Sitting of 19 January 1994

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

    Local Government Finance
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government finance since July.
    Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government finance since July.
    The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): We have received many representations on various aspects of local government finance since July. These have included representations from 150 authorities about the provisional local government finance settlement.
    Ms Eagle: Is the Minister aware that my authority, the Wirral, is expected to make £12·5 million-worth of cuts in its expenditure this year, which is in addition to the cuts of £53 million that have been demanded of it over the past four years? Is it credible for the Minister to maintain that cuts of that magnitude demanded by the Government do not mean that there will be cuts to front-line services when that is clearly not the case? Our services in local government are being decimated.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady has got it wrong. The only possible meaning of a cut is that the budget that her local authority will set for 1994–95 is less than that set for 1993–94. That is not true. Wirral local authority will be able to increase its budget by 1·25 per cent. What it will have to do is cut the budget that it would like to have had. It will have cut its wish budget, which is entirely different from its actual budget. Wirral is not an authority which has to cut its budget in real terms. Only seven authorities are in that category.
    Mr. Litherland: Did any of the representations query how vast amounts of public money could be found for prestigious projects, such as the Manchester Olympic bid, which bring kudos and publicity to the Government when, at the same time, vicious cuts for local authorities mean the closing of school playgrounds, swimming baths, pets corners and other leisure amenities? Does not the Minister think that there is a stench of hypocrisy?
    Mr. Curry: I do not recall that. However, I recall that a report commissioned by Birmingham council stated that
    874
    Birmingham had indulged in some prestige buildings when it should have spent its money on education. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might think about that one.
    Mr. Pickles: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 375, which refers to local government finance? Does he agree that all hon. Members must lead by example? Does he believe that Opposition Members who preach about local government finance are handicapped by the behaviour of the councils of the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy? Does my hon. Friend look forward with me to the days when good local government returns to Derbyshire county council and to Monklandsgate?
    Mr. Curry: The lesson is that Opposition Members should be careful before they start hurling accusations about councils. There has been a pattern of accusations against authorities. There have been local authorities in respect of which the auditor is not yet satisfied with the accounts, and those include a large number of Labour councils. People should cast the motes out of their own eyes before they level accusations elsewhere. We have a common interest in making sure that local government acts with probity. The sooner we recognise that common interest, the better it will be for everybody.
    Mr. Bates: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to improve local government finance is to have unitary authorities? Will he accept the thanks of my constituents for the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday to abolish Cleveland county council? Will he join me in condemning the decision by Cleveland county council to challenge that decision in the court, at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds to council tax payers, in a vain attempt to save its own neck?
    Mr. Curry: If Cleveland thinks that it should spend its charge payers' money by going to court, that is a decision for Cleveland. We implemented the proposals and the provisional and final recommendations of the Boundary Commission. The district councils made strong, articulate representations about how they would carry forward the business of that region, and they were extremely convincing. That is why we implemented the proposals. We will judge every case on its merits according to entirely objective criteria based on the needs of the local electorate and charge payers.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I, as the original objector to the sale of the Westminster cemeteries, which led to Mr. Magill's first report, and one of the objectors to designated sales, ask the Minister what action is being taken to ensure that Westminster council no longer wastes ratepayers' money? Do the Government have power to send in a commissioner to make sure that our interests as ratepayers are protected by those Conservative councillors?
    Mr. Curry: If we had, we would have done so in respect of Lambeth a long time ago.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who criticise some local authorities would do better to direct their concern at authorities that waste money, overspend disgracefully, do not collect council house rents, leave houses empty and do not collect their council tax, and that most of those authorities are Labour controlled?
    Mr. Curry: Yes.
    Mr. Henderson: Let me refer the Minister to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) about real cuts. Is he embarrassed by the comments of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in May 1993, when he wrote to the Treasury saying that, in the financial year 1994–95, a 5·2 per cent. increase in total standard spending was necessary to protect—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is paraphrasing and not quoting.
    Mr. Henderson: Indeed, I am, Madam Speaker, and I am about to paraphrase even more in my final paragraph.
    Comparing that figure with the 2·3 per cent. increase in total standard spending which is allowed in this year's Budget, will the Minister admit that he has surrendered to the Treasury or say that he needs a "back to basics" course in arithmetic?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is clearly in fine form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It took a long time to get that one from Opposition Back-Bench Members, I have to say.
    The settlement that we have put forward is fair and reasonable and, in the economic circumstances, one with which local government can cope if it is sensible. That is the reflection of independent commentators such as Mr. Tony Travers on the matter, and that is a perfectly reasonable position.

    Regional Offices
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when a single regional office for all Government Departments in London will be established.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The new regional office for London will come into being in April.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new regional offices will be widely welcomed as bringing decisions closer to the community, not only in London but elsewhere, and will be particularly welcomed in Lancashire, where they will provide better liaison with the new unitary authorities, which we hope will come about sooner rather than later so that we can get rid of that high-spending county council as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Gummer: Bringing together the various offices of government in London and elsewhere will enable decisions to be made in a much more holistic way, rather than individual decisions being on made matters that should be considered together. Advice will, therefore, come in that unitary manner. It will be for the commission to make its proposals for Lancashire, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have views that he will want to make clearly.
    Mr. Vaz: Although the House will welcome better co-ordination between Government Departments—for many years, the Labour party has put forward that policy and it has now been accepted by the Government—does the Secretary of State realise that his plans are fatally flawed in two respects? First, not one extra penny of resources will be allocated to London to deal with the problems that Londoners face and to enable our capital city to compete with the best cities in the world. Secondly, his plans do not go one step towards creating what the people
    876
    of London really want—a properly elected and democratically accountable government for London. Why are the right hon. Gentleman and the Government so afraid of democracy?
    Mr. Gummer: First, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten the curmudgeonly way in which his more senior colleague welcomed the change when it was introduced. Indeed, he did as much as he could to attack it as being unsatisfactory. I see that Labour Members have already changed their minds about whether we are right.
    Secondly, I was surprised that, on that occasion, I was accused of hiding cuts in London's budgets in that I was not going to deliver the amount of money which was proposed. In fact, I have delivered every penny of it, so Labour Members were entirely wrong in that slur.
    Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman says that we are not spending the money in comparison with other countries. Interestingly, in a recent survey, French voters in Paris nominated London as one of the finest cities in Europe providing services better than those provided in Paris—the city in which they live.
    The fourth point that the hon. Gentleman dares to raise is the suggestion that anyone in his right mind would want the Greater London council back again. If we ask people in London—even those who believe in a Greater London council—what they want, none of them put this at the top of the list; they want a lot of more sensible things first. There will always be some people who forget that billions more pounds would have been wasted if we had continued to have the GLC, whose stewardship of London, especially London transport, was a disgrace that none of us will forget.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Following my right hon. Friend's robust and welcome remarks, will he assure my constituents that under no circumstances will there be a repeat of the Greater London council or anything like it under this or any other Conservative Government? We cannot afford it.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government will continue to deal with the real problems in London and leave it to Labour Members to hide the absence of a policy with a continuous nostalgia for one of the worst systems of local government that we have seen.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what views he has received from the Audit Commission on his provisional proposals for distribution of standard spending assessments.
    Mr. Curry: None.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Minister aware that in the document "Passing the Bucks", the Audit Commission says that many of the decisions taken on grant distribution are political and there is no adequate explanation for the criteria used? When will we end the year-on-year manipulation of the grant system? In April, people up and down the country will face cuts in their budgets and increases in their taxes. In Coventry, the average will be £57, with £3 million in cuts. When will we have fair taxes at the local level?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the whole system of distribution—the standing spending assessment system—is rigged politically. The Select Committee on the Environment will report on that, and I will bet the hon. Gentleman that there will be no reference whatever to the rigging of the system. What is more, the Audit Commission does not say that.
    It is perfectly legitimate to have a political argument about how much money is available for local authorities, but we shall not have a political argument about the mechanisms of distribution because we do our best to ensure that they are fair, dispassionate, objective and up to date. All the councils that have come to see me—58 councils have been through our doors in the past few weeks —have accepted that.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am delighted that there have been no representations to my hon. Friend. The city council in my area is delighted with its standard spending assessment, although, of course, the county council is not pleased and is grousing fit to burst. Does my hon. Friend accept that we who run our affairs properly are delighted?
    Mr. Curry: I am grateful to have had the opportunity to give my hon. Friend such pleasure.

    Ecolabelling
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about how many products now have ecolabelling in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): On Thursday 25 November the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board awarded the first European Community ecolabels to Hoover Ltd. for three washing machines in its New Wave range. Environmental criteria have also been adopted for dishwashers.
    Mr. Bennett: I welcome the Minister to his new post, but he takes over a pretty sorry tale as far as ecolabelling is concerned. It is clear that about one third of shoppers would be happy to purchase products that were environmentally friendly, but they have become increasingly disillusioned by false claims. It is almost four years since the Government promised that they would have a proper system in place. Is not it appallingly slow progress to have virtually one award every year for four years? Can the Minister tell us how many more awards there will be in the next 12 months?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I think that it is right and proper for me to place on record my appreciation of, and thanks to, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), for the sterling work that he did for environmental and rural interests. He can be proud of his ministerial achievements.
    The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of ecolabelling on numerous occasions, and he is right to do so. We are in the forefront of those pressing for a Community-wide system as a result of pressure from my predecessors, and indeed the pressure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to bring to bear. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to operate a separate system, which would be clearly counterproductive in the context of the EC.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. In his time as a Northern Ireland Minister, my hon. Friend had experience of being grilled by the Select Committee on the Environment, and I can promise him just as much in his new post.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that making sure that false environmental claims are not made about products is equally as important as ecolabelling? Will he therefore ensure that talks with the DTI deliver a reform of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 in that regard as soon as possible?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point, and I am grateful to him for his kind wishes. We are in conversation with the DTI, and I know from my own experience how important it is that the information that is provided on any product fits in with the Trade Descriptions Act. I know that the DTI is fully aware of our concern and of the concern of the consumer.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will animal testing now be definitely included in the ecolabelling process? The Government had apparently said that they were willing for animal testing to be included, but that has not been formally confirmed. Will there be across-the-board acceptable criteria and standards? When will the Minister conclude his discussions with the voluntary sector so that a general agreement can be made?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I know that the Commission is considering the matter and, as he will understand, I am not yet in a position to make a detailed judgment or statement on where the Commission stands. Certainly the Commission is interested in that, and the ecolabelling board in the United Kingdom is also aware of the concern. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that there is more of an ethical argument than an environmental argument over animal testing, and that is a part of the problem that we have to consider. I shall give the matter my urgent attention.
    Sir Roger Moate: Is it not more important to get ecolabelling right than to be rushed into premature judgments? Will my hon. Friend take particularly seriously the representations of the paper industry to ensure that any system of ecolabelling does not work to the disadvantage of British producers of what is an environmentally friendly and eminently recyclable product?
    Mr. Atkins: What my hon. Friend says is right. It is essential that we have a standard that is applicable throughout the European Union. In those circumstances, it is better to take time and get it right, recognising that there is legitimate pressure from the consumer and from Conservative and Opposition Members that we should do so as quickly as possible.

    Subsidiarity
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce the principle of subsidiarity to relations between central Government and local authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: I have made clear my commitment to the principle of subsidiarity and the delegation of responsibility not only from central Government to local

    879
    authorities but from local authorities to the lowest possible level, consistent with efficiency, including locally managed and grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Wareing: Alone among European Community members, Britain has a highly centralised government machine in which local self-government has been almost completely destroyed. I hope that the Minister will take on board the feelings of many people in Britain that it is time that local self-government was restored. People are fed up with the creation of quangos staffed by a Tory nomenklatura that will have to be swept away by the next Labour Government. I hope that when he talks about subsidiarity in the sweet terms that he does—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard the hon. Gentleman ask a question. Is there one coming into view?
    Mr. Wareing: You will remembers, Madam Speaker, that I asked the Minister when he would restore local self-government—or is subsidiarity to be conceded only to Wandsworth and Westminster?
    Mr. Gummer: I remind the hon. Gentleman that as Minister for Local Government and now as Secretary of State for the Environment, I pioneered, and fought for, the extension of local government powers by passing community care to local government rather than to any other system. That major extension of local government powers will be completed.
    I am interested to see that subsidiarity stops where the hon. Gentleman is. When he talks about subsidiarity, he means that is should stop at the local authority. Why is not the hon. Gentleman fighting for more grant-maintained schools in Liverpool, so that schools can run themselves, instead of insisting that the local authority bosses them about?
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities are able to spend more than three quarters of all the money that they have, without any specific grants? Will he further confirm that the Government will continue the policy of caring capping, which means that we shall not allow local authorities to spend and waste money and we shall continue to protect ratepayers with capping?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend underlines that the reason why we have capping is that some local authorities, including the Liverpool authority that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) supported, behaved in the most disgraceful manner and found it impossible to manage their finances properly. Therefore, I should like to see more and more freedom for the local authorities that are prepared to be responsible in the use of their money. That is why I fought for, and will continue to fight for, the extension of local authority powers, particularly in the caring services through community care.
    Mr. Straw: On the issue of subsidiarity between one authority—Westminster—and central Government, and as Dame Shirley Porter said on the radio that she could not remember whether she had consulted the Government about Westminster's housing and poll tax policies, will the Secretary of State confirm that at the material time, Ministers were, indeed, working in league with
    880
    Westminster and Wandsworth councils in their gerrymandering efforts and were gerrymandering grant to those local authorities just at the time when the authorities were gerrymandering for votes?
    The Minister of State said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that the grant arrangements were objective and dispassionate. Will the Secretary of State say whether the decision to give Wandsworth £33 million of the £390 million available in council tax reduction schemes comes within that category? If it does, how can it be that one authority representing about half of one per cent. of the country's population ended up with 8 per cent. of the grant—16 times its entitlement?
    Mr. Gummer: Because Wandsworth has the largest cut in grant and, therefore, attracts a larger amount of the damping system which covers all London boroughs and especially benefits Labour London boroughs. It is rare that I have to say this and I shall say it directly to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] He may find it amusing to accuse people of organising a system that cannot be run in that way. His local authority associations were fully consulted on the laying down of the SSA system and they know that it is entirely objective. They asked for the damping system that he attacks. He knows that to be absolutely true and he is a disgrace to his party.

    Rough Sleepers
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made with helping people sleeping rough in central London.
    The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): The Government have spent £96 million since 1990 to provide almost 3,500 places in temporary and permanent accommodation and to help people sleeping rough in central London. Independent research shows that our rough sleepers initiative has housed several thousand people with a history of sleeping rough. We have provided a further £86 million to continue the initiative until March 1996. A count by voluntary sector agencies last November found 287 people sleeping rough in central London, compared with estimates of more than 1,000 before the initiative began.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely welcome news, but does he agree that it is disappointing that the Labour party persists in putting forward their own campaign—[Interruption.]—persists in making cheap political capital at the expense of the small number of unfortunate people still sleeping on the streets? How many extra beds were made available during the recent spell of cold weather and what percentage was taken up?
    Sir George Young: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the many voluntary organisations—especially Church-based organisations—that have done first-class work in achieving the reduction in numbers to which she rightly referred. It is encouraging that, according to the last count undertaken by voluntary associations in November, only three people under the age of 18 were sleeping rough. During the cold spell at the end of November, which was one of the coldest in London, extra emergency beds were opened—I think 150—and the maximum number taken up on any one night was 55.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Why are there so many more people sleeping on the streets of London than in any other European city? Does not the Minister feel any shame about the fact that, in this year of 1994, so many thousands of our young people are sleeping on the streets of London?
    Sir George Young: I do not know which European cities the hon. Gentleman visits.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I said all of them.
    Sir George Young: I do not know which cities the hon. Gentleman visits, but I made it absolutely clear that the regular counts by voluntary organisations—not by the Government—show a reduction from 1,000 three years ago to 287 in November, of which only three were under 18. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that progress has been made and that he will encourage voluntary organisations to drive forward the programme. I also hope that, from time to time, he will accept that the Government do good work on housing.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are empty hostel beds in London today and that there are thousands of empty council houses in Newham, Islington, Lambeth and other Labour-controlled boroughs? Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Labour party to complain that there are people sleeping rough when Labour councils are the most inefficient housing authorities in London?
    Sir George Young: Indeed, I hope that hon. Members who visit European cities will also find the time to visit some of the authorities in London that have large numbers of empty local authority homes. If one goes past an empty council house in London, the chances are that it is owned by a Labour local authority.
    Mr. Battle: I recognise that there is some temporary assistance for the homeless in London, but, instead of scapegoating single mothers in his homeless review, making the victims pay the price for his failed housing policies and redefining away the homeless, as the Government have the unemployed, why does not the Minister tackle the causes of the housing and homelessness crisis? There are 1 million people with negative equity, 500,000 people with mortgage arrears, 1·5 million on local authority waiting lists, 150,000 statutorily homeless people and 63,000 people in temporary accommodation. Will not he accept the acute and absolute shortage of homes to rent and acknowledge that Labour authorities have the most effective housing record—[Interruption.] Of the 25 housing authorities named by the Minister in December, 11 were Labour, four were Tory and one of those named was Westminster. The truth is that Conservative Governments and Conservative councils keep houses empty. Is not it because Labour housing authorities are better that the Minister will not allow Labour local authorities the right to build the much-needed homes to rent?
    Sir George Young: I was grateful for the first half-sentence of the hon. Gentleman's remarks when he made a rather grudging recognition that some achievements have been made. When he sees the Government's consultation document on access to social housing tomorrow, he will see that no one is being scapegoated. He should also recognise that in each of the past six quarters, the number of people who are accepted as homeless has fallen and he should recognise that there has been a reduction of 41 per cent. in the number of families in bed
    882
    and breakfast accommodation. The hon. Gentleman should also recognise that of the top 10 local authorities in London that have empty properties, nine are Labour controlled.
    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a massive reduction in the numbers of rough sleepers in London since the Government began their initiative and that reports of anything different are grossly overstated, exaggerated and untrue? Will he also agree that there is one particular case in which there is a real problem—the bullring—and will he concentrate his attention on that, so that the propagandising by the Opposition, which is totally untrue, can stop?
    Sir George Young: About three years ago, everybody who was sleeping rough in the bullring was offered alternative accommodation and it was closed. The Government asked Lambeth council to leave it closed, but the council decided to reopen it and the problem has recurred. Discussions are taking place with the property owners to see whether we can get a more acceptable alternative to the present design of the bullring, and a key part of any redesigning or rebuilding will be offers of suitable accommodation to those who are sleeping rough.

    Minerals Planning Guidance
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce new minerals planning guidance on opencast extraction.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): We published revised planning guidelines for public consultation on 14 December. The guidelines deal with both deep mine and opencast coal and with the disposal of colliery spoil.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank the Secretary of State for his decision in the Birch Copice case, when he refused the application for opencast mining and overruled the public inquiry. May I remind the Minister that 20,000 homes in my constituency are still threatened by the prospect of opencast? Many of the people who live there are former miners and face not only the loss of their jobs but the potential destruction of their environment. Is not it time that he gave local people a veto and a right to say no to opencast despoiling their environment?
    Mr. Baldry: In those circumstances, I think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will welcome the new guidelines, which have gone out to consultation, because they mark a distinct shift. They have withdrawn the strong presumption in favour of opencast coal development that existed previously and have replaced it with a test of environmental acceptability.
    Mr. Wells: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the new guidelines on mineral extraction and ask when he will introduce in the House the orders necessary to put those guidelines into practice?
    Mr. Baldry: They are out for consultation, which closes at the end of March. Given their acceptance and welcome in the House, I hope that hon. Members will make that clear as part of the consultation process.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister must, however, agree that what he wrote into the new draft planning guidelines

    883
    on opencast mining in December is a presumption not against opencasting, but in favour of it. The guidelines state:
    "It would be against the national interest to refuse permission",
    and only then go on to apply an environmental test. Does not the Minister realise that opencast mining despoils the countryside, damages the local environment and helps to destroy our national deep mine coal industry? Should not there be a strong presumption—far stronger than he has put in this document—against new opencast mining, rather than the green light that the Government seem intent on giving?
    Mr. Baldry: Any reasonable person who reads the guidelines will see that they make it clear that where the impact of opencasting would have particularly adverse effects on the environment and the quality of life for local people, permission should not be given unless the development would produce overriding benefits. The guidelines strike a balance between the economic importance of opencast coal and the protection of the environment. It is worth the House recalling that when the socialist Government nationalised the coal industry they did not have any planning regime whatever for opencast mining.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Coe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.
    Mr. Baldry: My Department is currently consulting local authorities and other interested parties on detailed proposals for extending CCT to local authority security work, vehicle management, management of on-street parking and legal services. We will begin consulting on other white collar services in the course of this year. I anticipate that legislation will take effect in a phased programme beginning in April 1995.
    Mr. Coe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's response. He spoke of the solid benefits of compulsory competitive tendering. Is he also aware of the hidden benefits to a local authority department that chooses to bid for a service: perhaps for the first time it has to look afresh and self-critically at the costs and true resources of that department, to the benefit not only of the smooth running of the department but of the charge payer?
    Mr. Baldry: Yes, competitive tendering has brought substantial benefits. Independent research has shown that it has reduced costs on average by 7 per cent. and on some services by up to 20 per cent. Those savings have been made to the benefit of local taxpayers and can be applied to other services in the local authority area. In addition, competitive tendering has improved contract specification, standards have risen, staff morale has improved and scrutiny has improved. All those have been brought about by competitive tendering.
    Mr. Denham: Is the Minister aware of the great contribution to the quality of the built environment made by local authority architects' departments? Last week, for example, I attended a meeting with the Royal Institute of British Architects in Hampshire to celebrate a Hampshire school winning the national RIBA award for public design
    884
    and on Friday I attended the opening of the Tauntons college in Southampton, the design of which was completed by local authority architects.
    Is not the Minister aware that the extension of CCT threatens to undermine the enormous contribution that local authority architects have made to the quality of the built environment and that many of our cities, towns and villages will be despoiled by cheap off-the-shelf design in place of the high-quality public architecture that we have enjoyed in recent years?
    Mr. Baldry: Even by the Labour party's terms, I can see no possible ideological reason why architecture has to be designed in-house. A few of us could think without too much difficulty of some fairly horrific examples of 1960s and 1970s buildings by municipal architects.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend, in his customary big-hearted way, extend warm congratulations to Geoff Lennox, who was a committee chairman and later a senior officer at Derbyshire county council and dedicated his career firmly to fighting against contracting out local services—
    Mr. Skinner: He was never any good.
    Mr. Oppenheim: He was a big buddy of yours.
    Mr. Skinner: He was not.
    Mr. Oppenheim: —but who recently took a job on a large salary with a private sector company dedicated to selling contracted-out services to local government institutions? Does this show that at least parts of the Labour party are making progress, or is it just the usual mixture of hypocrisy and opportunism?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A number of people in the Labour movement are seeing the light. My hon. Friend mentioned one; let me mention another. At a recent meeting of the Association of Direct Labour Organisations, Jack Dromey, the national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, warned that there could be no return to the 1970s, when, he acknowledged, the interests of producers had dominated those of customers. He said:
    "The managers, councillors and unions made arrangements which suited them, not the community as a whole. I can't put forward any ideological reasons why refuse collection has to be done in-house."
    As usual, the parliamentary Labour party is somewhat behind the rest of the Labour movement.
    Mr. Pike: Will not the Minister halt the extension of CCT to housing management, recognising the failure last week in Tory-controlled Wandsworth to introduce and privatise the management of some 8,000 houses in Putney and Battersea? Does he not recognise that that failed and abortive exercise has cost the tenants and residents there some £750,000 in trying to meet Tory policy?
    Mr. Baldry: There is absolutely no reason why competitive tendering should not also extend to housing management. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about privatising, most of it is extending to council tenants a considerable choice, to which the Labour party seems opposed.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order come after Question Time, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of competitive tendering is that it allows the in-house team to prove its ability, if it has it? Significantly, it has been proved in Tory boroughs, whereas Labour boroughs consistently fail, when they do not fudge the figures.
    Mr. Baldry: Local authorities will increasingly have to demonstrate that they are giving good quality to local people for the vast sums of money that they spend. One of the best ways that local authorities can demonstrate that is to expose their services to competitive tendering. I find it amazing that the Labour party still has difficulty with that concept.

