registered home, and children were being moved from home to home without the local authority being notified. I am sure that the House will agree that that is an unacceptable form of subcontracting.
  It is little wonder that there have been concerns about children left unsupervised, and about control being absent, with children allowed to get up when they like and do what they like, and with disturbed childern being a risk to themselves and to others. Children have been placed in homes where the proprietor's expressed philosophy constitutes a total abdication of responsibility for care and control.
  Nor can local authorities escape their responsibilities in this matter. The SSI report said that difficult-to-place children, in crisis at the time of the placement, were placed in unregistered homes—an "any port in a storm" approach —at a cost of £500 to £1,500 per week.
  The report said that many authorities had taken the publicity of the providing agency at face value and had been disinclined to question providers closely about the details of the provision on offer. Very few asked for information about the outcome.
  That damning study concludes that there is a need to ensure that the Arrangements for the Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991 and the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 are applied as required.
  Since then, a circular has been issued to local authorities with notes of guidance on the standards that are appropriate. That guidance reminds local authorities that inquiries into standards should treat the placement as if it were in a larger home. It clearly states that the Department of Health does not intend the standard of care to be lower than in a larger home. In that case, why not regulate for registration, and in so doing provide for regular independent inspection to ensure that those minimal standards are adhered to?
  The study was confined to the north-west, but the problem is not restricted to that region, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), a co-sponsor of the Bill, made clear in his excellent speech in an Adjournment

  893
  debate on 20 January 1994, in which he raised concerns about children's homes in his constituency. This is a national problem and a national scandal.
  The Bill seeks to make all children's homes subject to registration and independent inspection, which ensures basic standards and an independent assessment of those standards in all homes.
  All inquiries into children's deaths have clearly shown that checks have to be made in the placement of children. Those checks do not apply in the placement of children in small children's homes. Only compulsory registration will ensure that, and ensure inspection other than that of the placing social worker.
  It is insane to allow the situation to continue. From April this year, small homes for adults will be required to register. Why should not children's homes be required to do so?
  Some proprietors provide poorer standards of care than are acceptable, yet local authorities place children in those situations. The House has an obligation to protect vulnerable children from those who would exploit them and from those who do not care enough adequately to protect them.
  Only by making registration of all children's homes compulsory can our duty of care to desperate, disturbed young people begin to be fulfilled. Only the House has the power to achieve that. I ask that that power be exercised. I commend the Bill to the House.
  3.41 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Superficially, the Bill purports to give children who are already in care some additional protection. At first glance, it would appear that there is a national scandal, with widespread abuse of the existing law. Curiously, however, the only evidence that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) has been able to produce is a single landlord who has complained that his house was damaged. Apart from the civil remedy that is available in that example, she has not alleged that any of the children in that establishment suffered any damage, which, of course, would be contrary to existing law.
  There is a knee-jerk reaction and a socialist tendency to regulate, inspect and, where possible, to provide and extend to NALGO a monopoly in the care of children. I should like to draw attention to the work of several small children's homes in my constituency, where dedicated teams of professionals, who have all the qualifications, provide care on an emergency and respite basis to a small group of disturbed young children. Incidentally, those children are invariably already the subject of care orders, so if they are not being visited regularly by social workers, and if the premises in which they are accommodated are not regularly inspected, local authorities are already abandoning their responsibilities.
  Emergency and respite care provides one-to-one security not just for children but for the public, who often need protection from such youngsters, who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. I accept that, if there were a dramatic loophole, and if there had been a catalogue of cases of abuse, the House would be anxious to intervene immediately. But the proposal to extend the control of all those establishments to local authorities and
  894
  to the muesli-munching, open-toed sandal brigade of social services in those errant county councils would be a very great mistake.
  The hon. Lady failed to mention that the problem of providing accommodation certainly for those who have been in conflict with the criminal law is already provided for in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Later this year, secure training orders will be introduced, and satisfactory accommodation will be provided for those youngsters to ensure that they do not continue to reoffend.
  The existing law is perfectly adequate to deal with any complaint. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the Children Act 1989 is in force, and any single case of abuse would be a breach of the existing law. There is no possible reason for extending registration to smaller units that provide an extremely important service.
  Some of the homes in my constituency that provide such a service come into conflict with the local authority, which of course is always keen to extend—[Interruption.] Opposition Members sneer and jibe, as though there is something wrong with providing care for those youngsters, who are often young offenders from very difficult backgrounds. I challenge Opposition Members to find better care anywhere else in the country. Torbay has a long and fine tradition of providing such care for very difficult youngsters.
  To change the law on the basis of a single complaint from a single landlord would be a waste of the time of the House, and I certainly urge the House to oppose the Bill.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business)—
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a convention of the House that, when hon. Members oppose a ten-minute Bill, their voices are followed by their vote. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who opposed the Bill in a five-minute, rather squalid, speech, never opened his mouth to express opposition to the vote. That is against the conventions of the House, and I hope that you deprecate it, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) acted quite correctly. He opposed by saying, "No." [Interruption.] Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman say, "No." He does not have to cause a Division, he has only to signify no, and the House understands that. Therefore, I am able to declare that the Ayes have it.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You are a bit nearer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). There is not much in it, but you are a shade nearer than we are. I know that the hon. Gentleman has different names. He goes under the name of Rupert Allason, and sometimes under the name of Nigel West. When the Tory Whips could not find him, he had another name, and he now turns out to be a ventriloquist.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has cheered me up on a very gloomy day.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Keith Hill, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Alun Michael, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Alan Milburn, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Neil Gerrard.

  REGISTRATION OF SMALL CHILDREN'S HOMES
  Ms Ann Coffey accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the registration of a children's home where accommodation is provided for one or more children, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 March, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

  Scientific Research
  3.48 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move,
  That the draft Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
  That the draft Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  That the draft Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The draft orders declare three new bodies to be research councils for the purposes of the Science and Technology Act 1965. The orders were laid before the House on 17 December.
  I am delighted that the House has this opportunity to focus on the Government's policy for science, engineering and technology, and in particular on the restructuring of the research councils system. Science is central to our culture and heritage, and the foundation for our future success as an advanced manufacturing and trading nation.
  Today is something of a science day for Britain. First, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been underlining at the annual lunch of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee the fundamental importance of science and engineering for the wealth and well being of the country. As my right hon. Friend said in Japan in September:
  "perhaps we have undervalued science and the application of science in the United Kingdom over the last 20 or 30 years … it's my determination to make sure that British science remains first class".
  Today the Prime Minister repeated that commitment, urging that we must root out what he described as the traditional bias against science which persists in some parts of our culture, and emphasising that, even against the absolute necessity of restraining public science, science will remain in future a high priority.
  Secondly, the debate is being held in prime parliamentary time. I understand that that is a result of the usual co-operative arrangements between the usual channels at the present time. Thirdly, the BBC, The Daily Telegraph and my office have launched an excellent joint initiative to encourage participation in and enthusiasm for science called "Megalab UK", which, among other things, offers the prospect of being able to use my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), as an object for experimentation, a role for which he volunteered after a relatively small number of hours of persuasion.
  When I took this job as the first Minister in charge of the new Office of Science and Technology and Britain's first Cabinet Minister for Science since the noble Lord Hailsham, it seemed to me that we needed a shift in thinking. We needed to close the gap between science and technology—between academically driven research and the wealth-creating sector of the United Kingdom economy.
  That was the fundamental issue that the Government addresed in our May 1993 White Paper, "Realising our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology". It was about how to maintain the

  897
  independence of our researchers and the excellence of British science while at the same time creating a real partnership and common sense of purpose among all the funders, purveyors, beneficiaries and users of research in Government, the universities, commerce and industry. In other words, it was about how to harness our excellence in science and engineering more systemically to the creation of wealth throughout the United Kingdom.
  The White Paper set out a strategy to bring this partnership about. It was widely welcomed by industry, academia and commentators. Good progress is being made with this implementation, and these orders represent one part of the story. I shall briefly recap the rest of the new policy framework. We intend to publish a new "Forward Look" on Government-funded science and technology, and that will appear for the first time in April. It will be a clear and up-to-date statement of strategy throughout Government, with a five to 10 year perspective.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the hitch in appointing a chief executive for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council?
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is the new council. I shall be entirely frank, because it is always wise to be so with the hon. Gentleman: we have not yet found anyone good enough for the role. After discussion with my senior officials, I have asked that we should go out and find more candidates for the post, because, although distinguished people applied for it, we have not yet found anyone with whom we feel entirely comfortable. As the hon. Gentleman above all hon. Members will understand, it is a crucial job.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I know that my right hon. Friend accepts that the formation of the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research council has been warmly welcomed. That is because of the emphasis that will be placed on wealth creation. Will he ensure that the new chief executive has not only high-quality experience of research but experience of wealth creation and industry as well?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The person appointed must carry the confidence of the engineering and physics communities and the chemical communities. Ideally, he will also have experience in industry, but we are begining to describe a paragon. We need somebody who will carry some weight, and, although we have had some distinguished candidates, we have not yet found someone entirely right.
  However, the new part-time chairman, Mr. Alan Rudge, a distinguished man, is already working hard with the new council and the existing committees, so there is no problem in waiting a little longer.
  To continue, the strategy we shall set out in "Forward Look", to be well-founded, will need some foresight. That is why we announced for the first time in the White Paper a British technology foresight programme. Preparations for this are going well, and I shall announce the shape of the programme at the end of the month. The programme will take markets as well as technology fully into account.
  Our strategy must be based on innovation in all sectors of the economy. The industry departments are working to promote best practice by industry in research and development and industry's awareness of and access to science and technology.
  898
  The strategy must address issues of education and training, and must increase the general public's awareness and understanding of science. Young people are obviously the most crucial target. I launched the Government's new campagin to promote the public understanding of science on 11 January.
  Preparations for the first ever National Week of Science, engineering and technology set7, which begins on 18 March, are well in hand and more than 1,000 events have been organised around the country through the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
  On a nationwide level, I have already mentioned the launch of Megalab UK, the result of collaboration between the Office of Science and Technology, The Daily Telegraph and the BBC in the shape of Radio 1 and "Tomorrow's World". It was launched today in The Daily Telegraph and on Radio 1.
  All the themes—strategy, quality, partnership, foresight innovation, education and training and understanding—bear directly on the key roles of our research councils. The research council system is the essential vehicle for channelling much of the United Kingdom's support for high-quality scientific research and post-graduate training. I intend, however, to remodel that vehicle from 1 April this year, while building on the undoubted solidity of the existing design. That is what the orders are all about.
  In some respects, change is already well under way. The research councils are now under the general direction of Sir John Cadogan, former director of research at BP, who took up the new post of Director General of the Research Councils within the Office of Science and Technology at the beginning of January. He is now helping me in my task of ensuring that the research council system works to its full potential, developing new mechanisms for creating partnerships between the science and engineering base and industry and commerce.
  I am delighted to report to the House that he has thrown himself with characteristic vigour—a number of hon. Members know him—into the task ahead of him. His role is to work with the councils so that their output, be it research findings or highly trained people, is excellent and also useful. The two are not mutually exclusive, and we shall have achieved our purposes when both objectives are seen as valuable and complementary.
  In the short time that he has been in post, Sir John has been working with the chief executives of the research councils to ensure that the best possible use is made of the enhanced science budget that I was able to announce in November. As a result, I am pleased to report to the House that he has been able to double the funds available for distribution among the six new research councils in the coming financial year.
  He has persuaded each council to contribute resources to a central fund by means of efficiency savings, which can now be devoted to front-line science and postgraduate training. It is critical that resources for science should fund top-class research and training to the greatest possible extent.
  The fact that such a redistribution proved possible so early in the tenure of the new DGRC augurs well for the new system of setting clear priorities and the increased efficiency that we are looking for.
  I invited the director general to come forward with a strategy for use of the resultant £15·5 million, about half of which comes from new money and about half from efficiency gains, but all of which is new money for

  899
  front-line science. I am, as a result, able to announce today the launch of some significant new intiatives, and the expansion of relevant existing programmes, which demonstrably put into practice our White Paper commitment to reorientate our research and postgraduate training effort so that it supports wealth creation and the quality of life. I hope that I will be able to show that those innovations demonstrate that there is no contradiction at all between doing that and supporting good, curiosity-driven research.
  I shall be giving details of the allocations to the research councils and other bodies from the science budget in a written statement to the House, and I have deposited further details of the new programmes in the Library. But I want briefly to sketch out the major elements of the new and expanded activities.
  First, I plan to launch a new competitive scheme to encourage researchers to collaborate with industry, making available grants that are complementary to the funding provided by industry for strategic research. That will be a pilot scheme-—£3·5 million for the academic half year which falls in 1994–95—involving the Medical Research Council, the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. I propose to name the awards made under the scheme ROPAs after the White Paper "Realising our Potential".
  The funds will allow researchers to work on a topic related to the work for which industry is paying, but of the researchers' own choosing. Unlike existing joint funding schemes, such as LINK, the topic should not be part of the programme supported by the industrial funding, but should be related research in which the aim should be to carry it forward to the stage at which it becomes accessible for exploitation.
  The unique feature of that approach is that the conventional peer review system will not be used. Instead, we shall take industry's recognition of the researcher as an indicator of his or her quality and commitment, although, of course, the researcher's proposals will need to be properly refereed, monitored and evaluated.
  In a parallel move on the postgraduate training front, I plan to drive some of the collaborative awards in science and engineering—the CASE awards—from the industrial end, so that the studentships are available to firms that have demonstrated their ability to provide the right environment for postgraduate training. There will be at least 100 additional awards to industry, giving industry the opportunity to select its own academic partner and topic. That is an important innovation. We see the need for training to respond to the needs of all potential employers.
  Continuing the theme of interaction with industry, an additional £2 million is being provided to complement funds already set aside by the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to launch an innovative manufacturing programme which will also engage the research community of the Economic and Social Research Council. I expect to expand that programme next year to the biotechnology sector through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and perhaps later to other councils.
  Priority in the distribution of research funds is being given to areas identified by industry as being of strategic importance. For example, I shall be putting extra funds into the human and animal genome programmes and
  900
  immunology, £3·4 million, and chemistry, £4·5 million. In all cases, the selection of general research areas will take careful account of the long-term interests of the users.
  Mr. Dalyell: I think that members of the Civil Service attended the recent conference in Cambridge on rare breeds of cattle and biodiversity. Is the Minister's Department involved in that important work, because not only the human genome project is important, but the animal genome and the botanical genome projects are potentially important?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I shall consult the chief scientific adviser, whose own field lies in this area, about that. I am sure that the Department is in touch with that. I hope that I shall not offend any of the other powerful centres around the country if I say that Cambridge is becoming not only a European but a world centre in that work.
  I have said before that people are the single most important element in our research effort. I am therefore delighted to announce funds for some 40 additional Royal Society research fellowships. Those are prestigious five-year research fellowships, at a generous stipend, aimed at giving security to our best researchers.
  I have also allocated funds to expand the Royal Academy of Engineering programme of visiting industrial professorships to boost the design component of engineering undergraduate courses, and to make a start to their new professional development scheme based on modular part-time courses.
  Those new initiatives represent an important start to the process of re-orientating the research councils towards the aims and policies set out in the White Paper. Over the next six months or so, the director general will be examining the research council programme in great depth, including the arrangements that will need to be put in place to take forward the emerging results of our technology foresight programme.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: What are the total funds involved in those initiatives? Will that be new money, or will it come from the existing science budget?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I said that, of the total of about £15·5 million, about half has been found by the director general through efficiency savings, and about half is new, additional money to the science base. All of it is new money for science.
  The White Paper "Realising our Potential" also announced our intention to undertake a scrutiny of public sector research establishments to review their future status, sector by sector—looking in depth at privatisation, rationalisation and different options for ownership.
  As I informed the House in a written answer on 16 June 1993, that scrutiny is being conducted by a team from the efficiency unit of the Office of Public Service and Science. Members are drawn from other Government Departments and the private sector. The team started work on 13 December and will make recommendations to Sir Peter Levene, the Prime Minister's efficiency adviser, by the end of April 1994. Sir Peter will submit a report to me. It is normal for efficiency unit reports to be published.
  The team's terms of reference are to examine research establishments sector by sector, to identify those where privatisation is feasible and desirable. Where that is not the case, it will identify and make recommendations on the potential for rationalisation of facilities and capabilities.

  901
  The scrutiny will also examine current ownership and financing arrangements, and will recommend alternative models where that would lead to more effective operation of the customer-contractor principle and better value for money.
  It is essential that Britain does not waste resources on out-of-date structures, when it is vital for our future that our output of good science is increased. I look forward to receiving the scrutiny report.
  This debate heralds a new chapter in a genuine and enduring British success story. I do not want to look back in time, but rather to focus on a key element of the Government's approach to the challenge that lies before us, as this country strives to compete ever more effectively in the high-tech world in which we live. I want briefly to set in its historical context the reasoning behind the changes the Government are making to the research council system.
  The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research —the DSIR—and the University Grants Committee were established in 1915 and 1919 respectively, as a way of channelling Government funds into important activities that the Government had no wish directly to control. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) may recall, the University Grants Committee was established primarily to stop Lloyd-George diverting all the funds to the University College of Wales.
  That arm's-length principle was also embodied in the Haldane recommendations of 1918, which represent the real foundation of our science research system. Haldane's recommendations set out the principles that governed the operation of our first research councils—the Medical Research Council, founded in 1920, and the original Agricultural Research Council, founded in 1931. Both councils, Haldane's principles and the research system that stemmed from them are all alive and well today. Government, then as now, held the purse strings—but those with central policy responsibilities, then as now, do not tell scientists which projects to undertake.
  The same governing principles continued to apply when, following the Trend report of 1963, three more research councils came into being as a result of the Science and Technology Act 1965. The DSIR ceased to exist and the two historic councils—the ARC and MRC—joined three new councils in a new structure, reporting then to the Secretary of State for Education and Science rather than to Privy Council committees. That five-council system has also generally served us well, for the best part of 30 years.
  If there is a criticism of the reform of the research council system that occurred in the 1960s, it is that it entailed too much administrative tidying up, and too little strategic direction. Science was joined with education in an academic camp, and technology was given its own separate Ministry. Overall strategic thinking arguably moved the wrong way.
  The unfortunate result was a widening of the gap between science and technology, when the opposite was needed. The strategies set out in the Government's 1993 White Paper shifted the direction, to minimise that gap.
  In correcting that imbalance, however, the Government have taken care not to overthrow a research council system that has functioned well for many years. To make a clean break with such a distinguished past would have been an unnecessary gamble. Rather, the Government are set on a
  902
  path of evolution, building on past successes, in the light of a clear emphasis on the economic and technological partnership between industry and academia, without threatening the excellence of the research itself.
  Today, the Government seek the House's approval for draft Orders in Council which declare three new bodies to be research councils for the purposes of the Science and Technology Act 1965. They are: the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council—BBSRC; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council—EPSRC; and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC.
  The White Paper announced the intention to create the three new councils from 1 April this year. The orders would, from 1 April, bring the new Councils within the scope of the primary legislation that governs the United Kingdom's research councils; most importantly, the orders will give me power to fund the new councils.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I am very much encouraged by what my right hon. Friend has been saying. I think that this is good for the research councils, but I hope that the boundaries are not fixed for ever. I hope that the overlap will be considered realistically, bearing in mind the fact that biotechnology and chemistry could be subdivided into two or three parts. That would not be healthy for either industry.
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. Part of the purpose of appointing a director general for research councils is to go some way towards the recommendation of the Morris committee and the House of Lords Select Committee, which argued for a single research council, to avoid the problem of having boundaries.
  I came to the conclusion that such a huge structure would end up being more bureaucratic than the single-tier research councils. However, with a director general specifically charged to oversee the boundaries and to ensure that anything that may lie across them or outside the current categories does not escape, we shall address the extremely important problem that my hon. Friend rightly raises.
  The new councils were incorporated by royal charter on 16 December. The object of each charter makes explicit the obligations on each council to work to meet the needs of the users of its research and training outputs, and to contribute to the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom and—this is new—the work for the public understanding of science, in line with the mission statements set out in the White Paper.
  It is fair that, in cases in which there are large research grants—not in every case—there should be some obligation on those who are receiving public money to demonstrate if possible the importance of what they are doing to the wider community who are paying for it.
  Sir Dudley Smith:As my right hon. Friend knows, I have a long-standing interest in the pharmaceutical industry. It is perhaps an industry which, more than any other, through such co-operation can be got across to the public, because of the eventual outcome of new medicines and new lifesaving devices. From what my right hon. Friend has said today, it seems that, although the research council has worked well in the past, there is a better opportunity for further co-operation in that respect.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest and expertise in these matters. I believe that the strong support that we have received from what is, after all, one of Britain's most powerful and successful industries is a sign that we are on the right lines. We have received support and detailed co-operation from the pharmaceutical and chemical industries in this country in the work that we have been doing and are continuing to do.
  The clearly defined objects, which are set out in the mission statements which lie before the House and which are reproduced in the schedule to each draft order, give us, for the first time, a clear yardstick against which to measure the overall performance of the research councils, and the degree to which they have introduced appropriate structures and mechanisms to deliver what we are asking of them. That is not empty managerial jargon. The objects articulate clear national purposes.
  The councils also throw out a challenge to industry. A partnership clearly needs wholehearted commitment from all the partners; the recent excellent report of the House of Lords Select Committee—which welcomed the broad thrust of what we have done—made the fair point that it is now up to industry to respond if the system is to work properly.
  Dr. Bray: The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised that the objectives identified in the schedules represent operational guidance for the research councils. Why do they differ from the mission statements in the White Paper?
  Mr. Waldegrave: They differ because we have engaged in further consultation, which I would expect the hon. Gentleman to welcome. The principle on which I have been operating is that, unless we work broadly with the grain of what the scientific and engineering communities want, we will not achieve the success that we want.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House would probably agree that we need more from industry than the warm words with which it has greeted the White Paper and the direction of our policy. I am gratified by the piles of responses from leading industrialists and academics, from which I am able to quote; but if the potential is to be genuinely achieved, we need investment, partnership and a more long-term view. The achievements of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries must be matched with those of a wider section of industrial life.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Is the right hon. Gentleman as concerned as I was to learn that the British Technology Group—which handles one third of the patents resulting from university research—receives 85 per cent. of its income from licences from foreign companies? It says that the British industry is doing nothing to take this up voluntarily. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to make industry take that step more formally? At present it is just a wish, which currently seems to be failing.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The statistic that the hon. Gentleman quoted is rather a good indicator of the direction in which we must move. I do not think that the present position is cause for congratulation. The whole thrust of our policy is to build a partnership which we hope will improve that position.
  It is because this is very much more than a wish that we are building new partnerships, and—after only a few weeks—beginning to redirect the research councils'
  904
  priorities towards forming close working partnerships with industry. It is easy for us to blame industry, but the fault is not all on one side; it also lies with the classic British separation of academia and wealth creation.
  The other day, a distinguished scientist told me that there was nowadays not much point in talking about C. P. Snow's "two cultures", arts and sciences. The real cultural division is now between the academic sciences and the sciences connected with manufacture and wealth creation. We now need to reverse what I have described as the division between science and technology, which was somewhat widened by the instutitional structures established in the 1960s. That is an all-party point; I am not being party political.
  We used to talk of technology transfer as though it were a linear process, but it is not like that: progress and co-operation must be much more intimately linked, and that is what we are endeavouring to achieve. Along with my colleagues in other Departments, I find that our partners in industry are co-operating wholeheartedly to make the partnerships real; and the new initiatives that I announced earlier are a concrete step towards that end.
  There is, however, another side to the coin. Industry does not want Government-funded research to gear itself up simply to meet short-term needs. One of the best ways of protecting long-term research is to gain support from the best and most far-sighted industries. We must sustain our traditional excellence and innovativeness in the core disciplines of biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics. One of the additional amounts that Sir John Cadogan has managed to find is intended to finance the not immediately applied subject of stochastic mathematics.
  I should make it clear that the objects of all the councils also reflect the White Paper mission statements in requiring each council to support basic as well as strategic and applied research, with a strong emphasis on quality. I make no apology for stressing that emphasis again. We must have top-quality research; supporting second-rate research is completely wasteful. In this area above all, we must have the courage to close things down when they lose their quality, and to shift money back to excellence.
  Mr. Dalyell: On the topic of closing down, may I ask the Chancellor about JET? What is happening in the dispute between personnel paid United Kingdom rates and those paid EC rates?
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is the responsibility not of my Department but of the European Community, which has been negotiating with the staff on those matters. My Department has not been directly involved. It is for the Commissioner and JET to negotiate directly.
  Mr. Mike Hall: Will the Chancellor comment on the future of the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories? I am worried that Daresbury, the leader in the world of nuclear physics, will close down, and I hope that the Chancellor will reassure me this afternoon that that excellent facility in my constituency has a future under the new arrangements that he has announced to the House today.
  Mr. Waldegrave: Because of the change in the structure of SERC, the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories need new structures, which are now being considered. In the meantime, those laboratories are being managed as a unity, which is sensible. An option for the

  905
  future is that they become a unified research facility, which could be at the service of research universities and the country as a whole. Some universities are interested in managing them. A number of options are being considered.
  The hon. Gentleman, who is assiduous on behalf of his constituents and the nation concerning that important facility, will know that decisions must be taken in due course about new facilities for synchrotron radiation at Daresbury. Those decisions have not yet been made but the important facilities that remain at Daresbury will be approaching the end of their life in the next decade, and we must decide what will follow.
  Under the Research Council restructuring, two of the five existing councils—the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council—will cease to exist in their present form from 1 April. There are pragmatic as well as strategic reasons for that. In its present form, SERC receives about half of the total funds allocated under the science budget and simply has too great a span of research.
  The majority of SERC's portfolio will therefore be divided between the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. That split builds on the logic of SERC's own recent reorganisation of its internal board structure.
  The EPSRC will support research in chemistry, mathematics, physics and engineering, and will develop close links with the industries underpinned by the physical sciences and engineering. That council will have an especially prominent role in developing partnerships between scientists and engineers, and industrial and commercial users of research, building on the good work already done by SERC in that area. I pay a warm tribute to the work undertaken by Sir Mark Richmond, the last head of SERC in its old form.
  The PPARC will fund research and post-graduate training in particle physics and astronomy. That council will, almost exclusively, support basic research, although it too will have a responsibility to consider its potential contribution to wealth creation, particularly in high quality engineering. The quality of the engineering in many of those great facilities is extremely high.
  Important developments are taking place in those sciences. Since the American abdication from the superconducting collider, the European Particle Physics Laboratory, CERN, now stands as the pre-eminent world resource in that area. Decisions must soon be taken about the next generation of particle accelerator, known as the large hadron collider. The creation of PPARC within the research council system will provide a clear focus for consideration of the United Kingdom's approach to such large programmes.
  A new council is being created to recognise the increasing importance of research in the life sciences. That council is the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The BBSRC will, to a significant extent, combine the current work in biology and biotechnology of the AFRC and the SERC. It will also develop close links with biologically based industries, in line with its mission statement.
  The creation of a dedicated council for these areas of research will make sure that we have the capacity to respond quickly to the many opportunities arising in the
  906
  life sciences. It will help us to build on the considerable achievements of United Kingdom researchers in these fields—supporting, for example, the development of disease-resistant crops, or the formulation of new pharmaceutical products.
  The three new councils will join the Medical Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council, all of which now have revised charters conforming in all respects to the model of the new councils.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: This is a technical and complex arrangement. What are the special responsibilities of the Director General of the Research Councils, and how do they fit in with those of the chief scientific adviser?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The director general advises me on the distribution of money to the research councils and on the matter—one that my hon. Friend and I discussed in the Chamber earlier today—of keeping an eye on the boundaries and ensuring proper flexibility and cooperation in the work of the councils. The chief scientific adviser has much wider responsibilities, running across the whole of government. He is, of course, the Prime Minister's chief adviser—not mine, although he works in my Department.
  The troika of senior people at the head of my Department—the permanent secretary, Mr. Richard Mottram, the chief scientific adviser and the director general—work together to co-ordinate and provide a sense of direction in the Government's entire science and technology effort.
  The revised charters conform to the new model, in a system where each council has a clear focus to meet the needs of the users of its research—a system that will continue to support basic as well as strategic and applied research but will help to ensure that relevance to the country's needs, alongside excellence, is a clear criterion in selecting research proposals for support; and a system committing the councils to promotion of and support for related post-graduate training.
  There will be some other significant adjustments in the new system. The Natural Environment Research Council will take over from SERC responsibility for research in earth observation, atmospheric chemistry and science-based archaeology. The Economic and Social Research Council will take the lead in setting up and running a joint committee on the management of innovation, which will have the active participation of all the other councils. In making these changes, I have followed the advice, above all, of Sir David Phillips, the retiring chiarman of ABRC and one of the finest of our post-war public servants in the administration of science.
  From 1 April, all councils will have a part-time chairman, selected with a view to securing representation for research users and to bringing in relevant industrial or commercial experience. I am pleased to say that we have very good people for these roles.
  Sir David Plastow of Inchcape plc will continue as chairman of the Medical Research Council, and Sir Alistair Grant of the Argyll group, who is the current chairman of AFRC, will become the BBSRC's first part-time chairman. Mr. Robert Malpas of the Cookson group took up the chairmanship of the Natural Environment Research Council last year. AT EPSRC we shall have British

  907
  Telecom's Dr. Alan Rudge, and at PPARC Dr. Peter Williams of Oxford Instruments. I shall announce the part-time chairman of ESRC shortly.
  It is very encouraging for the future of science and engineering in this country that such a strong team of top-flight people from industry and commerce is in place and that our leading science-based firms have shown themselves willing to support the new system in this most important respect.
  We are also assembling a very powerful team of chief executives. Sir Dai Rees FRS carries on at MRC. Professor Tom Blundell FRS will move from AFRC to BBSRC. Vacant posts are being tilled through open competition. Professor John Krebs FRS will be chief executive of NERC from 1 April, and in the case of PPARC we have Professor Ken Pounds FRS.
  The White Paper on science and technology has been widely welcomed in the scientific and industrial communities. At lunch time today we heard from Lord Flowers a generous tribute to that document. We took a strategic look at what scientific research and post-graduate training should be funded, and we have resolved to build on existing strengths to create a closer and more systematic partnership between the science and engineering base and industry and commerce.
  The creation of the new research councils is a key step in that process. Accordingly, I commend to the House the draft orders, which enable the next building blocks of our strategy to be put in place.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I begin with the admission that prior to the debate I had not heard of Megalab UK, but I had the good fortune to be given the Cabinet Office handout. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who never knowingly understates his exploits, described it in a byline as "the biggest experiment in the world". Underneath were the words, "The search for the mass experiment". Unfortunately, in the course of his long speech, he did not tell us what it was and the mind boggles as to what he was thinking of. Perhaps it is a lie detector for the Scott inquiry, perhaps the manufacture of a bullet-proof vest for the Prime Minister, which would certainly come in useful, or even the discovery of a definition of "back to basics". Perhaps what the right hon. Gentleman really had in mind when he used the words "mass experiment" is something that we all want—a general election as soon as possible.
  I can at least share the right hon. Gentleman's surprise that we are debating three relatively non-controversial orders on the Floor of the House at peak time for three and a half hours. I agree that there are apparently no limits to the perversities of business management in this place. However, we have the unaccustomed opportunity to debate what we all agree is a key issue for the future of this country but which is rarely given the political attention that it deserves. I refer, of course, to the role of research in Britain's science base. In that context, let me say immediately that we would not wish to dispute the principle of the establishment of the three research councils, but some questions still need to be answered. Although I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he answered them.
  First, the Science and Engineering Research Council has been split into the Engineering and Physical Sciences
  908
  Research Council and PPARC, or the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council because, in the past, currency fluctuations affecting foreign commitments of the latter side, such as those involving CERN or the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, have severely squeezed the budget of the former side. Now that the split has been made, how will the PPARC budget be guaranteed against excessive fluctuations in sterling? Two years ago, Ministers had a ready answer and said that the problem would be cured by the exchange rate mechanism, but that fell apart.
  Secondly, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council is to replace the Agriculture and Food Research Council. The new emphasis on biotechnology, genetics and other abstract theories sounds fine but the AFRC has historically had a mission to support farming efficiency and food safety. How can we be sure that those important roles will be protected in the priorities of the new organisation?
  Thirdly, there is what I may perhaps refer to as the missing research council, the dog that did not bark in the night, or the one that the Government are not creating—the humanities research council. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that there is some support for that view from Conservative Members. Why has the right hon. Gentleman ignored the advice of the Economic and Social Research Council and the British Academy which conducted a joint study of the problem, chaired by Sir Brian Follett who is the vice-chancellor of Warwick university? As the House knows, the study concluded that a group was needed to protect research in humanities in British universities. I think that I am right in saying that the academy has been forced to establish its own pretend group, so why has the right hon. Gentleman omitted to set up one? Is it perhaps because it does not fit in with the Government's well-known economic market prejudices? If there is some other reason, we should like to know.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who has left the Chamber, mentioned the important subject of the role and accountability of the Director General of the Research Councils, Sir John Cadogan. He has been in post for a month only. It is still not clear what right he has to tell organisations with their own royal charters what to do. What will be his relationship with the heads of the research councils and with the chief scientific adviser at the Office of Science and Technology? The right hon. Gentleman was asked that question. He gave a smooth answer which, I think, conceals a problem of considerable overlap and potential tension, but we shall see what happens.
  We know that Sir John Cadogan will not be the accounting officer for the science budget. He will not be the line manager for the heads of the research councils, but he will have, as was said, direct access to the right hon. Gentleman and he will not have to pass his advice on the science budget through the chief scientific adviser. Even so, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology was worried that he still might not be able to command sufficient authority; the right hon. Gentleman did not mention that. It suggested, therefore, that he should be given the right to publish his advice to the right hon. Gentleman—I wonder what he feels about that—and the right himself to dispose of a slice of the science budget, perhaps 1 or 2 per cent. or something of that order, and
  "to touch the tiller of the science base in ways which could make an important difference over a number of years"

  909
  —to use the Committee's phrase. That is an important proposal and we should like to know the Government's response to it.
  In contrast, the Opposition argue that to entrench the director general's authority in that way could risk vesting too much control in OST or the Office of Public Service and Science when at the same time there was not enough control over other Departments' research and development. That is already a sector in which the discrepancy produces perverse effects on the overall output of Government research.
  The right hon. Gentleman likes to tell us—he did so again today—that OST spending on the research councils is to be maintained, and in some ways increased, during the next two years. What he does not tell us is that the spending on research by other Departments will decrease for the second year in succession. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for example, has already announced a 6 per cent. cut in its research budget and other Departments are announcing reductions. If we consider the situation overall during the next three years, the Government will cut their spending on science by more than £400 million.
  According to the latest issue of their "Annual Review of Government-funded Research and Development" in 1993, the Government spent £5·6 billion on science in 1991. By 1995, that will have decreased to £5·2 billion. Contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's assurances, or in addition to those assurances about protecting his own research council budgets, it is one of the great tragedies of the recession that Government Departments have responded to the general call for spending cuts by targeting their research budgets. In spite of all the fine words in the White Paper, the Government, when it comes to the economic pinch, do not believe in investing in research.
  The annual review also shows that, of the G7 leading industrial countries, only Britain and Germany cut their research in 1991. As a percentage of gross domestic product, Britain spent 2·19 per cent. on research in 1990 and only 2·08 per cent. in 1991, which is the latest year for which we have the figures.
  I am fully aware that the Government argue that they spend on R and D an amount that is comparable with the amounts spent by other members of the G7 overall, but that is because the United Kingdom's figure is inflated by unduly high military R and D expenditure. If one combines the comparison to civil research and development—that is basically what we are discussing today—Britain spends little more than half what Germany and France spend. That telling statistic is mapped clearly in that excellent report.
  As for civil R and D—I am now referring to the dual support system—Britain's research council budgets have to be substantially supplemented by the higher education funding councils, and it is precisely there that the resource switch into teaching caused by the pressures of student numbers and cuts in Government funding has put the greatest squeeze on research budgets. That is the development that has had the sharpest impact on university research. Moreover, the Government also plan to shed thousands of scientific staff over the next few years. By 1995 the number of people employed by the Government in research is forecast to fall by about 6,00—16 per cent.
  910
  That is not the only source of insecurity among the scientific community. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned again today that the future of up to 30 research council institutes was being sketched out by a panel of so-called efficiency experts who had been sent around the country looking for candidates for privatisation—or, as we learnt today, if not privatisation, then contractorisation or some other model. The right hon. Gentleman asked: can we afford to have the wrong structures? I ask: can we afford to have the constant undermining of professional morale involved in uprooting the institutes for such purposes?
  There is also a real fear in the scientific community that long-term research, and research that is not commercially profitable, will gradually be phased out. I know that that is a sensitive area and that the Government deny the possibility, but one must ask what is meant by a switch towards wealth creation. What exactly are the Government trying to achieve? Fears are generated by such language. One might conclude that that atmosphere is hardly likely to be conducive to the right hon. Gentleman's admirable desire for a partnership, which we would endorse, between science, the Government and industry.
  Indeed, that whole idea was roundly attacked by the House of Lords Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was somewhat selective in his references to its report. Yes, much of the White Paper is applauded in it, but there is much criticism, too. In this case, the ground was that Britain's traditional scientific strengths could be undermined. Those are not my words but those of the House of Lords Select Committee, which said that the right hon. Gentleman's "predilection for wealth creation"—
  Mr. Waldegrave: The words that the hon. Gentleman has quoted are not those of the Select Committee but come from the account in the New Scientist. I had a word with Lord Flowers at lunch, and he authorised me to say that the account in Nature is much more accurate in that matter than the account in the New Scientist.
  Mr. Meacher: I am glad to hear that, but I am not entirely satisfied. We would still like to know exactly what is meant by the right hon. Gentleman's predilection for wealth creation. In what precise ways does he expect to change the direction and funding of research budgets? Exactly how will that affect what happens on the ground? There is a certain mysticism about the idea, and that is a source of considerable concern.
  The Lords Select Committee says that if universities and research councils are forced to spend more of their scarce funds on research for industry, in the long term that would be bad for science, and bad for industry too. The Committee insists, rightly, that the needs of user communities should be interpreted in the broadest fashion. The whole idea should not be confined to the short-term need for answers to specific questions. If companies want that, they can perfectly well get it for themselves, from their own laboratories, or they can pay for it if they need to use the science base.
  The Select Committee continues—I quote this passage because I agree with it—[Laughter.] Let me put that another way. The passage expresses a view which I share, which I am glad to see strongly and eloquently expressed by the Lords Select Committee:
  "The priorities for the Science Base ought to be longer-term needs".

  911
  It is precisely that feeling that causes ripples of uncertainty when we hear phrases such as "wealth creation". Is that really a longer-term need, or will it be translated in a very different way? The report says that the priorities should be
  "longer-term needs, for a resource of fundamental knowledge and a source of researchers trained to international standards."
  That is absolutely right.
  Indeed, there must be real concern about whether basic and fundamental research in mathematics, physics and chemistry is being put at risk by the shift towards wealth creation. Such research is also threatened by another change that the Government are making, to which the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North referred—the abolition of the Science and Engineering Research Council. One of that body's predecessor's functions was to fund research that fell in the gaps between other councils. That responsibility will cease to exist when SERC is wound up in April. Some researchers can then expect to find that no council will fund their worthwhile research. That is the risk.
  The Minister's view is that the director general will be concerned with flexibility and with filling gaps. We shall have to see, but there certainly is a problem. I suppose that the Minister may reply that if such work falls outside the new overview—I believe that he prefers that terminology to the word "strategy"—it has no place in his national framework. However, any suggestion of a top-down approach is widely seen as running counter to the essence of scientific research, which depends heavily on the enthusiasm and inspiration of individuals.
  The Lords Select Committee was well aware of that, saying:
  "If the Government's new strategy for the Science Base is so directive that it leaves no space for a keen young scientist with a new idea, then it will defeat its own object, by starving the Science Base at its roots."
  The right hon. Gentleman seems to be nodding; how far is he really aware of that danger? How far does he intend to press the strategic emphasis on wealth creation? That is probably the single most important question that we want answered in the debate.
  The uncertainty, and the reason why we are so concerned about it, is illustrated by the technology foresight programme. The Minister is right to say that the OST may see that as a long-term affair, with programmes looking up to 15 years ahead, and only loosely connected with current spending plans. However, the Department of Trade and Industry sees it in a different light, as directing funding for research in the near future. That is a serious problem, because the right hon. Gentleman has failed to win over his ministerial colleagues to an agreed Government strategy. He continues to influence science only via OST funding, with no remit whatever over other departmental expenditure. The Department of Trade and Industry has just announced that it is to scrap the post of chief scientist, without the chief scientific adviser in the OST being given any authority over the science spending plans of other Departments, such as the DTI. So much for the Government's commitment to science. The interdepartmental confusion of objectives is a major serious flaw in their strategy.
  There is at least one good thing to be said for the right hon. Gentleman's latest plans—I am sure that he will be relieved to hear me say that. At least he is now backing away from his daft idea of reducing the number of PhDs, by insisting that all postgraduate students must take a master's degree first. He should be far more concerned about the lack of a proper academic career structure,
  912
  because nearly half of the United Kingdom academic research scientists are now on short-term contracts running for less than three years. When those contracts run out, often they cannot get further jobs, and they leave research altogether.
  The science base of the country is, as we all agree, an absolutely key national resource. It is also one which, sadly, has declined and has not been nurtured to the extent that it deserves. I think that I am right in saying that, in the 1950s, King's college, Cambridge displayed more Nobel prize winners than the whole of France.
  Mr. Waldegrave: It was not King's college.
  Mr. Meacher: It may have been King's or it may have been another university. I readily accept that the right hon. Gentleman has more knowledge than me on that matter. One Cambridge college had more Nobel prize winners than the whole country of one of our major industrial competitors. Virtually no Nobel prizes have been awarded to British scientists working in Britain since 1978. That is a clear mark of our decline and it is matched by the plummeting of the United Kingdom in the science citation index in the 1980s.
  The orders may well set out a new structure for the research councils, but I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Waldegrave: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I suppose so.
  Mr. Waldegrave: Have not we plummeted from second place to second place in the citation index?
  Mr. Meacher: It is well below second place, but I shall check on that. Whereas we were only just behind the United States, we have now fallen a long way behind. I believe that we have been overtaken by other countries. The right hon. Gentleman is far from producing a convincing strategy which will reverse that sharp decline and, until that science base is strengthened, the future of our manufacturing industry and the standard of living of our people will not be securely underpinned.
  4.51 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: I welcome the motions, although I am rather saddened that there is not a larger attendance to debate matters affecting science, technology, innovation and the entire creative output of British industry. I am saddened even further that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now departs. There are six members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology present and I shall therefore be brief in the hope that all of them will be able to present their views.
  I welcome the creation of the new research councils. I also welcome what the Chancellor said about funding. Even if the decisions taken in November implied that there might be a modest increase in funding for science, the announcement is virtually in line with inflation and maintains the status quo. That is not unreasonable in such difficult times.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it is a little sad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor saw fit not to publish the distribution of the money between the research councils before the debate or to make them known during the debate. If he had done so, that would have allowed us to discuss how the distribution of the

  913
  funding would affect the three councils that we are discussing and the others in the group. However, that is a matter of small import against the long-term importance of what is being debated today.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) raised a number of queries as to whether the council will have a significant long-term and stable interest in the science sector and the innovative technology that must be drawn out of the science base. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will know that it is essential in financing, whether of the councils or of the science base as a whole, that we arrange to have a stable cash flow. That cash may increase, but if we are to maintain the necessary rhythm of science development in each of the sectors covered by the councils, to begin decreasing the expenditure that is fed to those councils in their new form would cause difficulties.
  The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council is the core issue on which I wish to spend most of my time. As Sir William Barlow of the Royal Academy of Engineering says:
  "Of the new councils the ESPRC, as reflected in its mission statement, probably has the most important role."
  I endorse that because we have been looking for a way to isolate such research from our major competitors and from those from whom it currently requires a transfusion of scientific endeavour, but also at least to give the council a remit that is related to the basic requirements of manufacturing. In that case, the Royal Academy of Engineering is right to regard it as the most important council and that is no doubt why Sir William Barlow also says:
  "We warmly welcome the establishment of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. We hope that this will reinforce the importance of engineering in industrial wealth creation."
  That is one of the themes that has engaged the Select Committee on Science and Technology during its current research. There should be a requirement to ensure that in Britain there is not only a deep and clear commitment to scientific endeavour that has the possibility of lifting our industrial base and of lifting the industrial culture but a recognition of engineering and the development of engineering as crucial elements that affect out competitiveness and success as an economic nation and the success of our academic institutions as a source of excellence. In that cause, I believe that the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council will play an important role and I hope that we see that developed soon.
  One of the objects of the council, set out in the order, is that it has
  "to provide advice, disseminate knowledge, and promote public understanding in the fields of engineering and the physical sciences."
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Director General of the Research Councils, when he is fully acquanted with his new remit, will consider the dissemination of knowledge among British industry as a crucial issue. That was patently exposed when examining witnesses in Committee. It contrasts massively with the knowledge, integration and acceptance of innovation in the other economies against which we are able to meassure ourselves, albeit in a peripheral sense.
  In Germany, right down to small and medium-size enterprises, the knowledge of, the need for, and the ability
  914
  to inform and develop, innovation is widespread. It is equally true in Japan, although our own research did not show many such enterprises there. However, we know that all Japanese industry is widely aware of what technology means and how to get it, to use it and to profit by it.
  In Britain there is a growing gap. If we are to improve the importance of our manufacturing and our manufacturing base, and if the objects of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council are to be fully met, we must find ways in which to stimulate the spread of information on technology and innovation among small companies. Our economy will return to growth through the seedcorn of small companies—such as those in the science parks of Cambridge—that are willing to innovate and, in many cases, have ideas how they can achieve it, but perhaps lack contact with the engineering that would enable them to succeed, and through funding. We should not rely on massive investments made by the GECs of this world.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main problems that our small and medium-sized enterprises face, especially those in Cambridge, is not so much their contact with the science base, but their difficulty in getting funds for their research and development efforts?
  Sir Giles Shaw: The hon. Lady is quite right, that was the case. To rely on the clearing banks in their wisdom is insufficient to ensure that many smaller companies succeed in the competitive world in which they endeavour.
  The establishment of the councils is a potent part of the new look that the Office of Science and Technology is giving to the arrangements within which science and, one hopes, innovation and technology can flourish. I welcome the fact that we shall shortly be having the first forward look—as I understand it, in April. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy that another debate should be held on that issue. That will allow us to have the next phase of our discussion on the development of the new OST plans as they unfold.
  We must consider the question of efficiency and the success of the councils in fulfilling the roles that we all hope that they will fulfil. I believe that the efficiency and success of those councils and others will depend on how clearly they are targeted to the national interest. I do not share the concern of the hon. Member for Oldham, West about the importance of defining what they do at this stage, although the hon. Gentleman will certainly have a point if we later find that there is overlap and confusion rather than serious targeting of national effort and resources. We are focusing important national resources in the three separate directions for national ends.
  I trust that—through either the mechanism of the Director General of the Research Councils or the influence of the chief scientific adviser or the Chancellor himself —we can have a clear and long-term range of vision statements that will lead to a proper sense of national priorities. It is that above all that distinguishes the post of Minister for Science in other Governments from the arrangements that we have here. As my right hon. Friend knows, I hope that, in due course, we shall have a fully fledged Minister for Science with the kind of national priorities established—through forward look, technological foresight or whatever—to enable a real relationship to

  915
  be established and between research councils and central Government. We need to identify those priorities and the role of the OST must be such that they can develop.
  I note that paragraph 3.28 at page 33 of the White Paper "Realising our Potential" lists among the director general's responsibilities
  "ensuring that Councils work together to achieve a common approach and take advantage of the possibilities for improved efficiency through joint working".
  I welcome that. I hope that it will mean that the difficulties of overlap and the problems of establishing a co-ordinated and clear set of priorities can be overcome, to enable the councils to be efficient rather than riven with academic bickering or scientific confusion—both of which we can do without with the new look of science and endeavour that my right hon. Friend is introducing.
  It is essential that our research and technological policies should be fashioned by consent—between Government and industry, the main consumers of scientific endeavour; between Government and the academic and scientific establishments; and between the OST and other Departments such as the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence. The hon. Member for Oldham, West was perfectly right to point to the fact that that is an important missing element in the DST's current remit. I hope that it will not be too long before that omission is rectified and before co-ordinated scientific policy and priorities are assumed right across the board —wherever publicly funded national scientific endeavour is taking place.
  The largest potential problems and the largest potential benefits are to be found in research for military purposes. I must acknowledge that much MOD research has massive spin-off into civilian applications and wider applications in British industry. We must also recognise, however, the large number of smaller firms and contractors and sub-contractors within the defence industry, which tend to bear the brunt of reductions when changes in defence planning or substantial reductions in defence needs occur. We must ensure that those high-tech smaller companies have access to civilian opportunities and assistance if necessary to establish themselves in other markets. We must also consider the wider implication of the transfer of technology and research, especially from defence to civil uses. That should be one of the DST's priorities in due course.
  The research councils are essential vehicles for the creation of new wealth, although I accept that they must not be seen as in hock to industrial need. Let us say that wealth creation is essential for economic growth and then say that the councils should become the engines of economic growth. They should provide centres of excellence and quality and should ensure—if they are adequately funded and correctly targeted—that their contribution as a whole improves the lives of all our fellow citizens. The three new councils are now in place. I am sure that the House will wish them well in the new order of things in which research and technology, inspired by the OST' s development and by the Government, will surely be one of the main objectives of public policy for many years ahead.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Those called early in the debate have a duty to be succinct.
  First, I want to ask a question on the subject on which I interrupted the Minister: what is the hitch about the appointment of the chief executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council? Why is that bill so difficult to fill? I understand that a number of distinguished academics have been interviewed, but that the result of the interviews was not satisfactory. So who exactly are the Government looking for? Is it someone different from the kind of heavyweight academic who most of us thought would fill the position of chief executive? There may be a perfectly satisfactory answer to that question, but I put it none the less.
  Secondly, on the subject of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, may I air a problem that greatly concerns my colleagues on the Biological Sciences Advisory Committee of the University of Edinburgh? I refer to the sticky question of work on animals. Twenty or 30 years ago, it was taken as axiomatic that there would be work on animals in school and undergraduate classes. Now there is a different attitude —that the work can be done using computers. At its recent world meeting in Glasgow—my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) was there—the Institute of Physiologists made it very clear that work on instrumentation, however sophisticated, is really no substitute for practice on animals. Are there Government guidelines on that, or is everything so difficult in view of the animal rights lobbies and the general climate of opinion in which we are now operating? I do not know the answer to that question, but it is a nettle that will have to be grasped.
  Finally, on the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, I should like to ask two questions.
  First, what is the attitude to the funding of CERN, the European nuclear research centre? I hope that there will be no drawing back from our international obligations. The closure decisions in California and elsewhere have greatly hurt distinguished American scientists. Some of us hope sincerely that the opportunity will be seized—on terms of dignity and in no way berating them—to say to the Americans, "At this moment the western world has a real opportunity to co-operate on super-colliders. Act with us on an equal basis. That does not refect on science programmes in the United States. Can we not do this important work on particle physics together?" What are the Government saying to the United States Government? Is the matter being urgently tackled?
  I should like to return to the issue of the JET project, on which I interrupted the Minister. There are many responsibilities for JET, but he said, "Well, it was not our Department." In that case, whose Department is it? I should like to put on the record the contents of a letter sent to me by the Prime Minister, dated 1 February 1994. It states:
  "Thank you for your letter of 14 December, in which you asked about the handling of any decision to extend JET after 1996.
  The JET Project is technically a Joint Undertaking under the Euratom treaty. Any extension would require an amendment to the terms of the JET Statutes, and would need to be agreed by the Council of Ministers, probably by qualified majority. This was the procedure followed under previous extensions.

  917
  There has been informal discussion within Europe of the idea of a further extension, but no formal proposal has yet been tabled."
  Do they have a formal proposal in mind? The letter continues:
  "Some people beleive that closure of JET in 1996 would be premature, given that it could continue to do good scientific work on the unresolved problems relating to the operation of JET-style fusion machines, and hence of the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project. Others believe that JET should close in 1996 as planned, so that funding can be made available to other projects. (JET accounts for roughly half of the Commission's current annual spending of about 200 mecu on fusion.)
  So far as the substance of this issue is concerned, we have an open mind on extension, and we are prepared to look at the question on its merits. In considering any proposal, we shall be concerned to ensure that its scientific value is commensurate with the costs involved."
  I passionately believe that JET should continue. I have been to Culham and have been involved in the project ever since, as a Member of the European Parliament, my colleagues and I nagged Guido Bruner, who was then European Commissioner, to send JET to Culham rather than to Ispra or to the Munich region.
  I argue that the prize is high. If fusion can be developed, it will provide energy without undesirable environmental consequences.
  The chances of achieving success are zero if the money is cut off now. The chances are low if funding continues at the present level. There is an argument for extended funding of JET. To combine with the United States Tokamak project, and thereby devote more skills to a common end, is a sensible policy.
  I promised to be brief. Those were the questions that I wanted to put to the House.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I begin by picking up on the remarks that were made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about Culham. Although I do not represent Culham, which is on the other side of the river from my constituency, I represent many of the scientists who work on the JET project.
  The Government should realise that, when JET was set up, a grave injustice was done to British employees. I must say, without wishing to make a party political point, that the Minister responsible for that decision was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
  That injustice has been long standing and it is coming to a head in a combination of industrial action, protests and court cases brought by employees of JET and pressure being applied by the European Parliament through its Budgets Committee. I have had extensive correspondence with Ministers who have responsibility for energy in the Department of Trade and Industry, the lead Ministry. The Government will have to recognise that this problem needs to be sorted out and canot be a pass-the-parcel operation between AEA Technology, the Department of Trade and Industry's energy department, the European Commission and the European Parliament. I gently suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Office of Public Service and Science, with its overall remit for science, has a responsibility in this matter. I hope that it will assume that responsibility.
  918
  I welcome the orders and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on reaching this important stage in the implementation of his vision for science policy. I would like to join him in the thanks that he has extended to Sir David Phillips, who is retiring from Government service and who has acted as the midwife for the new research councils. That is only the last act in a long and distinguished career in the service of Government science. Sir David Phillips is a distinguished scientist and all hon. Members will wish him well as he returns to his academic work.
  I welcome Sir John Cadogan, Sir David Phillips' successor, to his new role as Director General for the Research Councils. He has a hard act to follow after Sir David Phillips' distinguished chairmanship of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.
  I welcome the new structure for the research councils, but I join the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the Opposition spokesman, in regretting the absence of an order to establish a new research council for the humanities. The proposal for such a research council, which was supported by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and, indeed, by me at the OPSS, was not given the serious attention and consideration that it merited by the Department for Education, not least in the light of the strength and weight of the support that the proposal received from the British Academy and from universities. Sir Brian Follett, who comes from outside the humanities community, made a particularly notable contribution to thinking through the proposal for a new humanities research council.
  I know that Ministers in the Department for Education have attempted to make up, in some small measure, for their mistaken rejection of the proposal and I hope that the new arrangements that they have negotiated with the British Academy will help to deal with at least a few of the problems that a humanities research council would have addressed. There are serious implications for good scholars in the humanities in some of the universities, where overall research performance is relatively less impressive and which are losing research funding from the higher education funding councils.
  The moral of this story, as of so many in government, is that Ministers must take the trouble to listen to what is being said to them by serious and informed people who know what they are talking about. It should be obvious to Conservative Ministers that having the power and the right to decide is not always the same thing as knowing best.
  I do not include my right hon. Friend the Minister in my strictures. His remarks today about the arm's-length principle showed that he has a proper sense of these matters. Today, he announced some welcome initiatives and he has explained clearly his philosophy of promoting a greater convergence between academic science and technological applications. All the same, I know that he will not take it amiss if I underline his point that there is value in the decentralised, pluralistic approach that is embodied in the research council tradition, which goes back to the establishment of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research just after the first world war.
  The Science and Technology Act 1965 empowers the Minister to
  "specify the objects, or principal objects"
  of a research council. That power has now been expanded into a ministerial promulgation of mission statements for research councils. At the same time, the independent

  919
  Advisory Board for the Research Councils, which stood between the Minister and research councils, has been abolished and replaced by a ministerial adviser. I hope that those changes will bring about improvements, but my right hon. Friend knows that, for better or for worse, they represent a considerable shift of power to Ministers and officials. Not only the hon. Member for Oldham, West but all hon. Members will look with close interest at the first results of the technology foresight arrangements as they are brought to bear on the exercise of the new powers.
  The Government must remember that a wisdom underlies the limits that the 1965 Act sets on ministerial powers and that it could he at risk in the hands of a less careful and less scrupulous Minister. That wisdom recognises that knowledge is best expanded and increased in conditions of academic self-government and intellectual autonomy.
  There are intrinsic features of academic inquiry connected with the inherent unpredictability of its outcomes which make it peculiarly unsuitable for the close attentions of politicians and planners. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would like to ask the new Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council to carry out some research into how it is possible, by excessive and inappropriate attentions, to kill the geese which lay the golden eggs.
  A crucial aspect of the future of the research councils, which is not dealt with by the orders, concerns the application to them of the currently fashionable Whitehall doctrine—I will not for the moment call it a dogma—which insists on the separation, in as many areas of government work as possible, of purchasers from providers. On the whole, that is a sound doctrine, but, like all doctrines of government, it must always be pursued with discretion and with close attention to consequences.
  One possible consequence of regarding the research councils as purchasers of research, detached from the provision of research—it would be very serious if it came to pass—was explored in the recent House of Lords report on priorities for the science base. Paragraph 4.73 of the report states:
  "The SERC is already funding work conducted in the institutes of other Councils; its successors are now obliged, in Sir Mark's view, to receive applications from Government research laboratories, and other laboratories of a public nature including privatised ones, though probably not from the out-and-out private sector. The DTI favours this development. Sir Mark accepts the consequence that, overall, the universities are bound to get less."
  The conclusion of the House of Lords report, at paragraph 4.86, states:
  "In this climate, it would be the final straw if the Science Base were forced to share the Science Budget with the private or semi-private sector … It might be possible to 'buy' research more cheaply from institutions without the university overheads relating to teaching and research training; but this would be an altogether false economy, and would further undermine the capacity of the Science Base".
  I agree with the House of Lords report on that point, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, will make clear the Government's position on it.
  I should like to say a few words about the Rutherford Appleton laboratory, which is an important constituency interest for me and a vital national and international scientific resource. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know how thoroughly the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General do their work, which is why I am delighted to have the National
  920
  Audit Office's positive report which it has just published on the Rutherford Appleton laboratory. Paragraph 11, one of its overall conclusions, states:
  "The very positive response to the National Audit Office survey demonstrates that to a great extent the facilities and services provided by the Laboratory meet the needs of their users, and that they are highly valued by most users."
  I have come to know the Rutherford Appleton laboratory very well over the past 10 years as its Member of Parliament, and indeed over the previous four years as its Member in the European Parliament. It offers wide coverage of science and engineering matters, such as materials science, earth observation, information technology, energy research, astronomy and particle physics, and supercomputing. According to the Frascati definitions, 30 per cent. of its work is classified as basic, 50 per cent. is applied strategic work and 20 per cent. is applied specific work.
  The laboratory operates world-class facilities supporting university research; it supports about 8,500 users, the majority being researchers from British universities; its staff have won many prizes; and it has close links with the academic community. In 1992, it also had contracts or agreements with 100 industrial companies, most of them involving technology transfer. It is a very significant operation.
  I know that my right hon. Friend is fully alive to the importance of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory and that he is determined to safeguard its future. He showed that in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall). At the moment, the future of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory is slightly uncertain —I put it no higher than that—as a consequence of the abolition of its owner and sponsoring organisation, SERC. As has been said, a wide range of options are being considered for the future of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory, and they are all premised on an acknowledgement of its excellence and its value for money.
  At this stage, I do not wish to press any particular option, but I shall mention three considerations which the Government should bear in mind. First, the Rutherford Appleton laboratory is big enough and strong enough to stand on its own as a supplier of research services to a wide range of users, so I hope that it will be accorded substantial self-management as a unified entity.
  Secondly, the importance of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory as a national and international scientific asset should be reflected in the way in which its users and customers relate to it. The Government have a role to ensure that that occurs. One of the great problems of the purchaser-provider split is that purchasers might turn out to be extremely piecemeal and short term in their thinking. There is evidence that Departments are often in that mode. The Government must address that problem right across the board in relation to the purchaser-provider split.
  The long-term future of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory as a centre of scientific excellence—like that of many other great institutions that are caught up in the new purchaser-provider philosophy—must be safeguarded by the purchasing decisions of its principal users. In that connection, I am not at all impressed by the recent decision of the expiring SERC on the location, not at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory but elsewhere, of important new computer facilities.
  Thirdly, I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of the abolition of the SERC and the

  921
  emergence of a stand-alone Rutherford Appleton laboratory to involve leading research universities more closely in the overall direction of the laboratory. Such arrangements work very well in the United States in relation to significant research laboratories. They would help to ensure that the customers for Rutherford Appleton laboratory, most of them necessarily in universities, are kept closely in touch with the effects of their purchasing decisions on the Rutherford Appleton laboratory as a research provider. There would also be a spin-off benefit of providing a focus for the close collaboration of our leading research universities, which must work hard to strengthen their voice and influence in today's difficult research policy environment.
  The orders set up a range of new bodies whose work might be somewhat esoteric by parliamentary standards —perhaps that is reflected in hon. Members' attendance —but which is crucial for the future well-being of Britain. I am sure that the whole House will wish them and their new members and officials all success in the important and difficult tasks that they face.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Nigel Jones: I declare an interest in ICL computers.
  The Liberal Democrats support the draft orders, although we share the concerns—we would like answers to them—that were expressed clearly by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). For almost 15 years, we have had a Government who, according to Nature of 30 September 1993, have
  "dealt insensitively, even foolishly, with British science, substituting for what previously have been unfounded optimism a general demoralisation."
  One of the reasons I am a Member of this House is that, after spending more than 20 years in the information technology industry, I could see the way in which other countries were catching up with and overtaking Britain in their standards of living.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: As the hon. Member is a regular reader of Nature and has quoted its September edition, he will be aware that, more recently, in the January edition, it comments:
  "The Government's White Paper on science and technology proved … to be a turning point in the country's approach to the organisation of science. It was seen as an exclusive acknowledgement of the practical importance of research in a competitive global economy."
  The Government are possibly doing a little better than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Jones: I have read that article as well as the one from which I quoted. I hope that the White Paper is a turning point in this country's treatment of science.
  As I explained, I am in the House because I was aware that other countries were overtaking Britain. They did that by investing not short term but long term, researching and developing products that would produce tangible results not immediately but in five, 10 or 15 years or even further ahead. If Britain is to survive as a modern industrial nation whose people enjoy a high standard of living, we too must invest, and the research councils have a role in making sure that the research is well targeted.
  Whole swathes of our industry are contracting. The nation must identify some potential winners and invest in
  922
  them now for the wealth that they will create in future. I welcome the orders, because reorganising the research councils along the lines that have been suggested should help to give a sharper focus on areas of potential wealth creation.
  I welcome the Minister's efforts to listen positively to the wishes of people in science. I also welcome the serious way in which he approached this important subject without the usual party bickering that brings us into such disrepute with people outside. The Minister has a monumental task, because his colleagues do not seem to take science and research and development, and especially their funding, as seriously as they should.
  It cannot be stressed often enough that, for the future wealth of the nation, science policy must be high on the Government's agenda. Without properly funded research, even more time will be spent in the House debating—or, perhaps, because of guillotine motions, not debating—further cuts in the social programmes on health, education, the police and social services.
  I do not dispute the objectives of the research councils as outlined in the orders. Who could argue against the promotion and support of high quality basic research, the advancement of knowledge and technology and the promotion of public understanding of science? Such objectives must be right, but I fear that they may turn out to be daydreams in terms of reality and the amount of money that the Government are prepared to commit to the research councils.
  I am also concerned about the Government's overriding emphasis on wealth creation. It is intrinsically right as a goal that scientists should be aware that, without wealth creation, there would be no funds for their work. However, I question the White Paper's overriding statement that research grants should be linked to wealth creation. Are those members of the research community who fail to demonstrate a potential for wealth creation in their field in 1994 to be automatically starved of all resources in 1995? That would not be sensible.
  Will research grant applications be tied to the rigid goals of wealth creation? Is it not the nature of such an area that basic research often needs to be done without a specified profit margin? To back that argument, I call upon a notable scientist, no less a person than the noble Baroness Thatcher, who once said:
  "Transistors were not discovered by the entertainment industry seeking new ways of marketing pop music, but rather by people working on wave mechanics and solid-state physics".
  I fear that the Government may put short-term financial issues before the long-term goal of providing for Britain an adequate research base to maintain and improve our quality of life.
  One of the problems is a lack of understanding by Ministers about the nature of research. Research is necessary not just to produce a more sophisticated television set, which is a wealth-creating achievement: it is also vital to learn about problem solving itself. Many of the skills that are learned in research are those of identifying and better understanding problems—providing basic knowledge to be used in the future. Further, a potential wealth-creating area may be identified, but will there be the resources to make anything of it?
  One key area, regarded by some as likely to have bigger world market potential than information technology and communications combined, is biotechnology. Some hon. Members may have seen Dr. Chris Evans of Chiroscience

  923
  in "The Money Programme" on BBC2 last Sunday bemoaning the fact that Britain was likely to miss the biotechnology revolution because research and venture capital were so difficult to get. I welcome the new research council that will be devoted to biotechnology, and I hope that it will be successful.
  Hon. Members in all parts of the House are seriously concerned about advances in genetic engineering. That is why it is vital for the Government to realise that scientific research is not carried out for its own sake. Once proven, and in certain areas approved by Parliament, it should permeate beyond the remit of the Minister to the Departments of Trade and Industry and of Health, and the Ministry of Agriculture.
  When he commented on the White Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) pinpointed the problem when he said:
  "We have seen no clear leadership; rather it has been a matter of laissez faire, in the sense of 'by default'".
  As all hon. Members know, the reality is that funding could be limitless.
  I am sure that between them the new research councils will find projects worthy of investment that will far outstrip the budget of any of the parties in the House. But there is a shortfall now, and it is damaging Britain's future. That is why, in our autumn Budget submission, the Liberal Democrats proposed an immediate injection of £400 million into science policy and a return to spending of 0·35 per cent. of GDP on the science base, a percentage that the Government sadly let lapse to 0·28 per cent. between 1979 and 1991. We are committed to raising investment over five years to 0·4 per cent. of GDP, which is in line with the percentage invested by Britain's major competitors.
  The Minister announced additional support of £15·5 million. That is welcome, but it is not enough. Although broadly welcoming the White Paper "Realising our Potential", the science community is fed up with Government indecision and time wasting.
  The president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, Sir William Barlow, about whom we have heard and who was present at the lunch today at which the Prime Minister spoke about science, sent a letter to hon. Members this week. In it, he particularly welcomes the establishment of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. However, Sir William states:
  "It is vital that after its separation from Astronomy and Particle Physics and from Biology and Biotechnology it does not simply remain the rump of the SERC. The Council has a new mission and this must be widely recognised and respected".
  William is right, and his letter also states:
  "Following the reorganisation of the Research Councils and the redistribution of responsibilities there should follow a period where they are able to pursue their missions without excessive interference or change".
  As an example of ill-thought-out interference by the Government, I cite the example of physics degrees. David Ko, a lecturer in the department of physics at Oxford university, says that undergraduate degrees do not allow for critical analysis of problems, that that is achieved at postgraduate level. What is the Government's overall strategy for encouraging higher levels of research? Academia is faced with indecision and changing decisions by the Government.
  For a physics degree, a three-year course does not allow a student to develop in-depth skills of research. That means that British graduates are not competitive in Europe where
  924
  the standard degree is to masters level. There is still considerable confusion and uncertainty in our universities about what will happen to physics degrees to bridge that gap. A four-year degree was accepted by the Department of Education, but the White Paper suggests a "three plus one" system.
  It is ludicrous that universities are unable to specify in their prospectuses how long a student is likely to remain at university. It appears that the fourth year is to be funded by the research councils rather than by local authorities. Where will the money come from?
  A report issued in November by the National Commission on Education stated that, since the Government do not intend to provide any more money for the revised research degrees, the number of students taking doctoral courses will inevitably fall. The orders are a help, a step forward, but we must value our scientists in the same way as scientists are valued in Germany, France, Japan, the United States and, increasingly, the Pacific basin.
  I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, he will provide answers to some of the questions that have been raised. I wish him well in the task of persuading his colleagues of the importance of research in Britain. If, as I suspect, he is unable to persuade them to invest more now, it will become just another example of why Britain needs a fresh start, under a new Government.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I welcome the opportunity for the House to debate science, as science debates do not occur as often as many of us would like. Although we are debating the relative narrowness of orders setting up the new research councils, the debate gives some of us the chance to raise wider issues in the House.
  I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the fact that we are meeting to discuss science today on the same day as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee's annual lunch. I am delighted to see the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), in his place for this important debate. He will know the great importance that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister attaches to science and the need for the Government to play a positive part in the stimulation of scientific endeavour in Britain.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised the key bases for our scientific programme for the future: excellence, recognition of the contribution of science to the quality of life in Britain and the development of the prosperity of all this country's people. The framework for all this was created last year in the White Paper "Realising our Potential", and today we are putting another of the building blocks in place in creating the new research councils.
  Hon. Members will be aware that five of the six research councils that will come into effect on 1 April are headquartered in my constituency in Swindon. I am therefore delighted to have the opportunity to make one or two points in the debate on behalf of many of my constituents in the scientific community. They, together with Sir John Cadogan, the new Director General of the Research Councils, whom I warmly welcome as a new arrival to this part of the scientific scene, will play the most vital role in the development of our scientific effort over the next few years.

  925
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) who said that the Government are failing in their long-term vision for science. Everything I have read on the subject in recent weeks and months suggests that, for the first time, the Government are trying to take a long-term view of the importance of science in Britain, and they should be commended for that.
  I have four points to make on particular matters of concern to the scientific community within the research councils in my constituency. The first one may be a small point, but it is important to my constituents. It concerns the uncertainty that remains about the future pension arrangements for staff of the research councils.
  I appreciate that the matter is very much under consideration, but I am sure that the Minister will understand that, as long as there is uncertainty, there is also some fear. I urge him, if he can, to give us some assurance at the end of the debate or, if he cannot, to ensure that staff are made aware of their future pension arrangements at the earliest possible opportunity. I am optimistic that the Minister will be able to say that there will be no detriment and no cause for concern among the staff, but the concern remains, and I hope that he will be able to address himself briefly to it before the end of the debate.
  Secondly, I must mention the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). We are all concerned that, as yet, there is no appointment of a chief executive for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. I would not in any way suggest anything less than the paragon that the Secretary of State said he was looking for, if such a person is to be found, but I would stress that Dr. Alan Rudge, whose appointment I warmly welcome, is not expected to take up his position fully until August this year.
  There is therefore a distinct possibility that, for the first four months of the new research council, there will be neither a part-time chairman nor a full-time chief executive in post. That raises some doubt about the confidence with which the new council can establish its direction and identity. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to give his best endeavours to an early resolution of that important issue.
  Thirdly, I want to comment on the advantages that spring from the reorganisation. I warmly welcome the creation of the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. It is well placed to develop existing programmes, collaboration with industry, the CASE studentships, the teaching company scheme, innovative manufacturing and others. I have no doubt that the new council will carry forward the work of the Science and Engineering Research Council in those and other ways, and that that will be only to the benefit of industry and the scientific community.
  Equally, I recognise the logic of the Natural Environment Research Council taking over responsibility for earth observation from space atmospheric chemistry and science-based archaeology, or carbon dating.
  I am less sure about the prospects for the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. I am concerned that it may find difficulty in sustaining its flexibility of approach to various programmes in the face of certain future difficulties with currency fluctuations as they relate to the subscriptions to CERN and ESA. Those subscriptions are £55 million to CERN and £30 million to
  926
  the European Space Agency. The new research council, taken out of the body of SERC, has a total budget of £180 million, compared with £600 million for SERC.
  While accepting the logic of the case made by my right hon. Friend that SERC had too wide a responsibility for research, I envisage the opposite problem occurring when more than half the budget of the PPARC will be dominated by those two subscriptions over which it has no control, in terms of its ability to achieve efficiencies of scale or any other method of controlling the costs.
  If the Minister says that I am wrong in making that point, I will be delighted to hear him say so, but I fear that he will promise only to double and redouble his efforts with the Treasury in future and ensure that any fluctuations will not be prejudice other programmes under the remit of the PPARC.
  My final point is in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). There is some uncertainty about the future of the laboratories at Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton. Neither needs support from right hon. and hon. Members in terms of the quality and excellence of their contribution to scientific effort in Britain, but they need us to speak up on their behalf in urging my right hon. Friend to ensure that whatever decisions are taken about their future are made soon.
  There is uncertainty and concern among the staff of those two laboratories. If the Government introduce independent status, the staff will want to know that their jobs will be secure, their future will be bright and that the commitment to excellence that has always been achieved in those laboratories in the past will continue.
  I welcome the clear mission statements for each of the research councils—three of which are covered by the orders that we are debating this afternoon—coupled with careful scrutiny of the systems and structures that have been put in place by the research councils until now. I have no doubt that that work will continue.
  I welcome the maintenance of the present staff complement during this period of change. The publication of the White Paper brought further uncertainty. The Minister will remember that, when the White Paper was presented to the House last year, my first question concerned its implications for staff who are my constituents.
  On that occasion, I was given an assurance that there would be no serious implications for staff, and I am delighted to be able to report to the House that that has been the case, and that staff are now aware to which research council they will be moving on 1 April and what their responsibilities will be. I welcome the honouring of that pledge made to me last year.
  The new system of appointing part-time chairmen and full-time chief executives will be helpful. It is quite common in British industry, and it is an experiment well worth trying in the case of the research councils. Subject to the appointment of all those chairmen and chief executives —a point to which I have already referred—I have no doubt that the system will be successful in the future.
  I particularly emphasise the need to preserve the commitment to basic science. I welcome the industry-based procedures that have been outlined today and in the White Paper, but I hope that we will never lose sight of the need for people to be able to mess around in a laboratory and do something that no one else thought possible. That is what I understand by basic science, and I hope that it will

  927
  always have a part to play in Britain's scientific effort. In that respect, I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's earlier remarks.
  I appreciate that questions are raining in on the Minister from every direction during this debate, so he might find it necessary to answer them in some other forum than the House this afternoon, but I would find it helpful to know how he sees the future involvement of the research councils in the technology foresight exercise, which is of considerable importance to our future scientific effort and in which I hope that the research councils will be able to play the fullest part.
  I have not yet said anything about the establishment of the new Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak on that matter on which he is an expert, so I shall simply say that I welcome the sensible combination of the Agricultural and Food Research Council and those elements of SERC involved with biotechnology and biological sciences to produce synergies which must be extremely valuable in future.
  In that respect, I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham that it is right for us to find by every means possible the way forward to promote greater investment in biotechnology in Britain. This could be the latest hovercraft—Britain's latest missed opportunity, if we are not careful. I hope that, as a result of the setting up of the new research council, we shall not miss such opportunities in the future.
  This debate has not involved any particular mention of the Natural Environment Research Council or the Economic and Social Research Council, to whose work in the past 25 years I pay tribute.
  In particular, I want to say thank you to Professor Howard Newby, who has been at the head of the Economic and Social Research Council for the past few years and who will be leaving to become vice chancellor of Southampton university later this year. I declare an interest as one of the first to receive a grant from what was then the Social Sciences Research Council 25 years ago. I have therefore taken an interest in the work of the council ever since, and I wish it and Professor Newby well in the future.
  Lastly, I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon of the new resources which have been made available for a variety of programmes within the scientific sphere and which come partly from efficiency savings. The fact that half the money is from new resources is also to be welcomed. It is important that the emphasis on new programmes should be on industry-led initiatives.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his stewardship of science in the past 21 months. We have made substantial progress in that direction under his leadership, and I have no doubt that, with the establishment of the new research councils on I April, that good work will continue in future.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The stark problem that faces us in Britain is our position vis-a-vis that of other countries. In the most recent year, Japanese industry registered 350,000 patents, one third of the world total, and the United Kingdom only one seventh; yet we know that we are a country of inventive genius because this century we have won 61 Nobel prizes, while Japan has scored just four.
  928
  The international situation in biotechnology has been described by the President of the Board of Trade as sobering, but many feel that it is desperate. The prizes are there. Biotechnology is relatively new and on the verge of an enormous expansion. Since 1980, 54 biotechnology companies have sprouted and they already employ a significant number of people—5,000. It is forecast that, by the year 2000, the world market for biotechnology will be worth between £30 billion and £60 billion a year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) raised one of the most serious problems ahead of us—the perception of the mass of the public. Unfortunately, many people see the spectre of mutant organisms stalking the countryside, a fear which has a good basis, although much of it is irrational. There already exists the mouse which has been specially bred to be sensitive to cancer and the pig, produced in the United States, which was meant to be larger than normal but which suffered from blindness, ulcers and arthritis. Such monsters, which many people consider to be similar to Frankenstein's monster, do exist. We must guard against possible great advances for humankind being held back by that perception.
  My hon. Friend also referred to objections to the use of live animals in research. No substitute, such as computer models, is as good or as reliable for research purposes as a slaughtered animal. But there is a new sensitivity about the way in which we treat animals. We see them not as a mass of unfeeling cells but as sentient creatures. That is an advance in our whole approach to humankind and other species. We cannot deny that. If animals have to be used and if scientists are to win respect, such experiments must be essential.
  Last year we received a report from the other place which greatly added to our knowledge of the subject. It pointed out clearly that regulations within Europe pose a formidable problem which must be addressed. Much of the problem coming from Europe arises from the perception there that this is an unknown aspect of science which will lead us down a path that people greatly fear. We must recognise that.
  However, there are other problems, which cause even greater concern. One is our position vis-a-vis other countries. The best evidence for that was a study conducted last year which compared spending on research by 336 British companies with similar investment by the world's 200 top spenders. The results were alarming. The Edinburgh company that undertook the survey placed only II British firms in the top 200—two fewer than in the previous year. One of them, ICI, was the highest-ranked British company but was placed only 47th—12 down on its record position the previous year.
  The reasons for that are complex. British companies spent on average only 1·6 per cent. of their income on research and development, compared with an average of 4·6 per cent. for the world's top 200 companies. Spending by the 11 British companies in the top 200 averaged just 2·5 per cent., compared with between 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. by everyone else. That situation is worsening.
  The survey's most damning figures demonstrate the generosity of British companies towards their shareholders, which spent on average twice as much on dividends as they did on research and development. Companies in the world's top 200 invest more in a future return on R and D,

  929
  whereas British companies believe that they must pay their shareholders five times more than their international competitors.
  Even the high quality of United Kingdom university research has not been translated into commercial success. Technology transfer is meant to overcome that problem, but central to it are patents for biological inventions. The London stock exchange requires patents before it allows a full company listing and venture capital is usually invested in patented products. Traditionally, scientists at British universities have not applied for patents before publishing their results. They must be urged to act far more commercially and to register patents rapidly. In my constituency, they must get motor bikes going down the M4.
  Industrial sponsorship of university research has improved to some extent as spending per student has fallen. The Government's policy of research funding on the basis of research assessment exercises means that some university research departments are losing out badly. Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester universities are doing well, but others are not.
  Britain is being overtaken by other countries in the struggle to ensure that the glittering prizes of biotechnology will be ours in future. If Britain does not change and act, it will lose the race for those glittering prizes.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Roger Knapman: It seems extraordinary that, when we debate yesterday's interests—such as closing a colliery because it cannot sell its coal, or a shipyard because it cannot sell its ships—the House is crowded and noisy, but when we debate research among tomorrow's generation of industries, on which Britain's wealth and prosperity depend, the House is fairly subdued and not many right hon. and hon. Members are in their places.
  Approving the orders is vital to successful implementation of the reforms set out in last summer's White Paper, which was welcomed in many quarters. In an intervention, I drew attention to a comment made by Nature. Another publication, Laboratory News, remarked:
  "We therefore welcomed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement in his Budget speech that the spending on science will be fully protected next year. Mr. Waldegrave's promise has been kept."
  Sir William Barlow, president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:
  "By creating a research council specifically for engineering and physical sciences it should be possible for the Government to fund the research projects which relate to real markets and will aid the nation's future prosperity."
  The Times Higher Education Supplement carried the headline:
  "Science White Paper is good news."
  Anyone thinking of voting against the orders cannot understand much about the subject.
  The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) thought that Britain would be hobbling into the future with an underfunded science base, yet this afternoon I heard the most extraordinary speech in the seven years since I entered the House. I refer to that by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in which, to my certain knowledge, he did not promise any increased expenditure
  930
  if a Labour Government came to power. There must be great fear among members of Labour's Front Bench about the power and influence of the shadow Chancellor. In those circumstances, if anyone is hobbling into the future, it must be the Labour party rather than the research councils.
  I have the privilege to sit on the Agricultural and Food Research Council, and I greatly welcome the reappointment of Sir Alistair Grant as its part-time chairman. He commands the admiration of all connected with the council —and Professor Tom Blundell's energy and enthusiasm are infectious. I am sure that he will enjoy success at the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, as he did at the AFRC.
  Perhaps it is a good thing—my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) is not in his place—that the AFRC's prestigious premises in Swindon can be used for the new councils, not least because of their reasonable proximity to Swindon railway station's up platform, which is convenient to a number of us from time to time.
  The new council is created by combining the AFRC, with its £110 million science budget, with biotechnology and biological sciences from the SERC, with its £50 million science budget. That must be a sensible and forward-looking policy. I suppose that the new BBSRC is bound to be known before long as the "back to basics" science research council. It has a broad and well-balanced base of fundamental science—from bimolecular science, through genetics and physiology to complex biological and engineering systems. There is no doubt that there are synergies between research projects previously supported by the separate councils.
  The industrial user community of agriculture, food, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology also has a coherence that was not achieved when those interests were the responsibility of separate councils. For example, technologies for non-food users of farm produce will have to be adopted by the chemicals and pharmaceuticals industries to make plastics, fibres and therapeutics. Through the directorates for agriculture, food, and chemicals and pharmaceuticals, the BBSRC will fund research responding to market pull from those industries.
  Following the wealth creation emphasis of last year's science and technology White Paper, the new council will have fresh policies for increasing interaction with industry and other users of research and training. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is not short of questions to answer, I must ask whether it is right and reasonable to expect about half the council's members to be industrial and Government users. Last Sunday's "Money Programme" on BBC2 focused on the many opportunities that business and commerce may now have with regard to such research.
  The BBSR's draft royal charter gives the council responsibility for supporting research and postgraduate training, meeting the needs of users and increasing public understanding of science. In pursuit of that last objective, the council will support a Danish-style consensus conference on plant biotechnology later this year, organised by the Science museum.
  The new council's research and postgraduate training funds will flow in almost equal amounts to universities and its world-famous research institutes. In the temporary absence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I will ask only one question. Is he aware that the council members of the AFRC have expressed concern about the need for adequate representation of the agriculture and