    Council Rents
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made about the impact of housing revenue account subsidy on the level of council rents.
    Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend is increasing council rent guidelines for 1994–95 by an average of £2·20 a week. The average council rent guideline for subsidy purposes next year will be £31·60, which is both moderate and reasonable.
    Mr. Clelland: At a time when owner-occupiers—I count myself among their number—are benefiting not only from tax relief on mortgage interest payments but from significant reductions in housing costs because of the fall in interest rates, how can the Minister justify the fact that, in the forthcoming financial year, local authorities will receive no net subsidy for housing and will have to find £66 million to support housing benefit, which will have to come from rents? Why are the Government so vindictive towards council housing and council tenants?
    Sir George Young: To get the figures straight, there will be some £4 billion in housing revenue account subsidy next year. Local authority tenants who are on benefit will, of course, be insulated against any increase. Those tenants who are not on benefit have the option of the rent-to-mortgage scheme, which was put through the House by the Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will promote, with vigour and enthusisasm, the rent-to-mortgage scheme to his tenants who are paying the rent in full.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend look at councils that are increasing the costs of running their housing departments, which they are passing on to their tenants on an increasing scale? They are doing that to bring in more revenue for the council and are hiding the real costs of running their department.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that housing management will be put out to compulsory competitive tender. The benefits from the reduced cost that that will bring will be fed into the housing revenue account and will feed through in lower rents for his constituents. That is a powerful reason for the Government's pressing ahead with their policy, on which we were urged a few moments ago to hold back.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recall the answer that he gave me on 1 December, which showed that in the previous four years, when the retail prices index increased by 28 per cent., average council rents in London had been pushed up to 89 per cent? His own local authority, Tory-controlled Ealing council, led the way with a massive and disgraceful increase of 201 per cent. Does he recognise that his own authority has the record of the highest local authority rent in the country followed by Tory Redbridge, Tory Westminster, Tory Kensington and Tory Harrow? Will he now admit that it is Tory councils, often inefficient and corrupt, which hold the record for the highest rents?
    Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman may know, I take some interest in local authority rents in Ealing. He may be aware that rents in Ealing had to go up by such a substantial amount because of some creative accounting by a Labour-controlled Ealing council, which was thrown out of office three years ago. It was the only gain that we made from the Labour party and we achieved it because local people recognised that creative accounting by Labour-controlled councils was highly expensive.
    The hon. Member is aware that we are progressively moving towards capital value rents. Next year's guideline increase is lower than that of this year.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings have been made by local authorities in the last year as a result of compulsory competitive tendering.
    Mr. Baldry: Details of annual savings are not held centrally, but the results of independent studies by the university of Birmingham show that compulsory competitive tendering has reduced costs by an average of 7 per cent. between 1989 and 1992 and up to 20 per cent. for some services, and also improved services.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: In the light of my hon. Friend's answer, will he look carefully at my local council, Waltham Forest, and join me in condemning it for dragging its feet on the application of CCT? As a result of that delay, the council has now started to lay off managers as well as workers in the direct works organisation, which could have been avoided had it applied CCT. Does that not demonstrate that yet another socialist council is failing to work for the people?
    Mr. Baldry: Waltham Forest's record on competitive tendering is pretty miserable. We have had to give two directions to it in respect of financial failure of its direct labour organisations, one for failure on building maintenance work and one for failure on ground maintenance work. That meant that Waltham Forest's direct labour organisations were making losses, which were inevitably passed to local tax payers as higher local taxes or reduced services, or both. We are determined that such losses should not continue.
    Mr. Gerrard: When the Minister is attacking Waltham Forest council by suggesting that it should be more efficient and producing savings, will he also consider what is happening to the housing action trust in Waltham Forest? It seems that the local authority is expected to make savings by putting services out to tender, whereas the housing action trust, which spends millions of pounds of

    887
    public money, is allowed, unilaterally, to dispense with contracts with the local authority and to set up its own direct management, without any tendering process. Is not that a case of one rule for the local authority and another for the quango?
    Mr. Baldry: It is very sad that the hon. Member should seek to attack the Waltham housing action trust, because he knows, as other hon. Members know, that local tenants voted for it because they saw that it would bring considerable benefits to them. It is clear from the exchanges in the House this afternoon that the Labour party does not like tenants voting for their own management or local authorities providing better services through competitive tendering.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the benefits of CCT. He is also aware that his Department had to issue an instruction recently to close the contract services department of Sefton metropolitan borough council, which holds sway over my constituency, at least until we recapture our unitary authority status in Southport. Will he join me in expressing regret that it was necessary for the Government to step in to look after the genuine interests of the council tax payer instead of being able to leave the matter to the local authority leaders concerned?
    Mr. Baldry: I very much regret it when it is necessary for Ministers to issue statutory notices and directions. I hope that we can achieve a situation in which Ministers are no longer concerned with CCT, because I would hope that every local authority, be it controlled by Labour, the Conservatives or others, would appreciate the virtues and benefits of exposing their services competitively to the marketplace, and the benefits that that brings to local people. It is clear from this afternoon's exchanges that Labour still has a real ideological hang-up about competition. It seems that for the foreseeable future, Ministers will have to continue introducing statutory notices and directions to ensure that local authorities behave properly.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one person who hopes to benefit from compulsory competitive tendering is none other than the person mentioned by the hon. Member for Amber. Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)—Geoff Lennox, the ex-director of education with Derbyshire education authority? He used the Labour movement and tried to close schools in my constituency, until I stopped him. I smelt a rat seven or eight years ago and warned my Labour colleagues that he would desert them in the end—and now they all agree with me.
    Mr. Baldry: As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley scored a palpable hit. It is clear that the gentleman concerned was only appointed by the Labour party because he was a socialist—and for no other reason of merit.

    Pollution
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet his EC counterparts to discuss pollution; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: At the next Environment Council on 24 and 25 March.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Great Britain has now ratified the climate change convention? Which European countries have not ratified, and will he take steps to see that they do?
    Mr. Gummer: We have ratified and are followed in that by a number of other European Community countries. All have said that they will ratify, and we expect the remaining member states to do so. The Community itself ratifies, of course. I am pleased that we shall together help to guard against climate change, which would be so damaging to this and other countries.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it the Minister's intention to explain to his colleagues why the Government are privatising the parts of the civil service that specifically provide protection against pollution in this country by making a high level of scientific input into investigations of instances of environmental pollution? Will the right hon. Gentleman do all that he can to ensure that those functions remain within the Government service and are not privatised for the benefit of private industry?
    Mr. Gummer: I want the highest possible standards of pollution control services. If they can be improved through the use of private organisations or by privatisation, I shall hurry on with that. The measurement is not whether the services are public or private but whether they deliver the goods that we want—the highest standards of pollution control.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the opening of an opencast mine in a sensitive area between the village of Poynton in my constituency and the Greater Manchester boundary might be described as a form of pollution? If he does, and if my constituents are unhappy with the decision taken by Cheshire county council—which has responsibility for deciding mineral extraction planning applications—is there any way that my constituents can take their case to Europe?
    Mr. Gummer: As you, Madam Speaker, did not stop my hon. Friend asking his question, it must be possible for it to be infiltrated into the subject of pollution. I will go no further in answering the first part of my hon. Friend's question.
    As to the second part, this country has proper planning procedures that meet the democratic balance between differing sides in trying to reach a decision of that kind. In normal circumstances, those procedures are British procedures and adequately meet the needs of the United Kingdom. I thought that my hon. Friend upheld that position in every other circumstance.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of the fact that in this day and age people who use our beaches and waters for sport and pleasure often find themselves surrounded by raw sewage? Why does he not direct his energies, and those of his colleagues, to cleaning up our bathing waters—instead of seeking to dodge out of the EC bathing water directive?
    Mr. Gummer: What I am ashamed of is the fact that, for many years, the nationalised water undertakings did not spend the money that they should have spent on ensuring proper discharges. That is why we privatised the system, in

    889
    the teeth of opposition from the Opposition; it is why we are spending—Interruption.]—I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will want to hear this figure. We are spending £3,000 million a year on improving the infrastructure of the water system in Britain. The Labour party tried to deny the system that money, because it voted day in, day out against privatisation. The hon. Gentleman is another Labour Member who should be ashamed of himself.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he plans to take energy efficiency forward.
    Mr. Atkins: The promotion of energy efficiency to reduce carbon dioxide emissions remains a key Government priority, as demonstrated by the further increases in the Energy Efficiency Office's budget for 1994–95 to over £100 million. Energy efficiency measures
    890
    will play a significant part in the United Kingdom's climate change programme which will be published later this month.
    Mr. Thomason: When undertaking their recent inquiry into energy efficiency, some members of the Select Committee noted widely differing standards of energy efficiency among local authorities. Will my hon. Friend endeavour to encourage local government to pursue energy-efficient schemes as widely as possible?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, with his great experience of local government, is right to pick on this area as one which can be developed even faster. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning and I are prepared to spend as much time as necessary encouraging local authorities to recognise that their expenditure and, hence, their costs to local charge and taxpayers, can be reduced by energy efficiency.
    Madam Speaker: Time is up.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I can raise two important but related issues—
Madam Speaker: No. I am not here to listen to the issues that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise. If he has a point of order that I can deal with, I will listen to it now, but I want direct points of order.
Mr. Burns: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that guidance.
I want to raise with you the bringing into disrepute of this House and the security of this House. As you may be aware, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) appeared govellingly with Saddam Hussein on Iraqi television last night, when he said that he supported Saddam and congratulated him on his courage and that he was with him until he secured victory.
Given that this country fought a war against Saddam Hussein, and given the massacre of the Kurds and the marsh Arabs, will you, Madam Speaker, make a ruling on whether an hon. Member, by associating himself with those who commit genocide and who have provoked a war with us, brings the reputation of this House into disrepute?
Furthermore, are there any precautions in place to prevent the hon. Member for Hillhead from bringing into the precincts of this building any of his Iraqi friends who are our enemies because of the actions of Saddam Hussein?
Madam Speaker: Let me deal with the latter point first. I never discuss security matters across the Floor of the House, and I am not about to do so now.
As for last night's television, I was otherwise occupied and did not see the programme in question. It was not a point of order, however. In fact, the hon. Gentleman has just given extra publicity to an hon. Member's opinions on which I cannot possibly comment.
Ms Joan Walley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement in this House about the report that has been published by the marine accident investigation branch and by the marine pollution control unit in respect of the Braer, which went aground over a year ago? I have just been in contact with the other place, where the Shipping Minister serves, and
892
with the MAIB, and I am told that a number of copies of the report have been circulated but that the Opposition were not included on the circulation list.
It is high time the Secretary of State asked to make a statement; if he does not, this House will be brought into disrepute.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Secretary of State that he or any other Minister is seeking to make a statement on the matter.
Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, about parliamentary language. During Environment questions the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) used the word "gerrymandering" in connection with two London boroughs—the City of Westminster council and the borough of Wandsworth. His suggestion has absolutely no basis.
Madam Speaker: Order. That is a matter for argument. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member and knows that he does not argue with me in the Chair but puts his point to me. What is it, and I will do my best to deal with it?
Mr. Tracey: My point is very simple. To allege gerrymandering without any evidence is surely unparliamentary. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this. At this end of the Chamber I often hear rich vocabulary and, if the expression had been unparliamentary, I would certainly have stopped it at the time. Perhaps we can proceed to the ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has not the hon. Gentleman just abused the procedures of the House by raising a spurious point of order attacking the district auditor whose comprehensive report published last week made it clear that there was gerrymandering?
Madam Speaker: I am sure the day will come when I get a genuine point of order. Meanwhile, there is a genuine ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Ian Davidson: On a genuine point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of what has been said about Westminster, may I take it that it is in order to describe the reorganisation of Scottish local government as a gerrymander?
Madam Speaker: At the present time that is hypothetical.

Conscientious Objection (Public Expenditure)
3.36 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the system of taxation so that taxpayers are enabled to hypothecate on grounds of conscience a proportion of taxation to purposes which they nominate.
The Bill's simple purpose is to allow people who have a conscientious objection to their taxes being used for public expenditure on military purposes to be able to register that objection and to divert that part of their taxes to a specific fund that will be used for peaceful purposes connected with the development of international security.
I believe, and I think that many people associated with the Bill and with the Peace Tax campaign believe, that far too much is spent on armaments, and that far too much talent is wasted on the development, research and production of arms which could be put to much more useful purposes. Far too many arms are exported from this country, particularly to areas in which we know they will be used by regimes that are intent on internal repression. However, that is not what the Bill is about, nor is it the reasoning behind it. There is no logical reason why someone who thinks that present arms spending is reasonable should not support the Bill's principles.
It is important to stress at the outset that the Bill is about conscientious objection. It is not a way for someone to pay less tax, nor is it in any way a charter for people to dodge taxes. It is about tax diversion, not tax evasion. Therefore, there is no incentive whatever for someone who is not a genuine conscientious objector to take advantage of the Bill's provisions. Many conscientious objectors are deeply concerned about international security, international peace and human rights in areas of conflict or potential conflict.
Almost 80 years ago, during the first world war, the House first recognised the right to conscientious objection. It was recognised again during the second world war and during subsequent periods of national service and conscription. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights recognises conscientious objection to war as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience is also recognised as fundamental by the European convention on human rights.
Being a conscientious objector has never been an easy option. To be a conscientious objector, especially in times of war, has required a great deal of personal courage, and in many cases self-sacrifice. It has never been easy.
It is unlikely now that a conscientious objector will be required actually to fight in a war. The nature of modern warfare involves sophisticated weaponry and professional armies. However, a significant proportion of our taxes is being used in preparation for war to which some people deeply object. For someone who is a conscientious objector that is as unethical as being asked to fight. The Bill would allow such people to have their objections recognised.
May I address a point that is often raised? Some people accept some of the principles behind the Bill, but do not believe that it would work. They believe that such a Bill would open the door to all sorts of problems and that people must recognise that our system of taxation does not work in that way.
894
When a Government of whatever persuasion have been elected, they have the right to decide how to spend our taxes which end up in a single consolidated fund. We cannot allow someone to say, "Do not spend my taxes on roads or education". To change that, one can vote for a different party at the next election; we cannot expect Governments, local authorities or anybody spending public money to please everyone all the time. I agree with that, as do others who support the Bill.
However, it is a special case. I do not consider that it is a special case that I have to prove to justify the Bill as it has already been recognised by Parliament. If conscientious objection can be recognised in wartime, why not in peacetime as well?
In practical terms, it is not a difficult exercise. All that would be necessary is for the number of registered conscientious objectors to be known by the Inland Revenue. The average individual contribution to the Ministry of Defence budget can be calculated and a simple multiplication of the two figures produces a sum of money to be paid into a peace fund. That would certainly satisfy people who support my view.
The Bill would specify in general terms the purposes for which the fund could be used. I mentioned the need for research and development into converting industry from military to non-military production, the study of causes and resolution of conflict, community-based work to develop and maintain democratic structures and human rights in areas of potential conflict.
In view of much of what has been happening in Europe in recent years and may well happen in future, the need for such work cannot be over-emphasised. Even during the terrible events in the Balkans in the past year or two, small groups of people have been working locally, trying to promote understanding and to maintain democratic structures and human rights. Those people deserve our support by any means.
I hope that we can all agree on the importance of non-military work in promoting peace, security and human rights. A fund of that kind would make a direct contribution to security for everyone. In his recent statement "An Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General of the United Nations suggested the establishment of a peace endowment fund which, in many ways, is a similar concept.
People have strong personal objections on religious, ethical or moral grounds to taking part in war, and I am asking the House to recognise that similar objections are held by people in respect of the spending of their taxes on arms.
One need not be a pacifist to respect the sincerity of the beliefs of those who are or to acknowledge that people have the right to a conscience. I am asking the House to allow the means for that conscience to be expressed and not violated. I ask the House to support my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Ian Davidson, Dr. John Marek, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mr. Michael Connarty, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mrs. Alice Mahon and Mr. Frank Cook.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION (PUBLIC EXPENDITURE)
Mr. Neil Gerrard accordingly presented a Bill to reform the system of taxation so that taxpayers are enabled to hypothecate on grounds of conscience a proportion of

895
taxation to purposes which they nominate: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 January, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

Industrial Training Levy
3.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following motion:
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.
Miss Widdecombe: The proposals before the House seek authority for the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to impose a levy on the employers in their industries to finance the operating costs of the boards and to fund their range of training initiatives, including grants schemes. Provision for this is contained in the Industrial Training Act 1982, and the orders before the House woud give effect to proposals submitted by the two boards.
Both proposals include provision to raise a levy in excess of 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. The Industrial Training Act 1982 requires that in such cases the proposals must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. In each case, the proposals are almost exactly the same as those approved by the House last year. As in previous orders, they are based on employer's payrolls and their use of sub-contract labour. Both have special provision for excluding small firms from paying levy.
For the CITB the rates are 0·25 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of payments made by employers to labour-only sub-contrators. Employers with a payroll of £61,000 or less will be exempt. This is an increase from the previous threshold of £45,000.
The ECITB treats its head offices and construction sites as separate establishments and applies different levy rates which reflect the actual costs and the different arrangements for training particular workers. For head offices, the rates are 0·4 per cent. of payroll and 0·5 per cent. of payments to labour-only sub-contractors. Firms employing 40 or fewer employees are exempt. The rates for sites are 1·5 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of labour-only payments, with exemption for employers with a payroll of £75,000 or less.
In each case, the proposals have the support of the employers in the industry as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982 and have the full support of the respective boards, which consist of senior employers, trade unionists and educationists.
The House will know that the CITB and the ECITB are the only two statutory industrial training boards. Most other sectors of industry are covered by independent, non-statutory arrangements. In those two industries, however, employers are firm in their support for a statutory board and the House will recall that last year we reconstituted the CITB for a further five years. In doing so, we recognised the strong feelings of employers, and the performance and achievements of that board.
The House will also be aware that the ECITB is currently being reviewed. Such reviews are, of course, necessary if we are to ensure that the training arrangements that we have in place are right for employers in a particular sector. As with the CITB, we have consulted fully with the

897
industry about the effectiveness of the board and about the levy system more generally. The ECITB's current term of office is due to expire in July and I expect to make a statement to the House around the beginning of April.
The draft orders will enable the two boards to carry out their training responsibilities in 1994. It is right that the House should approve them, and I commend them accordingly.
3.50 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: This so far remarkably short debate shows the priority that the Government place on training.
Miss Widdecombe: Before the hon. Member comments on the degree of Government interest in training, will he recall that there were no Opposition Members present during a major debate on the national education and training targets a few weeks ago?
Mr. Lloyd: That is an interesting point given that the Minister is surrounded by a Whip, who has to be here, and by the hon. Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who—and I mean no disrespect by this—are always here for such debates. I do not think that there are signs of a massive interest in training.
Perhaps I can provoke discussion by starting off where we left off yesterday, when the Minister offered me various invitations. She asked whether I would welcome the number of young people in training and jobs. But she never responded to the argument that, at a time when skill shortages are beginning to emerge in the economy, 125,000 16 and 17-year-olds are unemployed. She has never sought to deny that fact because the figure comes from the Department of Employment's labour force survey, which was published in the Employment Gazette.
I am happy to talk to the Minister or, indeed, to the Secretary of State who invited us to discuss the fiddled figures. If the Minister gives me a guarantee that she will talk seriously about what happened to the 125,000 unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds and state why they did not appear in the official unemployment figures, we shall attend the discussions. Will the Minister give that guarantee?
Miss Widdecombe: The invitation to discuss with the Secretary of State the way in which the figures were calculated and the various differences and studies was extended to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, but it was never taken up. I shall be most interested to know whether the current Labour Front-Bench team want to take up the offer. Until the team come to discuss the employment figures with us, they are not in any position to condemn civil servants for their independent and high standard of work.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is bigger than I am, so the invitation is bound to come to him first. We would be delighted to come along. The accusation is not that civil servants fiddle the figures but that politicians instruct them on how they should count—in fact, miscount—the figures.
I did not pluck from the air the statistic that 125,000 16 and 17-year-olds are unemployed. The figure appeared in the Employment Gazette, a Department of Employment publication, and it comes from the labour force survey. It
898
was produced by the same civil servants who the Minister wants to deride. Of course, those civil servants are telling the truth. For 125,000 young people, the Government's guarantee did not apply. They were betrayed by the Government. They were unemployed, some of them were left idle on the streets and some resorted to crime and drugs —the sort of things that afflict young people and society. The Government are responsible.
Miss Widdecombe: As the hon. Gentleman has such utter confidence in the labour force survey, and as he is so keen to accept its figures, will he confirm that he accepts the figure of 2·7 million unemployed and that it is not underestimated by 1 million, as his friends have been claiming in recent days?
Mr. Lloyd: We had an enjoyable debate about that matter on Sunday; regrettably, it was not in this place. As the Minister will recall, I was able to quote to her a survey done by Dr. Wells at Cambridge university. He pointed out that the Government's official figures underestimate real unemployment by between 1 million and 2 million.
It is internationally accepted that the Government are prepared to use and abuse any form of statistics, just as we saw with the abuse and suppression of information on the health service and the way in which the Government manipulate figures up and down to suit their political purposes, and sometimes for nefarious purposes. Apparently it is not relevant to mention the £1 million profit that the Conservative party made when it bought the freehold of Smith square from Tory-controlled Westminster council and then sold it on again to the private sector.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It was £2 million.
Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend says, it was £2 million.
I do not think that it was applied to training. I think that it was to prop up the deficit of the chairman of the Conservative party at that time. That matter is not central to training, but it is central to the shoddy way in which the Government deal with their own properties and those of other people.
Miss Widdecombe: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the debate? I am sure, Madam Speaker, that if you had not been otherwise engaged, you would have ruled several of the hon. Gentleman's sentences out of order.
However, the hon. Gentleman claims that tile International Labour Organisation definition is the one which we should be using. He says that we are deliberately suppressing figures. May I take it that the essence of the hon. Gentleman's case is that the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation are conspiring with Conservative politicians to produce a definition specifically to enable Britain's employment figures to be fiddled? Is that the hon. Gentleman's ludicrous statement?
Mr. Lloyd: The Minister is on rather dangerous ground in praying in aid the ILO. Will the Minister discuss, for example, the fact that the ILO has condemned unconditionally the Government's ban on trade unions at Government communications headquarters, and that it has described that employment practice as an outrage against the employment rights of people at work? That is what the ILO says about the Government. The ILO unemployment figures are certainly worth discussing.

899
We will take up the Minister's offer, but only on condition that we examine in particular the 125,000 missing 16 and 17-year-olds whom the Government betrayed when they promised training which they did not undertake either through the CITB or any other training mechanism. That must be the starting point.
Let us consider the Government's record on training and the particular role of training boards. Department of Employment spending specifically on the now disbanded employment training and youth training schemes dropped between 1987 and 1992 by £3 billion a year down to £1·7 billion, when unemployment and the number of people who needed training to put them back into work had increased massively.
But the Government's record becomes a little worse. We know that, since that time, there have been further real cuts in the training budget. Training and enterprise councils have had their budgets cut, so in real terms less money is devoted to training and considerably less money is devoted to individual training, with the result that training for work and youth training are particularly shoddy little schemes.
For example, we know that, as a result of the training for work scheme and its predecessors, only one third of the people obtained work. The remarkable statistic—it would be amusing if it were not so very sad—is that unemployed adults have virtually the same chance of obtaining work if they do not go on a Government scheme as they would if they did. That must be the biggest indictment of the Mickey Mouse training schemes that the Government have made available through the CITB and, indeed, elsewhere through employment training and now training for work.
Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his statement by telling the House within what period that one third had not found work before he creates the impression that they never had work?
Mr. Lloyd: If we want to pursue this matter, I invite the Minister to begin to answer questions which would allow us to answer her question. The Department of Employment has stopped publishing figures that enable people to track what has happened to the unemployed. I would be delighted if the Minister returned to the Dispatch Box—of course, I would do her the courtesy of giving way again—and said that she will answer questions which relate specifically to what has happened to the long-term unemployed. If she does not have the information at hand, which is the usual departmental response, I hope that she will undertake that the Department will set up precise mechanisms to track the unemployed so that we can begin to talk seriously about what has happened to them. Does she want me to give way on that matter, or was she simply introducing a bit of Dispatch Box rhetoric?
It is a serious point. We need to know what happened to the long-term unemployed. I shall tell the Minister what has happened to them. They live in poverty; their families suffer; they have greater health problems; they have greater marital breakdown; they have greater stress; and they die younger. In the end, their children are more likely to be involved in crime and drugs. That is a tragedy.
Long-term unemployment blights our society and the lives of our constituents. It is a direct result of the mass unemployment policy that the Government have pursued.
900
Therefore, to some extent, we know what happens to the long-term unemployed, and we know what the Government have not done for them. They do not provide training for people to go back to work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says, the bottom line is that they simply do not care.
Miss Widdecombe: In view of the hon. Gentleman's deep concern for the long-term unemployed, which I share, will he now welcome the 1·5 million training opportunities that the Government have created for that category of people?
Mr. Lloyd: No. I am sorry, but I will not welcome the Mickey Mouse schemes set up by the Government, because they do not any good. They keep the unemployed off the streets, if that is what the Minister means, and out of the statistics. If that is the objective, of course we understand why the Government welcome the schemes. [Interruption.] They are fiddlers on the Bench—that is absolutely right.
Miss Widdecombe: The main intention of our training schemes is not simply to equip people with the right skills as determined locally but, more importantly, to keep the long-term unemployed in touch with work-related training. One of the things we found—the Labour Government found exactly the same thing—is that employers are reluctant to take on people who have been unemployed for any length of time. Therefore, it is crucial that the long-term unemployed have training which is linked directly to employment and the labour market so that they at least keep in touch with work-related activity. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that is the basis of our training schemes, and will he welcome it?
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says that there is one vacancy for every person out of work and for every 20 people on the dole. That is the tragedy of what the Minister is saying. There is no easy path for people to return to work when there is no work to which they can return. That is the tragedy of the employment schemes that the Government have made available.
The schemes do not work. They do not create work; they do not up-skill people; they do not help the nation; and they do not help individuals. The bottom line is that it is a political game. We saw the same game as each Secretary of State was trundled out to pasture and a new one was wheeled in. The Government reinvented the wheel. What is worse, sometimes they have broken the wheel.
I shall refer specifically to construction skills because the Minister has tried to divert me from that matter on occasions. Recently, the Secretary of State launched the Government's new apprenticeship schemes with a lot of fireworks. He said that it was a magnificent opportunity and there was a vast marketplace for the United Kingdom to compete in, but in order to do so successfully, we needed to ensure that our work force had all the skills they need.
The Secretary of State has also said that he wants to build up vocational training and qualifictions. If he were serious about that, he would get the support of Opposition Members. He had the nerve to ask whether somebody would want their house rewired by an electrician who had demonstrated skills by rewiring other houses, or by someone who had passed an exam in solid state physics. Is

901
the Secretary of State saying that decent education is the privilege of people like him? I believe that the Secretary of State went to public school, and his children may also go to public school. The Under-Secretary herself may have gone to public school.
The reality for many thousands of our fellow citizens is that they do not have an opportunity to go to such schools, but they are entitled to the best quality education. To sideline them and to say that all that is wanted is people who have basic rewiring skills is to insult them and to denigrate their abilities.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is keen on education. Yesterday, I announced that 77 per cent. of those aged 16 to 18 stayed on in education to obtain the qualifications which are so important.
Mr. Kevin Barron: That is because they have no jobs.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman makes my point exactly. When the figures were announced, all that Opposition Members did was to cry out that it was because there were no jobs. In other words, education is the second-best choice.
If the hon. Gentleman is so keen that education be made available to all—that is an ambition that I share—why does he put it down as second-best to getting a job and leaving young people low paid, untrained and poorly educated at the age of 16?
Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps we need to engage in a little systematic teaching in the Chamber. Let me teach the Minister about what happens in our further education colleges. It is true that the Opposition welcome the increasing numbers of young people who are staying on in education.
Miss Widdecombe: The Opposition do welcome it?
Mr. Lloyd: We welcome it where that education is of their choice and is meaningful. It would be simply ridiculous to do anything else. Like many of my generation, I was lucky enough to pass through the state system at a time when the state system was able to transport people from areas where education opportunities had not existed previously.
Of course I welcome the increase in figures, and further education ought to be a right. Let me tell the Minister what happens in the underfunded system which she and her colleagues have created during the past 15 years. At the age of 18, there is a massive decline in the figures so that Britain has a far smaller proportion of its young people in full-time education than in most other parts of western Europe. That is the case when we compare ourselves with France and Germany—the nations which we like to compete with.
If the Minister wants to say that we are doing a little better than Morocco on that scale, I would not want to dispute that. However, that is not the reference point to which I or the people I represent aspire. We can do a little better than that.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman said that he would inform the House of what is going on in our further education colleges. May I invite him to come to the Lancaster and Morecambe college of further education? He could not find a more admirable institution than that. The college provides the most superb
902
training and it turns out people who get jobs. Places at the college are sought after, and the people it turns out are sought after. Would the hon. Gentleman care to visit, so that he will be in touch with what is happening in a part of the world which he ought to know?
Mr. Lloyd: With the respect that I have for the hon. Lady, of course I will accept her invitation. However, there is a proviso. A year or two ago, when I spoke for the Opposition on health and safety, I wrote to a lot of hospitals and health authorities regarding the position of health and safety in those areas. I specifically wrote to the chairman of the health authority in the area which the hon. Lady represents. The hon. Lady raised a point of order in the House and condemned me for interfering in her constituency. I trust that, if I accept her invitation, it will not lead to the same hysteria and shenanigans which occurred on that occasion.
I would also say to the hon. Lady that I would be delighted to come up to that area, which I visit from time to time. She knows that her seat is one which the Labour party would expect to win at the next election, and she will have a considerable number of visits by Labour Members during the coming months. If I agree to come to see the hon. Lady's college of further education, will she come with me to the jobcentre, where perhaps we will talk to those in the dole queue who number about three times as many as there were when the Government took power in 1979? It would make an interesting joint focus—the failure of the Government represented by the dole queues and the paltry effort that they have put into further education.
I wish to talk specifically about the construction industry and the Construction Industry Training Board. I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber. He will be interested to know that not so many minutes ago the Minister was berating the House for the limited number of people interested in training who have bothered to turn up for the debate. I can tell the Secretary of State that it will not take him long to read the Under-Secretary's speech, because there was very little in it. However, he may be a little more interested in the speech that she has made since then in interventions in my speech. We are ever willing to help the Government. We should develop our interest in training and I welcome the Secretary of State to the debate.
I have just referred to something that the Secretary of State said. I did not complete the point that I wanted to make, because I gave way to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). Given the Secretary of State's educational background and the opportunities that it gave him, he has something of a cheek to denigrate ordinary people in the way that he did when he spoke at the national training awards ceremony at which he launched his plans for vocational training.
I have said to the Secretary of State privately and I repeat it publicly that we shall support a properly structured, properly funded approach to vocational training, as long as it provides proper, quality education which is genuinely aimed at uplifting the skill level of our young people. We need to uplift the skill level of not only our young people. The Secretary of State should recognise that the position in Germany is very different. Many of those who enter vocational training do so having already received a first-class education to a high standard through the ordinary academic system.
If the Secretary of State is prepared to put the money into such a scheme, he will receive a welcome from the