  931
  food industries on the expert panels that are to be set up in line with the technology foresight programme? If my hon. Friend is able to make an announcement on that matter, it would be appreciated.
  I believe that two hon. Members still wish to speak; I have therefore somewhat précised my remarks. I hope that these debates on tomorrow's industries, without which we cannot expect to achieve a good standard of living, will increasingly attract more hon. Members into the Chamber, and that some of the debates on yesterday's industries—even about subsidising stagecoaches—will create a little less noise in future.
  6.10 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I shall start by welcoming these statutory instruments and the new division of responsibility of the research councils, because they will do a great deal to make them more effective. We should perhaps particularly welcome the separation of particle physics from the rest of the science and engineering work, because, undoubtedly, it has often been a drain on resources.
  As the exchange rate of the pound has changed, our international contributions to research have become a great deal more expensive than expected. As particle physics has been a drain on the other science and engineering research work, and therefore damaging, I am pleased to see them separated.
  I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about the lack of overall direction of Government science policy. We must remember that the research councils represent only a small part of Government spending on research.
  It appears that the Chancellor of the Duchy has totally failed to win over his colleagues to the concept of a Government strategy rather than just an Office of Science and Technology strategy. If we compare the £1·2 billion that is spent on the research councils to the £12 billion that is spent by the Ministry of Defence on development and procurement, we can see that it is merely a drop in the great ocean of Government research spending.
  Another alarming feature is the way in which the DTI appears to be continuing to close and merge its laboratories. A number of them have been mentioned this afternoon, but I should like to mention Warren Spring laboratory near Stevenage. I uderstand that there will be an announcement in the next two or three weeks about other laboratories that are either becoming totally independent or being merged with other laboratories.
  The Department of the Environment, too, has closed down laboratories. The closure of the National Rivers Authority laboratory near Peterborough will affect some of the members in my constituency who work there. They appear not to be closed down for any useful or practical reason, but simply because of Treasury cuts, or perhaps an ideological reason that will leave the DTI and the Department of the Environment with few facilities.
  Those cuts will undermine and undervalue the important work that is done by scientists. Certainly, many scientists feel demoralised at present with the way in which the Government are carrying out their fairly ruthless cutting exercise. The scientific world was rather shocked when the DTI decided not to reappoint its chief scientific adviser, following the departure of Geoffrey Robinson, who has returned to his old job at IBM.
  932
  I draw the Chancellor's attention to a course at Cambridge university, in my constituency, that is partly funded by SERC and the Gatsby Foundation. It is an advanced course in design and manufacturing engineering and is run by Professor Colin Andrew. It is achieving a great many of the Government's objectives, because it takes a number of graduate students and, for most of the course, sends them into industries for fairly short periods, not only to observe but actively participate and undertake projects that improve the efficiency of the manufacturing process of those industries.
  By the time the students have completed their course, they have experienced 20 or 30 firms and come out well equipped to start a productive job in industry, as well as having a good sound basic scientific knowledge and a good sound knowledge of manufacturing.
  Such a course is beneficial not only to students, but to the firms as well. They know that, having spoken to one or two of the managing directors of those firms, their contribution is valued enormously. It is rather a shame, therefore, that SERC could not find enough money to fund the 30 extra students that Professor Andrew was hoping he would be able to take this year. There was certainly no shortage of applications. In fact, the course is over-subscribed many times.
  I believe that that is the sort of project that the Government should encourage, and hope that the Chancellor, or perhaps the Minister, will investigate why that course cannot be expanded.
  I shall briefly mention academic push and market pull, because in the debate we are trying—it is certainly the job of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—to ensure that academic push is pushing scientific knowledge into the marketplace.
  Unless industry is prepared to pick up that expertise and those skills and knowledge, we will not benefit in the way we should. The managing director of the Welding Institute at Abingdon, near Cambridge, has said that he believes that firms are in one of four states: the first is complete ignorance about innovation or scientific progression; the second is awareness; the third is continuous improvement; and the fourth is best practice. He told me that he believes that, unfortunately, about 90 per cent. of British firms fall into the first category.
  A number of firms, such as the Welding Institute, Camden Food Industry Research Association, which some members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology were able to visit recently, and the Flour Millers and Bakers Research Association, which I have visited, do an excellent job in transferring scientific knowlege, often with the help of research council money, from the science base often into small firms—firms that do not often benefit from the innovation and invention of British scientists.
  I think that we should encourage those technology transfer organisations. If the Government have finally decided that Faraday centres are not the way they want to progress, ways of encouraging those organisations, through Government grants and perhaps research council grants, would be helpful.
  Finally, I know that time is short, but I would like to spend a little time talking about the difficulties that many women face in trying to pursue academic careers. I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy set up a working party to consider the participation of women in science. Many of us welcomed that, but, although we were promised that a

  933
  report would be published in the autumn, we are still waiting for it. We looked for it in September, October and November; I was then told that it would appear in January. However, it has not appeared yet.
  The establishment of the working party was, I think, prompted by the realisation that, although many women were receiving a good education and a sound training in science, they were still not using their skills to the full. Much of that expensive training is being wasted—through no fault of the women concerned, who want to work but are encountering the various structural difficulties inherent in the present system.
  It must be said that the Government did not set a very good example. Despite equal opportunities guidelines issued within the OST, which were intended to encourage women to return to science and technology, the Chancellor of the Duchy did not see fit to appoint any women to the Foresight technology steering committee. That is a great pity, and it was also a major mistake: women, after all, are largely responsible for consumer spending.
  We should look to the future. When we consider wealth creation, we must also consider the areas in which we shall want to spend our wealth; women make many decisions in that connection, and a female appointment to the committee could have made a valuable contribution to the effort to predict the sectors in which wealth creation will be important.
  The Prime Minister told us today that girls had achieved better science results this year. We all welcome that news; however, we do not want to wait for 30 or 40 years for those girls to occupy the top positions. In the meantime, many women will feel frustrated about their failure to make the progress that they should be making.
  At least one research council head has recognised the problem. Laboratory News quotes Professor Blundell, the new head of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences research council, as saying:
  "One important challenge is to keep women in science after the age of 30, when they have to be rather competitive to make progress up the career ladder, but when they have a major and unfair share of the responsibilities at home, especially if there are children".
  That encapsulates the problems experienced by women —not only in the domestic sphere, in persuading men to take their full share of responsibilities in the home, but in the scientific sphere, where they are often competing for short-term contracts that may involve work some distance from their homes. Alternatively, they may be competing for permanent jobs in universities or research council laboratories, which may be complicated by child care responsibilities.
  Many of those difficulties are, of course, faced by women in all professions: many female professionals would be helped by an increase in the availability of affordable child care facilities, for instance. Moreover, the lack of a proper scientific career structure poses many problems, as does the need to move to different locations to take advantage of research vacancies.
  Much still needs to be done. I hope that, when the report on women in science is eventually published, it will not lie dormant on a shelf, but will be a basis for discussion. I also hope that its ideas will be implemented, even if that means extra Government spending on this important subject.
  6.24 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I welcome today's announcements. In these times of economic austerity, to find nearly £8 million of new money is no mean feat. Along with many colleagues on both sides of the House, I look forward to the details in regard to ROPA—"Realising Our Potential Awards"—and the postgraduate schemes; I especially look forward to hearing more about the extra funds for industry-identified research projects.
  I echo all that has been said about the reorganisation of the research councils, which will refocus their aims and enable them to deal with their tasks more coherently. That applies particularly to their fulfilment of the White Paper's much-emphasised requirements in regard to wealth creation. I have been impressed by the many favourable comments made by witnesses to the Select Committee on Science and Technology; it has also been encouraging to hear of the many commitments made by those on all sides of the debate to the future improvement of university research and their co-operation with industry. These orders are part of that process, and I therefore welcome them.
  Fundamental research is an important part of our research activities. Because we have always been good at this in the United Kingdom, I think it right at this time to place more emphasis on wealth creation: we have been less successful there, and we should try to improve. I especially welcome the creation of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, which is concerned with what is affectionately known as "big science". These two subjects have been uncomfortable bedfellows—in the Science and Engineering Research Council—placed together with a wide range of less expensive scientific endeavours which have felt deprived by the large financial demands of particle physics and astronomy.
  Our distinguished scientists in those fields have a well-earned international reputation: we should never forget that the United Kingdom was a pioneer in particle physics, space and astronomy. We remain world leaders, much respected and I believe sought after as partners in collaboration. The United Kingdom will, for instance, play an active role in all the coming European Space Agency space science missions; the triumphs of the Giotto mission to Halley's comet, with the involvement of British Aerospace, and the United Kingdom contribution to the design of one of the Hubble telescope's cameras—now working perfectly—are just two examples of successes.
  I welcome the separation of these two areas of science, which enables the finance to be isolated from other areas and will—I hope—enable the Treasury to deal with the vulnerability of their international subscriptions to fluctuating exchange rates more equitably than in the past. At the very least, I wish my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy well in his future battles with the Treasury on exchange rates. Government should recognise that the United Kingdom can participate in world-leading "big science" only by being part of international programmes, which require long-term funding stability.
  The PPARC's primary function is the pursuit of intellectual knowledge, but it also has a role in helping industrial competitiveness. For example, it influences the employment of trained manpower: space and particle physics is a subject that attracts young people into science, and the experience that they gain in international projects is prized by manufacturing industry. Young scientists with

  935
  experience in space, astronomy and particle physics—many of whom will be women, judging by last year's exam results—are valued by employers because they have learned to work in teams, to deadlines and in international consortia.
  "Big science" also requires technology at the cutting edge, and industry in general values the experience of those who have worked in space and on major projects connected with it. The astronomy, space and particle physics programmes already interact with industry to a considerable extent. Under its chairman, the PPARC will want to build on that, and—in the spirit of the White Paper —to maximise the potential of its programmes.
  I believe that the success of the new councils will depend on the individuals who are appointed. I echo the welcome extended to Peter Williams, chairman and chief executive of Oxford Instruments, which is one of the United Kingdom's top companies in terms of turning science into profit. I also welcome the appointment of Professor Ken Pounds, a leading space scientist in both national and international terms. These appointments bode well for the industry-science interface.
  Turning to my interest in space, we shall now have three research councils interested in and funding space activities. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council will fund space science; the Natural Environment Research Council will take responsibility for earth observation and remote sensing from space; and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council will, I hope, be interested in future technologies required for space, which are also relevant down here on earth.
  The European Space Agency has a crucial role to play in that area. Although ESA is going through a difficult transitional phase, it is important to preserve the good features of its mandatory space-science programme, to which the United Kingdom is a major contributor. That programme is now the most stable element in ESA and, although we must continue to press for greater cost effectiveness in ESA programmes, we must not forget that the issue of subscriptions to ESA and CERN, the European nuclear research centre, will be central to the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.
  I am concerned, however, that space expenditure will be divided between the three research councils. That will mean increasing importance for the British National Space Centre's role in co-ordinating space expenditure in the United Kingdom. With the creation of the Office of Science and Technology, the Government should look again at the organisation of the BNSC within the Department of Trade and Industry. Can a case now be made for transferring it into the OST, which I believe is its natural home? I hope that the Minister will comment on that, if not today, in the near future.
  There is now a positive feeling in the scientific area, engendered by the Government's innovative response to the need to produce a policy on science. We responded with the first White Paper in 20 years and the results of the research councils are further evidence before us. I wish the operations of the new research councils well.
  6.31 pm
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: This has been an interesting debate, and I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to it,
  936
  particularly my hon. Friends. I shall leave it to the Minister to congratulate his hon. Friends and comment on their speeches—after all, that is his job.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point that must be answered, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), on the subject of women and science. The Minister said absolutely nothing about that subject in his extremely long —albeit interesting—speech.
  In general, we welcome both the opportunity for debate—twice in a year is really something, and we may have a third opportunity if we debate the "forward look" proposals in April—and the proposals. We support the general thrust of splitting up the research councils into more logical groups. The Science and Engineering Research Council, SERC, had become too unwieldy, although it had the singular advantage of being easier to say than PPARC and EPSRC.
  I am happy, too, that the Government have said that, in the light of experience, they are prepared to modify and rethink the objectives contained in last year's White Paper. There have been some particularly welcome signs on the subject of masters degrees and the extent to which they should be introduced.
  The Royal Society of Chemistry would like to know the Government's assessment of the relative merits of a four-year degree course followed by a three-year PhD. It runs a three-year degree course followed by a one-year MSc and a three-year PhD. In defining that issue, it would be grateful to know what role the Office of Science and Technology and the Department for Education will play in attempting to resolve it.
  It also wants the Chancellor to say what steps will be taken by the new research councils to ensure full interdepartmental co-operation between the OST, the DFE and DTI to develop the highest possible standards of research training. I hope that, broadly speaking, that is the line the Chancellor intends to follow.
  I notice from the report of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology that there has been much revision and toing and froing in the technology foresight programme. At one time, the debate was described as "acrimonious". I am sure that it was not too acrimonious, but, once again, there may have been a sign of some flexibility.
  I hope that, despite all this effusive praise, the Government recognise that many problems remain unanswered. It will come as no surprise that I intend to mention a few. For example, I hope that the Government will give clear guidance on their thinking in the development of the chosen methods of assessment of scientific and technical needs and in securing tangible support from other Departments. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will contribute more to the "forward look" programme than it did to the White Paper. Its contribution consisted of one mean paragraph.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): It was a chapter.
  Dr. Moonie: It was a pretty short chapter. I should not like to define it as a chapter.
  In the light of recent behaviour, the DTI needs convincing about what is happening. Other Departments often mouth support for what we in science are trying to do, but they are less convincing when it comes to doing

  937
  something about it. The closing down of the advanced technology programme was good timing, coming on the same day as the announcement of the White Paper.
  Before this debate, the DTI said that it would not replace the chief scientist. That may convince the Chancellor, but it does not convince me about the DTI's ability to co-operate in what we are trying to achieve for science. I hope that he will forgive me if, until I see a change, I maintain a healthy scepticism about the Government's overall true intentions. Promises are easily made, but concrete support is more difficult to establish in their wake.
  If the director general has no direct-line responsibility for the research councils, as seems likely, it would be a misnomer to refer to him as a "director general". His title should therefore be changed to reflect what he will do. He will not direct the work of the research councils but will advise the Secretary of State. Do the Government intend to publish his advice? Will they publish the advice given to him, in turn, by the Committee? After all, this is the Department of open government, and I want a tangible assurance that the process will be transparent.
  I welcome the role of the Committee for Science and Technology, but some concern has been expressed about the placement of two chairs of research councils on that Committee. If we are to have a proper purchaser-provider split, taking the purchaser role into the Department, it is illogical that only two of the providers of the chairs of the research councils will serve on that Committee.
  That concern was also expressed in the excellent report by the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. The Chancellor should take cognisance of that. I have nothing against the two people concerned. They are excellent choices as chairs for the research councils, but there is confusion over their roles. As the Committee will advise the Minister, will its advice be published? Will it be subject to scrutiny by the Select Committee in this House?
  On the research councils, I am worried about several points. I accept that what is being done in science should relate to what we hope to do ultimately with it in industry, but it should never be seen as taking over what should be done by industry or what the DTI should support. Although I welcome the initiatives announced today and the extra funding that will go to valuable areas, in the past few years the loss in funds for support for research in industry by the DTI amounts to more than £100 million. Getting £15 million of that back through the science budget is no substitute.
  Our views on the role of science spending are supported by industry. The role of the Association for the British Pharmaceutical Industry is to maintain and strengthen the excellent contribution of United Kingdom scientists and engineers to the overall knowledge and cultural base of the world community.
  From Thorn EMI we have the words:
  "enhancing future options for mankind, improving our understanding of nature and natural phenomena and our place in the scheme of things",
  and from the Confederation of British Industry:
  "an immense, largely unquantifiable contribution to Britain's literary, artistic and cultural fabric"
  We still need an assurance that money intended for science expenditure will be spent on science and not misdirected
  938
  into areas in which industry itself ought to be spending. I am sure that there will be no great disagreement about this.
  If there are to be changes in the balance of spending within the science budget, there will be losers as well as winners. As yet, we have had no indication as to who will lose. That is the way of things. It is clear that, if we are to move into new areas—if, for example, we are to direct money into some of our new universities that currently lack research departments—unless there is a substantial increase in the budget, which is not yet forthcoming although we wait in hope, there will be losers. I hope that, in the course of the Minister's winding-up speech, we shall be given some indication whether there has been thinking along these lines.
  I am glad to say that the report on the allocation of resources was placed in the Library today. May I have confirmation that what it contains merely represents a pro rata division of what would have been the budget based on last year's historic costs, or has there been a substantial change in the emphasis in spending? It is important that this information be provided. Apart from anything else, it would save me from having to go back to last year's figures and work things out.
  I should like, in conclusion, to make some specific points about the individual research councils. There is no doubt that the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council has a very important role to play in wealth creation —indeed, that applies to all the councils. But the Government must sort out their technology foresight programme. There is continuing debate about whether the programme should be market-sector-led or technology-led. This is an important difference when it comes to attaching importance to objectives. Is technology foresight intended to be used to change the balance of the science budget? If so, in what way?
  Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Dr. Moonie: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way. If it is possible to do so later, I shall.
  The House of Lords Select Committee has suggested that the technology foresight exercise should be used to help the "Forward Look" programme. In other words, the perspective should be five to 10 years, as opposed to the Public Expenditure Survey Committee round of one to three years. This is a very important distinction, and I should like to be made aware of the Government's thinking on the subject. The Department of Trade and Industry must not be allowed to palm off its responsibilities for applied technology and for research and development closely related to industry.
  The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council is a subject close to my own heart. Here, I intend to concentrate on one issue—the large hadron collider. Apart from all the other arguments that I intend to adduce in my personal support for this worthy project—I am grateful for the letter that I received today from the Chancellor, in which the right hon. Gentleman answered some of the questions that I put to him—I have to say that no Higgs Boson, to which he has committed himself—[Interruption.] This may rather pass over the heads of many hon. Members. Unless the right hon. Gentleman delivers on this matter, his visit to the annual meeting of the Physical Society, which I think takes place in March,

  939
  may well be punctuated by empty champagne bottles rather than by the plaudits that he would receive if he were to come out in support.
  Let us be very clear about this matter. The Americans have stopped work on the superconducting super-collider —SSC. The large hadron collider is the only viable replacement for it. We must first persuade the Americans and the Japanese to join in the funding, as the project is expensive. We must ensure continuity of funding of our commitment to CERN so that work may continue. If necessary, we must provide bridging loans so that work which must be done before funds would normally be allocated may be properly financed.
  We must work out the level of access, but, above all—and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House want the project to go ahead—the Government must make a clear statement to that effect. It must be made clear to the world at large that we are not dragging our feet, as the Germans appear to be doing. Understandably, the Americans are at sixes and sevens. If particle physics and astronomy are to move forward, we must continue to advance the boundaries of science. At present, the only way to do that is through the large hadron collider.
  The biological side has been covered very adequately by my hon. Friends. I do not propose to add anything to what they have said, except by way of an expression of my own concern about the increased number of interfaces and the problems that we have in deciding into which category of research specialties like chemical engineering should fall. These are very important specialties, and they are particularly relevant to wealth creation. It would be very sad indeed if they were to fall between the interests in the new set-up.
  I think that I have exhausted the time allocated to me. No doubt the Minister would need more than the remaining 15 minutes to reply adequately to the many questions that have been raised.
  6.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): At the outset, I must convey the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to those who have taken part in the debate for his departure from the Chamber. He had to meet the chairman of the European Parliamentary Science Committee, Mr. Claude Desama.
  The purpose of the orders is to put the research councils in place as part of the machinery for delivering the strategy outlined in the White Paper, "Realising Our Potential". One of the oblique advantages of the White Paper is that it has proved to be a catalyst for a series of very high quality debates, here and elsewhere, on the role of science. Indeed, this has been not the least of those debates. We have heard some complaints about the number of hon. Members present, but there is no doubt about the quality of the contributions from both sides of the House. I refer in particular to the formidable contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and to the contribution of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), whose subleties the Department misses from time to time. I shall return to some of the issues that my predecessor raised. I refer also to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), as well as to those
  940
  of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and other Opposition Members. Many issues were raised, and I shall deal with as many of them as possible.
  The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) referred to the role of the Director General of the Research Councils —in particular, his relationship with the councils. In essence, this is a relationship of general direction. The research councils' missions are spelt out very clearly in the White Paper and are set out in these orders. Indeed, some of the consultations are being taken on board. It is for the director general to work with the council chief executives to keep to the agreed strategy. The relationship is by nature a co-operative one.
  The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy also asked about openness. We shall seek, as far as possible, to make the process transparent. As a first symbol of that—something that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—we have deposited in the Library information about the allocation of funding between the research councils and the logic behind it. The £15·5 million strategic allocation is included in the change, so we do not have just a pro rata figure.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as a conflict of interests on the Council for Science and Technology. This is not strictly a purchaser-provider relationship and there is no obvious conflict of interests. The CST is dealing in overall science strategy—at what one might describe as the stratospheric level, rather than at the level of differential funding between councils. The people in question—Alan Rudge and Peter Williams, I think—were chosen for the CST because of their wide experience. Incidentally, they were appointed as non-executive chairmen of councils for the very same reasons. We understand the hon. Member's point. What is most important is that we get the very best people, and the hon. Gentleman himself has said that those people are very capable.
  With regard to animal experiments, an issue raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, I hate palming off such matters to other Departments but the use of animals in experiments is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which makes it the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The research councils have been active in promoting good practice in respect of animals used in the work that they fund and I am sure that the BBSRC will continue to build on the AFRC's good work.
  I am not sure which hon. Member mentioned the more general question of ethics guidance. En passant, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said that I had volunteered to be a subject in the Megalab experiment. During the persuasion process through which my Department put me I was taken aback by the final comment, "Don't worry—we have the technology, we can rebuild you." That brings me to the question of guidance on genetic engineering. A Government body, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, has a specific remit in that respect and there is also an independent body, the Nuffield Council. As we are all aware, the process involves the development of consensus and we expect the research councils to observe and live by that consensus.
  Dr. Moonie: On the question of guidelines, I forgot to mention the patenting of genetic material. That is not covered by the present guidelines, which deal solely with ethics.
  Mr. Davis: I suspect that that will fall to the Department of Trade and Industry but we, too, will consider it. It is a matter of obvious and international interest, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked when we expect the report on women in science to be published. Without seeking to redefine the autumn, I shall say that the target date for the report is now 24 February. I have no reason to believe that that target will not be met.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage and others raised specific and detailed concerns about Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories. Following the end of SERC, they will come together under common management and for an interim period become the responsibility of the new EPSRC. The separate identities of the two laboratories will, however, be preserved. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, a review is now under way to consider the options for the running of the laboratories as a self-standing institution after an interim period. No conclusion has yet been reached, but I understand the wish for a rapid conclusion.
  My right hon. Friend has already stated clearly how much we value the laboratories. There is no doubt that they are first-class institutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage presented a persuasive case which will, of course, be considered carefully. He also made a more subtle point about the role of the research councils in that connection. It follows from the new missions of the research councils that they should support research where appropriate for the fulfilment of missions, but the maintenance of the overall health of the science and engineering base is also part of that mission together with the effective use of funds.
  The White Paper, "Realising Our Potential", recognised that science and technology provide the fundamental underpinning of the United Kingdom's ability to compete in international markets. It is given in the House that competitiveness is a fundamental theme in all that we debate. The White Paper set out a strategy, the bare bones of which are an emphasis on quality and relevance of research, an emphasis on partnership between industry and academia and the use of Technology Foresight and the "Forward Look" in guidance, and I am referring to long-term guidance.
  We have introduced, or are introducing, new structures to permit such a strategy: the Office of Science and Technology was already set up before the White Paper was published; the DGRC, Sir John Cadogan, has recently been appointed; and the Council for Science and Technology is now established, as is the Science and Engineering Base Co-ordinating Committee, a body about which I should like to speak at length and will perhaps have the opportunity to do so during a "Forward Look" debate. In addition, we are now reorganising the research councils.
  The creation of the three new research councils encompassed in the orders is an imortant step. The BBSRC will have an important role to play in underpinning life sciences where we are beginning to see radical new developments. I shall try to deal quickly with the points raised in this connection by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked about representation for agriculture in the Foresight process.
  Of course, agriculture is not explicitly represented on the Foresight steering group, but that institution is not
  942
  intended to be representative. It consists of 10 expert members selected solely with a view to Foresight expertise. However, there will be an agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector panel, so the interests of agriculture will be properly represented.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West wondered how agricultural efficiency and food safety would be dealt with. That will be part of MAFF's role but the new BBSRC will take over the AFRC's responsibility for food and agriculture, as specifically outlined in one of the orders. I hope that my comments have helped the hon. Gentleman.
  As everyone has said, the EPSRC will have close links with industries underpinned by the physical sciences and engineering and building on good work already done by SERC.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon mentioned the appointment of the chief executive of the EPSRC. The hon. Gentleman is very well informed. We shall be making an announcement soon. We have gone about the selection in the same way as we proceeded in the appointment of the chief executives of the NERC and the PPARC. It was the method used by previous Labour Governments. They are important posts so it is important to get the right people but we shall be making an announcement soon.
  The PPARC involves special commitments and special problems, involving foreign currency subscriptions and long-planning timetables. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy mentioned international commitments. The United Kingdom is a signatory of the treaty governing CERN and there is no question of our reneging on our commitments. The United Kingdom supports a globalisation of CERN and the involvement of the United States, Canada and Japan in the LHC—the large hadron collider—following the demise of the roughly equivalent superconducting super-collider, or SSC.
  We believe that the new British Director General of CERN, Professor Llewellyn Smith, will work with member states and non-member states to come up with a sound scientific and financial package to enable the LHC to go ahead, but the formal decision comes before the CERN council in June and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish us to pre-empt it at this stage.
  Mr. Dalyell: What discussions are taking place with the Americans on the LHC? It is an urgent and important matter.
  Mr. Davis: As I have intimated, my belief is that the director general has been having discussions on the matter but I cannot go further than that at the moment.
  The PPARC pays subscriptions to CERN and to the European Space Agency as part of its mandatory science programme. As has been said, they are affected by currency fluctuations. One of the roles of the DGRC is to ensure that the fluctuations are absorbed by more than just the small budget of the PPARC. I shall have to leave it at that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon raised a specific constituency interest about the reform of the research councils in general. We hope to take the opportunity offered by the reorganisation to streamline pension arrangements, introducing a single pension scheme for all Swindon-based research councils. It is purely an administrative change and will not affect the pension or redundancy entitlements of staff.

  943
  The new research council structure and the new council mission statements, with their commitment to contribute to wealth creation and the quality of life, are key elements in delivering the new partnership which is at the heart of the White Paper. I want to make it clear that we intend to maintain basic research, and the White Paper contains our clear commitment to do so. Research councils will have the responsibility of ensuring an increased emphasis on the relevance of research to the users of that research, but their missions also refer unambiguously to the support of high quality basic research. We do not believe that those are mutually exclusive.
  Industrialists have given us the clear message that they value greatly the basic research produced by our science and engineering base. They will wish that to be maintained. In the words of Richard Sykes of Glaxo Holdings plc, what he wants from the country in which he invests are
  "well-trained people and good basic research."
  The strategy designed in the White Paper and the structures that we are discussing today are already leading to real actions. The new Director General of the Research Councils is already introducing pilot mechanisms to develop real partnership between the science base and industry. Money squeezed out by improved efficiency is being devoted to the "Realising Our Potential" awards that we have heard about. Other efficiency-generated research funds will go to areas identified by industry as being of strategic importance and further cash for Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering fellowships. The system is already beginning to work.
  It has been a truism for a long time that Britain is brilliant at generating good basic science—perhaps the best in the world—but for many decades it has not been as good as its competitors at translating that scientific dominance into technological excellence.
  It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, pursuant to order [28 January].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

  Child Support
  7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move,
  That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.
  I am aware of the wide interest in the Child Support Act 1991 and in the changes to it that we are debating tonight. It is most important to set that interest in the wider context of child maintenance and to establish again the principles that underpin the Act and the Child Support Agency.
  The Child Support Act was introduced with all-party support on the back of a deteriorating situation in respect of child maintenance. Nearly 1 million lone parents and their children depended on income support, yet only a quarter of those received any regular maintenance. The old system of obtaining maintenance through the courts or the Department of Social Security offices was obviously failing those parents and their children. It was slow, inaccessible and led to low and inconsistent settlements. The Child Support Act was designed to halt the significant decline in the payment of maintenance that had occurred during the previous decade and to move away from a system that, all too often, involved the taxpayer as an unwitting party in the settlement.
  The basic principle behind the new system, as the House well knows, is that both parents should be responsible for maintaining their children where they can afford to do so. The taxpayer should have to help only where parents do not have the means to meet their obligation. That basic principle is widely supported, but it means in practice that those who have responsibility for children must shoulder a greater degree of the financial burden for them than in the past. In other words, in many cases parents must pay more if other taxpayers, often on low incomes with families of their own, are to contribute less. Those who support the principle must recognise the need to support putting it into practice.
  We always made it clear that we would keep the operation of the scheme under review, and we were aware that other people would also do so. It is no exaggeration, therefore, for the all-party Social Security Select Committee to have described the Child Support Act as
  "the most far reaching social reform to be made for forty years".
  We recognise also that there have been genuine worries about the way in which the new system is working in detail. We have, therefore, conducted a thorough review of its operation, during which we considered all representations from hon. Members, the public and other interested parties. At the same time, the all-party Social Security Select Committee examined the policy and the operation of child support. The Committee had the opportunity to suggest tearing the whole thing up, but did not. Instead, its thoughtful and balanced report is unequivocal in its support for the basic principles of the scheme.
  In drawing up the regulations, we have especially sought to answer the worries of those absent parents most affected by the new scheme, while bearing in mind that any change that is beneficial to an absent parent is potentially of disadvantage to a parent with care and her children. Some of our conclusions coincide with those of the Select Committee, some do not and some have gone further.
  We agree with the Select Committee that it is better to leave absent parents more financial choice to meet other

  945
  demands on them than to try to incorporate into the formula a range of specific costs, such as travel to work, visiting first families and other debts. Such a move, we believe, would provide a shopping list of items that would be viewed as essential by some but not by others, and would have the effect of reducing the priority given to child maintenance. The Select Committee said, and we agree:
  "We believe, however, that child maintenance in the form of money should have first call on a parent's income."
  Dr. Robert Spink: I accept all that my hon. Friend has said so far, but does he accept that in some regions, such as the one that I represent, for many people the cost of travelling to work is greater than the cost of the mortgage? Will he consider that in his future deliberations about the development of the scheme?
  Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a fair argument, but my response is the same as that of the Select Committee. The difficulty is that my hon. Friend has mentioned a special issue relating to his geographical location. It is precisely for that reason—hon. Members in different parts of the country can draw attention to similar matters—that one would end up with that shopping list of special exemptions that needed to be included in the formula. The argument that I put to the Select Committee, and the argument that the Select Committee accepted, was that, rather than creating that shopping list, it was better to ensure that sufficient residual income remained to meet the costs. I note my hon. Friend's interest in that point, but I would refer him to the Select Committee's response to it.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am glad to confirm that I agree with my hon. Friend on the general principle on which the Act is based. I am, however, seriously worried about the detail, which, as he says, obviously is not working.
  I have written to my hon. Friend about eight specific cases. I can assure him that in each case the details of the Act have caused great hardship to hard-working men who now have two families to support. On each of the eight occasions on which I have written to my hon. Friend I have had the same anodyne reply, drafted by a civil servant, which has wholly ignored the individual points that I have put to my hon. Friend, and which has ignored the plight that the individuals are suffering as a result of the details of the Act. I ask my hon. Friend not to rely entirely on formulae, but to look with some compassion at the individual cases in which huge hardship is being caused and to amend the Act and the regulations accordingly to ensure that that injustice ceases.
  Mr. Burt: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to develop the case for the regulations tonight. He will find that some of the worries that he has mentioned in his letters are met by some of the changes that we propose.
  Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
  Mr. Burt: I shall take one more intervention and then I should like to make some progress.
  Mr. Cryer: To many of us, the changes represented in the regulations are wholly inadequate. If the Minister thinks for a moment that they will satisfy the need for common justice, he is mistaken.
  946
  Let me take as an example a situation that is not confined to a region of the country, but is common to the whole country—the complete lack of recognition when a settlement is made on a former partner, including sometimes the marital home, with mortgage payments, often considerable, that continue when the second family starts. It promotes a very strong feeling of injustice, and a feeling that the Child Support Agency is more interested in the Treasury than in the child.
  Mr. Burt: Perhaps I might develop my argument. I shall discuss clean breaks later. When the House passed the Act, all hon. Members were conscious of the pressure placed on taxpayers—ordinary men and women, often on low incomes, with families of their own—and the worry that they had for too long supported other people in the costs of their separation. When I hear arguments about the Treasury, I sometimes feel that hon. Members fail to realise that what lie behind the Treasury are everyday men and women who make their contributions to it.
  The Government accepted the Select Committee's conclusion that there was no sensible way in which the capital value of past settlements could be reflected in current maintenance assessments, even if that were thought desirable. So-called "clean break settlements" are, essentially, ways to settle the question of spousal maintenance. There can be no clean break between a parent and his children. In any event, the formula already reflects the practical consequences of property settlements. Where an absent parent has not taken his share of any equity in the matrimonial home it is likely that he will incur higher costs when rehousing himself. As housing costs are taken into account pound for pound in the calculation of assessable income, his maintenance bill will lower.
  I shall now outline our specific proposals—
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Before the Minister does that, let me tell him that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, there is great dissatisfaction among people who are contributing, as opposed to those who are not contributing and who have disappeared. I urge the Minister to think again about the basic principles in the Act. It is not working. People are showing it up to be what it is—a fraud. Something ought to be done about it.
  Mr. Burt: With respect, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee, which had the opportunity to say, "Tear the whole thing up, because it is a fraud, and it is not working", did not do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I hear some hon. Members saying that the Select Committee was rubbish, but I suspect that that would not be the view of the House as a whole.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Burt: I should like to make some progress now and outline our specific proposals. As well as introducing some important changes in child support arrangements, they make, as always, some technical drafting improvements designed to ensure that the original policy intentions are fully achieved. It might be of assistance to the House if I dealt with the most significant changes first. I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall confine myself to those changes.
  Regulation 4 modifies in several respects the amount of maintenance calculated under the Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases)

  947
  Regulations 1992. Paragraph (2) concerns the assessment of maintenance to meet the basic needs of a child or children aged under 16. When maintenance is assessed, the calculation includes an amount in respect of a child's need to be looked after by an adult—the so-called carer element. The amount is set at the single adult personal allowance for income support, and it is included in recognition of the fact that children cannot look after themselves.
  In drafting the amendment, we recognised that, rather than ending suddenly, that need reduces gradually as children grow older. Accordingly, it provides for the amount to be reduced by 25 per cent. when the youngest child reaches the age of 11, and by 50 per cent. when the youngest child reaches the age of 14. As now, that element is removed altogether when the youngest child reaches 16. Other allowances for children in the formula continue to rise as children grow older, recognising that some other needs increase as children grow older.
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: As the Minister has pointed out, under the regulations the absent parent has to pay the entire amount calculated by social security for the attendant parent maintaining the child. That now results in a payment of £44, on average. At the beginning of his speech the Minister said that the purpose of the legislation was to ensure that both parents accepted their responsibilities. Will he therefore explain why only one parent has to pay the entire bill for the attendant costs of caring for the child under the formula, both as it was originally drawn up and as he is now describing it?
  Mr. Burt: That happens because the child is physically present with only one of the two parents. Because the child is present with one parent and needs care, that care has to be provided and paid for. That is why the other parent, who does not have the physical care of the child, makes a contribution in financial form, by way of the carer element.
  Ms Primarolo: In total?
  Mr. Burt: Yes, in total. That is the point.
  The new provision introduced by paragraphs (6) and (7) concerns cases where a person has care of the children of more than one absent parent, and is a consequence of the reduction in the carer element that I have just explained. In such cases an absent parent's maintenance assessment will reduce when his youngest child reaches the age of 11 or 14, even though the parent with care may have other younger children.
  Paragraph (3) concerns the calculation of the additional amounts of maintenance paid by better-off absent parents. Where the absent parent has income left after meeting the basic maintenance requirement, he is currently required to pay 25 per cent. of that balance in additional maintenance. That element ensures that children share in the increased prosperity of their parents, even though they may live apart. The deduction rate is set at a lower rate than the 50 per cent. taken to meet the basic maintenance requirement, in recognition of the fact that parents are likely to spend a smaller proportion of their income on their children once they have met their basic needs.
  The amendment will reduce the rate of deduction for the additional element of 20 per cent. where there are only two children to be maintained, and 15 per cent. where there is only one child. That provision recognises that extra expenditure on children, over and above their basic needs, is not likely to be as high for one or two children as it is
  948
  for three or more, and will moderate the very high amounts that some absent parents are expected to pay. That change goes beyond anything recommended by the Select Committee, and will alleviate some of the concerns put to us by hon. Members.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend and the Government have listened and have made some changes. However, in my view, those changes do not go far enough. My hon. Friend is talking about expenditure on children. One problem that has arisen in my constituency concerns stepchildren. Will my hon. Friend explain why such children are not considered? The idea sems to be that the step-parent should simply adopt them. I find that an extraordinary approach.
  Mr. Burt: Again, one of the principles of the Act was that parents should, as a priority, be responsible for their own natural children. We believe that the formula sometimes protects stepchildren—the children of a second family—at the expense of the first family, especially where income is near the basic protected income level. At that level, it is possible that, while no payment is being made to a natural child in a first family, there is still protection for the child in a second family. We believe that the principle is important, and we therefore felt unable to accept the recommendation on stepchildren. However, we felt that by increasing the amount of protected income—I shall deal with that later—we would be able to provide extra for the stepchild. The principle that a natural child should have first call on a parent's income is important, and we did not wish to devalue it.
  Ms Mildred Gordon: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Burt: No, I want to make a bit more progress before I take another intervention.
  Paragraphs (4) and (5) substantially increase the level of protected income for absent parents—that relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). Protected income is the minimum amount that an absent parent and any second family must retain from their disposable income after payment of maintenance. Instead of only £8, as at present, absent parents will now keep a minimum of £30 above the level of help that they, and their new family if they have one, would get if they were on income support.
  In addition, absent parents to whom protected income level applies will be able to keep an additional 15 per cent. of the difference between their basic protected income level and their total family income, instead of only 10 per cent., as at present. They will improve incentives to work by ensuring that the absent parent keeps an additional amount from any extra that he earns, and that will benefit not only the absent parent but, ultimately, the parent with care and the children. Again, that recommendation goes further than what the Select Committee suggested. I hope that that will be for the benefit of hon. Members and those whom they represent.
  Regulation 4(8) streamlines the calculation of housing costs allowed in exempt income. It provides for the full amount of premiums on an insurance policy to discharge the mortgage on a parent's home to be allowed in the calculation of the parent's exempt income where the mortgage does not exceed £60,000. Where the mortgage exceeds £60,000 the existing provision will continue to

  949
  apply, so there will be a reduction in the amount of premiums allowed to take account of any "with profits" element of the policy. That, too, goes beyond the Select Committee's recommendations.
  Regulation 5 amends regulations 1, 3 and 4 of the Child Support Fees Regulations 1992, which make provision for the charging of the collective service to absent parents where the application for maintenance has been made by a parent with care in receipt of income support, family credit or disability working allowance. Regulation 5 proposes that where a parent with care is in receipt of one of those benefits and the absent parent is making regular child maintenance payments direct to the parent with care, the Child Support Agency will not make a charge for the collection fee to the absent parent. Fees in such cases will become payable only where the agency becomes directly involved in either collection or enforcement action. That, too, was a Select Committee recommendation strongly supported by hon. Members.
  Regulations 7 and 8 provide for a significant extension to the current provisions by introducing new arrangements for phasing in the higher awards under the new scheme. Absent parents with second families or care of a child for at least two nights per week, and with an existing court order or written maintenance agreement, whose maintenance assessment is over £60, will have any increase in their liability phased in over an 18-month period in six-monthly steps of £20, or 25 per cent. of the difference between the old and new liabilities if that is higher.
  The new provisions also ensure that absent parents who are not entitled to the original phasing scheme, because all the qualifying children were not named on the maintenance agreement or because they did not have a second family, but nevertheless retained care of a child for at least two nights per week, are now included in a similar scheme. The new arrangements will help absent parents to adjust to their commitments over a period of time, while gradually increasing the amount that they pay. Those orginally on the phasing scheme will continue to be assessed under those rules as they are more beneficial to those on lower incomes.
  Mr. Michael Stern: Will my hon. Friend explain to the House why, in framing the changes to the regulations, welcome as they are as far as they go, he has distinguished between those absent parents who have families to support and those who have a sick wife to support? Both have calls on their income, but only one is recognised.
  Mr. Burt: We took the view that those in greatest difficulty in meeting new commitments to their children would be those who had taken on a second family. Clearly, all changes in circumstances force a certain amount of reconsideration, but the greater problem lies with those who have a new family and therefore new responsibilities to those families. Therefore, we believed that it was better to make the adjustments to allow them to have a greater period of time to pay because it was on the new children that the greatest burden would lie.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: We have all listened with a great deal of interest to the reforms that the Minister has proposed for the benefit of absent parents. What proposals does he have that would be of any benefit whatever to parents with care of children? Would not he
  950
  agree that there are thousands of parents with care who are suffering from the Child Support Act as it exists and see precious little benefit from his proposals? Those parents have the responsibility of looking after their children on an income that is depleted through the harsh regulations of the Act.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady puts the case that I made in my opening remarks. Any concession made to the absent parent who is paying has a consequent effect on those who expect to receive the money. The whole point is to recognise the fact that extra expense improves the circumstances of the parent with care of the child. If those who are required to pay maintenance pay less, somebody has to make up the difference. Either it is the parent with care of the child or it is the rest of society. All of us cannot have it all our own way. Somebody, somewhere bears the burden of looking after children. We firmly believe that where people cannot afford to look after their own children, the taxpayer and society in general have a responsibility to step in.
  Also, because of various pressures on all the people who may be on low incomes and who have children of their own to support, where parents can shoulder that responsibility, they should do so. That was the whole point behind the Act. No hon. Member disagrees with that principle but when it is put into practice, the House finds it more difficult, because shifting the burden from the taxpayer to individuals means that, as the taxpayers pay less, some individuals may pay more. We tried to ensure that the burden was placed on those most responsible.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Burt: If I may, I would like to proceed. Many hon. Members wish to take part. I have tried to be generous in allowing interventions, but I should make some progress.
  Regulations 10 to 14 relate to the procedural changes needed to implement the important changes. We should not underestimate the extent of the massive task that the agency faces to implement the changes. However, I thought it essential to introduce the changes as soon as feasible, even if that may cause some difficulties and delays to the normal day-to-day business of the agency.
  The changes that I have announced tonight and that are contained in the regulations are designed as a measured response to concern from constituents, hon. Members and independent commentators, who welcome almost without exception the Child Support Act, but are worried about aspects of its implementation.
  Mr. David Ashby: Should not my hon. Friend's regulations take into account the fact that, where mothers do not give enough care to their child, there are caring fathers who replace some payments by seeing that the children have clothing and so on, which they would not have otherwise had? Should not they also take into account the fact that the father who is paying has to spend money on travel? In my area of north-west Leicester, most people have to travel to Leicester, to Derby or to Burton to work and it costs around £60 a month.
  Mr. Burt: With respect to my hon. Friend, I dealt with his latter point earlier. I would appreciate us considering the way in which the Select Committee dealt with the same argument. My hon. Friend's first point is important. In the initial consideration of the Act, we considered the instance

  951
  in which a woman with care of a child was often not given so much money in maintenance. Instead, the absent parent would say that, while he was not giving the mother much money, he would see the children all right for clothes or shoes or something like that. The problem was that where those arrangements worked, all was well, but in many cases they did not and the woman was left wondering whether the extra offers would come through.
  In putting the Act together, the House took the view, which was confirmed by the Select Committee, that it was better to receive a regular sum of maintenance money in the hand than to wonder whether that extra support in kind was coming through. Because of that practical reality, the change was made to ensure that maintenance money was delivered.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Burt: I am coming to a conclusion and want to allow more opportunities for hon. Members later. I shall be winding up and I shall have an opportunity later to deal with their concerns.
  It is not possible to meet all concerns that have been raised by the Child Support Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] No, it is not. If we did so, we would end up renouncing the principles so soundly endorsed by the House in 1991 and again by the Select Committee report more recently.
  In recognising the difficulties of those with second families in meeting adjustments to bear a heavier responsibility by allowing them longer to come to terms with payments, by reducing the level of payments in certain circumstances and by safeguarding still further the basic protected income, we believe that we are making more acceptable the balance in those matters between children, parents and the taxpayer. Each has a legitimate interest and a voice, and I am determined that the voice that has tended to be most silent in the matter, that of the mother with care of the child, will not be the voice least regarded.
  For too long, an inconsistent and ineffective system allowed a sad decline in the payment of maintenance, and the taxpayer became the sleeping partner in separation agreements. I should emphasise to the House that in 96 per cent. of cases currently handled by the CSA, whatever may be the circumstances of the absent parent, there is dependency on benefits by the parent with care of the child. We should not return to that system. I hope that the changes will embed the principles better, and ensure that the system is fulfilling its aim of securing more maintenance, more regularly for more children. I commend the regulations to the House.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: One thing is clear about tonight's debate—it has underlined that every Member of the House knows that for many of his or her constituents the introduction of the Child Support Act has been traumatic and painful. I use the word "traumatic" almost in a literal sense, because it has been a shock which has in many cases threatened the process of rebuilding lives. Whatever we may think of the ultimate solutions and the merits of the regulations, every hon. Member must have been impressed by the anger, the genuine bewilderment and sometimes fear of people who wondered how they would manage in new and strange circumstances.
  952
  I recognise that I have repeated many times before, but I shall do so once more, the sentiment that, of course, Opposition Members share a good deal of common ground with the Minister—for example, we accept unequivocally that there is a duty on parents to support their children in all circumstances and in all the ways they can. I personally do not believe that financial contributions are an adequate substitute for the protection and support that full parenting brings, but I want to emphasise that they are an important part of the process. I also agree with the Minister that, having made the decision, Opposition Members must live with the fact that implementation is not easy and will inevitably cause problems and difficulties. I entirely accept that; there is no way that we can escape from that.
  One of the most important factors in the new system is certainty of collection. I certainly want us to end what I think can fairly be described as the scandal whereby only one third of absent parents regularly contributed maintenance to their children. I hope that the Child Support Agency—with certain reforms which I believe we ought to consider—will move against that scandal.
  Let me make it clear, too, that I can offer no comfort to the writers of many of the letters that I receive. Take the case of someone who writes and says, "My maintenance payment has gone up by 400 per cent." If it becomes apparent from the second paragraph of that person's letter that he has hitherto been paying on the basis of an outdated and inadequate court settlement bearing no relation to the true costs of educating and bringing up a child, we must reply that he will have to accept the fact that he will face a considerable increase in his contribution. Those facts are not an issue between us. I repeat, however, that there is pain and suffering and that there is perceived injustice, and those are not factors that the House can ignore.
  I should at once make it clear that I do not propose to advise my hon. Friends to vote against the regulations. I welcome them as far as they go, although I do not believe that they go far enough. They are not just adjustments: some of them are—I want to make that plain—but some of them are quite significant. One of the difficulties of assessing these matters arises from the fact that the complexity of the whole financial system attached to the Child Support Act would drive anyone who tried to master it into a home for the bewildered. It is an extraordinarily difficult thing to come to grips with—I say that with some personal feeling as my lower mathematics creaks under the strain. My real criticism is that, although the regulations are specifically helpful on particular points, they do not soften the harsh outline of what is happening and will not affect or ameliorate the storm of protest.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Before I came down to the Chamber, I telephoned a constituent of mine who had received a letter outlining the six points that the Minister raised. I asked that very intelligent man whether he understood it and he told me that he had absolutely no clue. He said, "Tommy, I'd need a Philadelphia lawyer; what the hell's going on in the House of Commons?"
  Mr. Dewar: I want to make it clear, first, that as a sort of retired refugee Scottish lawyer, I certainly do not offer myself as a Philadelphian version of the animal, although I agree with my hon. Friend that the complexity of the system is a problem.

  953
  The most significant of the proposals before us is the increase in protected income, which, according to the Government's own estimates, will mean that, in 1996–97, something like £60 million a year less will be gathered by the Child Support Agency. I have no doubt at all that the substitution of the £30 addition for the £8 addition will ensure that there is a much more healthy gap between net income less maintenance payments and what a family would receive if it were driven on to income support. I do not want to belittle that change; it is of some significance and it is welcome.
  I am not so impressed by the remainder of what is on offer. It is interesting that the collection fee, which was much hated for very good reasons and of whose demise I thoroughly approve, has gone at what was put to me in a parliamentary answer as "negligible cost". I suspect that, if one went through the regulations, one could find further practical changes that would help the atmosphere.
  The phasing applies more widely as a result of the changes and is extended over 18 months—at a price in revenue forgone of about £15 million. I accept that it is practical and sensible to suggest that the £44 carers element of the maintenance requirement should be reduced to £33 when the youngest child reaches the age of 11 or £22 when the youngest child reaches 14. I have some sympathy, though, with the point made about stepchildren, which may be a point of some contention in the implementation of the change.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major problems with the Act and the regulations is the position of second families, whether there are stepchildren or other children? A constituent of mine came to me saying that he had adopted a child but had thought about going back to the court to give it up because the burden on him and his new family was oppressive. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Child Support Agency has set itself up as judge and jury and that is a bad thing? Should not there be an independent appeals procedure? Will my hon. Friend also deal with the question of the clean break, because that is a major bone of contention for families?
  Mr. Dewar: I will indeed come to those contentious and difficult issues. On the first point, I agree that language is important. I understand how convenient it is, but the very term "absent parent" causes great distress to parents—usually fathers—who cannot live with their families for all sorts of good and practical reasons but who maintain a very close personal interest and give as much support as they can. I must say that my own warmth of feeling for the Child Support Agency suffered somewhat when a very senior official of that agency started talking to me about the circumstances that would change when an absent partner "repartnered". I realise that that is a useful technical term, but it took me a little while to get up to speed on the phraseology.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend accept that the real problem is one of trust and that as long as anyone dealing with the agency believes that its members are operating on the basis of financial targets, the trust felt very strongly in relation to normal civil service procedures will be lacking?
  Mr. Dewar: I understand that point, although I accept that certainty of payment is very important. I do not go along with the argument advanced in one intervention that it is satisfactory for people to say, "We always get on well together. When I have a few bucks, I pass them over."
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I was talking about the staff of the agency.
  Mr. Dewar: I may have misunderstood my hon. Friend's point. I shall certainly read what she said.
  I was discussing the reduction in the £44 element of the maintenance requirement, which I described as sensible and practical; I think that it will also do something to reduce the resentment that is felt when an absent parent cannot understand why he should be paying what he regards as his ex-partner's income support. That particular change will be useful.
  As I said, these are minor changes. Even more minor, and rather more puzzling, is that not recommended by the Select Committee—the reduction from 25p to 20p and then to 15p in the pound in the payment that has to be made from excess income once the maintenance payment has been exhausted. That will apply to those on rather higher incomes and is a concession to the better-off absent father. I must say that that would not be my priority given the problems faced by others in the system, especially those who have to care for a second family.
  The package is not enough to restore confidence and encourage hope, although it has some useful points in it. The present settlement—if it is to be the final one—will be seen by many as unpleasantly like an effort to do the essential minimum to diffuse an awkward political situation. I entirely accept the Minister's word that that is not the intention, but if that is the perception it will be extremely damaging.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast majority of complaints that we have received are perfectly genuine complaints from people who not only pay their first wives but are trying to establish a new life with a second family? My hon. Friend the Minister used the words "and can pay". The sad thing is that many cannot pay. It is that element of the whole business that causes so much distress.
  Mr. Dewar: The balance is extremely difficult to strike. I agree that one of the simple facts of dealing with matrimonial breakdown is that, very often, two into one does not go. If two families have to be supported, it is extremely difficult to do that from one income. As someone who once did matrimonial legal work, I am painfully aware of that fact.
  I do not believe that the package goes far enough or that it strikes the right balance.
  Ms Gordon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I give way for the last time. I must make progress.
  Ms Gordon: My hon. Friend says that the package does not go far enough. Does he agree that the package should include abolition of the benefit penalty for women on income support who refuse to give authorisation to the agency, even if the agency is not satisfied? Is it not clear that, if a woman were to derive financial benefit for herself

  955
  and her child without feeling under any threat, she would willingly give the authorisation and that, if she did not, her opinion should be accepted?
  Mr. Dewar: I am sensitive to the concerns that were expressed, particularly by people representing the women's movement, about the CSA when it was last set up. The number of people who have had a reduction, at the latest count, is 87; the House might say that it is 87 too many, but it is a small number.
  This is a time when we have to be frank. I am not in favour of making it a voluntary principle that people co-operate or do not co-operate as they will. It is important that there is co-operation, but I should certainly like to see an end to the penalty if we can encourage co-operation in other ways, if that is possible. That takes us to other changes that I will certainly try to discuss briefly.
  At Question Time, when referring to the Select Committee report, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), said that it was "a good day for the Child Support Agency".—[Official Report, 6 December 1992; Vol. 234, c. 12.]
  I am not sure whether there was a touch of triumph or, perhaps more realistically, relief in his voice, but it is unwise to use the Select Committee report as a cover for closing the file and toughing it out. For the Select Committee—hon. Members can speak for themselves—the package is a pick 'n mix—the Secretary of State's selection. Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but it is the Select Committee's intention to return to this matter, and it does not regard what was clearly an interim report as the final word on the matter.
  I have never heard my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) so unfairly used by Ministers, as he and his colleagues have become a walking alibi for doing nothing more. That is not a particularly helpful approach to the problem.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I must make a little progress.
  Mrs. Mahon: Will my hon. Friend give way on this point?
  Mr. Dewar: I shall give way for the very last time.
  Mrs. Mahon: Members of the Select Committee were not unanimous. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made some excellent points with which most hon. Members would agree.
  Mr. Dewar: I take that point. I have read the minority report of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, which was printed.
  In fairness, I should say a word or two about what should be done. At this stage, I have no intention of arguing at length the case for the points that I shall make, because many hon. Members want to speak. Also, there is to be some Opposition time during the coming week, and we hope to devote it to a debate on the Child Support Agency, on a motion which will allow us to test in the Lobby the opinion of the House about further change. That will also allow hon. Members to express more widely not only the anxiety that is felt by absent parents and other constituents but the hopes and concerns of parents with care, because both must properly be weighed in the balance.
  956
  The matters which should be considered are, first, the possibility of having a right of appeal to a review officer. In other systems—the Australian system is the one that we always mention—there is power to order a departure from the normal formula if specific circumstances tested against criteria defined in statute justify it. Of course, there are differences between the Australian and the British systems, but the similarities are much more striking and the purposes are similar. I must say—we should not shrug it off—that the Australians tell me that their system has been an important safety valve. Anyone who has dealt with the range of anger and dismay that have arisen over the present system will recognise the importance of a safety valve.
  I do not want to pretend that such a safety valve will be a wide-open gate through which thousands will be able to go, but there are undoubtedly cases—all hon. Members can recall them from experience—in which factors directly related to the care of children are not taken into account because they cannot be taken into account. A review officer would be an investment for every one of us in terms of public confidence in the system.
  Mr. Den Dover: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry, but I must make progress, otherwise it is not fair to the House.
  I will return to that matter in some detail if we have such a debate next week. That should be done, subject to discussion about the details.
  Secondly, we should consider the clean-break problem. I accept entirely what the Minister has said—that one cannot have a clean break with one's children, that one should not have a clean break with one's children. Again, the Australian system—it is worth looking at it because it was implemented in stages in 1988 and 1989—has been running for four or five years, so there is a body of experience. Under that system, if parties are separating or divorcing and they have a formal agreement about, for example, the transfer of the matrimonial home or a major financial settlement, they can specify in that agreement, both parties being signatories, a reduction in the maintenance payments in recognition of that transfer. If that is registered and lodged with the Child Support Agency and it collectes the maintenance, it will observe that reduction. If one party subsequently goes on to benefit, it is still possible to vary that benefit, although within well-defined limits, the top variation being 25 per cent.
  I am not standing on every detail of that system, and I am not suggesting that we lift it as it is and pop it into our legislation, but there is a strong case for considering what appears to have been a successful system and then looking at the monumental problem that we face and seeing whether there is some way in which we can learn and improve the position.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: I am going to plough on, if the House will bear with me. Hon. Members will be able to return to this matter—it is a checklist.
  The third matter—I use my terms carefully—is the possibility of a disregard. I have always been attracted to the idea of a disregard, because there is one compelling argument, and that is that the system is supposed to be

  957
  about more money being collected from more parents for more children. On the figures available to us, that does not fit with the facts as they exist in the real world.
  I recognise that there are competing arguments and that, for example, there is worry that an overgenerous disregard will make work less worth while. I recognise also that there are always problems with the financial implications of a disregard. That is why such matters should be thrashed out and discussed. They should be on the agenda for discussion, if only because my conscience does not live easily with the fact that I know—that the children who are most at risk economically, the children who are living with families who are dependent on income support, will almost certainly get no direct benefit at all from additional maintenance that is paid. Just because of that fact, such matters should be considered.
  Those are meant to be three positive proposals for discussion. There is a very positive commitment on my part to consider the proposal on the right of appeal to a review officer. Of course children should be at the centre of the system—that is the point of the Child Support Act 1992, and that is why, in many ways, we have got the balance wrong. Children's interests must be balanced, but they should not be subordinated to the interests of absent parents, and certainly not to the interests of the taxpayer, the Treasury or whatever term the Minister likes to use. We all agree that it is difficult to get it right, but the confusion and the pain surely justify further movement.
  I am fearful—I might sound a little like an academic constitutional lawyer—about what I see around me. A legal system must command respect. There is a danger that if disrespect grows to the point at which consent is withheld, we will bring everything into disrepute. We are near to doing that. Despite the changes that the House will approve tonight, I trust, we should not ignore the continuing and dangerous unhappiness that underlines and reinforces our duty to get the balance right. In answer to a question in Hansard, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Bury, North, said:
  "There are no plans for further change."—[Official Report, 1 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 578.]
  In the light of the opinons expressed in every part of the House, I hope that the Minister will reconsider that position.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Many hon. Members wish to contribute, and short speeches would be greatly appreciated.
  7.49 pm
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I have had many contacts with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), including contacts in consistorial practice. He and I have both dealt with many of the tens of thousands of marriages that have broken down, and we know about the difficulty and the sadness. The children and both parties have to make sacrifices, as do succeeding parties.
  It is strange that quotas are to be allotted to parents in certain circumstances. In my experience, these matters were dealt with by the courts, which saw the mother, the father and the children, knew the locality and
  958
  comprehended the circumstances. I cannot understand how a vast new bureaucracy in Belfast will be able to do that simply by asking ordinary people to fill up a form.
  Mr. Stephen: On the issue of court orders, does my hon. and learned Friend recall that, under the old system before the child support legislation, the lawyers for the husband and wife would often put together a settlement which paid no regard at all to the interests of the taxpayer? It was often designed to place the maximum burden on the taxpayer. For example, it could transfer a house with a large mortgage, which the taxpayer was expected to pay. Does my hon. and learned Friend approve of that?
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am glad to say that I am a Scottish lawyer, and that what my hon. Friend outlines does not apply in our civilised society. If it applies in England, that increases my contempt for the absurdity of its law.
  We are dealing with the terrible sensitivities of former human relationships and with children. I was horrified by the Minister's index of what people receive. A person who has four children and has been married for four years gets tuppence, and so on. But I was even more horrified to hear that, as I understand it, the matter is to be taken out of the hands of the courts in April and put into the hands of a bureaucracy in Belfast. What do the bureaucrats know about these matters? On what possible basis can they be sensitive to the needs and realities of the children and the families?
  Mr. Simon Burns: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend is not a member of my family, but I shall give way to him anyway.
  Mr. Burns: I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend is not an English lawyer, but does he accept that a problem with the court maintenance system in England was that the people who suffered most were the child and the mother? That was because of the extremely low maintenance that was set, and in three out of four cases no maintenance was collected.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: That increases my contempt for the law of England, because it is certainly not my experience in the law of Scotland. My experience there is the reverse. I am glad to say that at least civilisation starts at the Tweed.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I think that my hon. and learned Friend will accept that no hon. Member is suggesting a return to the old system. Does he agree that the system under the Child Support Agency is at least as unjust as that which preceded it? A compromise, taking account of the hardship that the Child Support Agency logistics is causing, could allow the court to review, in appropriate cases, the special circumstances that I put to the Minister and to which I got only a standard response from the CSA. It had no relevance whatever to the individual circumstances of my constituent's concern.
  Could we have a compromise arrangement, whereby the CSA remains but the regulations are amended to make sure that such injustices do not occur?
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have had dozens of cases from the Child Support Agency. In one that came to me last week, the CSA had

  959
  decided to reduce the amount that the court had awarded. What right has the agency to do that? Are the people in the agency gods, lares et penates, who oversee our lives?
  A committee of bureaucrats in Belfast is directing people in the courts who have seen the facts, the family, the children and the circumstances. Upon what possible basis do those bureaucrats across the sea have the effrontery to reduce the award that a judge and justice thought was appropriate? The award was not opposed by the other spouse. He came to me and told me that he was appalled and that the CSA had said that his contribution to his family should be reduced.
  The whole development of this matter is offensive in principle and in application. As it develops, it will get more hubristic, more bureaucratic and more unfair. I cannot see any justification for the ordinary citizen not having a right to go to court. I have done tens of thousands of consistorial cases in the Scottish courts. Some are easy, and some are difficult, but the children are always the principal concern. I do not see how a bunch of bureaucrats can do that armed with a form.
  I cannot fill up forms, and I am supposed to be a Queen's counsellor. How is Mrs. Snodgrass to fill up a form? When it has been completed, some bureaucrat will read it and say, "You will not get this or that." For the Minister to rabbit on about £42 for this and £42 for something else is totally insensitive. We are talking about families and children; we are not talking about buying postal orders and paying taxes.
  I find the Government's whole approach grotesquely offensive. We are dealing with children and families, with human frailty and human difficulties. Such issues cannot be dealt with by a committee or on a form, and I disapprove of that completely. Let us ensure—let the Government be warned that I shall try to ensure—that the matter is left to the courts, who comprehend it. At least they are in reason and in knowledge of the locality, the families and the relationships. I plead, please, for humanity.
  8 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I shall be brief. There is good reason why today's debate will sound to many outsiders as though we are set on representing the views of some men against their families. That response is understandable, but it is not adequate.
  Many of our male constituents feel that the ground under their feet has shifted markedly over the past 15 years. One in five of all males are now unemployed. If they are unskilled, the figure is one in three. Those males feel disfranchised. The lack of a wage packet means that they no longer feel head of the household; they no longer feel equal to their partners, and they find it difficult to carry out their role as fathers. There is disquiet on those grounds.
  There is disquiet on other grounds too, and the Government are even more directly responsible for them than for the unemployment figures. Under the stewardship of the present Government, until the advent of the Child Support Agency, we witnessed the near-collapse of the collection of maintenance for those mothers who are on income support and who were on supplementary benefit. The proportion has halved.
  The word went out, therefore, that the Government were not interested in ensuring that those on benefits also received maintenance. That trend continued for 15 years. Many males will have made arrangements with second
  960
  families which they will be unable to sustain if an Act is introduced retrospectively forcing them to pay a large proportion of their income towards their first families.
  The Government have to approach the debate with more humility than usual. Many of those people who thought that they were totally free to make new arrangements with their second families now find that, late in the day, the Government have changed the ground rules under which they are to be judged, and the grounds on which they will have to pay. That is one reason for humilty, but there are also others.
  The Minister was generous in his selective quoting from the Select Committee report. If I had introduced the debate tonight, I would have made similar partisan use of that report. However, Ministers will not have forgotten that there is unlikely to be a vote tonight. It is the only night this week when hon. Members do not have to stay, yet we have a presence in the Chamber far in excess of what we normally have at this stage when there is a three-line Whip, especially in social security debates. It gives those on the Treasury Bench some idea of the temper of the House tonight.
  As the Minister quoted from the report, I should mention that the Select Committee considered the regulations to be the most far-reaching change since the Attlee settlement of 1945. That means that, if the Government are wise, tonight's debate will be the beginning and not the end of the reform of the Child Support Agency.
  The bigger the reform, the more important it is for us to listen carefully to what our constituents tell us and for the Government to take into account what we relate in the Chamber and in private to Ministers, so that the Act can be reformed to make it workable in the way that we all hoped it would be.
  Any major change means a resettlement between the three parties that have an interest—taxpayers, first families, second, and perhaps third, families. There are five reforms which the Government will have to consider sooner of later, and the sooner they consider them, the more credit they will get. More importantly, not only will our constituents feel that the House of Commons listens to them, but the Act will win widespread support rather than hostility.
  First, the agency is the only body in existence to look at what is happening to family budgets. It has all the details. Despite the attempts of our constituents, we often get an incomplete picture. May we have some information as to the income ranges with which people manage with their second families?
  Secondly, the Select Committee backed away from the idea of raising the clean break settlements. We could not get agreement on that, and we hoped that the courts would rule in a way that would have broken open the whole debate. It is not good enough to rely on the argument that some people have managed to hand over a house which is largely a debt for taxpayers to service. Such matters can be considered, justified and calculated.
  It is monstrous for those who have made a large settlement—and often acquired debts in order to make that settlement—to be penalised, particularly as the whole House believes that it is a good thing to own houses.
  It is absurd that, despite some adjustments to the formula, in all circumstances it now pays for a man to put his first wife and children out of their home and to sell it, and, if there is anything left from the settlement, to buy

  961
  something very much smaller, and then for the man to get the biggest, most expensive house he can, as that is taken into account in calculating his income.
  It cannot make sense to have a formula that puts mothers and children at risk of homelessness and for single males, perhaps less single if they have new partners, to occupy the most expensive premises they can possibly find.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman will concede that it is not solely a decision for the man at the time of separation. It would require a court to force a mother and children out of their house in the circumstances that he has described.
  Mr. Field: One of the reasons why the courts stand convicted tonight, although clearly in Scotland they have a much better system, is that the courts have generally worked in favour of men and against women and children. It was the men that were represented by lawyers and, generally speaking, women and children were not. If they wanted time to push the court around, the men's lawyers got the proceedings adjourned. There are certainly many complaints from women and children about how the procedures work. I have had no request from women and children in my constituency to go back to the old English court system to settle disputes.
  Thirdly, because we wanted the formula adjusted so that those towards the lower end of the scale would be able to keep more of their income and thereby maintain their incentive to work, we plumped for a big increase in the amount of income that people could keep when the formula had been applied.
  But it is clear from two Question Times, let alone tonight, that travel-to-work expenses are massively important for some of our constituents, particularly if they live in what are called satellite towns or areas and travel far. Again, the Child Support Agency will have more information on that than any other body in the country. If other constituents are like my own, they will have told the Child Support Agency what those fares are. It is important that that information should be published.
  Fourthly, it is meanness on stilts to say that, because it takes 13 or 14 weeks for the Child Support Agency to send out an assessment, a person should begin the arrangement in arrears. We hope that the arrangement will work and work fairly, and to the advantage of all parties concerned. To begin by having to pay off a debt is, in any circumstances, difficult, but it is doubly difficult if the brown envelope contains a statement saying that a person's disposable net income for his or her second household will be considerably less than it was hitherto. Surely we must bear in mind the Select Committee's recommendation that people should not have to begin the new arrangement with a large debt around their necks.
  My last point is one on which I have changed my view. When we first debated the matter in the House, I argued against the first family on benefit being able to keep part of the money paid in maintenance. I thought that it was unfair between those mothers, the fathers of whose children are unknown or cannot be traced, those who are widowed and those, the fathers of whose childen have been found and are paying over money. There were grounds of equity there.
  There were also other considerations. I do not approve of the attitude that has gained currency that somehow it is
  962
  our responsibility in the first place to pay income support and that any money that fathers pay should be a bonus, rather than a relief of taxpayers who have been paying up to that point. The failure to chase people for maintenance payments, which I have highlighted in questions during the past 15 years, was an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  But although those points stand, when I put forward my views about grounds of equity in the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) simply said, "That's life." She said that life is often unfair, but because it is unfair to some does not mean that all women and children should be disadvantaged.
  The Child Support Agency now needs above everything else large numbers of mothers and children to speak up in favour of it. That could be done quite cheaply with a small disregard. Therefore, my last suggestion—
  Mr. George Mudie: As my hon. Friend is an influential person, and as the Minister seemed to frame his concessions with my hon. Friend in mind, will he consider adding a sixth point to his list on the business of phasing in?
  The Minister has made a concession on phasing in, but he has limited it to certain people. He does not seem to have accepted the general principle and the fact of life that people do not exist in a vacuum, and that, when one relationship breaks down, it is entirely natural for people to get on with their lives and build other relationships, and perhaps other debts and financial commitments. For the Child Support Agency to drop on a person, whatever his or her domestic circumstances, at a point in the future, completely ignoring financial commitments that that person has genuinely entered into, is most unfair.
  Mr. Field: I am grateful for that invervention. The reason I will not disappoint my hon. Friend when I say that I shall not add his point to my list is that it is in the report, although it has not been fully endorsed by Ministers tonight.
  They are the outlines of an agenda that I hope the Select Committee will consider in its second report—
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Field: In fairness to other hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall not give way. I am about to bring my contribution to a conclusion.
  I hope that that will act as a basis for an agenda for what will be the Select Committee's second report. That itself will not be the final report that the Select Committee will need to bring to the House.
  I said at the beginning that I thought that this was the most significant change in the way that people have had to behave toward one another since the Attlee settlement of the great 1945–50 Government. The bigger the change, the more important it is that we are sensitive to how the reform works.
  It is important tonight that Ministers win this and other victories against the Treasury, so that the Treasury's mean-minded policy in trying to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement to a more satisfactory level does not put at stake the principle of the Act. The force of interventions will have shown Ministers that hon. Members will not go away, and that, if further reform is not forthcoming, the Act will be at risk.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: Listening to the debate reinforces my view that the vast majority of hon. Members wholeheartedly support the principle that fathers should pay for the support of their children when they are financially able so to do, and for the state to maintain support through the benefit system when fathers, for whatever reason, unfortunately do not have the necessary income or are not able to do so because they are in receipt of benefit.
  Since the Act was brought into operation in April 1993, there has been much concern about certain aspects of the operation of the formula, but not the principle behind the Act. I trust that even after this debate that almost bipartisan support for the principle will be maintained because it is essentially the right principle: parents should be financially responsible for their children.
  On the other side of the coin, it is interesting that we hear little about the mothers who, all too often before April last year, suffered a significant drop in their standard of living or found it difficult to make ends meet on the benefit system because far too many fathers had simply abandoned them without meeting their financial responsibilities.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Burns: I shall not give way because there is little time and many hon. Members wish to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I will give way once and no more. I give way to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
  Mr. Cryer: The Act was presented to the House on the principle that fathers should be responsible for their children and that non-paying fathers should be made to pay. No one disagreed with that, but that principle has been set aside and fathers who are paying and who are exercising responsibility are now being subjected to further burdens and being hounded by what many people consider to be "Lilley' s Gestapo".
  Mr. Burns: I reject the last part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I was about to deal with the first part.
  There is an impression among responsible fathers who are being asked to pay through the Child Support Agency that they are the soft target and that the Act is not being used to target absent parents who have abandoned their responsibilities. I can understand them thinking that. They are an angry group of people and the more the point is made, the more acceptable it becomes. With respect, I urge the hon. Gentleman and others to look at the facts. It is unfair to say that the agency is ignoring irresponsible fathers who have never paid anything. They are, rightly, being pursued. Perhaps the CSA, or we as Members of Parliament, have failed to convey that it is not a lone attack on responsible fathers; the CSA is also going for fathers who pay nothing. I urge Opposition Members to study the facts before perpetuating a myth.
  I welcome the regulations because they respond to the Select Committee's report with proposals which seek to alleviate some of the problems that fathers face. I welcome also the phasing-in arrangements, the increased level of protected income and changes to the additional reduction rate. However, my constituents have raised a number of
  964
  points, which I suspect are not unique to Chelmsford, and those matters ought to be considered once the effect of the regulations on existing and future assessments is known.
  The precise aim of and philosophy behind paying for the upkeep of children should be identified. Is the purpose —as I believe it should be—to meet the cost of looking after a child or children at an acceptable level? If so, just because an individual's income increases each year, perhaps through salary rises, it does not necessarily follow that further significant amounts of his income should be taken to pay towards the upkeep of his children. While it is important that a sufficient amount is provided to provide care to an acceptable level, thereafter money should not automatically be taken from the father according to a sliding scale.
  One constituency case causes me particular concern. It involves a man who fathered three children by his first marriage, and who is now remarried and in work. His first wife has also remarried. My constituent and his second wife look after two of the children by his first marriage, while his first wife cares for the third. Her second husband has been out of work for five years and one might deduce that, whatever the situation in the employment market, that husband has no intention of getting a job.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Oh!
  Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady makes a noise from a sedentary position. That accusation is made not by me, but by my constituent and his second wife, who look after two of the children from his first marriage but are required to pay the carer's allowance of £44 through the CSA to the children's mother. I question whether my constituent and his second wife should be required to do that.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), other hon. Members and I have raised in parliamentary questions the issue of commuter costs. That is not special pleading as such, because usually only the belts around metropolitan areas have a commuter system of the sort found in London. Such a system is not common to all parts of the country. A monthly season ticket to commute to work from Chelmsford to London exceeds the monthly cost of a £30,000 non-endowment mortgage. That significant take from an individual's income, more so than an average figure, should be borne in mind.
  Can anything be done about fathers or mothers who deliberately make themselves unemployed to avoid being required to pay child support so that they may contact the CSA to claim that support from their former partner? I appreciate that in some circumstances there can be substantial disadvantages in making oneself intentionally unemployed, but in others that is not the case. It is particularly irksome to a working couple to be traced by the CSA because a former partner of one of them has deliberately taken himself or herself out of the employment market, either to avoid paying child support or to make themselves ineligible for it.
  There is widespread concern about the time taken by the agency to reply to cases raised by hon. Members and to members of the public who have complained or challenged assessments. I was heartened by the written reply that I received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, saying that measures would be taken to speed up the CSA's response. However, on the assumption that the regulations will be approved, in the short term an even greater burden will be placed on the agency. I urge my hon. Friend the

  965
  Under-Secretary to do all that he can to ensure that assessments and other matters are dealt with by the CSA as quickly as possible, even if that means taking on extra staff on a temporary basis. It is unfair to those who are assessed to have to wait an inordinate amount of time because of bureaucratic processing.
  All those aspects are of vital importance to our constituents. I trust that the regulations will make a genuine difference, and I suspect that they will. However, we may have to keep a watching brief on other aspects of the agency's activities, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said at Social Security Question Time on Monday.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: To the extent that the regulations will make a difference, I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that they should be supported in the Lobby this evening. Nevertheless, I do not want the Government or the Under-Secretary to go away thinking that will be the end of the story.
  The regulations are detailed, and the Under-Secretary described—in his usual competent way—the changes that they will make. However, he has not begun to address the anguish, anxiety and concern that is evident the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman has any time to respond to the debate, he must give an indication this evening of the Government's intentions after the regulations are introduced.
  I listened carefully to the reasoned speech by the hon. Member for Garscadden, which made a positive contribution to the debate. I should be grateful to him and to the official Opposition if they would make use of a valuable Supply day further to debate the subject, for that would greatly benefit the House.
  Even though short speeches have been made, many other hon. Members will not have an opportunity tonight to represent their constituents' interests in the way that they would like. In fact, given the tight confines of the regulations, it might not be in order for certain points to be made—but the Under-Secretary has not made any difficulty about that.
  I emphasise that the issue will not go away, and the House should not allow it to do so. It must be raised again, by the Select Committee, the House itself, or as a result of public pressure—which is increasing, judging from the volume of post on the subject that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House are receiving. The power to make necessary changes resides in the hands of the Under-Secretary and the Department.
  I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is here, and appreciate his presence. We are all struggling to try to get an appropriate response, which the regulations do not provide. The Minister knows me well enough to understand that I do not make rash or casual threats. I do not want it to be put by way of threat, but there has been much discussion across the Floor of the House, with everybody agreeing to the principle of the Act.
  I agree with that. In Scots law, parents have always had financial as well as other legal liabilities and duties to their offspring. That has always been the case, and was so before 1991, when the Act was introduced. I say this carefully and
  966
  urgently. There are circumstances in which I would recommend to my colleagues that support for the principle of the Act should be withdrawn if the implementation of the Act is not substantially changed. It would be a serious matter for the Minister if support were withdrawn, and for Opposition Members.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred to the system that must be put in place. It has a 15-year time span—or longer. If it is to be responsible and respond to the needs, it must survive changes of Government. The Government must take that into account, because if they do not change the practice in a way that is acceptable to the House, were there to be a change of Government, which, I presume, will happen eventually, but goodness knows when—that can be debated on another day and is in the hands of the electorate, not just here—he has a responsibility as a Minister to ensure that a system is in place that will withstand the test of time and changes of Government. I assure him that it is a fact that he does not have such a system.
  I took part in the consideration of the Bill in 1991. The House gave it quite thorough scrutiny. I was not on the Standing Committee, but many concerns were raised about the agency and were dealt with in the way in which the Government introduced the Bill. There was much pressure and worry about mothers being forced to divulge. The Government have dealt with that, but the circumstances have changed dramatically since then. The element of retrospection is a far greater problem in practice than I ever aniticipated. That problem was referred to earlier.
  The selection of the Government's target of trying to recover £530 million in the first year of operation, against the background of the fact that they have professional staff who are on performance-related contracts, is one of the most difficult things for people to understand. The people who are being hit by this legislation believe that it is by people who are making their own pay. I do not believe that that is the case. I consider the people who are running the agency to be professionals who are doing the best they can, although that may not be everybody's experience.
  There is real concern that the selection of the target of £530 million in the first year was a bridge too far. The transitional arrangements were inadequate. Something has been done about that, but not enough. The whole question of the way that the Act is impinging on second families is completely contrary to natural justice.
  Because of the pressures of the Act, I have constituents who are threatening to emigrate, stop work or walk away from their second families. There are also tales of suicide. I do not know how much truth there is in them, but some of the newspaper reports are a cogent body of evidence that cannot and must not be ignored by the House and the Government.
  The simple fact, in my experience, is that second families are being asked to pay amounts that they simply cannot afford. One of my cases last week was of a father whose offspring are in Plymouth. He is desperately trying to keep a relationship between himself and his two young children. There is no way in which the current formula can take account of the travel costs involved in seeing his children. He has had to sever the relationship with his children or borrow money from his parents to maintain it. It is a nightmare. It is a mess. There is no administrative machinery available to exercise any element of discretion.
  The hon. Members for Birkenhead and for Garscadden listed five or six suggestions. I shall add a couple. In the

  967
  longer term, if one put money into a proper system of conciliation, that would be a better way of saving Govermment money. Child care services may be technically out of order in the debate on social security, but those are two important parts where social investment would reduce the long-term costs of the breakdown of families that we see in this country. A whole series of issues could and should be raised, such as getting a proper appeals system and dealing with capital settlements. A raft of things must be considered.
  When the Minister comes to reply, if he gets any time, he must address the question of the future. Tonight's regulations are welcome as far as they go. I will recommend that my colleagues support them on that basis. But if he says, "This far and no further," he is storing up trouble for himself, and deservedly so.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Despite my hon. Friend the Minister's best intentions, some of my constituents still view the CSA as a cross between the Court of Star Chamber and the Spanish inquisition. They see their second marriages at stake, and the actions of the agency not only burning a hole in their pockets but threatening or destroying their relationships and jobs. We all have a mass of cases. I have mine here tonight. I shall refer only to two.
  First, a car worker in my constituency came to see me a week or so ago and said, "Must I really give up my job because of the proposals?" I found that distressing. He was complaining about the scale and the speed of change that had been brought about by the Act. Secondly, a newly remarried man told me that the enforced change in his circumstances was already undermining his second marriage. Again, I found that a distressing case.
  I must tell my hon. Friend that I have had more letters, more approaches and telephone calls on this issue this Parliament than on any other. I voted for the Act. I approve of the principles, and I want to see it work. I welcome the new provisions, which, in my view, are fairer. They might persuade that car worker in my constituency to hold his job. They might help the second marriage of the other gentleman to whom I referred. I question whether the relief package—perhaps we should call it a transitional relief package—is enough. I hope that it is.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said to my hon. Friend, "Please do not regard this as the final settlement." We must regard it as the next stage in the evolution of the CSA. I am mindful of the fact that, tomorrow, 300 aggrieved parents will attend a meeting in Leicester, that there is an action committee in my constituency, run by a Mr. Klenk, and that marches are being organised. There is a body of opposition from a large proportion of the population. When marches are organised and there is that level of activity, as we saw over some of the legislation in the last Parliament, we ignore it at our peril.
  I do not wish to detain the House for long; I shall refer to a few points of particular concern, some of which have not been raised. The first is the intrusive and unsympathetic nature of telephone calls from the CSA to families, frequently at night or when they are with their families at tea time. At times they are rung at the office and it is made
  968
  perfectly clear that it is the CSA. Those actions are damaging the reputation of the CSA at the very least, and are certainly damaging families and job prospects.
  Hon. Members have asked for an appeals procedure. I must say that I consider the CSA's powers too final. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) expressed concern about the removal of the courts' powers; I understand that move, because I think that the system was breaking down, but my goodness, the CSA seems all-powerful now. My hon. Friend the Minister must think seriously about some form of appeals procedure.
  Then there is the whole issue of former spouses having access to personal and financial details. Until the CSA came along. I thought that an Englishman's home was his castle; the agency, however, seems to have powers similar to those obtained by Customs and Excise over VAT. I find that alarming: the data protection provisions are too weak, and it is threatening second marriages. Something must be done.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Surely it is wrong in principle for the operation of the CSA to force a second wife whose divorced husband is perfectly capable of meeting his obligations to his children to give all the details of her income, or of shares that she possesses. The present Government, after all, introduced separate taxation for husbands and wives—which I think is absolutely right. The information is given to the first wife, and the income concerned may well support not only her and her child, but her second—unemployed—husband.
  Mr. Tredinnick: That might have been a planted question. I have already referred similar cases to my hon. Friend the Minister. There is a general feeling that second wives are supporting first wives: I raised the matter in a parliamentary question before Christmas. For a number of reasons, a highly undesirable "arcing" of cash payments is taking place between first and second families.
  Ms Gordon: Not only is confidentiality being breached because the agency is able to inquire into the financial affairs of a second partner; it even reaches for information about the financial affairs of the second partner's children. If grandparents have invested money and some interest is due, that can be taken into account as well. I think it is outrageous.
  Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend the Minister is receiving a clear message from all quarters in the House that people are very unhappy about that aspect. I hope that he will deal with it when he winds up.
  We have heard much about the "clean break". I may not be as sophisticated as some, but I always thought that a clean break meant precisely that, I have subsequently learnt that children's interests are paramount, that the old system was not working as well as I had supposed, and that adjustments were necessary. It strikes me as strange, however, that a visitor to my surgery should tell me, "I pay for the clothes and the holidays, repair the car and do a host of other things, but that is not taken into account."
  I respect my hon. Friend, and recognise the work that he has put into this, but it is all very fine to say that it is too complicated to consider a range of individual points—travel costs, for instance; he must consider such matters. If we are to do away with the courts and impose a new agency, we cannot operate such an unsophisticated system.

  969
  The attitude of the CSA staff is of concern, too. Generally, when we telephone a Minister's private office —or when an experienced secretary or research assistant is briefed to do it—we are given a courteous and prompt response.
  I must tell the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State, however, that several experienced secretaries—and one or two hon. Members who are not present—have told me that the response of CSA top management is less than forthcoming: in fact, it is downright insolent. Those people had better wake up to the fact that we are elected representatives. When we raise issues, they had better listen.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: When people refer to a "clean break", they often misunderstand the situation. What is really at issue in the event of a clean break between husband and wife may be a nominal, or even significant, maintenance order in favour of children. Because people think of a clean break as referring to the entire family, they may feel hard done by when the matter is reopened by the CSA.
  Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend has made his point effectively, and I agree with him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spoke eloquently about travel costs. My hon. Friend the Minister explained why it was better to bundle the separate charges and requirements into a single package, but I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
  My constituency is in the middle of England: people commute from such areas as Hinckley to London. We are not that far away—only about 100 miles—but the rail fare is very expensive. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford provided another dramatic illustration of this argument. Such factors cannot be ignored: commuting and other travel costs are astronomical. One constituent told me, "I love my little girl dearly, but it is costing me a fortune to go to see her. I can no longer manage it." Something is wrong, and my hon. Friend the Minister must deal with it.
  The Act is good in principle, but it needs a good deal of polishing. The measures announced tonight will go some way towards alleviating some of the problems, and I welcome them; but Ministers should not go away believing that they have done their job. This must be seen to be one stage in the process of getting the CSA right.
  8.46 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that the Minister will not assume from the fact that we are not voting against these measures that any hon. Member receives them with approbation. I am sorry that we are not voting against them: I think that this part of the legislation should be junked entirely. It is defective; it was rushed into operation without being thought through; and the pressure on those operating it is such that they are not exercising the highest standards.
  One of the dangers of this unfortunate legislation is that many people now feel genuinely and deeply angry about what is happening to them. Trust is very important—
  970
  people must believe that the Government, in particular, are dealing with them fairly, and there is now deep unease in the population.
  I have encountered many such cases in my constituency and have attended two or three exciting and lively meetings of people suffering from the CSA's attentions, but I do not want the House to run away with the idea that only the male of the species is suffering. The ineptitude of the whole business was revealed by a letter from a constituent, who wrote:
  "In April 1993 I applied to the CSA, because I wasn't receiving any maintenance for my two children, then aged 8 and 5. At about the same time I moved in with my new partner after being on my own for 3½ years. A while ago my new partner was sent a form from the CSA, as he has a child, aged 12 … On Saturday 22.1.94 we both received the outcome of our cases. Mine having taken 9½ months.
  We were shocked … at the outcome. I am to receive £2·20 a week for my two children from my ex-husband, who is working full-time and has no second family, and my partner is to pay out £88·79 a week for one child, whilst he has to support us as well.
  My ex-husband is self-employed and is apparently showing accounts that don't compare with his lifestyle."
  The woman went on in considerable detail to point out what happened to her.
  Another woman instituted proceedings for divorce on 20 April 1993, then made an application to the Child Support Agency for an assessment against her husband on 7 June 1993. That assessment related to two children. She heard nothing in reply for some time and eventually ascertained that the inquiry form had not been sent to her husband until 9 September 1993. She eventually received an assessment on 30 October. She was informed that it would be backdated but, because of the delays, her husband is now in arrears of £1,300. As no agreement or order was in force in respect of the children before April 1993, the lady has had no support whatever from her estranged husband. Because of the Child Support Act, she was also unable to apply to the court for an order for interim maintenance.
  Those two cases sum up starkly the fact that the machinery simply is not working. All hon. Members can produce examples of cases in which people are suffering hardship and unhappiness and are being put through the wringer in an extremely short period. It is destroying them and I am genuinely frightened about what will happen to the children of both sets of partners. Numerous people complain to me that they will be forced to sell their house and tell me of the pressure on their relationships—those relationships may have been fragile, but a form of stability existed. No matter how the CSA's efforts are justified by the Minister, they are putting so much pressure on people that not only previous partnerships but existing partnerships are directly threatened.
  I received a long, sad letter from a woman in the constituency of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), saying that she had written to me because her Member of Parliament seemed unable to take up her case. She was deeply concerned about the mental health of her new partner and described in detail what had happened to him since he received an assessment for amounts which he knew that he could not meet. That is the reality.
  I am also horrified at the number of people in high-stress jobs who come to me because the CSA's actions are having a direct effect on their jobs. If people in the police force get into debt, their jobs are at risk because they have broken the terms of their contract.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley)indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: It is no use the Secretary of State shaking his head. If he does not know the effect of his legislation, he should ask somebody to tell him. I have raised the matter with the Home Secretary, who wrote to me saying that it was a matter for the chief constables of each individual force. I have received no guarantee that the CSA's efforts will not cause policemen to appear before a disciplinary board. Indeed, two or three of them have already resigned and I know of at least two more in the same position. Firemen are experiencing similar problems. A social scientist would find the effects of the legislation revealing because those in stressful professions, including Members of Parliament, seem to have second and third marriages.
  The implementation of the Act has a direct effect not only on adults but on children. It affects the children's relationships with their parents, the amount of money available for the children and the atmosphere in both partnerships at every level.
  I do not wish to go on for ever but I believe that this legislation was not put on the statute book to improve conditions for children. If I believed that it was wholly devoted to improving the lot of the children of divorced and divided families, it would have my wholehearted support and I would not criticise it in any circumstances. I believe that it was put on the statute book for just one reason, and many of my constituents have the same view. It was to obtain money for the Treasury. It does not help those whom it purported to help and should be taken back to square one so that the Secretary of State can start again. He has got it all wrong. Why will he not admit that and at least try to put it right?
  8.55 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: Like so many other Members, I supported this legislation enthusiastically when it was introduced because of the number of women who had been to my surgeries who were desperate because they could get no satisfaction on maintenance from the court. They were also desperate to get their wriggling absent husbands, ex-husbands or partners to pay something towards their children's maintenance.
  Having supported the legislation, however, I am desolated by the effects of the agency. Some hon. Friends have complained about the agency's attitude in answering them on the telephone or by letter. They were lucky to have had an answer at all. I have received no answers to letters that I sent to the agency as long ago as October. Constituents who come to see me complain that the agency simply will not answer their questions, either by telephone or by letter; all it does is send those draconian assessments. Even when a response by the agency is received, it is belated and does not solve the problems that have been put to it.
  Like many other Members, I have many commuters in my constituency. It costs some £2,000 a year to travel the 30 miles from my constituency to central London, although many thousands of my constituents do so. Many of them do not have well-paid jobs and the fare represents a substantial proportion of their income, once the cost of housing has been taken into account. To be forced to decide whether to travel to work or feed the family is a stark choice indeed.
  972
  The complaints that I receive are the same as those received by many other Members—that no account is taken of the many essential household bills such as gas, electricity, water, insurance, mortgage arrears and council tax. None is taken into account, yet they are all essential expenses faced by every household. Another peculiarity is that only 50 per cent. of pension contributions is allowable as an expense. Many people have no alternative to making pension contributions; indeed, the Government encouraged them to do so.
  What worries me is the attitude of the Child Support Agency. Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I am particularly concerned that reviews of decisions take for ever. I welcome these changes, as far as they go. However, I should have liked to ask the Minister, during the course of his speech, to answer one very simple question. I am not absolutely clear about whether the changes will apply to all those who have been subject to assessments up to the present. I should be grateful for an answer on that matter.
  If the changes are applicable to everyone who has been assessed hitherto, they will make a substantial change in the case of my constituent Mr. L, whose assessment for one child increased the £10·75 a week payable under a court maintenance order to £122 a week, even though he has a second family. Will he be helped? His assessment included the reimbursement of his travelling expenses. That amount was added to his income in arriving at the assessment. He asked in October for a review of his case. Goodness knows when it will take place. In the meantime, paying £122 a week, he is building up enormous arrears. I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that such arrears must not be allowed to get out of hand simply because the agency is not carrying out the reviews that it should be undertaking.
  I am worried by the fact that many ordinary, decent folk are harassed and hounded by the agency. In the case of at least one person, I wrote personally and urgently to the Secretary of State because I was so worried that she would do something desperate as a result of demand from the agency. There must be a taming-down. The CSA is too mechanistic in its whole approach. There is no sensitivity whatsoever towards the first, second or any other family.
  Like the constituents of many hon. Members who have spoken and, no doubt, of many who have yet to speak, people in my constituency are darkly suspicious that the main motive of the agency is to save income support money. It is no coincidence that every constituent from whom I have heard pays some form of maintenance. Court maintenance assessments are often hopelessly low, and people are receiving new assessments. I have received not a single letter from among the absent fathers whom I hoped would be caught by this legislation. I am sure that that is no coincidence.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: I agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) in that he seems to be yet another advocate of doing away altogether with the Child Support Agency. The legislation was brought in hastily and for the wrong reasons. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that there were two reasons for the introduction of the Act. The first was moral indignation. Here we had the first sign of the Tories' "back to basics"

  973
  policy. It may be that in this case the moral indignation was justified. In any event, it was fuelled by the Treasury in an attempt to cut back on the social security budget.
  The proposals contained nothing that would help children. There was nothing to reduce child poverty or to protect the family, as the figures tend to prove. Of the £530 million being collected, only £50 million—less than one tenth—goes to the family or to the children; the rest goes directly to the Treasury. I try, and I hope that others will try, to avoid taking the moral line of those who seek new scapegoats. The unemployed man living with the first wife is now being paid by the second wife for the children. What we have here is an attempt to find other scapegoats. The truth is that the situation must be looked at in a sensible but compassionate way.
  It would be very difficult to disagree with the principles of what the Government proposed in the first place, but it is very easy to disagree with the practice, with what has acutally been happening. Many of the constituents who come to see me are not just angry or mad, but desperate. They are desperate because they have nowhere else to go. They come to me, but I cannot give them any advice. They put their wage slips in front of me and show me their expenditure figures. They are in a Mr. Micawber situation: their expenditure after CSA payments is greater than their income. They ask what they can do because they clearly cannot pay, but I have no answer.
  The CSA does not take into account people's real needs. The main problem is the lack of flexibility and the use of a crude and unsophisticated formula. Under the formula, children of a new relationship are not considered to be natural children and so do not count. In other words, stepchildren and adopted children are presumably unnatural children. The CSA considers people's protected income, but not their ability to pay. There is no point in having a protected income if it is worked out according to the formula.
  I was not as impressed as my party's spokesman about the significance of the proposed changes. Indeed, everyone to whom I have spoken about them says that they are not significant and I do not believe that they have made a real difference to the majority of our constituents. I shall not vote against the proposals because they may help individuals, but they do not help the majority.
  When I first read about the changes, I was impressed for a moment because I thought that something radical might happen. The leaflet, "Proposed changes to child support maintenance", published by the Department of Social Security states that the formula
  "takes account of the income of both parents, by allowing for tax, national insurance"
  —we knew about that—
  "and essential expenses such as rent or mortgage costs."
  I also knew about the rent or mortgage costs, but I wondered what other "essential expenses" were taken into account. I thought that the best thing to do would be to ring the CSA and I did so today—not once, but five times.
  The first four times I reached an answering machine which told me that the lines were busy. On the fifth occasion, I spoke to a young woman who was very helpful. I explained that I wanted to know about the "essential expenses" other than rent or mortgage costs which were taken into account. Were there one, two or three additional expenses? The truth is that not one other item is
  974
  considered, which makes nonsense of the changes. It means that the formula is dealing not with reality but with theoretical sums. The use of the formula to decide what they should be paying is leading people into despair and I probably have a better example of that in my constituency than anyone in the Chamber.
  One of my constituents committed suicide, although I hesitate to refer to him. His family have my greatest sympathy and I do not want to add to their grief, but I believe that I should be failing others in a similar situation if I did not mention his case. The day after receiving notification from the CSA that his contribution was to be increased by 300 per cent., Graham Clay was found hanging at Newstead abbey. Even if the coroner was not prepared to say so, I am convinced that he hanged himself because he had nowhere to turn.
  I ask very little. If the Government are not prepared to scrap the CSA, will they please provide some method of appeal? Will they provide desperate people such as Graham Clay with somewhere to go where their needs will not be assessed according to a formula and where some discretion will be involved in assessing their payments, where they will be considered as individuals and not as numbers?
  I am not saying that the CSA is unsympathetic. We cannot blame the Child Support Agency, because we are telling it to work to the formula and if it works to the formula it will seem as though it does not care. I have one request. The Australian scheme gives a right of appeal from the Australian agency. Let us have that right so that people can be considered as individuals. Even at this late stage, let us try to put a human face on the CSA.
  9.9 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I begin by congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends in Government on listening to my views and those of many other hon. Members about the implementation of the Child Support Act 1991. I welcome the changes that are before the House tonight. I think that they demonstrate that we have a listening Government who are prepared to take action and make changes when the need has been proved. I also congratulate the Social Security Select Committee on its report, which made a valid contribution to the debate on the subject.
  However, I think that it is important that the changes do not undermine the principle behind the Act, which many of us, including agencies such as the National Council for One Parent Families, supported and still support. It is important that we ensure that what was previously a poor system becomes better. The principle is that both parents should be responsible for supporting their children, even when they split up. The taxpayer should have to help only where parents do not have the means to support their children. Sadly, before the establishment of the agency, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, nearly 1 million lone parents and their children were dependent on income support.
  I attended the Lobby meeting against the Child Support Act and the Child Support Agency that took place in the Grand Committee Room on 2 December 1993. I sat on the platform and listened to the representations that were made. As promised, I discussed the many arguments that were made to me with Ministers in the Department of Social Security.

  975
  One point that struck me forcibly was that there seemed to be a predominance of police officers, firemen and members of the armed forces in the audience. When I queried that, I was told that they were there because they were extremely concerned about the implications of the Child Support Agency's financial demands on them, because those demands might cause them to run into debt and thereby affect their job security. That point was mentioned by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I should be most grateful if the Minister would kindly clarify the Government's position in relation to the CSA's claims on those people's income when he replies to the debate, because it will be helpful for all of us to know the correct position on that understandable anxiety.
  At the meeting, I made it clear that I too had reservations about the aspect of implementation, especially in two respects. First, I was concerned about the impact on a family budget of an immediate increased claim upon it and, secondly, I was not sure that the formula levels relating to the protected income went far enough. Therefore, I am pleased that those issues and others have been tackled by the Government.
  During the meeting on 2 December, a number of major misunderstandings and misinterpretations came up repeatedly. The first is that the agency concentrates primarily on people who already pay some maintenance and neglects the pursuit of fathers who have not acknowledged any responsibility for their child or children. It must be made clear that 96 per cent. of cases handled by the CSA involve children supported by benefit, and that nearly two thirds of cases taken on by the CSA this year will be ones where no maintenance is being paid. In more than 15,000 cases where the lone parent has been unable to provide the address, the absent parent has been tracked down by the CSA. That represents 89 per cent. of completed cases. It also shows that the CSA is not only seeking absent fathers but finding them.
  There is no doubt that the old system of obtaining maintenance through the courts was slow and uncertain and led to low and inconsistent settlements. That procedure was clearly failing. However, it must be explained that where both parents are content with existing maintenance arrangements and the taxpayer does not have the burden of supporting the children, the parents are not forced to apply to the CSA. Therefore, in every case that the CSA has taken on, the existing arrangements were to the disadvantage either of the children or of the taxpayer. We must remember that many outstanding maintenance orders are indefensibly low—£5 or £10 a week. No one can pretend that that is adequate support from a father on a reasonable income.
  Another misunderstanding concerns clean-break settlements, which were touched on earlier in the debate. I stress again the fact that there can be no clean break between parents and their children, and there never has been, even under the court system. The term "clean break" refers to a spouse's rights, including ownership of assets acquired during the marriage. That would frequently include settling half the house on a wife. However, frequently the couple's mortgage is transferred to the parent with care, along with the house, and if she is on income support that leaves the taxpayer to foot the bill.
  Another important result of improved maintenance is that it will make it easier for lone mothers to return to work. That fact is often overlooked by critics of the CSA.
  976
  Maintenance gained through the intervention of the CSA will provide a portable income for mothers, which they will continue to receive even if they go back to work. The first £15 of maintenance is ignored for the purpose of calculating benefits if a mother is receiving, or is entitled to, family credit.
  I participated in social security questions last Monday, and I was appalled that not a single Opposition voice was raised in support of the lone carer, usually the mother, and her children. I heard a male chorus, promoting in unison the absent father's point of view alone. Tonight I fear that both sides—
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Roe: No, time is short and Mr. Deputy Speaker has asked us to be brief.
  Both sides of the House have again presented a one-sided story, and I must tell the House that many women in this country—
  Mr. Wicks: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Roe: Many women in this country, including some in my constituency, fully endorse the work of the Child Support Agency—
  Mr. Wicks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am in some difficulty because the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has said that no one spoke up during social security questions. I did.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Bogus.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) is responsible for her own speech.
  Mrs. Roe: I was in the Chamber at the time and listened carefully to the questions put to Ministers. I did not hear anybody supporting carers and their children on that issue.
  Mr. Wicks: Read Hansard.
  Mrs. Roe: The case of.Mrs. Janis Richards was described in an article in The Times last Monday. She said:
  "I didn't know what to do until the CSA took on the case"—
  [Interruption.] The Opposition should listen to this. They are proving my point; they are not interested in lone carers and their children.
  The article said that, as a result of the intervention of the CSA, Mrs. Richards had received more money for the support of her eight-year-old daughter in the past two months than she had received from her estranged husband during the whole of the previous year. She originally received only £65 a month from her husband, which was totally inadequate. Out of just over £15 a week, she had to pay £8 for her daughter's school meals and bus fares. The remaining sum—£1 a day—was supposed to pay for her daughter's food, clothes, shoes, occasional treats and school trips.
  Mrs. Richards said:
  "Whatever happens in my case, I cannot fault the CSA".
  I shall also read from a letter that I received from a constituent who supports the Child Support Agency. She said:

  977
  "For many years mothers have been left to feed, clothe, and care for the children on very little money, while the fathers walk out and continue to enjoy their income regardless of the fact that they have left their children living in poverty.
  Many fathers are encouraged to leave their families once they realise that their wives will receive income support who will also pay the interest on their mortgage, leaving them to enjoy their new found financial gain.
  When my ex-husband left me and our two children, he left income support to provide for us and pay the mortgage interest, while he lived in a rent free police house. When I finally received maintenance for the children from their father he ensured that I would receive minimum maintenance by purposefully committing the majority of his income to various loan and debt repayments stating to me that I wouldn't be able to have what he hadn't got so he would ensure his available income would be virtually non-existent by taking out as many loans etc. as he could. While myself and the children have been living in poverty for the past four years, he has been enjoying his police inspector's salary with holidays abroad, new clothes, new car and all the luxuries he desires, with no thought or help with providing his children with even the basic essentials they need."
  That letter came from that man's second wife with two children. The taxpayer is funding the mortgage and providing income support for that family. The taxpayer is also providing exactly the same for his first family. He is now on wife number three. Surely it cannot be right for other working families to pay through their taxes to support the children of absent fathers on reasonable incomes. Fathers who can afford to do so should pay the full cost of maintaining their children.
  As responsible Members of Parliament, we must listen to both sides of the story and ensure that children receive the support from both parents, which they deserve and need. It will take time for people to adjust to a new system such as the CSA, but we should give it the support that it merits. Let us not forget that bringing up children is an expensive business. What matters are regular payments for their day-to-day living expenses. Children's welfare must have the priority.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Before I embark on my speech, I shall clarify one point. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) was absolutely wrong when she said that the question of carers had not been raised by Opposition Members during Question Time. The hon. Member for Croydon North-West (Mr. Wicks), as he rightly said earlier, said then, inter alia:
  "Will he reform the measure to ensure that the vast proportion of money goes through to mothers with children, and that we have in reality a Child Support Act?"—[Official Report, 31 January 1994;: Vol. 236, c. 602.]
  It may be in order for the hon. Lady to withdraw what she said.
  I speak on behalf of my party and the Scottish National party and I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) for asking me to raise some points. I shall be brief as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest. No, I have not fallen foul of the "back to basics" purge. I am a lawyer who practises in divorce law. It is basic good sense that an absent parent should maintain his or her children, provided that he or she can afford to do so. The final words need emphasis since they do not appear to weigh heavily in the balance at the present time. It would be wrong to deny that the underlying theory behind the Child Support
  978
  Agency is a right and proper one. Of course society should ensure that children are given proper financial support. Therefore, my argument is not about the principle of the CSA, but about the operation of the agency under the present regime.
  I read with great interest the Adjournment debate of 31 January. I have also read numerous letters from the Under-Secretary of State on the subject because, like all hon. Members, I have received numerous letters about it. The Under-Secretary said:
  "The principle of parental support for children is not new. However, there is no doubt that the old, court-based system was failing the majority of children."
  Alas, the Child Support Agency is failing the majority of absent parents because the rigidity with which the formula is applied is mischievous. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, we have all had dozens of letters of complaint. People have suddenly been finding that maintainance orders evaluated by the county courts and regularly paid have been trebled overnight. Many absent parents have another home and another family, and the pressure is passed on to that new home and family.
  In my years of practice as a divorce lawyer, I often saw clean-break orders—indeed, such orders were actively encouraged by practice directions and under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Frequently, a husband would transfer his equity in a substantial property to the wife and pay maintenance to the children. I know that the courts could never sanction a clean break between father and child, and I would not wish them to do so because that would surely be insidious. The Government, however, through the agency, have missed a very important point. Any lawyer who knows anything about divorce law knows that part of the reasoning behind making a clean-break order with the extra capital being transferred was to enable the wife to provide more than adequately for the children. Allowance has therefore been made in clean-break orders—
  Mr. Burt indicated dissent.
  Mr. Llwyd: The Minister shakes his head. I will take the matter up with him at another time because time is short this evening, but as a practising lawyer I can tell him that that is absolutely correct—[Interruption.] As a part-time lawyer, then. That point appears to have been completely missed by the CSA under the current rules.
  The Minister was also wrong when he said in the Adjournment debate that there were no investigative powers available to the courts. That is nonsensical. Courts often ordered that specialist accountants should become involved in investigating matters and ensuring that they were thoroughly looked into. If those in the legal profession were doing their job correctly, the courts naturally worked properly and adequately. It is wrong—and a slur on the profession and on courts—to say that maintenance orders were based on slipshod evidence and were the result of arbitrary decisions.
  I respectfully hope that the Minister's somewhat facile knowledge of divorce law is not colouring his attitude to the debate. Closing the Adjournment debate, he said:
  "I hope that the changes will help."—[Official Report, 31 January 1994; Vol. 236, column 711–8.]
  That is not exactly an inspiring sentence. The changes suggested by the Select Committee will have to help because we are dealing with misery, depression and even deaths as a result of the introduction of the Act. We are

  979
  now attempting to amend the legislation to ensure that the changes help. Anything less simply will not do. After all, politics is the art of the possible.
  I pay tribute to the members of the Select Committee for the urgency with which they investigated this matter and for the breadth of good sense in their report. No doubt that urgency is a fair barometer of hon. Members' bulging postbags.
  To return to the main principle—the paramountcy of the child's needs—I am deeply concerned about the effect that even the amended legislation will have on stepchildren or children of a subsequent union. In a wide-ranging and informative debate in the other place, Lord Russell urged the Minister to look again—this time favourably—on paragraphs 81 and 82 of the Select Committee report. I echo that call. Time does not permit me to quote from the report, but I believe that it is as vital to secure the needs of the second family as it is to secure those of the children in the first family. The report deals with ways of achieving that.
  At school—on reflection, to my utter regret—I was often told by teachers that I could do better. The Government can do better, too, and I want to concentrate on three or four cardinal points that need to be addressed. I understand the rationale behind the statement that the obligation to maintain a child adequately comes before any expense or cost, but it is a signal failure of the Act—and, sadly, of the amendments—that an absent father's travel-to-work costs and his right to have contact with his children are not taken into account. Both are vital components in the exercise and should be fully deductible.
  I know of many cases, and I have read of many more, where absent parents take the view that without an allowance for travelling it will not be worth while working. That places a further burden on the state. Travel costs are as essential as those for food and clothing and should be recognised as such.
  I make a plea to Ms Hepplewhite, if she is within the confines of the building or wherever else she may be, and her happy band of performance-related employees to target the people who decline to pay and then to move on to more lucrative preserves. Even under the amendment, absent parents on modest incomes will pay an additional element of 50 per cent. That is clearly regressive and it would be far better to reduce the 50 per cent. taper for second families so that low-earning as well as high-earning absent parents gain. The present proposals will cause hardship and is, prima facie, unfair.
  I accept that there is an improvement to £30 a week in the protected income level, but it should be increased to £40 to enable lower earners to gain some benefit and to cope. The additional reduction to 15 per cent. is welcome, but there is leeway to reduce it to 10 per cent. Before Treasury Ministers tell me how much it will all cost, I remind them that this exercise was intended not to recoup money for the Treasury but to meet the needs of children.
  I welcome the amendment to the formula to reduce the amount payable for care of children, but a 50 per cent. reduction across the board for children aged from 11 to 16 would be reasonable. It would be simpler to apply. It is just tinkering with the problem to say that reductions will go up from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. It would surely be simpler to apply a 50 per cent. reduction.
  I sincerely hope and trust that further amendments will be considered because the regulations are widely viewed as
  980
  a knee-jerk reaction to intense media attention and, of course, to the concerns of constituents, which have been expressed by all hon. Members.
  We have seemingly gone part of the way, but we need to go the extra mile to ensure fair play to all concerned. I echo the view of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is experienced in these matters, that the amendments are not the last change that is needed to the Act. Without further amendments, there will be a widespread call in both Houses for changes in primary legislation.
  We have an opportunity to stem the tide of widespread injustice. Let us take it for the sake of our constituents and, above all, in the interests of our children.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Adam Ingram: What has happened tonight has been a tale of two debates. One debate has been on the narrow issue of the Government's regulations, which, I remind the House, were sneaked out three days before Christmas and after the House had risen for the recess. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is muttering from a sedentary position, but the way in which the regulations were introduced showed an extreme nervousness in the Government. As was argued at the time, it was also discourteous to the House and a denial of democratic accountability. In short, it was a transparent attempt by the Minister to seek to massage the media without proper scrutiny or debate. Belatedly, the Secretary of State has now introduced the measures.
  The second debate that has surfaced tonight is the one that the House really wants. It is a debate on the effects and function of the Act that the hundreds of people—absent parents and parents with responsibility for care alike—have demanded should take place.
  It is worth pointing out that on two separate occasions in the past few weeks the Government have denied time to the Opposition to allow a full and free debate on a motion on the wider aspects and implications of the Act and on the activities of the agency. I see the Minister shaking his head. I hope that he will deal with that matter in his reply.
  Clearly the Government recognise that they have an unsustainable case. That is why they have denied the two debates on those two separate occasions. Such debates would expose the Government to even more ridicule and criticism from Conservative Members than there was this evening.
  The Minister might be able to run away from a debate on this issue but, as hon. Members have said, he certainly cannot hide from it. "The debate will take place in the near future." We have heard that before, and Government business managers change the business to stop the debate taking place. However, a debate will take place in the future and it will allow proper examination of the many criticisms of the Act and its effects on families throughout the land.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is smiling because he knows perfectly well that he and his colleagues have lost the chance of a debate because of their behaviour over the past two or three weeks.
  Mr. Ingram: As for the procedural conduct in the House, democracy prevails in a particular way. Opposition

  981
  Members have not acted unreasonably. There has been a deliberate attempt to stop the debate taking place. It is clear that many Conservative Members want such a debate.
  It is worth bearing in mind that the regulations are a reaction by the Government to the substantial and sustained pressure which has been put on them to ease the financial burden imposed on absent parents and on the second families of absent parents. The Government do not intend to introduce any further changes to the Act.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Good.
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Lady is one of two hon. Members who take that view—[Interruption.]—apart from the Government.
  Time and again, the Minister has made it clear that the Government do not intend to introduce any further changes to the Act. In fact, in a written answer, he stated:
  "There are no plans for further change."—[Official Report, 1 February 1994; Vol. 236, c. 578]
  Of course, the Government have said that before: "There are no plans to raise VAT, no plans to increase national insurance contributions, and no plans to increase taxes." Perhaps we should doubt such statements.
  Mr. Frank Field: Does my hon. Friend accept that, as most people who will be affected by the legislation have not yet received their forms and as the build-up will be towards the next election, it would be foolish of the Government to abide by that statement?
  Mr. Ingram: I agree entirely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
  Such a statement by the Government will come as a great disappointment to the many organisations and charities involved with parents with care and with the care of children. It will also come as a great disappointment —indeed, it will be viewed with great anger—by groups who are springing up all over the country in opposition to the Act. Given the contributions by Conservative Members, with the exception of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), it will be greatly resented by hon. Members who face escalating demands for a further fundamental and detailed review of the Act and for changes to be introduced to reflect the many criticisms of the Act.
  The Minister cannot ignore those demands. Is he still not prepared to go any further than the regulations? Does he stand by his statement in Hansard? If so, does that mean that he rules out any possible changes to build flexibility into the system? That was the main thrust of hon. Members' arguments. Such an argument was made with great passion by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell).
  Does the Minister still say that representations that he has received to take into account clean-break settlements, travel-to-work costs, access costs, the effects on children of second marriages and many other financial consequences are to be ignored? Does he really say that, especially in view of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the very hon. Member behind whom the Minister has hidden ever since the Select Committee report was published and who clearly set out his own trenchant criticisms of the Act and the way forward in terms of a review?
  982
  First, will the Minister confirm that the regulations bring no benefit to parents with care or, more important, to their children? I direct that point especially to the hon. Member for Broxbourne. The Minister will be aware that the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that a case can be made for an income report disregard payable to the parent with care. Is he completely ruling out that possibility?
  Secondly, does the Minister accept that, depending on the family circumstances of both the absent parent and the parent with care, it is possible, even with the regulations, for parents with care to find themselves floated off income support because of the level of maintenance? At the same time, they can be denied other passported benefits such as free dental care, free prescriptions and free school meals. Is that fair? If the Minister thinks that it is not, why will he not accept the need for a further review of the legislation?
  The next issue relates to the payment of family credit to a mother who is in part-time work and in receipt of maintenance. Family credit is payable on a six-monthly calculated basis, and if the maintenance stops or is reduced for any reason the mother's reduced family credit entitlement will remain unaltered for the remainder of the six months. Ironically, the new regulations could worsen that situation. I hope that the hon. Member for Broxbourne takes note of that.
  The new transitional arrangements may help some absent parents but could also cause parents with care to suffer a reduction in income during the phasing in of payments for which family credit would not immediately compensate. As adjustments to family credit payments can already be made at any time under a reduced benefit direction, the Minister could act to introduce more flexibility on behalf of the parent with care. Surely even this Minister and this Government must accept that imposing a drastic fall in living standards for parents with care and their children is simply unacceptable. Is he still determined to rule out a review? Why has he not introduced regulations to deal with that problem?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the regulations, both separately and jointly, are welcome, but, as he also said, they do not go far enough. Much has been said about the problems being encountered by absent parents—usually, but not always, the fathers. We accept that the changes will help them to some degree. The new phasing-in arrangements are welcome to the extent that they will help to prevent the ludicrous situation of some absent parents with second families having their maintenance contributions trebled overnight.
  It is regrettable that the Government did not follow their thinking through and extend the provisions to single absent parents, to those who are not part of a second family, or to those who may not already be paying maintenance because of a previous clean-break settlement. Those absent parents also need help in making transitional arrangements. Their needs should be taken into account, but they have been ignored in the regulations.
  The phrase "clean-break settlement" has been used time and again in the debate. It is not acceptable that the Government should dismiss the issue. They maintain that it is not practicable to build into the process a way of dealing with significant clean-break arrangements of whatever type, but that is simply not true. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, the successful

  983
  Australian child support scheme does just that by giving powers to an independent review officer to vary the formula determined assessment.
  The increase in the protected income for absent parents is welcome as a step in the right direction. However, the proposed changes highlight the regressive nature of the formula which places disproportionate burdens on parents with low incomes compared with those on high incomes. Is that what the Government are trying to achieve with the legislation? Do they want to give the rich better benefits than those on low incomes? In a letter dated 28 January 1993 which he sent to The Guardian the Minister said:
  "The new partner of a parent has no liability for the maintenance of the parent's children from a previous relationship. The implementation of the Act has shown this not to be totally accurate."
  The Minister should have known when he wrote that letter that the earnings of a second partner or any adult in the household of the absent parent are taken into account in determining the second family's ability to pay full maintenance to the first family. Perhaps he will set the record straight.
  Only one conclusion can be reached on the debate that is raging outside and has been reflected in the House tonight: the Government have not satisfied their critics by tabling the regulations. As they are an improvement to the Act, we do not intend to vote against them. It is good to get something out of the Government even if it is not much.
  In principle most people viewed the Child Support Act as a potentially helpful and necessary piece of legislation, but it is clear that, unless a fundamental far-reaching review of the Act and the agency is undertaken, the legislation will become no more than a poll tax in nappies for the Government.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Burt: With the leave of the House, I shall take this opportunity to respond.
  First, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. Although right hon. and hon. Members have different views about whether the regulations go far enough, there is a feeling that there will not be a vote at the end of the evening, so I do not intend to be combative in my winding-up remarks. There will be a further debate about the principle of the agency, and that might be dealt with rather differently.
  I want to respond to the mood of the House. It has been an interesting debate which leaves a number of questions unanswered. Some of the remarks that were made go to the heart of the issue of child maintenance and some thoughtful speeches were made. Whatever we say here, we are left with the fundamental issue of how to handle child maintenance and who is to pay for the responsibilities of bringing up children.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in an extremely good speech, did not shy away from the issues. He said straightforwardly that people cannot have it all ways and some difficult questions were raised for those who could be expected to pay more and that it was not always possible to reach a solution in which no one would be hurt and everyone had to pay for their children. He said that the hard facts had to be faced. Not all hon. Members took that approach.
  The first issue that was raised—one that could detain us for a long time—was whether to scrap the agency and return to a court system or move to something else.
  984
  Although hon. Members are quick to say, "No, we must not do it," that was certainly the tenor of the remarks of the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). It is clear that there is a dispute among hon. Members now that did not exist some two and a half or three years ago when the issue was thoroughly debated.
  The problem that we confronted then was how to deal with a system where there was total discretion but widespread recognition that the system did not work. We had to decide how to deal with that and how to move on. The House at the time strongly held and endorsed the principle—but not the practice tonight—that it was better to move to a system which provided greater consistency. However, there is a price to pay and I fully accept that. That is what we are debating now.
  I remind those who want to return to total, partial or increased discretion of some of the issues that were faced by women at that time. I refer to the remarks of Sue Slipman of the National Council for One Parent Families on a radio programme when she described her experience of the former arrangements. She said:
  "Before April last year, only 30 per cent. of lone parents got any maintenance for their children whatsoever in this country. Most of it was at derisory levels and I'll tell you what happened when you went to court to get someone to pay maintenance. Maybe he would turn up to the hearing, but maybe he wouldn't, and if he didn't, it would be postponed for six months. You would then get a whole range of debts that would be presented and a whole range of other excuses for why maintenance could not be paid. You might then at the end of that get an order, and it might be paid for two or three weeks, no-one enforced it and no one was ever interested. And as a result of that, the experience of over 1·7 million children in Britain was abandonment by one parent and a life in poverty with the other."
  Hon. Members are quick to say that they do not want to go back to that; but if we do not want a system that provides certainty and consistency, which is what the House wanted two or three years ago, and we want to increase the element of discretion, we run the risk that that situation would increasingly occur. That is a genuine issue, but the House must decide—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Burt: No, I have only 10 minutes and I must deal with the matter in my own way.
  If we do not want to return to that situation, we will not move away from some formulaic system to deal with the problem and we would be dishonest with the country if we pretended that that could be avoided. That is a fundamental and crucial issue which some have raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) spoke of the problems faced under the previous system and she mentioned some of the successes of the Child Support Agency. Hon. Members sat in silence and listened to the distressing case histories, which they all come across in their surgeries, as I do in mine, but when my hon. Friend spoke of the sort of problems that people once had and then put forward points made by people in favour of the Child Support Agency, there was much less concern. Hon. Members talked through that and tried to dismiss it. That will not do. It is not an either/or situation.
  There are problems in dealing with child maintenance, whether one is the absent parent or the parent with care. No

  985
  system is perfect. If the House is trying to be honest, we are trying to find a way through to a better system. The regulations are moving us in that direction.
  Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Burt: I can allow only one intervention from each side.
  Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend will be aware that many criticisms have been levelled at the agency. I have sent 12 cases through and I have received comprehensive explanations on each. I have also corresponded with Mrs. Hepplewhite and she has been most courteous and informative.
  Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Many of my hon. Friends raised problems in dealing with the agency. It will be no surprise when I say that the agency has been under extreme pressure. It is working hard. I apologise to all hon. Members who have had to wait too long for responses. We are doing all that we can to try to speed that up. However, my hon. Friend makes it clear that that is not everyone's experience in dealing with the agency, whether hon. Members or not.
  Mr. Bennett: The Minister has made a powerful case, referring to mothers who received no help in the past through the courts. The trouble is that the Child Support Agency has so far done little to help my constituents; rather it has penalised those who have conscientiously made payments. When will the Government direct their attention towards the people who do not pay as opposed to those who do?
  Mr. Burt: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that at the moment about half the cases taken on by the Child Support Agency concern those where no maintenance at all has been paid. By the end of the agency's first year of operation, some two thirds of its cases will involve those who have never paid any maintenance. It is false to say that no search is made for those people.
  The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) raised the problem of good cause and similar matters. Hon. Members will remember that, when the agency was set up, that subject was of great concern and the Government worked hard to deal with it. I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that some 36,000 cases, about 5 per cent. of all applications issued, have involved the consideration of good cause. Good cause put forward by the parent with care has been accepted in some 20,500 cases—about 57 per cent.—and some have still to be decided.
  To date, only 160 cases have been referred to the Benefits Agency for a reduced benefit direction. If one considers that the agency has some 500,000 cases on its books, that puts the issue into some sort of perspective. We did care about that, we did think about it and we have responded as well as we can.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made some fair points in favour of the agency, but he also raised issues about which he is concerned, of which I take note. I repeat my apologies in relation to the correspondence. We are working hard to clear it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) raised a number of issues. In relation to the disclosure of information, I am sure that it is clear to all
  986
  hon. Members that, in dealing with the financial aspects of a case, just as in the past affidavits used to be swopped in ancillary proceedings to ensure that both sides knew the financial circumstances, that has to happen here. That is why information about income, and the like, is revealed to both parties. There can be no way through that. The provisions of the Data Protection Acts apply to the CSA as well. However, we are taking steps to reduce the information requested from second partners in cases where protected income will not be at issue, because that is where it has most impact. I am sure that the House will welcome that.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke of the problems raised for members of the police force. When such cases arose, we discussed that aspect with the Home Office. It advised that policemen would not be dismissed solely on account of increased maintenance liabilities under the Child Support Act 1991. A policeman who is negligent in managing his financial affairs can be subject to disciplinary procedures. In extreme cases, that can lead ultimately to dismissal. However, cases in which maintenance increases are causing difficulty will be dealt with sympathetically, and appropriate advice and counselling will be provided.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) asked whether the changes announced tonight would apply to those who had previously had maintenance assessments. He cited the case of a constituent with a second family, whose assessment was made some time ago. The answer to that question is yes. The changes will apply to those who have had assessments made previously. I hope that also assists the House.
  I enjoyed the comments of the hon. Member for Garscadden because they were sensible and dealt fairly with some of the issues. He did not try to hide from the fact that somebody, somewhere, must pay for children after their parents have separated. I thought that it was accepted by the House in the past that where such a situation occurs, that responsibility must rest primarily with the parents involved and not with the rest of society. That happened previously, and the previous system supported it. If we are to move away from that principle, that will be a major departure for the House.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden again raised the issue of appeals. I understand his point in relation to a pressure valve, but I will repeat my earlier argument as to why the Australian system should not too easily be viewed as a counterpart—although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not want it introduced root and branch.
  The Australian system works on gross income and does not take account of housing costs, a personal allowance, tax, national insurance and other costs. It simply applies a crude percentage. The crudeness of the system gives it an appeal base, but appeals are restricted. They are not open to all—there are strict gateways. The sense of the House was clear, in feeling a degree of unease about the legislation—I understand that. However, there is a danger of suggesting that an appeal mechanism is an abracadabra —that it would be available to all and that all the people who are currently worried would have their problems solved.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden was fair and straightforward enough to say that would not be the case. But who among us would go to any of the constituents who have come to us over the past few months and say, "There will be an appeals system, but it will not apply to you"? We

  987
  cannot tell all constituents that there will be an appeal system for all. That would merely return us to the discretionary system which previously existed. II is an issue to be looked at, but I warn the House that there can be a danger of seeing it as an answer to everything.
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "It is an issue to be looked at." Does he mean that? If so, that is quite an important concession.
  Mr. Burt: I will come to the future in a second, if I may. Continuing our warm and good relationship, I will deal with that matter in just a moment.
  The House cannot hide from a point that I have made repeatedly: if there is to be separation, who is to bear the costs? In the past, society as a whole bore too many of the costs. I appreciate the point that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made and I am sorry not to have referred in more detail to his remarks. Yes, X used comments made by the Select Committee, but rightfully so because they backed up a case. I know that there were matters on which we could not agree. The point that he has made in his report was that the taxpayer has paid for too long. Somehow, we must try to get over that hurdle. If the taxpayer pays less, responsible parents pay more.
  Mr. Frank Field: Apart from one person in Gillingham, who has gained a concession tonight, the Minister has not announced any new changes. Is that because the Treasury will not allow him to do so, or is that his position?
  Mr. Burt: Forgive me, but if it had been a matter for the Treasury, none of the changes would have come forward, because they all cost. The Government have responded to need and the cost is less important. As to the future—
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [28 January].
  The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 46.

  Division No. 102]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bright, Graham

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Alexander, Richard

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butler, Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butterfill, John

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clappison, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bates, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Congdon, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Booth, Hartley

  Cormack, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Bowis, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Day, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  988

  Devlin, Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Legg, Barry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Leigh, Edward

  Dover, Den

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Duncan, Alan

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lidington, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Elletson, Harold

  MacKay, Andrew

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Faber, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Mans, Keith

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Marland, Paul

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Marlow, Tony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Forman, Nigel

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mates, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Merchant, Piers

  French, Douglas

  Milligan, Stephen

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Gale, Roger

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gallie, Phil

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gill, Christopher

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Moss, Malcolm

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Needham, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Nelson, Anthony

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hague, William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Harris, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Paice, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Pawsey, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hendry, Charles

  Pickles, Eric

  Hicks, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Horam, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

  Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Richards, Rod

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jack, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sims, Roger

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  989

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walden, George

  Spring, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sproat, Iain

  Waller, Gary

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Ward, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Steen, Anthony

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stephen, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Wells, Bowen

  Streeter, Gary

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Yeo, Tim

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

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tredinnick, David

  Trend, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Alton, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Benton, Joe

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Caborn, Richard

  Mahon, Alice

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Pickthall, Colin

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Rendel, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Rooney, Terry

  Cohen, Harry

  Simpson, Alan

  Cox, Tom

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cryer, Bob

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Cummings, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Turner, Dennis

  Etherington, Bill

  Tyler, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Wallace, James

  Graham, Thomas

  Wareing, Robert N

  Harvey, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Home Robertson, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. Eddie Loyden.

  Illsley, Eric

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.

  Statutory Instruments, &c
  10.13 pm
  Madam Speaker: By leave of the House, may I put motions 5 to 8 together?
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Speaker: I shall therefore put motion 5.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Austria) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Conway.]
  The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 61.

  Division No. 103]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Couchman, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cran, James

  Alexander, Richard

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkins, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baldry, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Boswell, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bowis, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forth, Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gallie, Phil

  Burt, Alistair

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butler, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Burterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hague, William

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Congdon, David

  Harris, David

  Conway, Derek

  Harvey, Nick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  991

  Heald, Oliver

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hendry, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Rendel, David

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Riddick, Graham

  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)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knox, Sir David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Legg, Barry

  Spring, Richard

  Leigh, Edward

  Sproat, Iain

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Streeter, Gary

  Luff, Peter

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Maclean, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thurnham, Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mans, Keith

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

  Marland, Paul

  Tredinnick, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tyler, Paul

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Walden, George

  Milligan, Stephen

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mills, Iain

  Wallace, James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Waller, Gary

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Ward, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Waterson, Nigel

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Watts, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  Needham, Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Whitney, Ray

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Yeo, Tim

  Norris, Steve

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Page, Richard

  992

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Barnes, Harry

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Benton, Joe

  Lewis, Terry

  Berts, Clive

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bradley, Keith

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Caborn, Richard

  McMaster, Gordon

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Mahon, Alice

  Clapham, Michael

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michael, Alun

  Cohen, Harry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cousins, Jim

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cox, Tom

  Mudie, George

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dewar, Donald

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dixon, Don

  Reid, Dr John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Simpson, Alan

  Etherington, Bill

  Spellar, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Foulkes, George

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Turner, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wareing, Robert N

  Graham, Thomas

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Wise, Audrey

  Gunnell, John

  Hall, Mike

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Heppell, John

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Indonesia) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Conway.]
  The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 55.

  Division No. 104]

  [10.26 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butler, Peter

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Bates, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Batiste, Spencer

  Colvin, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Congdon, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Conway, Derek

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cran, James

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Bowis, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Day, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bright, Graham

  Devlin, Tim

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  993

  Dover, Den

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Duncan, Alan

  Lidington, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lightbown, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Elletson, Harold

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Maclean, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Faber, David

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Malone, Gerald

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mans, Keith

  Forman, Nigel

  Marland, Paul

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marlow, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  French, Douglas

  Merchant, Piers

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Gallie, Phil

  Mills, Iain

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Gill, Christopher

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moss, Malcolm

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Needham, Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hague, William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Norris, Steve

  Harris, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Harvey, Nick

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Paice, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heald, Oliver

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pawsey, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Horam, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

  Rendel, David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jack, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Key, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knox, Sir David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Legg, Barry

  Spring, Richard

  Leigh, Edward

  Sproat, Iain

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  994

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Viggers, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Walden, George

  Stephen, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stewart, Allan

  Waller, Gary

  Streeter, Gary

  Ward, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thomason, Roy

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whittingdale, John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Willetts, David

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

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tredinnick, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Trotter, Neville

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Barnes, Harry

  Lewis, Terry

  Battle, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Betts, Clive

  McMaster, Gordon

  Bradley, Keith

  Mahon, Alice

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Michael, Alun

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clapham, Michael

  Miller, Andrew

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cohen, Harry

  Mudie, George

  Cousins, Jim

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cox, Tom

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cryer, Bob

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Dixon, Don

  Rooney, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Simpson, Alan

  Etherington, Bill

  Spellar, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Foulkes, George

  Turner, Dennis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Graham, Thomas

  Wise, Audrey

  Gunnell, John

  Hall, Mike

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Uzbekistan) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Chapman]
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Serjeant, will you investigate the delay in the No Lobby?
  The House having divided: Ayes 236, Noes 52.

  Division No. 105]

  [10.38 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Atkins, Robert

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Bates, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Ashby, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bellingham, Henry

  995

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Heald, Oliver

  Booth, Hartley

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hendry, Charles

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Hicks, Robert

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Bowis, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Horam, John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Bright, Graham

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Jack, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Burt, Alistair

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Butler, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Butterfill, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Key, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Knapman, Roger

  Cash, William

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Clappison, James

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Colvin, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Congdon, David

  Legg, Barry

  Conway, Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Couchman, James

  Lidington, David

  Cran, James

  Lightbown, David

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

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Luff, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  MacKay, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Maclean, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Dover, Den

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Duncan, Alan

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Malone, Gerald

  Dunn, Bob

  Mans, Keith

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Eggar, Tim

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Elletson, Harold

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Merchant, Piers

  Faber, David

  Milligan, Stephen

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Forman, Nigel

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Needham, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  French, Douglas

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Norris, Steve

  Gill, Christopher

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Ottaway, Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Page, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Paice, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Pawsey, James

  Hague, William

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Pickles, Eric

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Harris, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hawkins, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Rendel, David

  996

  Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Richards, Rod

  Thomason, Roy

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trend, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Tom

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Tyler, Paul

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walden, George

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wallace, James

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waller, Gary

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Watts, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wells, Bowen

  Spring, Richard

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sproat, Iain

  Whitney, Ray

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Whittingdale, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Steen, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Sweeney, Walter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Barnes, Harry

  Lewis, Terry

  Battle, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Betts, Clive

  McMaster, Gordon

  Bradley, Keith

  Mahon, Alice

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Michael, Alun

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clapham, Michael

  Miller, Andrew

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cohen, Harry

  Mudie, George

  Cousins, Jim

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cox, Tom

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cryer, Bob

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dixon, Don

  Reid, Dr John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Etherington, Bill

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Spellar, John

  Foulkes, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Turner, Dennis

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wareing, Robert N

  Graham, Thomas

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Gunnell, John

  Wise, Audrey

  Hall, Mike

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Illsley, Eric

  Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. Eddie Loyden.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport) (Saudi Arabia) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24th November.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 50.

  Division No. 106]

  [10.52 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Amess, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Ashby, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  997

  Atkins, Robert

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baldry, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hague, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Bendall, Vivian

  Harris, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Harvey, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Bowis, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hendry, Charles

  Bright, Graham

  Hicks, Robert

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Horam, John

  Burns, Simon

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Butler, Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Clappison, James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Colvin, Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Congdon, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Conway, Derek

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Couchman, James

  Legg, Barry

  Cran, James

  Leigh, Edward

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

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Lidington, David

  Day, Stephen

  Lightbown, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Luff, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dover, Den

  MacKay, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Maclean, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Dunn, Bob

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Maginnis, Ken

  Eggar, Tim

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Elletson, Harold

  Malone, Gerald

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Mans, Keith

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Marland, Paul

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Faber, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Merchant, Piers

  Forman, Nigel

  Milligan, Stephen

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  French, Douglas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gallie, Phil

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  998

  Norris, Steve

  Stewart, Allan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Streeter, Gary

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pawsey, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Trend, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Richards, Rod

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Riddick, Graham

  Tyler, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Walden, George

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Waller, Gary

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sackville, Tom

  Watts, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Whitney, Ray

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Yeo, Tim

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Stephen, Michael

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Loyden, Eddie

  Barnes, Harry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Battle, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Betts, Clive

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Miller, Andrew

  Clapham, Michael

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Mudie, George

  Cohen, Harry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cousins, Jim

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cox, Tom

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Prescott, John

  Dixon, Don

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dowd, Jim

  Reid, Dr John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Etherington, Bill

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Spellar, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Turner, Dennis

  Graham, Thomas

  Wareing, Robert N

  Gunnell, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hall, Mike

  Wise, Audrey

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Alan Simpson.

  Lewis, Terry

  Question put and agreed to.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SALVAGE AND POLLUTION) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of Stale under that Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Patnick.]

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER BILL
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the committal of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to a Standing Committee on 11th January, any new Clause relating to capital punishment or to the age of consent for sexual acts between men in Great Britain of which notice may be given not later than 9th February in respect of the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House; and that, when the Committee of the whole House has reported with respect to any such new Clause and the Standing Committee on the Bill has reported the Bill, the Bill will be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

  Flooding (West Sussex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  11.3 pm
  Sir Michael Marshall: It is a great pleasure to raise the subject of flooding in West Sussex, particularly because one has been waiting some time to raise it, but that does not undermine the importance of what I have to say tonight in what I hope will be considered to be a broader approach than the usual constituency problems.
  While the concerns that I must express necessarily concentrate on the cause and effect of recent severe flooding in my constituency, it is clear that many of the principles involved and the unanswered questions relate to our county as a whole. I am therefore grateful for the support that I have in raising this subject from other West Sussex Members of Parliament, and the process has been given added impetus by the meeting that we had with the West Sussex county council last Friday. I also welcome to the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, representing as he does the flood defence and emergency services work of his Department as well as a Sussex constituency.
  The scale of the problem in West Sussex was immediately apparent when flooding occurred during the afternoon and evening of 30 December last year. I shall always recall that particular day as one on which those like myself travelling from Victoria to the south coast were obliged to abandon the train in the early evening at Horsham. The buses that took us on had the greatest difficulty getting through heavily flooded roads and it was immediately clear that flooding on this scale would have adverse effects on farmland.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench tonight, has written to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about problems raised with him by the National Farmers Union regarding flooding over large areas of the county. Both he and I, and our local farmers, will be anxious to hear what my hon. Friend has to say on this aspect tonight.
  So, too, will all those involved in the human tragedies that befell many of my constituents when several feet of water entered their homes later that night. As the West Sussex county council report says, 2 in of rain fell on that day alone and 8 in in 17 days. On 30 December, extensive initial flooding occurred in virtually every borough and district of West Sussex and, most particularly, in the villages of Barnham, Bersted, Climping, Eastergate, Walberton and Yapton in my constituency.
  I recognise, of course, that the subsequent horrors of flooding in Chichester almost assumed national disaster proportions, and I welcome the recently announced study by the National Rivers Authority of that problem. But it is naturally the problems in my own villages on which I must concentrate. Not only were they the first to be badly affected, but in Barnham 35 flooded householders had to be evacuated by inshore lifeboats. Their problems again raise wider matters of principle affecting our country and beyond. They also raise questions about small rural communities in which the Government must take a direct interest and upon which I seek the Minister's initial response.
  1002
  The problems may be summarised as follows. First, there is the problem of regular flooding. The obvious question that arises is to what extent can and must improved facilities be provided.
  Secondly, in making planning agreements for future housing development, is sufficient attention paid to whether they place exceptional demands on current and often old drainage facilities?
  Thirdly, there is the related recurring health hazard of overflowing foul sewers. As my constituent Dr. John Mason, a scientific and technical consultant in Barnham, has asked in a comprehensive recent report on flooding in that village, can already stretched foul sewer resources cope with a large volume of surface water flowing into them from time to time and, if not, how can the problem be solved?
  I realise that in answer to those questions my hon. Friend will refer to the responsibility of the West Sussex county council, the Arun district council, the National Rivers Authority and Southern Water. Naturally, I have sought urgent responses from all those authorities. So far, I have received only interim answers. That is understandable. Their main concern has been to overcome the immediate difficulties and they promise further and detailed study when the opportunity presents itself.
  However, I am glad that the West Sussex county council has accepted my proposal that there should be an urgent meeting involving all the authorities and those who can give appropriate professional advice to tackle these and other relevant questions. I also welcome the detailed study promised by the National Rivers Authority of the problems experienced particularly in Barnham.
  One of the most important aspects of those further consultations must be the problem of co-ordination. Too many of my constituents have been passed from one authority to another, particularly on matters relating to flood-affected sewage and disposal. I also received complaints from Arun district council of a lack of early response and consultation by other authorities.
  I referred earlier to others whose advice should be taken into account. I still await an answer to my suggestion that telephone switch boxes and electricity supply points should be lifted above ground level at regular flooding spots. In Barnham, flooding caused the loss of electricity and telephone links for several days for too many of my elderly constituents. I urge the Government to become involved in that process by drawing up detailed guidelines for better co-ordination. After all, the Government have direct responsibility for the creation and current review of the role and future of those authorities.
  I assume that there are lessons to be learnt from the approximately triennial incidence of flooding in the last few years, and account should be taken of the problems experienced in not only West Sussex but north Wales and the west country—as will be fresh in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members.
  What is the present state of Government co-ordination? After widespread storm damage in 1990, the Home Office was responsible for the co-ordination of Government Departments, and the Department of the Environment met claims for the so-called Bellwin funding. I welcome and appreciate the fact that Ministers from both Departments recently visited flood-affected areas in West Sussex.
  I seek an assurance that the Department of Social Security will give special support, as it did in 1990, to people on income support. As to my hon. Friend's own

  1003
  Department, what is the state of technical studies in the agricultural research institutes in which he takes such a keen interest? Is modern technology capable of providing early-warning systems when flood waters rise to danger level? I appreciate that those questions are wide and complex and go beyond my hon. Friend's departmental responsibilities. As some of them arose from information that came to hand late today, I shall fully understand if my hon. Friend would prefer to write to me on some aspects of the matters that I have raised. I hope that he will be able to do so.
  As to direct Government assistance in meeting immediate financial problems, Arun district council estimates that the additional costs of relief are already in excess of £100,000. It has applied to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for hell) under the Bellwin scheme, which provides special financial arrangements designed to assist local authorities in emergencies, and specifically to safeguard life and property and to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience.
  I support that application, as I shall support the expected claim from West Sussex county council, which is likely to run into millions of pounds. That is the purpose of contingency funding for which the Budget provides, and I look for an urgent Government response.
  I ask the Government to take an imaginative and sympathetic approach to the special problems of the many small businesses which lost stock and normal peak business in the new year., and for which insurance cover may be limited or non-existent. Perhaps consideration can be given to making some adjustment to the uniform business rate. En that respect, I am glad to have a Treasury presence on the Government Front Bench, as well as the constituency presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).
  There is the possibility of support, through an application for humanitarian assistance, from the European Commission, which is being vigorously pursued by our Member of the European Parliament, Madron Seligman. In 1989, the Commission made an initial contribution to the United Kingdom of £220,000 for storm victims. I ask the Government to add their voice in obtaining additional funding from that source for families and local businesses.
  In that context, I am glad that, in general, insurance companies responded to the urgent need for assistance in replacing ruined household equipment and clothing. However, I am obliged still to chase a number of companies because of the continuing anguish that they cause by bureaucracy and delay. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will add his voice to those appealing for swift and compassionate action.
  Whatever worries there may be about co-ordination and the continuing problems that face many of my constituents, I cannot end without expressing appreciation to all those who assisted in overcoming many of the honors of recent events. All the authorities that I have mentioned gave help through their staff—who, in many cases, went beyond the call of duty, often working throughout the day and night without rest.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Hear, hear.
  Sir Michael Marshall: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees. I know that he, too, has spoken about this issue.
  Those authorities were backed up by the police, the Army and entire local communities. I single out for special
  1004
  praise the work of the voluntary sector—for instance, the specially formed Barnham Flood Relief Association, which has done so much to help those lacking insurance cover by fund raising and the collection and provision of essential supplies. That association and the Barnham Residents Association, which has monitored the effects of flooding with great care, now estimate that the cost of the damage to the village could exceed £1 million. That assumes average costs of more than £8,000 in the homes —more than 100 homes—that were badly affected by flooding.
  It is estimated that 10 per cent. of that total represents an uninsured loss of £100,000. In all, some 300 people have been involved in flooding, and many—sadly—have been unable to return to their homes while waiting for estimates and going through the whole process of obtaining insurance payments, and while repairs are under way. Others have had to live in damp and insanitary conditions, fearing further flooding.
  Mr. John Auckland, a former chairman of the Barnham Residents Association—I am indebted to him for the latest situation report—has said:
  "Many houses were inundated with several feet of water containing raw sewage, diesel oil and other chemicals. By the time the mess is cleared up over 60 skips will have been filled with ruined personal possessions. The entire contents of people's homes have been destroyed. It will take months to repair homes and rehabilitate some of the affected residents."
  I know from personal observation—my wife and I have met many of the constituents who have been affected—that behind the statistical background lies a horror story involving real human tragedies. Counselling has been needed, as well as practical support and financial help. Above all, there remains the anxiety and worry: it is feared that an area that has been flooded several times in the past few years—albeit not on the same scale—may be flooded again.
  It is with that in mind that the Government, Members of Parliament, local authorities and communities must rise to the challenge in mitigating the effects of recent flooding —and, above all, doing all that is humanly possible to reduce substantially the prospect of its occurring again.
  11.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I welcome the opportunity to speak, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on his persistence in obtaining an Adjournment debate on an extremely important and, in some respects, distressing matter.
  As I have the privilege of representing a West Sussex constituency, I well appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend and those whom he represents about the considerable damage and great distress caused by last month's flooding. Together with all the other West Sussex Members of Parliament, we went to county hall in Chichester for an update last Friday; we found that extremely useful.
  Hon. Members will be well aware that, after a wetter-than-average autumn, southern England suffered its heaviest sustained rainfall for many years in December and January. Many river catchments were fully saturated early in the winter. Once catchments are saturated, any additional rainfall cannot be soaked up, but flows into the ditches and rivers much more quickly and in far greater volume.

  1005
  Under conditions of prolonged or heavy rainfall, those flows can increase to the point where the carrying capacity of the watercourses is quickly exceeded, which can lead to widespread flooding. In both East and West Sussex, the situation is further complicated by the presence of extensive areas of chalk downland. The unfortunate combination of the widespread appearance of springs fed from the chalk aquifer, together with the surface run-off from saturated catchments, has caused many of the flooding problems experienced in West Sussex.
  On 30 December 1993, an intense rainstorms of about four hours' duration crossed the south of England from west to east. That storm produced an average of about three quarters of an inch of rain across the region as a whole, but the Sussex area suffered the highest recorded rainfall intensity of about 1·5 in on average, while the gauge near Chichester recorded 2 in. Farmland was seriously affected by flooding in many parts of southern England. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sought and obtained an exemption from set-aside rules for flooded land from the European Commission, allowing farmers to harvest their 1993 sugar beet and potato crop from set-aside land after the deadline of 15 January 1994.
  On Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who is in his place, met members of the Chichester and North Sussex group of the National Farmers Union in his constituency. He has written to my right hon. Friend outlining some of their concerns. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel that those points will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend and we shall reply in detail to him and them later when we have all the information to hand.
  My hon. Friend spoke eloquently and, at the end of his speech, genuinely movingly about the serious effect of the flooding on the homes of some of his constituents.
  Mr. Stephen: I entirely associate myself with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) has said. In addition to the villages that he has mentioned, may I add Sompting in my constituency?
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware, as he mentioned the matter on Friday in Chichester, that Sompting in his constituency was also seriously affected.
  Although most of the media attention was focused on the unfortunate events in Chichester, a number of other towns and villages in West Sussex were badly affected, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and in particular Barnham, where there was flooding as early as 20 December, and more than 30 people had to be evacuated after the flooding on 30 December. My hon. Friend laid before the House in a clear and necessarily distressing manner the serious impact that that has had. Here, as in a number of Sussex villages, the speed with which flooding occurred made it difficult for timely warnings to be given.
  I believe that West Sussex county council, the borough and district councils, the police, fire brigade, the Army and all the other emergency services in West Sussex, and the National Rivers Authority dealt admirably with a very difficult situation over an extended period, and that they
  1006
  responded to the flooding problems in the area in a thoroughly professional and effective manner. As is well known, the county emergency planning department had to mount a complex and resource-intensive operation in Chichester, which they did with considerable distinction. Their efforts reflect great credit on their teamwork and state of preparedness, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The House will wish to congratulate all those involved in that splendid work.
  Nevertheless, my hon. Friend raised a number of extremely important questions about how the situation was handled and about the need for better co-ordination among the public bodies and other organisations involved. He was good enough to give me notice of those points and, if I cannot deal with some of the other points that he made tonight, I assure him that we shall write to him with the answers that he seeks. He has rightly said that water companies, the county council, district councils and the National Rivers Authority all have responsibilities for aspects of the problem. Like him, I welcome the fact that those bodies are getting together to discuss the way ahead.
  The National Rivers Authority, which exercises general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence in England and Wales, is well placed to assess the overall flood risks in the area and draw lessons from recent events. The authority has said that it intends to review its warning procedures for Barnham and the surrounding areas. I understand that it is looking at the practicality of extending the automatic alarm systems in that area, and a consultant's report is expected shortly.
  In relation to the River Lavant, the National Rivers Authority has engaged consultants to investigate the causes and consequences of the recent flooding in and around Chichester. Detailed investigation of the ground-water hydrology of the chalk downs is planned, and this study is likely to lead on to an examination of possible flood alleviation measures.
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes substantial sums of money available to the National Rivers Authority and to local authorities and drainage boards each year for the construction and improvement of flood and coastal defences. This assistance now amounts to over £50 million annually in England. In large part, the residual capital costs and the cost of the on-going maintenance programme for existing defences are supported by central Government through the revenue support grant given to local councils.
  In many parts of the country, the extent of recent flooding was very much reduced thanks to the investment previously made in new and improved defences. I assure my hon. Friend that if, as a result of its investigations, the NRA puts to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food proposals for grant aid towards improved flood-alleviation measures in West Sussex, those will be given the most careful consideration.
  My hon. Friend asked about planning agreements. At the end of 1992, the Government issued to local planning authorities revised and strengthened advice on the need, where possible, to avoid additional or new development in areas at risk of flooding. Local planning authorities receive from the National Rivers Authority specific advice on those matters, and it is clearly important that councils, in their planning decisions, give due weight to that advice. In that way, we can try to prevent new development taking place in the flood plain, being at risk of flooding at times of heavy and prolonged rainfall and sometimes creating

  1007
  extra risk elsewhere. We have to recognise, however, that in some places development in the flood plain has already taken place.
  Thirdly, my hon. Friend referred to the extremely serious matter of the interlinkage between the foul-water drainage system and the storm-water discharges that take place during periods of heavy rainfall. I hope that the studies that the NRA has put in train will look at all aspects of the flooding problems in the area.
  The points that my hon. Friend makes about the need for co-ordination between different authorities are perfectly valid. The Ministry has sought to address this matter in the context of flood warning arrangements, through a series of meetings at national level involving the NRA, the police and the local authority associations. Those are aimed at improving the chains of communication between the various bodies involved in emergency responses to flooding and between them and the public in at-risk areas. I hope that that initiative will bear fruit later this year.
  My hon. Friend rightly asked about research. Both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the NRA fund significant research and development programmes aimed at better understanding of the natural process that underlie flooding, at improved design of flood defences and at more timely and accurate flood warning. My Department alone spends £3 million annually on this area of research. Steps are taken to ensure that the results of this work are widely disseminated to practising engineers, through regular newsletters and conferences, by the Ministry's river and coastal engineers.
  The detailed local arrangements for flood warning and emergency response will necessarily vary in different parts of the country, according to the nature of the threat. I am aware that in some areas local councils provide those who live in flood-risk areas with leaflets explaining which bodies are responsible for particular aspects of the local emergency arrangements. Councils and the NRA in West Sussex may wish to consider whether, in the light of recent events, there may be a need for updated guidance in their locality.
  My hon. Friend then raised the question of Government assistance in meeting immediate problems caused by flooding. The distress and material loss suffered by those whose properties are flooded are very considerable and will rightly attract considerable sympathy from all parts of the House. There are a number of ways in which central Government and their agencies may give help to local communities and local councils in such circumstances.
  First, local councils that have incurred exceptional expenditure in responding to a major incident such as serious flooding may approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for special financial assistance under the so-called Bellwin rules. My hon. Friend is, of course, familiar with the scheme. It is activated at the discretion of the Secretary of State in cases where the problems facing local councils have been particularly severe and would result in an undue financial burden on the local authority. Councils must contact the Department of the Environment within one month of the event, giving full supporting details. If the Secretary of
  1008
  State decides to activate the scheme, about 85 per cent. of local authority costs above a threshold are usually reimbursed. I understand that Arun district council and West Sussex county council have approached the Department of the Environment under these arrangements and that their requests are being given careful consideration.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the problems faced by many small businesses affected by flooding over the new year period and asked for consideration to be given to some adjustment in the uniform business rate. This is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I am advised that, under the existing arrangements, individual businesses may be able to obtain a temporary reduction in their rateable value. Businesses should, therefore, approach the local valuation office of the Inland Revenue to see whether such a temporary reduction could be made available to them.
  My hon. Friend also referred, rightly, to the possibility of humanitarian aid from the European Commission. Having heard what he had to say tonight, I have no doubt that it will make a formidable case for our energetic and excellent Member of the European Parliament, Madron Seligman, to press. I understand that the initiative in providing aid of this kind rests with the European Commission and that the Commission is assessing the situation in a number of member states, given the serious flooding that has also occurred in Germany and Holland. I gather that such aid, if provided, would be channelled via the Home Office through voluntary organisations such as the Red Cross. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns on this score are made known to the relevant Departments.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the insurance companies. In view of the points that he made, I should be happy to write to the Association of British Insurers to ask it to urge its members to respond as quickly as they can to the requests for help from those who have suffered damage and loss and to give all possible help.
  We have had a useful debate on this very important subject. I again congratulate my hon. Friend on the compassionate and formidable way in which he presented his case. It is essential that whenever serious flooding occurs, investigations are held to establish the cause and to see what can be done to reduce the risk of recurrence. The local authorities, the voluntary groups, the emergency services and the NRA in West Sussex can be justly proud of their efforts. The Army deserves to be praised, too.
  It is right that the NRA should press ahead with its studies into events at Barnham and Chichester. If, as a result of its investigations, the authority comes to MAFF with proposals for flood alleviation works that meet the necessary technical, economic and environmental requirements, I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department will consider them for grant aid as matter of urgency.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Supergrass Evidence
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the use of supergrass evidence in securing the conviction of terrorist suspects.

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are no cases currently pending which would result in the reintroduction of so-called "supergrass trials". If the police in Northern Ireland should come across accomplice evidence that could be used to assist in the prosecution of individuals who have committed acts of terrorism it is, however, right and proper for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider the use of that evidence in any subsequent proceedings.

  Training and Employment Agency
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the cost per job outcome delivered by the Training and Employment Agency in 1992–93;

  (2) what was the cost per non-vocational qualification delivery by the Training and Employment Agency in 1992–93.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Responsibility for the subject matter in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Andrew Hunter, dated 2 February 1994:

  Parliamentary questions Nos. 84 & 91:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your questions about the cost per job outcome delivered by the Training & Employment Agency (No. 84) and the cost per non-vocational qualification delivery by the Training & Employment Agency (No. 91).

  Question No. 84
  I set out below the average programme cost per job outcome associated with the various Agency services and programmes. All figures relate to 1992/93.

  Placements into employment
  The Agency was able to place 33,590 people into jobs advertised through its local offices. The average cost was £56 per placing.

  Action for Community Employment
  The average cost per place on the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme, which provides temporary employment opportunities for long-term unemployed adults, was £5,277.

  Training programmes and qualifications
  The Agency's main training programmes are the Youth Training Programme (YTP) and the Job Training Programme (JTP). The main aim of the Agency's training programmes is to provide participants with training leading to qualifications. This is fully reflected in the Agency's targets. While the objective of
  698
  training is to assist people to find employment, job availability on the Northern Ireland labour market is an ever-present constraint. The Agency's response to this constraint is to push for better qualifications to enhance job opportunities.

  Youth Training Programme
  The average cost per job outcome of the YTP is £9,190. This average relates to training providers in the Community. Employer-led and Further Education sectors. The programme guarantees young people under 18 two years full-time training with work experience or employment.

  Training Centres
  The average cost per job outcome for young people attending Training Centres is £10,926. The Centres provide training mainly leading to NVQ Level 3 and above.

  Job Training Programme
  The average cost per job outcome of the JTP is £7,901. This one-year programme is designed to help unemployed adults to improve their job prospects.

  Costs per job outcome: comment
  The number of jobs used to arrive at the above average costs per job is derived from the first destinations of trainees after leaving the YTP and JTP programmes. Relating expenditure on these programmes to immediate job outcomes can only partially reflect the worthwhileness of the training. We cannot take account of how successful trainees will subsequently be in obtaining employment.

  Question No. 91

  Non-Vocational Qualifications
  You also inquired about the cost of non-vocational qualifications delivered by the Agency. Non-vocational qualifications form an insignificant part of the Agency's overall programme delivery which is almost exclusively vocational. It is not therefore possible to segregate out the costs attributable to non-vocational qualifications.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cattle and sheep farms are wholly or mainly in the less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Ancram
  In the Northern Ireland agricultural census, a farm is classified to the less-favoured area if any of the land which is owned by the farmer is within that area. Any land which the farmer may take under the short-term leasing system known as conacre is disregarded.

  On this definition, there were 15,279 cattle and sheep farms in the LFA at the June 1992 agricultural census and 15,241 in 1993. In each year, the figure includes an estimated 600 to 700 farms with less than half their owned land in the LFA.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the total subsidy to be paid on cattle and sheep in the less-favoured areas in 1994.

  Mr. Ancram
  The total subsidy to be paid on cattle and sheep in the less-favoured areas in Northern Ireland under the suckler cow premium, sheep annual premium and hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme is estimated to be at least £70 million in 1994.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts Committees
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals his Department has for magistrates courts committees and the employment of their staff as set out in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill[Lords].

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has considered carefully the points raised during the debate on
  699
  the House of Lords Second Reading of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, and in particular the fears that the Bill's provisions could give central Government an inappropriate level of control over the management of the magistrates court service and may undermine the independence of the advice received by magistrates when dealing with individual cases. The Lord Chancellor has also, since the Second Reading debate, met representatives of the Magistrates Association, the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees, the Justices' Clerks Society, the Association of Magisterial Officers, and the Standing Conference of Clerks to Magistrates Courts Committees.

  The Government are entirely committed to a locally managed magistrates courts service and to the protection of the judicial independence of the magistracy. We do not believe that these principles are in any way undermined by the Bill. However, in order to place these matters beyond doubt, the Lord Chancellor will table amendments to the Bill at the Lords Committee stage.

  The effect of these amendments will be:

  (a) that the chairman of a magistrates courts committee would be appointed by members of the committee without requiring the approval of the Lord Chancellor;

  (b) that the terms of the contract of employment between chief justices' clerks or justices' clerks and their magistrates court committees should be left entirely to local discretion. The Lord Chancellor would accordingly have no power to require that contracts be for a fixed term or that remuneration be related to performance;

  (c) the renewal of appointments as a chief justices' clerk or justices' clerk would not require the approval of the Lord Chancellor.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans to buy or borrow photographs.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has 13 paintings and no photographs on the walls of his rooms in the Treasury.

  National Average Income
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what statistics he bases his calculation of the national average income.

  Mr. Nelson
  National accounts estimates are derived from a wide variety of statistics collected by the Central Statistical Office, other Government Departments and other organisations. Details are given in"United Kingdom National Accounts: Sources and Methods", which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often during the course of a year the official national average income is recalculated.
  700
  Mr. Nelson
  Quarterly national accounts, including revisions, are published four times each year, in March, June, September and December.

  Budget Consultation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the meetings he has had with hon. Members to discuss representations by their constituents during the Budget consultation process.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and his ministerial colleagues held a large number of formal and informal meetings with hon. Members in advance of the Budget, at which they had an opportunity to make representations on behalf of their constituents. In addition, Treasury Ministers received and considered a substantial body of correspondence about the Budget from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which particular areas of public sector employment(a) are and (b) are not covered by the recommendation that public sector pay bills should not increase.

  Mr. Portillo
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his statement of 14 September 1993 and confirmed in the Financial Statement and Budget Report, in 1994–95 Government Departments will be expected to keep their running costs, including pay budgets, to their 1993–94 level in cash terms, except where, there are significant changes in activity. This is not a freeze on pay settlements and does not pre-empt forthcoming pay negotiations. However, pay increases will need to be funded by efficiency improvements. The Government expect a similar approach to be applied to all other public sector pay groups.

  Departmental Interest Payments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what are the consequences of the decision in Esso Petroleum Company Limited v. Ministry of Defence for the tax treatment of interest paid by Government Departments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The effect of this decision is that the provisions of schedule C of the Taxes Acts apply only to interest on Government securities and do not extend to other types of interest payments made by Government Departments. In accordance with this view, payments of interest, other than on Government securities, made by Government Departments after the decision, have not been subject to deduction of tax at source under schedule C. In the light of legal advice, the Inland Revenue and the Government Departments concerned are not taking any steps to seek out, nor make further payments to, the recipients of earlier payments of interest. An Inland Revenue press release which is being issued today provides further details; a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rise in the basic rate of income tax a household on average income with an average mortgage would have to pay in 1994–95 and 1995–96 to yield the equivalent of the
  701
  reduction in their mortgage interest relief resulting from measures announced in the March and November 1993 Budgets.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: The cost of the reduction in mortgage interest relief will be £115·50 a year in 1994–95 and a further £115·50 a year in 1995–96 for individual taxpayers in the category described. A person with an average mortgage is benefiting by £1,920 a year as a result of the reduction in interest rates since 1990. It is not sensible to try to make the comparison with other tax rates that the question invites.

  Earnings
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to April 1994 the information on net earnings provided in his answer to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) of 10 February 1987,Official Report, columns 177–78.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Estimates of the levels of earnings for the top 5 per cent. of earners are not published. The information in the table is based on estimates of these levels derived from distributions of earnings published in the relevant New Earnings Survey for April 1993. Earnings levels are for men or women as appropriate paid at adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. Taxpayers are assumed to have no reliefs or allowances other than the appropriate personal allowance.

  Earnings after Income Tax, National Insurance Contributions1 and Child Benefit, April 1993

  £ per week

  Single man

  485·80

  Married man

  499·00

  Married man with two children under 11

  517·10

  Single woman

  335·30

  1 At the contracted-in rate.

  Taxation
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 777, on tax liability by region, if he will provide comparable information for total tax liability by quartile group in each region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Available information on the annual reduction in income tax liability by region for the years 1989–90 to 1991–92, compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime is given in the tables. The 1978–79 regime has been indexed by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for independent taxation for 1990–91 and 1991–92. For 1989–90 married couples are counted as one unit. For the purposes of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 is applied directly to the later income base. In practice, retention of the regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base. In view of the length of the tables, I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Members' Library.
  702

PRIME MINISTER

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister when the press release accompanying his speech launching Her Majesty's Government's sustainable development strategy at the Banqueting house on 25 January was made available to hon. Members.

  The Prime Minister
  The press release was delivered to the House of Commons Library on 25 January.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if the latest round of Anglo-Irish talks in Dublin covered the security implications for Northern Ireland and the Republic of plans for increased nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield.

  The Prime Minister
  A communiqué was released after the intergovernmental conference and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Otherwise details of matters discussed at the intergovernmental conference are confidential between the two Governments.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what further information Her Majesty's Government have officially been asked to supply to the European Commission, pursuant to complaint No. P4695/92 regarding the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield; and what is the timetable for complying with the request.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The United Kingdom has recently received an informal inquiry from the European Commission. It is the convention that the contents of such correspondence between member states and the Commission are treated in confidence.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from the chief executive of Manchester Airport plc in regard to liberalising access to regional airports; what reply he is sending; what action he will take; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a letter from the chief executive. A reply will be sent as soon as possible.

  Councils of Ministers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East of 17 January,Official Report, columns 366–67, if he will deposit in the Library videos and transcripts of the televised Councils of Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. Videos, dubbed in English where English was not used in the Council, and verbatim records, in the original languages only, are available for televised sessions of Council meetings and will be placed in the Library.

  Interactive Telephone Services Group
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the appointment as chairman of the Interactive Telephone Services Group of the right hon.
  703
  Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) in respect of the terms of paragraph 105 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no information which would lead me to believe that this appointment contravenes paragraph 105.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Alliance of Women's Organisations
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what core funding he is providing for the National Alliance of Women's Organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Insufficient resources are available in 1994–95 to core-fund the National Alliance of Women's Organisations.

  European Elections
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that students of other European Union states studying in the United Kingdom are able to vote in the European elections in June.

  Mr. Maclean
  Students from other member states of the Community will be eligible to apply to be included in the electoral register on the same basis as other Community nationals once Parliament has given its approval to the regulations to extend the franchise.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to launch the advertising campaign relating to the rights of European Union citizens resident in the United Kingdom to vote in the European elections in June.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the arrangements for exercising the rights of Community nationals to vote and to stand as a candidate at European parliamentary elections will be distributed once Parliament has approved the regulations to give effect to those rights.

  Community Charge
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 275, relating to imprisonment for non-payment of outstanding community charge, if he will now publish the table to which reference was made.

  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 Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Walley, dated 2 February 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking pursuant to his answer on 13 January, Official Report, column 275, relating to imprisonment for non-payment of outstanding community charge, if he will now publish the table to which reference was made.
  The information you have requested is given in the attached table.
  704

  Receptions into prison service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of community charge1 April-October 1993

  Month

  Number

  April

  25

  May

  28

  June

  21

  July

  36

  August

  35

  September

  27

  October

  35

  Total

  207

  1 Includes small numbers recorded as non-payment of rates.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 150, if he will outline the particular qualifications, expertise or experience relating to his departmental responsibilities of each special adviser listed.