903
Opposition. But if his scheme is simply an attempt to divert those who are regarded as the lower classes by Conservative Members on to Mickey Mouse training, if he is simply saying, "We want the best for the chaps and chapesses from the public school system, but anything will do for the kids from the inner-city areas," he will receive no welcome from the Opposition.
The Secretary of State makes comments such as:
"do you want driving your car someone who has only passed a written examination?"
I do not want someone driving my car who has had only practical experience and no training whatever. That would be ridiculous. He says:
"who do you want as a foreman on a construction site, someone with good practical and people skills or someone who could write a good essay on the construction industry?"
If the Secretary of State denigrates the type of education that makes our construction workers properly qualified, he is foolish.
Let me quote from someone at the sharp end at one of the very good colleges of further education to which the hon. Member for Lancaster referred a few moments ago. Almost as if in response to the Secretary of State's silly remarks, one of the critics of the current system of training, a college lecturer, said that a young NVQ-qualified craftsman could build a brick wall, but
"because he had never been told about the effects of freezing weather on water, he would not know what to do when it was cold."
He went on to say that the wall would probably fall down in a couple of years. I agree with what that lecturer said.
I remind the Secretary of State that there is a need for theory as well as practice. Of course we want practical skills. The Government have sold the practical side of the nation down the river for the past 15 years. However, we must upgrade the general level of education of those who become the practitioners in industry. That is what the Secretary of State seemed to denigrate in his launch. I hope that he will think again if he is serious about education and training in construction for our young people.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of not responding to him. He has consistently referred to what he describes as Mickey Mouse training. Will he tell me how a syllabus devised not by the Government but by the industry, independently assessed and drawn up on the basis of good practice, can be a qualification deserving of the title "Mickey Mouse"? Will he please recognise that there are those who, while not benefiting from the academic route, will nevertheless, like their German and Japanese counterparts, benefit from a competence-based work route? That is what NVQs are about. Will he please welcome them and respect the industry that has drawn them up?
Mr. Lloyd: The Minister has a long way to go. She does not seem to understand the problems.
Mr. James Clappison: Answer the question.
Mr. Lloyd: Of course I shall answer the question. Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene to ask a question before I start to reply to the Minister?
I refer the Minister to a study conducted by Professor Prais and others who considered NVQs and concluded that they were not terribly good. The university of Manchester
904
also carried out a study of NVQs and concluded that in many cases there was an over-concentration on—I cannot remember the Minister's exact words—what is, in effect, self-assessment. The teacher decides whether the student, apprentice or learner has made progress and, in accordance with the Government's preferred method of assessment, is then measured by output funding. It is a nasty little world, but a Government who praised Westminster council should not have too much difficulty with the concept of people cheating, which is what happened under that system. That is what devalues NVQs.
If the Minister thinks that what I am saying is merely proof of the nasty Opposition being beastly to the well-meaning Government, let me cite Mr. Martin Pollard. He is the chief executive of the joint council between employers and unions in the electrical contracting industry, so his comments are highly relevant to the debate.
Mr. Pollard said that one of the problems for young people undertaking the TECs' two-year courses is that they find jobs as electricians although they have not—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister, having asked a question about the quality of NVQs, is talking to the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), and does not want to listen to the answer. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) can tell her the answer later. Oh, it is very decent of the Government Whip to leave the Chamber.
Mr. Pollard said that some training and enterprise funding councils were funding two-year courses and releasing trainees to find jobs as electricians, although they had not reached the required standard. He continued:
"In fact the only position in which they could be employed is that of a labourer—surely a waste of two years' training."
It is not only a waste of training but a massive waste of Government money and of the lives of these young people.
I visited the construction site of a very good development in my constituency. One of the senior people there said that, when he takes people from Government training courses in the construction trades, he finds that he has to put them back in the classroom. People who have undertaken a two-year Government course are being told that their bricklaying or other skills are not up to scratch and that they must go back to the classroom. They do not earn the money that they had expected to earn, so they say, "Sorry pal, I'm off," and they decide to take a job elsewhere—if they can find one. They may have difficulty doing so because their skills are not adequate. That is an example of the problems created by the Government.
The Government are directly responsible for the failure outlined by Mr. Pollard, an independent industrialist.
Miss Widdecombe rose—
Mr. Thomas Graham rose—
Mr. Lloyd: If the Minister will forgive me, I shall give way first to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Graham: Some time ago I mentioned to one of the Ministers the case of a young constituent of mine who had been training to be a plumber. The training shop was shut and he was thrown on to the dole without having finished his course. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House that we badly needed to spend more than £5 billion on improving water and sewerage services. We shall desperately need plumbers and construction workers,

905
but the Government are not willing to provide money for training in Scotland because they have cut funding by more than 33 per cent.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) makes an important point. He makes the case that we shall certainly need those skills and that is not in doubt. I shall come directly to that point on a United Kingdom basis in a moment.
One of the staggering things that we confront in Scotland is that, as my hon. Friend says about one of his constituents, young people are treated in a shoddy way. Yet we learn that the Secretary of State, who has announced his apprenticeship scheme, has not the clout in the Cabinet to take that system north of the border. The apprenticeship system on which the Government are pinning the future skills of the nation will not apply in Scotland. My hon. Friend is right to be incensed.
Mr. John Prescott: He has not got any money.
Mr. Lloyd: Well, there is a difference of opinion on our Front Bench, which one gets now and again in a healthy, democratic party. I had not thought of it before, but my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde tells me that the scheme is seen as so sub-standard that the Scots do not want it. Even the Secretary of State for Scotland has apparently rumbled the Secretary of State for Environment and does not want the scheme. I thought that it was because the Scots were being deprived. I now learn that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not think that the commitment will be there, that the money will be there or that it will be there to provide the quality training that we ought to have.
If the Secretary of State for Scotland does not want the scheme, we must doubt the reason why it has been foisted on those of us in the rest of the country. Does the Minister want to give way?
Mr. Prescott: Is it true?
Miss Widdecombe: No.
Madam Speaker: Order. One debate at a time.
Mr. Lloyd: I invite the Minister—
Madam Speaker: May we return to the subject of the order?
Mr. Lloyd: Give me a chance. [Laughter.] I invite the Minister specifically to confirm whether the apprenticeship scheme will apply in Scotland as she seems to indicate.
Miss Widdecombe indicated dissent.
Mr. Lloyd: She is now shaking her head. Is the Minister telling us that she does not know whether the scheme will apply in Scotland?
Miss Widdecombe: When I said it was not true, I was referring to the incredible degree of waffle, imputed motivation and knowledge of what goes on in Cabinet, which the hon. Gentleman does not have. I was also saying that the hon. Gentleman is getting more ludicrous by the moment. Madam Speaker agrees with me: we should get back to discussing the order. May we discuss the training levy for the construction industry and not Scottish NVQs?
Mr. Lloyd: I am a little surprised. I thought that when I gave way the Minister wanted to tell us whether she knew that the system would apply to training and to the construction industry among others in Scotland. It is clear that she has not got a clue. The Secretary of State is in the Chamber. I wonder whether he knows. I undertake to keep talking for the time it would take him to get to the Dispatch Box. It appears that the Secretary of State does not know whether the scheme applies in Scotland.
Would it be possible for the House to adjourn until the Prime Minister came along to tell us whether he knows? Perhaps we could even get the Prime Minister to the Scott inquiry to tell us whether he knows anything about the sale of arms to Iraq, anything about Government policy on training—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am not minded to adjourn the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a lot of material before him at the Dispatch Box and he can return to the order.
Mr. Lloyd: I am just beginning to warm up.
There is a central question about whether the apprenticeship model will apply to construction trainees in Scotland. It seems as if the cavalry is about to come with the news. Does the hon. Member for hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) want to break the news to the House himself, or would he prefer to convey it to the Minister? We seem to have a problem in inter-departmental consultation. It seems to be a case not so much of Fabian of Scotland Yard as of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
If we consider the construction industry and the situation as evidenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde in his constituency, and then consider what has happened on a national basis to the number of trainees in the construction industry, we find that the level of employment in the industry has plummeted. In 1990, when the foolishly manufactured boom of Lawson was still at its height, there were nearly 1·9 million people employed in the construction industry. By last July that figure had dropped down to only 1,392,000. In other words, about 500,000 construction workers had lost their jobs in that two-year period. That is a staggering loss both of employment for those individuals and of our economic base. It is a staggering leaching of the nation's skills.
I have something else to tell the Minister and again she will not know whether it is right or wrong. The industry on a reasonably accurate forecast reckons that, for every two construction workers who leave the industry during a slump, only one returns.
Miss Widdecombe: Has the other one found a job?
Mr. Lloyd: I will tell the Minister about that. A couple of weeks ago I came by taxi to the House. The driver of my minicab was a very nice man and I talked to him about his background. He told me that he used to run his own construction company but, unfortunately, he was one of many victims of the recession. He hates this Government. He lost his business and his employees were all made unemployed because of the Government. He is now driving a taxi and he hates it. He resents the fact that he is a skilled man yet cannot use the skills that he has acquired over the years to work for those who want him to in his chosen trade. Instead, he is taxiing around, like many other people. Yes, the Minister is right, some people find

907
jobs—they find jobs as taxi drivers or in the McDonald's sector of our economy. They do not find skilled jobs in construction or in manufacturing, because that work has gone and in many cases gone for good.
In a little over two years, a quarter of the construction labour force disappeared. We should stand back in amazement at that and show at least a little sympathy for the individuals involved and for our economy. At the same time the number of apprentices in the construction industry slumped. In 1990—the year that I cited for the peak in employment—there were 77,000 apprentices in the construction industry. By last year, the figure had virtually halved to 43,000. That is no great tribute to the skills revolution that the Government claim is taking place. It simply shows an industry that regards training for the future as an avoidable expense when the going gets tough, in this case directly because of Government policy.
In no sense is the level of skills being maintained. We have lost permanently about 250,000 skilled workers and we have not even begun the process of replacing them through the industrial training schemes that we are discussing. The Minister should apologise to the House for that.
I do not want to be over-critical of the industry training board.
Mr. Prescott: Why not?
Mr. Lloyd: Because it would be unfair to shoot the messenger when the people responsible are sitting behind the Government Dispatch Box. Sir Clifford Chetwood, the chairman of the construction industry training board, wrote in the foreword to the 1991–92 report—the most recent one available:
"It is therefore with some satisfaction … that, by judicious use of reserves and by the application of a range of counter-cyclical measures, CITB has been able to maintain training at an acceptable level during this period of deep recession in the industry."
I am sorry to say so, but Sir Clifford is being complacent, given that the number of apprentices in construction has virtually halved.
We know that one of the problems facing the CITB is that its revenue has been cut during that period. As businesses have ceased to trade and as people have left the industry, the sums coming into the construction industry have been cut by £8 million. Last year the level of spending in the industry was about £52 million; this year's spending will be down to £43 million. That is a significant fall. That goes a long way to explain why there has been the cut in the number of people gaining training in the construction industry, which we think they should have.
The Government are simply incompetent in their ability and desire to plan. They were forced, because of the demands from within the industry—one or two Conservative Members were part of the process of lobbying—to retain the Construction Industry Training Board. I am happy to pay tribute to the role that they played at that time. It was recognised that the Government's ideological approach to training—that we do not want national bodies and do not need any national mechanisms for planning—was wrong-headed. The industry said that.
In the end, even the Government, dogmatic and pig-headed as they normally are, were forced to listen to what the industry said. In the end, grudgingly and against
908
the desires of the ideologues on the Government Front Bench at the time, the Government accepted the role of the CITB. But they have never accepted the need for the CITB to act in a counter-cyclical manner. When there is an upturn again in the economy, we shall see an increase in wage costs, for example, as happened between 1981 and 1990, when the industry increased the number of employees by some 250,000. Wage inflation became a significant part of the construction industry at that time. It was a damning critique of the incompetence and failure of the planning mechanisms that the industry was allowed to get into that position.
It may be bold and unwise to do so, but let us speculate that the shoots of recovery have at last appeared and that one of the industries that will pick up is construction. We would once again have skills shortages throughout the construction industry of a kind that will not easily be picked up by the present training board policies.
That is the central failure of the training board structure that we currently have. The Government are not committed to it. They will not finance it properly and will not let the industry finance its training properly. That is why we will have wage inflation within construction when there is any kind of pick up within the industry. Although I welcome every new job that is created—let the Minister understand that the Labour party welcomes that—we do not welcome the incompetence of a Government who have failed to plan for the future.
Reference was made earlier to colleges of further education, of which there are some 400 in England. Some 40 have stopped their wet trade construction courses over recent months. The reason for that is twofold. It is in part because the trainees are simply not coming forward, either through the CITB or the industry. There simply are not the bums on seats. The other reason comes down to the Government's so-silly view of the educational process. They paraded with great pride and pleasure the creation of a market in education.
The effect is that further education colleges, squeezed for money, have made decisions. They have decided to withdraw from high-cost courses that are resource intensive, such as construction and some of those in the manufacturing skills, and instead have opted for low-cost courses, sometimes courses such as English. That is welcome and I am not denigrating those courses, but I am dismayed that one in 10 of our colleges of further education has ceased to provide resource-intensive courses.
Will the Minister tell the House whether she has any views on who will train our young people in construction skills if those courses no longer exist in further education colleges? I do not know who will train the next generation. It becomes a serious problem.
The central point of the debate is that it is because the Government consistently underfunds the CITB, because they do not have a credible approach to training within construction, that the Opposition intend to divide this evening on the two orders. We must make it clear to the Government that they are simply not providing the money nor the effort necessary to maintain training opportunities. I have been in the House for some years and I have participated in debates on previous training orders. Today is the first time in my memory that we have sought to divide the House on the issue. We shall do so to make our protest public.

909
The time has come to tell the Government that they can no longer get with their rhetoric about training. Each new Secretary of State launches his or her new scheme, but a couple of years later each new system fails.
According to any reputable measurement—that discounts anything produced by central Government—and any international comparison, Britain is falling short when it comes to providing intermediate vocational qualifications. A recent report showed that 63 per cent. of workers in Germany have intermediate vocational qualifications, either technical or craft qualifications. Nearly two out of three German workers have a vocational qualification and a further 11 per cent. have a degree. The German economy is based on a high level of worker education and skills.
In Britain, the number of workers with university degrees is rougly the same, but only one in four people have vocational qualifications. We are falling far behind the Germans, the French and the Japanese. Conservative Members may still believe that we are witnessing a skills revolution, but that is not what is happening in the British workplace.
Miss Widdecombe: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many national vocational qualification equivalents the Labour Government introduced? What did his Government introduce as an equivalent to training and enterprise councils? What did his Government ever do to bring about a training revolution?
Mr. Lloyd: That is a good question and like all good questions, it has a good answer. The Minister should cast her mind back to when the apprenticeship system was still alive and training our young people.
Miss Widdecombe: How many apprenticeships were offered for girls?
Mr. Lloyd: I agree that that lack has always been a problem and a black mark against our training system. I intend to ask the Minister a specific question about the number of women trainees in construction. I hope that she intends to make progress on that issue.
The Minister asked me what happened to promote training before the Government came to power. Critical as we are about the collapse of training in construction, because of the Government's lack of commitment to that training board's structure, the fact that that board exists has offered protection to the industry. Despite that, however, the number of trainees in construction is half what it was in the years 1981 to 1990.
There were 56,000 apprentices in the construction industry in 1979, but by 1993 that number had dropped to 43,000. Roughly one quarter of apprenticeships were lost. In 1979, the number of trainees in the print industry was 2,767. By last year that number had fallen to 380. That is an incredible reduction and its' relevance must be obvious to hon. Members.
In the- early 1980s, the Government abolished with a flourish the Print Industry Training Board along with the other industrial training boards. The Government argued that they had to be abolished because they were not fulfilling the role desired by the Government. According to the Government White Paper published in 1988,
"ITBs had 'not succeeded in raising the standard and the quantity of training in the sectors they covered to the level of our major competitors·"'
910
Since then, in those industries where the Government misguidedly abolished training boards, training has collapsed. [Interruption.]
The Minister laughs with mock scorn. When the printing industry training board was abolished, the number of trainees dropped from 2,767 to 380. The Minister does not think that is a collapse. The Government have sabotaged training, skills, the skills stock and Britain's future in the printing industry—which, of all industries, needs high skill levels.
I come from a family of three generations of printers. I was brought up in a family in which it was common to recognise the love that my own father had for his skills as a printer. The Government are dismantling that tradition. For the Minister to laugh places her and the Government in the right context. This is an anti-training Government. This is a Government of industrial destruction. This is a Government of political Luddites, who have smashed our infrastructure and left little for young people in industries such as printing and construction.
Although training has been badly hit in the two remaining boards, the number of trainees has only halved. In industries where boards were abolished, training has effectively been dismantled.
Miss Widdecombe indicated dissent.
Mr. Lloyd: The Minister shakes her head. In printing, one trade union put up £1 million to run a school of excellence. The European Community was prepared to make available £1·5 million to back that project and Salford local authority in Greater Manchester made a prime site available for the school. Some employers also wanted to put up money, but the employers collectively could not get their act together. The printing industry loses by that because, when an upturn arrives in that sector as in construction, we shall see again the skills shortages that bedevil this country every time that the Government lead us from bust to a temporary pick-up in the economy. The Minister's laughter is the laughter of a Government who have neither the sense nor the compassion to understand the problems.
Even though the Government did not want to talk about construction and engineering construction industry training and have made almost no comment, this debate provides others with an opportunity to express their views. We have had the opportunity to bring the Minister to her feet on other occasions, but she has not answered particularly constructively to questions about the construction and engineering construction industries.
I will ask the Minister one or two questions that I hope she will find easier to answer, since they were posed by her predecessor when the CITB review was completed and the board was told that it could continue another five years. At that time, the Government devised a number of tests. The CITB had to set a target for participation by ethnic minorities and women in youth training schemes. What progress has been made? Can the Minister encourage us to believe that there is realisation of the need to encourage ethnic minorities and women to enter an industry that has traditionally been male-dominated?
Ms Angela Eagle: The disabled should also be encouraged.
Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend says.

911
I am not sure that I understood the Minister's remarks about the long-term future of the engineering construction training board.
Miss Widdecombe: A statement will be made in April.
Mr. Lloyd: The Minister says that a statement will be made in April, but we do not know now what will be the outcome. It would be outrageous if the Government were to destroy that board as they did the others, hard on the heels of the information that I have given the House about the collapse of training in the construction and allied industries.
Britain is sliding steadily backwards, and it will continue to do so as long as we have a Government who are anti-education and anti-training. The Government display no commitment to industrial training and offer no encouragement to train to those who are in work. They offer precious little encouragement to people out of work and to the next generation. The Government's failure to treat the engineering and construction industry training boards seriously will lead us to divide the House at the end of this debate.
4.44 pm
Sir Michael Neubert: Anniversaries are an uncomfortable reminder of the passage of time, but they also provide an opportunity to measure the advance and achievement of the year gone by. This annual debate gives the House such an opportunity. My interest in the construction order arises from my role as parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders. It is the third such debate in which I have taken part. Nothing much changes, except the Minister. It is never the same Minister twice. This afternoon, we are glad to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) to take her turn in starring at the Dispatch Box.
We always hear a major speech from a member of Labour's Front Bench. On the last occasion, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) took one third of the 90 minutes available for debate. This afternoon, we have three hours available, but again the hon. Gentleman has taken one third of the time. I hope that the Government do not give a full day on the next occasion because, if the hon. Gentleman were to speak for two hours, I am not sure that I have the stamina or bladder capacity to hear all that he had to say.
I welcome one change. The Government have given this business prime time by putting it first on the Order Paper, and we should welcome the opportunity to bring the construction and engineering construction industries to the attention of the nation at this early hour, rather than debate them at some dark hour of the night when only Members of Parliament are around to listen.
There have been two main developments since our last debate. I welcomed the statement made two weeks after we last debated the future of the CITB, which was under review. I expressed my appreciation of the Government's action in recognising once again the unique character of that industry and accepting that it continues to warrant exemption from Government policy of looking to industries to make independent, employer-led arrangements to provide and to fund adequate training.
912
The case for exemption needs to be defended. A project's time span can be as short as three months. Larger projects, of course, may be measured in years, but there are not so many of them. The construction of the Palace of Westminster took 15 years, but today it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that one can see in Hong Kong the start and finish of an office building in the three weeks that one is on holiday there. The longer-term view is no longer available to the construction industry as to other industries, so a statutory levy makes sense. Otherwise, the cheap short cut would always be taken.
The construction industry consists mainly of small firms, widely dispersed, engaged in a variety of activities. The work load is cyclical and vulnerable to changes in the economy, which makes manpower forecasting unfeasible.
The industry is highly mobile, the size of the workplace varies and businesses come and go with frightening frequency. At the same time, it is all too easy to start up a business, however inadequately trained or qualified a person may be.
The industry is therefore in a category of its own. As for health and safety, the very nature of the work in the construction industry involves much higher risks than the work in many other industries, so safe working practices are imperative, and training for safety must be given the utmost priority.
No employer would ever want to take on staff who, once they have qualified, go down the road and work for some other business, thus acting in competition with the original employer. Thus, a central statutory requirement is essential, and the need for a training levy proven. I thank the Minister for allowing the CITB an extended life of five years, thus giving it time to plan strategically for the training function of the future.
A second major development has been the improvement in the economy—[Interruption.] Now that my voice has recovered its full vigour, I hope that the House will be interested to hear about the improvements in the economy. The depth and length of the recession were without precedent. We have been in uncharted territory. The economy seemed to turn the corner, but then it appeared that it had not done so. There are, however, real signs of recovery now. For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, there is good news every day. That shows the difference between now and February of last year, when we were much less certain.
Mr. Graham: The other day I had a visitor from America who was travelling through from England to Scotland. He was appalled by the infrastructure problems that we face in Scotland and England—the potholes in the pavements and roads, and so on. He was shocked to find that the school that he had gone to was in a dilapidated condition and had no money for repairs.
One of the major problems, surely, has been that the Government have not injected enough cash into the infrastructure of public life, thereby employing more plumbers, electricians and builders. It is like the chicken and the egg: the Government are not prepared to train workers because they are happy with the short-term gains that arise from not putting enough money into public infrastructure. We will only get the construction industry going again, with real training, when the Government start putting money into public infrastructure to improve our