  Mr. Howard
  It is not my practice to comment on the qualifications, expertise or experience of my Department's special advisers.

  Probation and Bail Hostels
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the need for places in probation and bail hostels.

  Mr. Maclean
  Before concluding that 10 per cent. of approved hostel capacity should be reduced, I took account of a number of factors, including the need for places as reflected in levels of occupancy and the cost of maintaining those places to an acceptable standard.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of occupancy is assumed in the development of funding allocations to probation and bail hostels.

  Mr. Maclean
  The revenue grant funding formula for approved hostels assumes a normal minimum occupancy level of 80 per cent., which may be temporarily reduced in individual cases of newly opened hostels or hostels being refurbished.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whom he has consulted about his proposals to close 11 probation and bail hostels.

  Mr. Maclean
  The chief probation officers and managing committees whose hostels were affected were notified on 1 December of our closure proposals and given the opportunity to comment.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of stay in probation and bail hostels.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not readily available in the form requested.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide occupancy figures for
  705
  each probation and bail hostel in each region of the country for each of the last four quarters for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not readily available in the form requested. The occupancy figures for each probation and bail hostel for September 1993, the most recent month available, and for April 1992 to March 1993 as a whole, are as follows:

  Average occupancy in approved hostels

  Area and hostel

  1992–93 (per cent.)

  September 1993 (per cent.)

  Avon

  Ashley House

  71

  75

  Brigstocke Road

  64

  80

  Bridge House

  68

  84

  Bedfordshire

  Bedford Bail

  43

  41

  Napier Road

  68

  60

  Berkshire

  Manor Lodge

  43

  53

  Elizabeth Fry

  53

  47

  St. Leonards

  48

  46

  Wellesley House

  52

  58

  Buckinghamshire

  Milton Keynes

  74

  84

  Cambridgeshire

  Peterborough

  70

  78

  Cheshire

  Bewsey Street

  66

  91

  Bunbury House

  60

  64

  Linden Bank

  79

  70

  Cleveland

  The Crescent

  59

  38

  South Bank

  72

  59

  Cornwall

  Meneghy House

  62

  58

  Cumbria

  Bowling Green

  59

  69

  Derbyshire

  Burden Lodge

  51

  79

  Devon

  Lawson House

  —

  59

  Dudley Centre

  43

  52

  Dorset

  Bournemouth

  68

  47

  Weston

  61

  86

  Durham

  Fir Tree Grange

  40

  50

  East Sussex

  Brighton

  50

  75

  Essex

  Windyridge

  60

  38

  Basildon

  65

  55

  Gloucestershire

  Ryecroft

  39

  76

  Greater Manchester

  Hopwood House

  72

  70

  Wilton Place

  70

  85

  Chorlton

  65

  67

  Withington Road

  68

  69

  706

  Area and hostel

  1992–93 (per cent.)

  September 1993 (per cent.)

  Ascot House

  59

  80

  Parkfield

  42

  —

  Bradshaw House

  52

  64

  St. Josephs

  68

  74

  Hampshire

  Southampton Bail

  52

  77

  Carlisle House

  60

  —

  Dickson House

  48

  68

  The Grange

  55

  64

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  Braley House

  68

  88

  Hertfordshire

  St. Albans

  45

  67

  Humberside

  Queens Road

  55

  54

  Inner London

  St. Edmunds

  42

  64

  KPH

  84

  95

  Ellison House

  53

  70

  Tulse Hill

  59

  51

  St. Vincents

  46

  48

  St. Mungos

  62

  84

  Bedford/Shenley

  64

  66

  Kelley House

  48

  68

  Canadian Avenue

  82

  89

  West Park

  57

  78

  Camden House

  35

  71

  Kent

  Hollywood Manor

  57

  —

  Fleming House

  67

  78

  Dover Bail

  57

  45

  Lancashire

  Highfield House

  75

  65

  Blackburn

  74

  41

  Hoole House

  68

  76

  Leicestershire

  Charnwood Lodge

  59

  85

  Kirk Lodge

  47

  75

  Howard House

  73

  78

  Lincolnshire

  Wordsworth House

  70

  70

  Merseyside

  Southwood

  75

  82

  Merseybank

  42

  74

  Canning House

  64

  58

  Adelaide House

  54

  54

  Middlesex

  Corfton Road

  44

  83

  Seafield Lodge

  67

  88

  North East London

  Westbourne

  73

  74

  Norfolk

  John Boag

  74

  70

  Northamptonshire

  Bridgewood

  72

  83

  Stone House

  69

  36

  Northumbria

  Ozanam House

  66

  82

  St. Christophers

  48

  90

  Pennywell

  74

  76

  Cuthbert House

  73

  87

  707

  Area and hostel

  1992–95 (per cent.)

  September 1993 (per cent.)

  North Wales

  Plas-y-wern

  96

  94

  Ty Newydd

  94

  87

  Nottinghamshire

  Astral Grove

  64

  79

  Southwell

  57

  81

  Trent House

  50

  70

  Oxfordshire

  Abingdon Road

  74

  43

  Clark's House

  72

  73

  Somerset

  Glogan House

  69

  54

  South East London

  Beckenham Road

  54

  85

  South Glamorgan

  Mandeville House

  31

  63

  South West London

  Kew

  52

  87

  South Yorkshire

  Rookwood

  61

  56

  Norfolk Park

  67

  52

  Centre 45

  86

  81

  Town Moor

  72

  53

  Staffordshire

  Wenger House

  65

  82

  Stafford Bail

  65

  81

  Suffolk

  Lightfoot House

  61

  55

  The Cottage

  75

  85

  Surrey

  St. Catherines

  58

  60

  Warwickshire

  McIntyre House

  80

  90

  Kenilworth Road

  49

  71

  West Glamorgan

  Emroch House

  81

  90

  West Midlands

  Sycamore Lodge

  77

  75

  Crowley House

  46

  61

  Bilston

  94

  98

  Stoke Green

  79

  68

  Stonnall Road

  1—

  96

  Welford House

  69

  64

  Marshall House

  86

  91

  Carpenter House

  81

  81

  West Yorkshire

  Howden House

  79

  78

  Walmer Villas

  78

  86

  Albion Street

  33

  85

  Ripon House

  76

  91

  Elm Bank

  90

  80

  St. Johns

  78

  94

  Cardigan House

  69

  91

  1 Denotes hostel which is either closed or has yet to be opened.

  708

  Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no plans to buy or borrow any photographs.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  Mr. Howard
  There are five paintings and one print on the walls of my office and five photographic reproductions of paintings on the walls of the ministerial conference room. They are all part of the Government art collection. There are no photographs on the walls of either room.

  Reoffending Rate
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the reoffending rate for convicted persons leaving probation hostels.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available.

  Police (Child Maintenance)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in relation to the numbers of police officers threatened with termination of their careers due to indebtedness resulting from assessments of liability as absent parents by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Some Members of Parliament have written to Home Office Ministers on behalf of their constituents about the Child Support Agency's dealings with police officers. They have been informed that the Department of Social Security has responsibility for the Child Support Agency and that it would be for a police officer's senior officer to decide whether and, if so, what management action was appropriate in response to the officer's indebtedness.

  Offenders, Newham
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of offenders appearing before the courts in the borough of Newham were aged under 21 years in each year since 1988;

  (2) what percentage of offenders appearing before the courts in the borough of Newham were unemployed in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information is not collected centrally on the employment status of defendants appearing before the courts. The table shows the number and percentage of offenders by age convicted at the Stratford and West Ham petty sessional divisions and at the Crown court who were committed by the above two petty sessional divisions 1988 to 1992. Information on cautioning is available only for police force areas.
  709

  Number and percentage of offenders aged under 21 and all ages found guilty at Stratford and West Ham petty sessional divisions and at the Crown Court by committing Stratford and West Ham petty sessional divisions and type of offence 1988–92

  Stratford

  West Ham

  Under 21

  All Ages

  Under 21

  All Ages

  Year/Type of offence

  Number

  Per cent.

  (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Per cent.

  (=100 per cent.)

  1988

  Indictable offences

  345

  47

  728

  346

  33

  1,048

  Summary non-motoring offences

  177

  12

  1,528

  86

  28

  311

  Summary motoring offences

  62

  11

  573

  77

  11

  689

  All offences

  584

  21

  2,829

  509

  25

  2,048

  1989

  Indictable offences

  373

  47

  802

  165

  29

  561

  Summary non-motoring offences

  323

  19

  1,657

  51

  19

  275

  Summary motoring offences

  79

  10

  761

  45

  15

  292

  All offences

  775

  24

  3,220

  261

  23

  1,128

  1990

  Indictable offences

  138

  37

  369

  269

  28

  957

  Summary non-motoring offences

  123

  15

  832

  169

  10

  1,730

  Summary motoring offences

  33

  13

  258

  70

  9

  777

  All offences

  294

  20

  1,459

  608

  18

  3,464

  1991

  Indictable offences

  80

  39

  207

  296

  27

  1,096

  Summary non-motoring offences

  55

  6

  937

  111

  18

  633

  Summary motoring offences

  64

  6

  1,029

  82

  11

  714

  All offences

  199

  9

  2,173

  489

  20

  2,443

  1992

  Indictable offences

  168

  34

  492

  165

  24

  681

  Summary non-motoring offences

  93

  6

  1,656

  66

  19

  347

  Summary motoring offences

  106

  6

  1,757

  41

  11

  381

  All offences

  367

  9

  3,905

  272

  19

  1,409

  Ms Gillian Taylforth
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan Commissioner on the manner in which information which was the subject of the Taylforth/Knight libel action was made available by the police to aSun reporter in the first instance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that the Sun did not obtain this information from the police in the first instance.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department measures the accuracy of the electoral register.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys provides an annual comparison of parliamentary electorates with corresponding estimates of the resident population in the publication "Electoral Statistics (Series EL)", copies of which are in the Library. In addition, following the 1991 census, OPCS conducted research on behalf of the Home Office and the Scottish Office to check the coverage and quality of the 1991 electoral register. Copies of the survey, "Electoral Registration in 1991", are also in the Library.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought 710
  each year since 1978 by each local authority against individuals failing to complete electoral registration forms; and what percentage of the total number of registrations in each authority this represents.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information given in the table shows the number of prosecutions for failing to complete electoral registration forms for the years 1979 to 1989 by petty sessional division within police force areas. The prosecuting local authority cannot be identified from the centrally collected records. Data for 1978 and 1990 to 1992 are not available.

  Data on the total number of electors included in the register in each local authority area can be found in the annual OPCS publication "Electoral Statistics Series EL", published by HMSO, copies of which can be found in the Library.

  Number of prosecutions for failing to complete electoral registration forms by Petty Sessional Division within Police Force Areas 1979–89

  Year and PFA/PSD

  Prosecutions

  1979

  nil

  1980

  nil

  1981

  Hampshire/Basingstoke

  2

  Suffolk/Mildenhall

  1

  South Yorkshire/Doncaster

  1

  England and Wales

  4

  1982

  nil

  1983

  711

  Year and PFA/PSD

  Prosecutions

  Essex—Rochford

  3

  Essex—Southend on Sea

  1

  England and Wales

  4

  1984

  Bedfordshire/Biggleswade

  2

  Essex/Rochford

  4

  Hampshire/Basingstoke

  2

  Norfolk/Cromer

  2

  England and Wales

  10

  1985

  Northamptonshire/Oundle and Thropston

  1

  England and Wales

  1

  1986

  nil

  1987

  Derbyshire/Chesterfield

  4

  Essex/Rochford

  5

  Hampshire/Winchester

  1

  Wiltshire/Marlborough

  2

  England and Wales

  12

  1988

  Bedfordshire/Leighton Buzzard

  1

  Essex/Rochford

  2

  England and Wales

  3

  1989

  Hampshire/Alton

  3

  Hampshire/Basingstoke

  4

  Hampshire/Petersfield

  1

  Leicestershire/Loughborough

  2

  Suffolk/Newmarket

  3

  England and Wales

  13

  Police Authorities
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his proposals for the constitution of police authorities, as set out in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill[Lords].

  Mr. Howard
  I have considered carefully the concerns expressed on Second Reading in another place.

  The Government want to put beyond doubt their intention that the new police authorities should be indpendent. The Government will therefore table amendments to the Bill in another place, as soon as possible.

  The effect of these amendments will be:

  (i) that the chairman of a police authority would be appointed by the members of the authority. We propose that, as now, they should be required to select the chairman annually.

  (ii) the independent members of police authorities will be appointed according to a procedure on the lines of that set out in my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Burton on 17 January, columns 375–77. But the Bill will be amended to provide a statutory basis for the independent selection procedure, and the scheme under which the statutory procedure will operate will be subject to a parliamentary oversight;

  (iii) there will be a power for the Home Secretary to increase the number of members of police authorities in specific cases where in all the circumstances it seems
  712
  appropriate to do so. Where the number of members exceeds 16, one half will be councillors and not more than one third will be independent members.

  Prisons (Sanitation)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards providing prisoners with 24-hour access to sanitation.

  Mr. Michael Howard
  The target for the Prison Service for 1993–94 is to provide through the accelerated sanitation programme 24-hour access to sanitation in at least 4,700 existing prison places. In addition a further 2,400 newly constructed and renovated places, which will have integral sanitation, are scheduled for completion in the year. Eighty-nine per cent. of prisoners currently have 24-hour access to sanitation. This compares with 82 per cent. in March 1993 and 46 per cent. in 1981.

  By the end of 1994, more than 95 per cent. of prisoners should have access to sanitation at all times, a considerable achievement and one of the key measures of progress in providing decent conditions for all prisoners. The other main measure is the reduction of overcrowding and avoidance of the use of police cells. The percentage of prisoners sharing cells designed for one has been reduced from 38 per cent. in 1987–88 to 16 per cent. at the end of 1993. There has been no significant use of police cells since February 1993. These achievements have been possible as a result of the major prison building programme which has added over 18,000 new places since 1979.

  In the face of the forecast increase in the prison population, resources are being directed to providing additional places and the amount of accommodation that it was planned to take out of use for refurbishment during the next two years has been reduced. Although this will preclude completion of the sanitation programme by December 1994, the alternative would have been a return to the prolonged use of police cells and an unacceptable level of overcrowding.

  The Prison Service continues to give very high priority to completing the sanitation programme as soon as possible, within the constraints imposed by the prison population. It aims to complete the programme no later than February 1996, the date recommended by Lord Woolf in his report.

  Reconviction Rates
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in developing a key performance indicator on reconviction rates as envisaged in the Prison Service business plan for 1993–94.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Statistics of the reconviction rates of prisoners following discharge from prison are already published. The progress of the work on performance measures in relation to reconviction rates will be reported in the Prison Service's business plan for 1994–95.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.
  713
  Mr. Michael Howard
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: I have asked the Director General of the Prison Service to write to the hon. and learned Member about Prison Service staff. The information in respect of other Home Office staff is as follows:

  1989–90

  One member of staff convicted and dismissed.

  1990–91

  Nil.

  1991–92

  Three convicted; two dismissed and one resigned prior to dismissal.

  1992–93

  Three convicted; two dismissed and one decision pending.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Michael Howard
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: A member of staff convicted of fraud would normally be dismissed.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War (Soldier's Children)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from Gulf war veterans concerning the health of children fathered by soldiers who had served in Operation Granby.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have received no such representations.

  Allivane International Group
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department placed with Allivane International Group in 1988 for the storage on behalf of Royal Ordnance of explosives and magazine cartridges.

  Mr. Aitken
  No contracts were placed with Allivane International Group in 1988 for the storage of explosives and magazine cartridges on behalf of Royal Ordnance.

  Desert Storm Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek from the United States Department of Defence information submitted by United States service men on Desert Storm syndrome.

  Mr. Hanley
  The medical and scientific staffs of my Department are in close and continual contact with their United States Department of Defense counterparts and have made clear the United Kingdom desire to receive all relevant available evidence.

  Artillery Shells (Fuses)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which United Kingdom companies his Department has purchased M739A1 and M131 fuses for artillery shells since 1984.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has not purchased any of these fuses since 1984.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of service men and women, as to(a) officers and (b) other ranks who are threatened with discharge due to indebtedness arising from assessments made by the Child Support Agency.
  714
  Mr. Hanley
  Service personnel can be liable for discharge where their persistent indebtedness has caused inefficiency or led to indiscipline; however, I am not aware of any instance where this has occurred as a consequence of an increased liability for child maintenance resulting from an assessment made by the Child Support Agency. Counselling is available to those who experience difficulty in managing debts and guidance will be given in dealing with creditors.

  Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence curently has no plans, but would be willing to consult the hon. Member.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are four paintings, three photographs and a print on the walls of the office in MOD main building of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  RAF Machrihanish
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current functions of Royal Air Force Machrihanish; and if he will make a statement on those functions which are being withdrawn under his recently announced plans.

  Mr. Hanley
  The primary role of RAF Machrihanish is as a forward operating base available for activation at short notice for United States Navy maritime patrol aircraft assigned to SACLANT. Additionally, the station is used occasionally for training and exercises. The FOB role will remain but the activation time has been extended which will allow the introduction of a care and maintenance regime.

  RAF Honington
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the intended functions of Royal Air Force Honington after the transfer of No. 13 Squadron to Royal Air Force Marham.

  Mr. Hanley
  RAF Honington will beecome the RAF Regiment depot when the RAF Regiment units relocate there from RAF Catterick and RAF West Drayton. It is planned that the airfield will be activated for use in exercises once or twice a year.

  Policy Developments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy developments there have been over the past decade for the time scale as respects the information of Parliament on detailed policy developments within his Department; and if he will make a statement.
  715
  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 8 December 1993,Official Report, column 296. It remains our practice to inform Parliament of policy and other relevant developments as soon as is practicable.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Territorial Army in north London.

  Mr. Hanley
  We are continuing to re-examine the operational requirement for, and hence the size and shape of, the Territorial Army. We will make an announcement as soon as our proposals are formulated.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 December,Official Report, column 899, what are the particular qualifications, expertise or experience in the defence area of his special adviser Mr. Crispin Blunt.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to comment on the qualifications, expertise or experience of my right hon. and learned Friend's special adviser.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of gross national product was spent on defence in the last year for which figures are available by (i) each NATO country, (ii) Japan, (iii) Switzerland, (iv) Finland and (v) Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of NATO countries' defence expenditure in 1992 both in total, and as a proportion of gross domestic product, are contained in the 1993 Statement on the Defence Estimates (Cm 2270). Comparable information based on estimates published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies for Japan, Switzerland, Finland and the Republic of Ireland is set out in the table.

  Budget

  Per cent. of GDP

  Japan

  35,900,000,000

  1·0

  Switzerland

  3,700,000,000

  1·5

  Finland

  2,080,000,000

  1·9

  Republic of Ireland

  560,000,000

  1·2

  For consistency with data in the SDE, non-NATO defence expenditures are shown in US Dollars.

  Mutual Weapons Development Programme
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Britain and the United States of America set up the mutual weapons development programme; what was the range of the programme; why it was set up; which United Kingdom Ministry of Defence establishments were involved; and what is the current status of the programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  [pursuant to his answer, 26 January, Official Report, c. 307]: Additional research has now produced some information on the mutual weapons development programme. This was a collaborative programme that arose from the authorisation by the US Congress in 1956 under the mutual security programme of
  716
  financial support for R and D programmes of friendly countries. Information about this programme is limited, but investigation is continuing and I will write to the honourable Member as soon as this is complete.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  D-Day Landings
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what will be the role of Lowe Bell in arranging the programme of events to commemorate the D-Day landings on 6 June 1994; what consideration has been given to carrying out the work in-house; what proportion of the total public expenditure on the programme of events is being paid to Lowe Bell; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  The D-Day programme is primarily to commemorate the landings by the armed services. But, through a series of appropriate nationwide events, it will also mark the important involvement of the wider civilian population.

  Lowe Bell was chosen, in open competition, to assist the DNH to co-ordinate and publicise these events, to stimulate new ideas for other events and to help organise them, and to raise private sponsorship. Through the DNH it will complement the work done by the MoD and the tourist board.

  The public expenditure on the D-Day commemorations will be affected by the extent of private sponsorship, and by activities which the tourist boards, local authorities and other public bodies undertake. The proportion of this activity represented by Lowe Bell's fee is not yet known. Its fee, as has already been made public, is £62,500.

  Arts (Business Sponsorship)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will estimate the real levels of business sponsorship of the arts, and the percentage change, in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Department of National Heritage relies on the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts to provide information on business support for the arts in the United Kingdom. To date, ABSA have carried out three annual national surveys which have identified the following expenditure by business on arts sponsorship:

  £ million1

  Increase/decrease (Per cent.)

  £ million (real terms)2

  Increase/decrease (Per cent.)

  1990–91

  57·1

  —

  63·05

  —

  1991–92

  365·4

  +14·5

  67·91

  +7·70

  1992–93

  57·7

  -11·8

  57·70

  -15·03

  1These figures include business support through corporate membership.

  2Calculated to reflect the effects of general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.

  3Includes sponsorship of two exceptional initiatives: the Japan Festival and the rebuilding of Glyndebourne opera house.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what further proposals are being considered in public consultation on English heritage's forward strategy, which could involve a change in current responsibilities for grade II listed buildings outside London.
  717
  Mr. Brooke
  No change is proposed in current responsibilities for grade II listed building casework outside London. Various changes in notification procedures were, however, proposed in annex 8 of the consultation draft of Planning Policy Guidance Note 15"Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas", copies of which are in the Library. The responses to the consultation are being considered.

HEALTH

  Health Service Managers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the salary of the general manager/chief executive of each health authority and hospital trust in each year since 1990–91;

  (2) if she will collect and publish the salary of the chief executive of each health authority and trust in England on 1 October 1993 and give the percentage increase over the preceding four years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the individual salaries of health authority general managers and trust chief executives is not available centrally. General managers in regional, district and special health authorities and family health services authorities are paid on centrally-determined salary ranges. Their individual salaries are dependent on a variety of factors including personal performance against locally set targets. The current salary ranges are set out in "National Health Service Guidelines (HSG(93)58)", a copy of which is available in the Library. The salaries of trust chief executives are matters for trust boards; information on their emoluments is included in annual accounts available locally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 13 January that from 1 April 1994 each NHS authority and trust will be required to publish an annual report which includes information on the total emoluments of their general manager or chief executive.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the employment conditions and the security of employment for nurses affected by the decision of fundholding general practitioners practices purchasing services from provider units many miles from normal catchment areas.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for local contractual arrangements between individual nurses and their employers.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the purchasing patterns of fundholding practices in the Macclesfield parliamentary constituency.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In Macclesfield, as elsewhere, fundholders are using their purchasing power to achieve the highest standards of patient care whilst obtaining value for money for the national health service. Service improvements include the establishment of in-house clinics for dermatology and physiotherapy.
  718

  Community Services
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about GPs obtaining community services for their patients from a considerable distance from their catchment area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fundholders have the freedom to purchase the best possible health care for their patients from whichever provider unit they judge best. Fundholders must be able to satisfy the regional health authority that the contract offers value for money and a high-quality service for patients.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the latest details of response times by ambulances to 999 calls for each of the health authorities or trust areas within England, and for England as a whole.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 1 February at columns 601–2.

  Clinical Effectiveness
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how her policy of basing practice on clinical effectiveness will be implemented in those areas where knowledge of clinical effectiveness is of poor quality or lacking; what steps she is taking to fill these gaps in knowledge; and what efforts are being made to recruit, train and retain the staff needed to do this health service research.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is the responsibility of clinicians. in the first instance, to provide the most clinically effective interventions. The national health service research and development strategy aims to promote research into areas where there is a paucity of information and results should have greatest benefits. The research councils and universities take the lead in recruiting, training and retaining staff to carry out health services research, together with professional organisations and charities. The health departments work closely with these bodies with the aim of ensuring that there are sufficient trained researchers to meet the needs of the NHS.

  Clothier Report
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she expects to receive the findings of the Clothier report;

  (2) if she will list the names of each individual giving evidence to the Clothier inquiry; and if she will list the capacity in which each of them is taking part.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have now received Sir Cecil Clothier's independent inquiry report, which contains names and details of witnesses. The report will be published shortly and in full.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of reference of the Clothier inquiry; what are the names and qualifications of those holding the Clothier inquiry; and which parts of the Clothier report she will be placing in the public domain.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Sir Cecil Clothier QC, a former health service commissioner, has chaired the independent
  719
  inquiry into incidents on ward 4 at Grantham and Kesteven general hospital between February and April 1991. He has been assisted by Anne McDonald, RSCN, RGN, DipN (London), who is director of quality at the Royal Manchester Children's Hospitals and Professor David Shaw, CBE, FRCP, FRCP (Edin), Emeritus Professor of Clinical Neurology at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  The report of the inquiry team will be published in full.

  The inquiry's terms of reference were:

  1. To inquire into the circumstances leading to the deaths of four children and injuries to nine others on Ward 4 at Grantham and Kesteven General Hospital during the months February to April 1991 (inclusive).

  2. To consider the speed and appropriateness of the clinical and managerial response within the hospital to the incidents, and to make recommendations.

  3. To examine the appointment procedures, systems of assessment and supervision within the Hospital and Mid Trent College of Nursing and Midwifery respectively, including an examination of the occupational health services available to both the College and the Hospital, and to make recommendations.

  4. To review the recommendations of the regional fact finding inquiry (July 1992) into paediatric services at the hospital and to advise whether any additions or amendments to those recommendations are necessary.

  5. In the light of the events on Ward 4 at Grantham and Kesteven General Hospital between February and April 1991 (inclusive):

  5.1 to advise on the most efficient way for health authorities to be informed of serious untoward incidents and to monitor their handling;

  5.2 to consider whether and, if so, how the regional health authority should be informed of serious untoward incidents and the way in which they are handled.

  6. To consider such matters relating to the said incidents as the public interest may require.

  NHS Management Executive
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all information held by the NHS Management Executive is regarded as information held centrally.

  Mr. Sackville
  All validated information held by the National Health Service Management Executive is regarded as information that is available centrally. Validated information is that which has been checked by the Department for accuracy, consistency and statistical reliability. The NHS Management Executive also holds a disparate range of administrative and management data obtained from a number of sources which may not be compiled on a comparable basis or use common definitions, or which may contain subjective judgments.

  Psychogeriatricians
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for the last four years the number of psychogeriatricians employed by the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.
  720

  Hospital doctors in old age psychiatry in England as at 30 September each year, in whole time equivalents

  Year

  Old age psychiatry

  1989

  78·6

  1990

  103·3

  1991

  154·2

  1992

  170·1

  Notes:

  These data include doctors in the following grades: consultants, associate specialists, staff grades, senior registrars, hospital practitioners and clinical assistants.

  Until recently, old age psychiatry was covered by general psychiatrists, but it is now a specialty in its own right. Some general psychiatrists have sub-specialty interest in psychogeriatrics, but these are not collected in the data.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those district health authorities which do not employ a psychogeriatrician.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Psychogeriatric services are purchased on behalf of patients by purchasing and commissioning agencies, and they are responsible for ensuring that these services are available to the local population. They may purchase these services across different district or regional boundaries. At 30 September 1992, 63 of the 252 employing authorities in England employed old age psychiatrists.

  Until recently, old age psychiatry was covered by general psychiatrists, but it is now a specialty in its own right. Some general psychiatrists have sub-specialty interest in psychogeriatrics, but these are not collected in the data.

  Health Authorities
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the names and qualifications of the district general manager and the chairman and district health authority members of the South Lincolnshire district health authority in each of the last three years;

  (2) what were the names and qualifications of the Trent regional general manager and the chairman and members of the regional health authority in each of the last three years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Chairmen and non-executive members of the health authorities are appointed for their personal qualities, knowledge and skills and for the contribution they can bring to the strategic leadership of their authority. The selection of both executive and non-executive members of health authorities is a matter for each individual body. The names of the chairman and non-executive members of Trent regional health authority in each of the last three years are:

  Year

  Chairman

  Non-executive members

  1991 and 1992

  Sir Michael Carlisle

  Mr. M Dessau

  Mrs. P. Wildgoose

  Dr. K. Edwards

  Mr. G. Clemons

  Mr. D. Bertram

  1993

  Sir Michael Carlisle

  Mr. M. Dessau

  Mrs. P. Wildgoose

  Dr. K. Edwards (until 31 October 1993)

  721

  Year

  Chairman

  Non-executive members

  Mr. G. Clemons

  Mr. D. Bertram

  Professor C. Campbell (from 1 November 1993)

  The chairman of the South Lincolnshire health authority in each of the years 1991 to 1993 was Dr. J. D. Brackenridge.

  Drug Abuse, Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people(a) under 16 years of age and (b) under 18 years of age were treated for drug abuse in the Greater Manchester regional health authority area in each of the past three years;

  (2) how many hospital admissions took place in each of the last three years in each of the Greater Manchester regional health authorities from causes associated with drug abuse.

  Mr. Bowis
  These are matters for the North Western regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Sir Bruce Martin, for details.

  Consultants, Trent
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants have been suspended in the Trent region in each of the last 10 years; and how many consultants in the region are under suspension at present.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for Trent regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Michael Carlisle, chairman of Trent RHA, for details.

  Research Units
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 November,Official Report, columns 242–44, what discussions her Department has had with research unit directors about the adequacy of the review procedure.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As stated in the previous reply to the hon. Member, expert peer review of long-term research contracts is well established and unit directors are given the opportunity to comment fully on the text of reports. The present round of site visits was discussed with unit directors when they met with the Department's director of research and development on 27 November 1992.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 26 November,Official Report, columns 242–44, which of the reports of site visits of her Department's research units which have already taken place have been discussed with the relevant unit director; and how soon her Department will be initiating discussions about site visit reports with directors of other units which have alredy been reviewed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Directors have had an opportunity to comment on reports of site visits to the following units:

  Childhood Cancer Research Group

  National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit

  Medical Care Research Unit

  Centre for Primary Care Research

  Social Medicine and Health Services Research Unit

  National Institute for Social Work Training

  Site visit reports are in preparation for:
  722

  Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit

  Clinical Operation Research Unit

  Social Policy Research Unit

  Dates for visits to the remaining four units have yet to be arranged. In keeping with established review practice, directors will have an opportunity to comment on all reports still outstanding as soon as they become available from the review teams.

  Paediatricians
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued as to the distance a consultant covering a paediatric unit can live or work away from that unit when on call for that unit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Employing bodies are encouraged, when drawing up consultants' contracts of employment, to include a requirement to live within a 10-mile radius of their place of work.

  Pinderfields Hospital
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to review the quality, standard and practices of senior management at Pinderfields hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Officials have conducted a rigorous review of the trust's five-year strategic direction and its annual business plan. We have every confidence in the newly appointed trust board and its management team.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her latest information about the current incidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; and what information she has as to the ages of persons so suffering.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for the total number of definite and probable cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease are produced on a yearly basis by Dr. R. G. Will, consultant neurologist at the national CJD surveillance unit, Edinburgh. His reports are available in the Library.

  Forty-eight definite and probable cases of CJD were identified by the surveillance unit between 1 May 1992 and 30 April 1993. Their ages range from 30 to 86.

  Private Beds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many private pay beds there were in the East London and City health authority in each year since 1986;

  (2) how many private pay beds there were in the North East Thames regional health authority in each year since 1986, and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information has not been collected centrally since 1 April 1991. The information that is available is shown in the tables.

  Private pay beds-East London and the City health authority

  The City and Hackney

  1986

  6

  1987–88

  2

  1988–89

  4

  1989–90

  4

  1990–91

  4

  723

  Private pay beds—North East Thames regional health authority

  Total

  1986

  43

  1987–88

  103

  1988–89

  129

  1989–90

  133

  1990–91

  129

  Source: SD2A SBH 211 Return (1986) KH02 Return 1987–88 to 1990–91.

  Ambulance Service (Channel Tunnel)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision has been made for special training for the ambulance service personnel likely to provide service in the channel tunnel; how many such personnel have received specialist training; whether such training has included paramedic instruction; what is the expected reaction time for the ambulance service in the event of an emergency; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Talks are currently taking place between East Kent Commissioning Agency, Kent Ambulance Service and Eurotunnel. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Mr. Mark Outhwaite, chief executive of East Kent Commissioning Agency at 7–9 Cambridge terrace, Dover for details.

  Hospital Capital Trusts
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent in cash terms at current prices, and how much per head of population has been spent, on capital projects in the Anglian Harbours hospital trust and the James Paget hospital, Gorleston, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The available information is shown in the table.

  Year

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney District Health Authority

  Anglian Harbours National Health Service Trust

  Total spend in District Health Authority area

  District Health Authority population

  Spend per head

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £

  1986–87

  1,149

  —

  1,149

  194,872

  5·89

  1987–88

  1,947

  —

  1,947

  197,641

  9·85

  1988–89

  753

  —

  753

  200,091

  3·76

  1989·90

  1,209

  —

  1,209

  201,950

  5·98

  1990–91

  3,388

  —

  3,388

  202,149

  16·75

  1991–92

  2,493

  2,625

  5,118

  202,047

  25·33

  1992–93

  2,617

  4,267

  6,884

  202,255

  34·03

  Notes:

  1. Population figures for 1986–90 based on 1981 census, 1991 and 1992 figures based on 1991 census.

  2. All figures are historic cash spending.

  3. Records of individual DHAs prior to 1986 are no longer available centrally.

  4. Anglian Harbours NHS Trust was established I April 1991, James Paget Hospital NHS Trust was established 1 April 1993 and figures are not separately identifiable from Great Yarmouth and Waveney DHA figures.

  724

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for each standard region of the United Kingdom of the numbers and proportion of the unemployed who possess academic or vocational qualifications.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest estimates from the Labour Force Survey for summer—June to August—1993 of the numbers and proportion of the ILO unemployed who possess academic or vocational qualifications, for each region of the United Kingdom, are given in the following table—estimate for Northern Ireland is based on spring 1993 data.

  The Labour Force Survey shows that the ILO unemployment rate for people with no qualifications is about 50 per cent. higher than the rate for qualified people. People qualified to A-level standard or higher have the lowest ILO unemployment rates.

  Numbers and proportions of ILO unemployed who possess academic or vocational qualifications. Not seasonally adjusted.

  Standard regions

  ILO unemployed with qualifications (Thousands)

  Proportion of all ILO unemployed (Percentage)

  South East

  693

  72

  Greater London

  342

  72

  Rest of South East

  352

  72

  East Anglia

  71

  74

  South West

  147

  74

  West Midlands

  186

  62

  East Midlands

  116

  64

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  190

  71

  North West

  217

  68

  North

  129

  70

  Wales

  90

  69

  Scotland

  180

  70

  Northern Ireland (Spring 1993)

  50

  58

  United Kingdom

  2,070

  69

  Source: Labour Force Survey, summer 1993 spring 1993.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the maximum level of the award for unfair dismissal in the year that it was first introduced; what is the equivalent amount upgraded for inflation since that time; and what is the current maximum award.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Compensation for unfair dismissal usually consists of a basic and a compensatory award. The compensatory award, introduced in 1972, was then limited to 104 weeks' pay or £4,160, equivalent to £27,606 today when uprated by the retail prices index, whichever was the less. The current limit is £11,000. The basic award, introduced in 1976, was subject to a maximum limit of £2,400, equivalent to £8,611 today. The current limit is £6,150.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase the maximum level of the award for unfair dismissal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the results of the
  725
  consultation exercise in connection with the annual review of these awards and will announce the outcome in due course.

  European Council Meetings
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to make available to Parliament transcripts of European Council meetings.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Meetings of the European Council are not normally held in public. However, some parts of some Council of Ministers meetings are open sessions which are televised. Arrangements are being made to supply videos of open televised sessions to the Library.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's Office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so notified and consulted upon.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  European Social Policy
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will respond to the European Union's Green Paper on European Social Policy before 31 March.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provision is made for parental leave in each other EC state.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Table 5.8 on page 144 of "OECD Employment Outlook July 1990" gives information about general legislative provisions for maternity and parental leave in OECD countries.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide figures for the amount his Department has been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security in respect of statutory sick pay provision for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures set out show the Department's recoveries from the Department of Social Security in respect of financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 and forecast recoveries for 1993–94.

  £ million

  (i) 1991–92 Outturn

  2·5

  (ii) 1992–93 Outturn

  2·8

  (iii) 1993–94 Estimated Outturn

  3·1

  Earnings
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the proportions of full-time female manual workers, full-time female non-manual 726
  workers and all full-time female workers with earnings, including overtime, of less than (a) £100, (b) £120, (c) £140, (d) £160, (e) £180, (f) £200 and (g) £220 per week in the parliamentary constituency of Newham, North-West;

  (2) if he will list the proportions of full-time male manual workers, full-time male non-manual workers and all full-time male workers with earnings, including overtime, of less than (a) £100, (b) £120, (c) £140,(d) £160, (e) £180, (f) £200 and (g) £220 per week in the parliamentary constituency of Newham, North-West;

  (3) if he will list the proportions of full-time adult manual workers, full-time adult non-manual workers and all full-time adult workers with earnings, including overtime, of less than (a) £100, (b) £120, (c) £140, (d) £160, (e) £180, (f) £200 and (g) £220 per week in the parliamentary constituency of Newham, North-West.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information available from the New Earnings Survey is provided in the following tables:

  Full time employees in the London Borough of Newham on adult rates— pay unaffected by absence

  Proportion with gross weekly earnings below the following amounts: at April 1993

  £

  Manual women Per cent.

  Non-manual women Per cent.

  All women Per cent.

  100

  ..

  ..

  ..

  120

  ..

  ..

  ..

  140

  ..

  ..

  4·0

  160

  ..

  ..

  7·1

  180

  ..

  6·0

  12·1

  200

  ..

  9·6

  16·2

  220

  ..

  15·7

  22·2

  £

  Manual men Per cent.

  Non-manual men Per cent.

  All men Per cent.

  100

  ..

  ..

  ..

  120

  ..

  ..

  ..

  140

  ..

  ..

  ..

  160

  ..

  ..

  1·5

  180

  ..

  ..

  2·0

  200

  6·5

  6·7

  6·6

  220

  13·0

  9·5

  11·2

  £

  Manual adults Per cent.

  Non-manual adults Per cent.

  All adults Per cent.

  100

  ..

  ..

  ..

  120

  ..

  ..

  ..

  140

  ..

  1·6

  1·7

  160

  6·5

  1·6

  3·4

  180

  8·3

  3·7

  5·4

  200

  13·0

  8·0

  9·8

  220

  19·4

  12·2

  14·9

  Note: ".." denotes sample number too small or standard error too large for reliable estimate, or information not available.

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions employers failed to provide his Department with the required notice of
  727
  impending redundancies under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 in each of the last five years; how many of these employers were prosecuted under section 194 of that Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The following table shows the number who have notified the Department but who failed to do so within the time limits. In each case an explanation is sought. Section 193(7) provides that where it is not reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with the full requirements, he shall take all reasonable steps to comply as far as possible. Taking account of this, it has not so far been considered appropriate by successive Governments since 1975 to prosecute an employer for failure to meet the notice requirements. The figures include many notifications by insolvent companies.

  Number

  1989

  1,855

  1990

  2,828

  1991

  4,021

  1992

  4,724

  1993

  2,630

  GCHQ
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response the Government will make to the International Labour Organisation's concern over the ban on union membership at GCHQ; and when the last correspondence took place over this matter between the ILO and Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The Government made it clear to the ILO when it last

  Passported Benefits from Income Support

  Average weekly value

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Housing Benefit1

  19·01

  21·06

  24·74

  29·35

  34·19

  Community Charge Benefit2

  n.a.

  n.a.

  6·13

  3·83

  4·60

  Cold Weather Payments3

  5·00

  5·00

  5·00

  6·00

  6·00

  Free School Meals

  See note 4

  Free milk and vitamins for pregnant women and children under

  See note 5

  Passported Benefits from Income Support and Family Credit

  Average weekly value

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Social Fund Maternity Payments6

  86·00

  86·00

  100·00

  101·00

  101·00

  Social Fund Funeral Payments6

  497·00

  545·00

  612·00

  706·00

  787·00

  NHS Benefits

  See note 7

  Notes:

  1. Housing Benefit (HB)—the award of Income Support allows the award of maximum HB. Average weekly value relates HB (rent rebates and rent allowances) payable to eligible IS recipients.

  2. Community Charge Benefit (CCB)—the award of Income Support allowed the award of maximum (80%) of CCB. In England and Wales CCB, existed for three years from April 1990 to March 1993. Figures for the average amount of CCB in 1988–89 and 1989–90 are not available. CCB was replaced by Council Tax Benefit (CTB) in April 1993. The award of IS allows the award of maximum (100%) CTB. Information on the average amount of CTB payable is not yet available.

  3. The weekly amount of Cold Weather Payments increased from £5·00 to £6·00 in February 1991. It is only paid for weeks in which the weather forecast is for the temperature to fall to an average equal to, or below, 0 degrees celsius for the period of the forecast. It is payable to Income Support recipients either (a) whose applicable amount includes one or more of the premiums specified in paragraphs 9 to 14 of Part III of Schedule 2 to the General Regulations (pensioner premiums and various premiums paid in respect of a disability), or (b) whose family include a child aged less than 5.

  4. Free School Meals—the responsibility for the provision of school meals rests with local education authorities and with goveming bodies of self-governing (grant-maintained) schools. It is for them to decide the prices they charge for all school meals and as a result prices vary throughout
  728
  reported in February 1993, and will continue to make it clear in future reports, that their overriding objective remains to safeguard national security, but that they are willing to consider any proposals which are consistent with that objective.

  Pyrotechnic Articles
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which EC legislation affects the issue of import licences for pyrotechnic articles.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: To avoid barriers to trade, EC directive 93/15/EEC on explosives for civil uses required the removal of import licensing for those explosives within its scope. It was implemented in Great Britain by the Placing on the Market and Supervision of Transfers of Explosives Regulations 1993 which removed import licence controls for all explosives including pyrotechnic articles.

  The new regulations require explosives, including all pyrotechnic articles, supplied in the United Kingdom whatever their place of manufacture to be authorised by the Health and Safety Executive, and in the case of fireworks, compliance with British Standard 7114 or an equivalent standard. The Government believe that these new provisions will effectively maintain safety standards.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Passported Benefits
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the main passported benefits to which recipients of(a) income support and (b) family credit are eligible; and if he will estimate the average weekly value of each benefit in each year since April 1988.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.
  729
  the country. It is not therefore possible to provide a national average figure.

  5. Information about the average weekly value of free milk and vitamins available to recipients of Income Support and Family Credit and their dependents is not available centrally.

  6. The amounts shown are the average awards. Social Fund funeral and maternity payments are made as one-off payments for particular events.

  7. NHS Benefits are not cash benefits. People receiving IS and FC are entitled to full remission of NHS charges for prescriptions, dental treatment and wigs and fabric supports. They are also entitled to free sight tests and the full value of optical vouchers towards the cost of their glasses. They may also have help with the cost of travelling to hospital for NHS treatment. The statistical information collected centrally by the Department of Health does not separate the prescriptions etc provided free of charge to IS and FC recipients from those provided to other beneficiaries of the NHS Low Income Scheme.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of administering unemployment benefit for Durham in 1993.

  Mr. Burt
  Information in the form requested is not available. The cost to the Employment Service of administering unemployment benefit and income support for Durham in the financial year 1992–93 was £3·8 million.

  War Pension Entitlement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he has agreed to make following the review of war pension entitlements.

  Mr. Hague
  None. There has been no such review.

  Social Fund, Lewisham
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the budget for the Lewisham district office social fund for the current year as set at 1 April 1993; whether the budget was subsequently increased; how much remains in the budget; how many applicants have been refused a grant, giving the reasons for refusal; how many applicants have been refused a loan, giving the reason for refusal; how many applicants refused went on to appeal; and how many of these appeals were successful.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 1 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Social Fund (SF) in the Benefits Agency's (BA) Lewisham and Brixton District.
  Details of the initial budget allocations for Lewisham and Brixton District for the 1993–94 financial year are in the Library. There has not been any subsequent additional budget allocation this year. The balance outstanding as at 31 December 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, was £252,848 for grants and £778,676 for loans.
  With regard to the number of applicants refused a grant or loan in the District, information on the SF is not kept by SF applicant but by SF application. At 31 December 1993 the numbers of grant and loan applications refused were 6,714 and 5,589 respectively. The reasons for refusal are given at Annex A.
  The new Social Fund Computer System (SFCS), introduced to Lewisham and Brixton in July 1993, collects additional statistics which were not collected under the old system. Many statistical items are collected differently and are not directly comparable with previous years. The old system recorded reasons for refusal per application whereas SFCS records reasons for refusal per item requested. In cases where a partial award is made a reason for refusal will also be appropriate. Therefore, the sum of all reasons for refusal will not equal the number of application refusals.
  There is no right of appeal against discretionary SF decisions. Applicants dissatisfied with a decision may seek a review of the
  730
  decision and this is initially conducted within the District. If still dissatisfied, the applicant can ask for a review by the Independent Review Service (IRS) which is independent of the BA. For the period 1 April 1993 to 31 December 1993, 3,014 review applications were received by Lewisham and Brixton District. These figures include those that requested a review by the IRS. Overall, 873 resulted in a changed decision.
  I hope that you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix A

  Details of grant and loan refusals for the Lewisham and Brixton District 1 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 (latest available data)

  Reason for refusal

  Grants

  Loans

  Not in receipt of Income Support (IS)

  1,541

  1,385

  In receipt of IS for less than 26 weeks

  —

  3,316

  Direction 4 not satisfied

  15,553

  —

  Applicant excluded by Direction

  —

  19

  No serious risk to health or safety

  —

  1,400

  Requested amount below minimum allowable

  9

  162

  Repeat allocation

  381

  389

  Item excluded by Direction

  239

  999

  Alternative item available

  17

  164

  Help available from another source

  43

  247

  Grant awarded on loan request

  —

  862

  Savings over £500 meet cost

  5

  2

  Savings over £1000 meet cost (customer or partner over 60)

  7

  1

  Enough money available to meet crisis

  —

  17

  Total debt exceeds £1000

  —

  57

  Inability to repay

  —

  998

  Insufficient priority

  385

  938

  Other reasons

  50

  319

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of its target million the Child Support Agency has collected to date; and of that amount how much has been paid as maintenance net of reductions in payments of welfare benefits.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 31 January 1994:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how much of the Child Support Agency's target has been collected to date.
  The Agency was set a target for benefit savings. No separate target has been set for collection of maintenance. For the period from April 1993 to December 1993, benefit savings of £214·5 million have so far been reported. This figure does not represent the total amount of savings achieved because some will be scored retrospectively.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual salary of the chief executive of the Child Support Agency; and what are the weekly hours of work she is contracted to undertake.

  Mr. Burt
  The current basic salary of Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, is
  731
  £48,520 plus London weighting of £1,776. Her contract requires at least 36 hours per week, but there is no upper limit.

  Pension Books
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the considerations which led him to give prominence to the title "Social Security" on new pension books; and if he will consider changing the term "Social Security" to "Pension".

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of benefit payments is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 1 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question about the wording on the cover of the new Pension Books.
  Firstly, it may be helpful if I explain that the design of the cover of order books is constant across all types of social security benefit, as was the case with old style order books. The reason for this is that the cover does not automatically identify which type of benefit a person is receiving, so that a casual observer cannot identify which social security benefit an individual is in receipt of simply by looking at the cover of an order book. This allows an individual's financial affairs to remain confidential.
  There are also practical considerations if separate covers were required for individual benefits. Perhaps the most significant would be at the printing and assembly stage. Print runs would have to be stopped to allow different covers to be loaded to reflect the type of benefit being paid which would mean additional cost implications. Consideration would also have to be given as to how a book containing a number of benefits combined would be reflected on a cover—order books are issued by benefit groups and a number of different benefits are within each group. This would only add to the difficulty in identifying which cover should be assembled to the foils.
  The design of the order book is constantly under review, and the cover design is a component of many considerations. The last change was introduced primarily as an anti-fraud measure and it may interest you to learn that since the introduction of the new design no counterfeits have been found to be cashed. This is a

  Housing benefit cases by region

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  South East (excluding London)

  473,100

  465,000

  490,200

  533,700

  590,800

  London

  553,100

  523,800

  553,700

  594,800

  640,100

  North (including Cumbria)

  308,900

  302,100

  296,800

  297,500

  294,200

  Wales

  205,000

  204,000

  204,000

  210,000

  235,000

  Scotland

  565,000

  557,000

  542,000

  541,000

  624,200

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  402,300

  391,400

  388,200

  398,100

  388,500

  East Midlands

  237,300

  232,300

  241,800

  247,500

  265,800

  East Anglia

  111,400

  105,100

  111,800

  118,000

  129,900

  South West

  233,300

  234,000

  248,400

  267,600

  288,000

  West Midlands

  383,800

  361,400

  368,800

  387,800

  386,500

  North West (excluding Cumbria)

  524,400

  507,200

  514,400

  522,600

  526,400

  Total

  3,997,600

  3,883,300

  3,960,100

  4,118,600

  4,369,500

  Source:

  The Housing Benefit Management Information System quartely caseload data.

  Notes:

  1. Information prior to 1988–89 is not available.

  2. The data relates to Great Britain; figures for the United Kingdom are not available.

  3. The figures are averages, rounded to the nearest 100, and include estimates for non-responding authorities.

  4. The numbers are in benefit units, a benefit unit may be a couple or a single person.

  5. The data is from a later source than that used for "Social Security Statistics".

  732
  major achievement which should result in significant savings by reducing order book fraud. It is, however, too early to estimate how great these savings will be.
  For the reasons stated above there are no plans to replace the term Social Security with that of Pension.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) council tenants, (b) housing association tenants, (c) private tenants and (d) owner occupiers were in receipt of housing benefit in (i) Inverclyde, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland as a whole at the latest available date.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Percentage of local authority tenants receiving Housing Benefit

  Percentage of private tenants receiving Housing Benefit

  Inverclyde

  55

  50

  Strathclyde

  60

  55

  Scotland

  60

  50

  Sources: Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly caseload returns for 1991 and the 1991 Scottish Office tenancy statistics.

  Notes:

  (i) Information on the number of Housing Association tenancies is not available, therefore, the information is included with the private tenants.

  (ii) Owner Occupiers in Scotland have not been eligible for Housing Benefit (rate rebates) since April 1989 when the Community Charge Benefit was introduced.

  (iii) The caseload data is an average of four point in time counts and includes estimates for non-responding authorities, therefore, the information should be regarded only as a general indication.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for the United Kingdom in total, and by standard region including Greater London, the number of households claiming housing benefit for each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: The available information is in the table.
  733

  Benefits, Newham
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his current estimate of the number of eligible persons in the borough of Newham who do not claim income support;

  (2) what is his current estimate of the number of eligible persons in the borough of Newham who do not claim housing benefit;

  (3) what is his current estimate of the number of eligible persons in the borough of Newham who do not claim family credit.

  Mr. Burt
  Estimates of take-up of income-related benefits are not available on a regional or local basis. Take-up estimates for Great Britain as a whole can be found in "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take-up in 1989" published in January 1993, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Lone parent with two children aged 4 and 6 Earnings and benefits as at April 1994

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance contributions

  Take home pay

  Income support

  Free welfare foods

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Council tax

  Council tax benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and council tax

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (a) Not working after one year on benefits

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  67·55

  6·54

  0·00

  24·60

  32·54

  32·54

  7·65

  7·65

  138·88

  98·69

  (b) Earning £20 per week from part-time working

  20·00

  0·00

  0·00

  20·00

  62·55

  6·54

  0·00

  24·60

  32·54

  32·54

  7·65

  7·65

  153·88

  113·69

  (c) Working full-time

  60·00

  0·00

  1·44

  58·56

  0·00

  0·00

  66·70

  24·60

  32·54

  15·28

  7·65

  2·34

  167·48

  127·29

  70·00

  0·00

  2·44

  67·56

  0·00

  0·00

  66·70

  24·60

  32·54

  9·43

  7·65

  0·54

  168·83

  128·64

  80·00

  0·00

  3·44

  76·56

  0·00

  0·00

  63·30

  24·60

  32·54

  5·79

  7·65

  0·00

  170·25

  130·06

  90·00

  0·00

  4·44

  85·56

  0·00

  0·00

  57·00

  24·60

  32·54

  4·03

  7·65

  0·00

  171·19

  131·00

  100·00

  0·13

  5·44

  94·43

  0·00

  0·00

  50·79

  24·60

  32·54

  2·30

  7·65

  0·00

  172·12

  131·93

  110·00

  2·13

  6·44

  101·43

  0·00

  0·00

  45·89

  24·60

  32·54

  0·94

  7·65

  0·00

  172·86

  132·67

  120·00

  4·13

  7·44

  108·43

  0·00

  0·00

  40·99

  24·60

  32·54

  0·00

  7·65

  0·00

  174·02

  133·83

  Note: April 1993 values have been used for rent, council tax, free school meals and welfare foods as the 1994 values are not yet available.

  Lone parent with two children aged 4 and 6 Earnings and benefits as at April 1993

  Gross earnings

  Tax

  National insurance contributions

  Take home pay

  Income support

  Free welfare foods

  Family credit

  Child benefit

  Rent

  Rent rebate

  Community charge

  Community charge benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and community charge

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (a) Not working after one year on benefits

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  64·50

  6·54

  0·00

  24·15

  32·54

  32·54

  7·65

  7·65

  135·38

  95·19

  (b) Earning £20 per week from part-time working

  20·00

  0·00

  0·00

  20·00

  59·50

  6·54

  0·00

  24·15

  32·54

  32·54

  7·65

  7·65

  150·38

  110·19

  (c) Working full-time

  60·00

  0·00

  1·48

  58·52

  0·00

  0·00

  64·00

  24·15

  32·54

  15·01

  7·65

  2·26

  163·94

  123·75

  70·00

  0·00

  2·38

  67·62

  0·00

  0·00

  64·00

  24·15

  32·54

  9·09

  7·65

  0·44

  165·30

  125·11

  80·00

  0·00

  3·28

  76·72

  0·00

  0·00

  58·60

  24·15

  32·54

  6·69

  7·65

  0·00

  166·16

  125·97

  90·00

  0·00

  4·18

  85·82

  0·00

  0·00

  52·23

  24·15

  32·54

  4·92

  7·65

  0·00

  167·12

  126·93

  100·00

  0·13

  5·08

  94·79

  0·00

  0·00

  45·95

  24·15

  32·54

  3·17

  7·65

  0·00

  168·06

  127·87

  110·00

  2·13

  5·98

  101·89

  0·00

  0·00

  40·98

  24·15

  32·54

  1·78

  7·65

  0·00

  168·80

  128·61

  120·00

  4·13

  6·88

  108·99

  0·00

  0·00

  36·01

  24·15

  32·54

  0·00

  7·65

  0·00

  169·15

  128·96

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Record, columns 899–902, if he will publish tables, similar to those in his Department's tax benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for each of a single waged married couple (a) with two children aged four and six years and (b) with three children aged three, eight and 11 years earning (i) £60, (ii) £70, (iii) £80, (iv) £90,
  734

  Spending Power
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report, columns 899–902, if he will publish tables, similar to those in his Department's tax benefit model table, showing net weekly spending power for a lone mother with two children aged four and six years under the benefit system as uprated (a) in April 1993 and (b) in April 1994 who is (i) not working, after one year on benefits, (ii) earning £20 a week from part-time working and (iii) working full time and earning (1) £60, (2) £70, (3) £80,(4) £90, (5) £100, (6) £110 and (7) £120 per week.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables. We have assumed for the purposes of the question that part-time work is less than 16 hours a week.

  (v) £100, (vi) £110, (vii) £120, (viii) £130, (ix) £140, (x) £150, (xi) £160 and (xii) £170 per week under the benefit system as per its uprating in 1993.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is provided in "Tax/Benefit Model Tables 1993", published in October 1993, copies of which are available in the Library.
  735

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments have been made under the special compensation scheme for claimants who claimed(a) disability living allowance or (b) attendance allowance after February 1993; and what is the total amount paid.

  Mr. Scott:
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 January 1994, col. 18]: The answer should have read as follows: No claims to disability living allowance or attendance allowance made after February 1993 have attracted a payment under the special compensation scheme. This is because all claims considered under that scheme must have been received on or after 3 February 1992 and had payment issued prior to 1 April 1993. Additionally, any claim must have suffered a delay of more than eight months, or more than six months in special rules cases.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farmers Charter
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if her Department has considered initiating a farmers charter in the light of the Chancellor's reference in the Budget speech to the effects of late payment on small business; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department has already set out targets for dealing with grant, subsidy and licence applications in "Commitment to Service", which was published in December 1992. In a number of cases, EC legislation determines the dates which apply.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the terms of reference of the research being undertaken by the national poisons unit into the toxicity of dietary supplements, sponsored by her Department; what information she has concerning the number of cases of(a) minor and (b) serious medical problems as a result of the consumption of such dietary supplements; what comparative assessment has been made with information of which she is aware, relating to poisoning as a result of organophosphorus or organochlorine pesticide ingestion or absorption over a comparable period of time; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The project currently being carried out at the national poisons unit is commissioned to follow up both clinically and analytically any case reports notified to the unit in which dietary supplements or traditional remedies are implicated. The project is still under way, but interim results show a link between exposure to dietary supplements or traditional remedies and clinical effects in 49 cases out of 5,563 investigated. The interim nature of these results makes comparison with any similar data on pesticides unreliable. The Ministry will use the final results of this project to aid in the formulation of policy on dietary supplements and traditional remedies.
  736

  Intervention Beef
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will inquire into the circumstances under which beef was released by the Intervention Board free of charge to Mr. Ray Woolford, of Lambeth council.

  Mr. Jack
  Yes. I would be grateful if the hon. Member would let me have further details of the circumstances.

  Fishing (Drift Nets)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what rules have been agreed to allow fishing vessels the use of drift nets over 2·5 km in length.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 31 December 1993 the use by Community vessels of drift nets over 2·5 km in length has been prohibited under the provisions of EC regulation 3094/86.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so notified and consulted upon.

  Mr. Jack
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Polwhele Veterinary Investigation Centre
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has for the future of the Polwhele veterinary investigation centre; what assessment he has made of its performance over the past two and a half years; how she has taken into account the implications for livestock movements following the introduction of the European single market; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The review of the Polwhele veterinary investigation unit has been postponed until the outcome of the review of the animal health and veterinary group, which includes the state veterinary service, is known.

  Forestry
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) in respect of how many forest parks in England she has given an assurance that they will not be privatised; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will list the precise criteria which led the Government to exempt the New Forest from privatisation; how those criteria have been applied to other Forestry Commission lands in England; and if she will list the land affected in each case.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In giving the assurance that the New Forest will not be privatised, full account was taken of its place in the nation's history and heritage. Ministers will await the advice of the Forestry Review Group before considering what action, if any, should be taken in respect of the ownership and management of other Forestry Commission woodlands, including forest parks.
  737

  Less-favoured Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle and sheep farms are wholly or mainly in the less-favoured areas.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As at the June 1992 agricultural census there were 11,842 farms in England which had at least half their land in the less-favoured areas and were classified as cattle and sheep farms.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her estimate of the total subsidy to be paid on cattle and sheep in the less-favoured areas in 1994.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total direct subsidies paid under the hill livestock compensatory allowances, sheep annual premium and suckler cow premium schemes in 1994 on cattle and sheep in the less-favoured areas in England is estimated to be at least £144 million.

EDUCATION

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much the carpets incorporating the initials NCC in the National Curriculum Council's York office cost to purchase; when they were purchased; and what has happened to them.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The carpet was purchased in 1990, when the National Curriculum Council was fitting out its offices in York. No information on the cost of the carpet is held centrally, and the cost is not separately identifiable from the published accounts of the NCC. The council was dissolved on 1 January 1994 and its former York office, with the carpet still in place, has been transferred to the Secretary of State. It will become the headquarters of the new Funding Agency for Schools from April this year.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide figures for the amount his Department has been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security in respect of statutory sick pay provision for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Boswell
  In the calendar year 1993 the amount reimbursed was £97,283. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what rent the Funding Agency for Schools will pay for its office accommodation in York; and what rent the National Curriculum Council paid.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The annual rent for Albion Wharf is £280,724 excluding VAT, which is the sum previously paid by National Curriculum Council. Under the terms of the lease the rent is subject to review every five years with the next review due in June 1995.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what will be the cost of refurbishing premises in York for use by the Funding Agency for Schools; and which organisation will meet the cost of refurbishment.
  738
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The cost of refurbishing Albion Wharf will be around £650,000 excluding VAT, to be met by the Department out of the budget set aside for the establishment of the Funding Agency for Schools.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so notified and consulted upon.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  LEA Schools (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the capital allocation for North Yorkshire local education authority maintained schools in 1993–94.

  Mr. Forth
  North Yorkshire LEA's annual capital guideline for 1993–94 is £5·296 million. In addition, the authority has received two supplementary credit approvals totalling £710,000 in the course of this financial year. Voluntary aided and special agreement schools in North Yorkshire have been allocated grant totalling £949,000.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have been(a) abolished or (b) created since 1979.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member on Tuesday 1 February,Official Report, column 611.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many new applications have been received from secondary and primary schools to change to grant-maintained status since his answer of 25 October 1993,Official Report, column 436.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Since the answer of 25th October 1993, applications for grant maintained status have been received from 38 primary and 27 secondary schools.

  Secondary Schools (Performance)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of the secondary school performance tables were published by his Department.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of 109 separate booklets containing secondary school performance tables were published in November 1993, of which some 1,087,600 copies have so far been distributed.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of the secondary school performance tables were sent to primary schools in each
  739
  local education authority; what criteria were used in determining how many copies would be sent; and for what purpose the tables were provided.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Every primary and middle school in England with 10-year-old pupils on roll was sent 50 copies of the performance tables booklet for their local education authority area. The decision to send a standard number of booklets to each primary and middle school was taken on the grounds of overall economy and efficiency. The tables contain useful information for parents considering which secondary schools would best suit their children, and help parents and others to be better informed about the standards being achieved in schools in their area.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the budgeted expenditure for(a) publication and (b) distribution of the secondary school performance tables.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total budget for the 1993 performance tables exercise, covering secondary, 16 to 18,

  Pupils aged 10(1) in maintained and non-maintained schools in each Local Education Authority in England January 1993

  Pupils in non-maintained schools

  LEA

  Pupils in maintained schools primary, middle secondary and special

  Special

  Independent

  All pupils aged 10

  Corporation of London

  25

  0

  69

  94

  Camden

  1,315

  0

  485

  1,800

  Greenwich

  2,611

  0

  105

  2,716

  Hackney

  2,080

  0

  283

  2,363

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,112

  0

  152

  1,264

  Islington

  1,837

  0

  12

  1,849

  Kensington and Chelsea

  767

  0

  690

  1,457

  Lambeth

  2,387

  0

  93

  2,480

  Lewisham

  2,569

  0

  129

  2,698

  Southwark

  2,571

  0

  211

  2,782

  Tower Hamlets

  2,626

  0

  14

  2,640

  Wandsworth

  2,014

  0

  243

  2,257

  Westminster

  1,160

  0

  335

  1,495

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,836

  0

  0

  1,836

  Barnet

  3,032

  0

  385

  3,417

  Bexley

  2,487

  0

  56

  2,543

  Brent

  2,733

  0

  212

  2,945

  Bromley

  2,787

  1

  359

  3,147

  Croydon

  3,395

  0

  548

  3,943

  Ealing

  2,971

  0

  466

  3,437

  Enfield

  2,894

  0

  118

  3,012

  Haringey

  2,211

  0

  145

  2,356

  Harrow

  2,288

  0

  231

  2,519

  Havering

  2,686

  0

  62

  2,748

  Hillingdon

  2,561

  1

  279

  2,841

  Hounslow

  2,276

  0

  63

  2,339

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,251

  0

  223

  1,474

  Merton

  1,617

  0

  256

  1,873

  Newham

  3,113

  0

  14

  3,127

  Redbridge

  2,519

  0

  301

  2,820

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,261

  0

  455

  1,716

  Sutton

  1,687

  0

  148

  1,835

  Waltham Forest

  2,542

  0

  67

  2,609

  Birmingham

  13,527

  0

  434

  13,961

  Coventry

  3,791

  0

  146

  3,937

  Dudley

  3,619

  0

  21

  3,640

  Sandwell

  3,710

  0

  21

  3,731

  Solihull

  2,484

  0

  154

  2,638

  Walsall

  3,344

  0

  62

  3,406

  Wolverhampton

  3,106

  0

  102

  3,208

  Knowsley

  2,134

  0

  20

  2,154

  Liverpool

  6,217

  10

  140

  6,367

  St. Helens

  2,311

  0

  52

  2,363

  Sefton

  3,497

  10

  219

  3,726

  Wirral

  4,092

  6

  246

  4,344

  Bolton

  3,378

  3

  128

  3,509

  740
  and national unauthorised absence tables, was £1·9 million. The production of the secondary and 16 to 18 tables has cost £864,800 to date, and the cost of distributing the tables amounts to some £386,100; requests for the tables are still being received. It is not possible to separate the production and distribution costs as between the secondary and the 16 to 18 tables.

  Year Six Pupils
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many year six pupils there are in each local education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information is collected from schools in England on the number of pupils in each age group rather than year group. The numbers of pupils in January 1993 who were aged 10 at the beginning of that school year—most of whom were in year group six—are shown in the table.
  741

  Pupils in non-maintained schools

  LEA

  Pupils in maintained schools primary, middle secondary and special

  Special

  Independent

  All pupils aged 10

  Bury

  2,099

  0

  128

  2,227

  Manchester

  5,611

  0

  238

  5,849

  Oldham

  3,015

  0

  102

  3,117

  Rochdale

  2,725

  0

  36

  2,761

  Salford

  2,657

  0

  144

  2,801

  Stockport

  3,320

  29

  261

  3,610

  Tameside

  2,809

  0

  13

  2,822

  Trafford

  2,457

  0

  192

  2,649

  Wigan

  3,888

  0

  0

  3,888

  Barnsley

  2,717

  0

  12

  2,729

  Doncaster

  3,796

  5

  62

  3,863

  Rotherham

  3,208

  0

  24

  3,232

  Sheffield

  5,395

  0

  153

  5,548

  Bradford

  6,655

  0

  236

  6,891

  Calderdale

  2,422

  0

  62

  2,484

  Kirklees

  4,877

  3

  67

  4,947

  Leeds

  8,103

  7

  400

  8,510

  Wakefield

  3,800

  0

  156

  3,956

  Gateshead

  2,314

  0

  79

  2,393

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,950

  17

  367

  3,334

  North Tyneside

  2,287

  9

  79

  2,375

  South Tyneside

  1,912

  0

  8

  1,920

  Sunderland

  3,834

  0

  80

  3,914

  Isles of Scilly

  26

  0

  0

  26

  Avon

  10,331

  0

  863

  11,194

  Bedfordshire

  6,788

  0

  434

  7,222

  Berkshire

  8,336

  2

  1,095

  9,433

  Buckinghamshire

  7,476

  0

  787

  8,263

  Cambridgeshire

  7,769

  0

  487

  8,256

  Cheshire

  11,594

  8

  519

  12,121

  Cleveland

  7,624

  0

  162

  7,786

  Cornwall

  5,479

  0

  162

  5,641

  Cumbria

  5,642

  0

  192

  5,834

  Derbyshire

  10,842

  7

  332

  11,181

  Devon

  11,098

  14

  814

  11,926

  Dorset

  6,523

  8

  637

  7,168

  Durham

  7,209

  0

  183

  7,392

  East Sussex

  6,633

  9

  880

  7,522

  Essex

  17,628

  8

  1,007

  18,643

  Gloucestershire

  6,013

  6

  516

  6,535

  Hampshire

  17,442

  13

  1,462

  18,917

  Hereford and Worcester

  7,669

  11

  703

  8,383

  Hertfordshire

  11,211

  2

  1,207

  12,420

  Humberside

  10,711

  0

  251

  10,962

  Isle of Wight

  1,344

  6

  61

  1,411

  Kent

  17,272

  42

  1,377

  18,691

  Lancashire

  17,226

  15

  579

  17,820

  Leicestershire

  10,891

  0

  466

  11,357

  Lincolnshire

  6,744

  0

  338

  7,082

  Norfolk

  7,945

  0

  487

  8,432

  North Yorkshire

  7,610

  5

  698

  8,313

  Northamptonshire

  7,197

  6

  364

  7,567

  Northumberland

  3,779

  0

  77

  3,856

  Nottinghamshire

  11,833

  9

  417

  12,259

  Oxfordshire

  5,899

  11

  836

  6,746

  Shropshire

  4,870

  2

  403

  5,275

  Somerset

  5,022

  2

  591

  5,615

  Staffordshire

  12,597

  0

  350

  12,947

  Suffolk

  7,099

  0

  532

  7,631

  Surrey

  9,385

  41

  2,438

  11,864

  Warwickshire

  5,532

  0

  410

  5,942

  West Sussex

  7,326

  6

  806

  8,138

  Wiltshire

  6,495

  0

  434

  6,929

  England

  549,392

  334

  36,210

  585,936

  1 Ages as at 31 August 1992

  742 743

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library a copy of every letter to hon. Members from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: Professor Sutherland has agreed to make available in the Library any letter which he sends to an hon. Member on a matter raised in a parliamentary question which has been referred to him for reply by my right hon. Friend or other Ministers.

WALES

  Diesel Fuel Duties
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with bus operators in Wales and other involved parties the impact of the increase in diesel fuel duties on local bus services in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. The effect on operators' costs will be minimal—as little as 1 per cent. of their total operating costs. Services in Wales should not be greatly affected.

  Cwmcarn Secondary School
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when the headteacher of Cwmcarn grant-maintained secondary school in Gwent retired;

  (2) how the early retirement of the headteacher of Cwmcarn grant-maintained school, Gwent, was financed.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 17 December 1993, columns 1078–79, to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).

  Uplands Acidification
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what strategy is being considered by the Welsh Office to combat the effects of uplands acidification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A significant programme of action is under way in the United Kingdom to reduce the emissions which cause acid rain. This includes measures to reduce emissions from the power industry, the fitting of catalytic converters to all new cars and the implementation of pollution controls under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  In addition, the Welsh Office, in conjunction with the National Rivers Authority and the Countryside Council for Wales, is promoting research and monitoring on the environmental impact of acid deposition in upland Wales.

  Development Agency
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what Welsh Office scrutiny there is of the working of the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Development Agency, like other non-departmental public bodies, is subject to a range 744
  of controls, directions and monitoring as required by the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. Targets, objectives and performance measures are set in the context of the corporate planning cycle. The agency's finances are monitored on a monthly basis and its accounts are audited by the National Audit Office.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who conducted the interim house condition survey; what was the date originally scheduled for publication; what is the date currently scheduled for publication; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The 1993 Welsh House Condition Survey has been conducted in two stages. The first stage was a social survey undertaken by Research and Marketing Ltd. The second stage included a physical survey which was carried out by Bailey Widnell. Both contracts were placed after competitive tendering.

  Our provisional intention was that the results of the surveys be available early this year. We now expect them to be published in the spring.

  Magor-Castleton Motorway
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the submissions received on the consultation exercise on the proposed Magor to Castleton motorway.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Relevant details will be announced when a decision is taken on whether or not to proceed with any of the published routes. This is currently anticipated by the summer of 1994.

  Emergency Highway Works
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if arrangements similar to the special arrangements for emergency work referred to by the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of the introduction of full competition for local authority highway works in England will apply in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Yes. The implementation date is 1 October 1997, which takes account of proposals for local government reorganisation.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions since 1982 in Wales a potentially damaging operation to a site of special scientific interest has been carried out following the failure to reach a management agreement as set out in section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested by the hon. Member about potentially damaging operations is not available in the form requested. Available data on damage to SSSIs up to 31 March 1991 can be found in the Nature Conservancy Council's annual reports. Damage since 1 April 1991 can be found in the Countryside Council for Wales annual reports. Copies are available in the Library of the House.
  745

  Less-favoured Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cattle and sheep farms are wholly or mainly in the less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Redwood
  In June 1992 there were 13,715 cattle and sheep farms wholly or mainly within the less-favoured areas in Wales.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total subsidy to be paid on cattle and sheep in the less-favoured areas in 1994.

  Mr. Redwood
  The total direct subsidies paid under hill livestock compensatory allowances, sheep annual premium, and suckler cow premium schemes in 1994 on cattle and sheep in the less-favoured areas in Wales is estimated to be £157 million.

  Farm Accidents
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many accidents were reported on farms in Wales in 1992–93; and what measures were taken to increase awareness of accident prevention.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the agriculture and horticulture industry in Wales in 1992–93 a provisional total of 65 occupational injuries were reported to enforcing authorities. Information on the number of injuries which occurred on farms cannot be separately identified.

  The Health and Safety Executive is carrying out an extensive programme of measures aimed at helping to reduce the numbers of injuries and to increase awareness of health and safety in the agricultural industry. These measures include targeting inspection at those workplaces that present the greatest risk, extensive advisory and publicity work, and liaison with the industry to improve the safety of agricultural equipment.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Pergau Hydro-electric Project
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many files marked, "Not for NAO Eyes" relating to the Pergau hydro-electric project there are within his Department; and how many are at the British high commission in Malaysia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Six. The high commission in Malaysia does not hold any such files.

  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with long-established practice. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's internal audit unit regularly checks to ensure that the marking is not abused.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the instruction from the Foreign Secretary to the permanent secretary of the Overseas Development Administration dated 4 July 1989.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The document to which the hon. Member refers is dated 4 July 1991. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 31 January 1994 at column 493.
  746
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the memorandum to the Minister for Overseas Development from the permanent secretary of the Overseas Development Administration dated 7 February 1989.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Permanent Secretary's memorandum to which the hon. Member refers is dated 7 February 1991. The Public Accounts Committee was informed that, in accordance with usual practice, this internal document would not be released. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will prepare a full memorandum in response to the request now expected from the Foreign Affairs Committee following their decision of 26 January.

  Special Adviser
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Afairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 961, if he will outline the particular qualifications, expertise or experience relating to the Overseas Development portfolio of the special adviser, Mr. Maurice Fraser.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is not my practice to comment on the qualifications, expertise or experience of special advisers.

  Horn of Africa
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet his counterparts in the European Union to discuss a joint response to forecast food deficits in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The food aid needs of countries in the Horn of Africa, including Ethiopia and Eritrea, were discussed by officials of the European Community and its member states on 13 January. The European Commission indicated that they expect to provide some 250,000 tonnes of food to Ethiopia and Eritrea through various channels during 1994. Member states are considering their individual responses. A further meeting on 3 March will review the position.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the supply of emergency food aid following forecasts of crop deficits in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have allocated 10,000 tonnes of relief food aid for Eritrea and 15,000 tonnes for Ethiopia since 1 November 1993 from our 1993–94 national food aid programme. This food is being channelled through various NGOs. We will shortly be considering the possibility of further allocations from our 1994–95 programme.

  Crop Deficits
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received regarding forecasts of crop deficits in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received reports of joint FAO/WFP crop and food supply assessment missions carried out in November and December 1993 for both Ethiopia and Eritrea. Additional information has been received from the British embassy in Addis Ababa and various NGOs.
  747

  Environmental Appraisal Manual
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes the Overseas Development Administration has made to the "Manual of Environmental Appraisal" since April 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There have been no changes. We plan to review the manual on a three-year cycle, but sections can be amended in the interim if there are key developments.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proportion of correspondence received by(a) his Department and (b) each of his Department's agencies receives (i) an acknowledgement within five days and (ii) a substantive reply within 15 days.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 17 December 1993]: Current practice is for acknowledgements of correspondence to be sent immediately in cases where it is clear that a substantive reply cannot be given without consultation or research. Substantive replies are sent to correspondence as quickly as possible, but detailed analysis of response times could not be prepared except at disproportionate cost. The Privy Council Office has no responsibility for any agencies.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: None.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Employees suspected of fraud would be dealt with under disciplinary procedures and, where appropriate, the criminal code. An employee subsequently found guilty would normally be dismissed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

  Brazil
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Brazil.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We enjoy excellent relations with Brazil.

  Honduras
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Honduras concerning human rights.
  748
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Our ambassador in Tegucigalpa regularly reminds the Honduran authorities of the concern in this country over human rights and is in frequent contact with the Honduran human rights ombudsman. European Union ambassadors discussed human rights with the presidential candidates before the November elections.

  Poland
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Poland in relation to the applications by Poland to join the European Union and NATO.

  Mr. Hurd
  We strongly support Poland's wish to join the European Union.

  We welcome Poland's intention to take part in the "Partnership for Peace" programme, which indicates its willingness eventually to take on the responsibilities of NATO membership.

  Far East (Exports)
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department is doing to encourage exports to the far east.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All FCO posts in the far east have export promotion as a top priority. They seek out export opportunities, advise British companies on the business to be won in their markets, lobby on their behalf for major contracts and against discrimination, organise visits by Ministers and trade missions with the specific object of winning business amongst other tasks. I am happy to say, for example, that our exports to China were 72 per cent. up in the first 11 months of 1993 compared to 1992, to the Philippines 50 per cent., to Thailand 39 per cent., to South Korea 21 per cent., to Malaysia 50 per cent., to Hong Kong 32 per cent., to Singapore 24 per cent., to Japan 17 per cent. and to Taiwan 20 per cent.

  Middle East
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Lebanon, Israel, the Occupied Territories and Jordan from 3–6 January. The Prime Minister met Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan in London on 11 January. The Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I held discussions with the Lebanese Prime Minister in London on 25 and 26 January. I am encouraged by the determination of all the parties to make progress towards a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

  Western European Union (Membership)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place concerning the widening of Western European Union membership by the inclusion of countries in eastern and central Europe.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Western European Union Council of Ministers of 22 November requested the WEU
  749
  Permanent Council to study the possibility of an enhanced status for the countries of central and eastern Europe to allow them to participate to a greater extent in WEU activities.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future relationships between the Western European Union and the countries of central and eastern Europe, in the light of the adoption of the "Partnership for Peace" policy at the recent NATO summit.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Discussions have taken place between the Western European Union Permanent Council and representatives from central and eastern Europe, following on from the agreement reached at the 22 November WEU ministerial meeting, regarding the possibility of an enhanced relationship with the WEU for these countries. Any such enhanced relationship would be complementary to and compatible with the links developed through NATO's "Partnership for Peace".

  Malaysia
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Malaysia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our relations with Malaysia are excellent. We have close links in many fields, especially trade, defence and education. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Kuala Lumpur last September, and the King of Malaysia paid a state visit to this country in November.

  Social Policy (European Community)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss EC social policy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I have contacts over a wide range of issues with representatives of the European Commission. On special social policy ssues, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who has responsibility for this area, is in regular contact with Commissioner Padraig Flynn.

  China
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with China.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We attach importance to the United Kingdom's relations with China, which cover a broad range of issues. We have a shared responsibility under the Joint Declaration for the future of Hong Kong. We have a good working relationship in the UN Security Council. Our commercial relationship is expanding rapidly, with United Kingdom exports up by 72 per cent. in the first 11 months of last year.

  Belize
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Belize.
  750
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Our relations with Belize remain close and warm.

  Russian Parliament
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to establish firm links and lines of communication with the new Russian Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We look forward to regular contacts with the new Russian Parliament. The Speaker of the House has invited the chairman of the State Duma, Mr. Rybkin, to visit the United Kingdom later this year. We have established the £500,000 British programme for democracy financed by the know-how fund to help foster, among other things, interparliamentary contacts and provide training for new parliamentarians and officials.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet representatives of the United States Government to discuss the implementations of the GATT agreement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be discussing GATT implications again with the Americans in the near future.

  Japan
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Japan to discuss trade links; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed our trade links with a number of Japanese Ministers including the Prime Minister, during his visit to Japan in April 1993. I did so too during my visit in November. Our commercial relationship is making good progress. Despite continuing recession in Japan, British exports during the first 11 months of 1993 rose by 17 per cent. compared with the same period in 1992.

  Foreign Policy (Co-operation)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to have discussions with his European Union partners concerning the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs meets his European Union partners regularly to discuss the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy.

  South Africa
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received concerning assistance with the process of the election in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.
  751
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 14 January the UN Security Council approved the Secretary-General's report containing his proposals for international assistance for the South African elections. These provide for an international contingent of 2,840 observers, of which 1,778 will be provided by the UN. The United Kingdom will contribute to the UN, EU and Commonwealth observer operations.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions Her Majesty's Government are planning to make to the groups monitoring the planned South African elections in April.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Britain is contributing to the UN, EU and Commonwealth observer operations. The exact number of British observers has yet to be finalised.

  Paraguay
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Paraguay.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Relations with Paraguay are good. There were several high-level British visitors to Asuncion in 1993. We hope that President Wasmosy can visit Britain later this year.

  European Union (Enlargement)
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding progress towards European Union enlargement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Significant progress has been made towards the enlargement of the European Community and we look forward to the early accession of the four EFTA applicants. We remain committed to the target date for accession of 1 January 1995.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agreements have been made with other EC states and the United Nations on policy on the use of air strikes to protect(a) Bosnian Muslims and (b) humanitarian aid.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the NATO summit on 10–11 January, allies reaffirmed their readiness, in accordance with relevant UN Security Council resolutions, to carry out air strikes to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo and other threatened areas. NATO is also prepared to use air power, if requested, in support of UNPROFOR operations, including the delivery of humanitarian aid.

  Soviet Republics
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the current conflicts within certain of the republics of the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are concerned at the growing human toll and humanitarian problems resulting from the conflicts in Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Tajikistan. We continue to work for resolutions through the international bodies involved, notably the CSCE and the UN.
  752

  Sudan
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate a debate on Sudan in the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to do so at this stage. We have to be sure that recourse to the Security Council would achieve the right outcome.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position of negotiations with China over the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We seek co-operation with China for a smooth transition in Hong Kong. On arrangements for the 1994 and 1995 elections, despite 17 rounds of talks, we have so far been unable to reach agreement. It was necessary for the Governor to begin the legislative process on the more urgent issues in December. We wish to continue discussion with China on the remaining electoral issues in the time available. We will also continue to seek rapid solutions, through the joint liaison group, to the many other outstanding issues related to the transition, not least those concerning Hong Kong's new airport.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently to encourage the peace process in former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 27 January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Lord Owen in London. On 31 January he met the United Nations Secretary-General and the Canadian Foreign Minister in New York and on 1 February he met the American Secretary of State in Washington. Next week he shall meet his European Union counterparts in Brussels.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what physical assistance has been offered to the United Nations commission of inquiry into alleged war crimes in former Yugoslavia to excavate alleged mass burial sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has offered no physical assistance to the excavation of alleged mass graves. Instead the United Kingdom has concentrated its efforts on the collation of substantiated evidence on war crimes by the MOD's defence debriefing team. Three batches of evidence have so far been submitted to the United Nations commission of experts.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international agreements cover the provision of assistance for clearing land mines.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Article 9 of protocol II to the 1981 UN weaponry convention provides that at the end of a conflict
  753
  "the parties shall endeavour to reach agreement, both among themselves and, where appropriate, with other States and with International organizations"
  on assistance to remove or render ineffective minefields and mines.

  Latin America
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to boost trade links with Latin America.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts in Latin America have export promotion as a top priority. They seek out export opportunities, advise British companies on the business to be won in their markets, lobby on their behalf for major contracts and against discrimination, organise visits by trade missions and Ministers with the specific object of winning business amongst other tasks. I am happy to say that our exports to Latin America have increased by 26 per cent. over the past 12 months.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost of the military operation in Somalia in 1993.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The total cost to the United Nations of UNOSOM in 1993 was $487,363,740. The United Kingdom pays 6·373 per cent. of peacekeeping costs on the United Nations scale of assessment. The United Kingdom contribution to UNOSOM in 1993 was therefore $30,982,123.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so notified and consulted upon.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide figures for the amount his Department has been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security in respect of statutory sick pay provision for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The DSS has reimbursed the following amounts to the FCO and the ODA in respect of statutory sick pay provision over the past three financial years:

  Financial year

  FCO £

  ODA £

  1991–92

  142,550·24

  41,683·55

  1992–93

  167,586·00

  50,137·02

  11993–94

  111,067·08

  36,655·78

  1April to December 1993.

  754

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal provisions govern the British Government in contributing to the ECOMOG initiative in Liberia and other regional peace-keeping troops.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom made a $1 million contribution to the United Nations trust fund for Liberia, and this contribution was restricted to humanitarian relief purposes. It is a long-standing policy of successive Administrations that overseas aid is not used for defence purposes.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to the United Kingdom's relations with Liberia following the passage of Security Council resolution 788.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have given strong support in the United Nations Security Council to the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, to bring about a ceasefire in Liberia. We look forward to the establishment of a Liberian national transitional government.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes have been made to United Kingdom sanctions against the military Government of Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the written reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 2 December 1993, at column 680.

  North Atlantic Assembly
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will replace the Earl of Kimberley as a Lords member of the United Kingdom delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My noble Friend Lord Lyell has been approached and has indicated that he would be content to do so.

TRANSPORT

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 December,Official Report, column 709, if consultants from the firm Touche Ross have talked to any vehicle registration office staff as part of the advice of the agency on its overall marketing testing strategy.

  Mr. Key
  In advising DVLA on its market testing strategy Touche Ross consultants interviewed the senior management of the vehicle registration offices.

  M1
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the contractors to complete their current work around junction 9 on the M1; and if he will make a statement.
  755
  Mr. Key
  The contractors expect the work to widen the M1 between junctions 9 and 10 to be substantially complete by the middle of February, but this date could be affected by adverse weather conditions. Minor operations will continue beyond then but should not cause delays to traffic.

  Road-widening Schemes
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all proposed road-widening schemes in England with the year when he expects the work to begin and be completed together with the estimated cost of each scheme.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend will announce, in the near future, the national road schemes on which works are planned to start in 1994–95, and the results of the current review of road programme priorities.

  A6(M)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest cost of the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass.

  Mr. Key
  The estimated cost of the published proposals for A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass is £113 million.

  Rail Regulator
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the rail regulator's statutory powers under the Railways Act 1993 come into force.

  Mr. Freeman
  Section 1 of and schedule 1 to the Railways Act 1993, which provide for the appointment of the Rail Regulator and for remuneration, staff and other procedural matters arising from his appointment, came into force on the passing of the Act on 5 November 1993. The remaining statutory powers of the regulator are expected to come into force at the beginning of April 1994 when the main provisions of the Railways Act are due to be commenced.

  Trunk Roads (Underbridges)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 600, if he will list each of the three underbridges on motorways and the 65 underbridges on all-purpose trunk roads.

  Mr. Key
  The list is as follows:

  Motorways

  Road

  Bridge name

  M4

  Cutbridge No. 2

  M54

  Queensway

  M621 (S)

  South Leeds I/C 13 Railway

  All Purpose Trunk Roads

  Road

  Bridge name

  Road

  Bridge name

  A1

  Ease Drain extension

  A11

  Bourne

  A11

  Barton Mills five ways

  A140

  Thwaite

  A16

  Lucks

  A16

  Surfleet

  A16

  Kelsey

  A17

  Beckingham

  756

  Road

  Bridge name

  Road

  Bridge name

  A31

  Malwood farm CC South

  A33

  Itchen No. 1

  A33

  Compton flyover north

  A34

  Strongford O/A widening

  A4

  Henley branch railway

  A4

  Loddon (Tyford)

  A4

  Old river (north)

  A40

  Wilton east bound extension

  A41

  Stone

  A41

  Heath

  A41

  Nell railway

  A41

  Greenfield lock canal

  A417

  Abbey way

  A423

  Henley

  A423

  Kidlington Canal

  A423

  Duchess

  A446

  Railway flood No. 17A

  A45

  Sowe

  A465

  Wormbridge

  A47

  Constitution hill

  A483

  Llynclys

  A49

  Wayford

  A49

  Beeston canal

  A5

  Caves Inn N/B extension

  A5

  Montford

  A50

  Dove flood culvert No. 3

  A500

  Hough railway

  A51

  Wardle canal

  A51

  Henhull canal

  A556

  Heyeswood railway main line

  A556

  Allens west

  A556

  Nether Tabley

  A57

  Tom Otter's

  A590

  Yarl (Orig M/Arch)

  A595

  Loop road No. 1

  A596

  Micklethwaite 2

  A596

  Micklethwaite 3

  A6

  Leicester road railway

  A6

  Clophill

  A61

  A61 interchange west

  A61

  A61 interchange east

  A61

  Alfreton brook (M/Arch)

  A61

  Sowell A railway

  A629

  Eastburn works (M/Arch)

  A269

  Mill Ing

  A630

  Railway bridge No. 71

  A638

  Rossington south

  A638

  Rossington north

  A646

  Hepton new

  A646

  Luddenden foot extension

  A646

  Mytholmyroyd canal

  A65

  Townend Hellifield

  A65

  Coniston Aire

  A650

  Hard Ings road

  A66

  Eden

  A696

  Ponteland

  A7

  Longtown

  Principal Roads (Maintenance)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been allocated by his Department to each local highway authority in transport supplementary grant and credit approvals for the maintenance of principal roads of more than local importance in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Key
  Transport supplementary grant and credit approvals were first allocated for structural maintenance of principal roads forming part of the primary route network in 1992–93. This was extended to cover all principal roads in 1993–94. The figures are:

  Structural maintenance—accepted expenditure in £k

  Authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  867

  399

  Barnet

  0

  140

  175

  Bexley

  0

  847

  1,103

  Brent

  0

  287

  828

  Bromley

  212

  420

  432

  Camden

  1,617

  1,566

  1,139

  Croydon

  0

  1,480

  1,144

  Ealing

  0

  285

  386

  Enfield

  0

  270

  309

  Greenwich

  379

  510

  477

  Hackney

  185

  385

  600

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  420

  761

  Haringey

  255

  1,270

  1,012

  Harrow

  0

  0

  318

  Havering

  0

  90

  69

  Hillingdon

  0

  170

  278

  Hounslow

  0

  215

  414

  Islington

  900

  730

  935

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  142

  Kingston upon Thames

  820

  563

  472

  Lambeth

  145

  255

  537

  Lewisham

  100

  50

  231

  Merton

  250

  140

  189

  Newham

  30

  140

  204

  757

  Authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Redbridge

  0

  765

  535

  Richmond upon Thames

  41

  111

  200

  Southwark

  0

  0

  381

  Sutton

  150

  170

  180

  Tower Hamlets

  1,847

  6,995

  3,440

  Waltham Forest

  170

  415

  251

  Wandsworth

  275

  503

  664

  Westminster

  570

  480

  336

  Bolton

  550

  1,015

  722

  Bury

  300

  630

  688

  Manchester

  779

  1,330

  1,363

  Oldham

  200

  775

  779

  Rochdale

  500

  315

  686

  Salford

  970

  940

  964

  Stockport

  222

  350

  955

  Tameside

  431

  1,285

  938

  Trafford

  140

  290

  251

  Wigan

  435

  370

  536

  Knowsley

  456

  860

  953

  Liverpool

  1,400

  1,500

  2,200

  St. Helens

  95

  160

  142

  Sefton

  378

  550

  185

  Wirral

  190

  360

  259

  Barnsley

  536

  565

  750

  Doncaster

  1,445

  1,421

  1,129

  Rotherham

  219

  522

  478

  Sheffield

  1,000

  2,711

  2,773

  Gateshead

  185

  275

  300

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  541

  736

  1,300

  North Tyneside

  200

  840

  650

  South Tyneside

  93

  385

  560

  Sunderland

  1,044

  2,006

  1,482

  Birmingham

  2,000

  4,392

  3,196

  Coventry

  854

  825

  406

  Dudley

  670

  1,400

  1,256

  Sandwell

  1,555

  1,740

  1,644

  Solihull

  125

  120

  151

  Walsall

  110

  770

  755

  Wolverhampton

  460

  880

  791

  Bradford

  1,000

  2,100

  1,454

  Calderdale

  352

  1,277

  2,262

  Kirklees

  1,795

  3,510

  2,609

  Leeds

  1,000

  6,086

  3,271

  Wakefield

  827

  1,686

  1,300

  Avon

  2,530

  2,470

  1,660

  Bedfordshire

  777

  1,210

  1,041

  Berkshire

  1,370

  2,150

  1,346

  Buckinghamshire

  1,350

  2,190

  1,412

  Cambridgeshire

  1,410

  2,555

  1,801

  Cheshire

  4,480

  7,520

  5,429

  Cleveland

  856

  1,940

  1,715

  Cornwall

  1,490

  2,340

  2,008

  Cumbria

  1,916

  2,100

  1,426

  Derbyshire

  1,592

  1,810

  1,394

  Devon

  2,570

  4,040

  3,893

  Dorset

  400

  1,295

  926

  Durham

  1,106

  1,255

  1,252

  East Sussex

  890

  1,963

  1,913

  Essex

  1,652

  2,588

  2,949

  Gloucestershire

  1,054

  1,500

  1,409

  Hampshire

  1,200

  4,985

  4,183

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,332

  2,030

  1,744

  Hertfordshire

  500

  2,870

  1,954

  Humberside

  2,342

  3,856

  3,035

  Isle of Wight

  0

  600

  594

  Kent

  4,340

  7,879

  7,273

  Lancashire

  2,004

  2,160

  3,381

  Leicestershire

  2,240

  1,915

  2,011

  Lincolnshire

  1,360

  2,027

  2,146

  Norfolk

  2,616

  3,542

  2,730

  Northamptonshire

  3,431

  3,800

  2,076

  Northumberland

  1,007

  2,210

  1,998

  North Yorkshire

  2,332

  4,575

  3,752

  Nottinghamshire

  1,733

  3,530

  2,990

  Oxfordshire

  1,789

  1,833

  1,791

  Shropshire

  1,109

  1,750

  1,680

  Somerset

  710

  1,733

  1,390

  Staffordshire

  4,000

  5,420

  4,323

  758

  Authority

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Suffolk

  2,411

  3,050

  3,075

  Surrey

  443

  2,712

  3,484

  Warwickshire

  560

  1,050

  1,710

  West Sussex

  1,375

  1,738

  1,859

  Wiltshire

  0

  1,292

  1,348

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so notified and consulted upon.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Citizens Charter
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the amount of money paid to the travelling public by British Rail under the terms of the citizens charter.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail launched the passengers charter in March 1992. I understand that between April 1992 and November 1993 it paid £4·4 million in compensation to passengers under the terms of the charter.

  Highway Works (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the amount of money for contract administration and monitoring that will be added to client costs under the proposed full competition for local authority highway works in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I expect that any additional costs incurred by local authorities will, on average, be more than recouped by the efficiency and financial benefits gained.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the details of the special arrangements for emergency work referred to in the announcement of the introduction of full competition for local authority highway works in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I am consulting the local authority associations on a proposal that emergency works should continue to remain exempt from competition requirements. This would give local authorities maximum flexibility in responding to unpredictable situations.

  Drivers (Training)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether training of drivers undertaken under the Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances, Packets etc.) Regulation 1986 will be accepted under the Road Traffic (Training of Drivers of Vehicles Carrying Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Drivers of vehicles over 3·5 tonnes gross weight carrying dangerous goods in packages must
  759
  undertake approved training and hold a vocational training certificate from 1 January 1995, as required by EC directive 684/89. The training requirements have been well publicised and were introduced after full consultation.

  The 1992 regulations allowed a two-and-a-half year transitional period until the end of 1994 for drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous goods in packages to obtain a certificate.

  Traffic Cones Hotline
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost of the traffic cones hotline to date; and what is the precise purpose of the hotline.

  Mr. Key
  Separate costs of the cones hotline are not available since they have been met from the existing running costs budget. No staff have been employed exclusively on hotline activity.

  The purpose of the hotline is to enable road users to complain to the Department if they see parts of the trunk road and motorway network which appear to have been coned off unnecessarily. The complaint is then followed up within the Department.

  In most cases there will be a good reason, although not necessarily an obvious one, for the cones to be in place, and the Department undertakes on request to provide a written explanation of what it is. If there is no good reason, the Department undertakes to get the cones removed.

  Motorways
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned into high speed electronic debiting for urban motorways.

  Mr. Key
  We are currently putting in hand a programme of research and trials to develop an electronic charging system suitable for use on the British motorway network. We shall shortly be inviting industry to submit proposals and equipment for study and assessment.

  Design, Build, Finance Unit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the design, build, finance unit to commence work; and if he will give details of staffing appointments.

  Mr. Key
  A reorganisation of the Department's staff has established a small unit to develop design, build, finance and operate contracts. This will put into effect the policy announced by the Secretary of State on 2 December, in response to the results of the consultation paper "Paying for Better Motorways". The units' staffing is building up as the workload increases.

  Projects and Contracts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table setting out each contract or project for which his Department is currently inviting bids from(a) financial, (b) political or (c) other consultants, the nature of each contract or project and the bidding time scale for each project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 19 January 1994]: The information is as follows:
  760

  Consultancy contracts or projects for which bids are currently invited

  Nature of contract or project

  Bidding timescale (Tender return date)

  (a) Financial consultants

  Insurance advice consultancy

  13 December 1993

  Channel tunnel rail link: Reporting accountants

  4 January 1994

  Review of DVOIT Ltd. balance sheet

  13 January 1994

  Study into DBFO contracts

  February 1994

  (b) Political consultants

  (c) Other consultants

  Channel tunnel rail link; technical advisers

  8 December 1993

  The effective sealing of cracks and fissures in pavements

  15 December 1993

  National roads network assessment system: Software program

  4 November 1993

  Specialist consultancy support for MSSD

  15 October 1993

  Coastguard magazine

  12 November 1993

  DOT newspaper

  12 November 1993

  Appointment of a consultant to update and survey the network using DOT's high speed road monitor

  21 December 1993

  Design and supervision of the installation of new national motorway communications system (M1 J24 to J30)

  27 January 1993

  South London trunk roads: Maintenace and improvement

  9 December 1993

  River Thames working group—Analysis of transport potential of the River Thames

  10 February 1994

  Arbitration on user charges at United States airports

  10 January 1994

  Accident/Incident database

  6 January 1994

  1991 LATS database appointment of marketing agents

  14 January 1994

  Recruitment of a property consultant

  4 January 1994

  Trial audit of free issue equipment

  4 January 1994

  Investigation into the integrity of transmission stations

  February 1994

  Investigation into alternative methods of connecting police control offices to the motorway transmission system

  February 1994

  Market research into the accuracy of the DVLA database

  Early February 1994

  PACT (Pilot actions for combined transport) study

  7 February 1994

  Site supervision of installation of new communications equipment (M1 J38 to J42)

  17 January 1994

  Assignment based technology for modelling within congested areas

  20 January 1994

  Monitoring of bus priorities

  28 January 1994

  Exhaust emission testing

  21 January 1994

  Advice on surveys on use of accessible buses

  24 January 1994

  Monitor and survey of lighting on trunk roads in London

  not available

  West London trunk roads: Maintenance and improvement

  not available

  Birmingham northern relief road: Financial and technical resolution panel

  not available

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table setting out each separate contract or project awarded to(a) financial, (b) political or (c) other consultants by his Department in connection with any schemes or proposals for inclusion in the private finance initiative or joint public/private funding, the dates on which each contract or project was commissioned by his Department, the successful company or individual awarded the contract or project and the total amount paid to each company or consultant; and if he will make a statement.
  761
  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 19 January 1994]The information is as follows:

  Private finance initiative and joint public/private funding contracts and projects

  Contract let date

  Project

  Company

  Value (£ thousands)

  (a) Financial Consultants

  1986

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing: Assessment of Proposals

  J. Henry Schroder Wagg

  Not available

  13 November 1989

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road: Assessment of Proposals and Financial Advice on Concessions Agreement

  Coopers & Lybrand

  1,374

  5 August 1991

  Birmingham Western Orbital Route: Assessment of Proposals

  West Merchant Bank

  276

  26 April 1992

  Second Severn Crossing: Financial and Technical Disputes Resolution Panel

  12 individuals

  98

  28 January 1992

  Independent Review of Union Railways' work on CTRL

  Samuel Montagu & Co. Ltd.

  223

  27 May 1992

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  Samuel Montague

  342

  27 May 1992

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road: Financial Advisers

  Coopers Lybrand Deloitte

  300

  8 August 1993

  Project Structure and Competition to appoint private sector participant in CTRL

  Hill Samuel Bank

  366

  (b) Political Consultants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Other Consultants

  16 August 1984 and 17 September 1991

  Second Severn Crossing: Development of Requirements, Assessment of Proposals and Government Agent

  G. Maunsell & Partners W. S. Atkins

  3,624

  9 July 1987

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing: Engineering

  Mott MacDonald

  2,130

  13 April 1989

  Second Severn Crossing: Drafting of the Concession Agreement

  McKenna & Co.

  504

  10 October 1989

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road: Development of Proposals

  Sir Owen Williams & Partners

  2,199

  1990

  Birmingham-Manchester Corridor

  Sir Owen Williams & Partners

  13

  19 December 1990

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road: Drafting of Concessions Agreement

  McKenna & Co.

  890

  May 1990

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing: Communications and Signals

  Mott MacDonald

  306

  14 August 1991

  Severn Crossing: Government Representative for existing bridge

  Flint & Neill Partnership

  1,190

  29 November 1991

  New Tamar Crossing: Route identification study

  W. S. Atkins

  414

  August 1991

  Mersey Crossing: Route identification study

  Oscar Faber TPA

  202

  June 1991

  Birmingham Western Orbital Route: Advice on traffic capacity

  Oscar Faber TPA

  25

  October 1991

  Birmingham Western Orbital Route: Development of Proposals

  Rendell Palmer Tritton

  41

  14 May 1992

  Lower Thames Crossing: Feasibility Study

  Consortium led by G. Maunsell & Partners

  785

  22 June 1992

  Independent Review of Union Railway's work on CTRL: Engineering advice

  W. S. Atkins

  166

  22 June 1992

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link; Appointment of Engineering Consultants to Assist Financial Advisers

  W. S. Atkins Planning Consultants

  90

  23 November 1992

  Channel Tunnel Risk Assessment Study

  Electrowatt Engineering Services Ltd.

  Phase 1 = 15 Phase 2 = 550

  17 December 1992

  Legal advice on competition for private sector partner in CTRL

  McKenna & Co.

  Not available

  15 December 1993

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link; Appointment of Engineering Consultants to Assist Financial Advisers (Extn)

  W. S. Atkins Planning Consultants

  12

  27 January 1993

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link; Independent Review

  W. S. Atkins Planning Consultants

  15

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr.Norris
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Employees convicted of fraud are subject to the Department's disciplinary procedures and are liable to dismissal.
  762
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]The figures for 1989 are not immediately available.

  Since 1990, two employees were judged guilty of fraud in the Department: one in 1992 and one in 1993. On both occasions the individual concerned was dismissed.
  763
  In addition, in application of departmental policy, two employees who had been convicted of fraud outside the Department were also dismissed, one in 1991 and one in 1992.

  Traffic Cones (Security)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what publicly funded research has taken place into the provision of transparent traffic cones in those situations where security is an important consideration.

  Mr. Howard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Proposals for enhancing public security are always considered with care. In this case the proposal from one of my hon. Friend's constituents for the development of a transparent traffic cone was referred to the Metropolitan police anti-terrorist branch and the police scientific development branch. The police have concluded that transparent cones are unlikely to be of significant security benefit in Great Britain. Publicly funded research on possible designs, and in particular on whether a transparent cone could be produced which conformed to BS standard 873, has not therefore been carried out.

  London Stansted Airport
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that airlines should be given specific opportunities to operate from London Stansted airport to the United States of America as part of a new air service bilateral agreement.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom has already offered the immediate removal of all restrictions on United States and United Kingdom carriers' access to Stansted as part of a proposal made last December for a liberalised United Kingdom/United States air services agreement.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which American airlines have been refused licences to operate from London Stansted airport since 1990 under the transatlantic air travel bilateral restrictions.

  Mr. Norris
  Several US airlines have expressed interest over this period. Most recently, last June, we turned down a request from TWA for a unilaterial concession. We were disappointed that the United States were not prepared to accept an offer we made at that time which would have allowed this service to go ahead.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the demand for transatlantic services fromn London Stansted airport has been represented at the negotiations on the air travel bilateral restrictions to date.

  Mr. Norris
  The Airport Operators Association, of which BAA plc is a member, attends the UOIKJUS liberalisation negotiations as part of the United Kingdom's delegation team.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received to date in favour of freeing London Stansted airport from the transatlantic air travel bilaterial restrictions.

  Mr. Norris
  My officials and I have received a variety of written and oral representations in recent months.
  764
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent to which air travel bilateral restrictions which frustrate the demand for transatlantic services from London Stansted airport.

  Mr. Norris
  The UK/US air services bilateral arrangements allow any of the six US carriers currently serving London to operate some or all of their services from Stansted if whey wish to do so. I assess carefully the implications of requests from US carriers for further rights to serve Stansted as they arise.

  Microlight Aircraft
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what progress is being made in discussions with the French authorities to raise the overall weight limits of microlight aircraft from 390 kilograms to 450 kg; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what progress is being made towards establishing a European standard to define a microlight aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation, including microlights, within the United Kingdom, rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. The Authority also participates fully in discussions, with other national aviation authorities, aimed at developing harmonised aviation requirements. I will therefore ask the chairman of the Authority to write to the hon. Member in response to his questions.

  Waste Dumping
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with local government organisations the changes required in International Maritime Organisation regulations following the incident on 30 December 1993 involving the MT Stort Kestrel, to prevent the dumping of noxious substances and other waste by shipping.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is indeed prepared to enter into discussion with local government organisations on the International Maritime Organisation's regulations on the discharge of noxious liquids.

  Tax Concessions (Germany)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to assist the competitive position of the British shipping industry following the German Government's decision to extend tax concessions for investors in shipping companies.

  Mr. Norris
  A number of non-fiscal measures have been introduced or are proposed, including those announced on 15 December by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport,Hansard, column 698–99. Issues of fiscal policy are primarily for my right hon. and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Plutonium Nitrate (Transport)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he has under consideration relating to the transportation of plutonium nitrate.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is preparing to implement the code for the safe carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel,
  765
  plutonium and high-level radioactive wastes in flasks on board ships, which was agreed by the assembly of the International Maritime Organisation in November 1993.

  MV Iran-Sokan
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions since 1985 the cargo ship MV Iran-Sokan has docked at ports in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  The available information indicates that the Iran-Sokan was in port in London in June 1987 and March 1988, and in Immingham in June 1993.

  A38
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the A38 trunk road between Exeter and Plymouth meets the necessary criteria to be designated as an A(M) road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Roads with A(M) and M designations are built to broadly similar engineering standards and are subject to the same legal requirements. The A38 between Exeter and Plymouth does not presently meet the necessary criteria for such roads. However, as my hon. Friend is aware, a study of the future needs of this important but environmentally sensitive route is being carried out as quickly as possible.

  Marine Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he was first notified of the recent marine diesel fuel pollution incident off the coasts of Scotland and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what actions he has taken, and on what dates, to clear up the marine diesel fuel pollutants recently discovered off the coasts of Scotland and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will give full details of the extent of marine diesel pollution in the last 10 days off the coast of Northern Ireland and Scotland; and which parts of the United Kingdom have been affected;

  (4) if he will instigate an urgent marine accident investigation branch and marine pollution unit investigation into the circumstances causing marine diesel pollution off the coast of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answers 1 February 1994]The Department's Marine Pollution Control Unit was first informed of pollution on the east coast of Northern Ireland on 10 January 1994. Oiled birds were reported coming ashore on the east coast of Northern Ireland from Newcastle, Co. Down to Glenarm, Co. Antrim. Small patches of beached oil were reported, but not in significant quantities. Two days later on 12 January scattered pancakes of oil were found on the shoreline from Ballywater in the North to Ballyquintin point in the South with the heaviest depositions at Portavogie. Clean-up action was carried out by the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) on 10 and 11 January. MPCU requested beach samples to be sent to the laboratory of the Government chemist for analysis—the results are still awaited. On 12 and 17 January aerial reconnaissance by MPCU did not reveal any floating oil at sea.
  766
  Pollution incidents on the coasts of Strathclyde—Ballentrae and Turnberry—Dumfries and Galloway, Port Patrick, were reported to the MPCU between 14 and 17 January. In the Strathclyde region, isolated globules of oil were found on a 6·75 mile stretch of beach south of Ballentrae, and small amounts of oil have also been found on rocks at Turnberry point. In Dumfries and Galloway, oil described as liquid oil clinging to seaweed was found on the beach at Port Mara and Port Kale, near Port Patrick. Clean-up action was carried out by Kyle and Carrick district council over this period, and it was requested to send beach samples to the LGC for analysis. The results are not yet known. MPCU's aerial surveillance aircraft flew over the area on 12, 17, 22 and 24 January, but no floating oil at sea was detected.

  There is no evidence to suggest that this pollution originated from a recent marine accident. Neither the Marine Accident Investigation Branch nor the Marine Pollution Control Unit is aware of any incident in the vacinity of the affected areas to which the pollution could be attributed. In the circumstances, there is nothing for the MAIB to investigate. The direction of any further action by the MPCU will depend on the outcome of the analysis of beach samples by the LGC.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Regional Assistance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether all parts of Birmingham will remain eligible for European regional development fund.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on 28 January,Official Report, column 409.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total budget awarded under the European regional development fund to the Commission initiatives of(a) ENVIREG, (b) INTERREG, (c) PRISMA, (d) RECHAR, (e) RESIDER, (f) REGEN, (g) REGIS, (h) RENAVAL, (i) STAR, (j) STRIDE, (k) TELEMATICS, and (l) VALOREN in each year since their establishment; and what was the total budget of each awarded to (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  European regional development fund allocations to Community initiatives are shown in the table. Allocations by year are not available. For several of the initiatives, in the United Kingdom only Northern Ireland has been eligible.

  ERDF allocations to community initiatives 1993 prices

  Million ecu

  Total EC

  Total UK

  Northern Region

  (a) ENVIREG4

  547

  18

  —

  (b) INTERREG

  1960

  3—

  3—

  (c) PRISMA4

  120

  6

  —

  (d) RECHAR

  325

  158

  26

  (e) RESIDER

  131

  5

  0

  (f) REGEN

  384

  0

  0

  (g) REGIS

  207

  0

  0

  (h) RENAVAL

  2—

  71

  41

  767

  Total EC

  Total UK

  Northern Region

  (i) STAR

  933

  14

  0

  (j) STRIDE

  402

  29

  2

  (k) TELEMATIQUE4

  215

  5

  0

  (l) VALOREN

  472

  6

  0

  1 Represents total allocations under European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, and guidance section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. Allocations by fund not readily available.

  2 Information on total EC allocations not readily available.

  3 Allocations not made to individual Member States.

  4 Only Northern Ireland eligible in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total budget awarded to the EC's European regional development fund, in each year since its establishment; and what proportion of this was granted to (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  European regional development fund allocations in each of the years 1975 to 1993 are shown in the table:

  ERDF ALLOCATIONS

  Million ecu, current prices

  Total EC

  Total UK

  Northern Region

  1975

  250

  86

  17

  1976

  388

  142

  45

  1977

  386

  146

  46

  1978

  561

  151

  28

  1979

  962

  260

  41

  1980

  1,138

  243

  41

  1981

  1,637

  361

  69

  1982

  1,845

  449

  105

  1983

  2,127

  458

  57

  1984

  2,383

  621

  65

  1985

  2,495

  585

  43

  1986

  3,328

  513

  58

  1987

  3,662

  628

  89

  1988

  3,827

  563

  105

  1989

  4,666

  511

  84

  1990

  5,227

  462

  11

  1991

  7,175

  586

  55

  1992

  8,901

  655

  98

  1993

  10,407

  893

  65

  Regional Enterprise Grants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of regional enterprise grants, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Expenditure on the administration of regional enterprise grants in England in 1992–93, the first year for which figures have been published, totalled around £1 million. Publicity costs, which included printing, advertising and stationery costs, totalled £3,400 for the same year. Comparable figures for the years since the scheme began in 1988 are not available.
  768

  English Estates
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will itemise the expenditure on the administration of English Estates, including printing, advertising and stationery costs as well as worker expenses(a) over the last year and (b) since the scheme was developed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  English Estates is a body which has been in existence in various form since 1936. Its activities have developed over that period. Figures going back to 1936 are not available. Forecast running costs for 1993–94 are as follows:

  £ million

  Maintenance of premises and sites

  4·4

  Personnel costs

  8·2

  Office Expenses

  2·0

  Professional fees and charges

  3·9

  Research and development

  0·4

  Advertising and marketing

  2·3

  Note: Figures include the cost of activities carried out on behalf of the Rural Development Commission.

  Manufacturing Programme
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sum of money has been allocated for the manufacturing, planning and implementation studies programmes for 1993–94; what proportion thereof had been allocated as at 31 December; and how many (i) successful, (ii) unsuccessful and (iii) pending applications there have been for assistance under the programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The forecast for the grant payments under the manufacturing planning and implementation studies programme is £3·5 million for 1993–94, of which £2·9 million had been committed on 31 December 1993. Total grant payments for the scheme is £8·75 million.

  A total of 312 applications were received by the closing date, 31 May 1993. A total of 120 cases were successful and have been awarded grant status; a further 28 applications are pending. Fifty-nine applications were unsuccessful; the remainder chose not to pursue their applications.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sum of money has been allocated for publicity and promotion of the manufacturing, planning and implementation studies programmes for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The manufacturing planning and implementation studies programme was launched in February 1991. The spend profile for promotion is as follows:

  £

  February 1991 to March 1992

  75,000

  April 1992 to May 1993

  52,793

  This gives a total of £127,793 for the promotion of the programme. Since the closure of the scheme to new applications on 31 May 1993 there has been no further promotion spend.
  769

  Chief Scientist
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the change in his Department's post of chief scientist.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Over the last 18 months I have redefined the Department's science and technology policies to relate more closely to my overall focus on competitiveness and to the Government White Paper on Science and Technology. In recognition of this, elements of the recently announced organisational change in my Department involve the integration of delivery of these policies with the sectoral and regional organisation for the support of industry.

  One result of this reorganisation, which will take effect on 1 March 1994, is that the rationale for the post of chief adviser on science and technology in its present form no longer applies. Therefore a successor to the current holder, Dr Geoffrey Robinson, will not be appointed when Dr Robinson returns to the private sector at the beginning of March. Dr David Evans—formerly chief scientist at the Department of Energy—has been appointed head of the technology and innovation policy division, and will have overall responsibility for the Department's science and technology policies and programmes.

  Cornwall (Government Expenditure)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much central Government money was spent on developing and supporting(a) manufacturing industries and (b) businesses in general in Cornwall in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not possible to provide a fully comprehensive answer without a disproportionate cost. The figures account for moneys paid to Cornish Enterprises under the regional development grant II, regional selective assistance and regional enterprise grant schemes, which have been the major source of grant over the period in question.

  Financial year

  Manufacturing total

  Service total

  Total

  1979

  1,112,767

  —

  1,112,767

  1980

  1,450,468

  —

  1,450,468

  1981

  1,384,159

  —

  1,384,159

  1982

  887,701

  —

  887,701

  1983

  521,376

  —

  521,376

  1984

  561,718

  —

  561,718

  1985

  1,464,826

  330,000

  1,794,826

  1986

  3,703,031

  735,892

  4,438,923

  1987

  4,900,029

  867,014

  5,767,043

  1988

  7,017,236

  728,182

  7,745,418

  1989

  5,623,299

  461,929

  6,085,228

  1990

  2,366,027

  367,705

  2,733,732

  1991

  2,032,525

  1,037,275

  3,069,800

  1992

  2,193,816

  646,372

  2,840,188

  1993

  3,122,380

  641,736

  3,764,116

  Total

  27,106,973

  5,816,105

  32,923,078

  Export Control Regulations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies or individual exporters have contacted his Department's export control organisation regarding the application of export control regulations since the guidance at page 84 of his Overseas Trade Board's plan was published.
  770
  Mr. Needham
  The British Overseas Trade Board's annual report for 1992–93 and forward plan was published on 9 June 1993. From that date to 27 January 1994 my Export Control Organisation's inquiry unit received just over 25,000 telephone calls and fax messages about a wide range of export control matters.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now list those countries which receive United Kingdom aid to which arms have been exported in each of the last 14 years.

  Mr. Needham
  In recent years about 140 countries have been recipients of the United Kingdom's bilateral aid. To examine any correlation between each of those countries and the issue of export licences for arms for each of the past 14 years could be undertaken only at disproportionate expense.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what communications he has had with the United States Secretary of Commerce in regard to the trading links between Matrix-Churchill Corporation of Cleveland, Ohio and the United Kingdom Matrix Churchill company.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide figures for the amount his Department has been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security in respect of statutory sick pay provision for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The sums reimbursed were as follows:

  £000

  11993–94

  204

  1992–93

  281

  1 To end December.

  Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notification to, and consultation with, the Chief Whip's Office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so notified and consulted upon.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointment.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Baord of Trade what further changes he is planning in regional policy since his answer of 23 June 1993,Official Report, column 227.
  771
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Regional policy is kept under continual review. Since June 1993 there have been several changes to our regional policy. The new assisted areas map was announced on 23 July 1993. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 4 November 1993 plans to introduce a single regeneration budget and integrated regional offices from April 1994. Details of the European Commission's decisions about objective 2 and 5b areas under the structural funds were announced recently.

  Electronic Mail
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to issue departmental press releases by electronic mail.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's press releases, in common with those of other Government Departments, are already released electronically through the Central Office of Information's electronic news distribution system.

  Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations his Department has received relating to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation; and what consideration he has given to them in deciding on the future of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has received some 50 representations about the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. I and my officials are in touch with British Coal and CISWO about the future provision of welfare services.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the sectors of industry and services that have been reviewed by his competitiveness unit.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The competitiveness division is concerned with the overall competitiveness of all parts of manufacturing and services. The DTI's 15 sector divisions have each been considering the competitiveness of their particular sectors.

  Spirits (Hungarian Quotas)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has made to the Hungarian Government about the restrictive quotas applied to Scotch whisky and other imported spirits.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department has a close working relationship with the scotch whisky industry both through the Scotch Whisky Association and through many individual producers. Some of the larger companies have offices in Budapest and are well known to British embassy officials.

  Through this network we have been aware of the difficulties which importers of spirits face in this market for some considerable time, and have raised these when appropriate with Hungarian counterparts. We have also been active in giving support to the industry's representations to the Hungarian Administration. In some areas—for example, labelling—progress has been made.

  The Hungarian quota system for imported spirits remains a concern and one which has been exacerbated by
  772
  the announcement of what appear to be even more restrictive terms for the current year. We are now considering what might be done, balancing the needs of the industry with our experience of the Hungarian market as one in which insensitive lobbying can be counter-productive.

  Export Credit Guarantees Department
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has completed the review of ECGD arrangements for allocating claims recoveries to exporters.

  Mr. Heseltine
  As a result of a review of its IT systems, it became clear that ECGD was applying different interpretations of similar terms in different guarantees when allocating recoveries to its policyholders. The Cardiff office, which handled short-term guarantees, interpreted ECGD's legal rights differently in a particular respect from the London office which handles medium and long term guarantees, the Cardiff interpretation being in certain cases more generous to the exporter than the London interpretation. When this emerged ECGD at once put a hold on the further allocation of certain categories of recovery and sought legal advice on what has proved to the an exceedingly complex matter.

  I have now received considered legal advice on all aspects of this matter. It is now clear how the relevant provisions of the guarantee should be interpreted and all future recoveries, including those currently held by ECGD, will be allocated between the exporter and ECGD in accordance with the London interpretation. This will mean that some policyholders will receive a lower share of recoveries than they had in the past. The hold on payments to its customers which ECGD has imposed while the review has been in progress will now be ended.

  ECGD has estimated that the amounts which it has paid to policyholders since 1975 which are in excess of what is now considered to be the correct legal entitlement could total up to £83 million.

  Given the complexity of this issue and the difficulty and cost of establishing the case of recovering these excess payments from a large number of exporters the Government have decided not to pursue their legal right to seek restitution of these excess payments. I believe that this represents a realistic balance between the interests of the taxpayer and of the exporter.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the North East Shipbuilders Ltd./British Shipbuilders closure document as agreed between the United Kingdom Government and the EC in 1988;

  (2) if he will list the package of aid approved by the EC in December 1988 intended to cover costs associated with the closure of North East Shipbuilders Ltd./British Shipbuilders.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answers 1 February' 1994]: No. It is not the Government's policy to make available the details of agreements entered into with the European Commission where, as in this case, they contain commercially sensitive information.

  An aid package worth some £45 million in total was agreed for those affected by the closure. It comprised the following three main elements: first, an enterprise zone for

  773
  Sunderland; secondly, English Estates received £7 million for the provision of advance factory space; and, thirdly, some £10 million was made available over three years to Sunderland Enterprise and Training Ltd. and the Wearside Opportunity. This aid finance has been almost entirely taken up.

  English Estates
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total amount spent by English Estates in providing new factory premises and serviced sites in Barrow and Furness since June 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: English Estates has spent £5·1 million in the Barrow-in-Furness travel-to-work area since June 1991. Of this, some £1 million has been used to assemble sites for the town centre redevelopment and the remainder has gone on the development of 34,500 sq ft of managed workspace to help encourage the formation of new businesses, 33,000 sq ft of workshops/small factories and 46,000 sq ft of large detached factories for both indigenous companies and inward investors.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many acres of serviced industrial land have been provided by English Estates in Barow and Furness since 1991 under the Cumbria special support initiative announced by the Government in June 1991.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Since Cumbria county council is well advanced with its own site reclamation/servicing programmes, assisted by derelict land grant, English Estates has supported these efforts by acquiring 7·5 acres of serviced land. It has also been working with the county council to identify further locations in the Barrow-in-Furness travel-to-work area where land can be brought forward. Feasibility studies are well advanced on two possible sites involving around 30 acres in total.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to include the consideration of environmental matters such as energy efficiency in the joint OFGAS/DTI consultation paper on the licensing and competition arrangements for independent gas suppliers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: I expect the efficient use of gas to be one of the aspects to be considered in the consultation document.

SCOTLAND

  Care in the Community
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for the loan charges when a council makes a grant to a charitable trust, in order to house people under the care in the community iniatitive; how many grants of this nature have been made by Scottish local authorities since 1983; and what is the total amount of subsidy that has been given.

  Mr. Lang
  When a local authority incurs a capital debt as a consequence of making a capital grant to a charitable 774
  trust in such circumstances, each year the outstanding debt will be included in the calculation of the loan charges element of the annual distribution of aggregate external finance to that authority.

  Information is not held centrally on the number of grants made by local authorities of the type identified by the right hon. Member, nor on the amounts involved. It is therefore not possible to estimate the amount of loan charges support which has been given for such grants.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the planned expenditure on care in the community in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Planned expenditure on community care services is entirely a matter for local authorities to determine.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hon. Members defeated in Scotland in the general election of June 1987; and which of them were subsequently given public appointments.

  Mr. Lang
  The following hon. Members were defeated in Scotland in the general election of June 1987:

  Michael Ancram

  John Corrie

  Sir Alex Fletcher

  Peter Fraser (now Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)

  Barry Henderson

  Roy Jenkins (now Lord Jenkins of Hillhead)

  Michael Hirst (now Sir Michael Hirst)

  Anna McCurley

  John MacKay (now Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish)

  Albert McQuarrie (now Sir Albert McQuarrie)

  Gerald Malone

  Alexander Pollock

  Gordon Wilson

  None currently holds appointment on bodies for which my Department has responsibility. The information held centrally by my Department does not show whether defeated Members were appointed to such bodies earlier.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of appointments made by him to Scottish health board trusts; and if will give details of the political party affiliations of those appointed.

  Mr. Stewart
  So far, my right hon. Friend has appointed 38 chairmen and 165 non-executive directors to NHS trusts. Party political affiliations are not relevant to such appointments and such information is neither sought nor held centrally although in some cases, such as those referred to in the reply to the hon. Member's other question today, a person's political affiliation may be obvious.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the codes of practice governing the making of appointments to public bodies by Ministers.

  Mr. Lang
  The general procedures for the making of public appointments is contained in the Cabinet Office publication "Guide on Public Appointments Procedures" which is available in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the public appointments for which he is
  775
  responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's Office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so notified and consulted upon.

  Mr. Lang
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all land owned by the Forestry Commission in the Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale constituency; and what plans he has to sell off Forestry Commission land in the Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale constituency under the current disposals programme.

  Mr. Lang
  The Forestry Commission is preparing a list of all its woodlands in the right hon. Member's constituency, and this will identify those which the Commission is currently selling or planning to sell. I shall send a copy to the right hon. Member and I shall also arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Research Projects
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those research projects(a) undertaken internally by his Department and (b) commissioned by his Department from external contractors, within the last five years, which have gathered data on the employment status (i) of persons convicted of crime and (ii) of persons given custodial sentences.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following research reports contain data on the employment status of persons convicted of crimes: the first three were in-house projects and the remainder were externally commissioned. Unless otherwise stated, the reports were published by the Scottish Office central research unit.

  1. "A Survey of Fine Defaulters in Scottish Courts" published in 1990.

  2. "Diversion from Prosecution: Diversion to Social Work" published in 1992.

  3. "The Deferred Sentence in Scotland" published in 1992.

  4. "Treatment as an Alternative to Prosecution: Diversion to the Douglas Inch Centre" published in 1989.

  5. "Sentenced to Serve: The Operation and Impact of Community Service by Offenders" published by Avebury Press in 1992.

  6. "Making Amends: Justice for Victims and Offenders: An Evaluation of the SACRO Reparation and Mediation Project", published by Avebury Press in 1992.

  A further two research reports contained data on the employment status of those given a custodial sentence. These were "The Prison Survey 1990–91" and "A Survey of the Employment Aspirations and Skill Levels of Offenders in Young Offenders Institutions" published by the Scottish Prison Service, 1992. Both were in-house projects.

  Tourist Boards
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will, in his deliberations on the future of Scottish area tourist boards, respect the wishes of both the Edinburgh and the Borders tourist boards in respect of whether or not to have a combined board;
  776
  (2) if he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the structure of Scottish area tourist boards.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for tourism in Scotland on 26 January,Official Report columns 314–15.

  Student Grants
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the level of Government expenditure on student grants in Scotland in(a) higher and (b) further education in each academic year since 1990–91; what are the expected levels of expenditure for 1993–94 and 1994–95; and how much was spent per registered student in each of these years;

  (2) what amount of Scottish university student fees was paid by Her Majesty's Government in each academic year since 1990–91; what is the expected level of expenditure for 1993–94 and 1994–95; and how much was spent per registered student in each of these years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Awards made under the students' allowances scheme to students in higher education cover maintenance, travel and fees and are available to eligible students attending full-time or sandwich courses provided by institutions, including universities, in the United Kingdom which led to a first degree or comparable qualification, or to a diploma. They are also available for full-time courses of initial teacher training. Similar support for courses in further education is the responsibility of the education authorities.

  Departmental records of expenditure and plans relate to financial years. The actual expenditure on maintenance and tuition fees, and the average expenditure per award holder in the financial years 1990–91 to 1992–93 are shown in the table. The table also shows the total announced expenditure for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Total expenditure

  Average per student1

  Fees £ million

  Maintenance £ million

  Fees £ million

  Maintenance £ million

  1990–91

  39,145

  95,189

  1,145

  1,347

  1991–92

  74,217

  117,268

  2,071

  1,456

  1992–93

  86,603

  136,471

  2,251

  1,523

  21993–94

  4218,223

  158,243

  —

  —

  31994–95

  4158,914

  158,360

  —

  —

  1 Average per award holder.

  2 Announced expenditure including winter supplementary estimate.

  3 Planned.

  4 Covers total fees expenditure. It is not possible to distinguish between expenditure on fees to universities and to other institutions.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much funding has been made available to each training and enterprise council in 1992–93 and 1993–94, expressed in cash terms and real terms, and giving a real terms percentage change from the previous year, for(a) youth training and credits, (b) training for work and the programmes it replaced and (c) business start-up allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  There are no training and enterprise councils in Scotland. The funding of local enterprise
  777
  companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what delay there has been in payment of sheep annual premium to Scottish farmers in the last 12 months.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The processing of claims for payment under the 1993 sheep annual premium scheme has been slower than in previous years because of complexities arising from the introduction of sheep annual premium quotas. Payments began in October 1993 compared to the end of August in the previous year and have continued since then at regular intervals.

  Prisons (Drug Abuse)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons have died in prisons as a direct result of the abuse or misuse of(a) lawful drugs and (b) unlawful drugs in each year since 1978.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the period from 1 January 1978 to 31 December 1993 there has been only one death in Scottish prisons from abuse or misuse of drugs: in 1983 a prisoner died from an overdose of unlawful drugs.

  Strathclyde
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the findings of the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission in respect of Strathclyde; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no locus at this stage of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission's review of constituencies in Scotland. The commission is required to submit its report with respect to the whole of Scotland, showing the constituencies into which it recommends the country should be divided, by 31 December 1994.

  Conservation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of economic developments which have been(a) delayed and (b) discontinued by way of objections raised under the terms of the European Community directive on the conservation of natural habitats of fauna and flora.

  Sir Hector Monro
  None.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on wildlife conservation on Forestry Commission land.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: One of the main aims of the Forestry Commission's forest enterprise is to enhance the wildlife conservation value of its woodlands as a whole and to safeguard special habitats. Wildlife conservation is an integral part of forest enterprise's multi-purpose forest management which integrates wood production, conservation, recreation and amenity.
  778
  In achieving these aims, forest enterprise undertakes a wide range of conversation projects. It manages some 400 sites of special scientific interest and 46 forest nature reserves and undertakes projects for many species of flora and fauna. All of its forest districts have prepared conservation plans which identify sites where conservation should be the principal management objective, and specify what action is to be taken in these sites.

  Forest enterprise has set down its commitment to best environmental practice in the form of an environmental code which states that it:

  (i) produces wood only from sustainable sources;

  (ii) identifies and manages special habitats, protects and maintains archaeological features and carries out positive management for threatened species;

  (iii) maintains expertise in environmental science and seeks a sound understanding of the interaction of its activities with the wider environment through available research and consultation with expert authorities;

  (iv) promotes environmental awareness and understanding amongst its staff and the outside world;

  (v) aims to minimise environmental disturbance in its operations and to meet the Forestry Authority's water, landscape and nature conservation guidelines;

  (vi) works to conservation plan for all its forests and actively manages to maintain and enhance conservation value;

  (vii) maintains close liaison with regulatory bodies and environmental organisations in order to keep in touch with their views on environmental policies and practices.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the costs of implementing the European Community directive 92/43 EEC on the conservation of natural habitats of fauna and flora; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced to the House on 8 December 1993 that Scottish Natural Heritage would be allocated £39.851 million in the financial year 1994–95. This represents an increase of 10·5 per cent. on Scottish Natural Heritage's grant-in-aid for 1993–94. Scottish Natural Heritage has been instructed to accord the highest priority to work to implement the EC habitats directive. It is not, however, possible to make a firm estimate of costs specific to habitats directive implementation until work to implement the directive is further advanced.

  Courts (Vulnerable Witnesses)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has commissioned in respect of the circumstances surrounding the position of vulnerable adults when giving evidence in court proceedings; if he will place a copy of the results in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The treatment of vulnerable witnesses is a matter which is kept under review. Police units for assisting women who are the subject of sexual or other assault operate in all parts of the country. The Crown Office has a committee part of the remit of which is to keep under review commitments in the justice charter to improved arrangements for witnesses. Arrangements exist at local level to assist and support vulnerable witnesses before they attend court to give evidence. Present research relates to the use of closed circuit television to enable children to give evidence in
  779
  criminal cases outwith the court room. The results of that research will be used to advice decisions on new research proposals in this general field.

  Prisons (Suicide)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons have died by their own hand in prisons in each year since 1978; and what were the means by which such deaths were brought about.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Year

  Means

  Total

  1978

  Hanging (2), cut throat (1), jumping (1)

  4

  1979

  Hanging (2), jumping (1)

  3

  1980

  Jumping1

  1

  1981

  Hanging (3) solvent inhalation (1)

  4

  1982

  Hanging

  3

  1983

  Hanging (4), overdose (1), cell fire and asphyxiation (1)1

  6

  1984

  Hanging (4), inhalation of toxic fumes in cell fire (1)

  5

  1985

  Hanging

  6

  FTE

  As at April

  Unified

  1989

  1990

  19911

  19921

  19931

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  7

  —

  8

  —

  7

  —

  7

  —

  7

  —

  3

  22

  1

  21

  1

  23

  1

  21

  2·5

  20

  3

  4

  10

  —

  10

  —

  14

  1

  14

  1

  13

  2

  Total

  40

  1

  40

  1

  45

  2

  43

  3·5

  41

  5

  1 Medical staff at these grades are included in the figures with effect from 1 April 1991.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland main occupational group, as defined by Treasury, in each Office in each of the past five years in terms of occupational grades.

  Number of Staff (FTE) employed by The Scottish Office, by occupational group2

  FTE

  Occupational group

  As at 1 April

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  a. The Scottish Office, excluding Scottish Prison Service1

  Open Structure2

  681·0

  723·5

  621·0

  627·5

  656·5

  Administration Group

  2,857·5

  2,881·0

  2,888·0

  2,833·0

  2,856·5

  Economist group

  9·5

  9·5

  11·5

  11·5

  13·5

  Information Officer Group

  24·0

  27·5

  28·5

  26·0

  27·5

  Librarian Group

  13·5

  14·0

  14·0

  13·5

  12·0

  Statistician Group

  8·0

  10·0

  11·0

  9·0

  15·0

  Secretarial Group

  555·0

  568·5

  568·5

  545·0

  543·0

  Science group

  215·0

  219·0

  224·0

  225·0

  223·5

  Professional and Technology Group

  301·5

  296·5

  291·0

  288·5

  245·5

  Graphics Officer Group

  3·0

  3·0

  2·0

  3·0

  2·0

  Legal Group

  5·0

  7·0

  9·0

  5·0

  6·0

  Curatorial/Conservation Group

  10·0

  17·0

  22·5

  27·5

  27·0

  Research Officer Group

  14·5

  16·0

  16·0

  15·0

  18·0

  General Service Group

  372·5

  353·0

  448·5

  423·0

  396·0

  Departmental Groups

  625·0

  587·5

  588·0

  555·5

  569·5

  Industrial Grades

  578·0

  542·0

  538·5

  524·0

  486·5

  6,273·0

  6,275·0

  6,282·0

  6,132·0

  6,098·0

  b. Scottish Prison Service1

  Non-Industrial Grades

  3,726·5

  3,920·5

  3,929·0

  4,154·5

  4,544·0

  Industrial Grades

  77·0

  79·0

  75·0

  74·0

  81·0

  3,803·5

  3,999·5

  4,004·0

  4,228·5

  4,625·0

  780

  Year

  Means

  Total

  1986

  Hanging (5), jumping (2)1

  7

  1987

  Hanging (6), inhalation of vomit, asphyxia and solvent abuse (1)

  7

  1988

  Hanging

  7

  1989

  Hanging (5), self-inflicted wounds to left arm (1)

  6

  1990

  Hanging (2), self strangulation (1)

  3

  1991

  Hanging

  4

  1992

  Hanging

  9

  1993

  Hanging

  1

  1Died in hospital.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) males and (b) females have been employed in each of the four senior grades in the Scottish Office in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  At 1 April each year the numbers of staff —expressed as full-time equivalents—employed in each of the four senior grades in the Scottish Office were as follows:

  Mr. Lang
  The full-time equivalent numbers of staff by if he will list the number of staff employed in the Scottish of the past five years are shown in the table.
  781

  Occupational group

  As at 1 April

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total

  Scottish Office Core and Agencies

  10,076·5

  10,274·5

  10,286·0

  10,360·5

  10,723·0

  1 The Scottish Prison Service became an agency with effect from 1 April 1993. Prior to this, staff in prisons headquarters were counted in the Scottish Office, excluding SPS, figures.

  2 There is no formal classification of posts or individuals by occupational group for staff at unified grade 7 and above—such staff are counted in the "Open Structure" group.

  Nurse Grading Appeals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each health board area, the number of nurse clinical grading appeals which are pending at the different levels of the appeals procedure; what are the amounts of money involved in these claims; what proposals he has to improve the processing of appeals; and when he expects the whole exercise to be completed.

  Mr. Stewart
  I understand that there were no nurse clinical grading appeals outstanding at health board level on 21 January 1994. On the same date a total of 586 appeals were outstanding at Scottish and national levels, a reduction from 960 in May 1993. The breakdown of these by health board is given in the table.

  No estimate of the total sum of money involved in these claims has been made. The nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council is currently discussing new procedures to speed up and streamline the appeals process and I expect that the bulk of the outstanding cases in Scotland will be cleard by early 1995.

  Outstanding Nurse Clinical Grading Appeals in Scotland

  Health board

  Scottish appeals committee outstanding

  National level appeals outstanding

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  1

  26

  27

  Ayrshire and Arran

  13

  4

  17

  Borders

  1

  11

  12

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  16

  16

  Fife

  1

  44

  45

  Forth Valley

  40

  64

  104

  Grampian

  10

  5

  15

  Greater Glasgow

  14

  46

  60

  Highland

  —

  11

  11

  Lanarkshire

  24

  39

  63

  Lothian

  1

  56

  57

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  1

  3

  4

  Tayside

  85

  62

  147

  Western Isles

  —

  8

  8

  CSA

  —

  —

  —

  State Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  191

  395

  586

  Homelessness
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were classified as homeless at the latest available date in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 1 December 1993,Official Report, column 479.
  782

  Mental Health Officers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many social workers attained the mental health officer qualification in each of the regional and island council areas in each of the past four years; what is the total number of such qualified social workers in each of these areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on the number of social workers who have attained the mental health officer qualification is not held centrally. Information supplied to the Scottish Office by local authorities on the number of main grade and senior social workers who have undertaken the mental health officer course in the period October 1989 to October 1992 is set out in the table.

  Number of main grade/senior social workers undertaking the mental health officer course, where course commenced by October 1992

  Year course concluded

  Region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Borders

  —

  6

  4

  —

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  11

  8

  —

  —

  Highland

  2

  1

  2

  —

  Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  4

  25

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  1

  NHS Dental Patients
  Dr. Godman
  To ask sthe Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were registered as national health service dental patients in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Stewart
  Formal arrangements for patients to be registered with a specific dentist were introduced under the new contract for general dental practitioners on 1 October 1990. The number of people registered in each of the four health board areas within Strathclyde region and the total number registered in Scotland is contained in the table. Information for individual local government districts and regional areas is not available.

  Number of people registered with a dentist in Scotland as at 31 March

  Health Board Area

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Argyll and Clyde

  146,481

  212,879

  211,071

  Ayrshire and Arran

  170,743

  219,701

  199,510

  Greater Glasgow

  296,476

  456,581

  472,401

  Lanarkshire

  150,452

  233,418

  242,743

  Scotland—Total

  1,710,947

  2,485,531

  2,528,268

  783

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since 1982 in Scotland a potentially damaging operation to a site of special scientific interest has been carried out following the failure to reach a management agreement as set out in section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Information on damage to sites of special scientific interest is contained in the annual reports of the former Nature Conservancy Council and the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, copies of which are in the Library.

  Scottish National Theatre Company
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Arts Council concerning the creation of a Scottish National Theatre Company; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There has been no recent discussion between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Arts Council on the subject of a Scottish national theatre. I understand, however, that a working party was established recently by the Scottish Arts Council to assess the demand and potential remit of a national theatre company. It would be for the Scottish Arts Council to determine whether such a company, if established, should be supported by its funds.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cattle and sheep farms are wholly or mainly in the less-favoured areas.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In June 1993 there were 13,443 main holdings classified as cattle and sheep farms wholly or mainly in the less-favoured areas.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the total subsidy to be paid on cattle and sheep in the less-favoured areas in 1994.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The total direct subsidy paid under the sheep annual premium, suckler cow premium and hill livestock compensatory allowance schemes in 1994 on cattle and sheep in the Scottish less-favoured areas is estimated to be over £180 million.

  NHS Helpline
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many calls have been received by the NHS helpline in Scotland each month since its inception.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Information on the total number of calls, both interactive and non-interactive, which have been made to the NHS helpline each month since it came into operation is as follows:

  Number

  29 October—20 November 1992

  759

  21 November—18 December 1992

  710

  19 December 1992—15 January 1993

  674

  784

  Number

  16 January—12 February 1993

  1,303

  13 February—12 March 1993

  1,140

  13 March—9 April 1993

  1,214

  10 April—7 May 1993

  834

  8 May—–4 June 1993

  975

  5 June—2 July 1993

  1,128

  3 July—30 July 1993

  1,236

  31 July—27 August 1993

  861

  28 August—24 September 1993

  801

  25 September—22 October 1993

  1,059

  23 October—19 November 1993

  765

  20 November—17 December 1993

  644

  18 December 1993—14 January 1994

  561

  Total

  14,664

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of setting up the NHS helpline in Scotland and the cost to date; what has been the total cost of administering the service to date; how many staff have been employed; and what is the salary of the head of the NHS helpline.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The NHS helpline was set up in October 1992 at a cost of £72,401; and total expenditure to date on operational and publicity costs is £330,912. The service is operated on behalf of the NHS in Scotland management executive by Network Scotland on a contractual basis with the cost of administering the helpline met from within the contract price. Network Scotland employs a project supervisor and up to four part-time operators to work specifically on the NHS helpline. The salaries of Network Scotland employees are not known.

  Holyrood House
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to his Department of Holyrood house in each of the last 10 years; and how this cost was divided between major categories of expenditure.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The information for the most recent five years is:

  Programme expenditure £

  Staff costs

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  1989–90

  771,667

  307,856

  1,079,523

  1990–91

  860,833

  288,636

  1,149,469

  1991–92

  723,000

  334,346

  1,057,346

  1992–93

  696,600

  338,530

  1,035,130

  1993–94

  671,550

  337,852

  11,009,402

  1 Estimate.

  These costs include all expenditure directly attributable to the palace but not professional and central administration. Information for previous years was not collected on a comparable basis.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grace-and-favour accommodation is available at Holyrood house; who occupies it; and how costs are allocated between the occupants and his Department.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: I understand that there is no grace and favour accommodation at the palace of Holyrood house.
  785

  Shameless Indecency
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the adequacy of the enforcement of the law of shameless indecency in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: I am not aware of any particular difficulties in enforcing this aspect of the common law. The statistics show that in 1992 more than double the number of persons were charged with shameless indecency than in 1988 and nearly double the number of persons were convicted of that offence by the courts.

  Irvine Development Corporation
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department is planning to have with tenants' groups within Irvine new town on safeguarding the interests of development corporation tenants.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Responsibility for discussion and consultation with the tenants lies with the development corporation. I understand that it has already held meetings and issued newsletters and plans to continue this practice.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the timetable for the disposal by Irvine development corporation of its housing stock.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Our policy guidance to corporations encourages them to maximise tenure diversification in the period prior to wind-up. This will involve sales to tenants under right to buy and rent to mortgage and sales of all new build and vacant houses to housing associations.

  For the remaining tenanted stock, the development corporation is to submit its strategy to the Secretary of State by 31 December 1994 and once approved successor landlords will be invited to submit bids for the stock. Tenants will choose their successor landlord in ballots to be held around six months before wind-up.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tenancies are currently managed by Irvine development corporation; how many Irvine development corporation tenants have opted to purchase their properties for each year since the introduction of the legislation allowing this; what are the current values of(a) Irvine development corporation's housing stock, (b) Irvine development corporation's commercial assets and (c) Irvine development corporation's headquarters; and what is Irvine development corporation's current annual turnover and its annual expenditure.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: There is no standard definition of turnover which can be applied to the new towns. The annual accounts of each town are prepared to a common style and disclose income arising from rents, grants, subsidies and other sources together with the income and outgoings on property transactions. The latest accounts which are contained in the corporation's annual report for 1992–93 are available in the Library of the House. These accounts also provide the net book value of the corporation's assets at 31 March 1993.
  786
  Valuations for individual properties do not appear since it is commercial inappropriate to provide these for properties which will be sold in the near future.

  The tenancies managed by the corporation at 1 January 1994 were:

  Number

  (a) Housing

  3,668

  (b) Industry

  92

  (c) Commercial

  83

  (d) Other, including agricultural

  161

  The numbers of corporation housing tenants who have opted to purchase their house under the right-to-buy provisions are as follows:

  Number

  1980–81

  21

  1981–82

  15

  1982–83

  79

  1983–84

  74

  1984–85

  94

  1985–86

  86

  1986–87

  192

  1987–88

  196

  1988–89

  279

  1989–90

  353

  1990–91

  261

  1991–92

  167

  1992–93

  138

  11993–94

  133

  1 To 1 December 1993.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what precise measures he will take to ensure the rights of Irvine development corporation tenants to transfer to a local authority landlord, following the Government's planned reforms of Scottish local government.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The tenants of Irvine development corporation will be able to choose their successor landlord in ballots to be held before wind-up. My right hon. Friend agreed in February 1992 that the local authority could bid to be the successor landlord and the detailed guidance issued to development corporations and local authorities makes clear what is expected of all bidders. Local government reform does not alter this.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a figure for the number of staff in his Department covered by statutory sick pay.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: As at 27 January 1994, 7,280 staff in the Scottish Office, excluding the Scottish Prison Service, and the associated departments were covered by statutory sick pay.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many companies have been awarded regional selective assistance in Scotland and have subsequently not met the terms of the original award;

  (2) from which companies his Department has managed to recoup regional selective assistance; how much regional

  787
  selective assistance was recovered for each of the last five years; and from how many companies these moneys were recovered during each year of this period.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: It is envisaged that some investment projects may for good reason be revised, after an offer of regional selective assistance has been made. In some such cases the payment of assistance may still be justified according to the terms of the original offer. In other cases where changes occur which cannot be readily accommodated within the terms of the offer, the Department treats the project either as failed or reduced in scale and will seek repayment of grant paid or reduce the level of offer as appropriate. In the five years to 31 December 1993, 121 projects where some grant had been paid were treated as failed, the principal reason being the liquidation or receivership of the company.

  Details of grant recoveries from individual companies are commercially confidential and are not divulged. The recovery figures requested are given in the table.

  Amount recovered £ million

  Number of companies

  1989

  0·022

  2

  1990

  1·117

  9

  1991

  0·239

  7

  1992

  0·610

  4

  1993

  1·610

  5

  Cars (Allocation)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many cars have been allocated to the managers, advisers and administrators employed by the NHS trust hospitals in each of the last two financial years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 January 1994]: This information is not held centrally.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost so far of(a) producing and (b) distributing (i) each of the citizens charters and (ii) the documents associated with each of them.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Production and distribution costs of publishing the Citizen's Charter White Paper (Cm 1599) and the Citizen's Charter First Report: 1992 (Cm 2101) are borne by HMSO, which expects to recover the costs through sales revenue. The cost of producing and distributing the leaflet guides to the Citizen's Charter White Paper and First Report are £900,000 and £440,000 respectively. Individual public service organisations are responsible for producing and distributing their own charters for those who use their services. The total costs of these, as far as we are aware of them, are set out in the table.
  788

  Costs of publication and distribution of charters and associated documents

  Department/Organisation

  Cost £

  OPSS

  Guide to Citizen's Charter White Paper (Cm 1599)

  900,000

  Guide to Citizen's Charter First Report (Cm 2101)

  440,000

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  42,269

  British Rail

  250,000

  HM Customs and Excise

  306,948

  Employment Department

  630,808

  Department for Education

  5,262,639

  Department of the Environment

  79,418

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  41,779

  Department of Health

  4,101,227

  Inland Revenue

  5,000

  London Underground

  362,000

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  131,000

  Department of Social Security

  257,160

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  518,700

  Scottish Office

  419,000

  Welsh Office

  622,148

  Total

  14,370,096

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each of the last five years by Department(a) the number of approaches to the public appointments unit for names, (b) how many public appointments unit nominees have been forwarded in response to those approaches in (a), and (c) how many of these nominees have been appointed to a public body as a result.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of requests for names of candidates is not kept by individual Department, and the numbers of names put forward in response to such requests is not recorded. Aggregated information is available as follows:

  Year

  Number of approaches to the public appointments unit(PAU)

  Number of PAU nominees known to have been appointed

  1988–89

  215

  117

  1(44)

  1989–90

  242

  133

  (32)

  1990–91

  188

  140

  (63)

  1991–92

  258

  121

  (57)

  1992–93

  308

  128

  (67)

  1 Number of female nominees appointed.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many names have been(a) added to and (b) deleted from the public appointments unit central list since 1990.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since January 1990, 1,578 new names have been added to the central list and 2,513 names have been deleted. The total number of names on the list is currently 5,015.

  Charterline
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the cost of uniforms worn by staff answering telephones at the charterline offices in Havant, Hampshire.
  789
  Mr. David Davis
  There is no direct cost to the Citizen's Charter Unit for uniforms worn by staff answering Charterline calls. The Charterline pilot is operated under a service contract by IBM's National Call Management Centre at Havant, and uniforms are provided as an integral part of this service.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much money has been spent on publicising the charterline scheme.

  Mr. Davis
  A total of £542,010 has been spent on publicising the Charterline scheme.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the pilot charterline scheme's first nine months of operation.

  Mr. Davis
  In background research more than 92 per cent. of people thought that Charterline should be launched; 84 per cent. of those who use Charterline are happy with the service. We will be reviewing the pilot study at the end of March.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the cost of extending the charterline scheme to cover the whole of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Davis
  It would be possible to extend the Charterline scheme to cover the whole of the United Kingdom at minimal additional cost if the current call rates were repeated across the country. The total cost of running Charterline would depend on operating and advertising costs. The pilot will run until the end of March 1994. At the end of the pilot study we will make decisions about its future, which will include options for extending the service and the costs of doing so.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans there are to extend the charterline scheme to cover the whole of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Davis
  Charterline is currently a pilot available to citizens in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. This pilot will run until the end of March 1994. At the end of the pilot study we will make decisions about its future, which will include options for extending the service.

  Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what selection criteria are used for appointing persons to serve on the board of the Duchy of Lancaster's benevolent fund.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 31 January at column 469.

  "Charter News"
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost of publishing and printing "Charter News" issue No. 2; how many copies are being distributed; and what is the total contract with Forward Publishing Ltd. worth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The cost of publishing and printing "Charter News" issue No. 2 was £35,036. Approximately 790
  110,000 copies are being distributed. Details of the contract with Forward Publishing Ltd. are commercially confidential.

  Science Budget
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the distribution of the science budget in 1994–95.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The distribution of the science budget for 1994–95 represents the first allocation of funding to the new research council system outlined in the White Paper on Science, Engineering and Technology which I presented to the House on 26 May 1993. On 1 April 1994 three new research councils come into existence, namely the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. The activities of the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council will transfer to the new and existing research councils on 1 April.

  I have discussed the allocations with the Director General of Research Councils and have decided that, subject to parliamentary approval of the Supply Estimates in due course, the science budget of £1,236.5 million should be allocated as follows:

  Allocations for 1994–95

  £ million

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  171·8

  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

  364·0

  Economic and Social Research Council

  58·9

  Medical Research Council

  269·2

  Natural Environment Research Council

  155·4

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  184·9

  Royal Society

  20·1

  Royal Academy of Engineering

  2·2

  OST initiatives/policy studies, CEST subscription

  3·6

  Other, including payments to pensioners of the Science and Engineering Research Council and industrial quota CASE awards

  6·4

  TOTAL

  1,236·5

  These figures include additional funding for activities of high scientific priority and also for the introduction of some new pilot schemes targeted specifically at researchers working alongside industry. Further details are set out in the paper "Allocation of the Science Budget 1994–95" which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Charter Marks
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total estimated cost of the charter mark regional seminars for 1994 and the additional costs of promoting and publishing charter marks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A decision has yet to be taken on the number of charter mark seminars to be held, and I am not yet able, therefore to give an estimated cost.

  In 1993, we spent £105,000 to announce the scheme, and £345,000 to announce the charter mark winners. The figures are likely to be similar this year.
  791

  Citizens Conference
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost of the service for the citizen conference held on 7–8 December; who were the organisers; what was the contract worth; and what fees were paid to speakers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The service for the citizen conference held on 7–8 December 1993 was organised by Touchstone Exhibitions and Conferences Ltd.

  The organisers bore all the costs of the conference, including payment to speakers.

  Duchy Benevolent Fund
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each of the last five years the organisations in(a) Lancaster and (b) the borough of Pendle that have benefited from grants and donations from the Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund; and if he will give the amounts in each case.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund has been maintained to provide income to be used for benevolent purposes primarily in the County Palatine. In making donations attempts have been made to distribute them fairly between the counties of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside; although from time to time one area may appear to have received greater benefit than others. Donations have been made to causes which are known to duchy authorities and also in response to recommendations received.

  Several charities who have received money from the fund in turn made donations to organisations and individuals resident in the County Palatine. Therefore an accurate reflection of precise geographical distribution of donations over the last five years would be difficult to obtain and would entail disproportionate cost.

  I am, however, arranging for lists of donations made to charitable organisations within the County Palatine for the past five years to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The offer I made to the hon. Gentleman in 1992 for a more detailed briefing on duchy matters remains open.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 25 November 1993 to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz),Official Report, column 186, if he will now name the cities that he has visited since his appointment as Secretary of State.

  Mr. Gummer
  Further to my answer to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) on 1 December 1993,Official Report, column 1030, I have since visited Norwich, Newcastle, Telford and Prague. I said I visited 45 towns and cities. They are:

  Manchester

  Bristol

  Cambridge

  Rochester

  York

  Peterborough

  Coventry

  London

  Birmingham

  Ipswich

  Leicester

  Cheltenham

  Liverpool

  Oxford

  Portsmouth

  Harrogate

  Nottingham

  Tonbridge

  Derby

  Stoneleigh (Warks)

  Gloucester

  Harpenden

  792

  Newmarket

  Hertford

  Newbury

  Buckingham

  Kings Lynn

  Huntingdon

  Thurrock

  Woodbridge

  Southend-on-Sea

  Felixstowe

  Hastings

  Stowmarket

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Brussels

  Chorley

  Luxembourg

  Stratford

  New York

  Datford

  Monte Carlo

  Chatham

  Paris

  Bakewell

  Council Housing Repairs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the total cost of carrying out necessary repairs to local authority housing; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The priority placed on stock repairs and levels of expenditure are matters for local authorities. However, estimates of the works required, related to different standards of repair and to the characteristics of local authority property, are provided by the quinquennial English house condition survey. A report of the most recent survey was published in August 1993 and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Housing Lets
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the numbers of local authority lets and housing association lets in each year since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  The number of local authority lets and estimates of housing association lets in each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Local authority (000s)

  Housing association1 (000s)

  Total lettings

  of which new lettings

  Total lettings

  of which new lettings

  1979–80

  438

  275

  45

  37

  1980–81

  444

  275

  51

  42

  1981–82

  415

  251

  52

  43

  1982–83

  439

  256

  55

  45

  1983–84

  429

  246

  58

  47

  1984–85

  429

  240

  60

  49

  1985–86

  437

  247

  62

  51

  1986–87

  430

  244

  64

  52

  1987–88

  426

  242

  67

  54

  1988–89

  410

  236

  70

  57

  1989–90

  390

  229

  76

  60

  1990–91

  401

  240

  77

  63

  1991–92

  407

  239

  86

  71

  1992–93

  400

  230

  109

  91

  1 Figures for the number of housing association lets in England have been available only since 1989–90. Figures for the previous years have been estimated on the basis of England and Wales data available for those years.

  Source:

  Local authority—HIP1 Returns

  Housing association—HAR10/1 returns

  Ministers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the dates between which each Secretary of State and Minister of State has held office in his Department since 1979.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is set out:
  793

  Date

  Secretaries of State

  Peter Shore

  April 1976 to May 1979

  Michael

  May 1979 to 6 January 1983

  Heseltine

  Tom King

  6 January 1983 to 8 June 1983

  Patrick

  9 June 1983 to 2 September 1985

  Jenkin

  Kenneth

  2 September 1985 to 21 May 1986

  Baker

  Nicholas

  21 May 1986 to 24 July 1989

  Ridley

  Christopher

  24 July 1989 to 28 November 1990

  Patten

  Michael

  28 November 1990 to 11 April 1992

  Heseltine

  Michael

  11 April 1992 to 27 May 1993

  Howard

  John

  27 May 1993 to date

  Gummer

  Ministers of State

  Reg Freeson

  March 1974 to May 1979

  Dennis

  March 1974 to May 1979

  Howell

  Tom King

  May 1979 to 6 January 1983

  John

  May 1979 to 8 June 1983

  Stanley

  Lord

  6 January 1983 to 10 September 1984

  Bellwin

  Ian Gow

  9 June 1983 to 2 September 1985

  Kenneth

  10 September 1984 to 2 September 1985

  Baker

  Lord Elton

  25 March 1985 to 10 September 1986

  William

  2 September 1985 to 25 July 1988

  Waldegrave

  John Patten

  2 September 1985 to 15 June 1987

  Dr Rhodes

  11 September 1986 to 15 June 1987

  Boyson

  Michael

  15 June 1987 to 3 January 1990

  Howard

  Lord

  15 June 1987 to 10 January 1988

  Belstead

  Earl

  10 January 1988 to 24 July 1989

  Caithness

  John

  25 July 1988 to 24 July 1989

  Gummer

  David

  25 July 1988 to 13 April 1992

  Trippier

  David Hunt

  25 July 1989 to 4 May 1990

  Michael

  3 January 1990 to 29 November 1990

  Spicer

  Michael

  4 May 1990 to 13 April 1992

  Portillo

  Sir George

  29 November 1990 to date

  Young

  Lady Blatch

  22 May 1991 to 13 April 1992

  John

  14 April 1992 to 27 May 1993

  Redwood

  David

  14 April 1992 to 27 May 1993

  Maclean

  David Curry

  27 May 1993 to date

  Tim Yeo

  27 May 1993 to 4 January 1994

  Robert

  4 January 1994 to date

  Atkins

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution the THORP at Sellafield 794
  makes to his strategy of sustainable development

  Mr. Atkins
  Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel recovers uranium and plutonium, which may then be recycled. Provided that the necessary regulatory requirements are met, the Government believe that it should be a matter of commercial judgment whether spent fuel should be reprocessed or alternative fuel management options pursued.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from the Irish ambassador to the United Kingdom and the Irish Minister for Energy, Transport and Communications, following his announcement of his decision to give authorisation for THORP to open.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Secretary of State received a visit from the ambassador in London of the Republic of Ireland on 16 December 1993. The ambassador raised a number of points with regard to THORP on behalf of his Government.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the nuclear waste arising comprised by low-level waste, disposed of at Drigg, originates from foreign spent nuclear fuel reprocessed at Sellafield.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that at the end of March 1993, some 5 per cent. of low-level waste disposed of at Drigg has arisen from reprocessing spent fuel from overseas.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  Mr. Gummer
  Five paintings and one photograph, as well as 14 prints.

  Charities
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to ensure that all charities are entitled to bid for Government grants available for environmental work.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's environmental action fund is the main source of grants for environmental work. The fund is available to voluntary organisations and a number of registered charities get grants.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of II January,Official Report, column 1, what are the particular qualifications, experience or expertise relating to the work of the Department of the Environment of his special adviser Mr. James Gray.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not my practice to comment on the qualifications, expertise or experience of my political special advisers.
  795

  Climate Change
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which(a) university or (b) independent research departments were consulted in the preparation of the report on the United Kingdom climate change programme published on 25 January.

  Mr. Atkins
  Nineteen universities and research institutes responded to the discussion document on Britain's carbon dioxide programme that was published in December 1992. In addition, many universities and research institutes were invited to attend workshops in March 1993 and a conference in May 1993, to discuss the options for the completion of Britain's carbon dioxide programme. A list of these respondents and invitees is set out.

  Advisory Council on Science and Technology

  Birmingham University

  Cambridge University

  Energy Technology Support Unit

  Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development

  King's College London

  Lancaster University

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  University of Leeds

  University of Liverpool

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Open University

  University of Oxford

  Science Policy Research Unit

  Silsoe Research Institute

  Highway maintenance grant-related expenditure for 1989–90 and standard spending assessment since 1990–91 for each highway authority

  £ million

  Local authority

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  City of London

  0·505

  1·346

  1·650

  2·486

  2·415

  2·734

  Camden

  3·613

  5·078

  5·885

  5·868

  5·494

  5·715

  Greenwich

  5·752

  7·356

  8·663

  7·668

  7·635

  7·568

  Hackney

  3·989

  5·287

  6·055

  6·065

  5·662

  5·966

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3·021

  4·262

  4·852

  5·185

  4·712

  4·918

  Islington

  3·092

  4·222

  4·975

  5·369

  4·747

  4·925

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2·892

  4·112

  4·623

  4·385

  4·388

  4·671

  Lambeth

  5·259

  6·656

  7·810

  7·239

  7·161

  7·433

  Lewisham

  5·004

  6·662

  7·934

  7·988

  7·632

  7·953

  Southwark

  4·716

  6·653

  7·812

  7·366

  6·850

  7·151

  Tower Hamlets

  3·587

  4·612

  5·297

  5·192

  5·025

  5·360

  Wandsworth

  4·774

  6·714

  7·819

  7·804

  7·655

  8·123

  Westminster

  5·320

  8·241

  9·641

  9·483

  8·760

  9·654

  Barking and Dagenham

  3·346

  4·290

  4·678

  4·666

  4·383

  4·275

  Barnet

  5·855

  7·946

  9·102

  9·402

  8·672

  8·686

  Bexley

  4·774

  6·230

  6·924

  7·188

  6·650

  6·691

  Brent

  5·504

  7·149

  8·033

  7·989

  7·209

  7·226

  Bromley

  7·652

  9·558

  10·952

  10·873

  10·013

  10·034

  Croydon

  7·509

  10·111

  11·041

  11·234

  10·333

  10·416

  Ealing

  6·373

  8·368

  8·998

  8·738

  8·310

  8·619

  Enfield

  5·625

  7·407

  8·202

  8·471

  7·715

  7·943

  Haringey

  3·685

  4·957

  5·581

  5·676

  5·499

  5·551

  Harrow

  4·397

  5·612

  6·104

  6·445

  5·790

  5·816

  Havering

  4·801

  6·588

  7·495

  8·182

  7·941

  8·194

  Hillingdon

  5·814

  7·870

  8·676

  9·130

  8·396

  8·423

  Hounslow

  4·149

  5·571

  6·405

  6·951

  6·598

  6·535

  Kingston upon Thames

  3·096

  4·251

  4·745

  4·794

  4·559

  4·752

  Merton

  3·910

  5·192

  5·860

  5·824

  5·532

  5·534

  Newham

  4·689

  6·008

  6·579

  6·544

  6·389

  6·575

  Redbridge

  5·237

  6·279

  7·297

  7·801

  7·121

  7·168

  Richmond upon Thames

  3·764

  4·724

  5·419

  5·209

  5·055

  5·177

  Sutton

  4·075

  5·525

  5·888

  5·679

  5·652

  5·719

  Waltham Forest

  4·429

  5·809

  6·533

  6·564

  6·180

  6·226

  Bolton

  7·174

  9·814

  10·948

  9·786

  9·407

  9·810

  Bury

  4·840

  6·522

  7·157

  7·129

  6·656

  6·689

  Manchester

  14·871

  19·332

  22·192

  21·014

  20·541

  20·156

  Oldham

  6·483

  6·962

  7·605

  7·727

  7·002

  6·849

  Rochdale

  5·703

  6·378

  7·570

  7·110

  7·157

  7·030

  Salford

  6·653

  9·826

  10·667

  10·157

  10·527

  10·581

  796

  Southampton Energy and Transport Working Group

  Staffordshire University

  Transport Research Laboratory

  UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Protection

  University of Sussex

  University College London

  University College of Wales

  University of Wales

  Local Roads Spending
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the spending assessment for each local authority for spending on maintainance of local roads in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  The highway maintenance element of the standard spending assessment for each highway authority for the years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 are shown. SSAs were introduced in 1990–91. The figures shown for 1989–90 are the sum of the separate elements for normal maintenance, winter maintenance, and street lighting within the system of grant-related expenditure assessments which operated until 1989–90.