913
roads, schools and hospitals. That will never happen until the Government put their money where their mouth is—that is the only way to get Britain back to work.
Sir Michael Neubert: I was rather surprised, on two counts, to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say, although I always listen carefully to his interventions. Although the United States has a powerful and successful economy, it also has areas of dereliction that are far worse than any in this country. I saw in a news bulletin from Michigan last night scenes of shocking dereliction. As for infrastructure, I was going on to refer in glowing terms to the Government's policy on infrastructure projects, on which the Government have a proud record.
I identify the following features of the economy as encouraging. First, we have low interest rates. Then, we have a low annual rate of inflation—still below 2 per cent., and we have been below that figure for a record period. We have low wage settlements, high productivity and a competitive currency. All those are ingredients for economic growth.
The building industry, however, is slow to share in the benefits of increasing confidence and expansion. In recent years—notably in the autumn statement 15 months ago —the Government have offered commendable support to major infrastructure projects. That is a welcome boost for the construction industry, but those projects have only limited trickle-down benefits for small and medium-sized builders such as those which make up the membership of the Federation of Master Builders.
The Jubilee line extension is a prime example of a project given Government support. It is tragic that it took a year for the financiers to get their act together, although the difficulties are well understood. The recovery would have been further ahead if this major £1·9 billion project, creating 20,000 jobs, had been under way 12 months ago, but it was not to be. It is a good illustration of our negative news reports that, on the day that the project was clinched, it did not feature on the BBC's nine o'clock news until 9.25 pm, and then only fleetingly.
Crossrail is another project to which I hope the Government will give whole-hearted backing. It combines private and public finance and it could transform transport in London, enabling all those Americans who pass through on their way to Scotland to enjoy efficient public transport.
To show the state of the building industry I should like to draw attention to a submission made by the Building Employers Federation and the Federation of -Master Builders. The submission was made jointly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 October last—only three months ago, since when I am assured the position has not changed much.
Those organisations reported to the Chancellor:
"output has declined for 13 consecutive quarters since the beginning of 1990, making this the longest recession since the 1930s; the value of output is now over 15 per cent. down on its peak, a significantly larger fall than in most other industries; the housing market is still very fragile with sales well below expectations; employment in the industry has fallen by about half a million since 1989, and there have been additional cuts in employment in our associated professions and in the building materials industry; the length and depth of the recession has in turn led to very substantial and damaging reductions in our training and recruitment programmes for both apprentices and graduates. This now threatens the future capability and capacity of both small and large firms".
914
As I have already said, there is little prospect of improvement—indeed, there has been none in the past three months, as shown by the most recent state of trade surveys.
The building and construction industries are always the first to be hit by recession, they are always hit the hardest and they always take the longest time to emerge into recovery. Let us not overlook the importance of the industry to Britain, however. In 1992, the recession notwithstanding, the industry had a total turnover of £47 billion, or about a tenth of Britain's gross domestic product. Construction amounts to about a third of the nation's manufacturing base and even in this recession it continues to provide about 1·4 million jobs. A tenth of the entire population depends directly or indirectly on the construction industry.
Moreover, construction accounts for half of Britain's fixed investment and it has a crucial role to play in extending and improving our economic and social infrastructure. There is a widely recognised need for new investment and for more maintenance work on housing, on school and hospital buildings, on roads and factories and on other areas of construction work. To that extent at least I can agree with the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).
The order is to be welcomed, but I have two reservations about it. I apologise for the fact that they are repetitious, in the sense that I have inevitably made these points before, but they remain relevant. The first criticism is that the order provides for the threshold for exemption to be increased, from £45,000 to £61,000—the intention being to exclude firms with four workers, whereas the number used to be three.
At a time when the Government talk of the need for increasing training it is ironic and contradictory that, by means of this exemption, they should reduce the obligation to contribute to the costs of training. No fewer than 35,000 businesses are estimated to be excluded from the levy—businesses effectively in receipt of subsidy for training from the rest of industry.
The raising of the ceiling reduces the board's income by £1 million. I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford that it is unfortunate, at a time when we want more training and recognise its importance, that we should start by giving the board a new lease of life for five years but then reduce its income. It is estimated that a nil threshold under which everybody would be required to contribute would yield £8·5 million. That would give a significant boost to training, and it would be money from the industry and not from the public purse.
The Federation of Master Builders represents many small and medium businesses, and it may seem odd that it should support the view that all should contribute. I support that view because I recognise its fairness. Competition is distorted because some businesses have to pay the levy. It is a small amount compared to the funds with which those firms manoeuvre, but is another competitive disadvantage for small and medium businesses that are liable for the levy. That is obvious from my earlier illustration about the level of turnover for VAT registration, which was likewise increased by the Chancellor to £45,000. The same considerations apply because revenue is lost.
In a parliamentary answer on 16 December, the Paymaster-General revealed that the revenue forgone as a result would be £40 million in the next financial year and £45 million in the following year. It is surprising that, with

915
the deficit running at £1 billion a week, the Chancellor is willing to forgo that amount. One would have thought that it would be welcome.
It is understood that we want to encourage small businesses: that is the purpose of those policies. However, it could be argued that small businesses should learn from the beginning that the full cost of training and VAT liability are among the expenses that they will have to bear if they survive and succeed. That would be fairer than the current system and would remove the competitive disadvantage of having to charge customers 17·5 per cent. plus the cost of training for work that could be done for much less by a smaller business. Most customers may find the extra amount rather too much to pay. We are not debating the difference between small and large businesses because such an advantage could accrue to a business with four workers and not to one that employed only five. That is where it hurts and the disadvantage must be resisted.
I have reservations about the training and VAT exemptions. I understand that the Minister is not responsible for VAT but she will appreciate how the two come together in the minds of business men who are struggling to survive in this over-long recession. Firms that could constantly exceed the ceilings might be tempted to take short cuts and adopt devices to avoid liability. In such cases, the cash-only-no-questions-asked payment becomes attractive and the black economy beckons.
Despite those disadvantages I welcome the order and I am glad to know that it will give the Construction Industry Training Board another year to plan and execute training in one of the country's most important industries.
5.3 pm
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Nobody is enthusiastic about the order, because everybody knows what the Government have been like over the years. It is almost 32 years since the levy raised its head, following a White Paper in 1962 and an Act in 1964. I must declare an interest because I am proud to say that I am sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. I was also the Scottish political education officer. We carefully examine any schemes that the Government organise, and we looked at the situation in 1962 and again in 1964. When the Government do not agree with a scheme they use a Ways and Means resolution to change an Act and give power to a Minister or a Secretary of State.
In 1973, the Government used the 1964 Act to set up boards. The 1962 White Paper had examined the state of firms throughout Britain and had found that no training whatever had been provided. Everybody knows that a country without a skilled work force cannot survive. Everybody also knows that the country is bankrupt. The Minister said little, but neither did the Minister who produced the orders in 1993. The record of what was said is in Hansard.
The Employment and Training Act 1973 again gave power to the Secretary of State, and he used it to get rid of the training boards. At that time, there were about 27 boards, but now there are only two. The Minister spoke about reviews. The Government have had more reviews on training than any other Government, and the reasons for their reviews were, first, that they could not stomach the trade unions and people in the community being
916
represented on the boards and, secondly, because they had no control whatever. They gave the power of supervision to the Manpower Services Commission and then removed it when they limited the 1 per cent. levy. They abolished that in the way that they abolished 25 out of 27 training boards.
The two boards that remain have been given a life of five years, but the Government do not really agree with them. That is why the Chamber is empty and why the Minister has little to say about the matter. As trade unionists and socialists, we are interested because our political philosophy greatly differs from that of the Government. They believe in consultation with big business and in consultancies for themselves.
An ordinary Member of Parliament's wage is no use to this lot. They have had their fingers in the till for years and that is why they have bankrupted the country. They wasted money on the poll tax and on other schemes on which they had to turn back. Now they are talking about training.
It is instructive to compare training in countries such as Japan and America with the state of our 16 and 18-year-olds who have to beg in the streets because the Government have taken away allowances for the kids. Their lack of investment has turned Britain into a drug-ridden, crime-ridden country. Anybody knows that a Government who will not invest in houses, schools and hospitals to give bread and butter to the electors will not survive.
We are looking at a fallen House. The Government are out and they know it. They are on the run and that is why they have little to say. The former Prime Minister has moved to the hierarchy and many more will follow, and the Prime Minister is running scared. [Interruption.] I could not say that they have done a good job. I get that message from my union and the workers I support, who are working-class, humble people. They get out of their beds in the morning; they do not go to wine bars and live in other ways. I want to get it all on record to let the Government know the effect of the orders.
The 1994 draft order maintains the arrangements that applied in earlier years, except in one important respect —the exclusion threshold level—which greatly concerns us.
The exclusion threshold provision in the draft order means that employers with annual payrolls of less than £61,000 will not have to pay a training levy, though they will continue to be eligible for training grants. That is unfair to other employers and employees, who should all have the same quality and reserves.
In 1993, the exclusion threshold was £45,000—a figure which was set in 1990, when the exclusion threshold was increased from only £15,000. It was a substantial agreement and represents a considerable loss to the training boards.
My union, the Transport and General Workers Union, opposes the principle of an exlcusion for small employers and objects to the proposed increase in the threshold. The Construction Industry Training Board is also opposed to the principle of the exclusion, as is the Federation of Master Builders, of which I once applied to be a member, and which encompasses 20,000 building firms with more than 300,000 employees, including many smaller companies.
As the levy is set as a percentage of the payroll, it falls proportionately on small firms and large firms. The order sets an exclusion threshold, outlined in paragraph 5 of the

917
schedule and article 6 of the order, expresses a sum in pounds sterling, which represents the threshold size of net payroll below which employers are excluded from payment of the levy.
An exclusion threshold has been in place for the construction levy since 1971, when it was set at £6,000. So it has moved a long way—from £6,000 to £60,000.
In 1993 and preceding years, the exclusion threshold was £45,000; however, for 1994, the Government are proposing that it be increased to £61,000. The Government's intention to increase the exclusion threshold has been known for some time. In 1992–93, the future of the Construction Industry Training Board was reviewed by the Government and on 23 February 1993, it was announced that the CITB would be reconstituted with effect from 1 May. The Government kept the training board dangling on a string, thereby destabilising its effect on employers.
The Minister decided that the CITB would continue in place for a further five years and would retain its statutory levy powers. The change in the exclusion threshold was announced by a junior Minister at the Department of Employment on 5 May 1993 when he said:
"We need to ensure that small firms are relieved of burdens and encouraged to grow. In future firms with combined payroll and payments to labour only sub-contractors of less than £61,000 a year will not be subject to the training levy".
That was bad news for the construction industry.
The Construction Industry Training Board has consistently objected to the principle of exclusion on the grounds of equity and competition. However, it reluctantly accepted on 13 July 1993 the Government's rquirements to raise the threshold, and that was included in its proposals to the Minister. The CITB was worried that, if it did not accept the new threshold, the Government might close the board down, as they closed down the other 25 boards.
The Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors also expressed serious concern at the raising of the exclusion threshold to £61,000. In addition to concerns about equity, it said that the system is open to abuse and it would not be beyond the abilities of some companies to manipulate the figures in such a way as unreasonably to gain an exclusion from payment of the levy.
The Building and Allied Trades Joint Industrial Council, which brings together the Federation of Master Builders and the Transport and General Workers Union, is also opposed to exclusions from the levy. In its submission to Ministers dated 10 November 1992, it said:
"The current levy arrangements exclude firms with combined payroll and labour-only subcontracting payments of up to £45,000 per annum".
We know that some firms work the lump and abuse the system. It continued:
"This seriously distorts competition. Such excluded small firms derive benefit from the training carried out by other firms, but can claim a grant for their own training. This is inequitable".
The Transport and General Workers Union concurs with that view. The existence of the exclusion challenges the very principle on which the levy is based—that all the firms contribute equitably to the cost of training within the industry. Small firms get all the benefits of the schemes, but with none of the cost.
More than almost any other industry, the construction industry has a need for an equitable training levy. That is because of the short-term nature of much employment in the sector; the high geographical and company mobility of employees; the high levels of skills required in many
918
sectors of construction; the exceptional health and safety risks to workers in the industry and the importance of ensuring high standards of safety for the public in construction projects.
The CITB estimates that the yield of the levy in 1994 will be £46 million compared with £54 million. That is a big loss to the construction industry and it will mean less training, for fewer people. The decrease is largely a consequence of the decline in construction employment due to the recession; the levy is a percentage of the payroll.
The CITB estimates that the raising of the threshold will represent a loss of income of less than £1 million, but certainly many hundreds of thousands of pounds. The existence of an exclusion threshold also serves to set an informal poverty trap for the industry, whereby firms that can expand to just above the threshold level are penalised for such growth by suddenly having to make payments for all their employees.
The proposed new exclusion threshold represents a fourfold increase on the level less than five years ago of £15,000, yet the training needs of the industry continue to grow. It cannot be right that, when long-term investment in the skills of the work force is so crucial to future recovery, the CITB should lose hundreds of thousands of pounds in income so that even more small firms should be excluded from making a modest individual—but significant collective—contribution to the industry's skills.
When the industry's funds for training are declining, the further erosion by the Government of the levy powers of the Construction Industry Training Board is to be deplored. The Transport and General Workers Union and the Federation of Master Builders are extremely concerned. I read out their comments to put on record every word they said, but they fell on the deaf ears of the Government.
The Opposition are disgusted at the way in which the people of the country and especially the youngsters, have been treated. The House should decide to make a hefty contribution to the construction industry, and every other industry, to retrain our people and to provide us with a well trained and skilled work force of men and women, irrespective of their creed or colour. We will get out of this pit only by investing.
We must build roads, railways, trams, trains, hospitals, schools, police stations and training colleges. That is how to get the country back on its feet. We will not get the country back on its feet by squandering money and looking for as many jobs as, we can get. The Conservatives are into every till in the City. They have been exposed.
The Government have been disgraced. For the past few weeks, they have been embarrassed to come to Westminster. I would not say that they do not know their asses from their elbows because they certainly do—[Interruption.] I said "ass" because I am talking to asses.
I have described what we have to put up with. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House come to this place and work hour after hour. We are telling the Government Front Bench to do its job. The Government should act honourably and pick up their morals.
5.20 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: We have just heard an extraordinary tirade from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). He must be living on a different planet if he believes that the

919
Government have not been investing in housing, roads and other construction projects. He should come and look around my constituency.
I have an interest to declare because the Construction Industry Training Board is located in my constituency at Bircham Newton. If the hon. Member comes to Bircham Newton, he will arrive on a new, electrified railway. He will see a local health authority which has new buildings and facilities which have been created over the past 10 years or so. The hon. Gentleman will see a brand new leisure centre in King's Lynn. He will see that a very large amount of money has been spent on new housing by the local authority and by different housing associations.
If the hon. Member for Provan comes to my constituency in two weeks' time, he will see a start being made on the new A47 bypass around Tilney High End and Terrington. That will be six miles, of dual carriageway bypass just outside King's Lynn. A huge amount of Government investment has gone into East Anglia. The hon. Gentleman should come and see it because it is so important from the point of view of the construction industry. During the recession, the Government have continued to invest in fixed capital formation by way of public projects. Had they not done that, the recession in the construction industry would have been much worse.
In that context, the staff at the CITB in Bircham Newton welcomed last year's announcement.
Mr. Wray: Would the hon. Gentleman like to come to my constituency to see the crime that is rife in the city? The city has a drug problem amounting to £188 million a year. There are 12,000 drug addicts. What kind of world is the hon. Gentleman living in? He is certainly not living in the same world that I am living in. Five thousand people in my constituency have never had a job and will never get a job unless we get rid of the Government. The hon. Gentleman should go and see it for himself.
Mr. Bellingham: As my grandmother came from Glasgow, I go there from time to time. If I were a Glasgow Member, I would be proud of my city and of the fact that, two years ago, it was European city of the year. I would not be talking Glasgow down, I would be talking it up.
The staff at the CITB were extremely relieved by last year's announcement. That sword of Damocles and uncertainty which had been hanging over the CITB had been extremely debilitating. Morale at the CITB had been suffering. The lecturers and other staff had no idea what the future held for them. That is why they were so grateful for the announcement last year.
Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Prime Minister guaranteed in the House that every school leaver would have a training place? However, in Scotland, more than 8,000 young people have not yet received such a place. How can we expect the Government to deliver the goods when they could not deliver the goods to our young school leavers? How can we get folk into training to rebuild the infrastructure?
Mr. Bellingham: I do not entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. However, he must bear in mind what the Government have done. When hon. Members say that they are going to vote against the draft order, they must bear in mind that the very fact that the levy has been continued
920
means that organisations like the CITB can help to provide that guarantee. If that had not happened, the situation would probably have been far worse. Far from trying to suggest that the Government have not done enough on training, the draft order is all about the Government doing more than many people expect them to.
I have always supported the work of the CITB. The complex at Bircham Newton is a centre of excellence which probably has no rival. The commitment and dedication of the staff must be seen to be believed. The impact on the local economy is enormous, not just in terms of local services but in respect of the indirect jobs that have been created.
I did not need to be convinced about the importance of the CITB in west Norfolk and I needed no convincing about the principle of the levy. Construction is very different from other types of industry. There can be training in a factory complex or a plant. However, as construction is so widespread and dispersed, if we did not have a levy which brought money into an organisation such as the CITB, training standards would undoubtedly fall. Above all, there would be serious problems with safety standards.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) explained, the construction industry is a very large employer. It employs 5·5 per cent. of the work force. However, it accounts for 60 per cent. of all deaths caused by falls, in spite of fast-rising safety standards. That statistic shows that if the levy and the CITB had not continued, that figure would undoubtedly be worse.
I welcomed last year's announcement and the fact that the then Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology accepted the arguments from both sides of the House. In that context, I thank my colleagues who helped me in my lobbying campaign.
On this point, I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who has been extremely active. Whenever I have asked for his support and asked him to lobby on behalf of the CITB, he has been extremely supportive. I hope that he will visit the CITB in the near future. The campaign was an all-party campaign and it is unfortunate that today's debate has become a confrontation that will result in a Division. We are talking about good news today, which should be supported across the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford referred to the problems caused by the recession. No industry has been harder hit by the recession than the construction industry. The downturn in housing and new starts in construction generally have had a very damaging effect. As a result, the number of new trainees on CITB schemes has fallen to 10,000. That is roughly one third down on the figure in the late 1980s.
That has meant that the CITB has been under pressure. Pressure has also arisen because the levy is raised on a payroll basis. As many firms have suffered a fall in their payrolls, it is hardly surprising that the levy funds have also decreased.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford and the hon. Member for Provan have said that it is unfortunate that the threshold exists and that there are exclusions from the levy. I agree. It would be far better to have a blanket levy on everyone because among the firms that benefit most from the training schemes and the work of the CITB are the very small firms. It is interesting and telling that the Federation

921
of Master Builders, which is represented in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, supports that point of view.
Many small builders resent paying the levy. I receive letters from small builders who want to know why they have to pay the levy. They want to know what the tangible benefits are. The levy is not popular. That the Federation of Master Builders firmly supports the idea of a blanket levy shows great foresight.
During the recession, the CITB was most imaginative. It was able to continue many schemes and build on its excellent work during the 1980s. It has been criticised for using its reserves in funding extra training places. However, that should be applauded. Over the years, the CITB has built up considerable reserves through its levy collections.
One argument was that its reserves were too high. During the recession, at least 2,000 of the 10,000 trainees participating in CITB schemes were funded by its reserves. As a result of that funding, we will have, I hope, enough trainees as the economy picks up and as employment in construction increases. There will also be courses and schemes at further education colleges and other centres as a result of that spending. If the CITB had not used its reserves in that way, the infrastructure of such courses might have collapsed.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Over the past few years, the industry has lost half a million people. I have said before that it is normally estimated that only one out of every two people who leave the industry will go back to work; therefore, 250,000 skilled people have left the industry. Even though I applaud the way in which the board has marshalled and kepts its reserves, I must point out that we are not only failing to train enough people in the construction industry but falling further and further behind with every week that passes.
Mr. Bellingham: To some extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, if there were an increase in training, the CITB in my constituency would expand. We must consider the complex at Bircham Newton and its schemes, and not just the immediate training places that are provided but some of the activities on which the money is spent. It is a huge operation. It would be extremely expensive to extend it in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman and it would mean an increase in the levy. We must ask whether the Government's training budget is realistic. Bearing in mind the decline in the construction industry work force, the CITB should be applauded for maintaining such a high number of trainees—far in excess of the proportionate decline in the construction industry's work force.
I fall out with the hon. Gentleman when he criticises Sir Clifford Chetwood and accuses him of being complacent. About two and a half years ago, Sir Clifford Chetwood criticised the Government and said that they had not woken up to the fact that the recession was biting far more deeply in the construction industry than anyone realised. He is now much more supportive and he is saying that the economy is picking up and that many Government measures are the right measures. One can listen to Sir Clifford Chetwood because his approach has been completely fair throughout. When criticism was deserved, he was critical, but when praise was deserved, he gave it.
922
The CITB has progressed since the uncertainty was lifted. Uncertainty greatly damaged the moral of lecturers and other staff at Bircham Newton, but they are now concentrating on the task in hand and coming up with many new initiatives. Their initiatives over the past year represent a positive achievement. They have worked very closely with City and Guilds as an awarding body for non-vocational qualifications. More than 30 construction non-vocational qualifications are awarded by the CITE in co-operation with employers in the construction industry. That is very good news. On quality standards, the CITB puts great effort into helping companies to achieve BS5750 certification. More than 400 companies have been helped by a training programme at quality clubs which the board set up two years ago.
Continued investment in pre-vocational educational projects has enabled school children to use construction as a context for learning under the requirements of the national curriculum. There are now more than 70 projects at centres all over the country, and the CITB has been working closely with employers and other educational interests.
I have mentioned how crucial health and safety standards are. Any fatality in the construction industry is a tragedy. Over the past few years, there have been too many fatalities, but I wonder how many more there would have been had it not been for the work of the CITB and the constant emphasis on raising safety standards. The board has come up with a large number of initiatives, and it will continue to do so. The CITB has approached many employers in various occupational sectors. About 300,000 people are registered on industry record schemes, and that excludes those who have registered on the new construction NVQs. That is excellent progress.
I pay tribute to the CITB for using the past 12 months extremely wisely, bearing in mind all the problems that it faced as a result of the uncertainty of last year. That uncertainty has been lifted. It will now continue to exist for five years, instead of three. I welcome that because it will be able to plan for the future and build on the five specific aspects that I mentioned. At the same time, it will move forward in the context of a significantly improving economy with reducing unemployment. The CITB will have a critical role in ensuring that we have a well-trained construction work force.
Rather than regarding the debate as an opportunity for confrontation and a chance to criticise the Government, Opposition Members should give credit where credit is due, and credit is due to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has done all that he can to make sure that the levy continues and that the CITB remains in existence. That is why I support the order.
5.36 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) has spoken eloquently from his special knowledge of the Construction Industry Training Board. I agree with everything that he said about the effectiveness of that board. I suspect, however, that the Construction Industry Training Board is one of the exceptions that might prove a rule. It appears that the rule now is that the Government oppose industry-specific training boards and industry-specific wages councils whenever they can get away with it,

923
although they were not able to get away with their original intentions in respect of the Construction Industry Training Board.
It is welcome that the Construction Industry Training Board is to have at least another five years of existence; but, logically, everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the board, which has its headquarters in his constituency, can be applied elsewhere—for example, to the Agricultural Training Board. In Wales—this matter affects my constituency—the Agricultural Training Board is being run down. Its activities are being reduced from a high and active level to what might eventually become nothing much more than a residual level. The board might be driven to dealing with virtually only the aspects of health and safety that it can barely ignore, having regard to the fact that agriculture is even more prone to accidents than the construction industry.
It would be unsatisfactory to conclude the debate without registering our concern that, although the Government are prepared for the boards that we are considering to continue, they are nevertheless not prepared to apply the same logic to other industries.
One of the great advantages of the CITB—the hon. Gentleman highlighted it very well—is that it is focused and industry-specific. It understands everything about its own industry and it is able to undertake research and teach the teachers within its industry.
One of the disadvantages of having a multiplicity of agencies dealing with training—certainly, it is a problem that we face in Wales—is that there is not such necessary focus or specificity. For example, in my constituency we have the Powys training and enterprise council. We have Coleg Powys, the local FE college; the Development Board for Rural Wales; the Construction Industry Training Board; the Agricultural Training Board; the local education authority and others, all involved in training—a multiplicity of agencies which lose their focus in the generality of the training courses that they supply.
I add a comment. If the Minister were listening, she might take this point on board. I should like her comments later. One of the problems that we have with the multiplicity of training agencies is that it is extremely difficult to detect fraud. It is a fact that fraud is taking place in the training structure at present. Some of the companies and firms which are engaged to provide training courses are not doing so competently or even honestly. It is well documented that some organisations are simply fee-churning, taking as much money as possible for the minimum of training provided.
That does not happen in organisations such as the CITB. Of course, the CITB is scrutinised by its own industry. The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), who speaks for the Federation of Master Builders, made it clear that his organisation scrutinises as well as supports the work of the CITB. However, that form of focal scrutiny is not available in the generality of training that is available for most other aspects of working life.
Some time ago, a bright but cynical, frustrated and rebellious 16-year-old girl told me that the trouble with the people who taught her was that for the most part, with exceptions, they taught only to perpetuate their own jobs. That may have been an over-cynical view of the education that she was receiving. Nevertheless, it is probably true to
924
say that education for its own sake is a minority pursuit which is attractive to only a few, and not necessarily all, of the brightest and the best.
I am sure that such cynicism drives away many young people like her from being trained to the careers, or even interests, in which they would make the greatest contribution to society. My view and that of my party is that it is extremely important to give the highest possible priority to that wide scope of training which fits people on the broadest possible basis for the jobs and careers which might be available for them.
I deliberately chose the example of a girl because the Minister referred earlier to apprenticeships for girls. Of course, she is right. It is extremely important that there should be equality of opportunity across virtually all walks of life. It may not be 100 per cent. possible—there may be some jobs which men cannot do—but there should be virtually 100 per cent. availability of training across all walks of life to enable those who may reject other forms of education to maximise their talents and their opportunities.
The continuing economic problems of the construction industry are easily described. It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Romford making his third consecutive speech in a debate on this subject. If the hon. Member will forgive me for quoting his words, on 8 February 1993 he said:
"Small builders need work now. They are clinging on by their fingertips … It is just as well that the CITB exists, because if the responsibility had been left on a voluntary basis, there would unquestionably have been a very sharp reduction in training—even sharper than has been the case."—[Official Report, 8 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 789.]
Those words are as true today as they were one year ago.
Unemployment in the construction industry has continued to rise over the past 12 months. The statistics are stark. If one looks at unemployment in construction in 1989, it was 6·7 per cent.; in 1992, it was 17·6 per cent.; and in 1993—the latest available figures—it was 20 per cent. Those figures highlight the need for industry-specific training and are evidence that small builders—and, indeed, those who are able to obtain any work in the building industry, especially at the smaller end—are, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, still "clinging on by their fingertips".
How does one maximise the potential for ensuring that, in construction and elsewhere, training is not simply training for training's sake but training for jobs? There is a respected and growing body of academic opinion led by a leading economics professor from the London school of economics who, in an interesting TSB lecture on the subject, said recently that training without the removal of long-term unemployment was a complete waste of money.
What worries many hon. Members on this side of the House is that, although the Government have announced an increase in the number of training places—and anything that takes young people who have nothing better to do off the streets is very welcome, for reasons mentioned earlier in this debate—at the end of the training as it is structured at present too many young people, especially young men, enter a period of long-term unemployment from which some will never recover.
I do not subscribe to the unrealistic view that one can restore real full employment in this country—a situation in which everyone has a job. That is a vision, but not one that can be brought to fulfilment. What is possible is to bring back an element of fuller employment. The element that needs to be brought back is the one which means that practically no one faces long-term unemployment. The