  Comparisons between years are complicated by the transfer in recent years of funding for the structural maintenance of bridges and principal roads from the revenue to the capital account—and therefore from SSAs to transport supplementary grant and credit approvals. A total of £310 million was transferred between 1991–92 and 1993–94.
  797

  Local authority

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Stockport

  7·661

  10·334

  11·069

  11·395

  10·849

  10·435

  Tameside

  6·506

  8·074

  8·984

  8·523

  8·666

  8·430

  Trafford

  6·327

  8·672

  9·559

  9·424

  9·501

  9·128

  Wigan

  7·520

  8·993

  10·178

  10·151

  9·592

  9·765

  Knowsley

  3·288

  4·200

  4·800

  4·871

  4·557

  4·560

  Liverpool

  11·916

  14·833

  17·544

  16·950

  16·908

  16·544

  St. Helens

  4·778

  5·277

  6·293

  6·272

  5·830

  5·612

  Sefton

  5·969

  7·406

  8·554

  8·523

  8·191

  8·025

  Wirral

  6·666

  8·066

  9·481

  10·297

  9·187

  9·011

  Barnsley

  5·374

  6·229

  7·107

  7·008

  6·949

  6·853

  Doncaster

  8·311

  8·310

  10·024

  10·258

  10·926

  10·922

  Rotherham

  7·513

  9·193

  10·471

  10·948

  10·445

  10·253

  Sheffield

  15·928

  19·780

  23·830

  24·189

  23·791

  23·575

  Gateshead

  6·804

  8·360

  9·851

  10·601

  10·404

  10·425

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  8·243

  11·330

  13·254

  12·478

  12·266

  11·858

  North Tyneside

  4·592

  6·298

  7·066

  7·497

  6·861

  6·713

  South Tyneside

  3·661

  4·343

  5·356

  6·005

  5·721

  5·298

  Sunderland

  6·987

  8·563

  10·950

  11·585

  11·596

  11·674

  Birmingham

  24·361

  32·928

  37·420

  37·024

  36·330

  35·532

  Coventry

  7·694

  10·498

  10·855

  10·944

  10·416

  10·144

  Dudley

  7·653

  10·066

  11·269

  10·425

  10·736

  10·805

  Sandwell

  8·263

  10·458

  11·753

  11·616

  11·277

  11·042

  Solihull

  4·599

  6·398

  7·608

  7·816

  7·825

  8·020

  Walsall

  6·324

  8·225

  9·186

  8·739

  9·295

  9·288

  Wolverhampton

  6·971

  8·796

  9·721

  8·853

  8·818

  8·636

  Bradford

  11·889

  14·578

  16·721

  16·146

  17·684

  17·619

  Calderdale

  5·243

  5·937

  6·737

  6·840

  6·495

  6·394

  Kirklees

  11·816

  13·583

  14·767

  14·758

  13·454

  13·365

  Leeds

  20·965

  25·845

  28·712

  29·077

  27·634

  27·244

  Wakefield

  9·095

  11·086

  11·904

  11·506

  11·403

  11·592

  Avon

  27·054

  34·653

  38·456

  38·735

  36·341

  36·177

  Bedfordshire

  10·147

  15·210

  18·156

  19·611

  19·024

  20·607

  Berkshire

  16·264

  24·181

  26·011

  29·150

  26·304

  27·776

  Buckinghamshire

  16·256

  21·803

  24·031

  25·717

  24·803

  24·886

  Cambridgeshire

  17·521

  21·777

  25·240

  24·528

  23·710

  26·323

  Cheshire

  25·121

  31·175

  34·432

  33·974

  33·167

  33·426

  Cleveland

  15·546

  17·901

  21·091

  22·299

  20·294

  20·170

  Cornwall

  16·491

  18·972

  20·928

  21·807

  21·290

  22·348

  Cumbria

  18·506

  20·786

  23·070

  23·651

  22·472

  24·152

  Derbyshire

  22·991

  26·449

  30·587

  31·272

  29·857

  29·441

  Devon

  37·653

  40·106

  45·563

  47·063

  44·571

  42·514

  Dorset

  19·307

  21·758

  24·680

  24·632

  24·273

  24·292

  Durham

  16·616

  17·529

  20·393

  20·411

  19·703

  19·626

  East Sussex

  15·425

  19·265

  21·909

  21·323

  20·964

  21·195

  Essex

  33·436

  49·024

  54·349

  58·392

  58·308

  61·069

  Gloucestershire

  14·989

  16·483

  19·757

  19·572

  17·787

  17·589

  Hampshire

  37·859

  49·329

  54·702

  56·154

  53·316

  53·424

  Hereford and Worcester

  21·586

  23·126

  26·858

  25·462

  25·114

  24·968

  Hertfordshire

  23·672

  31·649

  37·628

  40·077

  38·130

  39·142

  Humberside

  23·160

  25·382

  28·254

  28·845

  28·174

  27·795

  Isle of Wight

  3·095

  3·520

  3·899

  4·161

  3·471

  3·773

  Kent

  39·260

  53·727

  59·197

  60·187

  56·555

  58·102

  Lancashire

  36·612

  41·530

  46·932

  49·675

  47·659

  47·570

  Leicestershire

  26·868

  31·251

  34·390

  34·327

  33·807

  33·956

  Lincolnshire

  19·502

  23·527

  25·984

  25·918

  24·686

  26·586

  Norfolk

  24·218

  26·876

  32·135

  31·243

  30·802

  33·100

  Northamptonshire

  14·992

  20·428

  21·889

  21·614

  20·925

  21·014

  Northumberland

  13·226

  14·953

  16·518

  16·631

  16·094

  17·209

  North Yorkshire

  25·910

  28·674

  32·843

  32·232

  32·435

  32·796

  Nottinghamshire

  26·617

  31·417

  35·238

  36·575

  33·168

  33·109

  Oxfordshire

  12·877

  16·075

  17·826

  19·749

  18·011

  18·862

  Shropshire

  13·908

  16·056

  17·861

  17·505

  17·014

  18·430

  Somerset

  18·058

  20·657

  24·493

  25·265

  23·170

  23·088

  Staffordshire

  27·904

  31·949

  37·490

  35·720

  35·301

  35·265

  Suffolk

  17·266

  19·349

  22·108

  21·721

  24·177

  24·421

  Surrey

  28·356

  40·281

  43·183

  44·727

  39·855

  42·446

  Warwickshire

  11·220

  13·739

  16·535

  16·843

  17·153

  17·641

  West Sussex

  17·021

  22·052

  24·461

  24·006

  22·885

  23·249

  Wiltshire

  15·026

  19·099

  21·975

  21·955

  20·064

  19·712

  Isles of Scilly

  0·112

  0·144

  0·158

  0·168

  0·133

  0·144

  Note: The grant-related expenditure for 1980–90 is the sum of the normal maintenance, winter maintenance and street lighting components; for shire counties this is prior to any assignment to shire districts. For all authorities it excludes professional and technical services.
  798 799

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made by Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate in assessing the effects of test firing of depleted uranium ammunition on the environment.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Ministry of Defence carries out a programme of regular environmental monitoring at its Eskmeals site. The results of this monitoring are made available to HMIP.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sanctions govern the enforcement of rulings arrived at by the local government ombudsman on complaints from the public.

  Mr. Baldry
  A local authority which declines to comply fully with the remedies imposed by the ombudsman must publish a statement of its reasons for failing to implement the report in local newspapers at its own expense, together with a statement about the matter provided by the ombudsman.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will designate parts of Cardigan bay, the Bristol channel and St. George's channel as special areas of conservation under directive 92/43/EEC.

  Mr. Atkins
  The list of sites which member states shall designate as special areas of conservation must be agreed with the Commission by 1998 and the site designation process must be completed by 2004.

  The Government's scientific advisers are preparing their recommendations for the United Kingdom's proposed special areas of conservation. It is therefore premature to comment on whether and when specific sites might be designated.

  Retirement Housing
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) from what groups representing(a) leaseholders and (b) managing agents and landlords he sought advice during the formulation of the code of conduct for retirement housing;

  (2) when he expects to be able to publish the code of conduct for retirement housing; and if it will be compulsory.

  Sir George Young
  Section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gives the Secretary of State for the Environment powers to endorse codes of good management practice submitted to him for approval. The Act prevents the Secretary of State from approving any code unless he is satisfied that arrangements have been made to ensure that it has been brought to the notice of those likely to be affected by it.

  The Act also provides that any code which is approved will be admissible evidence and where relevant may be taken into account in any court proceedings relating to the management of residential property.

  So far, no such codes have been submitted for approval, but I understand that the Royal Institution of Chartered
  800
  Surveyors and the Association of Retirement Housing Managers have published draft codes of practice and are consulting on them widely.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have been(a) abolished or (b) created since 1979.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 1 February by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 611.

  Housing Association Grant
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria have been agreed by the Housing Corporation for the allocation of housing association grant to developing housing authorities.

  Sir George Young
  Housing Corporation resources are distributed on the basis of the housing needs index. The allocation of housing association grant to housing associations is made by the Housing Corporation in accordance with the following criteria: to meet the priority housing needs identified by local authorities in the most cost-effective way; to achieve targets set by Ministers for programmes such as low-cost home ownership, rehabilitation and rural housing; and, in choosing between bids to meet a particular objective, to achieve value for money in terms of the volume of housing to be delivered from a given HAG input subject to the performance of an association, its ability to deliver a good management service once the development is completed and any local authority views about the proposed development.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each London borough the total discounted value of houses and flats sold by them for each year since 1980.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 January 1994,Official Report, columns 242–244, to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).

  Council Tax
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals have been lodged since the 1992 valuations of homes for the purpose of assessing council tax; and how many of these cases have now received a final adjudication.

  Mr. Baldry
  During the eight-month period allowed for appeal, expiring on 30 November 1993, the Valuation Office agency received 860,305 proposals to alter the council tax bands of dwellings in England. Of these, 175,206 had been settled by 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department expects all the currently outstanding appeals against house valuations for the purposes of assessing council tax to have received a final adjudication.
  801
  Mr. Baldry
  The Valuation Office agency has six months from the date of its receipt to consider proposals to alter the council tax banding of dwellings. If not resolved at the end of this period, cases are referred as formal appeals to a valuation tribunal.

  The Valuation Office agency and the valuation tribunals are expected to have dealt with nearly 700,000 or 80 per cent. of cases in England by the end of 1994. This would be almost within a year of the end of the appeal period. Any remaining appeals will be settled as quickly as possible in 1995.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether local authorities will be expected to repay with interest any overpayments received in council tax arising from wrong valuations of properties subsequently revised under the appeals system.

  Mr. Baldry
  There is no provision in the regulations on council tax appeals for the payment of interest when an appeal has been determined in the taxpayer's favour. The sums at stake in such appeals are generally modest and the cost of administering an interest payment scheme would be disproportionate.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are employed within his Department investigating possible improvements to the standard spending assessment system.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. member to the reply my right hon Friend gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on 28 January,Official Report, columns 433–34.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the representations made by Westminster city council to his Department prior to the current year's standard spending assessment allocation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since March 1993 we have received a number of letters from Westminster dealing with a number of issues concerning the review of standard spending assessments and the proposals for 1994–95.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend met the leader of Westminster city council on 13 October 1993 to discuss the review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the representations made by Wandsworth borough council to his Department prior to the current year's standard spending assessment allocation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since March 1993 we have received two written representations from the London borough of Wandsworth on the calculation of standard spending assessments for 1994–95.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the authorities that have made representations to his Department, supporting the use of day visitors as a method of measuring grant need.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following local authorities made representations in support of the use of data on day visitors in the calculation of standard spending assessments, during the review of standard spending assessments or during consultation on the provisional revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95:
  802

  Bath City Council

  Birmingham City Council

  London Borough of Brent

  Brighton Borough Council

  Chester City Council

  Chester-le-Street District Council

  Cleethorpes Borough Council

  East Lindsey District Council

  Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

  Great Yarmouth Borough Council

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  Harrogate District Council

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

  London Borough of Greenwich

  High Peak Borough Council

  North Norfolk District Council

  Norwich City Council

  Nottingham City Council

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council

  South Lakeland District Council

  Southend-on-Sea District Council

  Stoke on Trent City Council

  Suffolk Coastal District Council

  Tendring District Council

  Thanet District Council

  Thurrock Borough Council

  Torbay Borough Council

  Uttlesford District Council

  London Borough of Westminster

  Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

  Woodspring District Council

  We also received a joint representation from the seven west midlands metropolitan districts in support of the inclusion of day visitors in the calculation of standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretry of State for the Environment if he will list the authorities that have made representations to his Department supporting the use of homelessness figures as a method of measuring grant need.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following local authorities made representations in support of the use of data on homelessness in the calculation of SSAs, during the review of SSAs or during consultations on the provisional revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95:

  London Borough of Barnet

  London Borough of Brent

  Brighton Borough Council

  Broxtowe Borough Council

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

  London Borough of Ealing

  East Hertfordshire District Council

  Elmbridge Borough Council

  London Borough of Enfield

  Gloucester City Council

  London Borough of Greenwich

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  London Borough of Haringey

  London Borough of Harrow

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  London Borough of Lambeth

  London Borough of Lewisham

  London Borough of Newham

  Reading Borough Council

  Thurrock Borough Council

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  Westminster City Council

  803

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions since 1982 in England a potentially damaging operation to a site of special scientific interest has been carried out following the failure to reach a management agreement as set out in section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I assume the hon. Member requests details of damage occurring to sites of special scientific interest —including those sites subject to a nature conservation order—after notice of a potentially damaging operation has been given by owners and occupiers. I regret that such information is not available in this form, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information on damage to SSSIs and proposed SSSIs generally is contained in the annual reports of English Nature and of the former Nature Conservancy Council, copies of which are in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 871–72, if he will publish a breakdown of the totals spent from usable capital receipts into areas of local authority spending

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not available. Local authorities' capital financing decisions are, in general, taken on a corporate basis covering the whole of their

  Published Targets

  Making a corporate commitment campaign signatory targets

  3M:

  A global target of a 20 per cent, reduction in energy use to produce a kilogram of good product from 1990 to 1995; and a 20 per cent, reduction in the amount of energy required to support a square meter of non-manufacturing space from 1990 to 1995;

  Allied Lyons plc:

  Following significant earlier savings, the company has set energy, effluent and water savings targets of around 2 per cent, per annum, over a three to five-year time scale;

  BAA plc:

  A 10 per cent, reduction in consumption in all airport operations by December 1994, with the expectation of a further 5 per cent, saving in the following four years; and an initial 10 per cent, improvement in non-airport operations by January 1995;

  BT plc:

  A 15 per cent, reduction in energy consumption over five years to 1997;

  Babcock Energy Ltd.:

  A 10 per cent, reduction in energy costs in 1993–94;

  Bank of England:

  A 15 per cent, reduction in energy consumption over five years to 1998;

  Birmingham International Airport plc:

  As one of its energy targets, a further 5 per cent, reduction in kilowatt hours per passenger, based on the moving annual total;

  Bowring Services Ltd.:

  A minimum 5 per cent, annual reduction in energy costs;

  British Gas plc:

  A 15 per cent, saving over five years;

  Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society:

  Twin goals to reduce energy costs by 10 per cent, within two years and energy consumption by 10 per cent, by the end of 1996;

  DHL International:

  An improvement in fuel efficiency of 15 per cent, over three years commencing with a target of 8 per cent, in the year October 1993–94, and a 15 per cent, improvement in energy use at operational sites by the end of 1994, rising to 20 per cent, in 1995 and 25 per cent, in 1996;

  Eley Ltd.:

  A 5 per cent, reduction in energy consumption in 1993, taking production volume changes into account;

  English Nature:

  A 15 per cent, reduction in energy consumption over five years;

  Fina plc:

  A performance improvement target for energy costs of 10 per cent, and a 5 per cent, reduction in energy consumption for individual areas of the company over a two-year period ending December 1994;

  Forte:

  An initial target to reduce energy and water consumption by 10 per cent, without reducing the level of service, quality or customer comfort;

  804
  capital programme. Information on the financing of capital expenditure for individual services is not therefore collected by the Department.

  Energy Efficiency Targets
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has had to his call in November for organisations to publish energy efficiency targets.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have called for a partnership between Government, business and the voluntary sector to help the United Kingdom meet its CO2 emission reduction targets. As part of that, I have urged all organisations to set up proper environmental and energy management systems, including the setting of clear targets and systems to monitor performance and report against those targets.

  Much remains to be done both by business and the public sector in this area, but I welcome the lead given by the organisations listed which, as signatories of the marking a corporate commitment campaign, have published energy efficiency targets and are working to secure the commercial and environmental benefits that result from good energy management. I hope others will follow this lead.

  The public sector is also playing its part. Central Government and health authorities and trusts are working to meet a 15 per cent. cut in energy consumption in the five years 1991–96; while the local authority associations are promoting similar aspirational targets for individual local authorities.
  805

  IBM:

  A worldwide corporate goal of implementing energy efficient improvement projects to achieve 4 per cent, savings year on year;

  J. Sainsbury plc:

  A target of a 5 per cent. annual saving on the difference between actual energy used and the predicted energy which should have been if utilised in the most efficient manner;

  Nationwide Building Society:

  A 15 per cent. target over five years with the expectation that this could be increased to 20 to 25 per cent, in the longer term;

  National Westminster Bank plc:

  A 15 per cent. reduction in energy consumption by the end of 1995;

  Rockware Glass Ltd.:

  Co2 emissions in 2000 will not exceed 1992 values;

  Rover Group:

  A 5 per cent. per annum reduction in 1991 energy and Co2 levels adjusted for the number of standard production hours worked and degree days during the year;

  Safeway Stores plc:

  A real saving of at least 10 per cent. over five years;

  Sterling Organics:

  A programme of improvement projects which will reduce energy consumption by 6 per cent, in the two years ending 1994, against a baseline of 1992;

  Tesco plc:

  A further 5 per cent. reduction in energy use in each of the next two years;

  Texaco Ltd.:

  Improve the energy index at its Pembroke refinery by 1 per cent. each year over the next five years; and save 15 per cent. of its energy consumption in its headquarters building in 1994;

  Toshiba (Manufacturing Operations):

  A 16 per cent. improvement in energy use by 1995;

  Warwick International Ltd.:

  A 20 per cent. improvement in energy use per unit of product produced in 1993 and 1994;

  University College London:

  A 15 per cent. reduction in effective energy use over five years to 1998.

  Electricity Companies

  Man web plc:

  A 10 per cent. reduction in own electricity use in the three years to 1994 95;

  Norweb plc:

  A 15 per cent. reduction in own electricity consumption over five years to 1996;

  Northern Electric plc:

  To reduce own energy usage by one third over the next five years;

  Nuclear Electric plc:

  A 5 per cent. reduction in overall energy bill in 1993;

  Southern Electric plc:

  A 20 per cent. reduction in energy consumption in office buildings over the next five years.

  Local Authorities

  Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council:

  15 per cent. reduction in effective energy use in five years to 1998;

  Bedfordshire County Council:

  15 per cent. reduction in energy costs over five years to 1991 and then 10 per cent, by 2000;

  Cleveland County Council:

  7·5 per cent. for educational establishments while Cleveland police authority has set a target of 10 per cent, over one year for its buildings;

  Cotswold District Council:

  15 per cent. over five years to 1997;

  Ipswich Borough Council:

  15 per cent. over five years to 1998;

  Leicester City Council:

  To complement a 14 per cent. reduction in Co2 emissions over the past five years, the council intend to reduce Co2 emissions by 50 per cent. of the 1990 level by the year 2025;

  London Borough of Hounslow:

  To reduce 1992 energy consumption by 20 per cent. by the end of 1997, with consequent Co2 emission reductions in excess of 20 per cent., by investing 10 per cent. of the annual energy budget in a programme of building and plant improvements, and by encouraging and implementing responsible energy management measures;

  London Fire and Civil Defence Authority:

  A 10 per cent. reduction in energy consumption over five years to 1994–95.

  London Borough of Sutton:

  4 per cent. energy savings in this financial year and a 15 per cent. saving over 10 years.

  Northamptonshire County Council:

  To reduce energy and water consumption and CO2 emissions by a further 15 per cent. over five years commencing April 1994;

  Nottingham City Council:

  A 10 per cent. reduction in energy consumption by 1994–95; a further 5 per cent. by 1996–97 with up to a 50 per cent. reduction by the year 2027;

  Oxfordshire County Council:

  On course to reduce their energy use in council buildings by 15 per cent. over the five years to 1998;

  Redditch Borough Council:

  A 15 per cent. reduction in energy costs over three years to 1995;

  Stratford on Avon District Council:

  A 5 per cent. reduction in the 1992–93 level of normalised energy consumption by March 1995;

  806

  807

  Suffolk Coastal District Council:

  Following cumulative reductions to date of some 5,000 tonnes of Co2, emissions, the council intends to reduce energy consumption by a further 10 per cent. in the five years to 1998;

  West Sussex County Council:

  A Co2, reduction target of 50,000 tonnes per year by 2000;

  Woking Borough Council:

  A 20 per cent. reduction in energy consumption in five years to 1998.

  Northumberland Special Protection Area
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that English Nature extend the period of consultation of the proposed special protection area for the coast of Northumberland.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The consultation period has already been extended to 10 weeks, two and a half times the period normally given for such consultations. I see no reason for a further extension.

  EU Habitats Directive
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make additional financial resources available to implement the European Union directive—92/43/EEC—on the conservation of natural habitats of wild fauna and flora; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked his advisers on nature conservation, English Nature, to give implementation of the habitats directive the highest
  808
  priority for resources. Grants in aid to English nature for the financial year 1994–95 will be £40·405 million, an increase of 6·56 per cent. over the current year.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud;

  (2) how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Disciplinary action is always taken, with dismissal as the ultimate sanction when the evidence justifies it.

  The table sets out the number of employees disciplined for fraud and the number ultimately dismissed in the years from April 1989—Property Services Agency in brackets.

  Employees disciplined for fraud

  Employees dismissed

  1989

  1

  —

  1990

  1

  (2)

  —

  (2)

  1991

  3

  (1)

  3

  (1)

  1992

  5

  (2)

  1

  (1)

  1993

  2

  —

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Rights of the Child: Government Report
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the text of their First Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, yes.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that brief assurance. However, has not the committee expressed the hope that reports will be produced in such a way as to facilitate and encompass popular participation? Will she confirm that consultations took the form of sending copies of the draft report to some 20 organisations out of several hundred concerned in this field, and that they were sent on 15th December with a requirement that they should reply by the 31st December? So not only were they given a fortnight in which to read the draft report and discuss it with their members, but they were expected to do so over Christmas. Will the Government now take seriously their obligations under the convention and establish real dialogue?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is not normal practice to consult on these conventions and the response to them, but in this case we did, as the noble and learned Lord has said. In addition to the organisations that we consulted, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for community care and children's services met organisations on 22nd November to explain that the consultation period would be short, and how we were going about it.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, as one concerned closely with the United Nations Children's Fund, perhaps I may thank the Government for complying with their obligation under Article 44 of the convention, for communicating to the committee the results of our work and for publishing it. Will the Minister confirm that the Government give their wholehearted support to the convention as the best means of helping the poorest children in the poorest parts of the world, and that they will continue to support that activity?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. That neatly sums up the Government's position. We give this our wholehearted support. When it came to ratifying the
1260
convention, it was not a rubber stamp; the Government thought seriously about it. Indeed, we take the whole matter seriously.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the Minister explain why there is no mention in the report to the United Nations of the worrying increase in many aspects of child poverty in this country, which seems to suggest that we are in breach of Article 27 of the convention which we signed? The convention states that:
"Every child has the right to a standard of living adequate for their physical, mental, spiritual, moral and sociiil development".
Are the Government Confident that we in this country are fulfilling that requirement?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the Government signed up to the convention, but they had some reservations about some parts of it. This was not one of those parts.

NHS Spending: Safeguards
2.41 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty' s Government:
What are the new controls on spending by health authorities and hospital trusts to prevent the waste of public money as in the case of the Wessex Regional Health Authority computer system.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in January 1993 the Department of Health issued instructions to the NHS that large-scale investments in information technology should not be approved unless they met published criteria. In addition, investments of £1 million or more need prior approval by the National Health Service Management Executive and Her Majesty's Treasury.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and the information it contains. I am sure we all welcome any measures introduced by the Government that will prevent a repetition of recent huge financial losses in various parts of the NHS. Is the information I have right? Has the Secretary of State, Mrs. Bottomley, once again refused to consider introducing sanctions to recover sums of money from people who were appointed but who have taken deliberate decisions which have meant: the loss of huge sums of money? Will the Minister explain what is the difference between a local councillor who loses ratepayers' money as a result of a deliberate decision and who is surcharged, and a member of an appointed body who loses NHS money in a particular area but who is not surcharged? What is the difference?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to reassure the House that sanctions were taken against non-executives and executives in terms of their employment. But my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no legal powers to issue surcharges.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again so quickly but I believe that the Minister

1261
may have misunderstood my question. Is she aware that it refers specifically to financial surcharges and not removal from jobs?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no powers to surcharge individuals.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. Why is it that some of the people who were responsible for the problem in the Wessex Regional Health Authority have since been appointed to senior positions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the chairman of the health authority to whom the noble Baroness refers has been appointed to chair the NHS Supplies Authority. That appointment was made before the issue came to light. We have always had confidence in him. Indeed, it was he who discovered some of the problems and who ensured that the regional general manager left his post and a new manager was appointed. He also ensured that financial instructions and other measures were taken within the regional health authority to make sure that the situation did not occur again.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister said twice that her right honourable friend has no power to surcharge. That is the whole point. Does the Minister appreciate the growing feeling in this country that the Government or some body should have the power to impose a surcharge on people who lose or waste money in exactly the way that local authority councillors can be called to account? Will the Government give serious consideration to getting through Parliament the power to impose such a surcharge?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, all possible legal action has been followed. Your Lordships will be aware of recent press publicity about executive members of the health authority appearing before the courts in connection with these incidents. Many measures have been taken. In response to the PAC report the Secretary of State has taken 15 different initiatives and the Wessex Regional Health Authority has taken 19 initiatives.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not obvious that, in relation to surcharges, there is a wide difference between the position of salaried staff, from whom it would be almost impossible to recover millions of pounds, and those who stand for office in an elective council? Is it not obvious that there is a clear legal distinction between the position of the two?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. There is a great distinction.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in examining the issue the Public Accounts Committee of another place stated:
"It is not just blatant inefficiency but a new kind of corruption of standards of every kind"?
1262
Should that not to be investigated? Are we to give no support to the Public Accounts Committee, which wants individual examination of the fact that the Wessex computer cost £63 million?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is not a question of £63 million. The Public Accounts Committee stressed that a large amount of money had been recovered. The figure is much smaller; it is £20 million. The management executive took immediate action to disseminate the lessons that have been learnt. That was welcomed by the Public Accounts Committee. The Secretary of State has announced a review of manpower functions in the NHS. She has introduced new guidance on the standard of business and recently launched a new code of conduct and a code of accountability which are to be vigorously pursued by the National Health Service.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the figure of £20 million. She will accept that that represents a great deal of treatment for patients. Will she guarantee that in the cases of the Wessex Regional Health Authority and the West Midlands Regional Health Authority, where a similar amount of money has gone astray, patients are not being penalised for the loss of money and any money put aside for treatment is still available?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can give that assurance. Any loss of funds is deeply regrettable. It is a matter that we do not condone and that we monitor and challenge. The Wessex Regional Health Authority budget is more than £1 billion. This year alone £83 million has been spent on new health care developments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend clear my mind on this point?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend may be able to do just that. While the Minister has no power to surcharge, as is implied in the Question, is it not a fact that if any member of an authority or a trust maliciously, deliberately or fraudulently misuses money he is not immune from the normal actions that can be taken in dealing with such matters? The suggestion that the Minister has no power to surcharge does not absolve the authorities from ensuring that the law is adhered to, and such people are not immune from that.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his crystal clear mind. He is absolutely right. There has been the action through the courts and through the normal channels that one would expect from the Government.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I return to the question about surcharging and salaried employees. Will the Minister confirm that the people who were most criticised in the Public Accounts Committee report, specifically as regards Wessex but more

1263
generally, were not salaried employees but were the appointed chairmen and the appointed non-executive members of various bodies?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, action was taken both in Wessex and the West Midlands. There have been changes of chairman and non-executive members, as one would expect.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does this matter not enhance the need for privatisation within such services so that private money and enterprise rather than public money are at risk?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government believe that there are great advantages in privatising parts of the National Health Service. Indeed, we have saved millions of pounds, in particular on cleaning and catering services.
Lord. Monkswell: My Lords, where public money has been misused, local councillors can be surcharged and debarred from either being or standing as councillors. Is not the correct analogy in this case that Conservative Members of the House of Commons and Government Ministers should be disbarred from holding public office and should be surcharged for the amount of public money that has been lost?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not believe that I can take this matter any further. It is clear that we have no powers to surcharge non-executive members of health authorities. But there are other means, and action has been taken. Many of those people are no longer in the positions they occupied when the incidents took place.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that she cannot take the matter further, but I asked her a specific question. Will the Government give serious consideration to taking or attempting to take powers to surcharge? She has not yet answered that question. She can ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to whisper the answer in her ear as much as she likes. Will the Government not accept, through the mouth of the Minister, that there is increasing public anxiety about this matter? Will the Government not take it seriously?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we take these matters very seriously. Clearly, I shall report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the debate which has taken place today and the matter will be considered.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, are the Minister and the Government satisfied with the present method of control that is applied to councillors? If they are, will they launch a Bill to impose similar controls in regard to the people covered by the Question because if they do, it will receive the support of this side of the House?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the issues concerning local government are not part of my portfolio. That is for other noble Lords on the Front Bench. In this instance I wish to reiterate that the
1264
Government took action. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee complimented the Secretary of State and the management executive on the action that was taken.

Chelsea and Westminster Hospital
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Masham of IIton Baroness Masham of IIton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many beds are closed at the new Chelsea and Westminster Hospital and for what reason.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital was opened in April 1993, there was a proposal to close the accident and emergency department of the Charing Cross Hospital with a significant amount of acute work being transferred to the new hospital.Consequently, 163 beds have not been brought into use pending the review of services at the Hammersmith and Charing Cross Hospitals and the outcome of the review of accident and emergency services.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that five hospitals which closed—Westminster, St. Stephen's, the West London, the Westminster Children's Hospital and St. Mary Abbots—have all been absorbed into that brand new hospital? Is she further aware that the senior nursing staff and junior doctors spend a great deal of time scratching round to find beds for patients, which is extremely disturbing for seriously ill patients?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am not aware that that is the situation. On the contrary, I know that that hospital has increased the number of patients whom it has treated during the year. In fact, because of the rationalisation which took place, £23 million per year has been saved, which has gone back into additional care for patients.
Lord Howell: My Lords, since the Westminster Hospital closed, accident and emergencies now have to be ferried to distant parts. Has account been taken of the fact that it may be impossible to provide emergency treatment for the vast numbers of people who come to Westminster, both to work and as tourists? Will the Government take into consideration the situation if St. Thomas' Hospital also closes, which is being considered at present? That may have extremely serious implications for the emergency cover of the whole of Westminster. We should be glad to have the Minister's assurance that those matters are being taken care of.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the accident and emergency service is one of the most important services which the National Health Service offers. Clearly, if any accident and emergency department were to close, we should have to be sure that the services which it had offered could be transferred in a way which was acceptable.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that those who were most closely responsible for the planning of the new Chelsea and

1265
Westminster Hospital—and I know that she was not one of them—have produced a monument which we could not afford in the first place and which we now cannot afford to use fully?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend has some interesting views, many of which I agree with. But on this occasion, I must demur.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that what she said about the reorganisation of the Charing Cross Hospital and other accident and emergency departments in West London merely illustrates what many of my noble friends have been saying for some time; namely, that in London the market, allowed to run of its own free will, simply will not provide the right health services for people in the right place at the right time?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have seen remarkable results from the NHS reforms. We are seeing more people treated year on year. We are seeing increases in the technology and sophistication in the type of operations which the National Health Service is now able to provide for people who are sick. That has come about because of the competition that we have introduced within the National Health Service. However, we have accepted that London is a special case. That is why we set up the London Implementation Group which is ensuring that the changes that take place are well managed.
Baroness Masham of IIton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in this developed capital, London, patients should not be treated on trolleys? That happens in many of our London teaching hospitals, including the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, those are very isolated cases. I refute any claim that it is happening everywhere. It is very interesting when one looks at hospitals: in some cases it is the instance; in others, it is not. That is not necessarily to do with resources; it is to do with the way in which the services are managed.

Bank of England: Independence
2.59 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for converting the Bank of England into an independent central bank.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government have no such plans but they are listening with interest to the debate on the subject.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord's Answer. Will he go further and agree with me that to give to an unelected institution independence over interest rates and the money supply, with its serious consequences for employment and economic growth,
1266
would be quite wrong? Does he agree that that should be in the hands of an elected government rather than an unelected institution?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to the question of accountability. That is certainly one of the major factors in the mind of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he considers the issue. However, as he has made clear, he will continue to listen to what is a very interesting debate. His mind is open on the subject.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and feel that ultimate control of the management of the economy must lie in the hands of the elected government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes a similar point to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I believe that many members of the House would echo my noble friend's views. As I said, I think that the issue of accountability is one of the most important here. It is certainly one which my right honourable friend will bear in mind.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, do my noble friend and the Government appreciate —as I am sure they do—that there is a very important distinction between whether there is a political decision in the determination of interest rates and whether there is political accountability by the body that is responsible for it? In the United States, a country which no one would dream of not calling a democracy, there is the independent Federal Reserve, which is fully accountable for its actions to Congress but which, nevertheless, has freedom to take such actions if it wishes to do so. Experience shows that that is a more successful form of the conduct of monetary policy and one which enjoys greater credibility in the financial markets. Is my noble friend aware that, if we do not take that route, we may find ourselves in growing difficulties in this country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend also makes an interesting point. That is why I have to say that we find this to be a most interesting debate. My right honourable friend will continue to listen to all points that are raised. However, I must repeat what I said earlier. We believe that accountability, who makes the final decision and whether they are accountable to Parliament is very important.
Noble Lords: Order! Cross-Benches!
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister give some indication as to when his right honourable friend will have begun to reach some sort of conclusion on these fascinating arguments, which we all agree are incredibly important in their outcome? However, we believe that reaching a decision upon them is also significant.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said only last Friday when debating such matters that we do not envisage a

1267
decision to be taken in the near future and we certainly do not envisage an independent Bank of England in the foreseeable future.
Lord. Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as the Minister expressed very admirable sentiments in confirming the proposition of his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that the same degree of consistency will be carried through at European level; and that Her Majesty's Government will, under no consideration, agree in the Council of Ministers to the establishment of a European central bank which is completely independent of any kind of democratic control?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a different question; but, I have to say, it is a most interesting one, as indeed are all noble Lords' questions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to follow the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. Even though it might be generally agreed that ultimate responsibility for interest rates rests with the government of the day, could not the Bank, nonetheless, play an increasingly important role? Indeed, the Government have strengthened that role. Do they have it in mind to go even further than they have at present?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Bank plays an increasingly important role and we shall of course listen to its advice. However, as I made quite clear, it is a matter for my right honourable friend to make the decision. As I said, in the end we believe that the question of accountability is very important. To go any further and create an independent central bank, one would have to look at considerable safeguards in that field.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as the proof of the pudding lies in the eating, can my noble friend tell me how much the pound has depreciated in value since the Bank of England was nationalised in 1946 and politicians started to meddle in monetary policy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend's question without notice. Of course, there are a great many different types of independent central bank. They all have a greater or lesser degree of independence but, I have to say, a greater or lesser degree of success in maintaining price stability. It does not necessarily follow that those which are the most independent have had the greatest success in maintaining their price stability.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do the replies that have been given so far mean that the Government repudiate the remarks of the Governor of the Bank of England yesterday which seemed to imply that politicians cannot be trusted with monetary and interest rate policy as they might use it for party-political purposes?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord may have slightly misinterpreted the gist of what the Governor of the Bank of England was saying. I can quote further from what the Governor said. He also said
1268
that the Bank's independence would be a poisoned chalice unless there was a national consensus for price stability.
Lord Boardman.: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that responsibility for monetary policy remains with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as does that for fiscal policy? Does he also agree that the mix of those two—the economic policy results—is the responsibility of the democratically accountable Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. However, as I said, we are listening with great interest to this quite fascinating debate.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lord Barnett the Minister stated that the Government have no plans to make the Bank of England! independent. Does he mean that the detailed planning which took place under the chancellorship of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has now been abandoned?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that we have no plans. I repeat those very words: we have no plans at present to create an independent Bank of England.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, as regards thinking that an independent bank is a panacea for any economic ills of any national government, does my noble friend agree that my noble friend Lord Boardman is absolutely right that, at the end of the day, any decision on monetary policy, interest policy, and so on, must remain with the government of the day? Does my noble friend also agree that that happened with the reunification of the ostmark and the deutschmark when, eventually, the President of the Bundesbank resigned because he was overruled by the Chancellor of Germany? Does my noble friend further agree that it is quite extraordinary to have former Chancellors of the Exchequer (who could in fact have had an independent bank) talking about having such a bank once they are no longer in office?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested, we ought to exercise just a little caution over what he described as suspiciously "fashionable ideas".
Lord Barnett: My Lords, at the outset in reply to my Question the Minister said that the Government have no such plans at present. However, he then referred. to the answer given by the Financial Secretary in the debate in another place last Friday stating that they had no plans for the "foreseeable future". I assume that the Minister agrees with that. In those circumstances, can he tell us why the Government agree with that and whether it means that they agree with the points that I put to him earlier?
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may quote the words of my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury precisely. He said:
"I do not think that we envisage that"—

1269
referring to the independent Bank of England—
"happening in the foreseeable future".
I also said that we have no plans to create an independent central bank. I see no contradiction in those two remarks.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion set down for this day in the name of the Lord Allen of Abbeydale shall be limited to 2½ hours and that in the name of the Lord Walton of Detchant shall be limited to 3 hours. —(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 15,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 16 to 38,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 39 and 40,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 41 to 50,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 51 to 83,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 84 to 89,

Schedule 8.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prison Overcrowding
3.10 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to call attention to the problem of overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales, and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak today. I fear that the list, perhaps appropriately, suffers from some measure of overcrowding. I hope that no one will waste time in following the convention of thanking the initiator of the debate. If my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, whom we are all anxious to hear, finds it necessary, just by a little, to exceed his quota, I do not think that anyone will object.
1270
I must begin by quoting a few figures. The Prison Service tells me that at the end of last year the prison population was 45,218, nearly 2,000 less than the certified normal accommodation. However, there are three points to be made on the figures. First, the population—as it normally does—fell substantially during December. Indeed, at the end of November it exceeded the certified accommodation by a comfortable, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say by an uncomfortable, margin.
Secondly, the population of the local prisons—where a good deal of the/problem arises—at rather over 15,000, was, at 31st December, 1,300 in excess of the certified accommodation. Thirdly, the overall total went up sharply —by well over 4,500 during 1993. There is a general assumption that the increase will continue but the Prison Service, for good reason, is chary of making forecasts.
Early in their life the Government announced with some pride an unprecedented programme of new prison building. In 1990 they cut the programme because of falling numbers. Alas, it was not long before the numbers started to go up again and to overflow into police cells. Now we are back to the old position. There are to be six new prisons and, in the meantime, emergency measures, including a power in the new Criminal Justice Bill for "floating structures"—the correct parliamentary term, I suppose, for the hulks in Great Expectations. It is an extremely difficult matter but what has happened is not perhaps the most glorious example of the Government's skill in long-term planning.
Does it matter if there is overcrowding? It does indeed. The Prison Service has been doing heroic things in improving standards. But it is not all that easy, for example, to close down a block in order to install new sanitation if you need every inch of space. How can you develop programmes of education, training or employment if there is no room? It becomes quite a problem encouraging prisoners to keep up family ties if they are whisked away to some distant establishment where family visits become ruled out. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf was right when he said that overcrowding is the most corrosive influence on the prison system and that an overcrowded prison is an unstable prison. There have been two quite serious riots since Strangeways and the Prison Service must sometimes feel that it is sitting on a powder keg.
Why is it, one is bound to ask, that so many people —more than in any other country in Europe, with the possible exception of Luxembourg and Scotland—should be sent to prison? From one point of view, the sharp increase is at first sight a little surprising. There is certainly far too much serious crime, and crime of a nature which warrants imprisonment. But the police have not suddenly become more successful in rounding up offenders. Nor has crime itself been increasing as sharply as all that in recent times. Figures of crimes known to the police are notoriously unreliable, but it is of interest that the Metropolitan Police and some other forces are beginning to record decreases. We hear a

1271
great deal too about the number of cases dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service and reports of criminal courts being closed for lack of business.
Against all that there are the consequences of recent criminal justice legislation, and there is the attitude of the courts and of the Government. Much of the increase last year—I find this disturbing—was caused by a rise in the number of short sentences. I say this with some diffidence but I cannot help thinking that some judges below the High Court, and some magistrates, although certainly not all, are reacting, perhaps without realising it, to what has become a popular feeling that offenders should not be allowed to get away with it. The feeling, fear, is fed by the tabloids which, as was shown only this week, do not hesitate to hold up to ridicule a judge whom they regard as having passed an over-lenient sentence. Whether that is true or not, it is an attitude which the Government have done nothing to discourage. It is the courts and not the Government which send people to prison. But their approach can be affected by such moves as tightening up on bail, discouraging too wide a use of cautions, taking over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal, discovering new areas of criminal behaviour which have somehow escaped the watchful eye of the Government for the past 14 years, and making pronouncements from on high that imprisonment works. I wonder what that pronouncement means. It is obvious that a criminal cannot pursue his nefarious activities while in prison. However, the proportion of crimes which end with a prison sentence is so tiny that imprisonment of itself can have only a marginal effect on reducing crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, forcefully pointed out in the debate on the humble Address.
I can understand the case for some element of retribution and vengeance, although it is extremely difficult to quantify that in terms of sentences, but I run into difficulties as regards rehabilitation and deterrence. As regards the ordinary prison, unlike, say, Grendon, I do not believe anyone now rates very high its role of encouraging the prisoner to lead an honest life on release. The trouble is that prisoners come back into the community in their thousands and if they are embittered and resentful, perhaps having learnt new tricks from other criminals, so much the worse. It was after all a recent Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who can hardly be written off as a trendy, who said in a White Paper issued in 1990:
"For most offenders, imprisonment has to be justified in terms of public protection, denunciation and retribution. Otherwise it can be an expensive way of making bad people worse. The prospects of reforming offenders are usually much better if they stay in the community, provided the public is properly protected".
I suppose that what the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have primarily in mind when they claim that imprisonment works is its deterrent effect both on the individual and on others. I can only say that there is not a great deal of experience to bear that out. During my lifetime there have been approved schools, penal servitude, two forms of preventive detention, corrective training, corporal punishment, borstal and the short, sharp shock. There is precious little evidence that any of them worked and they have all been abandoned. Some
1272
of them made matters worse. Four out of five of the youngsters undergoing the short, sharp shock were caught offending again within two years. When we had the cat it turned out that the subsequent criminal career of those so punished was worse than that of offenders convicted of strictly comparable offences who did not receive that punishment. We may be told that the reconviction rate of those on probation or subject to community service orders is not all that much better than that of those released from prison, but at any rate those punishments are very much cheaper.
As regards the deterrent effects on others, I shall content myself with a short quotation from the White Paper I mentioned a moment ago. It reads:
"It is unrealistic to construct sentencing arrangements on the assumption that most offenders will weigh up the possibilities in advance and base their conduct on rational calculation".
The Home Secretary said, I believe, that imprisonment has been shown to work in the United States. Although the prison population in the United States, taking county gaols, state prisons and federal prisons together, has more than doubled in the past decade to over a million, the President still puts violent crime at the top of the country's woes. However, if one looks to that country, there is a hopeful sign. Starting some 20 years ago, there was investment in high quality nursery education for considerable numbers of under-privileged children. Those children, if they had gone on to a good school, proved more likely than their contemporaries to get jobs and less likely to get involved in crime. Perhaps that points to the value of looking further at the social, economic and educational policies which in the longer term affect the causes of crime rather than trusting over much in the contribution which building new prisons and filling them will make towards solving our ills. If I am told that I am obviously a believer in outworn, liberal, airy-fairy doctrines I shall hear that with complete equanimity.
I conclude by reminding your Lordships that it is still the law of the land that a sentence of imprisonment is not to be imposed unless the court is satisfied that, because of the seriousness of the offence or, in the case of violent or sexual crimes, because of the need to protect the public, there is no other way of dealing with the offender. I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I am sure that this is a timely moment for us to discuss the problems of overcrowding in prisons and utter warnings about its dangers. It is timely because the thrust of current government policies undoubtedly appears to be leading deliberately towards the greater use of imprisonment in dealing with the problem of crime.
This is not the proper occasion, even if there were time, to discuss in any depth the merits or otherwise of the Government's current policies. I want to beg the Government to think very carefully about the dangers of overcrowding. Even if I assume that their policies are right in leading to greater dependence on imprisonment, I urge them not to press those policies until they have provided an adequate amount of proper prison accommodation. I believe that, if they press those

1273
policies, and overcrowding—which is already serious, as the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, indicate—were to get worse, without doubt we would find the position deteriorating rather than improving. That would be a tragedy and would put back the attack on the crime wave to a serious extent.
The problem is serious. When there is overcrowding a number of things inevitably happen. First, the danger of prison riots increases. Secondly, the morale of prison officers will be increasingly damaged and recruitment of more prison officers of the right kind and with the right training will be damaged. Also, when prisoners are released they will be liable to be a greater menace to society than when they went in to prison. To pursue a policy which allows overcrowding to occur would be a disaster. I do not believe that that is too strong a word to use.
I do not contest the Government's policy. I hope that we shall have another opportunity to debate the merits of that policy. But, even given that the policy is right, they should tread very carefully in implementing it unless and until a proper amount of prison accommodation, properly staffed, is available. That warning is my main purpose in speaking today.
Perhaps I may put that warning in context and say a few words about the policy perspective. I am certainly not one of those criminal penal reformers who believe that punishment is wrong per se. The criminal who commits a serious offence ought to expect imprisonment. The public increasingly demand i do not believe that any elected government can brush that demand on one side. Prison is an indispensable instrument of punishment. It is also an indispensable means of protecting the safety of the public against dangerous criminals. But we must always bear in mind that all the evidence, here and overseas, indicates that prison is not the best means of deterring crime or of reforming criminals. Penal policy has to deal with punishment, but ultimately its objective must be to reduce crime. We must not allow our concentration on punishment, necessary though that is, to blind us to its ultimate purpose. I am afraid that all the evidence points increasingly to the conclusion that prison is the most expensive and least effective means of deterring and reforming.
We must therefore, as a matter of urgency, concentrate on developing alternatives to imprisonment which will be more effective and also—and surely this is important—much more economical and less wasteful of money. I hope that your Lordships will find an opportunity to discuss that matter in depth at an early moment. Before I sit down I urge the Government to do all that they can to prevent an increase in the prison population until they have provided an adequate amount of proper prison accommodation.
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has the gratitude of all of us in this House for initiating the debate at this time. He and other noble Lords who are to speak subsequently in the debate will devote some of what they say to the
1274
effects of overcrowding in prisons and the handling of that situation by this Government. I hope that the House will permit me to digress and draw the attention of the House to the effect of overcrowding in prisons on an outside community, one which at the moment is faced with dramatic evidence of the effect of the Government's present policy on its own way of life.
Rural Buckinghamshire, between Marlow and High Wycombe, has, in the midst of an area of outstanding natural beauty, a young offenders' institution. One of the direct effects of this Government's policy over the past year has been such a dramatic rise in the prison population—I believe it to be something of the order of 16 per cent.—that the Home Office has had to cast around for places to put the additional prisoners. In the past few weeks this community has had practical experience of the effects of that policy and of the Government's policy of open government and the application of the Citizen's Charter. I shall illustrate that if I may.Only a year ago the Government seemed to be committed, albeit in my view far too slowly and with important reservations, to the excellent proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and of the outstanding Chief Inspector of Prisons, Stephen Tumim. All that seems to have changed in just 12 months, and a party which is desperate to regain favour with the electorate has seized on genuine fears about rising crime and thrown itself wholeheartedly into support of the ill-informed prejudice of the "Lock 'em up" brigade within its own ranks in a bid for popularity.
At the end of last year, as the Home Office cast around for places to put the resulting prisoners, someone's eye lighted on Finnamore Wood Camp. In 1968, Buckinghamshire County Council had given planning permission for that camp to be used as an open borstal. Just 18 months ago the parish council at nearby Lane End was told that the institution was to be closed altogether. Great was the local celebration. The institution houses up to 50 young offenders at a time. In 10 months last year there were 70 escapes. The effect on local crime, especially burglary and car theft, was the despair of the local police and residents.
On 14th December last year the Guardian carried a headline,
"Mothballed jails to ease crowding",
which contained the revelation that,
"Finnamore Wood Young Offenders' Institution in Oxfordshire"—
which it is not—
"is to be converted for use as an open prison for 100 adults".
There had been no consultation with any relevant local authority, elected representatives or local residents. Further, to date, as I understand it, no official notification has ever been received by Buckinghamshire County Council, Wycombe District Council, Lane End Parish Council or even the sitting Tory MP—although rumour has it that a Tory MP in an adjoining constituency whom the Home Office appeared to think represented this area was told.
Disbelief, incredulity and fears for the future were the results in that community. Phone calls and letters to the Home Office are as yet unanswered. Last week, on 28th January, a group of local residents went to see the

1275
Government in the hope of being reassured. They were told for the first time officially that from 1st April, 106 adult male offenders would be moving in next-door. There would be no physical barriers, no uniforms, no searches and no guarantees would be given to them that violent offenders, drug offenders or sexual offenders would not be housed here, although the governor offered them the sop that convicted murderers would not be for the time being.
They were told that three members of staff would be on duty at night for 106 prisoners but that in the event of trouble a phone call would be made to the police, although there was no hot line and the local police station at Marlow closes at 8 p.m., with calls re-routed to Aylesbury and High Wycombe. They were told that the inmates would be category D offenders, they were therefore low risk, and in the light of that the residents should feel secure. However, in view of the chief inspector's report about the Wymott riot, it is clear that the placing of unsuitable prisoners in establishments with insufficient security for their needs was apparent and manifestly taking place even before the increase in numbers put added pressure on the Home Office.
That is the way in which the Conservative Government, who are the party of the Citizen's Charter, treat the citizens of the jewel in their local government crown, Buckinghamshire. That is the way in which decent people in a decent community are treated. If such behaviour continues, if that is the way in which the Government manage not only overcrowding in prisons but also the communities which are most affected, I am afraid to say that the greatest achievement of this Home Secretary is likely to go down in history as being that he made his predecessor, the right honourable Kenneth Baker, seem like a great liberal reformer.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the debate. I am also grateful to him for the indulgence that he offered me. For fear of overcrowding my successors in this debate, I shall try to avoid taking advantage of that indulgence. The speeches that have already been made make it more likely that I shall succeed in doing so.
The first three years following my report witnessed dramatic improvements on the prison scene. The Government and all those who work within the prisons deserve our congratulations in helping to bring that about. However, it has to be accepted that that improvement would not have been possible without the fall in the prison population.
Unfortunately, the reduction in the total population has proved shortlived. Its corrosive influence is once more at work eating away at the improvements which were achieved. To avoid that happening, we made recommendations which included a recommendation designed to provide an early warning system. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that whereas the vast majority of our recommendations were accepted, that recommendation was ignored. Fortunately it appears that in the noble Lord, Lord Allen, we have a very efficient early warning system.
1276
The adverse consequences of overcrowding were again demonstrated by the unfortunate events during the Wymott disturbance, to which reference has already been made. Among the causes identified by Judge Tumim in his report on that disturbance were the receipt,
"in the weeks before the disturbance [of prisoners in] unmanageable numbers".
In assessing the extent of overcrowding you cannot simply compare the national capacity with the national population of prisoners. You have to break down the figures. At the present time it is in the north west and in the large local prisons that the problem occurs. Figures provided by the Prison Governors' Association indicate that in 11 large local prisons the prison population is at present 100 per cent. in excess of their respective operational capacities. I am also told, and I quote the words of the chairman of the association. that
"All the North West local prisons have only coped with the population rise by moving prisoners around the country in a way that it is difficult to defend … We are building up a significant number of prisoners with a justifiable grudge against the prison service for moving them so far away from home. The situation is more acute at Manchester where it has been necessary to move unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners all over the country on 'Operation Shuttle',"—
as he describes it—
"on occasions under restraint".
Let me say straight away that I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, as to the necessity of imprisoning certain offenders. There can be no doubt about that. If the problems to which I have been referring were attributable to prisoners of that nature being incarcerated, then I would not be so concerned as I am. Unfortunately, that is not what has been happening. As a result of a change of climate, the importance of avoiding custody when it is appropriate to do so has been forgotten. A factor which has undoubtedly contributed to this change of climate is that the Government, who give a lead in these matters, have abandoned preaching the need for restraint in the use of prisons. The message which is being received loud and clear by all those involved, in particular magistrates throughout the country, is that it is necessary to get tough with crime. It is that policy which is resulting in the bulk of the increase in the population of our long-suffering local prisons. It is people who previously could expect, for example, to be remanded on bail who are now being remanded in custody. There has been an increase of 44 per cent. in those who are being remanded in custody, albeit that they have not been convicted, and a substantial proportion of them ultimately will not receive a custodial sentence.
Then there are the fine defaulters and I take them as an example only because they illustrate the point I am making. Between November 1992 and the end of 1993 their number increased by more than 100 per cent. to 526. That is a very small figure indeed, but during 1993 20,000 fine defaulters were in custody, in prison. Each of those fine defaulters had to be processed through the system, so the cumulative effect is quite substantial. Then there are the convicted offenders, some of whom would not have gone to prison but who are now doing so. Others who would have gone for a short time now go for a slightly longer time. A few months' extra sentence

1277
provides no practical benefit but clogs the system. Its adverse effects have been highlighted by what happened to the fictional character now known as the "Ambridge One".
The consequences are not confined to the effect on the prisoner. There is the stress on the family and the loss of employment. It is indisputable that the cost of the whole exercise is immense—money which could be so well used elsewhere, not least for the victims of crime. It is an ironic consequence of the present policy that the method of assessing compensation for those who suffer criminal injuries is being revised in a way which will mean that the amount of compensation which they receive in a great many cases, will be dramatically reduced.
That is not the only economy which is being made at the same time as this massive extra expenditure is being incurred. Sanitation programmes are being postponed. The decision has been made to close 10 to 11 bail and probation hostels because there was a temporary bleep in their occupancy rates. The cut is being made to save £1.2 million this year and £2.5 million in 1995 and 1996. Yet the hostels are a constructive way of achieving an alternative to imprisonment at much less than half the cost, and the rate of offending of those in the hostels is a commendable 5 per cent. What grieves me about decisions of this nature is the message which is given to the probation service. It is being told: "We are really not interested in the contribution which you make".
While, of course, the need to address serious crime must not be ignored, those responsible for setting the climate in which the majority of minor criminals are sentenced must recognise their responsibility continually to drive home the message that in the case of the majority of offences imprisonment is an immensely expensive process and that it should be reserved for those, and only those, for whom it is appropriate. It needs to be reiterated repeatedly that if prison is used when it is not necessary, then it is frustrating, not furthering, the objectives of the criminal justice system. It is an expensive way of making the criminal justice system less effective.
I hope that when replying to the debate the noble Earl will be able to assure us, with his usual frankness, that the Government are again committed to reducing the prison population. I apologise to noble Lords for taking longer than my allotted time.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord certainly made admirable use of his borrowed time and I do not grudge it to him at all. In a debate like this every paragraph one utters has to contain a whole chapter of meaning. I shall be as condensed as I can.
I wish to start by reassuring those of your Lordships who read in a corner of the press that I was a supporter of the short, sharp shock that I believe that that experiment was not successful and that we have not yet found out how to do it. There are two ways in which, nevertheless, your Lordships can tackle the problem.
1278
Roughly put, one is to move the people through the system quicker; the other is to send fewer of them into it to start with. On the first leg, noble Lords should recognise what the noble and learned Lord has just said: the concentration of overcrowding in the remand wings —remembering that a remand prisoner has the most privileges —costs the most to service and requires the most prison officer time. Generally, the prisoner lives in the most squalid conditions of all prisoners, although he has not been convicted of any crime. We should recognise that some of the population results from the number of people waiting for the time of the court to be available for their case to be heard and that there is something we can therefore do about the time of the court which does not impinge on the crimes those people are alleged to have committed. That ties up with a report by the Home Office in 1986 called Distribution of Business between the Crown and Magistrates' Courts. The report pointed out that in the Greater London area in the Crown Courts 10 per cent. of the case load and 8.8 per cent. of court time were taken up by trying cases involving the handling of goods worth less than £50 —in other words, petty shoplifting.
We addressed that question during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill in 1988, and I ask your Lordships to look at it again and consider that, if that offence were made summary, the whole of that business would be taken from the Crown Court. It would, of course, be added to the business of the magistrates' courts, which would have a heavier load, but they in turn would lose the committal proceedings for those cases, which would save them time. It would also save a great deal of money in legal aid because proceedings in magistrates' courts are cheaper. It is argued that the stigma of imprisonment is such that the penalty should never be given in a court without a jury, yet your Lordships have happily granted the award of a six months' imprisonment sentence for grievous bodily harm to magistrates. In any case, it would help a great deal if the whole of the rule which I suggest were applied only to the first offence. I believe that your Lordships should look at the matter again, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to do so, when I shall be able to speak more fully and convincingly.
The other thing we can do is not to send so many people to prison. A great array of ways to avoid sending so many people to prison has been mentioned and more will come up. I speak for the voluntary sector. I spend by far the greater part of my productive time working in that sector to prevent people from going into prison, or from committing crimes at all, but, if they do commit them, finding them some form of treatment which is more constructive and less expensive than imprisonment. A week of treatment by the voluntary sector for someone who has committed a crime typically costs £50, whereas putting that person in a custodial institution costs £440. In popular parlance, there are megabucks to be saved in that area.
The voluntary agencies can intercept young people on the way to crime by identifying areas of the country where there are few alternatives for them to discover who they are and assert their maturity other than in criminal activity. Other activities can be provided through the use of volunteers, with a little paid

1279
professional supervision and help. That is beginning to be done quite successfully, particularly in the area for which the Home Office is responsible. That is partly because the Home Office has ring-fenced 5 per cent. of the budget of the probation service and said that the money must go to the voluntary sector. We are grateful for that, although it does not compensate for what we lose in other budgetary terms direct from central government.
I use my last seconds to ask noble Lords to impress upon the Department of Health the advisability of doing the same for the social work departments for which it is responsible so that we, the voluntary sector, can obtain the support we need and demonstrate how to exploit the resources of the voluntary sector in support of young people and freedom and avoid overcrowding prisons.
3.47 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if I had more time, I would pay tribute to the work done by previous speakers, not only today but in many ways over the years. The most useful thing that I have done in preparing for the debate is to visit Leicester prison where there is considerable overcrowding. At 75 per cent., it is not so bad as the 100 per cent. mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, but it is typical of many local prisons.
In case I am cut off before I have expanded sufficiently on the theme, I wish to say clearly that the condition of overcrowding is not an act of God. It is not like the weather. It is due to decisions. For many years I and numerous others have said that we send too many people to prison. It happens to a greater extent than anywhere else in Europe. It happens because the judiciary send them there. But that is not the message that comes out of the prisons. The general view is that people go to prison because Mr. Howard sends them there. 'That is rather unfair. According to the head of the criminal department of the Home Office, Mr. Faulkner, Mr. Howard has reversed previous policies. As was said earlier, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in his distinguished speech, the prison population was increasing even before Mr. Howard appeared on the scene.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl must know that no Home Secretary sends people to prison; that is the judgment of the courts.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I call that a quibbling intervention—I repeat, a quibbling intervention, in case Hansard did not get it down the first time. Everyone knows that judges are much influenced by government policy. To say that judges must take the whole blame and that the Government are not responsible for the increase in the prison population is not worthy of the noble Earl. He is a crafty performer but he will not get away with that one. He has now taken two minutes out of my five minutes, so I must push on.
Leicester prison has 340 prisoners and 194 members of establishment. What is the result? Of the 340 prisoners there is work for only 200. The other 140 have nothing to do but play snooker, in spite of the well-intentioned efforts of the governor and staff. That
1280
is one result. Another is that two people share a cell and if matters progress as they are at present it will soon be three. Nobody will be pleased with that
I want to make one final point, of which I did give notice to the noble Earl who, I am sure, is not affected by my incivility. One of the problems is that in local prisons where overcrowding exists, the staff is not increased. At Leicester the staff has not increased from 194. Even if the number of prisoners rose to 400, there would not be an increase in the members of staff. It is not an easy problem to solve. If staff are transferred to the prison they will have to move home. There are difficulties too about moving prisoners. So a solution is not easy.
The governor of Leicester prison is an extremely enlightened man with enlightened colleagues. They have made a great deal of progress. I have visited the prison several times over the past few years. According to the governor—I hope it does not cause him any trouble in his career—the great impediment to progress in prisons is overcrowding. That is accepted throughout the prison service. There is no getting away from it.
What do the prison officers think? I am not sure that the noble Earl and his colleagues pay enough attention to prison officers. The Government seem anxious to bypass them by setting up privatised prisons which, as is well known, I regard as an obscenity. I shall riot dwell on that matter today. The Government do not pay attention to what prison officers say. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, who is the best friend they have in the House—and they have quite a few friends here—will agree that prison officers are dissatisfied. Overcrowding causes disruption, brings with it the danger of riots and prevents a meaningful relationship between staff and inmates.
That is the situation. What can be done about it? If I had another five minutes I would tell the House. As it is I simply pay my tribute to the noble Earl. Although it is painful for individuals, the net result today will be good —large numbers of Peers standing up, all with immeasurable expert knowledge, and announcing their feelings in regard to overcrowding.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the existence of overcrowding in prisons and the mischief caused thereby, which indeed stultifies any reasonable penal policy, needs no further expatiation. I propose only to address your Lordships on one subject; namely, what can be done to mitigate that mischief and obviate the overcrowding. But before I do so I hope that your Lordships will not think it offensive, coming from the Cross Benches, if I deprecate the making of party points in connection with this problem, whether implicitly on the one side or explicitly on the other. That can only darken penal counsel.
Of the proposals that are in sight for doing something to obviate the mischief, there is one put forward practically by the Government; namely, the building of five more prisons. But, inevitably, it will be some way in the future before they will be ready to take prisoners. On the other hand, they were put forward in the same breath as an urging of longer sentences.

1281
The second way is to make use of non-custodial remedies. That is left largely with the judiciary. But the judiciary cannot act altogether independently in these matters. The great American judge, Frankfurter, was asked what were the three most important judicial qualities. He said, "First, detachment; second, detachment; and third, detachment". Although I would put detachment first, recognising that it involves a certain amount of remoteness on the part of the judiciary, in fact the judges cannot be entirely—nor is it desirable that they should be—detached from current opinion. One needs only to read the newspapers, day in and day out, and one finds acutely expressed disquiet at lenient sentences and, indeed, anything less than a prison sentence being regarded as half baked. Although the judges will make full use of the alternate means, and indeed should consider also the practical proposals that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, there is a limit to what can be done without alienating the general population from the system of law itself.
Finally, in the absence of those two as immediate remedies, it seems to me that the only thing that can be done to give immediate relief is the halving of sentences; that is, the release immediately at half sentence. That is extremely difficult to do because there are some who cannot be released without causing grave affront to public opinion. But it is a specific that, in this desperate situation, should not be excluded.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, 20 years ago I had every reason to be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because the debate he initiated at that time enabled me to make my maiden speech on exactly the same subject as we are discussing today. The comments I made then are still valid today.
Prisoners' wives have had a raw deal, whether or not the prisons are overcrowded. Through the Assisted Prison Visits Unit, 90 per cent. of those seeking advice have been helped satisfactorily. Twenty years ago many prison governors were allowing two visits per month although only one visit was obtainable free. That same situation still exists. That is grossly unfair. So there still remains the question of financing those twice-monthly visits, for which a scheme should have been available before the end of this financial year. I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell the House whether there is a definite date for this vital scheme to start.
To keep families together outside gaol is difficult enough but inside gaol the contact between prisoners and their families on a more frequent basis is vital. I hope that when the two-monthly visits scheme operates it will be flexible. I understand, for instance, that granny does not count as family unless she is the only relative. I have heard concern expressed that should the assisted prison visits unit be contracted out the confidential nature of its work could be jeopardised. I should like reassurance on that point.
My views expressed today are rather wide of the debate, but I feel that they are relevant within the framework of the Government's plan for the future of prisons.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, indicated in his distinguished opening speech, the Home Secretary has told us that prison works and that stiffer sentencing and a more austere prison system are essential elements in the fight against crime. That was not the belief of previous Home Secretaries, who sensibly advocated sentencing policies designed as alternatives to prison, resulting, as has been indicated by a number of noble Lords, in a reduction in the numbers in prison. But now we have the situation where the prison population in the United Kingdom is the highest in Western Europe and is increasing at a rate of 200 a week.
Ostensibly, the accommodation available in the prison service roughly matches the number of prisons in the system but the prison population is not evenly spread across prison establishments. Prisoners have to be, or should be, separated according to status and security requirements, and as a consequence overcrowding is most acute in the old city centre and local prisons. In November last year the prison in Leeds, which is designed to hold 700 prisoners, held 1,106, while Shrewsbury had 303 prisoners in accommodation designed for 168.
Overcrowding causes stifling and often degrading living conditions for prisoners and very bad working conditions for staff. Cell sharing increased by 31 per cent. between 1992 and 1993, with more than 7,000 prisoners having to share a cell—sometimes two or three to a cell. But overcrowding also disrupts training and educational opportunities for prisoners because of too little space and too few resources to go round, thus making prisoners unprepared for their release. It destroys the morale of both staff and prisoners. It also leads to the inappropriate allocation of prisoners, which means that very often high security prisoners are able to disrupt the low security, lowly staffed establishments. That creates the type of problem to which the Inspector of Prisons, Judge Stephen Tumim, referred in the aftermath of last year's riots at Wymott. He said:
"Many of the inmates sent to Wymott were not suitable for the establishment and were extremely difficult to manage given the particular accommodation available".
But even if overcrowding does not lead to full-scale rioting, it does increase tension. In 1993 assaults on staff increased by 20 per cent. on 1992, and according to a recent Howard League report, suicides in prison rose by 12 per cent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his profound analysis of the prison service following the 1990 prison riots, made crystal clear that successful and enduring prison reform is dependent on the eradication of overcrowding. In their White Paper Care, Custody and Justice the Government endorsed that view, but unfortunately they also announced that it would be some years before they would be able to implement the Woolf recommendations. The report also committed the Government to abolishing by the end of 1994 the appalling practice of slopping out. It is ironic that we now hear that, because of overcrowding, that commitment is unlikely to be fulfilled.
The Government will no doubt argue that their plans to build six new prisons to be run by the private sector

1283
will alleviate overcrowding, but if these prisons are not ready in time—and there is every possibility that that will be the case—what we shall see is the greater use of prison cells and the new concept of floating prisons, and overcrowding in the prisons will reach unprecedented levels, turning many prisons into tinderboxes. Meanwhile, the staff in the public sector prison service face an uncertain future, being left to deal with the fury and anguish that overcrowding nurtures inside prison.
We need a prison system that is disciplined and challenging but humane and reforming. But to achieve that aim and to alleviate this dire problem of overcrowding the Government will need to abandon their fixation with privatisation; they will need to reaffirm their commitment to the Woolf agenda of reform; they will need to re-examine their policy on sentencing; and, most of all, they must tackle the underlying causes of crime. There must be a two-edged approach. We have to be tough on crime but equally tough on its causes. We cannot divorce policies on jobs and training, education, welfare and housing from the fight against crime. Only by taking that approach can we really tackle the problem of prison overcrowding.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, surely today the noble Earl owes it to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and to the House to tell us what is now the Government's policy on sentencing and on managing the prisons. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, grappled brilliantly with the cancer of overcrowding. When on Sunday television Mr. Humphrys suggested politely to the Home Secretary that his words ran directly counter to those of the noble and learned Lord, the evasive and somewhat arrogant reply was made:
I came here to discuss my policies, not those of Lord Woolf".
Since 1980 a general consensus has built up which includes most of the judges. Three outstanding Home Office reports —in 1988, 1990 and 1991—pointed the way. Perhaps I may give a few further quotes from them:
"Nobody now regards imprisonment as an effective means of reform".
The next has already been quoted:
"Imprisonment can be an expensive way of making people worse".
And,
"Most crimes are not violent. Punishment in the community is likely to be better for victim, public and offender".
On 12th December 1990 (at col. 569 of the Official Report) the noble Earl himself, commenting o the fall in the prison population at that date, said:
"This reflects a growing consensus that custody is not necessarily the right punishment for most offenders".
Then came Mr. Howard, the politician, on the scene —another lawyer with no criminal experience. I shall give a few quotes from him:
"More convictions and longer sentences.
More people will go to prison. I don't flinch from that.
No longer shall we judge our system of justice by a fall in the prison population.
Let's be clear—prison works.
We must take the thugs off the streets and the yobs who break the law".
My Lords, the language of the tabloids.
1284
Then came the Lord Chief Justice, backed by the ever-seductive voice of the past, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—an orchestrated onslaught on the Criminal Justice Act which had sought to remove the mischief of sentencing on offenders' records and using the ladder principle of ever-longer sentences, perpetuating the revolving door of incarceration. The. Government caved in. Out went unit fines that would have removed from prison the hundreds of fine defaulters referred to by the noble and learned Lord. Houdini-like, the noble Earl negotiated his humiliating U-turn.
What is the result of all this? These are the devastating figures given by the noble and learned Lord, the most outrageous of which is that there were 3,600 more untried women and men in custody by November 1993 during that year, which is a 44 per cent. increase. There were 1,500 more young persons under lock and key. There were 16,500 men in conditions certified for 13,000.
The noble Earl must not shirk this issue. Does he believe that prison works? Does he now measure the success of our system of justice by the height of the prison population? Has he ditched Woolf? He must riot treat us in this House to the infantile observation that prison removes people from society—even one of Mr. Howard's 10 year-old prisoners could comprehend that —nor can the noble Earl suggest that serious crime has increased by 44 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, said in a previous debate,
The treatment of offenders is one of the criteria by which to judge a mature and a caring society".
I ask the noble Earl this question: does he dispute that the utterances of the Home Secretary are indeed immature and uncaring, but do they now represent the policy of the Government?
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Masham of IIton: My Lords, we have heard today that many prisons exceed the certified normal accommodation levels. I will confine my few remarks to some health issues which may be causing problems and, unless action is taken, might give rise to some very serious problems in the future, especially in overcrowded prisons.
It has been made known, and I repeat it in this debate:
"We must act now to prevent the health disaster in New York from tuberculosis from being repeated in London".
Tuberculosis, like colds and flu, is caught from other people and commonly affects the lungs. It is a. disease traditionally associated with poverty and overcrowded housing. Those worst affected are recent immigrants from Asia, drug addicts, AIDS patients whose immune systems are damaged, and the prison population. Overcrowding in prisons, which house many of the people most at risk, could be the very successful breeding ground for mycobacterium tuberculosis.
The World Health Organisation last April declared TB a global emergency and it is increasing in Europe. What is so worrying is that drug resistant strains are already appearing in British patients following the trend seen in America. The reason for this drug-resistant form is that it now comes in strains diversified enough to

1285
outsmart almost the entire range of antibiotics available to fight it. If the patient interrupts treatment the chances are good that resistant strains will be passed along to others.
We so often follow, a few years later on, the trends in America. We should not be complacent. America had this problem in New York prisons. Should we not be doing what America did before we have this problem here? They put in isolated ventilation to stop the spread of this frightening situation. Have we got this system in any of our prisons? Will the Minister say what precautions we are taking and what plans are being made to stop the spread of infection?
When one sees the conveyor belt situation of prisoners coming in and out of busy, crowded prisons, it is easy to imagine what could happen. That includes the communities which the prisoners go out into. Are our at risk prisoners who cough and who have weight loss being screened? Is care being taken that prisoners who might be HIV infected are not given Bcg vaccination?
I hope that the Minister will give us some reassuring answers today. When one sees the flow of humanity coming in and out of prison it is not surprising to see many with severe medical problems. The ones whom I have seen and who give grave concern to many people are the mentally ill, the majority who suffer from schizophrenia, the alcoholic and the drug addict. It was interesting to see last year that a specialised unit for the mentally ill had opened in Brixton Prison. On the one hand, that seems good but, on the other, very worrying that they are coming to a busy prison to get looked after with so many hospital beds having closed. I suppose that that is inevitable.
Alcoholism is a very real problem too. Prison does not seem to be the correct place for those who want to rehabilitate. If they could go to rehabilitation units instead of prison, would not that relieve prison crowding and be better for everyone?
Drug abuse within overcrowded prisons, where morale will be low, must be a very real danger. In fact, some prisoners say that it is easier to get drugs within prison than outside. Useful work and projects within prisons, such as drug rehabilitation courses, should be available. Voluntary work, such as transcribing for the blind, which does take place in some prisons, gives prisoners the chance to help others worse off than themselves. That is good for their humility and their self-esteem.
The most depressing aspect of overcrowding in prison is when prisoners are only seen as a number. They do their time without any form of rehabilitation and go out worse people than when they went in. With the bleak prospect of no employment on discharge and no useful training and work within a prison when it is too crowded, what else can the prisoner think of when he leaves but a life of crime? That is not good for him and even worse for the community he goes into. With so much crime and increasing violence in society, the overcrowding of prisons may get worse unless a lasting solution can be found.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend the Minister's intervention needs underlining. Overcrowding in prisons is not the direct responsibility of the Government and cannot be such. It is the responsibility of the judges. The Government can influence, but they cannot control. The point I wish to underline is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon; namely, the role of the newspapers, which always call for an increase in any sentence they mention.
Yesterday, the Daily Express splashed across its front page its fury at somebody not being sent to prison. I shall not comment on the case. Very often it may be that the tabloids are right or seem to be right, but they always make that point and in that direction. I believe that their influence on the judges may be just as important as the influence of politicians, even of the Home Secretary himself.
Surely, there is a remedy for overcrowding and it is very simple. Any commodity which is in short supply should be rationed. The point was made that sentences should perhaps be halved. I believe that that would be wrong. Some sentences could possibly be halved; some not. The situation should be dealt with by using the probation system. There is no question but that prisoners would be pleased to be released and that many of them are no danger to the community. There would have to be careful selection.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, listed obsolete punishments where recidivism became worse. He omitted one obsolete punishment—did he not? -namely, capital punishment.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, when I became home affairs spokesman for my party in this House, I realised that I had a very great deal to learn, particularly about prisons. I began my learning process with the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and with the Government's subsequent White Paper. I thought both were really excellent documents. The Woolf Report provided a clear diagnosis of the problems of the prison service and pointed a way forward. The White Paper showed a willingness to tackle the issues and also that the Government had the political will to do so. Both documents were impressive because they showed a new vision, particularly arising out of the darkness and ashes of the Strangeways prison riot.
During the same period I also started visiting prisons. I had discussions with governors, staff, representatives of the Prison Officers' Association and probation officers. Also, in The Verne prison and at the Portland young offenders' institution I talked to quite large groups of inmates. I was struck by the extent to which the Woolf proposals and the White Paper had widespread support throughout the prison service, and at all levels. It seems to me a good deal of that is now under threat.
There are two ways in which the reforms are at risk. The first, mentioned by several noble Lords, is that

1287
overcrowding must endanger programmes which would help inmates to go out into society and lead more productive lives. Those programmes give them skills they have not acquired prior to conviction. During my visits to prisons I have seen some excellent facilities for giving prisoners quite sophisticated skills, particularly in electronics, for example at The Verne. I find it difficult to believe that those facilities will not be put in jeopardy by overcrowding, and I would be very sorry to see that happen.
There is also a deeper sense in which overcrowding threatens what I take to be the philosophy of the Woolf Report and the White Paper. Not only do prisoners need to acquire skills in prison; they also need to learn or re-learn certain kinds of values. The Woolf philosophy, I thought, was to put at the centre of our concern with imprisonment ideas about justice, fairness and human dignity within the prison regime. I find it difficult to understand how we can expect prisoners, when they come out of prison, to have a strong sense of justice and human dignity and a concern for the rights of others if they have been through a regime that is an explicit denial of those things.
Overcrowding threatens the place of those values within the prison service. It means that prison officers, governors and others have to deal with prisoners in a much more ad hoc way. They have to use discretion far more, or the rules have to be bent to cope with overcrowding. If we are concerned to try to inculcate a sense of justice, of fair play and impartiality in treating like cases in like manner, then overcrowding potentially undermines those values. Those values are as important as the skills that prisoners learn in workshops. I worry that overcrowding may well undermine all that. I reject the idea that concern with those sorts of values means taking a sentimental attitude towards penal policy—a phrase used by Mr. Portillo recently to describe current penal thought.
It seems to me that to try to get people to act from a sense of justice and to require them to pay some attention to human dignity and so on between themselves, as prisoners in an institution, is actually an exacting sort of process and is very far from being lax and permissive. Therefore I hope the Government are still committed to the Woolf reforms. The values as well as the skill side of prison are very important and need to be reinforced. I worry that overcrowding threatens all that and that the vision held out to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and by the Government's White Paper is in grave danger of being lost.
4.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, no one can be comfortable with the increase in the prison population already noted by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The two areas of crime which have been attracting most press attention—offending on bail and offending by young people—have produced substantial increases in the number of remands in custody and of young people in prison. The difficulties seem to be occurring in local prisons such as the one I know so well in Lincoln. This can result in prisoners being moved far from their families, with the result that anxiety and tension
1288
increase. Overcrowding at critical points may also mean a delay in improving living conditions. Indeed, the Chief Inspector of Prisons was reported in the Guardian on 27th January as warning that overcrowding will force the Government to abandon their commitment to end slopping out by December.
However, I wish to urge upon your Lordships two words of caution. First, in the "oldspeak" of the prison department, a number of places were designated at all prisons as "the certified normal accommodation". That was based on the old Victorian ideal of one person per cell. Today we speak of "operational capacity", which acknowledges that it is sometimes desirable, for good reasons, to put two men in a cell—for company or for the prevention of suicide. So we always need to be wary in interpreting individual statistics, even though it is difficult to dispute the picture and the statistics which have been given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
My second word of caution is to remind your Lordships that overcrowding is always a politically useful term for both government and reforrners. It may sound strange, but in conversation with prisoners in the course of my work as Bishop to prisons I am often led to think that, on the whole, many prisoners are much more interested in such issues as getting units of freedom, more telephone calls, better visits, more home leave and custody nearer home than in integral sanitation, particularly when certain basic matters have been improved such as better sewers or more lavatories and showers on landings.
The main issue, I would suggest to your Lordships, is that overcrowding avoids in some ways the real problems. These are to do with the way that the Government have rapidly increased the public impression that punishment will in the short term ease long-term social problems. The problem is compounded by disillusion among prison staff about the usefulness of their work and its security, as they see more and more violent and dangerous people sent to prison to be held in more relaxed circumstances. We ought not to let our understandable and proper concern for numbers deflect attention from the real issue, which is still the fashioning of a long-term enlightened strategy for all those committed to custody.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, many years ago it was widely believed that prison, properly used, could encourage a high proportion of offenders to start an honest life on their release. I distinctly remember being addressed some 30 years ago, as a young recorder with a body of other recorders, by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker. He sought to persuade us to give longer rather than shorter sentences, on the basis that short sentences had little or no reforming quality.
Nearly 30 years on the White Paper issued by the Government in 1990 entitled Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public stated:
"Nobody now regards imprisonment, in itself. as an effective means of reform for most prisoners … However much prison staff try to inject a positive purpose into the regime, as they do, prison

1289
is a society which requires virtually no sense of responsibility from prisoners. Normal social or working habits do not fit. The opportunity to learn from other criminals is pervasive".
A year later in the White Paper entitled Custody, Care and Justice, which was the Government's response to the Woolf Report, somewhat stronger terms were used:
"the effects of imprisonment can be severe. It breaks up families. It is harder for prisoners to retain or subsequently to secure law-abiding jobs. Imprisonment can lessen people's sense of responsibility for their actions and reduce their self-respect, both of which are fundamental to law-abiding citizenship. Some, often the young and less experienced, acquire in prisons a wider knowledge of criminal activity. Imprisonment is costly for the individual, for the prisoner's family and for the community".
I turn to the issue of prison overcrowding. In a statement to the Woolf Inquiry in 1990, the then Director General of the Prison Service said:
"the life and work of the Prison Service has, for the last 20 years, been distorted by the problems of overcrowding. That single factor has dominated prisoners' lives, it has produced often intolerable pressure on the staff, and as a consequence it has soured industrial relations. It has skewed managerial effort and it has diverted management away from positive developments. The removal of overcrowding is, in my view, an indispensable precondition of sustained and universal improvement in prison conditions".
The danger of overcrowding was recognised by the judiciary many years ago. In one of the early guideline cases, R v. Bibi, the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, made this observation:
"This case opens up wider horizons, because it is no secret that our prisons at the moment are dangerously overcrowded. So much so that sentencing courts must be particularly careful to examine each case to ensure, if an immediate custodial sentence is necessary, the sentence is as short as possible, consistent only with the duty to protect the interests of the public and to punish and deter the criminal".
The Court of Appeal has made it clear on many occasions since then that imprisonment should be regarded as a sanction of the last resort, reserved for the more serious and violent offenders.
In considering the validity of the Home Secretary's proposition, enunciated by him on 6th October 1993 at the Conservative Party conference,
"Let us be clear—prison works",
I should like to invite your Lordships' attention to the work of Roger Tarling, the head of the Home Office Research and Planning Unit entitled Analysing Offending which was published as recently as last year. He observed, among other things:
"A general increase in the use of imprisonment, either by increasing the proportion sentenced to custody, increasing the sentences imposed, or increasing the proportion of the sentence that offenders spend in custody, would not affect crime levels by any substantial amount. This would, however, have a significant effect on an already overburdened prison system".
That is so because so few offenders are caught and sentenced to custody that any impact on the crime rate by the increased resort to imprisonment is extremely limited.
Mr. Tarling's analysis and his conclusion that a reduction in the crime rate of 1 per cent. would require an increase in the prison population of some 25 per cent. was referred to in some detail in a report dated December 1993, produced by the Prison Reform Trust. The cost of capital construction of new prisons to hold that number of prisoners would exceed £1 billion.
1290
Any excessive use of imprisonment may indeed add to the rise in crime. Given the high cost of running prisons, the use of imprisonment is bound to divert resources for more effective methods of reducing crime. I refer in particular to better régimes in existing prisons, with more opportunities for education and work and a greater chance of directing the lives of some inmates in a more positive direction. As the Prison Reform Trust report observed in its final sentence:
"in that sense at least, prison is part of the crime problem, rather than part of the solution".
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I shall speak about the rehabilitation of prisoners and one avenue by which the overcrowding of prisons could be reduced in the long term as recidivism would in many cases be cut. First, and again I have done this previously, I mention a daily programme of educational work and counselling carried out at Grendon Underwood Prison where I have worked. Such a programme, costly as it is, would diminish the number of recidivists and go some way towards reducing the prison population.
Secondly, I speak on the distressing subject of child sexual abuse, not an easy subject on which to speak. Men convicted of sexually abusing children receive prison sentences. They are often segregated in prison because the prison population does not tolerate, and is often cruel to, men who offend against children, be it cruelty or child sexual abuse. Such men often leave prison in a worse state than when they first entered it. They move to another part of the country. They set up a new family and again indulge in child sexual abuse. Ultimately, they return again to prison. They are often reconvicted several times over, and the cycle continues.
I am chairman of a newly set up trust and I must therefore declare an interest. The five trustees and the staff seek to rehabilitate, treat and help those men in the community or in a residential setting. Help, support and counselling are offered to the wives and children. The trust provides an educational service in the form of lectures, seminars and conferences for social workers, teachers and youth leaders. We have an outstanding staff, all of whom are trained in that work.
I am grateful to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who generously saw me a fortnight ago and, without commitment, has advised me to apply to him for much needed resources. Pray heaven they may be forthcoming.
The Department of Health supports the scheme. We are grateful to prison governors, the probation service and social services for their co-operation in our desire and our hope to help such men outside prison so that they may not reoffend. We give them support and help when they return to the community. Child sexual abuse is responsible for crime and lasting unhappiness. We must surely deal consistently with that offence against children, thus creating an awareness of the damage done by child sexual abuse, and by tackling the problem, along with probation, we may go a long way towards reducing the prison population.
4.38 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, overcrowding in prisons is pernicious and self-defeating for a number of reasons, both practical and ethical. The most obvious practical drawback is that it makes prisons difficult to run. It probably necessitates the transfer of prisoners from overcrowded to less crowded prisons, often a considerable distance from family contacts and legal advisers. It almost certainly interferes with any vital refurbishment programme. It puts major obstacles in the way of producing a structured regime for individual prisoners. It increases the threat of disorder and it makes it more difficult to control certain facts of prison life which are never far below the surface, such as drug abuse, sexual abuse and bullying.
Prison overcrowding also puts a strain on the relationship between prisoner and prisoner and between prisoner and warder. With that in mind, should we be sending fewer offenders to prison? The answer is almost certainly yes, but noble Lords must bear in mind that, whatever various siren voices say, some people will have to go to prison, whatever the political climate. It is surely right that people who persistently commit grave offences should be taken out of circulation for the protection of the community. Let us not, however, muddy the waters by declaring that it is being done because prison works, for in terms of recidivism it almost certainly does not.
There are undoubtedly some offences where a custodial sentence might be better directed into, say, a community service order. Perhaps I may supply an example to which my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf has referred. In the case of someone who wilfully and persistently refuses to pay a fine, in the final event a suspended custodial sentence is often imposed. I have to say that in such cases the money usually miraculously appears before implementation of the sentence and the court has therefore won what is in effect a game of bluff. But in some instances, and they are few—in my experience only 1 to 2 per cent. of the total—the custodial part of the sentence will be activated and someone will end up in prison for debt, with all its Dickensian overtones. How much better it would be for such offenders to help to dig out a canal or to beautify the garden of an old people's home. And, when one considers that the average prisoner costs £22,000 a year to keep, one can see that a major injection of funds into community sentencing would make considerable sense in these straitened times.
But my purpose this afternoon is not to discuss who should or should not go to jail. I am more concerned with what happens to those who are sent there. The Prison Service Report for 1992–93 stated that there were on average 23½ hours of structured work per week per prisoner, with a further 22 hours in association. That is not nearly enough, as I am sure your Lordships will agree. But how does one increase that total under overcrowded conditions?
There are two other important aspects of life inside which must be endangered by overcrowding; namely, education and the various behavioural courses aimed at
1292
correcting personality problems. In my view, mistakenly, education is not compulsory for those over school-leaving age. But in any case, with the system under strain, this seems to me to be almost academic —if your Lordships will forgive the use of the word in this context. Likewise, the successful running of anger management and drug, alcohol and sexual abuse courses must be in jeopardy when resources are stretched to breaking point.
Some two-and-a-half years ago the Government produced a thoughtful and far-reaching publication about the prison service entitled Custody, Care and Justice. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a brief quotation from that. It stated:
"A decent service depends on the end of overcrowding. The Government accepts therefore that the objective should be that no prisoner should have to be accommodated in overcrowded conditions".
Surely it could not be put better. But can that be anything other than a pious aspiration in present circumstances?
Despite spending a commendable £310 million on new estate and £207 million on existing estate in 1992–93, on which the Government are to be congratulated, the fact is that the inexorable rise in the prison population which we saw for most of last year will be accentuated in the months to come by new sentencing policies and even new laws. Of course there are still new prisons to come on stream but the whole process of creating new establishments is inevitably slow and careful.
In the meantime, how likely is it that we shall have to use army camps? As my noble friend Lord Allen asked, are prison hulks to be resurrected? Is it to be back to the police cells again? I hope that the Minister, with his usual courtesy, will be able to answer some of the more pressing questions today, for surely the issue is not whether by manipulation the prison service can somehow manage to accommodate all that the courts send to them but rather whether the service will be a worthy example of a civilised society in action in the years to come.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, carries such conviction and authority in everything that she says. In supporting her words about the importance of the underlying principles of her new trust, the Faithfull Foundation, I can be brief.
A year or so ago I took part in a BBC radio programme called "The Moral Maze". It was about sexual offences and offenders. As your Lordships will know, when such people are put in prison they are regarded as the scum of the earth. Rehabilitating them has been an almost impossible task for a prison governor. One of the contributors to the programme was able to demonstrate conclusively that, with the collaboration of the offender, treatment is possible and that by a long and arduous process of facing the offender with the consequences of his actions it is possible to reform and rehabilitate him so that eventually, after he

1293
has completed his sentence, he can be safely released into society. The odds are some 300: 1 that he will not re-offend.
This most difficult, unpopular, unsavoury work will be developed by the highly-qualified and experienced staff of the Faithfull Foundation, founded and guided by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. She has been tireless is raising funds for the foundation. She has overcome every one of the many and varied obstacles which have been put in its way both by sceptical bureaucrats and by ill-intentioned persons who are not going to have any of that kind of thing in their back yard. The noble Baroness has earned, and her trust deserves—and I hope that it will receive—every possible support from Her Majesty's Government both in financial and in administrative terms. It is sharply relevant to the problem of overcrowding in prisons.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I wish to begin by supporting two points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. The first is the problem of prisoners being far away from home. I recently visited Exeter prison, which contained prisoners from Preston. They were certainly not as happy as the more local inmates. They had a slightly unsettling influence, which is a problem of overcrowding. I also strongly support the second point made by my noble and learned friend. I have been approached by the chairman of the local board of prison visitors, a senior probation officer and some magistrates. It relates to the closure of bail hostels. A hostel at Newton Abbot, which I know slightly, is on the list. Last year it had a throughput of 200 offenders. If the hostel is closed they will probably join the 3,000 remand prisoners in Exeter prison, of whom only 1,000 finally received custodial sentences. Both the remand in prison and the loss of the bail hostel will lead to overcrowding.
My main point relates to my support of a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. It is the issue of drug offenders and their treatment in prison. A recent study carried out by the Plymouth probation service showed that people who are on drug harm reduction courses have a significantly reduced chance of re-offending. Fine, they can be dealt with on probation. The group in Plymouth runs a harm course in Dartmoor prison. It appeared from the study that before treatment those undergoing the course had an average income of less than £70 per week but were spending more than £300 per week on drugs. If one multiplies the difference by four, one realises that they were obtaining £1,000 per month illegally by burglary and the like. After treatment, nearly 60 per cent. were not offending or obtaining money illegally. The average expenditure for the whole group was only £35; that is, half their average income. If the prisons were to establish a uniform and efficient drug harm reduction programme they would be sending out prisoners who were much less likely to re-offend and to come through the revolving-door system.
Drugs are readily available in prison but the problem is that often they are not those that the addicts or
1294
offenders are used to. They then get used to a strange cocktail and they come out in a worse condition than when they went in. I strongly urge the Minister and the Home Office to give due consideration to the drug harm reduction programmes. I believe that they should try to establish such a system throughout all the prisons because in the longer term—and prison building is also in the longer term—that will reduce the overcrowding in prisons.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said at the beginning of his speech this afternoon, we should thank him for initiating this debate and for giving us the opportunity to listen not only to his own admirable speech but also to that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whose outstanding report on prisons published three years ago has rightly formed the basis of this afternoon's debate.
I propose to raise four issues: first, overcrowding in local prisons; secondly, slopping-out; thirdly, the prison ombudsman; and, lastly, the position of drug smugglers held in prisons in this country.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, devoted a substantial amount of his all too brief speech to the problem of overcrowding in our local prisons. As the House will recognise, that is the central issue as regards overcrowding. Because of security factors, it is not a problem in dispersal prisons, nor yet in most closed and open category C training prisons, but in the locals it is once again extremely severe.
In a Written Answer given to me by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on 13th December of last year it was admitted that Bedford was 39 per cent. overcrowded; Cardiff, 38 per cent.; Canterbury, 50 per cent.; Chelmsford, 65 per cent.; Leicester, to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred, was 72 per cent. overcrowded; and Shrewsbury was top of the league at 81 per cent. overcrowded. The conditions in which many of the inmates are being held are, as we are all well aware, lamentable; and yet there is little, if any, prospect of improvement in the situation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, recommended in his report that there should be a new prison rule that no establishment should hold more prisoners than is provided for in its CNA, with a provision that Parliament should be informed if exceptionally there was to be a material departure from that rule. It is regrettable that the Government have not accepted that recommendation.
I turn now to slopping-out. I ask the noble Earl what is happening about that. As we know, the problem is often at its most acute in some of the older, overcrowded, local Victorian prisons. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, referred specifically to it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, recommended that slopping-out should be ended by February 1996. When the then Home Secretary made his Statement in Parliament, he indicated that the Government did not believe that February 1996 was satisfactory. He made it clear that the Government thought that they should go a great deal further. He

1295
announced that they would end slopping-out by the end of this year. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us whether that is still the target. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has said that he does not believe that the target will be achieved. I am told by a number of prison governors that they too disbelieve that target. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us specifically when slopping-out is to end.
The noble Earl will recall, because he was here when the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, repeated Mr. Baker's Statement, the words at paragraph 11.102 of the noble and learned Lord's report:
"During our visits outside the United Kingdom, with the exception of a segregation unit, we came across no prison in which slopping out was practised. The evidence which we received from staff and inmates of prisons in this country makes it clear that this is an aspect of our prison life which they find intolerable".
Most of us—probably all of us—accept that judgment unreservedly. But, as I have indicated, there now appears to be a serious doubt as to whether the Government's target will be achieved. We would be grateful if we could be told whether that is so.
I return to the overcrowding situation. Every one of the present Home Secretary's predecessors indicated his deep anxiety about prison overcrowding, all the more so as many of the inmates are unconvicted and in the remand wings. But, unhappily, Mr. Howard is not likely to share those anxieties because we remember the words that he addressed to the Conservative Party Conference, which were repeated this evening by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Mr. Howard said:
"Let us be clear—prison works".
In party political terms, his speech was probably a great success. He received his standing ovation. But I find it rather difficult to believe that some of his more fastidious predecessors—for example, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and Mr. Hurd—would have found it possible to express their views in such terms.
His words at Blackpool and his attitude since have provoked the gravest concern in the prison service. The current director-general, Mr. Lewis, appointed by Mr. Clarke from the private sector, has said that as a result of the sharp increase in numbers, the atmosphere in the prisons is more volatile than it has been at any time since the Strangeways riots in 1990. His words have been echoed by many members of the Prison Governors' Association. I believe that Mr. Howard is playing an extremely dangerous game. He may believe that he is handling public fears about crime with a considerable degree of political skill, but the price that he is paying is the forfeiture of the trust and confidence of many of the most able governors in the prison service.
I turn now to the appointment of a prison ombudsman. That is something of a mystery. There was a public advertisement. A number of people applied for the job. Apparently there was a shortlist of three, of whom the Home Secretary saw one. It was then indicated that neither that gentleman nor either of the other two was acceptable. Why were they all rejected? Did they not pass some form of test with regard to their political correctness? Moreover, I ask the noble Earl what position he believes the man ultimately selected for the job will have, given the way in which the three shortlisted people were treated. How will anyone
1296
believe that the person selected is genuinely independent? I hope that the noble Earl will answer that specific question because it is causing many people serious anxiety.
Finally, I turn to the last point that I wish to raise; namely, the position of third world drug smugglers. Many women from Nigeria are held in Holloway and elsewhere as a result of being convicted in British courts. I have made it clear on many occasions that people involved in smuggling narcotics must expect to be deaft with severely by our courts. I am sure that the noble Earl will tell us that that is the Government's position.
However, the Government's conduct demonstrates a rather different position. We recall the Prime Minister' s appeal to the King of Thailand to release two convicted British women drug smugglers on humanitarian grounds. He succeeded. As we all remember, they returned to this country and promptly set about trying to enrich themselves by selling their stories to the media.
To put it mildly, Mr. Major's gesture seemed rather odd in view of the fact that the Government, like their predecessors, had been telling the Thais and other governments in South-East Asia that they must take drug smuggling more seriously. But, in any event, how can it be right to appeal to foreign governments to release British women convicted of drug smuggling and ignore the plight of pretty near 200 women from the third world who are held in women's prisons in this country? If we are to have humanitarian gestures regarding British nationals in Thailand, what about some humanitarian gestures so far as concerns those women?
I very much hope that the Government will now proceed with the same degree of urgency that they demonstrated in relation to Thailand to effect some bilateral agreement with the Government of Nigeria and some of the other governments involved so that such women can be repatriated to prisons in their own countries. I have indicated this evening just a few of our concerns. I hope that we shall receive clear and unambiguous answers from the noble Earl.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I should like to deal, first, with the intervention of the noble Earl who suggested that there was no connection between the Home Secretary and overcrowding in prisons, as it was judges and magistrates who sent people to prison. There are specific ways in which the Home Secretary has interfered with the penal system over the past 12 months. The closure of bail hostels, the denigration of the probation service, the introduction of private prisons, the changes to the Criminal Justice Act (which allow the whole of the prisoner's previous convictions to be taken into account) and the foreshadowing of 12 year-olds going to prison in the Criminal Justice Bill currently going through the other place are clearly specific ways in which the Home Secretary has contributed to overcrowding. I also believe that the Home Secretary has contributed to the context in which judges and magistrates send people to prison. The increase in the past 12 months of some 7,000 in the

1297
prison population has a clear relationship with the speeches that have been made by the Home Secretary and the context which he has established.
As many other speakers have done, I specifically wish to deal with the statement that "prison works" made by the Home Secretary at the Blackpool Conference last year and repeated in another place on 23rd November in the home affairs debate. It was also repeated in this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, in the debate on the Queen's Speech on the same day. Both the Home Secretary and the noble and learned Lord adduced in evidence that prison works as regards the situation in the United States.
The noble and learned Lord said that,
"the United States is a country where, during the past decade, the prison population has increased while recorded crime has remained fairly constant and crime as measured by victim surveys appears to have declined subtantially".—[Official Report, 23/11/93; col. 249.]
Of course, prison works in the sense that in earlier ages exile or transportation to the colonies worked. Prison is a sort of internal exile. However, nowadays it is also a revolving door: those who go to prison come out again. But what is sometimes forgotten is that other crimes are committed in prison. Prison officers and other prisoners are assaulted, other prisoners are raped and bullied and even blackmailed. Prisoners also take drugs in prison. They make criminal friends, learn more sophisticated techniques and family relationships are destroyed during a prison sentence. They emerge tougher, more streetwise and less able to find employment.
As previous speakers have said, there is no evidence to show that prison acts as a deterrent. Only one in 50 cases ends up with an offender going to prison. Criminals always assume that they will not be caught. Indeed, people still stole silk handkerchiefs when it was a hanging offence, which is a clear demonstration that the penalty does not affect what people do.
Perhaps I may turn to the American experience of crime, which of course is horrifying. There 1% million of the population are in prison. That is proportionately five times our prison population, which as we have heard is already the highest in Europe, apart from Luxembourg. The equivalent prison population in this country would be 250,000 of our citizens in prison. Is that the Home Secretary's intention? At the present rate of 7,000 per year, it would not take many years. However, it would be an enormous cost to this country to follow the American example. It already costs £1 billion a year to run our prisons and if we built prisons to that extent they would cost something like £21 billion to build, with a further revenue cost of £5 billion a year to run them.
Of course, some people are too dangerous to be at large and should be locked up. But the majority of people in prison are car thieves, petty burglars and fine defaulters. Moreover, 20 per cent. of prisoners are on remand, which costs £20,000 per annum for each prisoner. It would be much cheaper to build more bail hostels rather than closing them or to have more probation and community service orders, which are
1298
one-twentieth the cost of imprisonment—and, incidentally, rather more successful in preventing reoffending. Therefore, there are practical and financial grounds for not increasing the prison population. The money could be diverted to nursery education, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, has been shown in the United States to be more effective in preventing crime in the long term. It could also be diverted to increasing the number of jobs; and there is a clear negative correlation between jobs and crime.
As for the Home Secretary's evidence of a fall in America's crime rate, American statistics are notoriously difficult to handle because they are collected from 16,000 separate agencies. In the 10 years between 1981 and 1991 there was a 50 per cent. increase in the crime rate. Although in 1992 property crime fell by 6 per cent., violent crime increased by 1 per cent. and is at a level which is five times that of this country. In 1992, there were 22,000 violent deaths in the United States, which represented an increase of 43 per cent. On the previous 10 years, and there were 100,000 forcible rapes. Is that really a good example to follow of a penal system?
I cannot understand why we turn to America for an example of a penal system that works. There are much better and more fruitful examples in the rest of Europe. For example, Denmark, which has extensive family support systems and a much lower prison population than ours, has declining crime rates. Germany, which has pursued a specific policy of "decarceration" as they call it—a terrible word—has a declining prison population, fewer remand prisoners, shorter custodial sentences and a lower crime rate. Finally, Holland, which has proportionately the lowest prison population in Europe, is not exactly a crime-ridden society. We not only incarcerate more people than the rest of Europe, but we also have double the number of young people under 21 in prison compared to Germany, Holland and France. Our current plans to put 13 and 14 year-olds in prison is viewed with derision elsewhere in Europe.
In 1910, Churchill said:
"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country".
By that standard, we are a barbaric country. I believe at present that our Home Secretary is effectively governing by tabloid press. In my view, it is the duty of government to educate the public. It is irresponsible, if not immoral, to follow the dictates of the media, the public desire for revenge and cheap populism in pursuit of votes.
5.8 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the majority of your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having introduced the Motion this afternoon. I am bound to say that it has been a most interesting debate. It is a matter in which noble Lords are always most interested. However, it seems to me that the trend of the debate has been more about penal policy than about prison overcrowding.
I know that there are some noble Lords who doubt the value of dealing with offenders by sending them to

1299
prison. Some speakers complained about my right honourable friend saying that prison works. Indeed, I think I can say, without unfairness, that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, lampooned the suggestion. He said that when prisoners come back into society they will be bitter, they will have learned new tricks and they will be worse. Of course, that is always the danger.
If I may say so, I am bound to say that I found the noble Lord's speech to be a most depressing one. He said, with all his experience as a former Permanent Under-Secretary of State to the Home Office and Chairman of the Prison Commission, that he had seen the lot—prison, Borstal, capital punishment, corporal punishment, short, sharp shocks and the cat—and that none of them had worked. I wondered what the noble Lord's conclusion was. I imagine he concluded that if none of the methods of punishment that he mentioned worked, prisoners should not be subjected to those methods of punishment.
However, it is important to discuss these matters. It is important to have an intellectual discussion on what to do with prisons and prisoners. We should discuss whether the prison system is at fault. However, out in the countryside people are terrified about increasing crime. There is real concern about that and the Government are continually being asked what they are doing to tackle crime. People are concerned about crime. They are worried about having their homes broken into or being abducted while they are in their cars. They are worried about incidents of stabbing and mugging.
It is my right honourable friend's duty to take account of law and order. He is responsible for that, as your Lordships only too hastily remind me and him. It is therefore right that my right honourable friend should take these matters into account and should try to establish a policy which does at least in some shape or form attempt to protect people. Of course, one can never guarantee full protection. No system that has ever been used to date has proved to be successful in that regard. All that Home Secretaries can do is endeavour to balance all the problems that are put before them.
I am sorry that I interrupted the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He said I took up two minutes but I believe I took up only half a minute of his time. However, I realise that I upset his train of thought and that may have caused his speech to last a further minute and a half. The noble Earl blamed my right honourable friend for sending people to prison. But my right honourable friend does not do that. Parliament sets the conditions and, as my noble friend Lord Moyne said, it is for the courts to decide who should or should not go to prison.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, ridiculed my right honourable friend for saying that he wanted to take yobs off the street, as if that were a bad thing to do. However, I do not think it is a bad thing to do. I believe my right honourable friend is quite correct to address himself to that matter because that is what people want him to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said the Government started off well—I thought that was tremendous —as regards the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and of Her
1300
Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, but that some 12 months later everything changed. She said scathingly that my right honourable friend was listening to the "lock 'em up" brigade. It is easy to castigate people in that way, but there are people who feel that there are certain people who ought to be locked up. Despite what the noble Baroness said,—and despite (dare I say it?) the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—I have no hesitation in saying I believe that there are some people who ought to be locked up.
A number of noble Lords have castigated my right honourable friend for saying that prison works. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, all castigated my right honourable friend for saying that prison works. Oddly enough, my noble friend Lord Carr agreed that people have to be sent to prison, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and my noble friend Lord Moyne. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, agreed that some people have to be sent to prison. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said he hoped I would not make the infantile observation that prison works if one puts people into prison and takes them out of the light. I do not regard that as an infantile observation. It is a fact that if people are sent to prison they are removed from society and the potential victims who would have been wronged by those prisoners had they been in the community are protected while the offenders are in prison. From the point of view of those in society who have been violated, prison works in so far as the offenders are removed from society. Once an offender is in prison, society is protected from the attentions of that particular prisoner.
When he is in prison an offender may be improved physically, psychologically, emotionally and through technical skills. That is a good thing and in that respect prison can work. My noble friend Lord Carr said that such a procedure is expensive. It is, and one accepts that. One has to accept that prison must be available for offenders. There are people who complain about a breakdown of law and order and about rising crime, but as soon as the Government do anything about it, other people complain about what the Government are doing. My right honourable friend is trying to tilt the balance away from the criminal and towards the victim. Of course endless money can be spent on educating and helping offenders and that should be done, but there is no substitute in appropriate cases for sending people to prison, regrettable though that is, as society needs to be protected. I would defend that until the proverbial cows come home.
No one has to be a criminal and no one has to offend. Some people think that offenders cannot help offending, but they can help themselves and they must be responsible for their actions. No one need offend and consequently need find himself in front of a court being sentenced to imprisonment. If someone is so sentenced, of course he must be dealt with properly. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said we were

1301
moving away from Woolf—I am talking about the Woolf Report of course and not about the noble and learned Lord—but I can assure your Lordships that the Government remain committed to the 1991 White Paper, Custody, Care and Justice, the Way Ahead for the Prison Service in England and Wales. That encapsulates the principal recommendations of the report of the noble and learned Lord and the Government's commitment can be seen in the huge investment they continue to make in the prison system. This will result in better quality prisons and better located prisons.
A number of noble Lords have asked whether there is a change of policy. As regards the matter of sentencing in individual cases, it is—as has been acknowledged by many people and by myself—for the courts to determine, in the light of all the circumstances, whether a custodial sentence is the most appropriate response to a particular offence. The Government set the framework for sentencing conditions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and following the implementation of that framework in October 1992 there was a fall in the prison population; and the Government were severely criticised—including by some of your Lordships —for having restricted the ability of the courts to sentence appropriately in all cases.
The changes that were made to the sentencing framework did not sit it on its head but refined it. Some who could not be sent to prison before now can be, but that does not mean to say that they must be sent to prison. This makes it clear that sentencers should not feel inhibited from sending offenders to prison, but that does not constitute a change of policy. That is a far cry from seeking to exercise undue and improper influence on judicial discretion. Of course the Government remain committed to non-custodial penalties as they play an essential role in responding to less serious crime. Community penalties, and tough community penalties, are a key part of the armoury of sentences which are available to sentencers.
Of course it would be much better if people were not sent to prison in the first place, but life is not like that. People offend and they must be punished. What the Government have to do is to provide the means by which society can be protected from the criminal by providing prisons and then to ensure that those in the prisons are looked after in a reasonable fashion. The Government must ensure that the conditions in prisons are decent but austere and that there is scope for education and rehabilitation as well as for retribution. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln that there must be a long-term enlightened strategy for dealing with those who are in prison. I believe there is such a strategy. However, I do not agree with the right reverend Prelate that the Government have given out the message that punishment will cure long-term ills. The Government have never given out that message. If anyone knows the way to cure long-term ills we would be delighted to hear from them.
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, is worried about drugs. I can inform the noble Lord that the prison service is proposing a detailed strategy to tackle the drugs problem in prisons. The policy will address the task of
1302
reducing the supply of drugs and will aim to offer appropriate treatment and support of the kind which the noble Lord described. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to people from overseas who are caught smuggling drugs. Reducing or eliminating the possibility of those caught bringing drugs into the country receiving a prison sentence would create a serious risk of increasing the amount of drugs targeted at the United Kingdom. There would undoubtedly be an increase in the number of couriers if we were to do that.
The noble Lord referred to the Smith and Cahill case. Those were young and naive people when they committed the offence. Their prosecution was entirely correct, but by United Kingdom standards their sentences were disproportionate. I think the sentence was 25 years for Smith and 18 years for Cahill, who was under 18 at the time of her arrest. On humanitarian grounds we agreed to help them use the opportunity which Thai law allowed in order to achieve an early release.
Of course minor offenders should not generally be sent to prison. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that few people do go to prison. In 1992 only 4 per cent. of those who were sentenced by the courts were given immediate custodial sentences. By contrast, 78 per cent. were fined, 7 per cent. were given a community penalty and 9 per cent. were given discharges. Therefore, in percentage terms very few went to prison.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to prisoners. I can tell her that over half of male prisoners sentenced in September 1993 were violent or sex offenders. The work of my noble friend Lady Faithfull is well known and highly respected. I agree that it is appropriate to treat some sex offenders in the community in certain circumstances. The probation service is now running its own programmes for treating sex offenders. The Faithfull Foundation's request for financial assistance will be given careful consideration. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will be content to hear that.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 reserves custody only for those offences which are so serious that custody can be the only appropriate response or for those violent or sexual offenders who pose a risk of serious harm to the public. Most people would take the view that it is entirely proper for those offenders to be held in custody. But, of course, the prophets of doom say, "If you do that you will fill up the prisons and you do not have enough of them as it is. They will then all become overcrowded". Well, of course we can never be satisfied. But the position is markedly different from what it was just seven years ago.
In January 1987 the prison population stood at 46,500. More than 4,600 prisoners shared three to a cell. More than 13,200 prisoners shared two to a cell in a cell which was intended for one. Some 38 per cent. of the prison population then experienced overcrowded conditions. The position now is totally different. Anyone would think from what your Lordships have said this afternoon that the Government had done nothing at all and that noble Lords blamed us for having done nothing. However, by September 1993 sharing

1303
three to a cell had been virtually eliminated. The number now stands not at 4,600 but at 57. The number of prisoners sharing two to a cell has been halved. It now stands not at 13,200 but 7,300. The prison service's business plan for 1993–94 set the target for ending three to a cell by the end of this financial year. I am glad to say that that unsatisfactory practice has now almost been put behind us.
Although that is a colossal achievement, as I am sure even the most critical of your Lordships would agree, there is a continuing need to eliminate overcrowding completely. To that end we have invested substantial sums of money to bring the existing prison service establishments up to standard. That has meant installing integral sanitation in cells, which was a point that worried the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Since 1990–91, in addition to sanitation facilities being installed during any major refurbishment or in the construction of new prisons, over 12,000 places have been provided with access to sanitation. That includes 4,700 places during 1993–94 alone. By the end of 1994 more than 95 per cent. of prisoners should have access to sanitation at all times. That is also a considerable achievement.
Progress in converting the last few per cent. of cells to integral sanitation will obviously depend on the level of the prison population. But, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced today, the prison service aims to complete the sanitation programme certainly no later than February 1996, the date which was recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his report.
The prison service has an overriding objective, which is to contain the prison population within the prison estate. We must avoid, if at all possible, placing prisoners in police cells who have been committed to prison. The prison service's corporate plan emphasises its undertaking to avoid the use of police cells. It makes a very clear statement that no such use will be made while places are available within the operational capacity of the local prison concerned. It is better to have overcrowding than to use police cells. But whenever possible prisoners will be transferred to other establishments in order to avoid "locking out" in police cells.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, was worried about the use of army camps and prison ships. That will only be considered in the event of population levels well above those which are expected. It would be wrong for the prison service not to have workable contingency plans to cope with high population levels or the loss of accommodation should that ever come about. The alternative would be the expensive use of police cells.
The avoidance of the use of police cells is not the only objective of prison service estate planning. The availability of adequate numbers of secure prison places, especially where prisons are located in centres of population, is also important. But then, of course, the existing prison service estate is unfortunately not ideally adapted to the role which is now expected of it. There are 128 prison service establishments. The quality and location of that accommodation is varied. For example, it is not possible to hold category B male prisoners in
1304
ex-service huts. Nor is it possible to hold remand prisoners in remote rural locations. The noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, referred to the excellent facilities at the Verne Prison. Undesirable though overcrowding is, it is confined to local prisons and the Verne is a training prison and is not overcrowded.
Your Lordships will be aware of the importance of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on the prison disturbances. I have already referred to the provision of integral sanitation. Another important recommendation of that report was for a system of community prisons. The prison service's approach is to increase the size of the estate and to locate more of its accommodation in or near urban areas. That will mean that more prisoners can be held closer to their families and in uncrowded conditions. In general, poorly located accommodation—especially low security accommodation—will not normally be refurbished if there are opportunities to divert the investment which is available to urban sites.
There are prisons which are not situated where they are most needed. The result is that there is a difference between where the prisoners' homes are located and where the prison service has accommodation available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, was concerned about Leeds. That establishment is overcrowded. New accommodation has been built and is being brought on stream. Its certified normal accommodation is now 826; its population yesterday was 1,129. Later this year a new prison at Doncaster will open which will have 749 places. That will provide relief for a number of prisons in the North, including Leeds.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was concerned about Leicester. Leicester can hold 194 prisoners when it is not crowded. On 31st January 339 prisoners were being held there. That is a high level of overcrowding, I agree. The fact that those numbers were accommodated without any requirement for three prisoners to share a cell meant only for one prisoner is at least something for which we can be thankful. Convicted prisoners are normally held at Leicester only for a very short period before being allocated to uncrowded training prisons. In order to provide relief for Leicester the East Midlands is one of the areas being considered as a site for a new prison.
My noble friend Lady Sharpies referred to assisted prison visits. The prison service is giving careful consideration to the question of extending the current scheme to provide financial assistance to close relatives of prisoners on low income to allow a visit every 14 days. No final decision has yet been taken on that matter. Assisted prison visits units have been identified as suitable for market testing. A study is taking place. We shall consider a whole range of issues, including that of confidentiality of information. Unless we can satisfy ourselves about confidentiality of information the proposals to market test the unit will not proceed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to Finnamore Wood Camp in what I might call a jocular tone, although I realise that it was a serious point. The prison service indeed wishes to change the role of this establishment to have an open prison for adult men. I am

1305
afraid that if the role cannot be changed in that way the establishment would have to close. It would not be right to do that when other parts of the prison service estate are overcrowded. The constituency Member of Parliament has now been kept fully in touch with the planning for the change, and effective emergency contingency plans will be in place.
In order to pursue the idea of community prisons, it has been necessary for the prison service to decide how the estate should in future be developed. That is not only to make progress towards a community based system, but also to cope with the population pressure.
A massive prison building programme has, in fact, been under way. It is the largest prison building programme since Victorian times. Already 20 new prisons have been opened since 1985. The programme will conclude with the opening of Doncaster prison in June of this year. This will give a total of 21 new prisons in the last nine years. It will have created 11,285 new places at a cost of £1,200 million. In addition to this, some 8,000 new places have been built at the existing prison service establishments since 1979. This year alone, over 1,000 new places will be created at a cost of £70 million.
The current prison population projections point to a population of 56,600 by the year 2001. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has therefore recently announced plans to build six more prisons to cater for this. We expect the design, construction, management and financing of those prisons to be undertaken by the private sector.
In order to address the more immediate difficulties, which occur in those parts of the country where population pressures are greatest, my right honourable friend has announced his intention to create some 2,000 new places at existing establishments by 1996–97. The cost of this work is estimated to be £137 million. That includes the money which is needed to enlarge the support facilities, such as kitchens, and also to provide the additional space which is required at some prisons for increasing the facilities to provide work and education for prisoners. In addition, some 1,400 places will be modernised at a cost of £68.5 million.
Substantial progress has been made. There is still overcrowding, but it is not nearly so acute as it used to be. The prison service could not return to those days. The pace of investment continues. New establishments, which are better located, will be built. The objective is to provide a prison service estate which can cope with the prison population without overcrowding, and one which is both secure and humane.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, raised a number of issues about prisoners with serious illnesses. I can only tell her that the prison service's directorate of health care is committed to the continuing improvement of the health of prisoners. However, perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness on the individual points that she raised.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the noble Earl has left me a minute or two. I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I have the highest regard for the noble Earl and I always enjoy his speeches. Today is no exception. However, he has had rather an uphill task in the light of the comments and suggestions made from all parts of the House.
The noble Earl wisely devoted several minutes of an eloquent speech telling us that some people have to be sent to prison. As we all agree that there are a number of offences for which imprisonment is essential, perhaps those few minutes could have been devoted to explaining the penal policy in a little more detail. He said that the debate had to some extent turned on penal policy rather than on overcrowding. I need not recapitulate the points made in the debate about aspects of government penal policy which have led directly to overcrowding. I am still not clear—I listened carefully —as to the government policy. However, I shall read the speech with great care. I ask in response that those concerned in the Home Office read with some care the contributions made today. Although speeches necessarily have been quite short, some extremely valid and interesting points have been made and a remarkable array of expertise has been displayed.
I make only one comment on individual points made. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said about the press. He remarked that in listing the various punishments that have been discontinued, I did not include capital punishment. I had it originally on my list but thought that I had better strike it out in case the discussion strayed into different territory. However, since the point has been raised, I simply say that what I said about the other punishments applies equally to capital punishment. Anecdotal evidence apart, one would find it extraordinarily difficult to produce any hard evidence that capital punishment works as a deterrent.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I was talking about recidivism.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, a person who has been executed can hardly function as a recidivist.
I happen to believe that, for various reasons, including demographic considerations, if the rate of the increase of crime has not already reached its peak it is likely to slow down considerably. However, if any such happening takes place, I should hesitate to ascribe it to the result of increased numbers going to prison.
I conclude by applying the Churchillian criterion, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, referred. It reflects credit on this House that so many people are prepared to discuss in detail, and with considerable understanding and compassion, the problem of overcrowding in prisons in England and Wales. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Education
5.36 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant rose to call attention to the report of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education, and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the last century Lord Melbourne, when Prime Minister, said to the Queen, "I don't know, Ma'am, why they make all this fuss about education; none of the Pagets can read or write and they get on well enough." Thank goodness attitudes have changed. I believe that the topics carefully analysed in the report of which I have invited your Lordships to take note are of fundamental importance to the future of this nation and its people.
The industrial revolution did not depend on education and training. We are in the midst of a new revolution—the knowledge revolution—and education and training are at the heart of it. The well-being of every individual in this country, the well-being of society, even the question as to whether it will be cohesive or hopelessly divided, and the well-being of the economy, business and industry all depend upon whether education and training match the challenge of the next 25 years.
That conviction convinced the commission of the urgency of its task. That conviction, too, led me to write that,
"we earnestly invite the endorsement and collaboration in pursuit of our aims of present and future Governments, of all those involved in the provision of education and training, and indeed, of the public as a whole".
Today I can but highlight some of our principal recommendations without presenting the detailed information upon which they and our conclusions were based. I acknowledge that while some of our proposals could be acted upon immediately—I regard it as urgent that they should be—others will inevitably take time and some money to adopt as we have directed our attention not just to the next few years but to the early decades of the next century.
The history and background of the establishment of the commission, the support of major scientific, literary and other bodies, the endorsement by political leaders and the membership of the commission are all set out in detail in our report. Our stance was totally apolitical and I believe that our choice of the other 15 commissioners was inspired. They proved to be a dedicated and thoughtful team. I pay a warm tribute to their exceptionally hard work and distinguished service, to the Hamlyn Foundation and also to the very able staff we recruited.
When we began in 1991, we established a research committee and seven working groups, each strengthened by associate commissioners, which were asked to examine respectively effective schooling; schools, society and citizenship; the teaching profession and quality; higher and further education into the 21st century; work today and tomorrow; better ways of learning; and resources.
In the course of our work, I and other commissioners made several overseas visits. We also visited many parts of the UK to examine education and training. We
1308
received written evidence from some 250 organisations and individuals, and held over 50 oral hearings. Our working groups took oral evidence throughout the UK, and many conferences, seminars and lectures were held to illumine our findings.
We soon identified persisting problems relating to the acquisition of literacy and numeracy, to staying-on rates at 16-plus and entry into higher education, although within the past three years the latter has improved greatly. Nevertheless the country's economic record plainly left much to be desired. The nature of work is, changing rapidly and we are still too often obsessed by a low skill economy. Too many young people do riot possess the communication and other skills required by employers. We also found in some communities a persisting and powerful anti-education ethos, sometimes, but not invariably, related to poverty, family and societal breakdown and unemployment. We concluded that the structure of our education and training system remains too fragmented and diverse, with too sharp a divide between the academic and vocational routes to higher and further education. In virtually all the oral evidence, even from learned bodies such as the Royal Society, the British Association and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, we heard no significant defence of the current excessively narrow A-level system for entry into higher education.
Adherence to A-levels, alongside a multitude of other qualifications, including, for example, BTEC, NVQ, GNVQ and many more, inflames the academic versus vocational divide and is detrimental to the integration and better co-ordination of education and training which we all seek.
I do not propose to deploy tonight detailed statistics. Some are given in our report; some in other publications, including one to be published next month. I simply quote, for example, that in 1990 the percentages of young people at 18-plus in four countries reaching a comparable upper secondary qualification were: 68 per cent. in Germany; 48 per cent. in France; 80 per cent. in Japan and 29 per cent. in England. While UK public expenditure on education has risen a little as a proportion of GDP we spent less in 1988 than did the United States, France, the Netherlands and Denmark. Japan and Germany spent less, but in those countries private provision was much greater. However, we devoted almost twice as much per capita to higher education as did many other countries. This discrepancy was largely accounted for by student maintenance grants and fees.
Perhaps I may now itemise our vision. First, in all countries knowledge and applied intelligence have become central to economic success and personal and social well-being. Secondly, in the United Kingdom much higher achievement in education and training is needed to match world standards. Thirdly, everyone must want to learn and have ample opportunity and encouragement to do so. Fourthly, all children must achieve a good grasp of literacy and basic skills early on as the foundation for learning throughout life. Fifthly, the full range of people's abilities must be recognised and their development rewarded. Sixthly, high quality learning depends, above all, on the knowledge, skill,

1309
effort and example of teachers and trainers. Seventhly, it is the role of education both to interpret and pass on the values of society and to stimulate people to think for themselves and to change the world around them.
We define our vision in relation to global yardsticks and economic imperatives. We urge increasing teacher professionalism, combined with the right and responsibility of self-regulation, through a general teaching council. We also commend partnerships among schools, industrial and commercial networks, and the community, including greater involvement of parents.
We were not content, however, to state a vision and leave it at that. We formulated seven goals to be achieved to turn it into a reality. We state those goals in clear, even stark, terms and examine in a practical way the means of achieving them. Our first goal is high quality nursery education for all three and four year-olds. Research evidence, especially from the United States, shows that those receiving such education consistently perform better later. Even if resources were infinite that could not be done overnight. High quality is crucial and involves training many professionals at graduate level. Suitable premises must be acquired or adapted and national standards laid down. We put forward a programme in our report which we costed and through which that goal could be achieved early in the next century. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has stated that it is his ambition to move to universal nursery education as more resources become available.
We commend also a national curriculum, modified from the present structure and much in line with the recent proposals of Sir Ron Dearing. We commend testing and in-course assessment, which should be much less ponderous than that at present prescribed.
We accept that raw league tables have some value, but they take no account of the important value-added factors so lucidly explained in our first briefing written by Andrew McPherson. We also believe that the present GCSE, A-level, BTEC, NVQ and other qualifications available at the ages of 16 and 18 should be gradually replaced by an integrated system of credits available under a modular general education diploma in a system ultimately to be integrated over the 14 to 18 year age range, but also allowing those who leave school at 16-plus to continue to accumulate credits towards the diploma. Every individual, too, should have a cumulative record of achievement.
The diploma would still enable exceptionally talented and highly motivated young people to take a fast track in subjects not notably different from those in the A-level system, but with a requirement of additional breadth. A mix of academic and vocational subjects would also become possible, even common, within this modular structure. We acknowledge the contribution made by A-levels to British education. We would use the best features along with those of primarily vocational qualifications to develop a high quality diploma. The key will be to provide something to motivate all learners, not just a small minority.
We also recommend that for those who leave school at 16-plus, time and funding must be made available by
1310
employers to enable such young people to continue part-time training at least up to 18 and often later so as to achieve additional credits towards the GED. In return, 16 to 18 year-olds leaving school should be paid a trainee wage significantly less than the high incomes which are now available to this age group.
The importance of the education-training partnership is stressed in our firm recommendation that the governance of training programmes should be transferred from the Department of Employment to the Department for Education, which would become the Department of Education and Training.
It follows that we propose local education and training boards to which training and enterprise councils would become affiliated. Those boards would replace local education authorities and would supervise the activities of all maintained schools, including those which are grant maintained. It is wrong that no intermediate authority should exist between the Secretary of State and grant-maintained schools, apart from a tenuously defined Schools Funding Council. Such boards would have a majority of locally elected members, and others appointed to represent speific educational, industrial and religious interests.
We also noted with concern the present imbalance in funding between primary and secondary education. We believe that more resources must be devoted to the primary sector to reduce class size. Research evidence supports the importance of small classes, especially in the first two years. We also go on to discuss the crucial importance of improved provision of computing facilities, with consequential implications related to teacher training in educational and informational technology. We are failing to capitalise fully upon such developments which will never replace, but will inevitably complement, good quality teaching in the classroom, lecture theatre and laboratory.
The implications for teacher training are highlighted in our report. While we commend the internship programmes and other comparable methods of in-service training within schools themselves, provided the mentors are carefully chosen and properly trained, we are satisfied that a significant component of training must continue to be provided in higher and further education institutions, in partnership with schools, because of the increasing need for, and importance of, specialist teaching, not least in science, technology, and modern languages in the schools of the future.
Turning now to the higher and further education sectors, we identified many anomalies related to public provision of fees, grants and loans and propose a much improved structure involving a substantial shift of funding from the public to the private purse. That would involve a phasing out of student maintenance grants to be replaced by enhanced loans as well as a flat-rate contribution to fees for which loans, when needed, would also be available. Those should be repaid, not through a lifetime graduate tax, but through the tax system, with repayment beginning once the individual's income reaches a minimum level. Such support must be made more widely available for courses not at present attracting fees or grants and it must be possible for the clock to be stopped during periods of reduced income or

1311
unemployment. Australian evidence suggests that such a method is not a significant deterrent to the continuing expansion of higher and further education that we would all wish to see.
Inevitably, some of our recommendations will demand a gradual increase in resources which will be hard to obtain. But much that we recommend involves redirection of resource instead of new money, although a gradual increase in the education budget will be needed if this country can begin to restore its competitive international position in education and training with consequential benefits to our economic and commercial future.
Perhaps I may sum up the task ahead. The United Kingdom must move to the front rank of educated—and educating and training—nations. We cannot claim to be there today; we must become so tomorrow, or if not tomorrow the day after.
Let us not be daunted. If we compare where we are today with where we were a few years ago, much has changed for the better. People are generally more convinced about the value of education and training, which now stand high in the political agenda. Front-rank employers, for the first time in history, are totally persuaded. The number of young people going to university is rocketing. Further education is emerging as the force it has always promised to be. We have a national curriculum becoming firmly established as a rock on which schools can build for the future. We have a teaching force deeply dedicated to the needs of children. But there is far, very far, still to go. Twenty years from now we must be prominent among the leading countries of the world. Virtually every child must emerge from school with good standards of literacy and numeracy. All young people must continue their education to 18 or 19 and most of them will acquire an up-to-date equivalent of A-level. Half and perhaps 60 per cent. or more will move on to graduate study. Everyone will see education as their own, not someone else's, private garden. The status of teacher, wherever employed, will be much enhanced. In short, we shall be the fully civilised nation we have always at heart felt we should be. This will nourish the happiness and fulfilment of our children, our children's children and generations yet to come. We await eagerly the Government's considered response. I beg to move for Papers.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it falls to me to be the first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for giving the House an opportunity to discuss this important report. However, my thanks are limited to the opportunity rather than to the report, which, regrettably, I find disappointing. I find it disappointing because in my view it does not live up to its subtitle. Noble Lords will be aware that it is called, Learning to Succeed, which is fine. But it then says, A Radical Look at Education Today. I find it far from radical. It seems to me simply to encapsulate the progressive notions that have dominated the educational establishment over the past 30 years. Wherever one picks it up, one finds examples to make that specific point.
1312
For instance, on page 181 we learn that,
"the task for the future will not be to concentrate on producing a highly educated élite but to achieve higher learning outcomes for all".
Why are the two contrary? Could not one easily argue that it is in the course of finding a system which produces a highly educated élite that at the same time one raises the general level? After all, that is how people who look after sports teams in schools, where current ideology permits them to persist, also operate. Or we read,
"Increased selection by ability must be discouraged if we wish to promote a less divisive society".
Why is it thought that selection by ability is not one of the factors that must constantly intervene in the choice by children of courses, by schools of children and by parents of the route they wish their offspring to follow? The word "divisive", introduced into our vocabulary in education 30 years ago, is one which one would have hoped that a radical report would have looked at askance.
The commitments to an establishment ideology are manifest in some of the recommendations. Wherever recent governments have tried to break out of the strait-lace of the comprehensive system—whether through city technology colleges, assisted places or grant-maintained schools—the whole tenor and proposal of the report is to bring them all back within a single, undifferentiating schooling system. In my view, that way lies not progress but further trouble.
It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to a wide range of input from various organisations and minority persons into the thinking of the commission. One body which has done some work on the problems of schooling is the Campaign for Real Education. When it offered to provide the results of its research, the offer was ignored. It was never summoned to give evidence to the commission, whereas every left-wing pressure group one has ever heard of figures in the opinions.
There is also a kowtowing to some aspects of modern society which many regard as inimical to education. For instance, no notice is taken of the great damage—many school teachers at all levels will corroborate this—done to children by their spending hours and hours before television screens. It is bad for their health., bad for their performance in school the next morning; and bad for any chance of them completing their homework. But we are told that this really does not matter because children benefit from watching television and videos. They are better informed, so the report says. However, the mating; habits of Australians do not seem to be a part of the information absolutely essential for English schoolchildren.
The other thrust of the report is the anti-intellectual bias. I do not hold any great brief for A-levels. They were invented long after my school time. We did London matric, which was a jolly good exam, in those days. I am talking now about the 1920s. But not only is there an attempt to say that there is no real differentiation between training and education and between the vocational and the academic but there is apparently an unwillingness to see that the two do necessarily go together; that they should be married

1313
closely but not at the expense of the intellectual component. It is, after all, generally admitted that one of the weaknesses of our vocational training, particularly by comparison with Germany—there has been a recent report on that—is that we do not demand the same degree of theoretical competence among those who are seeking vocational training in a variety of trades. There is less of this anti-intellectual prejudice among our competitors, which is one of the points which the commission has not taken fully on board.
It is impossible to dissociate education and training from the social context. Indeed, the report makes that clear. But then one has to ask what needs to be done to remedy this; how are we going to re-inculcate a desire to learn if indeed it has—the evidence is there—declined? Not, I think, by saying, "Well, after all, almost anyone could be a scientist". I shall give only one example. The report giving the possible content of the advanced diploma for a variety of students takes student B, who wishes to read engineering. What is he to study at secondary level for this diploma? Science —that is all right, though we are not told exactly what science—mathematics; Gujarati; and theatre studies. I know of no major work on engineering in Gujarati, but perhaps the commission has discovered something more important than the literature on engineering which is available in German, in Japanese and no doubt in Russian. Theatre studies—well, of course, revolving stages—
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will my noble friend bring his speech to a conclusion as this is a timed debate?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am only following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I shall complete the sentence. We need to know exactly why this is better than what Cambridge demands for engineering—three As at A-level.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when Sir Claus Moser suggested a Royal Commission on education the Government rejected it almost before he had finished speaking, although it was obvious to most people that such a commission was overdue. The report before us today is at least the equivalent of a Royal Commission. The national commission members, its assistant commissioners, its staff, the evidence given to them and the quality of its research could not have been better in any Royal Commission report.
If the Government were against a Royal Commission, they obviously will not give much of a welcome to this report. That is not surprising because perhaps more than anything else its contents demonstrate the irrelevancy of much of the Government's legislation in education in recent years. However, I hope that the Government will listen to what is said by the commission.
The report combines idealism with practicality and it gives the most comprehensive overview of education seen for a long time. The commission has set out what it calls its vision for the future development of education
1314
and training in the United Kingdom. No one can argue with the seven points. All are fundamentally important if significant progress is to be made.
I disagree almost entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. He is extremely knowledgeable in what he says, but it seems to me that he has ignored some of the most important points—indeed, all the important points—contained in the report. If, like the noble Lord, I had been allowed to speak for more than eight minutes, we could perhaps have developed the debate a little more. But that is part of the conventions of the House.
I have to say that I do not find anything particularly new in the report—and that is not meant as a criticism —but two aspects of it give new meaning to the vision. The commission proposes seven goals to make a reality of the vision—that is something which in education particularly more than anything else is of great importance—and, in addition, stresses the all-important ingredient: the need for political will to bring about changes.
Those things have to be said, but I am sufficiently long in the tooth to know that they can be promised and then fade away. John Major, when he was bidding for the leadership of his party some three years ago, declared that he would make education his number one priority. We spent proportionately less of our national wealth on education last year than in 1980. So much for his fine words.
There is a continuing problem about education, particularly as it is such an expensive service. That problem is in dealing with priorities, and of course those priorities also have to be considered in the context of any government's other commitments. One of my party's criticisms of this Government's education policies is that their priorities could hardly have been more wrong; and that is another reason why the Government should give this report more attention than they appear to be doing.
The Government are reminded that some of the recommendations do not require significant expenditure and can be implemented speedily. Perhaps the best example is the proposal for a new department of education and training for England—that comes through in the report on a number of occasions. But there are others which are significant, not least its recommendation that the national curriculum should be made compulsory for independent schools, a glaring example of this Government's bias and inconsistency. But there are more important issues.
Anyone with an interest in education must be pleased at the importance the report places on nursery education. The case for nursery education is now proved beyond doubt. Research undertaken worldwide confirms that and it would at least be some progress if the Government were to say this unequivocally. They appear to have moved a little way towards it but now say that it is too costly. The report, and many educationists and researchers, say that we cannot afford not to expand nursery education. The evidence now clearly suggests that nursery education is highly profitable. It eliminates a number of costly problems which may arise as

1315
children get older and it releases parents, in many cases to work, which in turn, one would hope, will produce extra revenue to the Treasury from taxation.
It is surprising too that from time to time the Government can suddenly produce millions of pounds—like rabbits from the magician's hat—often for purposes which many people would consider to be much less worthy than nursery education. I find it incredible that in the year 1994 we still have to try to convince the Government of the value and necessity of pre-school education. Let us hope that the report we are considering today will prove the final piece of ballast to tip the scale in this most important aspect of educational provision.
One would not wish to go through all of the proposals and ideas in the report, but it is heartening to see that so much importance is placed on teachers and, perhaps a little surprisingly, on adult education. On the latter point, I was speaking at a meeting on education with a colleague of mine recently and in the course of his remarks he said that the school-leaving age ought to be raised. That surprised me a little because it is not a topic which is discussed very much at the moment. He paused, and then he said, "It should be raised to 90". Why not? That would be real adult education.
The report does not say that specifically, but it gives no fewer than seven of what it describes as "pressing reasons" for continuing education. It is interesting, even astonishing, that there are now even more undergraduates over 21 years of age than under 21. The report does not mention that statistic either, but that demonstrates the way in which higher education is moving, should be developing and should continue to develop. What the report does say is that adult learning needs to be on an even larger scale, and again I quote:
"The topic is of such great importance that it should be receiving continuous and close attention from anyone concerned with education and training".
The Government ought to be giving close attention to that view, even if it is only for the economic benefits which would accrue to the country.
Perhaps the biggest failure of the Government has been in their alienation of the teaching profession. It has taken this Government to bring all the teacher unions together, which is something that very rarely happens in this country. It is not surprising therefore to read in the commission's report,
"morale is low in the teaching profession".
Many people in this House have been telling the Government that for some considerable time but it has fallen on deaf ears. I wonder whether the evidence in the report: will convince them. It is substantial: the increase in the number of resignations due to ill health, a disturbing incidence of job-related stress, the high rate of turnover and several other important factors.
The report brings a realism to what a teacher has to do. I could not help but smile when I read the paragraph beginning on page 193 and continuing on page 194. I shall not quote it now, but I mention it because it demonstrates that the commission has its feet on the ground when dealing with the work of teachers. It states:
"High quality learning depends above all"—
note those words—
1316
"above all, on the knowledge, skill, effort and example of teachers and trainers".
I believe that teachers are doing very good work despite, the many difficulties they face. But there is certainly no room for complacency. The nature of initial and continuing education, training, higher academic standards in the profession, personal enthusiasm and commitment and support services in the schools are all fundamental to achieving the objectives. It is heartening to see that all of these are dealt with in some detail in the report.
This report could not have come at a more opportune time. Some of us may think that there are omissions and we may not agree with every word. But it is a major contribution to educational practice and arty Secretary of State would do well to keep a copy of it permanently on his desk. We must be grateful to the Paul Hamlyn Foundation for providing so much money to finance it.
Finally, I pay tribute to the members of the commission and to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, whose leadership is clearly stamped on the report. It gives me particular pleasure to refer to the noble Lord because he and I are County Durham men. We attended our county's schools at the same time. Durham's commitment to education for its children and young people was and is total and the education committee which sent the noble Lord to school and university would be mighty proud of his momentous achievement today.
6.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on his chairmanship of the National Commission on Education and in congratulating the members of the commission on a report which is wide-ranging, provocative and comprehensive. I would like to thank the commission for its courtesy in receiving the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education, a post which I shall shortly be assuming, and officers of the board. I note with satisfaction that the commission foresees that representation of the Churches on the proposed education and training boards will be important.
This comment represents a theme which is recurrent throughout the report; that of partnership. The commission was set up because the Government refused to set up a Royal Commission and appeared to be uninterested in a real dialogue, frightened perhaps of an educational establishment which they believed was discredited. The national commission was set up in the absence of a government initiative and is to be thanked for raising the level of debate and for recognising the broad range of partners who need to be involved in education and training.
Many churches last Sunday observed Education Sunday. The suggested theme was a renewal of partnership in the year of the 50th anniversary of the Education Act 1944. I have just been re-reading R.A. Butler's account of his conversations with Archbishop William Temple which resulted in the partnership of Church and state in education which has

1317
held to this day. The list of submissions to the commission indicates that the time is right for a renewed commitment to the principle and practice of partnership. To quote from the report:
"Our first hope is that our vision will be very widely shared by political parties, by teachers and educationalists, by parents and students and by the public at large".
It may be, as I will suggest in a moment, that a modification or enlargement of that vision will make it more powerful. But any vision will only bring about change in so far as it is shared widely and partners engage with one another in realising and embodying it.
If partnership is a key theme of the report, innovation is another one. Page 108 of the report states,
"The country needs full-blooded commitment to innovation in education and training, which is supported by good quality research and by that element which is most conspicuous by its absence at present, the determination to implement new advances in teaching and learning and applications of new technology systematically and on a large scale".
Amen to that! But I question whether the report has sufficiently faced its implications. For instance, substantial research on the study of the brain and the ways in which effective learning takes place is revolutionising our understanding of the learning process. We are also realising that learning is an activity which takes place as much, perhaps more, outside the school or the institution as within it. We still live in a dependency culture where the teacher and the institution are believed to hold the keys. Education is about giving youngsters and adults the confidence to handle their learning in the context of their social, emotional and experiential development. Within a proper development youngsters acquire self-esteem, responsibility and motivation, all of which are key if learning is to take place.
Perhaps I may take one example only. The report majors on the provision of nursery education without a corresponding recognition of the necessity for a proper home environment and parental involvement in education at an early age. I have argued in your Lordships' House on a previous occasion that nursery provision on its own will do little for children's learning. What is needed is an understanding of the complementary experiences of home, community and school which together provide a total learning environment.
These and other ideas are the chief thrust of a national initiative, Education 2000, which places at the heart of its work the need for the proper use of IT and a very considerable IT component in secondary and primary schools. It places emphasis also on the need for staff development in the use of IT; for the involvement of parents and the community in the total learning environment. It believes that there needs to be an embodiment of these ideas in particular schools to show how they work. A number of consortia of schools throughout the country are affiliated to Education 2000. One of these is a pyramid of feeder primary and one secondary school in inner-city Leeds. There, a management committee, of which I am chairman, has made available a high provision of IT equipment, together with opportunities for staff training and curriculum development, parental involvement in
1318
education, accountability by the schools to the community, involvement of the business community, together with monitoring to see what change is brought about.
One of the key elements of Education 2000 thinking which distances it from the national commission report, is that it believes that what is required is not more money but a switch of resources so that money is used more effectively. For instance, the argument which the commission advances about primary and secondary class size, with the implication of a shift from secondary to primary schools, is not carried to its conclusion in the report. However, it is in Education 2000 thinking—namely, that a shift of teachers is needed from the secondary to the primary sector. Might we come to a recognition that the chief resource which children need is not so much people's money but the time and attention which people, including parents, teachers and many in the community as a whole, are able to give them?
I have spoken of the social, emotional and experiential development which is necessary, I believe, for a proper learning environment. This leads me to what I believe is an extraordinary gap in the report: the whole dimension of spirituality, of people as having a spiritual depth, is missing from the report. The briefings published alongside the report include a chapter on moral and spiritual education, submitted by the Reverend Dr. Kenneth Wilson of Westminster College, Oxford. I endorse his view that religious education should be part of the national curriculum and not a compulsory subject standing outside it, and that an understanding of humanity as spiritual, whatever faith system or belief system that understanding is rooted in, needs to be reflected in all subjects of the curriculum.
Religious education gives an insight into particular faith communities and their beliefs and practices; but members of these communities do not exist isolated from the rest of society. Their beliefs are an integral part of their self-understanding, self-confidence and motivation. It is odd that the week after the launch of the national guidelines on religious education we should be debating a report which makes no mention of religious education as a subject and no reference to the profound depths of human nature which are indicated in the word "spirituality".
This leads me to a final comment: Learning to Succeed. Yes, but to succeed for what? What will success involve: economic growth? I understand the need for economic growth but, as a goal in itself, surely it stands as barren and arid. Perhaps alongside this report we need another one which would be about the future of work. It would indicate what kind of a world we are moving into and what kind of opportunities there will be in it for fulfilling ways of living, especially for those who are at present unemployed and those whom I believe may well continue to be unemployed in the future. Education, yes; but education stands in danger of seeing people only as tools for economic progress unless it is accompanied by a vision of individuals as creative, responsible and spiritual, and society as the matrix within which genuine fulfilment is the goal for all. "No time to waste" says the commission and I

1319
endorse that sentiment. But I would add to it another one: "No people to waste". I believe that at the moment our society is in danger of wasting people.
Clearly this is a substantial report with many significant and important recommendations in it, but I hope that we shall he prepared to press the debate further to a more profound understanding of the world into which we are moving and of human nature on the part of those of us who are going to have to shape that world.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I welcome this report and I warmly commend my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant on having initiated this debate. Its title intrigues me: Learning to Succeed. Those words encourage me to make a modest contribution based on my presidency of the Institute for Citizenship Studies and my membership of the Prince's Trust and of the Prince's Youth Business Trust. I use the word "modest" with good reason because I ended my school career with no academic distinctions whatsoever. At the age of 17 I was eventually written off and given the title of "the senior inferior". So your Lordships will understand that I have a great interest in any report which refers to learning to succeed.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that, with only a tiny proportion of the world's population, these islands must rely on brains rather than brawn for their future prosperity. All our efforts must go into cultivation of those brains if as a country we are to grow and prosper. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon has drawn attention to the importance of universal nursery education. I applaud this aim and am delighted to see that the Prime Minister does so too. However, I should like to draw attention to page 334 of the report, which states:
"Expanding educational achievement and opportunity is a community issue. For many people, continuing education is the means by which they may find a sense of personal worth by contributing within the community, rather than by taking".
The Commission on Citizenship, which I established during my Speakership and which reported in 1990, called for a form of community service available to every young person who wished to take part. In my retirement I have been honoured to become a trustee of the Prince's Trust, which, encouraged by the Commission on Citizenship, has launched the Volunteers, giving young people from a wide range of backgrounds an opportunity to serve the community, gaining in the process skills and also qualifications.
The Volunteers are in effect a kind of voluntary national service and the scheme has been a great success. The idea is that participants should have an opportunity to learn more about life, more about the different people who make up our community, more about putting things back rather than taking things out and, most crucial of all perhaps, more about themselves. One day I hope it will be the norm to give service in this way, and I am pleased to see that this objective was endorsed by the report of the National Commission on Education.
1320
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, mentioned that thousands of children spend hours in front of television sets. The trouble is that frequently, when they return from school, the television sets are already switched on and if they want to do their homework it is almost impossible to concentrate. The Prince's Trust recently inaugurated a scheme to provide homework centres to which these children can go and where, in a quiet environment and perhaps with a little help, they cart get down to their work.
In the words of R.W. Emerson:
"The true test of civilisation is not the census, nor the size of cities, nor the crops—but the kind of men and women the country turns out".
Many people in our country are concerned about declining standards and about social and moral behaviour, which seems to be deteriorating. There is concern that there is an impact on all corners of society. I believe that we need to get this into proportion. Our country, it seems to me, has always been in a frightful mess. In the last century, when it was in a terrible mess, they sent for the only man who could sort it out, the Duke of Wellington; and he failed. He said on his deathbed:
"I thank God I am going so that I shall not see the consummation of ruin that is gathering around us".
Of course that was at the very height of British influence and power in the world. Nevertheless, there are concerns today and the answer does not lie simply with the Government.
There is the cry, "The Government must do something about it". In a democracy "they" means all of us. I hope that this debate will be well reported and that the report will be widely read and acted upon. There is an old adage well known to your Lordships. I am sure:
"Sow an act and reap a habit; sow a habit and reap a character; sow a character and reap a destiny".
It seems to me that that is the essential message of this report.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I join in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and all those who envisaged, funded and set out this massive project. The report itself is beautifully written and wonderfully free of judgment. With its background reading papers, it will be a most useful source of information and discussion in the years to come. Despite entitling itself a "national" commission, the commission's report explains that it deals mainly with England and Wales, but it points out that there is much of relevance to Scotland too. That seemed to me, if I may say so, extremely sensible. The references to Scotland are both well informed and accurate. The suggestions as to how Scotland might benefit from the report are dealt with sensitively and adroitly. It could indeed hardly be otherwise since the research committee includes Professor McPherson of Edinburgh University, and the commission itself, Professor MacFarlane, the Principal of Heriot Watt University.
There has been a widespread welcome for the commission's analysis of the problems that have to be addressed. I, too, welcome that analysis. What concerns me are some of the proposed solutions. I confine my

1321
remarks to areas where I can speak, I hope, with some experience. It seems to me that the commission has done well and bravely to have grasped the nettle of how higher education might be funded. As the number of students grows, public funds cannot expand to match. To ask students partly to fund themselves at the time of their course or later when they are earning is a way that could work, especially if Parliament could bring itself for once to offer all-party support to the idea.
Likewise, I am not against a government department which covers both education and training. We are moving that way. As academic and vocational learning come closer together—and that is happening fast in Scotland—policies have to be dovetailed, and that would help. A proposal which worries me, however, is the call for a general teaching council for England and Wales. The report agrees, in my view rightly, that if teachers' professionalism is to grow, they should take more control of the profession themselves. The proposal in the report is that a statutory GTC be set up with initial responsibility for maintaining a register of qualified teachers, for professional standards and discipline and as a statutory source of advice, for example, on professional training, levels of teacher qualification and changes in the curriculum and assessment.
In support of that proposal, the Scottish General Teaching Council, which has existed since 1968, is mentioned. It has similar powers, although slightly more limited advisory functions. Membership of the council consists of 30 full-time registered teachers elected in a specified number of ballots by primary, secondary, further and higher education teachers. The teacher unions take a keen interest in those elections, drawing up and canvassing so-called "slates" of candidates. When the Scottish GTC is asked to advise, for example, on government policy, the unions do not hesitate, naturally, to take their wars with one another and with local and central government into the council. That does not enhance the council's status. In fact, it is counterproductive.
The commission's briefing paper confirms that the Scottish council controls the profession well but that its advisory function does not work so well. Should a GTC for England and Wales be set up, I suggest that its initial statutory functions should not include the giving of advice. It should be charged only with the crucial role of controlling the profession, maintaining the register, the oversight of standards of entry and the maintenance of professional discipline. That would work better.
On the proposal for education and training boards —quite apart from whether they would work better than the arrangements just established under the 1993 Act —I suggest that to have a majority of elected councillors on the board and a minority of others is not a promising arrangement. That used to be the practice long ago on, for example, governing bodies of further education colleges and the like. What happened increasingly was that councillors, necessarily and rightly, did their political thing, and employer representatives soon lost interest and did not turn up. That part of the proposal
1322
seems to me unwise, and perhaps a little naive. Unfortunately, it appears to be a key part of the proposal.
My other principal doubt is about the notion that state-funded nursery education for all would be a sensible and cost-effective step. I believe that the case is as yet not proven. The benefits of nursery schooling to individuals are notoriously hard to quantify when home background and home support are a stronger influence than any school. International comparisons—the commission cites a number of them—have a limited value because one is not comparing like with like. Nursery school teachers—the right reverend Prelate touched on this point—do not see themselves as needing to involve parents, yet a parent's lack of understanding can counteract much of the benefit of nursery schooling. We need more research into what expertise nursery school teachers need in that area. We need more research into its cost-effectiveness. I am glad that the commission suggests a slow build up of nursery schooling. That is important.
It is a useful report. I hope that it will be much studied and much used. I commend those who produced it.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for drawing our attention to his report, which I have read with great interest. I should like to contribute to the debate from the point of view of an industrial employer and shall refer to those parts of the report which discuss the need for a basic education and the requirement for an effective and consistent link between industry and education.
We all agree that unless industry becomes more competitive, manufacturing will continue to move out of this country. Industry is trying to become more competitive in several ways, but the most important is possibly the introduction of improved management practices. That is hardly a controversial observation. The Minister's right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade, has put encouraging best management practices near the top of the list of work for his competitive taskforce. Almost everyone has heard of those practices: quality circles and just-in-time delivery are already part of everyday speech. Total quality management, quick response, and electronic point of sale are now common management tools. There are many more on the way. Indeed, an electronics company is going public this month, and the secret of its success, according to the prospectus, is a management technique called partnership sourcing.
But I can hear your Lordships asking, "What has all that to do with education?" The answer is, a great deal, because at the same time as all those techniques are being introduced, layers of management are being removed, with the result that much more is demanded of the workers on the shop floor. They have to supervise one another now; they have to carry out their own quality controls; react to the electronic point-of-sale data; plan their own production flow; keep their own records; do their own ordering; and, with partnership sourcing, deliver their own work.

1323
For that to be successful technical skills are not enough. Workpeople have to use much more initiative arid judgment and have to be numerate, articulate and computer literate. In short, they have to be better educated. That is industry's case for the need for better education. That is why the national commission applauds the progressive companies that encourage employees to undertake education, whether or not it is job related. To my certain knowledge that message has been sent out from these Benches for the past 10 years.
The second point I raise concerns the link between industry, education and training. The Government have made significant moves towards the development of this interface with the establishment of training and enterprise councils and national vocational qualifications. I join the report in welcoming those moves. It is perhaps too early to draw conclusions because both are fairly new and should be given every opportunity to succeed. Their success is crucial to the future of our industry. I understand that the standards vary, with some TECs doing excellent work and others whose work is less than good. It is essential that the standard is consistently high. TECs are important suppliers of training to small and medium size companies, and we all know how important they are. Obviously, all TECs must work to the same high standard. We cannot leave to an accident of birth whether a person receives good or bad training.
I turn to the NVQs. I welcome the radical departure of the Department of Employment in involving business and industry in the lead bodies. I also welcome schemes such as Investors in People which lay down and plan objectives and standards in an interesting way. However, I am not sure whether or not there is strength in diversity of training. As the report points out, they are designed to train people to do jobs as they exist at present. They do not deal with the essential requirement for work people to improve their general education so that they can cope with the increased demands placed upon them by management today and with future changes.
To bring together a young employee's education and training needs, industry looks to the careers service. The training and education of 16 year-olds and beyond is too important to be left to casual, uninformed or biased advice—or even no advice at all. This is where a good and impartial careers service is invaluable. At this point I should perhaps declare an interest—indeed an advantage—because my wife works in the careers service. Industry's young people are a valuable and scarce resource that has to be nurtured. It is vital and more efficient for each person to have the support of a professional careers adviser. It is the careers adviser who is at the interface between the individual and his or her job, training and education. Careers professionals know about the needs of industry, the training and From the point of view of industry, the recent changes both in school funding and in the operation of the careers service provision may mean that this vital service rendered by qualified practitioners is not available to all. The proposed guidance vouchers, like training vouchers, may not solve the problem but just
1324
lead to a system of government-directed favouritism. I believe that the report could have emphasised rather more the importance of the careers service.
I have addressed only a small number of the issues that are raised in the report. The commission is to be congratulated because it looks at the education process as a whole. Industry will also welcome the sense of urgency in the report because it needs a well educated and highly skilled workforce quickly. Present policies have delivered a low paid workforce, but that advantage is already slipping away. To regain it, we need a better educated one.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, as the next speaker on the list is not in the Chamber perhaps I may proceed. I should like to add my voice to those who welcome the report. One does not have to agree with every sentence in it to endorse the goals arid a great deal else that is in the report. I do so most warmly. I should also like to pay a tribute to Sir Claus Moser who a few years ago in his presidential address to the British Association took as his theme our educational deficiencies. Thus, he is the originator of this inquiry, so generously financed by the Hamlyn Foundation, which has so distinguished a figure as my noble friend Lord Walton as its head.
Personally, I have no qualifications to talk about education except as a consumer rather a long time ago, and later as a parent and grandparent. I will address one issue to which I attach a great deal of importance. The Government, absolutely rightly, demand more and better scientists and technologists and more and better vocational training for the workforce. If achieved, both will improve our economic performance, especially if backed by adequate investment. It is worth observing that in the past we have lost scientists produced in this country to countries better able or more willing to back them with the necessary investment. Of course we need more technologists and the Government are right to make vocational training an important element in their educational policy. In my view, they are not wrong to use, at any rate to a limited degree, the power of the purse to encourage universities to provide better facilities and more places for people who want to study science.
The crucial point is that neither turning out more scientists nor improving vocational training should be given priority, whether through funding or in any other way, over the basic need to improve the general educational level of the whole population. Included in that must be an improvement in the general level of literacy in scientific matters. Let us not allow the very real need to produce more and better technologists to obscure the basic need to improve the general educational level of the country. If it be objected that an education in the humanities will not produce the people needed for our industrial enterprises and service industries, then ask industrialists what kind of people they want to recruit. I am particularly interested in the commission's report as to what industrialists say. They say that they want well educated people who can express themselves accurately, speak foreign languages, have some knowledge of history, geography and other

1325
general subjects, and have basic literacy in scientific matters. It seems to me that those who have a wider education will be far better equipped to adapt to the changes which are certain to be a continuing feature of their working lives.
The commission's report has some very wise things to say about wider educational experience for all alongside better vocational training. In that connection, I strongly support their proposal to bring the teaching of vocational studies into the mainstream of educational provision from the age of 14. It seems to me that their recommendation for an amalgamation of the school curriculum, assessment authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is very sensible. I am sure that we must leave behind the old society of two cultures—science and the humanities—which are mutually antipathetic, even incomprehensible to each other. That state of affairs was brilliantly described by a late Member of your Lordships' House, C.P. Snow, in so many of his works.
Speaking as the product of an academic education in the 'thirties, I am deeply ashamed of my ignorance of the most elementary scientific knowledge. As I shall be 78 before the end of the week I doubt whether I have the time or the capacity to rectify that deficiency. But I am encouraged to notice that today's young people, even when their chosen subjects for study are among the humanities, tend to take much more for granted the fact that they must know something about science.
What we need, first and foremost, is a better educated society as a whole. That means avoiding specialisation too early. We must widen students' educational experience. I am disappointed to note that music is to be designated as an optional subject. The arts do wonders for young people, as for us all, and music is especially important where a child comes from a home where no good music is heard.
As regards higher education, it is my contention that merely increasing the number of places for science students in higher education at the expense of young people who want to pursue humanist studies will not produce a better educated population, which must be our primary objective. I am told by my university friends that many able children who want to pursue a course of study in the humanities at university are being turned away because of a lack of places while places available for those who wish to study science go unfilled or are filled by less gifted students.
So all that I am pleading for is that whereas our past mistake has been to underrate the importance of science in our education system—and, incidentally, to under-reward it in the industrial sphere—we should not over-react by underestimating the important part that the humanities must play in producing a better educated nation as a whole. It is that which should be our principal aim.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I too welcome the report and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and his colleagues on its nature. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I find the report most
1326
refreshing. It looks at education in social and economic terms and in the context of the problems of the UK today. It does so from a historical perspective while at the same time taking account of the real needs of the future. It looks at those needs in a holistic way. From nursery to tertiary education and beyond, it sees education as a continuing process.
I join other noble Lords in expressing pleasure that such a high priority has been given to nursery education. The report gives a variety of reasons why it is important that nursery education should become an essential feature of our education system. We should look at those closely. Of course, that does not rule out what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, about the need for further research. We need further research on nursery education and all aspects of education. That must be continually built into the system.
During the past decade a series of education Bills have dealt with education in a piecemeal fashion. This report is different; it is comprehensive and looks at education in the framework of societies and the needs of individuals. The philosophy behind it is important. It is the philosophy of succeeding in learning. I was rather surprised by the approach of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon because the report made it evident that success in learning applied to the fulfilment of the individual as a whole as well as to the needs of society. That is important, and it is an essential part of the report.
To date, our education system has been a process of weeding out. Those who have passed academic examinations have been successful; those who have not have been failures and have been left largely to fend for themselves. As the report indicates, that is both divisive and wasteful and emphasises the already existing social divisions in society. The philosophy of the report is the exact opposite. It seeks to build bridges between the sectors of education and training, embracing both academic and vocational needs, on the assumption that each individual can succeed in some way and to some extent, thereby enhancing his own life and the contribution that he can make to society. Of course, a cost is involved but, as chapter 14 indicates, that need not be unbearable. It is a question of sorting out the priorities and of additional funding which could be met if the country were determined to do so.
The report and the implications of the philosophy are so important that they should generate a nationwide discussion. I do not mean a discussion among educationists and legislators only but a discussion among parents so that they can see what is in it for their children and can understand that there is every possibility of their child succeeding. There are, and will be, differences of opinion about the report's recommendations. However, it is important to start the debate in the context of the overall philosophy of the report.
I turn to one or two specific items. First, I welcome the recommendation of a new general education diploma. Our present system of multiple qualifications, with A-levels at the summit, is most divisive. In recent years there has been much talk of changing the system but, despite the weight of academic opinion in favour of change, the Government have not been convinced.