925
body of academic opinion to which I referred believes that there is no need for anyone, other than rare exceptions, to be unemployed for more than six months. The Government have not yet grasped the nettle of that issue or shown proof that they are dealing with the question of long-term unemployment.
Miss Widdecombe indicated dissent.
Mr. Alex Carlile: No, the Government have not proved that they have found anything like a solution to the problem of long-term unemployment. One way of starting towards that solution—I recognise that one cannot solve the problem overnight—is to extend the principle of training levies, as my party advocated at the last general election and before. There may need to be exceptions for very small businesses which may not be able to afford such levies. Nevertheless, the imposition of training targets, reinforced by the power to impose levies when companies do not voluntarily meet proper training targets, is a sensible policy and a course which would greatly contribute to the reduction of long-term unemployment.
Sir Brian Hill, then the chair-elect of the Construction Industry Employers Council, said after the last Budget:
"Any hopes we had that this budget would help early recovery from the construction recession have been disappointed. In the short-term its effect will be to reduce further workload, jobs and to raise the costs."
There is a myriad of similar quotations and opinion. The CITB tries to stem the tide of that trend, but it is bound to be fighting a losing battle if economic policies are not tuned to ensure that employment can be increased quickly in the construction industry.
The Minister must answer a number of questions when she replies to the debate. Is she satisfied with the state of the construction industry? If not, what are the Government going to do to stimulate the recovery in the industry? Is she satisfied that housing starts are meeting the need? If not, will the Government take steps to reduce the evident housing shortage and to stimulate the construction industry by increasing resources for that industry? There must not be a skills gap, and the CITB, with its specific focus, is the best-equipped body in the construction industry to deal with the skills shortage. Does the Minister think that the same principle might be applied elsewhere in British industry and commerce?
5.53 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but after hearing some of the speeches I feel I must bring my wealth of experience to bear in the House.
When I hear Conservative Members speaking, I fear for the future of Great Britain. I certainly fear for our infrastructure, for our young people and for people who have to live in housing which the Government have allowed to deteriorate. In Scotland, damp housing is causing tremendous anxiety and places a huge burden on people who are on fixed incomes and who want to heat their houses. What do the Government do? They sit on their backsides and allow many people to become unemployed, when those people could be reducing Government expenditure and ensuring that folk have a better quality of life and a more healthy life.
Since 1978, I have been an executive board member of an organisation which has worked hard to create training places for young people in Scotland. The organisation has
926
looked closely at the training needs in Scotland, but I am not here to put in an advertisement for that organisation, which is a voluntary and charitable organisation.
Something has deeply worried me since 1979, when I was a councillor in Strathyclyde, and I will speak about it in my rather nice English voice rather than my broad Scots accent, so the Minister can understand me. I travel around my constituency and around other parts of the country and I concur with a friend of mine, an exiled Scotsman who lives in America, who on his visits back here has seen a terrible deterioration in the country's road network. There are potholes in the roads, and every day I hear of constituents who have fallen and broken their ankles or legs because of broken pavements. Every day I hear of parents complaining that schools are leaking, or that the schools have no books.
Perhaps the Minister does not have eyes to see the problems, but many of us do. The infrastructure of the nation is falling apart in front of us. I should be delighted to take any Minister on a guided tour of my constituency, and I could show the Minister the problems clearly. We have allowed the building industry to deteriorate. Our European partners have more bottle and brains than we have, because those nations are investing in training. While we allow our training and infrastructure to run down, nations in Europe are investing in training, in their young people and in their infrastructure. That training is allowing their folk to gain experience in house building, in sewerage and in water supplies.
I want to make sure that my point is heard and felt. Our European partners—I call them partners, and not the enemy—in France, Germany, Spain and elsewhere are training their work forces. Their training levels have been kept up while this country's training and skill levels have been pushed down. If any major public works jobs were put on the market, we would fall back into the tendering scene. So instead of Scotsmen, Englishmen, Irishmen or Welshmen working on the jobs, it will be Spaniards or Portuguese because those workers will be the most skilled. They will be able to undercut British workers by being able to do the jobs faster and with better quality.
If the Government continue to run down our skill levels, we shall not be able to meet demands to improve our infrastructure. I am a working-class guy. My background is that I was trained as an engineer and I served an apprenticeship on Clydeside. I am not a graduate of any university, but I come from the university of life and the university of experience. That experience tells me that if I want to fix a door now, I need to do it myself. At one time, a skilled joiner would have come along and fixed it in five minutes, instead of me taking an hour to do it. We cannot become a group of do-it-yourself has-been specialists. We need proper training so that our folk can meet challenges.
If we want to build new schools, those schools could be built by the finest workers Britain can produce. We should have the skills to ensure that we do not just build a school, but that we build a school which will withstand the weather and will be comfortable for our young people to be educated in.
We are throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Government have got us into such an incredible mess, with a borrowing requirement of £50 billion which has really blown us out of the window. We seem to be chasing mistake after mistake. There have been the problems in the City, and a lot of money has been squandered. That money does not seem to be going to the right places. I am sure that

927
the audience tonight could all cite cases where they know of where a construction job could come into being which could make our country a better place to live.
The other day, I went to a photo call for a local newspaper which was rightly campaigning about the environment. If a person drives along a road—particularly in a rural area—what does he see? Rubbish is dumped at the roadside by polluters, some of whom are the fly-by-night builders the Government are encouraging.
We should have proper areas where folk can dump rubbish. That is where we should put in the skills. If we go to the local council, it says, "We can't really do it, we haven't got the money." If the Government would provide the money, we would not have to see our cities, towns, and rural areas being devastated. We could provide skips, dumps and so on which could be controlled and at which skilled workers could work.
I raised a point about Scotland in an intervention in the Minister's speech. I know that we face the same problem everywhere in Great Britain as a result of the Government's lack of action and lack of commitment to the public sector. In Scotland we face a horrific situation. The Government have sought to reduce the standards for drinking water. So the folk in Scotland will be expected to drink water that is not so good as the water in Europe. It is unbelievable that Scotland, which is renowned for its surplus of water, is to be expected to drink water that does not reach the European standard. The Government have done a deal.
The Government themselves have told us that Strathclyde alone needs expenditure of £5 billion to bring the water supply up to standard. We also know that we need to spend a fortune on the sewerage systems in towns and villages throughout Great Britain. We can do that only if we have the trained work force to do the work. At present we can hardly cope with the plumbing in Westminster because we do not have the necessary skilled people. Perhaps the woman Porter could show us how to do it. She could fiddle anything by the looks of it.
We need to ensure that there is adequate training to meet the upturn.
Miss Widdecombe: So the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the upturn?
Mr. Graham: If the Minister wishes to intervene I will give way.
Miss Widdecombe: I should be delighted. Did I hear the hon. Gentleman acknowledge an upturn? Is he welcoming the recovery?
Mr. Graham: I am most grateful for that helpful intervention. I was referring to training for it if the upturn comes. I represent a constituency that has suffered raging unemployment. Factories such as the Talbot car factory at Linwood closed down 10 years ago, putting 5,000 people on the dole. The famous manufacturer of tyres, India Tyres, closed seven years ago, putting about 3,000 workers on the dole. I used to work at Rolls-Royce, where almost 3,000 workers are facing the dole.
I have seen a litany of factory closures and the decimation of the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. I am desperate for an upturn, not for myself but for the people whom I represent. I wish to see apprentices, shipbuilders
928
and plumbers back at work. I want to see Britain great again. The Minister should not think that I do not. My ambition is to see my young people get the full potential of their education. I want to see people living in decent houses. I want to see our people able to die in comfort and live in comfort from the cradle to the grave.
Make no doubt about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker: my wish is for Britain to be a good society and a caring and sharing nation. I do not want it to be one which is epitomised by the Government. They simply squander and fritter. I have made some remarks in the House on previous occasions about how I believe that the Government think. They seem to think so small that they have no vision. They have less vision than the people of Britain. I am sincere when I say that the next election—the European election—will show the door to the Tory party.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the training order.
Miss Widdecombe: We have been for a couple of hours.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have not been wide for a couple of hours. The hon. Lady spoke a couple of hours ago. If she had been wide of the order, she would have been out of order—but she was not out of order.
Mr. Graham: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can only say that, perhaps because of my bulk, my vision and my brain are such that I feel sincere and genuine about what I am saying. I do not think that the Minister has been bad with me. I believe that she sincerely wishes to improve the lot of people. But she does not listen to the advice that she receives from the Opposition. She thinks that it is purely opposition. She does not see that we are offering constructive advice and suggestions.
I will finish on this note to the Minister. I believe that the Government's role is to plan as best they possibly can. If we are training young people or any people for that matter, we should not train them for the dole. We should plan for those people to finish their training and find a job. How do we get construction workers through their training and fit them into a job? The private industry is not meeting that need. I do not believe that it has the finance. we are talking about Britain's infrastructure. The Government can take effective decisions today which would start things moving tomorrow and which we could see starting next month.
I have mentioned roads, housing and hospitals. The Government could set up projects to look after the environment and improve our sewerage and water systems. Those are things that we know need to be done. I am sure that the Minister recognises exactly what I am saying. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asked what was the point of training folk for the dole. I agree that there is no point, but I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me that we want to improve our infrastructure, which we all know is falling apart. The only person who does not believe that it is falling apart is the "back to basics" Minister. The rest of the country is going back to the wall. When we try to move forward we fall into a pothole. Eventually, we shall have to swim to get across the road.
The recent flooding in England is disgraceful. We have been talking about floods for years. At what stage will the

929
Government take preventive measures? Folk have been telling us for years that floods will happen. Do the Government use our construction industry—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not referring to training matters, and he should be.
Mr. Graham: I was going to say that we could have trained workers, fully fledged construction engineers and so on, in place working to prevent flood damage. But the Government do not plan. They lurch from crisis to crisis. We shall have an incredible problem in Britain because we will not be able to move for foreign workers building our houses and improving sewage works while our folk are unemployed. That will be because the Government have not given sufficient money to training or educating our young folk to deal with the crisis in Britain.
6.8 pm
Mr. Roger Godsiff: I have listened with interest to the debate this afternoon. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made a telling point when he said that training without a proper programme for employment was in many ways a waste of money. He was right.
The constituency that I represent in inner-city Birmingham has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country. There are more than 7,000 male adult unemployed in my constituency. There is an enormous need in the constituency for infrastructure development. Apart from having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, it is one of the most deprived areas of the country.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the supposed reduction in unemployment in the past few months. The only problem is that no one believes the figures any longer. As everyone knows, in the past 14 or so years there have been more than 30 changes in the way in which the unemployment figures are calculated. Nobody believes the Government's unemployment statistics. It is a matter for regret but it is something over which the Opposition have no control.
However, I know for sure that more than 7,000 people in my constituency have no job. Many of them have been unemployed for a long time, and some school leavers will be added to their number. Very few of them have any prospect of finding a job.
Miss Widdecombe indicated dissent.
Mr. Godsiff: The Minister shakes her head. I invite her to tell the 7,000 people in my constituency who are without jobs and the school leavers who will soon join the unemployment queue what will happen to them in the future. What are their prospects?
If the Government want to contribute to the country's long-term development, they should put aside other aspects of their policies and accept that it is vital to invest in skills. It is universally acknowledged that the countries which have a skilled, trained work force are those that succeed. No hon. Member, and certainly none of the acknowledged experts, will disagree with that.
It is vital that we have a trained work force to meet the challenges of the next century; but what have the Government done? They have halved the number of apprenticeships, which has resulted in the disappearance of more than 500,000 jobs in the construction industry—that
930
figure applies to one industry alone. It is absurd that 500,000 jobs should go in an industry that is desperately important to the improvement of the infrastructure which, in many places—not least in Birmingham—is falling apart. [Interruption.] The Minister throws her head back and turns it from side to side, uttering an exclamation. I am more than happy to give way to her if she wishes to respond.
It is part of the arrogance that goes with being in power for 14 years that Ministers do not want to hear what the Opposition have to say. They believe that we are irrelevant and that only the Conservatives have a divine right to rule the country. Arrogance breeds contempt for democracy and, in the past few weeks and months, we have witnessed the Government's utter contempt and arrogance. They do not realise that they are answerable to Parliament and to the people; they believe that they have a divine right to be in power, running the country's affairs.
Miss Widdecombe: We have an electoral right.
Mr. Godsiff: That is true. You have an electoral right, but I was taught that in politics one should listen. You may not always agree with what you hear but, from time to time, you might find that your political opponents have something valid to say. With respect, I must say that the way in which the Minister is behaving now and the way in which she has behaved in the past two hours reveal her contempt for the points made by me, by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and by my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray).
We are not claiming to be the repository of all wisdom, but we have a point to make. Many of our constituents do not have jobs and many of our future constituents will not have jobs. Like you, Minister, we are concerned about the country's future. We believe that we must create a skilled work force, and we will support any of your proposals that help to achieve that objective.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a courtesy in the House whereby we refer to "the hon. Member" or "the Minister" rather than to "you".
Mr. Godsiff: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker; and I apologise to the Minister.
It is vital that we create a skilled work force, but the Government are not attempting to deal with the problem. As I said, the number of apprenticeships has been halved since the Government came to power and there has been a massive loss of jobs in the construction industry. At the same time, in constituencies such as mine, there is a desperate need for improvements to the infrastructure, for the construction of new homes and for improvements to school buildings and health facilities. The Government, however, are presiding over a country in which apprenticeships are declining and in which there is massive unemployment in the construction industry.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) who is parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders. He spoke with great authority, but there was a contradiction in what he said. He painted a supposedly bright picture of the economy, but also mentioned the opinions of the organisation that he represents. That opinion is, in effect, that small builders are in a desperate plight, are on their knees and need help. The two pictures did not match. I have spoken to many small

931
builders in Birmingham and I believe that the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman of their being in desperate need of help is the right one.
Most small builders are desperate for work. Many have held on for one year, if not for two years, in the hope that there will be an upturn. For many, there are no reserves left and there is no fallback position. If there is no increase in public investment in Birmingham and areas of great deprivation, small builders will go out of business. I do not care what the so-called official statistics are because I believe in living in the real world, not in the world of statistics concocted by Government Departments—their statistics have been conveniently massaged. I am interested in the real world, and in that world many small builders face losing their businesses because there are no more orders.
Opposition Members do not seek merely to score cheap political points against the Government. We are trying to express a genuine concern and to ensure that we have a skilled work force for the future. I hope that the Government have listened to the valid points made not only by Labour Members but by members of other parties, especially by my very good friend the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I hope that they will not view our comments with contempt in the belief that only they can be right.
We owe it to future generations to provide them with the opportunity of employment, of obtaining skills and of leading a fulfilling life. If we are not prepared to address the need for a skilled, trained work force, I fear that the future of Britain will not be bright and that the country which at one time led the industrial revolution in the world will be relegated to the status of a third-world country.
6.19 pm
Ms Angela Eagle: I begin by congratulating the Minister on upholding what seems to be becoming a fine old tradition of opening debates on training levels with a short speech. I was interested to note that there only were two other speeches from the Government Benches, from the hon. Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), both of whom have specific interests in training. The hon. Member for Romford is a representative of the Federation of Master Builders and the hon. Member for Norfolk North-West has a constituency interest—the siting of a Construction Industry Training Board college in his constituency. They both hinted that they did not agree with the Government's voluntary approach to training and they agreed that there must be intervention in the market to ensure that training takes place.
I associate myself with the passionate comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), and for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) about the useful and effective intervention that planning for training has and the disaster that occurs if it is left to the market.
I was contemplating the meaning of the Secretary of State's recent speech, in which he claimed that going "back to, basics" in the labour market would bring us success, with special reference to our debate on training, and I came across something that may enlighten us. It is a book called "The British Common People 1746 to 1946", a classic of
932
its kind, by G. D. H. Cole and R. Postgate and it gives an account of one of first apprenticeship systems in the country: the parish apprenticeship system.
That system was introduced at the beginning of the 19th century to try to deal with some of the effects of rapid industrialisation. The book states:
"many thousands of children from London and other large towns having become inmates of pauper institutions were shipped in droves to the new factory areas, there to be bound apprentices to some cotton Lord who undertook to feed and clothe them in a barrack built specially for their occupation."
It states that that kind of bonded slave labour
"died out rapidly as soon as local supplies of child labour became available; for the factory owners soon found that 'free' labour which they could engage and discharge at will came cheaper than pauper labour which they were bound to maintain throughout the period of apprenticeship, whether trade was good or bad."
That "back to basics" theme still exists in the Government's training policies today.
In many ways, it is remarkable that we are having a debate at all after 14 years of a Government who are notable only for their dogmatic adherence to laissez-faire economic doctrines. Indeed, the period has seen the abolition of no fewer than 21 of the 23 industrial training boards, leaving only the two that we are considering in the debate.
Conservative Employment Ministers come and go, with all due respect to the hon. Lady, but they all intone the same dogma: the state must get out of the way of the private sector, voluntary private provision is always better than statutory provision and the market will, as their gurus always predict, provide whatever the circumstances. We knew what nonsense that was before they tried it and now we have the evidence to prove it. As a result of their neglect and incompetence, Britain now has the worst-trained work force in the European Community. Training has been starved of resources and has suffered a £1·5 billion cut before the past election and has a budget which will continue to decline following the two Tory tax raising budgets of 1993.
Worst of all, the privatisation of 54 skillcentres led to their complete collapse when Astra, the brave, new, private company which was supposed to do a better job than the state ever hoped, went quickly and spectacularly bust, taking all the training opportunities with it.
While that makes the case for statutory provision more eloquently than hundreds of speeches ever could, Astra' s collapse deprived thousands of people of access to any training at all, at a time of historically high and persistent mass unemployment. In addition we have seen a 60 per cent. reduction in apprenticeships in manufacturing between 1979 and 1990—a castastrophic fall, which has condemned hundreds of thousands of young people to a life on the dole. Britain cannot hope to complete in an increasingly high-tech world with the low skills base which we have inherited from 14 years of leaving it to the market.
As Sir John Cassels, formerly at the Manpower Services Commission, said in 1990:
"left to itself, the market will function in such a way as to cause a great deal of harm to the interests of young people, companies and taxpayers."
How right he was, and what a pity it is that the Government have chosen not to admit to the wisdom of those statements and act on them.
That is why the Labour party believes that the retention of the two remaining training boards is desirable at the margin; but, to be effective, it must be accompanied by the

933
creation of a national strategy for training with the work done by the boards being improved and extended to other areas of the economy. We shall vote against the orders because we feel that training provision is inadequate at all levels and is failing the economy.
However, some aspects of the structure of the boards point to the way ahead, some of which were pointed out by Conservative Members in speeches that praised the boards. The work of both boards amply demonstrates the advantages of a collective approach to training, based on co-operation and financed by a levy on employers. It is an approach which we should like to see extended and one which would allow for counter-cyclical measures to be taken in a recession—planning, in other words. At a time when companies are shedding labour and may have insufficient work to justify taking on trainees, special measures could easily be taken to protect training and to ensure that there would be no skills shortages once the recession ends.
That is precisely what the CITB did in 1992 when it spent £6·5 million on doubling the number of entrants to the industry's youth training scheme in the midst of the recession. Before we congratulate the boards too much, we must realise that they managed only to raise the number of places from 5,000 to 10,000. Such planning and counter-cyclical activity is done as a matter of course by our industrial competitors.
The collective active approach which would allow a national strategy of training to be developed and delivered, including adequate provision of the right skills and real achievement in equal opportunities policies, would also allow us to plan for a flexible and well-trained work force. That approach would prevent firms from poaching already trained people and would guarantee that training occurs. That would ensure, importantly, that every firm would accept responsibility, either for financing or for providing training, so there would be no freeloading in an a deregulated industry. That approach would also guarantee the quality of training, and would provide an efficient way in which to deliver high-quality, meaningful and recognised qualifications.
The two boards that we are discussing today ensure the continuing collection of statistics for their industry and their work also include developing databases of trained practitioners for prospective employers to consider. They also do valuable careers advice work to attract school leavers into their industries. Unfortunately, this important work is not going on elsewhere in the economy.
We believe that there was an implicit recognition of the superiority of this interfering in the market, over leaving the market to decide for itself which decimated training last year, in a Government press release announcing the retention of the CITB last year. Hon. Members will recall that, when the House last debated these orders, the CITB was subject to its periodic review. Many of us feared that it would be abolished in yet another spasm of free market frenzy. Significantly, the Government backtracked when faced with the overwhelming support of the construction industry for the board and the levy on employers which finances its activity. Rather than abolish it, the Government reconstituted it for five years.
To reconcile that flight from Thatcherite orthodoxy the then Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), commented in the official press release:
934
"Whilst it remains government policy that sector training arrangements should normally be non-statutory, the government is persuaded that different considerations apply in the building and civil engineering industries."
Those different considerations" turned out to be the casualisation and deregulation of the industry, which has led to a massive increase in subcontracted labour, making it cheaper and more economically rational to poach than to train. Of course, we all know that the outcome of that is a catastrophic collapse in training to the detriment of the whole economy.
Yet, the Government's "back to basics" policy in the labour market is to casualise and deregulate the rest of the British work force. By their own logic, that implies a massive extension of the training board system or a further catastrophic collapse in our already dismal training record.
That press release and the decision to retain the CITB are recognitions of the fact that the Government simply cannot leave the provision of training on a voluntary basis to the whims of the free market. I note that the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board is also currently subject to review and I await its fate with interest.
It is frightening to realise how far behind our major competitors we are in training. In 1989, the then Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), now the chairman of the Conservative party, where I hear he is doing a wonderful job—
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: He has not had enough training.
Ms Eagle: Yes, he has not had enough training.
He reacted to a major report "Training in Britain—a study of funding activity and attitudes" by saying:
"It's mindboggling—we still have a mountain to climb."
Five years later, we are still in the foothills and our attempts to scale the peaks have been fatally hampered by a guide who thinks that it will be easier if we all find our own way up.
I do not care a jot for the fate of the Conservative party. Indeed, I hope that it follows the example of its Canadian counterpart into well-deserved oblivion at the next general election. However, I care about our young people and the future of our country. I know that training is vital to ensure the future prosperity of both. As the youngest Labour Member and the youngest woman in the House perhaps I have the advantage over some hon. Members in that I still remember what it was like to be young.
It angers me more than I can say that I regularly meet people in the mid to late twenties who have never worked, and not for want of trying. Their prospects of working are still not improved. The fact that entire generations of our young people have been written off, fobbed off with Mickey Mouse training schemes, denied benefit, and blamed for their predicament by this Government is a matter of record and a serious indictment of Government policies.
I cannot stand the poverty of this Government's ambitions for our young people. They are content to jeopardise all our futures in pursuit of a profoundly mistaken dogma which has brought us nothing but mass unemployment, economic failure and a breakdown of social cohesion. They are content not to strive for the gold medal in training provision and to unlock future prosperity for Britain, but instead settle meekly for the wooden spoon.

935
It is time to end the experiments with voluntarism. It is time to admit that they have not worked. It is time to create a real and serious national strategy for training.
6.34 pm
Mr. Widdecombe: This has been an interesting debate, if a somewhat wide-ranging one. I am surprised to hear the Opposition say, first in the person of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and then in the person of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), that they intend to oppose the orders and to divide the House.
That statement has been made by Labour Members who, throughout the debate, have stood up and said that they represent the "working class". I would not use that phrase because I find it patronising, but they have. [Interruption.] It does not matter how they pronounce the word "class". I think that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) would not say it quite like his colleagues. I look forward to hearing how an hon. Member with his slender majority can explain to his constituents why he will vote against these orders and cause the training boards in question to have less funds for training.
Let us work through what would happen if these orders were defeated. We know that it will not happen because Conservative Members will ensure that the measures are not defeated. What are the Opposition trying to cause to happen by voting against the measures? First, the industry training boards concerned would be able to raise a levy of under 1 per cent. only, because they would not have permission to go ahead with more. Therefore, they would need to use their reserves to maintain a training programme.
Nevertheless, it would lead to a massive reduction in training, a reduction in apprenticeships and a reduction in the adult training work force. It would contribute to skills shortages. There would be no advance towards training for the recovery and for emerging from recession, which several Labour Members told us that they consider, rightly, to be important. There would be redundancies and the board would lose highly skilled staff. If that is the outcome that Labour Members want to achieve by defeating these orders, I look forward to hearing how they will explain that in detail to their constituents.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: First, I will take the Minister outside afterwards and explain to her how this place works. If the Government were to agree with us that the orders should be withdrawn, we would expect them to table orders making proper allowances for those boards. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point in justifying the existence of the training boards in all those industries where the Government abolished them. Does she agree that training was stopped in those areas?
Miss Widdecombe: Given the arrangements that are in place for training within the construction industry and the engineering construction industry, if the boards are not allowed to raise the sums that they wish to raise in order to deliver training that they assess to be necessary, we shall face the situation that I have just outlined. The hon. Member for Stretford says that if the Opposition defeat the
936
order, the Government will come back and do something different. [Interruption.] What we have done is what the industry—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We need a little training here, or at any rate a reminder that seated interventions, particularly when they are constant, are not acceptable to the Chair.
Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted that such training is being given to the Opposition.
We are doing what the boards have asked us to do. That is what we endeavour to deliver in the House tonight. If Opposition Members are seriously trying to defeat the order, they are going against the wishes of the boards, whom they have been lauding as necessary. Of course they can vote against it, because they know that they will be defeated. That is precisely the sort of irresponsible attitude that has cost them four elections and which causes them to sit in the thoroughly deserved position of the Opposition Benches, where they will stay.
I have been challenged to talk about Astra. The hon. Member for Wallasey stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the collapse of Astra has denied training to hundreds of people. It has done no such thing. It did not have a monopoly. When various branches of Astra were closed, it became the immediate duty and responsibility of the training and enterprise councils to provide replacement training through other providers.
We made a point of asking the TECs concerned whether there were difficulties in finding that training provision. The reason why we asked that was because of Opposition assertions that many people would be without training. We have not received any indication from those TECs that they have had difficulties.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister tell us a little more about Astra? When she asked the TECs whether they could find training places after the collapse, did she also ask them to give details of the way that they conspired with Astra to cheat? They were making up non-existent trainees and inventing non-existent jobs for them. All that is well documented. Has the Minister done a single thing to bottom out those allegations?
Miss Widdecombe: We have no evidence of cheating by TECs. What we do have, and what it is right that we should put into place, are proper audit procedures. We audit what the TECs supply, what they claim for and what the outcomes are of what they are claiming for. That system is in place.
Mr. Lloyd: If the Minister is so confident that the auditing procedures are accurate, why has a recent report been highly critical of the TECs and waste? But more importantly, it is well known and well documented that Astra was fiddling. I can provide the information, but the Minister has already had it. Why has she not asked the TECs what went on? When the TECs were happy to allow that to take place and public money was corruptly being abused by that company, why did the Government not ask those questions?
Miss Widdecombe: I part company from the hon. Gentleman. What I was trying to indicate, and my reply was precise, was that there was no evidence of cheating by TECs. The hon. Gentleman has just asked me how TECs could allow that to take place. I do not think—there is no

937
evidence to suggest it—that there has been deliberate malpractice by TECs. But where anything of that sort arises, and where there is ever any evidence to suggest that public money may have been misused, or that the value for public money may not have been met, that is something worthy of investigation, which would come up through the ordinary audit procedures.
Mr. Lloyd: We are making a little progress. Let me ask specifically whether the Minister accepts that Astra cheated. If so—there is no doubt that it did—why did she not undertake any investigation into what took place? It was public money. It was our money—taxpayers' money. She should have looked after it for us.
Miss Widdecombe: I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that we have audit procedures that trace the money that TECs use, and what it is used for. Those audit procedures are in place.
Mr. Tony Lloyd rose—
Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that when I have said it three, four, or even five times, I do not think that a sixth intervention will take him very much further forward. I should like to answer the rest of the debate, including the points that he has raised.
Several hon. Members rose—
Miss Widdecombe: No. I am sorry, but I should like to make progress.
The one thing that has come through consistently as a theme from the Opposition tonight has been a picture of gloom and doom about employment and training prospects for young people. I must tell the Opposition that if they had adopted the reasoned tone of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and said that they wanted to put proper training in place and that they have criticisms about some of the things that are happening, that would be a rather different story.
National vocational qualifications are new. I would be the last to say that there is no further refining or improving to be done. It is quite obvious that there must be. But that is very different from saying that the whole of the Government's strategy and training programme is a Mickey Mouse set-up.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: What strategy?
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, which I understood that Madam Deputy Speaker had forbidden, asked, "What strategy?" I shall tell him. The reason why I want to tell him is not because I do not think that he does not know, but because I want to put on the record exactly what the Government are doing, not only for the young people of this country, but for those of later years. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Any hon. Member who has the Floor is entitled to be heard. It is getting to the point where I am finding it difficult to hear because of mutterings on the Benches. That is not good enough.
Miss Widdecombe: What do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, expect? There are no arguments from the Opposition. Indeed, when the hon. Gentleman started his speech, I thought that I was hearing him reading the same speech that he gave last year. There were no new ideas coming out.
938
The Government's training strategy is to develop a system of several routes to be available to young people when they leave school, which are then continued throughout life. We want a system where matching vocational training and vocational qualifications run alongside the more recognised route of academic qualifications. What worries me about those who pour scorn on NVQs, and those who deride the skills revolution and the training programme, is that they are encouraging young people and, more importantly, their parents to think that those qualifications and courses—the vocational as opposed to the academic route—are somehow second-class or worthless. They are neither.
At a time when we are trying to encourage parents to look seriously at vocational as well as academic qualifications, it is grossly irresponsible to try to portray NVQs as some sort of unmitigated failure. Even in the critical reports that have emerged recently, there has been a recognition and encouragement of, and total support for, the overall strategy of NVQs.
The skills revolution is recognised by the construction industry. It will be our policy to pursue that skills revolution. But it would be far more beneficial for the people of Britain, for our work force and development, as well as for those who have to teach and train within it, if we could at least go forward with a positive attitude, rather than trying to persuade every young person that there will be no training and no jobs when they leave school. Neither of those statements is true.
We heard many statistics earlier—
Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?
Miss Widdecombe: I am longing to come back to the hon. Gentleman, but will certainly give way.
Mr. Graham: Is the Minister reiterating that we are guaranteeing every school kid wherever a training job? By the way, Minister, just for your information, I understand that my boundaries will be changed and that my seat might be safer.
Miss Widdecombe: What we guarantee young people is that there is a choice. They can stay on in education, but the Opposition always pour scorn on that option. It is a solid choice, because 77 per cent. of young people choose to do, or they can find work, and 13 per cent. do that. They can also take up a training place. I have consistently given the House the figures relating to the number of young people who wait more than eight weeks for those training places. That number is going down and I now believe that it is controllable, although I look forward to further improvements. That is the essence of our guarantee.
I want to draw attention to one Government training scheme, Investors in People, which has not been mentioned in the debate. I look to the Opposition to support it, so I shall study their reactions to my remarks carefully. That scheme is designed to train every person within an organisation, whether management or worker, whether he is a full-time, casual or part-time employee. It is geared to train those people in the aims and objectives of their business and to bring on their personal development. It is centred on NVQs level 3. No such programme has ever been introduced by any Labour Government. It is light years ahead of what many of our competitors are practising in Europe.

939
I have been waiting to see the nods of welcome for that scheme from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde almost managed to nod, but he changed his mind quickly when he saw that none of his colleagues was doing the same. We should all welcome it.
I want NVQs developed to the extent where it should be possible to have two people at a university, one of whom got there via the ordinary academic route while the other gained his place through work-based training and competence. I will not argue that there is no such thing as a further necessary refinement to NVQs. It is a bit of an insult to the lead industrial organisations, however, to those within the Business and Technician Education Council and those connected with City and Guilds to pour scorn on NVQs, which those people may have developed.
Mr. John Spellar: The hon. Lady said that she was waiting for a reaction from the Opposition, but I suppose that we have been absolutely stunned into silence by her statement that we are light years ahead of all other European countries. I do not believe that anyone, even those who have greater faith in the Government's training schemes than we do, believes that we are light years ahead of the German training system.
Miss Widdecombe: As Hansard will show, I did not say, "all other countries". I actually said, "many of our competitors … in Europe". Few of our competitors have the equivalent of our defined national education and training targets. They were the subject of a debate a few weeks ago when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education made it clear, target by target, how the Government were managing to achieve the targets set not by us, but by industry. It knows what targets should be set.
Mr. Spellar: Can the Minister tell us which of those major countries we are ahead of?
Miss Widdecombe: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will. The hon. Gentleman interrupted just as I was getting to the point that I was trying to make. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] If hon. Members really want to hear the answer, they should listen.
As I was just explaining, we are light years ahead in setting defined targets and having a system of matched vocational qualifications and academic training. The hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) is perfectly right to pick out Germany as a leading example in Europe. What is the essence of the German system? It is designed to run vocational qualifications alongside educational ones. They are given equal esteem. Vocational qualifications are not considered as second class or second choice, but that is what the Opposition have suggested, patronisingly and rudely throughout the debate. They have suggested that those who do not opt for the academic route have chosen a second-class option.
The essence of the German system is respect for NVQs. If we want to compete with Germany, it is time that the Opposition caught up with that sentiment. It is time that they welcomed the measures that we have taken to introduce NVQs.
Mr. Tony Lloyd rose—
Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman is about to welcome the NVQs, I will willingly give way; if he is going to whinge, I will not give way.
Mr. Lloyd: Despite what the Minister believes, the Germans do not have NVQs. They operate a high-quality vocational training system. Many people enter it after they have already completed high-quality academic training. The Minister said that industry supports the current levy system. Can she confirm that it was Ministers from the Department of Employment who told the CITB that it has to raise the small firms exemption? It was not the other way round.
Miss Widdecombe: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has not even bothered to understand the workings of the system. Once NVQs are fully developed, it should, of course, be possible for people to take them after they have undergone academic training and for them to feel no shame about working for that qualification. However, as long as the Opposition portray NVQs as a second-class, low-grade alternative to academic training, people are not likely to want to take such a qualification. That will make the job of making that transfer from academic training to NVQs even harder.
Dr. John G. Blackburn: Does my hon. Friend accept that NVQs are one of the greatest sources of blessing and that hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from that training? Would she care to reflect on where she was on 19 November, when she presented an award for an NVQ to a company in the constituency that I have the honour to represent?
Miss Widdecombe: I will take my hon. Friend's word that that ceremony took place on 19 November, because my memory is not so exact. I remember the occasion, however, and I congratulate the firm.
In the short time left, I wish to answer the hon. Member for Stretford, who asked me about Scotland. He expressed a great deal of derision and asked me whether I knew what would happen in Scotland, because he said that he did.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I did not say anything about Scotland.
Miss Widdecombe: Yes, he did. He said in so many words that what we have proposed will not apply to Scotland. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is anxious to rush in without ascertaining the facts, whereas I am a bit wiser. In case he has forgotten, he mentioned modern apprenticeships.
Model schemes will be developed by industrial training boards and industrial training organisations to cover Scotland. My hon. Friends in the Scottish Office will meet to consider carefully how best to develop corporate and comparable arrangements in Scotland, based on SVQs, Scottish vocational qualifications. That is the answer for which the hon. Gentleman asked.
The hon. Gentleman said that young people have nothing to look forward to except long-term unemployment. He should note that one quarter of those unemployed leave the register within one month, half leave it within three months and two out of three leave the register within six months. He should stop spreading doom and gloom. He should start putting heart into our young people. He should welcome what we are doing and cringe with shame at the lack of ideas from the Opposition.
6.59 pm
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister might like to care to listen to what I have to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because she was pressed on the issue. She seems to be having an argument with the Whip at the moment about why she sat down early. We want to know why there has not been a full investigation into what happened in Astra. She was asked that specific question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd).
The Minister said that auditing arrangements were in place to allow auditors to follow the use of public moneys by training organisations. If so, are we to presume that the people who are responsible for auditing the TECs are equally responsible for going to what remains of Astra to establish precisely what did happen concerning the phantom trainees and the other schemes that it established for the purpose, in effect, of robbing the taxpayer? The Minister herself identified the fact that taxpayers' money was used, and was not fully accounted for in that particular case. Perhaps the hon. Lady will, in the one minute that remains, say whether auditors will examine what happened in the Astra case.
Miss Widdecombe: With the leave of the House, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how the comments made by two Labour Members can be compatible. The hon. Member for Wallasey said that as a result of Astra's collapse, hundreds of people will no longer receive training—but the hon. Member for Stretford said that training was not real, it was all Mickey Mouse stuff, and we were putting taxpayers' money into nothing. Does the hon. Lady want to maintain a Mickey Mouse set-up, or are we to accept the hon. Gentleman's version? Which is it?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am here to ask questions, not answer them. I put this to the Minister the fourth time. Will an investigation be undertaken of what happened at Astra? The hon. Lady has 30 seconds left to answer from the Despatch Box.
Miss Widdecombe: I might be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention if he had been present for the debate, which he was not.
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [14 January]:—
The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 272.

Division No. 80]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Batiste, Spencer

Aitken, Jonathan

Beggs, Roy

Alexander, Richard

Bellingham, Henry

Alison, Rt Hon Michael(Selby)

Bendall, Vivian

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Amess, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Ancram, Michael

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Arbuthnot, James

Body, Sir Richard

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Booth, Hartley

Ashby, David

Boswell, Tim

Aspinwall, Jack

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Atkins, Robert

Bowden, Andrew

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Bowis, John

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Brandreth, Gyles

Baldry, Tony

Brazier, Julian

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Bright, Graham

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Bates, Michael

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

942

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Budgen, Nicholas

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Burns, Simon

Hague, William

Butcher, John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Butler, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butterfill, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hannam, Sir John

Carrington, Matthew

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carttiss, Michael

Harris, David

Cash, William

Haselhurst, Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Churchill, Mr

Hawksley, Warren

Clappison, James

Hayes, Jerry

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Heald, Oliver

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hendry, Charles

Coe, Sebastian

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Colvin, Michael

Hicks, Robert

Congdon, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Conway, Derek

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Horam, John

Cormack, Patrick

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Couchman, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

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

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

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Day, Stephen

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hunter, Andrew

Devlin, Tim

Jack, Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dicks, Terry

Jenkin, Bernard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jessel, Toby

Dover, Den

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Duncan, Alan

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Dunn, Bob

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Durant, Sir Anthony

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dykes, Hugh

Key, Robert

Eggar, Tim

Kilfedder, Sir James

Elletson, Harold

King, Rt Hon Tom

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Knapman, Roger

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

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

Evennett, David

Knox, Sir David

Faber, David

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Fabricant, Michael

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fanner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fishburn, Dudley

Legg, Barry

Forman, Nigel

Leigh, Edward

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Lidington, David

Forth, Eric

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Luff, Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

MacKay, Andrew

French, Douglas

Maclean, David

Fry, Sir Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gale, Roger

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gallie, Phil

Madel, Sir David

Gardiner, Sir George

Maginnis, Ken

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Maitland, Lady Olga

Garnier, Edward

Major, Rt Hon John

Gill, Christopher

Malone, Gerald

Gillan, Cheryl

Mans, Keith

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Marland, Paul

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marlow, Tony

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gorst, John

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mates, Michael

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

943

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Speed, Sir Keith

Merchant, Piers

Spencer, Sir Derek

Milligan, Stephen

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Mills, Iain

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Spink, Dr Robert

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Spring, Richard

Moate, Sir Roger

Sproat, Iain

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Monro, Sir Hector

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Steen, Anthony

Moss, Malcolm

Stephen, Michael

Needham, Richard

Stem, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Stewart, Allan

Neubert, Sir Michael

Streeter, Gary

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Sumberg, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Sweeney, Walter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Sykes, John

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Norris, Steve

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Ottaway, Richard

Temple-Morris, Peter

Page, Richard

Thomason, Roy

Paice, James

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Patnick, Irvine

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Thumham, Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Pawsey, James

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

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tracey, Richard

Pickles, Eric

Tredinnick, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Trend, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Trotter, Neville

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Powell, William (Corby)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rathbone, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Walden, George

Richards, Rod

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Riddick, Graham

Waller, Gary

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Ward, John

Robathan, Andrew

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Waterson, Nigel

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Watts, John

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wells, Bowen

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Whitney, Ray

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Whittingdale, John

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Widdecombe, Ann

Sackville, Tom

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Wilkinson, John

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Willetts, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wilshire, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wolfson, Mark

Shersby, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Sims, Roger

Yeo, Tim

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Soames, Nicholas

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Ainger, Nick

Bell, Stuart

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Allen, Graham

Bennett, Andrew F.

Alton, David

Benton, Joe

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Betts, Clive

Armstrong, Hilary

Blair, Tony

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Blunkett, David

Austin-Walker, John

Boateng, Paul

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Boyes, Roland

Barnes, Harry

Bradley, Keith

Barron, Kevin

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Battle, John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Bayley, Hugh

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

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

944

Burden, Richard

Harman, Ms Harriet

Byers, Stephen

Harvey, Nick

Cabom, Richard

Henderson, Doug

Callaghan, Jim

Heppell, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hoey, Kate

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Canavan, Dennis

Home Robertson, John

Cann, Jamie

Hood, Jimmy

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Clapham, Michael

Hoyle, Doug

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clelland, David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hutton, John

Coffey, Ann

Ingram, Adam

Connarty, Michael

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jamieson, David

Corbett, Robin

Janner, Greville

Corbyn, Jeremy

Johnston, Sir Russell

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Cox, Tom

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cummings, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jowell, Tessa

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dafis, Cynog

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Darling, Alistair

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Davidson, Ian

Khabra, Piara S.

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kirkwood, Archy

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Leighton, Ron

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

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Denham,John

Lewis, Terry

Dewar, Donald

Litheriand, Robert

Dixon, Don

Livingstone, Ken

Dobson, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Llwyd, Elfyn

Dowd, Jim

Lynne, Ms Liz

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McAllion, John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McAvoy, Thomas

Eagle, Ms Angela

McCartney, Ian

Eastham, Ken

Macdonald, Calum

Enright, Derek

McFall, John

Etherington, Bill

McKelvey, William

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Mackinlay, Andrew

Fatchett, Derek

McLeish, Henry

Faulds, Andrew

Maclennan, Robert

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McMaster, Gordon

Fisher, Mark

McNamara, Kevin

Flynn, Paul

McWilliam, John

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Madden, Max

Foster, Don (Bath)

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Foulkes, George

Mahon, Alice

Fraser, John

Mallon, Seamus

Fyfe, Maria

Mandelson, Peter

Gapes, Mike

Marek, Dr John

Garrett, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

George, Bruce

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S).

Gerrard, Neil

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Martlew, Eric

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Maxton, John

Godsiff, Roger

Meacher, Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

Meale, Alan

Gordon, Mildred

Michael, Alun

Gould, Bryan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Graham, Thomas

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Milburn, Alan

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Miller, Andrew

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Grocott, Bruce

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Gunnell, John

Morgan, Rhodri

Hain, Peter

Morley, Elliot

Hall, Mike

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Hanson, David

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

945

Mowlam, Marjorie

Skinner, Dennis

Mudie, George

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mullin, Chris

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

Murphy, Paul

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

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Snape, Peter

O'Hara, Edward

Soley, Clive

Olner, William

Spearing, Nigel

O'Neill, Martin

Spellar, John

Orme, Fit Hon Stanley

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Parry, Robert

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Patchett, Terry

Steinberg, Gerry

Pendry, Tom

Stevenson, George

Pickthall, Colin

Stott, Roger

Pike, Peter L.

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Pope, Greg

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tipping, Paddy

Prescott, John

Turner, Dennis

Purchase, Ken

Tyler, Paul

Quin, Ms Joyce

Vaz, Keith

Radice, Giles

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Randall, Stuart

Walley, Joan

Raynsford, Nick

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Redmond, Martin

Wareing, Robert N

Reid, Dr John

Watson, Mike

Rendel, David

Welsh, Andrew

Richardson, Jo

Wicks, Malcolm

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Wigley, Dafydd

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Rogers, Allan

Wilson, Brian

Rooker, Jeff

Winnick, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wise, Audrey

Rowlands, Ted

Worthington, Tony

Ruddock, Joan

Wray, Jimmy

Salmond, Alex

Wright, Dr Tony

Sedgemore, Brian

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Short, Clare

Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

Simpson, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question on the other motion requiring to be decided at that hour:—
The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 267.

Division No. 81]

[7.16 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Aitken, Jonathan

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Alexander, Richard

Body, Sir Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Booth, Hartley

Amess, David

Boswell, Tim

Ancram, Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Arbuthnot, James

Bowden, Andrew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bowis, John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Ashby, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Aspinwall, Jack

Brazier, Julian

Atkins, Robert

Bright, Graham

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Baldry, Tony

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Budgen, Nicholas

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Burns, Simon

Bates, Michael

Butcher, John

Batiste, Spencer

Butler, Peter

Beggs, Roy

Butterfill, John

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bendall, Vivian

Carrington, Matthew

Beresford, Sir Paul

Carttiss, Michael

946

Cash, William

Haselhurst, Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawkins, Nick

Churchill, Mr

Hawksley, Warren

Clappison, James

Hayes, Jerry

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Heald, Oliver

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hendry, Charles

Coe, Sebastian

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Colvin, Michael

Hicks, Robert

Congdon, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Conway, Derek

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Horam, John

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cormack, Patrick

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Couchman, James

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

Cran, James

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Day, Stephen

Hunter, Andrew

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jack, Michael

Devlin, Tim

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jenkin, Bernard

Dicks, Terry

Jessel, Toby

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dover, Den

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Duncan, Alan

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dunn, Bob

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Durant, Sir Anthony

Key, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Kilfedder, Sir James

Eggar, Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom

Elletson, Harold

Kirkhope, Timothy

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Knapman, Roger

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Knox, Sir David

Evennett, David

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Faber, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fabricant, Michael

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Legg, Barry

Fishburn, Dudley

Leigh, Edward

Forman, Nigel

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lidington, David

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Lightbown, David

Forth, Eric

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Luff, Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Maclean, David

French, Douglas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fry, Sir Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gale, Roger

Madel, Sir David

Gallie, Phil

Maginnis, Ken

Gardiner, Sir George

Maitland, Lady Olga

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Major, Rt Hon John

Garnier, Edward

Malone, Gerald

Gill, Christopher

Mans, Keith

Gillan, Cheryl

Marland, Paul

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Marlow, Tony

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Gorst, John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Mates, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Merchant, Piers

Grylls, Sir Michael

Milligan, Stephen

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mills, Iain

Hague, William

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Moate, Sir Roger

Hannam, Sir John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Hargreaves, Andrew

Monro, Sir Hector

Harris, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

947

Moss, Malcolm

Spring, Richard

Needham, Richard

Sproat, Iain

Nelson, Anthony

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Steen, Anthony

Nicholls, Patrick

Stephen, Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Stern, Michael

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Stewart, Allan

Norris, Steve

Streeter, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Sumberg, David

Oppenheim, Phillip

Sweeney, Walter

Ottaway, Richard

Sykes, John

Page, Richard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Paice, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Patnick, Irvine

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pawsey, James

Thomason, Roy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Pickles, Eric

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Thurnham, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

Powell, William (Corby)

Tracey, Richard

Rathbone, Tim

Tredinnick, David

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Trend, Michael

Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

Trotter, Neville

Richards, Rod

Twinn, Dr Ian

Riddick, Graham

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Viggers, Peter

Robathan, Andrew

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Walden, George

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Waller, Gary

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Ward, John

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Waterson, Nigel

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Watts, John

Sackville, Tom

Wells, Bowen

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Whitney, Ray

Shaw, David (Dover)

Whittingdale, John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Widdecombe, Ann

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wilkinson, John

Shersby, Michael

Willetts, David

Sims, Roger

Wilshire, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wolfson, Mark

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Wood, Timothy

Soames, Nicholas

Yeo, Tim

Speed, Sir Keith

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Spencer, Sir Derek

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mr. Andrew Mackay and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Spink, Dr Robert

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Berry, Dr. Roger

Ainger, Nick

Berts, Clive

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Blair, Tony

Allen, Graham

Blunkett, David

Alton, David

Boateng, Paul

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Boyes, Roland

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Bradley, Keith

Armstrong, Hilary

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Austin-Walker, John

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

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Barnes, Harry

Burden, Richard

Barron, Kevin

Byers, Stephen

Battle, John

Caborn, Richard

Bayley, Hugh

Callaghan, Jim

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Bell, Stuart

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Bennett, Andrew F.

Canavan, Dennis

Benton, Joe

Cann, Jamie

948

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Hoyle, Doug

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hutton, John

Clelland, David

Ingram, Adam

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Coffey, Ann

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Connarty, Michael

Jamieson, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cox, Tom

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cryer, Bob

Jowell, Tessa

Cummings, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Khabra, Piara S.

Dafis, Cynog

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Darling, Alistair

Kirkwood, Archy

Davidson, Ian

Leighton, Ron

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Lewis, Terry

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Litheriand, Robert

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

Livingstone, Ken

Denham, John

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dewar, Donald

Llwyd, Elfyn

Dixon, Don

Lynne, Ms Liz

Dobson, Frank

McAllion, John

Donohoe, Brian H.

McAvoy, Thomas

Dowd, Jim

McCartney, Ian

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Macdonald, Calum

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McFall, John

Eagle, Ms Angela

McKelvey, William

Eastham, Ken

Mackinlay, Andrew

Enright, Derek

McLeish, Henry

Etherington, Bill

Maclennan, Robert

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

McMaster, Gordon

Fatchett, Derek

McNamara, Kevin

Faulds, Andrew

McWilliam, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Madden, Max

Fisher, Mark

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Flynn, Paul

Mahon, Alice

Foster, Don (Bath)

Mandelson, Peter

Foulkes, George

Marek, Dr John

Fraser, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Fyfe, Maria

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Gapes, Mike

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Garrett, John

Martlew, Eric

George, Bruce

Maxton, John

Gerrard, Neil

Meacher, Michael

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Meale, Alan

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Michael, Alun

Godsiff, Roger

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Gordon, Mildred

Milburn, Alan

Graham, Thomas

Miller, Andrew

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morgan, Rhodri

Grocott, Bruce

Morley, Elliot

Gunnell, John

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Hain, Peter

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hall, Mike

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Hanson, David

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hardy, Peter

Mudie, George

Harman, Ms Harriet

Mullin, Chris

Harvey, Nick

Murphy, Paul

Henderson, Doug

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Heppell, John

O'Hara, Edward

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Olner, William

Hinchliffe, David

O'Neill, Martin

Hoey, Kate

Parry, Robert

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Patchett, Terry

Home Robertson, John

Pendry, Tom

Hood, Jimmy

Pickthall, Colin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Pike, Peter L.

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Pope, Greg

949

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Steinberg, Gerry

Prescott, John

Stevenson, George

Quin, Ms Joyce

Stott, Roger

Radice, Giles

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Randall, Stuart

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Raynsford, Nick

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Redmond, Martin

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Reid, Dr John

Tipping, Paddy

Rendel, David

Turner, Dennis

Richardson, Jo

Tyler, Paul

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Vaz, Keith

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Walley, Joan

Rogers, Allan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Rooker, Jeff

Wareing, Robert N

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Watson, Mike

Rowlands, Ted

Welsh, Andrew

Ruddock, Joan

Wicks, Malcolm

Salmond, Alex

Wigley, Dafydd

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wilson, Brian

Short, Clare

Winnick, David

Simpson, Alan

Wise, Audrey

Skinner, Dennis

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wray, Jimmy

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

Wright, Dr Tony

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

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Snape, Peter

Soley, Clive

Tellers for the Noes:

Spearing, Nigel

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Insley.

Spellar, John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

British Waterways Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private 13ill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
7.30 pm
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I recall that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were in the Chair when we debated the Second Reading of the Bill. We therefore seem destined to be bound together by British Waterways. It is not a bad thing to bind us together. It is an admirable organisation and I am delighted to be associated with the Bill.
British Waterways does a great deal of good work. The canal system is close to the hearts of many people in Great Britain because it is the oldest canal system in existence and because many people derive a great deal of recreational enjoyment from it.
Since Second Reading, two significant events have occurred. The first is the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The second is the retirement of the then chairman of the British Waterways Board, Mr. David Ingman. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all his work as chairman of the board. He has been a doughty champion of the waterways and there is no doubt that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's conclusions are a reflection of his contribution.
The conclusions of the MMC report found that there had been a transformation in British Waterways since its 1987 report. The MMC finds that British Waterways has made good progress in the development of business planning, the introduction of waterway standards, the revision of project control guidelines and the introduction of a new computerised accounting and reporting system. It has changed from a centralised organisation orientated towards administering a grant to one developing a strong commercial outlook. The MMC commends British Waterways and its staff for their work and I, too, commend them.