1327
Again, we have a report from a distinguished group of people who recommend change, and I hope that the Government will take note.
The recommendation of a general education diploma is framed in a way that need not diminish the academic content of A-levels. Those who are afraid that we should lose out by dropping A-levels need not worry about that recommendation. Indeed, the academic content could be enhanced for those who wished to take it because the modular system and the flexibility which is advocated would help.
Moreover—and this is very important—it would open the door wide for that vital change which is most necessary in our system; namely, raising expectations. As the report indicates, and as we are all aware in your Lordships' House, the expectations of young people for themselves and of teachers for young people are far too low except for that 21 per cent. or so of young people who take two or more A-levels. It presupposes a level of failure which, as a nation, we cannot tolerate. To span the academic, vocational and voluntary and social work, which the report also recommends, on a modular basis would mean that all children would have some chance of success. I suggest that the habit of success and learning begets further success and learning. That is surely what we need in the complicated system of society in which we live today.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I express my gratitude and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant both for initiating the debate and for chairing the commission.
The report as a whole seems to be such a mixture of vision and common sense that one cannot help but read it with excitement and pleasure. I wish to speak briefly on just one aspect of it, although there are many others which are interesting. I wish to concentrate on an aspect which I believe is fundamental to all future educational policy: that is, the education and training of teachers, without which the aim that every child should want to learn cannot possibly be fulfilled or even kept in sight.
Chapter 8 of the report is the relevant chapter. It is entitled "Teachers and Teaching". The overall goal for teachers in the 21st century is stated in the report in terms which could not be improved upon:
"In our vision, a teacher in the twenty-first century will be an authority and enthusiast in the knowledge, ideas, skills, understanding and values to be presented to pupils".
All the elements in that statement are worth pondering. I wish to point out in particular that the stated goals presuppose that the teacher will be a certain recognisable kind of person: an enthusiast and an authority, and one who is not ashamed to introduce overt value-judgments into teaching. In turn that means that the teacher must be well educated and thoroughly familiar with the knowledge and ideas which he is to teach. He must be sufficiently confident to convey those meanings and values to his pupils.
The role in society as a whole of the teacher thus envisaged is of overwhelming importance. We know, not by relying on common sense or guess work but from hard evidence, that school makes a difference to the life
1328
chances of its pupils. It is the general academic and moral ethos of the school which separates good influences from bad. It is only from the teachers that such an ethos has its source. Therefore, how teachers are to be selected and prepared is of fundamental importance, not only for the education: system. but for society as a whole.
It used to be fashionable in universities to adopt a snobbish and dismissive attitude towards the training of teachers. "There is no such subject as education", the aged dons used to say, looking with great scorn upon university education departments. They would say, "There are only subjects to be taught". The implication was that anyone who knows something can teach it and that training is a waste of time.
That attitude has had a disastrous effect, especially upon less able children and upon primary education. After all, the same old dons used to argue, "We can all read and write and do simple arithmetic, so we could all teach it"—except that, of course, it would be beneath them to do so. Although that attitude was common, it was antiquated, even when I was an undergraduate. But I am afraid that there are some, perhaps even in your Lordships' House and certainly in another place, who remain fixed in that attitude. That attitude lies behind the suggestion that the preparation of teachers need have nothing whatever to do with higher education and that not only can it be separately funded but it can be carried out entirely by the schools with no part played by the universities or colleges.
However much schools are rightly drawn into partnership and collaboration with institutions of higher education—and they should be so drawn—they have by themselves neither the time nor the resources to devise courses or assess and accredit teachers. I am wholly in favour of the increasing involvement of schools that we are seeing at present, with nominated mentors in the school, and I should be in favour of designated teaching or training schools analogous with teaching hospitals. But, after all, teaching hospitals work in partnership with university departments. And so schools must work with universities to ensure a graduate profession thoroughly able to take its place among and alongside other professions. There must be people who are able and confident to fulfil the vision for teachers which 1 believe is so admirably expressed in the report which we are debating.
I believe that part of that renewed confidence which the teaching profession must acquire will be reflected in time in a general teaching council. That must be the next step. I have so far heard no single argument against it. I have heard statements that it will not happen or that it should not be a statutory teaching council, but I have heard no argument to support such statements. The training of teachers within schools but in partnership with universities means that the next step must be the establishment of a general teaching council which will accredit the teachers and keep alive the standards.
I am aware that there will be another opportunity to debate the training of teachers at a later—riot much later —date. But the issue is of such fundamental importance, not just to the education system but to society as a whole, that I end by merely expressing the hope that

1329
your Lordships will read what is said about teacher training on pages 214 to 216 of the report, (I say that in my most helpful donnish way). Indeed, read no more. An overwhelming argument is there made for the kind of equal partnership between schools and higher education which is already proving to be the most effective means of preparing our teachers and which I believe it is absolutely essential that we should continue to provide and fund with a particular view to the production of teachers at the end such as are outlined in the report.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have many reasons to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and to his commissioners for this well-argued, well-researched innovative and non-political report. The report is generous in its praise of many of the great educational advances made by this Government but is trenchant in its criticism where it thinks we have gone wrong. However, its main purpose is to persuade us all to press onwards: to do more, to do better and to do some things differently. I am sure that all noble Lords present will find something in the report with which they do not agree. But the report expresses its arguments so reasonably that it invites discussion and not dissent. The report is a true basis for consensus.
It is interesting to contrast it with the Labour Party's Green Paper, which claims to have the same high aims but which remains stuck in the marshland of party politics. I hope that we shall have a chance to debate that paper on another occasion. But, for now, I shall just offer your Lordships one, albeit quite lengthy, quote from it on the 1944 Education Act:
"Neither a nation nor an education system can tell people what talents they have; it cannot say that 30 per cent. of the population will be 'good with their hands', it cannot say that another 30 per cent. will be good with their heads and yet another 30 per cent.…?"
—presumably those who are neither good with their hands nor their heads—
"will make good managers"..
That is an interesting comment on what it takes to be a good manager in a socialist society. The extract continues:
"British education tried to do that in the 20 years after the war with disastrous consequences. It wasted talent in every street in the country. It set our nation back a long time".
The next time noble Lords opposite call on the shades of the 1944 Education Act, I hope that they will remember what their party really thinks about it. However, time is short I must turn my attention to the report at hand and to two or three areas where I support what the report says in the hope that we may persuade my noble friend to follow, at least to some extent, its advice.
My first point is teacher education. I very much commend to my noble friend what the report says on the importance of educating teachers. In almost all the schools and colleges that I visit, even the very good ones, teachers do not learn as much as they should. When the door closes on the classroom the teacher is on his own; you do not find other teachers wandering in to
1330
watch what he is doing and offer advice. Nor does he offer his own insights to colleagues. There is very little measurement and informed self-criticism.
If you talk to people in a good school about why one particular department is failing and what can be done about it, you receive a lot of hand-waving arguments and some references to the black arts of education. If it is a good school, you know that they will get it right in a year or two, but it is never quite clear what their understanding of the problem is. However, when you visit a college that really understands measurement—for example, Greenhead College in Huddersfield—the difference is extraordinary. First, those concerned are not talking about results or about the students who have gone and are past recovery; they are talking about the students who are with them now, from their first half-term and onwards. They are looking at figures and information which indicate the students who need particular help or the teachers who may be failing the less able students in their class. Teachers respond to that information because it tells them what their students need and what they can do about it. Teaching is a vocation and teachers care about their pupils. If we give teachers the information, they will react to it in a wonderful way.
The Government have made a good start in teacher education and in improving the way teachers understand their job. The new inspection system encourages them in that direction. Teacher appraisal is also a good start. Where the project "investors in people" has been taken up in the education system it has played a great part. However, we must go on. There is so much to be gained from helping teachers to learn.
Secondly, I should like to support the report's advocacy of integrated, lifelong modular examination systems. It is the universal wish of the principals and head teachers whom I meet to see an end to the arts-science divide; to see an end to the divide between the academic and the vocational; to see an end to the divide between teaching the young and teaching the more experienced. They want their students to have a broad base to equip them for the world and to provide them with a better foundation for their more specialist studies later on.
It is not a question, as my noble friend Lord Beloff seemed to imply, of abandoning the academic; the academic remains one pure route for people who wish to follow it. However, some people like me who are good at the academic route regret being cut off from half the academic world. Because I was a scientist, after the age of 14 I hardly touched arts subjects at all. I was cut off from the practical and from the chance to return and learn a language in the way that I would have liked.
The examination system also needs to recognise the other end of the spectrum; that is, the people who are currently labelled as drop-outs and failures. Well, perhaps some people deserve those labels. But many students have worked long and hard before they achieve such labels. Indeed, we have spent much money on them before we regard them in that way. We should not waste that effort and money if we can possibly give them something; if we can recognise what they have done and if we can give them a base upon which they can build

1331
later in life. Again, this Government have made good progress in that direction with the introduction of GCSEs, GNVQs, AS-levels, and so on. However, we must move onwards down that path.
Finally, I should like to offer some thoughts on education and training boards. They appeal to me as a concept because I should like to see the combination of education and training to make education lifelong. I like the way that they offer a route for incorporating the local dimension in education as opposed to just the school or the nation. I speculate that they could offer an answer to one of the reasons why so many LEAs have failed to provide good education: they are too close to their electorate.
Many people who send their children to schools which do not do well are, as we saw with the reactions to the report on Crook Primary Schools, content with the bad education that their children receive. They have come to share the low expectations that are prevalent in such schools and in the educational system. The politicians who are in charge of those schools challenge the contentment of the electorate at their own risk. If you make your electorate discontented, they will merely chose someone else. Perhaps if we had education and training boards we would find that they were sufficiently distant from local politicians to enable the latter to regain their role as champions of their electorate and yet sufficiently close to enable those same politicians to have a clear influence on the policies of the education and training boards.
In summary, this is an excellent report. There is a great deal in it that we shall use for many years to come.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I should like to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, by saying that his final sentence summarises the situation about this splendid report. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will not mind if I say that, although I understand his point of view, I believe that my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant and his colleagues have stimulated the structural side of the educational arrangements in this country.
I should like to talk a little about individual children. I believe that many important points about recognising talents and developing aptitudes were raised both in the report and during this evening's debate. At the end of the day, I doubt whether there are many people in the Chamber who do not realise that some teacher somewhere along the line in their development spotted whatever talents they had and encouraged them. Perhaps I may stress to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon that that is related to the spiritual side of education. I understand that he was worried because the latter was not thrown into the report as firmly as he would wish. In my view, this represents an important part of the experience of being educated, being embraced by someone other than your parents, being looked at dispassionately and being given guidance.
The point has been made about the variety of people who require education. Noble Lords have referred to manual skills, mental intelligence and the capacity to be managers. I wish to tease your Lordships by asking you
1332
whether you can identify my following general quotation. I ask you not to shout out! The quotation is as follows:
"The educational services should encourage the development in each child of reasoning, self-discipline, work habits, consideration for others, initiative, sensitivity arid flowering of talents".
Those were the words of a former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I mention that quotation because I wish to soften the Minister's heart as I know she will be cross with me when I speak presently in support of a general teaching council.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It will take more than that.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it will take more than that.
I believe that the flowering of talents that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, mentioned in the quotation I have just referred to is associated with the title of the report, Learning to Succeed. When I was at Cambridge I used to talk a lot about the uncovering of aptitude until. I discovered, to my horror, that that was a foolish thing for an educationist to say because it implied that you thought that people had ingrained genetic abilities and you should not give the impression that you were dealing with genetic characteristics.
I must confess that I found the report what I believe the newspapers refer to as a jolly good read. There was much research behind it arid I am sure that we shall consult it from time to time in the future. I congratulate the famous international publisher, Paul Hamlyn, on raising the funds for this project through his foundation. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on gathering together such a splendid group of colleagues.
There are certain matters that I wish to tease out of the report as I believe they are relevant to my addiction to the idea of a general teaching council. The report places great emphasis on high quality learning; and that depends on what learning is on offer and to a certain extent on the leadership of the teaching profession.
We must remember, of course, that Her Majesty's Inspectorate has observed on visits that there are, sadly, some teachers who fail to identify the needs of their individual pupils, whether they be the less able or the very able. In a way it is rather daunting, when one thinks about the process of education and the structure of educational institutions, to realise that in the end one is talking about an almost magical relationship between an inspiring person, the teacher, and a child whose interests are being awakened and the enormously heavy structure of organisations which are interested in and have a voice in the educational process. Appendices 1 and 2 of the report enable us to identify easily 100 organisations, associations and groups of people who are concerned with education and are presumably all committed to their projects and feel they have the right to have a voice in education. There is a wide diversity of people interested in education, whether education in infant schools or universities. I feel that that is a good reason for having an organisation such as a general teaching council which can act as a sorting house for all these diverse points of view.

1333
In their remarks about a commitment to innovation the commissioners talk about,
"the creation of a community within the teaching profession, dedicated to innovative teaching, to the development of new methods and the imaginative use of advanced technology".
It seems to me that those things could be developed if we could achieve representation on a general teaching council in an acceptable balance for government.
When I first proposed an amendment urging that we incorporate a general teaching council into the previous Education Bill, I received nods of approval from all around the House. Unfortunately, in the ensuing discussion some people made the point that the trades unions controlled the teachers and that the teachers had struck. That pulled the carpet from under my feet and I never really recovered from it. I have since been told that no sensible mover of an amendment would have sought a vote after dinner.
There is wide support for the concept of a general teaching council. There was recently a meeting in St. George's House, Windsor, which some of those present in this Chamber attended. Those of us at the meeting felt that a general teaching council should have more rounded representation, comprising members drawn from the general public, pupils and governors and of course representation from employers. I believe that a general teaching council could through that more rounded representation develop arrangements for on-going training and could foster a relationship between teachers on the ground and the local university departments. I am not speaking of whole universities, or necessarily universities' education departments.
It is intriguing to read the comments of D.H. Lawrence on the University College of Nottingham. He and his friends who attended that university were reaching out for better knowledge. That is the very matter which the commission is keen on and which is mentioned frequently in the report.
Many people have said that the developments we are discussing will require partnership. I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, when she said that the development would require a good partnership between those in the universities who have striven and achieved certain levels of learning and the teachers on the ground. I regret that there was not a chapter in the report on the integration of local schools with all the new local universities. The staff in those universities could pick up where the dons lost the opportunity to have an influence. I support the report.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, one of the advantages of speaking towards the end of the debate is that many of the points one wished to make have already been made. The noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Gibson, have encapsulated much of what I wished to say. There are two areas I wish to touch on this evening. The first is the training of scientists and engineers—here I speak as a practising engineer—and the second is the proposed education and training boards.
Over the past weeks I have spent some time speaking to colleagues in my industry, the oil industry, and with
1334
people in other industries on their view of education and training. It seems that there is a consensus about which we have heard quite a bit, and I believe that it can be summarised into three main sections. The first is a requirement for basic numeracy and literacy. I do not think there is any question that that is a basic requirement for any employer.
The second is a desire for a continuum of educational opportunities between the academic and the vocational, between part-time and full-time education and between the definitions of training and education. There seems to be a desire for a continuum of opportunity and that there should not be a division between these various forms of education. Indeed, the report makes many suggestions on methods of achieving this goal.
The third point is that inevitably none of my colleagues wanted to pay any more money towards achieving those goals. Many felt indignant that, as they saw it, the Government were shifting on to them responsibilities for which they believed they had paid their taxes.
It is often asserted, as it is asserted in this report, that there is a link between educational standards and economic growth. I believe that it is true there is such a link. However, it is wrong to suggest that increasing standards alone will lead to greater economic growth. There is a danger of such assertions becoming platitudes. Perhaps I may give two examples from my own experience.
I have recently worked in Russia as an engineer. In Russia there is a well-educated population yet there are extremely poor living standards. In many areas I visited they are comparable to third world living standards. Secondly, I used to work in Indonesia. My company, like many others, put considerable resources into training the members of the local population it employed. They were all graduates, and the company made sure that they were supplied with computers and software. However, those employees were not capable of moving up to run the company. The reason was quite simple. They were not exposed to the decision-making process and the practicalities of planning and running a business.
The message I draw from those two examples is that, of course, continuing training and education are vital. That is something we must all strive to improve. But they are not sufficient in themselves. They are not a substitute for practical involvement in the decisions and planning of any enterprise. I can recall the warm feeling that comes over managers and training managers who have sent employees off for their one or two week annual training course. It may make people feel worthy and conscientious, but in my view it is not sufficient training. What is needed is practical involvement. Individuals should be involved in the decision-making process within the organisation in a way which exposes them visibly to the direct financial impact of the decisions in which they are involved.
I return briefly to the proposed education and training boards. Here I am slightly disappointed with the conclusions of the report. I should like to quote from two paragraphs on page 350:

1335
"We find this proposed erosion of local accountability both unnecessary and in principle undesirable … The reason that it is undesirable is that accountability for many decisions about local schools will be taken away from the locality and invested in a remote funding body which is accountable to the Secretary of State".
I agree that that is true, but I do not consider the proposed education and training boards, to be set up in a similar manner to the training and enterprise councils, an adequate response. I believe that the commission should have abandoned its politically neutral stance and come out firmly in favour of local democratic control of education. That debate has had a long run in this House and in another place, but I was disappointed that the report did not live up to the views which I have just quoted.
I notice that I have a couple more minutes and I feel stimulated to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He has stimulated many noble Lords to respond to him this evening. I have seen many young people whom one might not expect to be academically inclined entranced by many of the computer programs available on PCs—games and the like—which are extremely educationally beneficial, particularly in the areas of mechanics and electronics. I do not believe that the noble Lord did so, but one should not sneer at such opportunities. In many cases one cannot drag children away from such programs.
The noble Lord went on to say that three grade As at A-level should be required to study at what I believe to be the second best engineering college in Britain. I understand that that was a rhetorical comment, but it does not address the main problems facing scientists and engineers. The main problem is encapsulated in the statistic that 50 per cent. of those who start science at A-level fail to finish their course. That is the problem which we must face and which the report addresses.
I shall wind up by referring to the combative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I certainly would welcome an opportunity to debate Labour's Green Paper, which is out to very full consultation. That consultation is much fuller than that provided for government documents. I believe that we should have a debate on that report at an early stage. I conclude by welcoming the report which we are debating.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I join those noble Lords who have paid tribute to the national commission and my noble friend Lord Walton in particular. The grounds on which I add my congratulations to the commission are mainly for undertaking the enterprise at all. Perhaps it would have been better still if we had had a Royal Commission, but I quite understand why the Government did not want that. Looking back to 1980, I am glad that reference was made to the ideals and principles of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph.
Much progress has been made in many fields, but it must be faced that the education system inherited by the present Government was in a lamentable state. I take the analogy of a broken-down car. I am moved to take that particular analogy because, on my way to London for the debate, an articulated lorry with a laden trailer came round a right-angled corner on my side of the road and,
1336
before overturning, smashed my car. I suppose that have the choice of repairing the car or, as I hope, having it declared a write-off and obtaining a new car.
Analogies have their limitations. No one wants to write off the inheritance of our educational structure. However, as I believe many noble Lords agree, we need a radical transformation. Why? Because the world is moving at a rate of accelerated change. We can have no idea what it will be like in 20 years. All we know is that it will be very different. The qualities and capacities that students should acquire for a world of accelerating change are above all the capacity to learn, to adapt, to engender creative imagination and flexibility.
How does one set about acquiring those qualities? Chapter 5 of this admirable report deals with innovation in learning. It states:
"It is constant innovation that will drive provision … up to the highest level of quality, while also opening it out to all who can and should in future benefit".
A few pages later the report states:
"Effective learning requires the development of thinking skills".
I shall confine the remainder of my remarks to that aspect of innovation. If we are to keep abreast and if we are to make our living in a changing world, it is absolutely basic to the future of this country that we keep a jump ahead of all our competitors with regard to thinking skills.
Until recently it was supposed that thinking skills could and should be taught only as a by-product of content. Certainly in my own lamentably narrow education it was assumed that the muscles of the mind were sufficiently extended and developed by focusing on the narrowest possible range of Greek and Latin studies. How wrong we were, my Lords. Look at the product! However, it is now acknowledged that thinking skills is a curriculum subject in itself. Professor Nisbet, a distinguished educationist, said that no curriculum will be acceptable soon unless it makes a contribution to the teaching of thinking.
I am involved with a very small school which has made a considerable effort in that direction. There is a range of thinking skills now which can be tackled direct: lateral thinking; modelling; mapping thoughts, arid widening perception. Those skills can be enormously enhanced by the use of the latest visual aids and IT. IT is a subject in itself. The National Council for Educational Technology states that we need a strategy for the use of IT. Her Majesty's Inspectorate says that there is a limited diet of IT at present and at a relatively superficial level. I have no doubt that information technology in education will develop at a tremendous rate and perhaps revolutionise most of the teaching methods in schools in the next 10 or 15 years. I therefore support the commission's recommendation that a council for innovation in teaching and learning should be set up to advise the Secretary of State on innovation policy, to develop national policy and new approaches, and to secure Government commitment to give support. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will pursue that recommendation.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Addington, who was unable to take part in the debate having become unwell. I know that he would like me to express his apologies to the House.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I wish briefly to point out that in the much maligned 1970s there was a consistent increase in the proportion of children attaining GCE O-levels and A-levels—the current examination at the time. Therefore, to give the impression that it was a period of steady decline in educational achievement is, to say the least, not quite consonant with history. However, I agree with much of what he said including his impressive remarks about information technology.
Perhaps I may add my congratulations to the many extended to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and to his entire team. It is an impressive team of people with knowledge of industry, business, science, the universities and teaching. He and the Paul Hamlyn Foundation deserve the greatest possible credit for bringing together such a broad spectrum of people who have contributed to the findings of the national commission. I almost referred to it as the Royal Commission; that is perhaps my fault as I wish that it had been so.
I congratulate Sir Claus Moser who was in some ways the inspiration of the national commission because of the moving and passionate speech which he made to the British Association for the Advancement of Science three years ago. As I understand it, that was the genesis of the national commission. It seems right and proper we should all pay tribute to his far-sightedness and commitment.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I was impressed by the tremendous range of evidence that the commission heard. Any commission which listens to everyone, ranging from members of the National Union of Teachers to the Confederation of British Industry, from the Engineering Employers Federation to the Headmasters' Conference, cannot for one moment be described as having listened only to one side. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, might wish to look again at Appendix 1, which lists all those who gave oral evidence, and at Appendix 2, which lists all those who gave written evidence. It is impossible to argue that the commission listened only to one point of view.
Perhaps I may pick up some of the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate and by the right reverend Prelate who preceded him in the debate on 7th December, making much the same point. I believe that there should be three purposes in education. I wish to say a few words about each of them. I assess the purposes with no priority; I merely list them.
The first is the purpose of creating a highly skilled, adaptable, flexible and well qualified workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, spoke eloquently about that. I shall later follow some of the points that he made. No society and no nation can hope to survive or flourish if it is not competitive in terms of the abilities and skills of its workforce. Let me make it plain: when I talk about
1338
a workforce I include professional scientists and managers as well as people on the shop floor, in craft, and in other trades.
The second great purpose of education is, as the national commission said, to instil the concept of full citizenship in all the people of a society. Citizenship involves more than being the passive customer of services. It is the participation and sharing in the public deliberation which leads to the decisions that a society in a democracy makes. I believe that to be one of the most important points made by the national commission; we should not neglect it in our debate this evening.
Many of us would echo the words of the right reverend Prelate that the third purpose of education—I refer to the purpose, but not to the order of priority—is to achieve the spiritual and moral development of each individual. It is to recognise in each individual what Dante described as divine discontent: the quality that lifts human beings above the level of all other species. The right reverend Prelate rightly pointed to it as one of the objects of education.
I now turn to each of the headings. The first was the need for a skilled and qualified workforce. I can make my remarks, relatively brief because the subject was dealt with so well by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I wish to say a few words drawn from the report which is about to be published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD. As noble Lords know, it is the over-arching organisation of the industrialised countries of the world. The report, foreshadowing what the organisation will say for the purposes of the so-called "job summit" in a few months' time, stated that the collapse in the demand for unskilled workers in developed economies is a serious problem,
"regardless of the form it takes—low paid, low quality jobs or overt unemployment".
In launching the draft report, the Secretary-General of the OECD, M. Jean Paye, said precisely that he believed that there was a link between unemployment, on the one side, and drugs and crime on the other. That comes from a man who is respected in international organisations for his sense, reason and obvious avoidance of any exaggerated claims. He asks for a mandate from OECD members so that that link might be more closely studied.
However, the fundamental point is the disappearance of unskilled jobs, which means that for a large part of our society there is literally no future in employment prospects towards the end of the century and beyond. As the national commission pointed out, we have the highest proportion of young men and women with no qualifications as they leave school of any of the leading European and Atlantic industrial countries. The national commission pointed out that our figures for both 16 and 18 year-old pupils with higher qualifications fall well below those of virtually all our major industrial competitors.
The national commission might have extended that beyond the countries that we normally think of as our competitors—namely, the United States and Japan—to look at the so-called Asian tigers. In countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong

1339
Kong, the levels of educational achievement are beginning to surpass our own. That will give them a tremendous advantage in the next century.
I wish to make one other point about the problems of our pattern of industrial development. One problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and many others pointed is that we are moving into an industrial pattern where hierarchies are flattened, where each individual worker has far more discretion than he had under the old Taylorian industrial system. As a member of the Educational Development Institute in the United States, every time I attend a meeting at which we receive reports from high technology industries I am conscious of the extraordinary level of responsibility now given to workers in those industries because they cannot work in any other way.
I turn next to the second major aim of education to which I referred; namely, the aim of citizenship. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said when he outlined the work being done by the Prince of Wales trust in the field of community service. Citizenship should be taught in the schools in a deep and profound way, by showing young people how they can contribute to the community. I should like to congratulate the Prince of Wales trust on the work it is doing in that respect.
It is perhaps worth mentioning to the House that the new Administration in the United States has also adopted a community service structure in which, interestingly, it is inviting graduates as well as young people from the inner cities to work side by side in community service, allowing graduates to have some part of their student loans waived in respect of their commitment to community service.
Perhaps I may make two final remarks about citizenship. I welcome the fact that the national commission recognised—and it is strange to have to say this after nearly 20 years —that Britain is a member of the European Union. In that respect, we need in our schools not only to teach languages —and we will pay a terrible price for the lack of priority that we give at present to foreign languages, particularly European languages—but also to teach our children something about European history, geography and culture. I wish that the national curriculum reflected that a little more brightly than at present.
One other point on citizenship is that the national commission refers to the emergence—alas, I have to say —of a growing underclass in our country. The national commission says that 20 per cent. of our people leave school without any qualifications. That has been true for a long time; and I say that because the Minister might say that I did not, as she would be entitled to do. That 20 per cent. constitutes a serious social threat of the breakdown of social cohesion; for the underclass—be it here, in the United States or in France—is becoming increasingly detached from society, increasingly sucked into a world of crime, drugs and dissociation from the main objectives which the rest of us are fortunate enough to continue to pursue.
I make no reference to the previous debate in this House, except to say that it seems to me tragic that we can find the money for more prisons but not for more
1340
nursery education. With respect to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Carnegy, I have to say that there has been more research than there have been hot dinners on the usefulness of nursery education. I do not believe that we need any more; we need action, not words, to quote a famous Conservative.
I now refer to the final objective of education: the moral and spiritual development of young people. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it depends on the family as well as schools. However, in many cases the family structure for which we may wish is simply not there. We have to address the situation as it is—harsh, tough, disagreeable. We know that good schools provide youngsters whose families have crumbled with some kind of structure, challenge and opportunity to get out of a spiral of decline.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, referred to the significance of teachers in that respect, and there is no possible substitute for excellent teaching. I conclude by saying that we do not just need a general teaching council, although we do. We do not just need a renewal of the partnership between higher education and teacher training to which the noble Baroness referred; and heaven help us if we break that link. Teachers need more than just to. be trained in the narrowest professional skills; they need a rich and broad education. We also need respect for the teaching profession and that has to begin with teachers' respect for themselves.
I wish to end my remarks by once again thanking the chairman of the national commission and its members for having provided all of us in this country with an opportunity to revisit the issue of education over the long term and to see how we can save a nation at risk from the possibility of decline.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has asked me to say that he very much regrets that he cannot be here to take part in the debate today. He had a long-term commitment in Mexico which he could not avoid.
I too wish to begin by thanking the Paul Hamlyn Foundation and Sir Claus Moser for making the report of the national commission possible. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for chairing it, for giving so much of his valuable time to it, for providing such a comprehensive survey of education and for giving us the opportunity today to debate it. It turns out to be a most appropriate time situated, as we are, in the curious limbo between Second Reading and Committee stage of the unpopular Education Bill. The debate gives us another opportunity to talk about teachers.
The Labour Party welcomes the report. A large proportion of its findings coincides with party policies and aspirations set out in the Green Paper produced last October. I look forward at some point to discussing that further with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Nursery education has been mentioned a great deal. It is our priority as well as that of the report. We have conflicting statements from the Government. The Prime Minister makes a speech totally in favour; the Secretary of State for Education will make no firm commitment; and the noble Baroness continues to mislead on the

1341
numbers. There are only just over 50 per cent. of three and four year-olds in state nursery schools and classes —and those are government figures—but the Minister constantly quotes the figure of 95 per cent. as being the number receiving some form of pre-school education. We must emphasise that playgroups do not provide the same quality of education and are very much a second best.
We have always been keen to make the national curriculum less prescriptive. Indeed, at the time the reform Act was going through this House in 1988 we did our best, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, to reduce the number of subjects that must be taught. But to no purpose. Saying "I told you so" does not give much comfort. Since then almost everyone—certainly the teachers who were most actively involved in producing it—has been highly critical. The curriculum could not be made to work. The Government refused to listen until they were absolutely forced to. They then called in Sir Ron Dearing to make proposals to sort out the mess. He proposed a much slimmed-down curriculum, giving to the schools the opportunity to choose what use to make of the time not being taken up with the six subjects remaining compulsory. The Government accepted those proposals. That is a complete climb-down; a complete U-turn.
The proposals for the general education diploma need further consideration. The GCSE was a success, but there is much to be said for the call for coherence within the 14ߝ19 age range and no arbitrary break at 16. The education and training of 16 to 18 year-olds has been a disaster area. There must be A-level reforms, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said. A broad and balanced curriculum must be produced for that age group. The Government's obstinacy in hanging on to A-levels after the Higginson Report - which they commissioned—and the disillusion felt by practically everyone involved in education is incredible. Now Mr. Patten wants a super A-level which would lead to even more specialisation. That was laughed out of court by the heads both in the independent and the state sectors.
The system as it is condemns young people to failure. According to the report only 21 per cent. of 18 year-olds in 1991–92 gained two A-levels. The emphasis should be on success and not on failure. The encouragement of those not in social classes I and II to continue in some form of education or training, or both, is vital, not only for their own satisfaction but also for the needs of the country. That has been pointed out a number of times today. The Labour Party wants a proper integrated system where young people can select different combinations of vocational and academic study. That is perhaps one point on which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I agree. And lack of finance must not be a deterrent.
There is a chapter on teachers and teaching, as mentioned by a number of speakers. High quality teaching is the most crucial factor at the heart of high quality learning. Every pupil should be entitled to be taught by a teacher with the knowledge, training, competence and enthusiasm to teach that lesson well. The profession is not in a happy state at the moment. Morale is low. The frequent changes to the national
1342
curriculum and to assessment, often at short notice, caused a huge increase in the workload, especially administrative paperwork which is not what teachers entered the profession to do. The suggestion of classroom assistance is eminently sensible.
There has been an increase in resignations due to ill-health and the taking of early retirement. The present Bill makes matters worse. It de-professionalises the teacher. As the report says,
"There seems no doubt that the most successful teacher training occurs when there is a genuine partnership between schools and higher education institutions, each playing a distinctive part".
We need to secure a supply of high quality entrants. The report provides evidence that we do not have that at the moment. Many secondary subjects are being taught by people not qualified in the subject. The recession probably encouraged more young people to go into teaching and accounts for the supply of teachers in shortage subjects being at least better than it was. But we want the supply to continue even if the economy perks up. There is evidence to show that if the demand for really high quality persists, if the training is demanding and if we insist on keeping an all-graduate profession, the number and quality of entrants will rise and the 350,000 teachers in the PIT—pool of inactive teachers—may be enthused to return to the schools.
I am glad that the report recommends the setting up of a general teaching council, supported by a number of speakers with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I attended the seminar at St. George's, Windsor, last week, conducted by Professor John Tomlinson, as did the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Butterfield, and the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Guildford and Ripon. We were all impressed by what we heard. I believe that the setting up of a GTC will not only raise morale among teachers but will also greatly improve the quality of teaching in our schools and colleges. That would assist the Government. I hope therefore that Ministers will keep an open mind, that they are ready to think again on the matter, and that they will not reiterate their fears that it would be a creature of the unions.
The commission wants funding council quangos to go. After all that we heard last week from the Public Accounts Committee regarding inequities and inefficiencies, that can come as no surprise. The report rightly stresses that the power they have been given will erode local accountability. Decisions, it says, are best taken at local level. I believe we had agreement on that from my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and others.
The commission's solution is to create an intermediate tier of locally accountable bodies between the Department of Education and Training—and we wholeheartedly support that amalgamation—and the individual schools, which would be the educational training boards. I cannot see why the LEA, perhaps slightly reconstituted, cannot perform that task. It is said that the representation of Churches will be important. Education committees have long had representatives on them of the Churches and of teachers. There is no reason why members of the local TEC cannot be co-opted. The LEA would have the experience and knowledge of

1343
officers and members and would be a truly democratic body. More reorganisation and more new bodies can only be disruptive.
We have had an interesting and important debate. Many of the recommendations have been mooted before, as my noble friend Lord Dormand said. But in Learning to Succeed they have been brought together in a masterly and readable way. There was input and a great deal of work done by a wide range of people from industry, commerce and education. The report contains vision. The objectives are excellent. My only query is whether a structure exists to put those objectives into practice. After all, we want action. I understand that funds are available for some follow-up. There is certainly an obligation on the Government to examine the recommendations in detail and to come up with reasoned arguments as to why they will or will not support them. We eagerly await the first response from the Government.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she will agree that I did not say that I disagreed with the idea of a general teaching council. I merely commented, I hope constructively, on one role that the commission suggested it should have.
Baroness David: My Lords, I apologise if I misinterpreted the noble Baroness.
8.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of replying on behalf of the Government to this most interesting debate, which I believe reflects credit on your Lordships' House, showing once again the expertise and dedication which your Lordships apply to the question of education. I congratulate in particular the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on his excellent opening speech setting the context for your Lordships' debate and of course for the service which he and his fellow commissioners performed in the course of their work leading to the report, Learning to Succeed.
In the short time available to me I shall attempt to respond to as many as possible of the important points made by noble Lords during the debate, and it may be convenient if I make my response in the same sequence as that used by the national commission in its report; that is, in the order of the topics covered by the seven "goals" which have been identified.
On the first goal, I understand the thinking behind the commission's call for an expansion in nursery education. But let us not lose sight of how much has already been achieved in this area. More than half—not 94 per cent. —of all three and four year-olds experience some form of nursery education provision. When the excellent work done by the Pre-school Playgroups Association—when I use these statistics I always regard this as provision and not education, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said—and other voluntary bodies is added—and not forgetting the independent sector—the number of under fives involved in pre-school activity—education and other provision—rises to more than nine out of 10 children.
1344
And, of course, children in this country begin their formal school career at the age of five, much earlier than the age six or seven in most other European countries. Compulsory schooling also lasts longer in this country —for 11 years —than in most European countries. We are, I believe, equalled only by the Netherlands. And international comparisons of pre-school playgroup provision often overstate what actually happens in other countries. For example, the OECD's analysis shows France as securing 95 per cent. take up of nursery education for all three and four year-olds for up to eight hours a day. But I doubt whether in practice most French under-fives actually receive that amount of education; and it says nothing about quality. In other countries pre-school provision is not necessarily free: it is often privately funded, with varying degrees of public subsidy to providers or consumers. Britain therefore compares more favourably than people sometimes think.
That said, as I indicated in the debate initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on 19th January, we are keen to find ways of helping to extend over time the amount of nursery and other pre-school provision available. But universal free state provision is not the whole answer. There is no case for replacing or discouraging some of the excellent voluntary and private provision that now exists. Parents are best able to judge what they and their children need; what suits one child and one family may not suit another. That is why we have encouraged diversity of provision, involving public, private and voluntary sectors. What unites us is the importance of provision for under fives.
We recognise that the picture of provision across the country is somewhat patchy. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and indeed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education have said that we intend to explore ways of adding as resources allow—a phrase now in vogue with honourable Members on the Opposition Front Bench in another place—to the choice already available to parents from all sources. At this stage, nothing is ruled out or ruled in. The options we shall look at will be judged against our guiding principles of choice, diversity, quality and cost-effectiveness. Pre-school provision must be of high quality, preparing children well to start their primary school learning. Full-time, universal, free state education will cost more than £2 billion, and that figure does not include capital costs. Nor does it include, if we are talking about it being universally available to all children, transport costs.
Perhaps I may now move on to the second goal. I am grateful for the constructive comments from noble Lords on matters referring to the curriculum. The commission's report was of course published during the course of Sir Ron Dearing's wide-ranging review of the national curriculum: Sir Ron will no doubt have taken account of the commission's proposals.
Sir Ron has now published his final report. His recommendations reflect the views of teachers whom he has consulted with thoroughness. His report has been widely welcomed and the Government have accepted in full his main recommendations. He has confirmed that the key principles of the national curriculum should remain fully intact: a broad and balanced curriculum for

1345
all pupils; rigorous national tests in English, mathematics and science; accountability to parents and the wider community.
But over-prescription will be removed: testing arrangements have already been streamlined, and from 1995–96 the curriculum itself will be slimmed down, especially outside the basics of English, mathematics and science. That will leave teachers more time to use at their discretion and greater flexibility at 14 to 16 to match courses—this is an important point—to the aptitudes as well as the abilities of individual pupils.
The national curriculum and national tests in the basics are at the heart of this Government's policy to raise standards in our schools—a policy which, as the Chief Inspector of Schools has reported, is already bearing fruit. The drive to raise standards in turn goes to the heart of Britain's future economic and social progress, as the national commission itself has recognised.
We cannot hope to compete effectively in the modern world without a properly educated and trained workforce. That means, at the very least, ensuring that no young person completes 11 years of compulsory schooling without mastering the basics of English, mathematics and science. Beyond that, it means providing young people at school with broadly based knowledge and skills and, perhaps even more importantly, with a capacity and enthusiasm for education which they can take forward into further education and training post-16, into the work place, and on into adult life in general.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that it is a conundrum why, after 11 years of compulsory schooling, so many young people leave school with a serious level of under-performance. That must unite the whole House in looking for ways of making sure that we make serious inroads into that area of education.
The national curriculum provides a national entitlement to education for every child in this country, whether they live in inner city, affluent suburb or rural village. It provides the common foundation for the learning society that Britain needs to become. And it provides the means by which young people can play their full part in that society. As such, it is vital not only to our economic success but to our social and moral well-being as a nation. I share the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. He was worried about the omission from the report of the spiritual dimension of education. Education without that aspect is no more, and can be no more, than a clinical and arid experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, regretted that music was to be optional. I give him the assurance that that is not so. Music remains a compulsory subject within the national curriculum from the age of five through to the age of 14. It simply, at the age of 14, gives way to allow flexibility for more choices of education—whether vocational, arts and social sciences or more academic subjects—and again to build on the aptitudes and abilities of young people.
1346
Education and training post-16 needs to build on the national curriculum, and Sir Ron Dearing's proposals for greater flexibility for 14 to 16 year-olds, including the development of vocational options, will make for a more effective transition. I welcome the attention given in the report to the needs of 16 to 18 year-olds but I have reservations about specific proposals, which do scant justice to the progress already made.
Substantial increases in participation have already been achieved; we have a buoyant and energetic further education sector; we plan to expand student numbers further by as much as 25 per cent. over the next three years; and we are introducing modern apprenticeships to provide a high quality work-based alternative route.
We are addressing quality as well as participation. The national targets set a challenge to the education system and we are encouraging schools and colleges to design high quality learning programmes, drawing upon an evolving framework of post-16 qualifications. The GCSE is well-established; GCE A-levels are tried and tested, well-suited to the group for whom they are designed; we are establishing new high quality vocational pathways alongside them in GNVQs and national vocational qualifications. These efforts to enhance achievement would not be helped by a mismatched overarching qualification along the lines of the general education diploma proposed by the report. That would lower the important and useful distinctions between kinds of qualifications and make it more difficult for higher education and employers to recognise achievement. Many of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Beloff reinforce that point.
The Government's proposals, on the other hand, open new qualification pathways giving schools and colleges and young people themselves flexibility while maintaining standards within a coherent overall structure, a system which exploits both the aptitude and abilities of young people. Again this is an example where there is a meeting of minds about this issue with some differences of view about means to ends.
The report covers a wide range of topics under Goal 3 each bearing in a different way on the important and complex question of good teaching. Some of the most important recommendations in this section deal with the issue of teacher training and closely related matters. I believe that noble Lords will understand if I say relatively little about that, given the constraints of time and the extensive coverage that the subject has been receiving, and will continue to receive, in your Lordships' House in discussion on legislation currently before us. I shall not repeat what I have said elsewhere about the reforms that the Government propose, including the creation of the teacher training agency, except to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, of the important place of higher education in teacher training. Indeed, it is inconceivable that it should be otherwise. But that should not preclude the importance of school-based experience when young people are training for teaching as a career.
I have stated our position a number of times in the past 12 months, most recently when winding up the Second Reading debate on the current Education Bill on. 7th December. We fully support the national

1347
commission's emphasis in its report on the crucial importance of a high quality teaching profession. That is a key objective of the Education Bill currently before your Lordships' House. But we are not persuaded, as indeed my noble friend Lady Carnegy was not, in her characteristically informed speech, by the call of the national commission and others for a statutory general teaching council.
I shall repeat what I have several times said. I believe that a body for advancing the professional development and interests of teachers should come from the teachers themselves and not from government. I am certainly not angry with the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and I do not believe that much divides us on this. Again, we are talking about means to an end. The only proposed functions in the commission's proposals which require statutory backing would be those of maintaining the register of teachers and taking action in cases of misconduct. I am not convinced that it would be in the best interests of education or teachers to do away with a well-tried system of dealing with misconduct which is the responsibility of my right honourable friend, who is answerable through Parliament, to the teachers themselves and to the whole of the education profession. Transferring this function to a new body representing that profession is not the right way forward.
The commission also suggested that the general teaching council might be a source of national advice on educational issues. This is surely a function which could, if the teachers themselves wished it, be carried out without legislation. If the teachers decided to make representations on educational issues to us through such a unified body, and not as separate groups, we should be very ready to take full account of them. It is for teachers themselves to decide whether and how to take that opportunity forward, and not for the Government.
One particular issue highlighted in the report is the importance of the selection of head teachers. I agree with the authors of the report that the head teacher is the key figure in the school and selecting a new head is a very important task. The Government believe that it is right that governors, who are best placed to consider the needs and the interests of their school, should have the responsibility for selecting a head. Governors should be, and are able, to call upon expert professional advice to inform their decisions. I can tell noble Lords that many do.
Perhaps I may note in passing that, though the report is generally a very comprehensive and full one, there are important educational questions which are not dealt with extensively in it. If I may venture a criticism, it seems to me that insufficient account has been taken of recent reforms in this area, in particular the creation of the grant-maintained schools sector, other than to deny them the very independence that they not only fought for, but voted for.
More generally, there is perhaps less about matters of school organisation than one would expect. One important issue the commission has highlighted, however, is that of choice of school, raising issues of diversity and equity. Parents want to be able to choose the school that best suits their children's needs. The Government's policy of more open enrolment allows
1348
parents to apply for the school of their choice and to make sure that as many places as possible are available at popular schools. The expanding grant-maintained sector allows an ever-increasing number of schools to respond directly to the wishes of parents. The growth of these schools, and the schools developing and building on different specialisms over and above the national curriculum, is a valuable extension of choice and diversity.
The Government are not attracted to the structure of education and training boards recommended by the commission nor that these might allocate 10 per cent. of school places. That would create a bureaucratic two-tier admissions system. It is essential that admissions criteria, whether operated by the local education authority on behalf of its schools or by the governing bodies of voluntary aided or grant-maintained schools, should be clear and objective.
I welcome the attention given in this section of the report both to the raising of achievements in deprived areas and to special educational needs. As the commission recognises, raising standards is not simply a matter of resources, but more important factors such as quality of leadership, the school's ethos, the high expectations. of pupils, clear targets for learning and assessment and close links with parents.
The same message is clear in the recent report of the independent schools inspector (Ofsted) on access and achievement in urban education. Ofsted found that a key weakness in schools they visited was that teachers had low expectations of their pupils. Many were just not challenging their pupils enough, but those who did challenge their pupils achieved better results. Ofsted also stressed the need for good leadership, sound planning and organisation and an approach which puts raising standards at the heart of school management. Deprived areas also benefited from the extra resources provided through the weighting of standing assessments to reflect their additional needs. On top of that the Government are providing grants to support projects worth over £10 million in the current year to raise standards in inner city schoolls with a particular focus on reading, home-school links and school management.
As regards special educational needs, there is much common ground between the Government and the authors of the report. I am pleased by their recognition of the progress that has been made since the Education Act 1981. We have continued to advance in that field with Part III of the Education Act 1993, which addresses many of the issues raised in the report. Early identification is the key and our reforms emphasise that.
We are also seeking to publish regulations governing the provision of information to parents and guidelines on the identification of, and provision for, children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and on the education of sick children and children who are being looked after by local authorities.
This package of legislation and guidance further refines and improves the system of caring for children with special educational needs in this country which I strongly believe is among the finest in the world.
As regards Goal 4, even while the commission has been formulating its recommendation that higher

1349
education should be expanded and that additional capital investment was needed, the Government have achieved an unprecedented expansion of higher education. In the autumn of 1993, for the first time ever, over 30 per cent. of our young people entered higher education. There has also been spectacular growth in mature students. We are committed to maintaining this record level of participation.
The commission favours a wide diversity of higher education institutions. The Government share that view as we have made clear in the White Paper A New Framework in May 1991. We agree also with the commission on the need for clear, flexible routes for progression into higher education, as we have demonstrated by the development of the new vocational A-level to sit alongside the traditional A-levels. A number of institutions are developing modular courses and credit accumulation and transfer schemes which provide flexible routes for programmes through higher education.
I would like to encourage noble Lords to visit Anglia Polytechnic University, as I did recently. It is breaking new ground in offering high quality higher education imaginatively and with great innovation and reaching many young, and not so young, people right across East Anglia, who might otherwise not have found their way into higher education.
We welcome the commission's conclusion that graduates should contribute more to the cost of their attendance at higher education courses. The Government announced on 30th November last year that the shift in the balance of maintenance support from grant to loan would be accelerated. The overall level of funds available to students through the main rates of grant and loan for this year has increased by 4 per cent. I shall leave the complexities of the system suggested in the report to correspondence between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I shall make any correspondence available to the whole House.
Perhaps I may now touch on Goal 5. The report sets out some radical new ideas for structural changes in the educational and training world involving the creation of new organisations and new assignments of responsibility. While the Government entirely agree with the commission on the underlying need for proper integration between education and training, the suggestion that the department should be merged to create a new department of education and training, is a matter for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
There is excellent co-operation by the School Curriculum Assessment Authority, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, my department and the Department for Employment. However, I must say to the House that we have to continue to strengthen that co-operation and we intend to do so.
However, we are unconvinced by the recommendation for new structures at local level. The Government have no plans to establish entities along the lines that are recommended in the education and training grades. Our aim is to encourage choice and diversity in education. A key element in that is the increasing number of schools
1350
opting for grant-maintained status. At the same time we must not forget the continuing role of the local education authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State went out of his way to emphasise this in his recent speech at the North of England conference. The local authorities will continue to have responsibility for schools which do not opt out and continuing powers and duties in the areas of planning, special needs, teacher appraisal, the under-fives and a whole range of other important matters. The local education authorities remain well placed to carry these responsibilities and the Government see no place for establishing novel forms of organisation to attempt to take them over.
Goal 6: the report rightly places importance on public and private investment in education. The Government have clearly set out their objective that one young person in three should benefit from higher education by the end of the decade. That has almost been achieved. We have made it a priority to increase the number of students in further education by 25 per cent.
The commission's thinking in Goal 7 is entirely in line with the Government's thinking: greater openness and information about the performance of the public sector is a vital theme in our overall policies, going far beyond education. Within that sector the publication of school performance tables has brought about something of an information revolution. For the first time, parents and students, employers and taxpayers can compare the results achieved by schools and colleges across the country. Not only does this inform choice and accountability but it has stimulated many schools to take a hard look at what their pupils actually achieve by the time they leave school and how they can be helped to do better. It is no good us wringing our hands and complaining about other countries outstripping the performance of this country. It is only by getting and collating this information that we are going to be in a position simply to know where we are and how we can meet the challenge of doing better.
There is of course much more to good schooling than success in school performance tables but, by requiring schools to publish prospectuses and reports and to report to parents annually on the achievements of their children, in addition to all the other aspects of school life, the Government have helped to ensure that parents can take informed decisions and can support both their children and the schools more effectively.
At this point I had hoped to pick up more individual points that have been raised, but I am beaten by the clock. I have had to respond all too briefly to only a selection of the excellent points brought forward by your Lordships; but what I do believe is absolutely crucial and very important is that we should join together tonight in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and his colleagues who gave their time and energy to think in depth about education and who have produced their findings in a way which has opened up this important debate, not just to the educational establishment but to all who have an interest in the subject. Education is a dynamic. Much unites us, but there will always be differences of viewpoint about its funding, its structure, its content and its delivery.

1351
However, I would wish to record my thanks for the opportunity to debate these issues. I know we shall return to them before too long.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, it would be inappropriate, and indeed impossible, in the three minutes allowed at the end of this debate to reply to all the points that have been made so expressively by so many of your Lordships. However, I wish every one of you to know how grateful I and the members of the national commission are for the care and attention you have given to discussing this report upon which we laboured for so long.
May I reiterate what others have said: thanks are owed to Sir Claus Moser for initiating the commission, to the Paul Hamlyn Foundation for so generously funding it and to all the commissioners who worked so hard to bring out a report which I am glad to hear many of your Lordships believe will stand the test of time. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the careful and detailed consideration she has given to the points that have been made in the debate.
I cannot forbear, however, from saying to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, whose sparkling and mordant wit has enlivened so many debates in this House, that he will not expect me to agree with him. Some commentators in the press have said that we have put forward a full Left-wing agenda: a charge which I vehemently reject. Our apolitical stance was true throughout; our report was unanimous. I believe that no fewer than four members of the noble Lord's party are members of our commission and therefore I cannot accept that that was the case.
I can only add that I believe that in time the A-level system, which has served the brightest of our youngsters pretty well, will go and be replaced by a broader system of education along the lines recommended by the commission. The GCSE I wholly support as having been important for those leaving school at 16, but I hope and believe that the general education diploma that we have described in detail requires much deeper and more earnest consideration.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that you cannot expect a former dean of a medical school and a former head of an Oxford graduate college to take an anti-intellectual stance. My point is this. Many young people whom I have met who have high qualifications in A-level science subjects are nevertheless linguistically inadequate and lacking literary skills; and all too many of those trained in the arts to a high level of competence at A-level are scientifically illiterate. This is the kind of thing we would wish to see overcome in the future, just as we believe that the importance of the vocational qualifications, NVQs and GNVQs cannot be underestimated. As he himself said, the theoretical basis of some of these qualifications at the present time leaves much to be desired.
Our aim in this report has been to see that everyone should be enabled to succeed. In view of the time, I would only say that we want these issues to be the
1352
subject of further debate and discussion in your Lordships' House and in the country at large. I beg leave to wihdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Identity Cards
8.38 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley Lord Mason of Barnsley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the growing use of identity cards within business, industry, local authorities and the Civil Service; and to the growing demand for the introduction of a national identity card scheme.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since my interventions in your Lordships' House on 23rd June 1992 and 7th July 1993 on the need to introduce a national identity card scheme there has been a noticeable groundswell of opinion in favour. ID cards in various forms are being introduced in industry, business, banks, building societies and throughout the Civil Service. Undoubtedly there is now a growing demand in the country for a national identity card scheme—perhaps initially on a voluntary basis—allied with a "must produce" requirement similar to the system adopted on driving licences, although to be totally effective it should be a mandatory scheme. I believe there is a widespread call for a national scheme instead of this higgledy-piggledy development with a multiplicity of methods.
Opinions are changing. The public attitudes survey shows that within three years the proportion of those in favour of an ID card scheme has risen from 57 per cent. to 62 per cent. and the proportion of those against has fallen to 20 per cent. A survey by Leicester University Centre for the Study of Public Order last year revealed 78 per cent. in favour. The Police Federation favours compulsory ID cards. The Association of Chief Police Officers has now moved in favour of a voluntary scheme, and in a special report on the scheme submitted to the Home Secretary in May of last year it was stated that on the basis of a compulsory scheme:
"The introduction of an ID card system will have a significant impact upon crime in general and terrorism in particular".
I would have hoped that the Home Office might be able to respond to that.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs favours a voluntary scheme. The chairman, Sir Ivan Lawrence, said ID cards would,
"stop social security fraud practically stone dead".
The Council of Mortgage Lenders has called upon the Government to introduce an ID card system to help its members vet all mortgage applicants. A review by banks, building societies and investment organisations is encouraging the cards as a 'way to protect themselves against fraudulent deals and money laundering by drug dealers and terrorists.
The director general of the Cleaning and Support Services Association said:

1353
"ID cards should be widely welcomed. As an industry with many thousands of employees and a turnover of £1.5 billion per year, members of this association would welcome such an initiative".
In just six months the Home Office received 511 letters son the subject, 499 of which were in favour, with just 12 against.
Is the Minister, and the Home Office in particular, prepared to look favourably upon the idea of introducing a national identity card? The Department of Transport is now examining the idea of a photo driving licence—an ID card for up to 32 million holders. The Department of Transport said that it was,
"to make law enforcement easier",
and as an extra aid with road accidents.
The Department of Social Security, anxious about the extent of social security fraud, which is running at over £1 billion a year, says that the option of an ID card is being considered by a benefits agency. The Secretary of State says that ID cards for benefit claimants would prove,
"more of a help than a hindrance".
Even the Department of Employment is considering the possibility of photo passes—ID cards really—for the unemployed claiming the new jobseekers' allowance. Above all, the Prime Minister has said:
"I am attracted to the principle of ID cards in order to combat social security fraud".
I gather that Thorn Security Systems and Electronic Data Systems have been consulted. One estimate is that the operation may cost £100 million, but it could save between £800 million and £1 billion per year.
Scheme after scheme is under consideration. However, I stress above all what ACPO said to the Home Office. It warned that the Government should ensure control and compatibility at national level. Therefore the scheme should be a national one, with the Home Office in the lead. What other benefits are there? One is a tighter grip on the illegal immigrant problem: in 1992, 5,673 illegal immigrants were discovered in the UK; and thousands more may have gone undetected. That costs us hundreds of thousands of pounds. If they were only obtaining £20 a week, those caught were costing us over £½ million. As the Home Office knows, there is a profitable illegal immigrant racket in this country. Does not the Minister agree that an ID card with photograph, address, date of birth, sex and national insurance number would help to eliminate that racket?
If a compulsory scheme were to be introduced and it affected persons from the age of 16 years upwards, it would help the police cut back the rising crime rate. Crimes of violence against the person, sexual offences, burglary, fraud and forgery have all increased in recent years. Using Home Office figures, the proportion of the clear-up rate in England declined from 36 per cent. in 1980 to as low as 25 per cent. in 1992; hence the updated views of the Police Federation in favour of a national compulsory ID scheme which undoubtedly would curb many of those activities. Immediate identification would be the undoing of such offenders.
Identification is the friend of the honest citizen. He has nothing to fear. There would be a wave of national relief from all our elderly people, many of whom are
1354
living in fear and distress. What would be the cost? The Home Office says that it would cost £350 million to introduce such a scheme. In the meantime, the DSS alone is losing an estimated £1 billion to £3 billion a year through fraud, drug trafficking and illegal immigrants. They are costing us untold millions every year.
As the Home Office is aware, just two bombs in the City cost us an estimated £750 million. But what of all the damage caused by bombs and fire in other towns and cities where terrorists can roam free without instant identification? The City costs can be doubled, and so the Home Office's cost argument does not hold water. We know that 73 per cent. of all adults have some form of plastic card. It is accepted. Even photo cards are on the increase because of the thousands of travellers nationwide showing them on bus and railway passes.
In defending our freedom and maintaining our democracy, an ID card system could be for the greatest good for the greatest number. If voluntary, there could be no libertarian opposition, but a compulsory system would show benefits so considerable, according to the Police Federation, ACPO and now government departments, that I doubt whether it could be fairly challenged by Liberty. Indeed, there is no known national outcry in the six EC countries which have compulsory schemes.
Law-abiding citizens will not object to carrying an ID card. It would be reliable identification and it would reduce detailed checking by the police in a vast number of crime cases, leaving them more time to make the country safer for us to enjoy our liberty, and it might improve the quality of civil society. I believe that even British-born black people would welcome an ID card. They would be only too proud to own it and to show it, and therefore be better protected from alleged police harassment. An ID card removes anonymity from those engaged in crime: the crooks, the fiddlers and the fraudsters. They are the ones who would he apprehensive. Well, let us scare them. Let us force them to carry a photo ID card. Let us make their lives more hazardous and the lives of our decent citizens safer.
What reviews are taking place within government departments? What is the likelihood of a Home Office inquiry, as requested by ACPO? Can we have an assessment of the costs versus the benefits? A national ID card scheme is inevitable. More information from the Home Office would be helpful so that a proper judgment about a national system could be made.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, for raising this subject yet again. When I asked the Library for some briefing, it produced an excellent selection of material which made one realise what an enormous amount of attention has already been paid to the subject: two Private Member's Bills started in another place; a Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry; endless reports from civil liberties and other groups; and, of course, the police advice about which we have heard.
I know that it takes the Government a long time to make up their mind. I am reminded of that famous letter

1355
from A.P. Herbert to The Times when some commission upon which he served had its recommendations ignored once again. He wrote:
"Sir, the Government is like an elderly hypochondriac: always asking for a second opinion, and never taking it".
The sands are running out of the hour glass now. We have studied the issue for so long that the time must be coming when we can reach a resolution.
The argument dates back to the moment in 1952 when the old wartime identity cards were abolished in the famous bonfire of controls. Indeed, some Members of your Lordships' House refer from time to time with nostalgia to the delight in getting rid of the cards at that time. The situation has changed hugely. The "civil liberties" argument is either a general emotional one without any real substance—an uneasy feeling that Hitler and Stalin could supervise their people through devices such as identity cards—or a suggestion that the police would misuse them. In particular, it is argued that minorities in this country would suffer if they had to carry identity cards
The right way to deal with police misuse of weapons against crime, terrorism and fraud is not to deny them the weapons but to ensure that ethical standards within the police are good enough to allow them to carry such weapons along with monitoring of their behaviour to ensure that they are not misused. Most of us do not much like the idea of the police carrying firearms, but the fact is that an increasing number do carry them under extremely careful supervision. I am not aware of any occasion in recent years when there has been misuse by a British policeman of a firearm. Is the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, doubtful?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.
Lord Marlesford: I look forward to hearing the noble lord cite such cases. Firearms are weapons which sadly have to be used. I use the word "sadly" because the costs of not having identity cards are colossal. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred to the cost of terrorism. We have heard about the cost of social security fraud. Those costs far outweigh the cost of introducing identity cards. The introductory cost may be £350 million or £450 million, and the cost of running the scheme may be £100 million a year.
I see identity cards as a form of crime prevention. Prevention is better than imprisoning people. Your Lordships' House spent some time today discussing overcrowding in prisons. It costs about £2,000 per month (£4,000 a year) to keep somebody in prison. If one reduced the prison population by a mere 10,000 it would produce £240 million—more than half the cost of introducing identity cards. By making it less easy for people to commit crime, the criminal conviction rate and thus the prison population will fall.
Perhaps one of the strongest arguments is that sometimes those in Parliament generally, and your Lordships' House in particular, do not realise the agony faced by those who have to live in high crime areas. I suspect that nearly all of us live in conditions of considerable security in comparison with those who live in high crime areas. If those people felt that we were deliberately ignoring something that could help to make
1356
crime easier to detect and criminals easier to catch—most of all, perhaps, something that would act as a deterrent because of those two factors—they would not easily forgive us.
I believe that it was on 23rd June 1992 that the noble Lord introduced a previous debate on this subject to which I was able to make a contribution. I remember that in that debate my noble friend Viscount Astor on behalf of the Government referred to the fact that the chief police officers were not interested. He said that the advice received from the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland had been sought and the Government had been told that there would be no clear advantage to the police. That was one of the central arguments used by the Government 18 months ago. I hope that at least equal weight will be given to the report of the Association of Chief Police Officers on a national identity scheme published in May 1993.
I do not believe that much else needs to be said. I beg the Government gradually to make up their mind and become a little less hypochondriacal.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate may feel that he has heard all of these arguments before—and more than once. It is true that we have had a number of Questions and debates on this subject in the past year or two. Nevertheless, I am grateful that the noble lord, Lord Mason, has put down this Question. I believe that there is a continuing interest in this idea and I suspect that the balance of advantage in favour of the introduction of a scheme of identity cards is changing all the time.
From my observations, I believe that there is now a considerable body of opinion in this country which would like such a scheme. It is possible to distinguish three separate groups of people: the commercial interests; private individuals; and some government agencies. To deal first with commercial interests, they need to have reliable information about the people with whom they do business. A client who is unknown to a firm may be asked to present some proof of identity before a transaction is concluded. That is a very desirable precaution where substantial sums are involved. Recently when buying a mobile telephone and seeking to pay by cheque I was asked for an identity document. This is an increasingly common request arid it has been common practice in the United States for about two decades. However, in America a driver's licence is acceptable—understandably so, because the licence carries a photograph of the bearer and is periodically renewable. That is not the case in this country. A driver's licence bears no photograph and is normally valid until the bearer's 70th birthday. A request made to show some ID is now quite common and cannot be met. The alternative—a driver's licence —is no certain proof of identity. If we had identity cards with photographs we would be able to prevent much fraud, particularly in those cases (regrettably common nowadays) where a woman's handbag or man's wallet is stolen and the credit cards and driver's licence are used to conduct fraudulent transactions before the theft is

1357
discovered. In those circumstances I believe that an identity card with a photograph will assist the struggle against fraud in a material way.
An individual also needs an identity card for another reason: travel to other countries in the European Union. Under European law and practice a citizen of one member state may travel freely to another on presentation of his official identity card. In those continental countries which have such a system it is commonly a small plastic card with a photograph which contains the address, personal particulars and name of the bearer. European citizens enter this country in their thousands every day on the presentation of such a document. Our citizens do not have that advantage when travelling abroad. Instead, they must apply for a passport which requires a lengthy procedure and certification by a number of persons known to the applicant. The cost of a small passport valid for 10 years is £18.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that it is possible to obtain a visitor's passport for travel to Europe at any post office in virtually 10 minutes, and that the renewal of a passport no longer requires the certification of a third person.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I understand that there is objection to the British visitor's passport in a number of continental countries. They regard it as a document which can be obtained easily without proper proof of identity. I have read that it is the Government's intention to withdraw it in the near future.
I can illustrate the disadvantage of not having an identity card by citing a personal experience. A few years ago I was on a sailing holiday in the Hebrides. On telephoning home one evening I discovered that I was obliged to travel immediately to Italy to attend a meeting that had been called unexpectedly. I first had to return to London and thence travel 100 miles to my home in order to retrieve my passport. The journey took 24 hours longer, and possibly more, than it need have taken. Had I possessed a small plastic identity card I should have been able to fly direct from Glasgow, saving a great deal of time. We need to grow up and to accept the advantages of the identity card system for European travel for the benefit of our citizens. That is becoming, if it has not already become, a necessary consequence of our membership of the European Union and the freedom of movement which has become part of our lives.
The Government too will benefit from the introduction of such a system. Although they have not yet decided that they need the system I believe that they are bound to reach that conclusion. At present I observe the creeping use of the national insurance number, which is now used regularly by the Inland Revenue, for example. My national insurance number appears regularly on all my tax notices and I must quote it on a Revenue form when making charitable donations.
I have no particular objection to that, but I ask whether the use of national insurance numbers is being
1358
properly supervised and, if so, by whom; and where the central register of numbers is kept, and so forth. Is there a statutory legal base for this activity? Is the Data Protection Registrar content with this use of national insurance numbers? I ask those questions because a person of fraudulent intent might be able to discover a lot about an individual if he has knowledge of his national insurance number and access to government computers. We all know how difficult it is to block computer hacking. Such dangers arise because national insurance numbers are being used for a purpose for which they were not originally intended or designed. Also, in effect, the Government's own agencies are using them as a kind of substitute for identity numbers without allowing the citizen the benefit of a proper identity card. I do not much like this arrangement.
Then there is the criminal aspect to which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred. In a recent exchange on the subject in this House the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked whether the noble Earl could recall a terrorist offence which would not have taken place had the terrorist been obliged to carry an identity card. The noble Earl replied negatively, and no doubt correctly. The question was, I presume, asked in that form in order to elicit that answer. But surely a more relevant question might be: would the chances of apprehending a terrorist on the run be greater if we had a system of identity cards? To that the answer must surely be affirmative.
Discussions on the topic usually reveal a contrast between those who regard it, essentially, as a matter involving the liberty of the individual above all else and those who regard it as being convenient for the individual and society as a whole. I align myself emphatically with the second group. Of course, I have emotional sympathy with the traditional libertarians. But we now live in a society which has much greater freedom of movement and there is a vast variety of commercial transactions between people who do not know each other. Regrettably, we also live in a world where crime is steadily increasing and therefore the ability to show who you are and, even more important, who you are not acquires a new significance which simply did not exist previously. For all these reasons we need the identity card system.
I wish to say a few final words about the position of immigrants and the indigenous black population. Some organisations—notably the National Council for Civil Liberties—have claimed that the introduction of identity cards would be seen by such people as being deliberately aimed at them. On the contrary, I take the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mason. The law-abiding citizen of whatever origin who has the right of abode in this country would surely find the identity card as the quickest and surest means of answering questions directed at him by the police or other authorities. The identity card should not be seen as a threat but as a reassurance. The easiest way of introducing the cards would be as a voluntary system. Mr. Douglas Hurd, when he was Home Secretary some years ago, made exactly that suggestion and I hope that we shall be able to return to it.
9.6 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, gave a full description of the advantages of the national identity card scheme and I wholeheartedly agree. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I believe that a voluntary system would be more acceptable to the public.
The increase in fraud must be measured against the cost of the initial outlay of the introduction of a national identity card scheme. In answer to an Unstarred Question that I tabled on the subject in July 1993 my noble friend Lord Astor gave us some hope that the Government were seriously considering the matter. It has since been reported that the Prime Minister favours such a scheme. Could not the examination of the possible introduction of an identity card for social security claimants be widened to include investigation into the smart card technology of which we have read a great deal? Not only would that help to combat fraud but it would provide all the day-to-day information which we carry on our persons; for instance, bank and credit cards, donor cards and so forth.
I believe that it should be a voluntary scheme, as do most members of the police force. As noble Lords have said, those who have no criminal intent have nothing to fear from the cards and those who fall foul of the law will be far more easily identifiable.
The intelligence contained in the strip on those smart cards must be kept completely secret. I hope that my noble friend will comment on that. I presume that that is the main anxiety of those worried about civil liberties. But we should all be prepared to give up some personal freedom if, as a result, fraud in its many aspects is detected more rapidly. Our lives would be made simpler, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, by having only one card instead of the multitude of cards and documents which we carry daily.
Surely the Government should now move quickly to show confidence in this matter, especially as regards the expertise that we can provide. Can we not lead the way in Europe with that expertise? Although many countries in Europe have forms of identity cards, as I understand it they are much less sophisticated than those that we hope to be able to have in this country.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject for the third year in succession.
I am speaking this evening for the first time on this issue because I have been involved with various aspects of law and order in Northern Ireland over the past few years. Therefore, I hope that I may be able to contribute in a small way to the more practical side of the pros and cons of a person being able to prove his identity in a speedy and economical way, both in terms of man hours and financial cost.
I begin by saying that in the Province we are already a little closer to having ID cards, as we have, in addition to a paper driving licence, a plastic card with a
1360
photograph. Because that is issued by the Government through the DoE, it is generally accepted as proof of identity in quite testing circumstances.
Many of your Lordships may have business or association cards with photographs on them. Noble Lords may ask what is the difference. Take my word for it: my Northern Ireland driving licence is worth a dozen of the other more obscure IDs.
I believe that we should go down the road of having voluntary ID cards. That should not be considered to be the start down an uncontrolled slippery slope but rather a sensible first step on a ladder which we do not have to climb unless we see benefit in doing so. Each further step towards compulsory smart cards should require a positive decision and legislation rather than an inevitable slide towards goodness knows what.
There are many interesting developments in micro-technology which enable one to reduce the number of cards, such as donor cards and cheque cards, which would be beneficial. A great deal of important information can be put on a card; for example, blood group and many other facts. That information could be retrievable by confidentially held interpretation machines owned by the police and other legitimate organisations.
The question of civil liberties arises as an objection to an ID system. I venture to suggest that that is an out-of-date argument, similar to that raised by the firearms lobby in the United States. In the Province we have systems for monitoring persons and vehicles. The tangible results are beneficial, and not only in the fight against terrorism. The first such result is that we have, I believe, the lowest rate of ordinary crime in the European Community; that is, crime other than terrorism. That is attributable partly to our monitoring systems. It is often possible for authorities and people generally to prove very quickly that they were or were not at a given place at a given time. That saves time, man hours and a great deal of anxiety.
An extremely interesting by-product, depending on the extent of use in swipe machines, and similarly videoing of cars and vehicle registration numbers, which already takes place on motorways and in the city here, is the ability to recall information. For example, when a city was under threat from football violence, if everyone swiped an ID card on entry to an area, the authorities would have immediate access to people who had unknowingly observed something of importance post-incident. That is not an infringement of civil liberties; it is quite the contrary. It protects the civil liberties of the innocent. It is amazing how much people remember when they are faced with the fact that they were there at the time. That is not because they are guilty but because they are unaware of what they see in everyday life. However, when they are prompted, it produces results. We have experience of that in the Province, and we should know.
I should like to look very quickly at the Government's reasoning over in the past two years for not proceeding further with this matter. Cards were abolished in 1952 as a result of concern over police misuse of the facility. Are the Government really saying that in today's world they cannot devise safeguards? We

1361
have one of the best and most sophisticated police forces in the world. I do not believe that that is any longer a legitimate argument.
On the criminal side, I accept that most cards, without great sophistication such as DNA or fingerprinting, can be forged. The important factor in detecting crime is initial speed post-crime and any system which helps eliminate those not involved quickly is of the utmost value to the police. So far as concerns cheque, credit card and social service fraud, most of those involved will not have the ability to produce fake, even half smart cards, let alone high-tech ones. You will never stop the serious criminal, but even voluntary ID cards would help to deter many.
When speaking for the Government last year, my noble friend Lord Astor said that ID cards would not assist immigration control. I wonder whether he is right. I think not. If all British residents have ID cards and, as he said, non-EC nationals entering the UK are required to hold a valid passport and European Community nationals are required to have a passport or an ID card, then QED, those without ID cards and who are unwilling to show passports which cannot be traced would seem to be illegal immigrants.
I note that two years ago the Government said that the Association of Chief Police Officers saw no advantage in an ID card scheme. Last year, they admitted that the association had changed its mind. The Government said two years ago that they would listen to them. The police chiefs must feel a little let down at present if the Government are not going to consider such a scheme.
I should like to make one comment about the cost of the scheme. I know that it would be expensive. However, it is far too often said to be too expensive to help solve one of the problems—cheque or immigration fraud. That is a misinterpretation used by the "antis". A scheme would help in containment, though perhaps not elimination, of many problems. The cost should be considered in relation to the overall effect.
My final point is backed up by experience in Northern Ireland. Our security forces have the power to stop people in order to ascertain their identity, but it is not obligatory to carry identification. Yet most people carry something—a driving licence or some other document—to make life easier. They do not begrudge that. They do so to protect their civil liberties. I am quite sure that even a voluntary scheme would be gladly accepted in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Many more convenient uses could be found for such cards. I believe that the scheme, voluntary or otherwise, should be government led due to the wide support that it would lend to social responsibility in the country.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when the issue was last raised in the House in July of last year during the debate on an Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, I made it clear that I had no personal objection to carrying ID cards, even photo-identity cards. Indeed, after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, talk about United States drivers' licences having photographs on them, I was reminded
1362
that, when I first had a US driving licence in the mid-1950s in the state of Ohio, it did not have a photograph on it. Therefore, it was quite useless to me in attempting to prove that I was over the age of 21 in order to get drink in a bar. I would have been very much happier if I had had a photograph on my driving licence. My life would have been considerably simpler than it proved to be. I had to carry my British passport around with me whenever I was engaged in the pursuit of alcohol.
We must distinguish between the original proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Mason for a national scheme —presumably, a compulsory national scheme—and the arguments which have subsequently been made for voluntary schemes. I have always made it clear that I believe there is a perfectly respectable case for a national scheme which would replace some other forms of identity which are required of all citizens of this country. However, what I am very much more doubtful about is a proliferation of voluntary schemes. I am doubtful about them both on technical and civil libertarian grounds.
On technical grounds, I am doubtful about the latter because, inevitably, such voluntary schemes will be subject not only to fraud but also to genuine error. They will contain information which the carrier of the card does not understand or know about. That is already true of the passport. There are hieroglyphs printed on a passport which are not adequately explained to the bearer. Moreover, it is already inevitably true of bank cards. We put up with that because we cannot manage without them these days. There is pressure, for example, from the mortgage industry, the banks and other commercial bodies for a wider use of voluntary, but still nationally recognised, cards, as opposed to cards which only they recognise. However, that will present very severe difficulties. People will be identified in ways they are unaware of. There is a fear that these cards will contain, for example, people's credit ratings without the knowledge of the person concerned. We know from debate in your Lordships' House that credit ratings are frequently inaccurate and the use of credit ratings for these cards would enshrine that inaccuracy.
If there is to be an extension of voluntary identification cards, severe preconditions would have to be set—no noble Lords have referred to those conditions—before information is inserted on those cards to enable them to be of any use. There would need to be much closer control as regards the information the cards contain. There would have to be rules about openness and rules to enable people to correct the data which are held on their cards. In other words, there would have to be a rewriting and an extension of the Data Protection Act 1984. That should be recognised by all those who support the growth of voluntary identity card schemes.
A number of arguments have been produced as regards the efficiency that could be derived from a wider use of identification cards. Some of those arguments are difficult to disagree with. However, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that, if he believes the extended use of firearms in the British police force has been without adverse incident, he really ought to think again.

1363
Only last year a young man attempted to rob a bank in Highgate High Street around the corner from my home. The police knew this was going to happen and they staked out the bank. The young man leapt into a Haringey Council dustcart and drove it away as fast as possible. However, he became trapped in a cul-de-sac off the Holloway Road and was immediately shot dead by two armed policemen. Even if he had succeeded in committing the crime, it was not one that carried the death penalty. I call that incident a dangerous extension of the use of firearms by the police. There are many other examples of such incidents that have taken place further from my home than the example I have mentioned.
Fundamentally, the problem is not really about the efficiency of these cards. I accept that many of the arguments that have been advanced for a national scheme at any rate concern efficiency. However, the fundamental objection to the cards is that it is assumed that everyone who is not willing to be identified on the spot by an authorised officer is automatically doing something wrong. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that those without ID would seem to be illegal immigrants. I challenge that. I do not believe that those who do not carry identification with them at all times could seem to be illegal immigrants —even if there were a more comprehensive scheme in place than we have at the moment—or potential bank robbers, or even potential rapists, as my noble friend Lord Mason appeared to think. I believe the issues are a good deal more complicated. The civil libertarian arguments against compulsory identification have not been adequately addressed in the debate and I shall not be surprised or greatly disappointed if the Government in their reply resist the proposals which are implicit in the Question.
9.24 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, for having tabled this Question. He tables Questions quite regularly. It is a good thing that we should be able to discuss this matter because it is an important one. The noble Lord wanted to discover, in his very persuasive speech, whether the Home Office would look favourably on the introduction of a national identity card scheme. Most noble Lords were in favour of that, but I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, put the opposite view. He was something of a lone bird, but there is nothing wrong with that. I frequently find myself in that position. It is a very suitable one to be in.
This is a matter with which your Lordships are familiar. It is an interesting question and an important one. The question of a national identity card scheme is one which the Government keep constantly under review and to which they frequently address their mind afresh. Frankly, there is no easy solution and we welcome views on the matter. I have listened carefully to what has been said this evening and the persuasiveness and conviction with which your Lordships said it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, asked particularly about the Government's response to two specific issues.
1364
The first is the Government's response to the growing use of identity cards within business, industry, local authorities and the Civil Service. The second is the Government's response to the growing demand for a national identity card scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that there is a growing demand or willingness for the introduction of a national identity card. He said that that was the case particularly in the commercial sphere, among private individuals and in government agencies. I agree with the noble Lord. There is no doubt that there is a growing use of photo identity cards, in industry, commerce and banking in particular. If that is so it is perfectly reasonable to ask why we should not have a national identity card scheme which might serve just as well.
However, the purpose and the requirements of a national identity card scheme would be very different from those which apply to the use by business, industry and others of personal identification cards. As I understand it, such personal identification cards are used primarily for security purposes. Their main purpose in practice is not to determine who a person is but rather what a person is allowed to do. In those circumstances, what is of interest is not an individual's personal details, such as his name, address or date of birth, but rather an individual's status —in other words, whether he or she is an employee or has some other link with the organisation which makes it necessary or appropriate to enter the building or to use certain inforination.
I think such cards are used in addition to national identity cards in those countries which have a national identity card scheme, as well as being used in countries which do not have a national identity card scheme. The reason for that, I imagine, is that personal identity cards are not primarily identity cards, as we understand the expression, and a simple national identity card would not serve the same purpose.
In Europe, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain have compulsory identity cards. The rest either have voluntary identity cards or none. France, Italy and the Netherlands have voluntary identity cards. Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom have neither voluntary cards nor compulsory ones. Oddly enough, that is also the position in the United States. So there is not a common pattern throughout the Community.
Personal identification cards, of course, affect only certain aspects of people's lives—that is, their working lives. They are not associated at all with any form of statutory requirement. If we were to have a compulsory national identity card scheme, it would clearly require some statutory means of enforcement. That would mean that there would have to be some sanction against those who failed to obtain a card or who failed to carry a card, and new police powers would perhaps be needed to stop citizens in order to check whether they did—or did not —hold an identity card. Most of the cards which we presently carry with us—such as cheque cards and credit cards—have a defined and a specific purpose, and, of course, they are entirely free from statutory control.
Setting aside, for a moment, the question of a compulsory national identity card scheme, it is often argued—and my noble friends Lady Sharpies and Lord Brookeborough did so this evening—that new

1365
technology, in the form of the "smartcard", provides the opportunity for individual businesses and other organisations to incorporate all their different requirements on a single multi-purpose card, so why cannot the same principle be used for national identification cards, which would then incorporate everything? I am bound to say that that is an attractive proposition, and one with which I personally find some affiliation. But heaven knows what happens when you lose the wretched thing, because you then lose everything. What happens if the wretched thing is stolen? The thief has everything.
Who should have security passes, bank cards and other similar cards, what kind of cards they should be, and how such cards should be used, are matters for the organisations concerned. They are not matters for the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred to the question of public support for a national identity card scheme. He argued that there is a growing demand for such a scheme and wanted to know how the Government would respond. That there is interest in the subject is perfectly obvious even if only —but not only—from your Lordships' debate this evening. The Home Office has received a number of letters from the public on the subject. The majority of people have written favourably on the idea of introducing identity cards. But some people do oppose the idea. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, said that he was in favour of identity cards. The public response to an identity card scheme will depend on what it contains, and in particular whether the scheme will be voluntary or compulsory. Therefore I would be wary about reading too much into the results of opinion polls when people are asked about identity cards in a general way.
The police service has also shown some interest in identity cards. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough thought that such cards would help the police; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said that the Association of Chief Police Officers welcomed such a scheme. I do not believe that that is completely accurate. The Association of Chief Police Officers published a report on the subject last year. The report made a case for a voluntary identity card scheme but said that the association had significant anxieties about a compulsory scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, my noble friend Lady Sharpies and others considered that there would be a benefit in having a voluntary card as an additional means of identification. People who support the idea of identity cards value it largely for the convenience which such cards may bring. For most people the interest lies not in the identity cards themselves but in the problems they think an identity card may help to solve, such as crime and illegal immigration.
A number of people are in favour of voluntary identity cards. I believe that my noble friends Lady Sharpies, Lord Brookeborough and Lord Marlesford were. However, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was doubtful about voluntary schemes. I myself have never seen the value in a voluntary identity card. It may be true that such cards would not do much harm, but so far as I can see they would not do much good. They would not help fraud or immigration cases because those who are
1366
on the wrong side of the law would not have the cards in the first place and would not have contravened the law by not having a card.
We have to consider carefully whether identity cards would in practice bring the benefits for which people hope, and whether such benefits could be achieved better in other ways. Perhaps we may take as an example the question of illegal immigration. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, gave that as a strong reason for having identity cards. Many of our European partners use identity cards as a means of immigration control. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, argued that identity cards could therefore be used equally successfully in the United Kingdom. However, other European countries rely heavily on in-country immigration controls. In other words, they control their immigration from within their own country. That is because they often have long land borders, sometimes going through mountainous country, which makes them difficult to police. Their geographical position therefore argues for in-country controls. In those circumstances, there are good reasons to establish an identity card scheme.
However, the United Kingdom is different. We are an island. It is relatively easy to discern when people come in and when they leave. That means that our most effective approach to immigration control is based on identity checks at the point of entry into the country. Those checks, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, are carried out by means of a passport or, in the case of European Community nationals, a passport or their own national identity card. In this system, a United Kingdom national identity card does not play much of a part.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. The point of my argument was that, if a British citizen had a voluntary identity card, he would not need a passport when travelling abroad. That was the sole point I was making. At the moment, foreigners can come here with identity cards but we cannot go abroad; we have to have a passport. That is time-consuming, bulky and expensive.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is perfectly reasonable and, if I misinterpreted the noble Lord's argument, I am sorry. It is a point which could be considered, but it would be difficult to replace a passport system with something which is intrinsically a voluntary system.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, and my noble friend Lady Sharpies claimed that national identity cards would combat crime. Clearly, a compulsory national identity card scheme may have something to offer in helping to prevent the kind of fraud which is perpetrated on the basis of false identity, such as getting money under false pretences out of a bank, or going on a spending spree with someone else's credit card. A national identity card scheme is, though, only one option.
So far as cheque and credit card fraud is concerned, the view of banks and financial institutions is that the most effective answer is to improve the security of the documents themselves, rather than to introduce another one. One approach to that, which the Association for Payment Clearing Services is at present exploring, is the wider use of personal identification numbers. Careful

1367
thought also needs to be given to the best way of preventing social security benefit fraud, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred. He asked what were the losses. There are no firm figures that I can give; fraud arising from misrepresentation of identity is only one way in which losses occur. Other types of fraud such as misrepresentation of circumstances are much more significant.
Your Lordships will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has declared that one of his top priorities is the reduction of abuse of the social security system. The Department of Social Security is investigating a variety of options for preventing and detecting different kinds of fraud.
If we look a little more widely, it seems likely that identity cards could help to save police time by allowing the personal details of suspects, witnesses, victims of crime or those who are involved in accidents to be recorded and checked more quickly. That is clearly of some value. My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that if identity cards could prevent crime that would be a good thing. I believe he said that, if we could stop 100 people going to prison, we would have paid for half the costs of its use in a year. I am not sure whether it was 100 people or 1,000.
Lord Marlesford: It was 10,000.
Earl Ferrers: Then we are getting somewhere, my Lords. I am bound to say that I should need a lot more persuasion from my noble friend that giving people identity cards would save 10,000 people from going to prison. However, if he would care to write to me with the details, I should be fascinated and will give them my personal attention. The extent to which identity cards would help the police to prevent or investigate crime is less easy to determine. Any potential benefits must be set against the costs of introducing such a scheme. Those could be substantial.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred to terrorism. Of course, no system can be absolutely secure. I should have thought that terrorists were among the most motivated and capable of falsifying documents of any people. Identity cards in themselves would not, I believe, do much to inhibit the activities of those who are not known to the security forces.
It is for reasons such as those that the Government have so far chosen the option of having other measures to tackle crime. Some people would simply like a card which would provide them with a convenient form of identity.
1368
Your Lordships will be aware that we are planning to introduce photocard driving licences in 1996.
The new licences will contain much the same information as the present licences—name:, address and so forth. They are thought likely to be smaller and they will, therefore, be easier to carry than the present licence. They will also include a photograph of the licence holder. The new style licence will be much more convenient to use as a proof of identity than the present licence for those who see a need for an identity document of that sort. The majority of adults— more than 30 million of them—at present hold a driving licence.
The wider question of whether we should have a government-run national identity card scheme is one which we will continue to keep under review. It has some very attractive features in it to which your Lordships have drawn attention this evening. But we have no particular bias either for or against the idea at present. It is a question of assessing where the balance of advantage lies. I may well be—and if I were a betting man I would hazard a guess that it would be but, as I am not, I will not—that the balance may shift over time. But I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue to keep the matter under close attention. The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, would like me to go further than that. I cannot do so this evening. However, I can assure your Lordships that the views expressed this evening will be enormously helpful to us in trying to determine which way the balance should shift.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he say how much it will cost to produce the new form of driving licence? Would it not be better to produce an identity card which could indicate whether the person was authorised to drive rather than to produce a more limited card at considerable public cost?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend what the cost of producing the new form of driving licence will be. All sorts of costs will go into it, not excluding how much cheaper it would be to do it the new way rather than the present way. But the argument my noble friend puts forward is perfectly reasonable and is contained in the argument that asks why we do not have one card to cover social security, Mastercard, Visa, driving licence and so forth. That is a substantial argument. But it is also a substantial undertaking.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY:UK DELEGATION
  NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY:UK DELEGATION
  ARMS EXPORTS TO FORMER SOVIET UNION: POLICY
  ARMS EXPORTS TO FORMER SOVIET UNION: POLICY
  MAGISTRATES'COURTS COMMITTEES
  MAGISTRATES'COURTS COMMITTEES
  DEPRIVATION PAYMENTS SCHEME
  DEPRIVATION PAYMENTS SCHEME
  COMMUNITY CARE
  COMMUNITY CARE
  VALUATION OFFICE AGENCY
  VALUATION OFFICE AGENCY
  LISTED BUILDING REPAIRS: VAT LEVEL
  LISTED BUILDING REPAIRS: VAT LEVEL
  A.127: IMPROVEMENT
  A.127: IMPROVEMENT
  NIGHT FLYING RESTRICTIONS AT LONDON AIRPORTS
  NIGHT FLYING RESTRICTIONS AT LONDON AIRPORTS
  GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
  GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS
  NURSERY EDUCATION
  NURSERY EDUCATION
  SCIENCE DEGREES
  SCIENCE DEGREES
  SCHOOLS: SURPLUS PLACES
  SCHOOLS: SURPLUS PLACES
  POLICE AUTHORITIES
  POLICE AUTHORITIES
  PRISONERS: ACCESS TO SANITATION
  PRISONERS: ACCESS TO SANITATION