951
I said on Second Reading that the Bill was about safety. The key to the revival motion is that those issues are just as important as they were then, if not more so. Therefore, as the Committee has spent so long considering the various issues, there are strong arguments for it to complete its work and let the House decide.
Technically, it is not the function of the House to debate the merits of a Bill on a revival motion. As in all cases, they were examined in some detail on 17 May 1993. Hon. Members drew attention to several elements which were causing them or their constituents problems, and I will explain in due course what British Waterways has done to help resolve them.
British Waterways is responsible for maintaining the fabric of our 200-year-old inland waterway system and its inheritance from the original canal proprietors included 2,000 miles of waterways, 1,500 miles of continuous towpaths, more than 4,700 bridges, 450 tunnels and aqueducts as well as 2,100 listed structures and monuments and 64 sites of special scientific interest.
The Bill is about securing the future of that inheritance and of the availability of the waterways for public use. It is promoted by British Waterways primarily to safeguard waterway users and the owners and occupiers of adjoining land to create new conservation, environmental and recreational duties and to enable British Waterways to manage the waterways more effectively and to generate more income for reinvestment in them.
The House will appreciate that the timely repair of waterways and associated works is essential in the interests of public safety, particularly in emergencies which give rise to the risk of serious dangers to persons and property. It is generally accepted that there is a need for specific powers granting those authorised by the board the right to enter land for such purposes. Landowners' and farmers' representative bodies such as the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union agreed a code of practice as to how entry should be effected in such circumstances.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Everyone accepts that there is a need for that power. I wonder whether there are any instances where the power is not being granted in practice. Some of the first canal Acts go back to about 1730. It seems puzzling if in all the time since then that power was never needed. No one has ever been able to quote to me an example where the lack of that power resulted in difficulties.
Mr. Jones: There have been some close-run incidents. It is necessary to take the appropriate level of risk assessment and it is therefore important to have those powers.
Hon. Members will recall that the subject was referred to in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of May 1987 which drew attention to the fact that British Waterways has no effective statutory rights of access over private land, even in the direst emergency when life and property might be endangered. In that respect, the board is unusual among statutory undertakers in having no general powers to enter land even to deal with such emergencies.
In contrast, the National Rivers Authority can effect entry on to premises for the purpose of carrying out its water resources function and to act without notice in an
952
emergency. Is its capacity as a navigation authority, the NRA is in a different position from that of British Waterways because the natural rivers for which it is mainly responsible—it has only a few canals—do not present the same risks.
Of particular concern is the stability of canal embankments where serious difficulties can occur if there is over-topping and erosion of the embankment, or if tree roots penetrate the lining of the canal, leading ultimately to instability and collapse of the embankment. In my speech on Second Reading I mentioned the example of the breach on the Lancaster canal caused by tree root penetration.
Since that debate, it has come to my attention that Scottish National Heritage, which was formed in 1991 by the amalgamation of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland, was given express powers of entry to land in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, even for such apparently mundane activities as surveying land and estimating its value. The Act also conferred similar powers on river purification authorities and others for the purposes of discharging their functions, including entry on to land in emergencies.
Given the volatility and destructive power of the water in the canals, it has to be equally or more important for British Waterways to have the same powers and that the obstruction of their exercise should be deterred, as proposed in the Bill, by the risk of prosecution as in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991.
Part III of the Bill would impose new minimum fire and safety standards on boats and prevent pollution of the waterways. Home Office statistics show that between 1983 and 1988 there were more than 500 fires on boats on inland waterways.
I referred to a particular spectacular example in my speech on Second Reading. It occurred on the River Thames at Radcott in the April 1993, when a cabin cruiser caught fire and was completely gutted. The fire endangered other craft moored at the site and the owners of the vessel suffered burns. It was only due to the heroic efforts of an off-duty ambulanceman who got into the water and pulled the flaming boat away that a much more serious incident was averted.
The cause of the fire is believed to have been the escape of excess fuel from an ill-fitting carburettor. The fuel was ignited by the ignition spark of the engine. If the vessel had complied with the boat safety standards, the electrical system in the engine space would have been ignition protected and the excess fuel would have not ignited.
The boat safety standards will require all hire and pleasure boats on British Waterways' system to meet minimum safety requirements before they are permitted to come on or stay on the waterways. They are now referred to as harmonised standards as they have been adopted by the National Rivers Authority and the Broads Authority as well as a number of other navigational authorities.
There have been other incidents since the boat safety standards were last debated in the House. On the Aire and Calder navigation at Stanley Ferry in August 1993, a 35 ft long narrow boat exploded, blowing off a 15 to 20 ft section from the back of the boat. The explosion blew a transom across the canal. It was fortunate that the boat was not moored facing in the opposite direction as the transom would then have blown into the pub adjacent to which the boat was moored.

953
It is believed that the explosion was caused by a leak of liquid petroleum gas from a gas bottle. The gas locker in which the bottles were stored was not gas-tight and therefore did not vent the leaking gas overboard as will be required by the boat safety standards scheme. As a result, the gas leaked into the body of the vessel and was ignited by the pilot light of the gas refrigerator on board. That explosion would not have occurred had the vessel complied with the board's safety standards scheme.
Another incident involving a leaking gas bottle occurred on the Bridgwater canal at Agden wharf in December 1993. Here again, the boat safety standards scheme would have required overboard venting as in the case of the Stanley Ferry incident. There was no such venting and an explosion and fire destroyed a 70 ft narrow boat.
Fortunately, no one was hurt in either of those explosions. The Manchester Ship Canal Company which operates that waterway has for several years been following the lead of British Waterways in implementing the boat safety standards scheme, which is clearly desirable in the interests of all the users of waterways, whether or not they are on vessels.
Environmental and recreational duties are close to my heart. Clause 23 will discharge an obligation, which has been accepted and supported by the Government, that British Waterways should be subject to the same general environmental and recreational duties as the NRA and the privatised water and sewerage companies. The clause is directly adapted from section 8 of the Water Act 1989 and it uses the same language.
The report on British Waterways by the Select Committee on the Environment, which was published in August 1989, recommended that a duty similar to that under section 8 of the Water Act 1989 should be applied to the British Waterways Board. The Government endorsed that recommendation in their response in February 1990 and it is now before the House.
Following Second Reading, British Waterways had further discussions with those who at the time still had outstanding petitions. The majority were concerned about proposals embodied in clause 27 for the extinguishment of a variety of unexercised rights which had been conferred on landowners and others at the time of the original canal enabling Acts passed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
The extinguishment of those rights was designed to create certainty where there was none and to permit the board to make the best possible use of its property-assets. Those provisions in clause 27 were often, the only remaining barriers to the withdrawal of a considerable number of petitions, including several on which the parties had otherwise reached agreement. Therefore, the board decided after careful consideration to propose to the Select Committee the deletion of clause 27 in its entirety. Having given the petitioners concerned assurances to that effect, virtually all the outstanding petitions were withdrawn immediately after the Committee proceedings opened.
It would be idle to assume that the withdrawal of clause 27 has solved any difficulties other than those encountered in the promotion of the Bill. The problems which the actual or theoretical existence of the ancient unexercised rights created for British Waterways will not go away. A vivid example of that was given to the Select Committee when the Bill was in the other place.
Mr. Martin Redmond: The hon. Gentleman said that the vast majority of petitioners have now withdrawn their objections. Are some petitioners still objecting and, if so, why?
Mr. Jones: I will address those points in due course.
As I was saying, a vivid example was given to the Select Committee when the Bill was in another place. It concerned a 30 acre site intended for comprehensive redevelopment adjoining the Trent and Mersey canal. The developer wished to drain the whole area into the canal, which was on a steep embankment, by means of an existing outfall and claimed to be entitled to do so as a right under the enabling Acts for that canal.
British Waterways' engineers calculated that in a one in 25 year storm the available freeboard in the canal at the lowest point on that pound would have been used up within 15 minutes, leading to the immediate over-topping of the towing path by the storm water and to the failure of the embankment. A breach there would have had catastrophic results which would have affected houses, a public house, a filling station and a factory on the road below, posing serious risks to life and property.
To avoid those consequences, British Waterways calculated that an overflow pipe would need to be installed to carry the surplus water to the nearby River Trent. At a conservative estimate, it would have cost more than £85,000 for the engineering works alone, the cost of land acquisition being in addition. The only beneficiary would have been the developer himself, and no benefit whatever would have accrued from the expenditure to the waterway or its users. It is perhaps fortunate that the Japanese backers of that development decided to invest their funds elsewhere, so the problems did not materialise.
Nevertheless, such problems could arise again, either at that or many other locations on the waterways system. For that reason, and because British Waterways believes that the existence of such rights and the exercise of them in modern conditions could be actually harmful to the maintenance and integrity of the waterways, the following statement was made to the Committee when British Waterways sought to withdraw the clause:
"Clause 27 of the British Waterways Bill would have extinguished certain rights conferred on riparian owners and others by early Canal Acts passed in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The rights in question included rights to construct works affecting canals, drainage and abstraction rights and also sporting and fishing rights and rights to use pleasure boats which by now are unenforceable or else incompatible with modern legislation.
The clause was included in the Bill as claims to exercise such rights could lead to severe operational and other difficulties, including the impairment of safety. It is moreover extremely difficult in modern circumstances to determine who, if anyone, is now entitled to the rights. For all these reasons the Board decided that clause 27 should extinguish the rights completely.
After a full hearing before the Opposed Committee of the House of Lords, the Committee found that the case for the clause was proved. The clause was further amended following third reading in the House of Lords but was allowed to remain in the Bill.
Following the First House Committee stage, clause 27 continued to be controversial. Petitioners and others have represented that they would be prejudiced by the clause, if it were to become law in its most recent form. Attempts to reach some form of agreement with all those who opposed the clause have in most cases been unsuccessful. All these factors have required the Board to re-examine the basis of the clause and the wider questions related to it in the light of representations made. In

955
these circumstances, it has been decided to seek leave of the Select Committee of the House of Commons to withdraw clause 27.
In seeking to withdraw the clause, the Board are conscious that the difficulties which it was intended to remove still have to be resolved. They therefore wish to emphasis that they may have to promote legislation in the future on the subject of ancient rights, and works and activities affecting inland waterways. Any such powers will be sought following a wide consultation exercise which will enable those who have petitioned against clause 27 to express their views on any new proposals."
Clause 27 petitioners apart, when the Committee stage began on 26 June 1993 the possible maximum number of outstanding petitions was seven, of which five were lodged by individuals and two by fringe houseboat groups. I say the "possible" number because some of those concerned did not reply to correspondence and the board was unable to determine whether they were minded to continue their opposition. In the event, four individual petitioners presented themselves to speak to their petitions.
So far, the Committee—under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie)—has sat for a total of 13 whole or part days and the record of its proceedings extends to more than 800 pages of transcript. It is almost at the end of its examination of the Bill, but it is understood that the members of the Committee may rightly wish to go out on visits to see something of the canal system and to take further evidence from two of the petitioners, who are no doubt as anxious as the promoters to see the resumption and completion of the Committee's examination of it.
All concerned have invested considerable time and money in the project—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is a member of the Private Bill Committee and who asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for this debate.
In the form in which the Bill went into the Opposed Committee, it had the support of all British Waterways' principal user groups, including the Inland Waterways Association" the British Marine Industries Federation, the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators, the Royal Yachting Association, the National Association of Boat Owners and the Residential Boat Owners Association, which are all completely independent of British Waterways and are rightly regarded as the representative bodies of users.
They are all frustrated and perplexed that the Bill Committee cannot be allowed to get on with and complete its job unless this motion is passed tonight. Any hon. Member who continues to have reservations about any elements of the Bill will have an opportunity to raise them at the next stage when it returns to the Floor of the House for further debate.
Quite apart from the energy that has gone into the promotion of the Bill, 1993 has been a busy and eventful year for British Waterways. The appointment of the ombudsman, which I announced in my speech in opening the Second Reading debate, was made later in the summer and took effect from 1 September. The board's choice for the appointment was Lady Ponsonby of Shulbrede, a practising barrister and fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, who has considerable experience in the resolution of disputes—even if they are not related to waterway management. Her appointment was welcomed
956
by the users of the board's waterways. She is accepted as entirely independent. I am told that she already has a modest case load of complaints to investigate. Unlike other organisations investigated by other ombudsmen, British Waterways has agreed to be bound by the waterways ombudsman's findings.
The year 1793 marked the height of canal mania, when 62 different canals—more than half the canal system—were being planned or built, and dozens of private Acts authorising their construction were passed by Parliament. The construction of the canal system, Britain's first transport network, was one of the main factors leading to the industrial revolution. Many major towns and cities, such as Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent, owe their existence to canals.
One of the Acts was for the Grand Junction canal, now part of the Grand Union canal, which last year celebrated its bicentenary in a number of diverse ways, including cavalcades, rallies and the opening of the long-distance towpath walk from London to Birmingham. "Canals 200", as British Waterways called those year-long festivities, was devised and organised by British Waterways to celebrate that significant bicentenary. It was the largest nationwide celebration ever held on the canal system. As the Grand Union canal runs the length of my constituency, I was particularly delighted at that.
There were 175 "Canals 200" festivals, open days, exhibitions and events throughout the canal system in 1993, attended by 620,000 people. British Waterways had a presence at all the events, ranging from banners and small display and information units to the major "Canals 200" exhibition. In May, major festivals were held simultaneously in Gloucester, Rickmansworth and Nottingham to launch the celebrations. In July, the Royal Mail issued the first inland waterways commemorative stamps. The "Canals 200" touring exhibition is visiting major museums. "Canals 200" has been extremely successful in raising the profile of inland waterways in the minds of the public.
The campaign has quadrupled British Waterways' national media coverage, reaching an estimated 14 million people. The promotion has been a great success, and links have been formed with local canal societies, inland waterway groups, hire boat operators, museums and others. That has encouraged British Waterways to extend the celebrations through 1994—the bicentenary year for 14 Acts of Parliament. British Waterways is currently working with volunteer groups throughout the canal system to help publicise and organise boat rallies and festivities in celebration of "Canals 200".
British Waterways is also planning to extend its network of cruising waterways by applying for a ministerial order to upgrade the Sheffield and Tinsley canal from remainder to cruising status. The almost derelict canal basin, lying virtually in the centre of the city of Sheffield, is at the heart of an overall redevelopment scheme that will lead to the refurbishment of historic buildings, the dredging of the adjoining waterway and the repair of its walls, and the total regeneration of that part of the city.
The canal and basin are integral to, and a vital component of, the regeneration project, which has the active backing of the Sheffield development corporation and Sheffield city council. The reclassification of the waterway and the guarantees it holds for its future management by British Waterways will be a crucial

957
element in the attraction of investment for the overall redevelopment, as has been the improvement and upgrading of the waterway itself.
The year 1993 also saw the return to British Waterways of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which published its report on 7 January this year. It found that there had been a transformation in British Waterways. The report, which was nearly 300 pages long, contained almost 50 recommendations that British Waterways hopes will help it to continue to make improvements. That is the purpose for which British Waterways embarked on the promotion of the Bill in 1990.
While the promotion has not been without its difficulties, many of us are now aware of the considerable groundswell of opinion in favour of its enactment. Many hon. Members have received letters to that effect from British Waterways' representative user groups, which generally regard the intervening years of debate and negotiation as having been well spent. From that, a much greater understanding has grown among users of the board's problems, and vice versa. It has given solid commitments to the citizens charter, a leisure and tourism strategy, and other commitments on which all users can rely.
An enormous amount of progress has been made on a system that, as I said, provides a great deal of pleasure for many people, but the main considerations that underlie the Bill are ones of safety. That matter has rightly been addressed at considerable length by the Committee. It wants to complete its deliberations, which is important for the future of the canal system. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the revival measure i.o the House, and I hope that the House will support it.
7.54 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington: I declare an interest because I have sat on the Committee for 13 sittings encompassing more than 50 hours of careful consideration of the facts. I ask the House to continue to place faith in my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) and the hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).
I think that it is in order to use the word "colleague" in referring to the three other people who sat on the Committee with me. I pay tribute to their painstaking conscientiousness and the courteous manner in which they dealt with a difficult private Bill. As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to speak about the merits of the Bill, but I ask the House to give my three colleagues and me the opportunity to complete our work and to give the House the opportunity to consider whatever decision is reached by the Committee.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I understand that my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Committee wanted to make a number of inspections as part of their work on the Bill. I understand that some difficulties arose in that regard. I find it incredible and shocking that a parliamentary Committee that wants to conduct investigations at its own cost and through its own organisation should have any impediment put in its way.
I understand that the Committee has made several attempts to organise that search for information. As British Waterways is seeking a carry-over motion, now is the time to ensure that there is maximum co-operation from every
958
conceivable party, or difficulties may arise over that motion. My hon. Friend could help the House by outlining the difficulties that have arisen.
Mr. Etherington: My hon. Friend has stolen some of my thunder. I agree with what he said and shall explain the matter further. I had an impression throughout the Committee that there was a sense of haste among the Clerks in the Private Bill Office. I am not aware of who decided how long the sittings on the Bill might take, but whoever it was underestimated the Bill's complexity and the work involved, with members of the Committee wanting to cross-examine and clarify every possible issue.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend mentioned the Clerks in the Private Bill Office. I have always found them extremely helpful in the way that they conduct their business, especially in dealing with problems on private Bills, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is aware. Given that accord exists among members of the Committee—they have been spoken of in glowing terms—who objected to the visits? If it was British Waterways, it ought to know better. I cannot believe that the Clerks stopped hon. Members from paying visits that would help them in their deliberations.
Mr. Etherington: I must agree that the Clerks have been very helpful, but coming up with an acceptable decision or advice can sometimes be a different thing, as I am sure hon. Members are aware.
A majority of hon. Members on the Committee thought that it would be necessary to pay a visit because the legislation in Scotland differs from that in England and Wales. We felt that many issues required us to see for ourselves what was experienced. Even though they might have the best imaginations in the world, no members of the Committee have had much experience of canals or canal people.
The people concerned with this matter, whether they were in favour of or against the Bill, have done their very best and have been most helpful, and I praise them all. We felt that it was necessary to have a site visit. We were told categorically that visits were not allowed in respect of a private Bill. We persisted informally with that line and we were told that the Chairman of Ways and Means would not sanction such a visit. At that stage, our proposal was fairly tentative.
The Chairman of the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie)—and I, with the permission of the two Conservative Members involved, approached the Chairman of Ways and Means. As always, he was very sympathetic, helpful and courteous. We came away with the impression that the matter would not require further clarification and that we would get satisfaction, but time rolled on and no arrangements have been made. For a variety of reasons, sometimes two or three Committee members were not available. On other occasions, we changed our hours to suit petitioners, many of whom came to the House at their own expense and at great inconvenience. We are no further ahead.
Mr. Cryer: I wonder whether I might suggest a solution. All that my hon. Friend's Committee wants to do is to travel within the United Kingdom to look at canals. There is a very big industry in fact-finding tours from this place to the far ends of the earth. My hon. Friend should apply to the Liaison Committee to go to, let us say,

959
Macclesfield to examine the canal there. He might be able to go there via Japan, Australia and America, financed by the Liaison Committee on a round-the-world tour, because that is the sort of facility that the Committee provides. It would be a long way around. It is staggering that my hon. Friend cannot find a way of travelling inside the United Kingdom when jumbo jets carry hon. Members all around the world.
Mr. Etherington: I enjoyed my hon. Friend's intervention. Members of the Committee have never dreamt of such a thing. I should have spoken to my hon. Friend earlier. Perhaps I have been unfortunate.
My colleagues and I regard ourselves as having been appointed to the Committee by the House. We are not on the Committee for the Government or for the promoters; we are on it for the benefit of the people whom we represent collectively—not only our constituencies but our nation. We have tried to do a thorough, proper job. I feel very strongly about the matter. It is a serious matter, although there is an amusing side to it.
If the Private Bill Committee becomes inquorate, those responsible could be brought before the House to explain themselves. I regard myself as an honourable person. I should rather explain why I shall do something than try to make excuses after it has been done. I should like to hear the rest of the evidence. There is only the case for the promoters to be summed up, after which we shall deliberate and reach a conclusion, but I am not prepared to deliberate and reach a conclusion unless we can make a site visit. That is not blackmail. I ask the House to resolve the matter so that I can carry out my duties in the way that I should.
Mr. Redmond: It is important that clarification be given, and my hon. Friend has partly done so. The Clerks in the Private Bill Office were in order in the conduct of their business, and I assume that the Chairman of Ways and Means is in order. Obviously, whoever controls the purse strings has delayed the progress of the Bill; otherwise, we would not be debating this matter tonight. If inspections had taken place as requested, the Bill could have been dispatched.
Was British Waterways requested to finance the trip or to make arrangements for it? The people involved have been most helpful to members of the Committee in letting them find out at first hand what is involved.
Mr. Etherington: I shall correct a misapprehension for my hon. Friend. The issue of the visit has not delayed the Bill's progress in any way. We would be in exactly the same position: if the visit had been allowed, we would still not have had time to deal with the matter before the end of the Session. As I have explained, we have tried to accommodate petitioners. Occasionally, the promoters' barrister was not available when we were. We have also had duties to carry out in the House. When we have two full days of business and we have other commitments in the House and our constituency work, we do not have much flexibility left for what we are required to do during the week.
I want the matter to be resolved tonight. I feel strongly about it, as do the majority of my colleagues. I hope that the House will not cause us to stand at the Bar of the House and be judged as felons—that is what it would come to
960
—for not carrying out our duties properly. If the procedures of the House make much a visit difficult, hon. Members have sufficient faith in the Officers of the House and in the Chairman of Ways and Means to sort out the problem fairly speedily so that there is no undue delay in our coming to a conclusion.
In no circumstances would I have dreamt of approaching the promoters to arrange for us to make visits. I am employed on the Committee by the House. The responsibility lies with the House. I am aware of the excellent advice from the Chairman of Ways and Means, who pointed out that, when sitting in judgment, we cannot be seen to be in the pockets of the promoters of private Bills. I totally agree, and that is why we must try to resolve this matter. Please give us the opportunity to complete the work on which we have spent much time, conscientiously trying to help all concerned, so that the Bill can be brought back before the House and dealt with.
Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are very interesting. It is fairly rare for hon. Members to be appointed to that Committee. It is a wee bit ironic that it is in the nature of the House that, when dealing with such a complex matter, it actually consciously appoints hon. Members who do not know anything about it. Of course, as well as not knowing anything about it, they have no axe to grind and they have no bias. That is the good side of it.
The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to visit parts of the canal system. Is that for the purpose of seeing on the ground, or in the water, exactly how the legislation would work and what effect it would have, talking with canal users, or what? Will the hon. Gentleman give some examples?
Mr. Etherington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I shall try to answer in reverse while the questions are still in my mind. The Committee felt that it would like to see sites that exemplified the evidence, especially when there was some contention. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman—one of the finest principles ever expounded is that justice is blind. In many cases, those who sit in judgment know very little or nothing about a subject. For many years, experts on all sorts of subjects have made judgments, and sometimes they are not always the best, as we notice every day.
I shall refer to a matter I raised earlier. Many Bills, byelaws, amendments and statutory instruments reflect the differences between Scottish law and English law. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is well aware of those differences. The Committee felt that it should see some circumstances that were unique to Scotland. For example, if we had been able to spend a couple of hours at Paddington basin to see what we wanted, that would have been helpful. I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee will agree with me when I say that we do not want to give ourselves any extra responsibilities. My time is already curtailed somewhat. I always seem to be running round at top speed. I do not have much time to stop and think, and collect my life in many respects.
The Committee felt that visits were necessary and wanted to have a look at three specific places. We wanted to look at the Caledonian canal, which has specific local problems. We also wanted to go to Braunston lock because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of

961
houseboats is of paramount importance to this issue, and we wanted to look at certain aspects of the Grand Union canal.
Several hon. Members said that they could not understand the problem. I cannot understand it either. Throughout the sittings of the Committee, I had the impression that there was a misjudgment. There seemed to be gentle coercion to proceed with the Bill with all speed. I do not consider that I am an obstructive or awkward person, but that sort of atmosphere is not helpful. If that is a criticism of the way in which the House works, so be it. That is the way I feel. The House should hear all the details of this serious matter.
I hope that the House will give us the privilege of continuing the work that we are doing and that we can resolve the matter. As I said, unless the matter is resolved, I am afraid that I might have to stand in this fine Chamber in a different position from where I am now. I do not issue threats—that is not my way of life. But being honourable, I feel that it is only right that that should be pointed out. I know that a majority of my colleagues feel exactly the same.
8.12 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to catch your eye in this debate. I shall start by expressing my disturbance that we have reached this position, because the subject has been studied in enormous depth by a large number of people. Before I go any further, I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). We had a very cordial Committee, as I shall explain in a moment. My two Labour colleagues on the Committee have been helpful and constructive in every possible way.
As I said, I am sorry that we have reached this stage. The whole subject of the regulation—basically, that is what the Bill is all about—of the powers of British Waterways with regard to inland waterways has been studied in great depth. It was first studied by the Select Committee on the Environment in 1987, from which arose the idea of this Bill. It was deposited in the House of Lords in November 1990. Their Lordships had 11 very detailed sittings on the Bill.
As a result—the House has heard that all of them involved a barrister leading the British Waterways case, solicitors leading for the petitioners and the petitioners themselves—a number of major improvements were made to the Bill, not least of which was the provision of a moratorium for houseboat owners who had not already applied for a licence. A number of constructive changes were made to the Bill in another place, and the detailed debate was concluded in May 1991. Thereafter, there was a Third Reading and the whole subject was given yet another airing.
As happens in the normal course of events, the Bill came to this House for First Reading—there was no debate —on 13 March 1992. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for his actions in promoting the Bill and his work for British Waterways. In his erudite speech this evening, he proved that he is immensely knowledgeable about the subject of canals and the workings of British Waterways. He referred to the Second Reading of the Bill. Thereafter, a Committee was
962
appointed by the House which comprised the hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Sunderland, North, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and me.
Sitting on the Committee was no mean task, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North explained. As I look round the House, I see a number of hon. Members who have been here a long time but who do not understand how the private business procedure works.
Four of us sat on the Committee for more than 50 hours, which produced more than 800 pages of transcript. The Committee had to have a quorum of three, which meant that we could not leave the room without having a detailed discussion about who would stay. Intensive work took place in the Committee. We had to concentrate every moment because we were responsible for reporting to the House at the end of the day. Unlike other Committees, we could not leave, do some work and return. We had to be there the whole time, we had to concentrate and we had to ask pertinent questions.
This subject has been debated at enormous length and in enormous detail in the Committe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West explained, as a result of the deliberations in another place, and the deliberations in Committee and debate in this House, the number of petitioners has been whittled down to four. Of those four, one has not appeared before the Committee. We have taken detailed evidence from three of the 44 original petitioners. The Chairman of the Committee has been immensely patient with those petitioners. At all stages of the proceedings he allowed them to cross-examine the witnesses for British Waterways and its counsel. They could not possibly have wished for a more courteous Chairman. They have had every opportunity to examine the Bill in any way they wished.
We have almost come to the end of the evidence. What took place in Committee is not a secret because it is open to the public. The proceedings were published fully in Hansard and they are fully available. It is fair to say that the petitioners feel that they received a fair hearing. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sunderland, North would agree with that.
Mr. Etherington: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that helpful and constructive intervention, which merely shows that I am giving a fully factual account to the House.
It is important to realise where we have got to. I believe that there will be a summary from British Waterways. The Committee will then deliberate on all the evidence and the submissions, and will hopefully come to a conclusion. I understand that we are looking at about three more days of sittings. Having had 13 sittings, we have almost come to the point where we can see the end.
I should perhaps mention the subject of the requested visit, which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke about at length. As he said, the four Committee members know very little about British waterways. Certainly that is true in my case, but I am not able to speak for the other Committee members. After listening to the evidence and questions in the Committee, I do not believe that the other Committee members are particularly knowledgeable about canals.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I do not want to do my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) an injustice. He was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment when we investigated British Waterways at considerable length. The Committee produced a unanimous report, and most of the report's recommendations have been implemented. Few hon. Members can claim to be experts, because experts are people who avoid small mistakes on the road to the great fallacy. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke can be regarded as an expert.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting me straight on that point. I had forgotten that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke was a member of the Committee which reported in such detail on the matter in 1987.
The Committee is within sight of finishing its deliberations. I watched this measure put on the Order Paper day after day. I was amazed that, after going through all that procedure and having deliberated the matter in such depth, there should have been objections. I have tried to discover from one or two people what it is that they are objecting to. I have talked to people who have objected and discovered which parts of the Bill they are objecting to or which of the petitioners' points they wish to be upheld. I can explain to them what has gone on in the Committee, and I have found that they have been satisfied. I find it very strange that we have to use up the House's valuable time deliberating the measure.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The only objector, as I understand it, to the revival motion on 13 January was the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), who has now left the Chamber. Like him, we are obviously anxious to know what lies behind the objections. British Waterways has written to him on several occasions without receiving a response, so we are in the dark as much as anybody else about why there should be objections to the Bill.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend clarifies the matter. I think that it is sad that we could not have gone back into Committee. After all, the whole process involved a barrister leading for British Waterways, not to mention other senior members of the board and the staff of British Waterways. I do not know what the cost to them would be, but I should not be surprised if the procedure to date had cost British Waterways more than £100,000.
British Waterways is supported by a large number of people in this country. I understand that 9 million people are associated with the inland waterways and canals of the country. They want to see the waterways properly managed and providing a better service. I pay tribute to British Waterways in that respect. It has come a long way in the past few years, as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report makes clear. Quite honestly, however, if it has to meet this type of expense and to take this length of time to get such a Bill through the House, I would not blame it if it started to ask whether it was worth while.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have certainly no brief to object to the cost of the procedure, and obviously my hon. Friend has made his own point. I am worried, not about the price in financial terms because one cannot put a price on democratic involvement, but about the price in terms of potential tragedy through safety measures which cannot be
964
addressed until the Bill is on the statute book. That is why it is absolutely vital to get to the end of the process as soon as possible, consistent with allowing people their say in a democratic society.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I totally agree, but I have not yet come to the question why the Bill is desirable. Much of the time of the management of British Waterways has been invested in the process, quite apart from the monetary aspect and the other vital issues which the Bill addresses.
The inland waterways are enjoyed by a huge number of people in this country. People generally have more leisure time, and they can enjoy the waterways in a number of ways. They may walk along the towpath with their dogs, go boating on the canals either by owning their own boat or by taking a pleasant holiday, or they can live on the canals—let us not forget that a large number of people do so.
A number of vital powers in the Bill require British Waterways to enhance its management. As I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West have explained, British Waterways has come a long way in updating its management procedures since the Select Committee reported in 1987. Many of the report's recommendations have now been implemented. On the whole, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was complimentary to British Waterways, and particularly to its chairman, Mr. David Ingram, from whom we heard in Committee. Mr. Ingram was an impressive witness. He showed determination and he knew the business backwards, and his enthusiasm to see an improvement was clear for all to see.
I hope that Mr. Ingram's successor will enter a new era for British Waterways. I hope that when the Bill has passed all its stages he will be able to regulate the waterways with greater effect.
British Waterways obtains a grant of more than £40 million a year from the Department of the Environment. It is a large organisation, covering over 2,000 miles of waterways up and down the country. The Bill applies to England, Wales and Scotland. What does the Bill do? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West has stressed, it deals with safety and the regulation of the waterways. Basically it gives British Waterways powers which all other statutory undertakers have had for years.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked why British Waterways needs powers to enter private land. In the canals there are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of water. If there were a breach in a canal and there were dwellings downstream, the result could be catastrophic. The last thing an area manager of British Waterways will want to do in those circumstances is to have to find an owner who may be away on holiday. If the manager cannot get the relevant powers, emergency powers are needed to deal with such an incident.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is a question not simply of property, but of life and limb. I recently had the opportunity to go along the Llangollen canal. One section there had broken away, sending water down to the valley below which swept away the railway line. My hon. Friend can imagine in such circumstances what would happen if there was a crowded train, perhaps in a different part of the country. Such a tragedy could occur if powers to intervene were not available when the danger became apparent.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Committee was shown photographs of one or two instances where there had been breaches of canals.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a little hesitant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because I realise that, as he sat on the Committee, he has every right to pass information to the House. However, as I understand it, members of the Committee are not supposed to take part in the debates, certainly on Second Reading, or express their views until consideration of the Bill has been completed.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is in danger of straying into expressing his views on the Bill before the Committee has reported. It would be unfortunate if that happened and he had to be discharged from the Committee —he may want to escape from the Committee, I do not know—and someone else had to be appointed at this stage. What is the position on a carry-over motion about someone who is on the Committee, in a judicial role, commenting before the Committee has completed its consideration?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is a matter for the hon. Member who has the floor. It will be a different Committee.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful for the stricture placed on me by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I have not expressed any opinion on the clauses of the Bill. I have merely reported factually the case that has already been well made by the British Waterways Board. It is important that the House has a flavour of what the Bill contains and hears about a small amount of the evidence that was given in Committee. Otherwise, how can the House decide whether to vote for the revival motion this evening?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West has made clear, it is in the interests of British Waterways and the petitioners that the democratic process of the Committee should be allowed to proceed to a conclusion. I am not saying what that conclusion will be. It is important that democracy should prevail.
Part II of the Bill deals with powers that are already granted to every other statutory undertaker. We have studied at length in the Committee how the powers have been granted to other undertakers. I know that there are doubts among certain of the petitioners about the powers given to British Waterways. We have had a large amount of evidence from British Waterways to the effect that the powers are necessary.
Part III of the Bill is particularly important. I suppose that it has given rise to more anxieties among petitioners than any other part of the Bill. It deals with the regulation and management of the inland waterways and canals of Britain. It gives powers to the British Waterways Board to license the two major types of boater on the canals—houseboat owners and pleasure boat owners.
Houseboat owners in particular are anxious about what will be their future on the waterways after the Bill is enacted. The Committee has spent a great deal of time considering their interests. It is fair to say that every aspect has been considered in detail. I believe that the petitioners would accept that they have been given a fair hearing.
The crux of the matter is where houseboat owners will moor their boats. You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is necessary to make proper provision for houseboat owners who live a major part of their life on the
966
canal. They have to comply with the various health and safety regulations and planning regulations. It is right that they should have to do so and that their safety should be ensured by British Waterways. It is right that they should not obstruct the waterways and that they should inhabit the waterways in a safe manner.
I see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are looking to see whether I am outside the terms of the debate. I should be grateful—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be mistaken if he thought that.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that you will advise me if I stray outside the terms of the motion.
As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, although we did not come to the Committee with much prior knowledge of waterways, we shall leave it with a great deal of knowledge. We may not have become experts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West said, but we have certainly acquired a lot of knowledge.
Part III is the critical part of the Bill and it causes most anxiety among petitioners. It deals with the business of moorings. As you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in certain areas such as Islington and London there is enormous pressure on the waterways and it is absolutely necessary for British Waterways to regulate the moorings and to license boat owners so that the waterways can be run efficiently and safely.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West said, part IV of the Bill imposes environmental duties on British Waterways—the same type of duties that are imposed on every other statutory undertaker. They are enshrined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and are regulated by the various environmental bodies.
That is an important provision, because we want to make sure that the environment on the waterways is congenial and pleasant for those who want to use the waterways in one or other of the ways that I have described. I stress that the waterways are an amenity for every person in Britain. I cannnot stress that too much. The waterways are an integral part of the great historical heritage of Britain. It is vital that they are regulated in the best possible way in the interests of all who are associated with the waterways.
Part IV of the Bill deals with Scotland. We heard a lot of evidence from one petitioner who deals with Scotland —Lord Burton. I should perhaps explain what gave rise to the need for the visit about which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke so eloquently and at such length.
In Scotland, the British Waterways Board needs different powers. There have been problems because Scottish law on how British Waterways can enter land and what notices it has to serve on landowners before it enters that land is different from that in England and Wales. There have been several difficulties in the past years. Those difficulties are a good example of how the Bill will help British Waterways to deal with landowners and occupiers in Scotland. It will also help the landowners and occupiers because it will clarify exactly the powers of British Waterways. It clarifies them for that part of the Caledonian canal and the four lochs on the canal that are excluded under the Bill.

967
Let me explain what gave rise to a request for the visit. The Committee heard some disturbing evidence about what had gone on in the past. It is all very well to hear evidence, but, when we and British Waterways had been to so much trouble, it seemed reasonable that, if members of the Committee wanted to make a visit and ascertain for themselves at first hand what was involved, they should do so. There is a great deal of difference between looking oneself at first hand and hearing evidence.
When one considers the time and trouble that had been taken, it was not an unreasonable request to visit a canal in London, a marina in the midlands—to see the problem of dealing with moorings in a private marina—and the Caledonian canal in Scotland to see the problems in relation to Scottish law, especially as so much evidence was given on Scotland. From the evidence that we heard, it appeared to the Committee that the point was particularly poignant for that petitioner.
We have considered the issues in great detail. It is a thoroughly worthwhile Bill, which I commend to the House. The Committee clearly will have to reach a conclusion, and I do not know what it will be, but I urge hon. Members to vote for the revival motion. It is essential that, as we have considered the issues in such detail and depth, the democratic process should be allowed to proceed to a conclusion so that we can grant the Bill a Third Reading and it can then receive Royal Assent. British Waterways can then get on with the task of improving the already excellent job that it does in managing the 2,000 miles of inland waterways and canals.
8.39 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on the diligence with which he has pursued the legislation. I also congratulate the hon. Members who have given their time and energy to serve on the Committee that examined the Bill. We have, indeed, just heard from two of them. They gave us an interesting glimpse into a not terribly well-known aspect of the House's activities. As has been made clear, they carried out their duties most thoroughly and enabled people who had objections to the Bill to air them fully. I shall be brief, because I do not want to detain the House too long.
The request to be able to make visits—to visualise the law, as it were—sounds perfectly reasonable. It does not seem excessive to demand to visit three areas where there have been special problems. I do not entirely understand the difficulties, but I suspect that there are some regulations that preclude such visits. This might be a good opportunity for the usual channels to display their capacity to allow common sense to flow back and forth, even if that is not the norm at the moment. I should have thought that the case for such visits was strong.
The hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Hertfordshire, West fretted about the delay caused by people objecting. I was one of the people who objected, although, as the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West said, I did not do so on 13 January. Those of us who have objected have done so largely to put pressure on the British Waterways Board. That is not
968
unreasonable, and it is not often that we in the House have the opportunity to put pressure on anyone. I am not quite prepared to let British Waterways off the hook.
The procedure has been drawn out because there was a failure by the board, especially at the beginning, to consult effectively. People felt that certain things were being imposed on them. That was perhaps especially true in Scotland although Lord Burton, who was a constituent of mine, is not someone on whom anything can be easily imposed—quite the contrary. Nevertheless, some people felt that Scotland hardly needed to be covered in the Bill because Scotland does not have a true inland waterways system. We have "through" waterways; the waterways are not confined but are routes to the sea.
It seems that whenever I speak about this subject, including the occasions when I speak to Lord Burton—although it is sometimes he who speaks to me—I find that some confusion remains about clause 39 which was added following the objections raised by the Highland regional council. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the Bill will not extend to the lochs —Loch Lochy, Loch Oich, Loch Ness and Loch Dochfour —but that the British Waterways Board does have powers in respect of passage through the lochs and that those powers are derived not from the Bill but from the Transport Act 1962. Therefore, even without the addition of clause 39, the Bill had no effect on the lochs, although the clause makes that clear beyond peraventure, as lawyers are wont to say. I hope that I am right; if I am not, perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to correct me.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): We are discussing a revival motion for a private Bill and I am not conducting the Bill through the House. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman's request should therefore be directed to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) who is its sponsor and is responsible for its conduct. I am sure that, in due course, my hon. Friend will be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
Sir Russell Johnston: With respect, I thought that, although the Minister is not conducting the Bill, he is here to be a fount of information, knowledge and guidance to help us in our travail.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not going to deal with the hon. Gentleman's legal point, but I said that the four lochs were excluded from the terms of the Bill. However, the Committee heard a great deal of evidence to the effect that it was the locks that were causing problems.
Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall not pursue that issue as I do not wish to detain the House.
I agree that the British Waterways Board has learnt from the experience of dealing with the Bill and that the process has had a considerable effect on the board. I willingly associate myself with the tribute paid by the hon. Members for Hertfordshire, West and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury to Sir David Inman, who was until recently the chairman, and to Jeremy Duffy, who is the secretary, both of whom have gone out of their way to be helpful, to hear and discuss my constituents' objections.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: It might be convenient if I confirm at this stage that the hon. Gentleman's

969
understanding was correct. The board's licensing powers stem from the Transport Act 1962 and the Bill confers no additional powers. I hope that that is helpful.
Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The board has learnt that it needs to consult regularly and to have devolved and responsible management which is accessible to users and can make decisions without continually referring to some distant place. It has learnt from the experience of going through this long and complicated legislation.
A group of my constituents raised legal arguments about who owns what at Gairlochy at one end of the Caledonian canal, but I am satisfied that a procedure has been found that can establish the veracity or otherwise of the claims being made. I am confident that the difficulties will be resolved satisfactorily.
Reference has been made to the board's stronger commercial outlook. I do not argue that such an outlook is not necessary but it is a little ironic that a publicly owned enterprise, such as the British Waterways Board, may be compelled by law to behave in a harder, more rigorous and, perhaps, more profiteering way than a private landlord, who has the discretion to be generous if he wishes. It is rather contradictory and I do not know what can be done about it, but there is no doubt that it contributed to the general unease that followed the introduction of the Bill.
Much of the unease was related to the fear that the Bill might ultimately result in perhaps expensive regulation and that the cost of rents or licenses would increase considerably. It is in the scope and powers of British Waterways to act in a reasonable fashion in regard to those questions and that is something it is aware of, and I am sure that it will do so.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the right people are on the board.
Sir Russell Johnston: Yes, it is all a question of the right people, as the hon. Gentleman perspicaciously remarks. I think that he would probably define himself as one of them. [Laughter.]
I have expressed my concerns and will not delay the House much longer. It is common cause among us that the system should develop and prosper and above all that it be safe and, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, agreeable to the users.
8.50 pm
Sir Anthony Durant: I rise to, speak on the Bill as the chairman of the parliamentary waterways group. One function of the Bill has been to revive that group, because all the petitioners hurriedly came to see us when we had meetings in Committee Rooms and other parts of the House, because they were concerned about the Bill in its early stages. We had some lively and interesting meetings of the group, which is not always that active. I have had some interesting times as chairman of the parliamentary waterways group.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) in the motion that the Bill should proceed. I wish to speak on behalf of two bodies to reassure the House that those bodies that had reservations have now withdrawn them.
The British Marine Industries Federation, a trade association representing more than 1,100 firms in the
970
recreational boat industry, was initially concerned by several aspects of the Bill, but, after constructive discussions, British Waterways agreed to propose amendments to the Bill and provide various assurances to the BMIF and other bodies representing navigational interests.
As a result, the BMIF withdrew its petition against the Bill, as did the Royal Yachting Association, the Inland Waterways Association, which I wish to mention in a moment, and other groups representing waterways users. The BMW's view, which is shared by many other navigational interests, is that the enactment of the Bill, with the amendments and subject to assurances, would be positively beneficial to waterway users.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West has said, some of the matters that caused concern included the rights of those in houseboats, with which the parliamentary group had meetings.
The Inland Waterways Association negotiated with British Waterways for many months. The association consulted its members, as it represents all the people who use the waterways, and it supported three items of the Bill in principle: emergency powers of entry, of which we have heard discussion, standards of construction and insurance, and houseboat regulation.
The safety aspect, which has been mentioned, is absolutely vital. I have a boat in my constituency on the River Thames. I was down in the hold doing a bit of work when there was a most enormous explosion and a tremendous bang shook all the boats around. I rushed out from my boat and on to the jetty to see that a boat had blown up, it had flames coming from it and people had been flung into the water. It was a very dangerous incident. The boat had broken down in navigating the Thames, had been towed in by a narrow boat, had tried to come alongside, the rope that had been thrown had been missed and the man who held the boat turned the engine and there was an explosion because the hold was full of petrol fumes. Luckily, because there was free access, the fire brigade was able to arrive quickly, the ambulance was there in no time and the owners of the marina were on the spot to help.
It was a nasty incident and a lot of the people who were travelling in the boat were badly burnt. We managed to get them out of the water and the fire was put out as the boat sank. There were no fatalities. There was a little dog on board, but he headed straight for the shore of his own initiative and got away as fast as he could. That incident illustrates the need in a leisure pursuit which has dangerous elements for access enabling people to get to the waterway as quickly as possible.
One of the reasons why problems have arisen with British Waterways is that when the original Acts were made, creating waterways was a new departure. It occurred before railways existed and everybody's interest had to be safeguarded. An original waterways Bill of 1793 states:
"Canal may be made through Mrs. Seare's Pleasure Grounds under certain Restrictions. No lock to be erected within in a Mile of Mrs. Seare's at Bulboume without her consent. No Injury to be done to the Mills of the Honourable Mrs. Leigh."
All such instructions used to enter the Acts on an enormous scale, which restricted the owners of the canal in what they could do and their access to it. British Waterways is trying to regularise that position so that it can get access to the waterways for safety when boats get into difficulty and when banks burst—a point made by other hon. Members.

971
The association has a plain commitment from British Waterways on a number of other points in the Bill, which are on the record. The association also considered other aspects of concern, such as powers to prevent mooring, to refuse a boat a licence because its moorings are not suitable —which was dealt with—and powers to dispose of property and subsidiaries which could lead to loss of heritage and continuity in the waterways system, which were considered and agreed. Powers to limit opening of locks on the River Severn and powers to permit the association of the boats standards appeal panel were also examined.
The number of boat users on the system is growing at a great pace. It is a great leisure pursuit, which is usually enjoyed by families who go out for weekends or for the day, often going up and down the same stretch and getting great pleasure from it. It may seem boring to other people. When I come out of my marina, I have the opportunity to turn left or right. I have a choice, but that is the only choice I get on one beautiful stretch of the River Thames. I enjoy it, I relax and there are thousands of people who do the same every weekend.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I am delighted that he is contributing to the debate. Would he advise the House of the view of the people who have constructed and operate marinas that feed in to our inland waterways system, because, in the past, they have expressed criticism that they have been expected to make excessive contributions to British Waterways?
Sir Anthony Durant: My hon. Friend is correct. There were discussions of access to the navigation from marinas, but that has now been dealt with satisfactorily and most of those who run marinas are well satisfied that they get a reasonable deal from British Waterways. I believe that that is working perfectly satisfactorily. I have no recent evidence that it has caused any difficulty. My hon. Friend is right to say that, for a period, those who run marinas were greatly concerned about access to the waterway, but I think that that matter has now been satisfactorily settled.
The British Marine Industries Federation, the Inland Waterways Association and many houseboat owners now feel that the Bill should proceed. There will be opportunities to have another look at the Bill in Committee and when it comes back to the House. I am sure that, if we pass the motion, we can proceed and give the British Waterways Board, which has battled with the Bill for a long time at considerable cost and difficulty to itself, the opportunity to achieve a Bill that will safeguard and regularise the waterways and at least improve them for the benefit of those who use them. I support the motion.
9 pm
Mr. George Howarth: I shall be brief, as I am aware that two or possibly three of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate. I shall make two quick points and then advise the House of the official Opposition's position.
It is fairly evident from the debate so far that at the beginning of this process the British Waterways Board would have been well advised perhaps to hold more vigorous consultations before trying to promote the Bill.
972
One of the petitioners against the Bill, Janice Christianson of Helensborough in Scotland, made that very point in her petition. She states:
"The preamble of the Bill states at part 3 'It is expedient that further provisions should be made for the regulation and management by the Board of the Inland Waterways owned or managed by them'. Your Petitioner requests that this be amended by adding 'on behalf of the people of Great Britain.' The preamble of the Bill continues 'and that certain statutory provisions relating to the Board or their undertaking should be amended or repealed.' Your Petitioner requests that the words 'after due consultation with concerned and interested parties' be added."
That might have been a better way to proceed and perhaps would have saved time and prevented many of the problems that have cropped up, but that is with the benefit of hindsight.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). I am mindful of the fact that the Committee sat for 50 hours and, indeed, I tried to go through the 800 pages or so of evidence that it produced, although I do not claim to have done so exhaustively. I am persuaded also by the sponsor of the Bill that it would not be proper at this stage for the Opposition to oppose the Bill. My recommendation is that we should not oppose the revival motion. That is not an official position and I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will take a contrary view, as they are free to do. At this point, I just want to make it clear that I do not recommend that my hon. Friends oppose the motion, although they are free to do so if they wish.
9.1 pm
Mr. Barry Field: Hon. Members may wonder why, representing the Isle of Wight, I should speak in the debate this evening.
Once, I chartered a small vessel on the River Thames with my brother and father to go and watch the proceedings at Henley. I was was unused to piloting a craft without a compass. When we left the marina, we had rather a heated debate whether to turn left or right. From the Isle of Wight that is quite simple, because one reaches either Holland or America. We could not decide, but eventually we turned left and came to an idyllic lock with cows munching the grass nearby. We went into the lock, and coming down in the opposite direction was a delightful chap in a punt with a pretty young lady who carried a parasol. We bade him good morning. He asked where we were going, and when we said, "Henley," he said, "So am I and I am going in the opposite direction." We realised that we were going in the wrong direction so we turned around, went back and had a jolly time.
The other reason why I am taking part in the debate is that, every month, somebody from the Inland Waterways Association sends me Waterways. I do not know whether he thinks that the Solent has been redesignated or that it is narrower than it is, but I always read its news with great interest. In a previous incarnation, I was in the Territorial Army. It had a strong connection with inland water transport. In the last war, the Royal Engineers had one of the largest units under command in the whole of the British Army and that was the inland water transport group. I had the good fortune to join it, sadly just after it ceased to be the Royal Engineers and became the Royal Corps of Transport—sadly, no more. Unusually for the British Army, I was commissioned into my own troop.

973
As a result of that, I got the territorial decoration, of which I am very proud. I also became a Thames lighterman and waterman, and became a member of the Thames Watermen and Lightermen Company, which I also enjoy, because it took not one but two Acts of Parliament to subdue them, as they were such an unruly lot.
I am commodore of the House of Commons yacht club. Something of an earthquake was caused when it discovered that I had a yacht. That is almost against the rules of the club and it almost had to change them just for me. I think that we all agree that, although in aquatic terms the club house is slightly underused, it is certainly the best yacht club in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) referrred to the British Marine Industries Federation and the excellent work that it and the Royal Yachting Association have done in shaping the Bill.
I suppose that the real reason why I am speaking in the debate is that my claim to fame is that I hold the record, I believe, in Parliament for chairing the highest number of Committee on private Bills. I shall make that claim and, as always in this place, leave it to others to try to knock me off my pinnacle. I have volunteered on many occasions to chair Committees and am rather sad that, in this Parliament, the tradition whereby a Member who volunteers to chair a Committee can do so out of turn with the co-operation of the Opposition seems to have gone out of the window.
I volunteered to chair the Committee on the Bill but, as often happens, it fell to the Opposition to appoint a chairman on that occasion. So far, the turn and turn about rule has continued throughout this Parliament. That is sad because, as we know, Committees on private Bills are fairly onerous things to chair and to be involved in and we always thought that one volunteer was worth 10 pressed men. I am pleased to say that I chaired the Committee on the first private Bill of this Parliament that came before us, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was on it, as was the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). I am pleased to be able to tell the House that they said the most delightful things about my chairmanship of it.
Some hon. Members may remember—
Sir Anthony Durant: I am following closely my hon. Friend's comments about presiding over Committees on private Bills. Is there another private Bill on the horizon for which he is making a bid?
Mr. Field: It is funny that my hon. Friend should say that, because I have already put in a bid for the Poole Ferry Bill, which is before the House, but whether it will fall to our turn remains to be seen.
The danger of volunteering is that one ends up with one of those horrid Bills that sits for ever and that one does not get the Bill that one hoped for. Time will tell. Hon. Members may remember—I know that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will remember the period well, because, like me, he takes an interest in that murky area of the Commons and its procedures—the Bill to amend the Isle of Wight Act which was introduced by my illustrious predecessor, Mark Woodnutt—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is all very interesting, but I have been trying for the past few seconds
974
to ascertain what it has to do with the debate. It will be helpful to the debate if the hon. Gentleman would get back to the debate on the revival motion.
Mr. Field: I was just coming to that point. The purpose of the Isle of Wight (Amendment) Bill was to control pop festivals on the island and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was blocking private Bills, as was his prerogative. At that time, The Times accused me of wrecking the Paddington-Heathrow Link Bill. It subsequently published an apology, because that was quite unfair.
As a result of the arrangement that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was making at the time, I did eventually wreck every single Bill that came before the House. I did that because Opposition Members would not pass the amendment to the Isle of Wight Act. That matter relates to the revival motion, because, as a result of my action, I received an amazing quantity of correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are here to debate not the contents of the Bill but the revival motion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is my view.
Mr. Field: I received correspondence from fellow Conservative Members the like of which the Opposition could hardly imagine. I was threatened with being hanged, drawn and quartered, because I was putting at risk Bills connected with the Star and Garter home, redundant lighthouses and even a delightful little estate somewhere—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would welcome it if the hon. Gentleman now spoke about the British Waterways Bill.
Mr. Field: My point is that I found that hon. Members did not know anything about the way in which private legislation is dealt with. They were quite unaware that there is what is colloquially known as a Lazarus motion, or, as it appears on the Order Paper, a revival motion. It is given that colloquial term because it does exactly what that name implies—it brings a Bill back from the dead.
When a new Parliament is opened with the Gracious Speech, the private Bill procedure must fall. There is no mechanism to initiate that procedure in the new Parliament unless it is subject to the revival motion. Private Bills cost the promoters, and sometimes the petitioners, a great deal of money.
Mr. Bennett: How often does it happen that promoters are so slow to negotiate with the objectors that we have more than one revival motion, which may carry a Bill not just from one Session to the next but, as in one case, through three Sessions?
Mr. Field: I had intended to mention that fact, with your patience and forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is clear from the correspondence that I have received that hon. Members were unaware of the revival motion. The Bills with which they were involved were connected with their constituencies. I remember one that related to a town in the Medway area and involved a bridge over a river. Those hon. Members were all unaware, however, that it was possible to table revival motions to bring all the Bills back. They did not know that they did not have to start the whole process all over again. It is not possible to

975
do that, however, when a general election intervenes and Parliament is dissolved; then, sadly, as I know to my cost, Bills fall and the process must start all over again.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asked how many times a Bill can be and has been revived. The answer lies in part with Lord Howe, who, when Leader of the House, did away with a large proportion of Back Benchers' rights when he piloted the Transport and Works Bill through the House.
Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. The Bill before us proves that a Bill can be revived after a general election, because it was originally introduced in 1990. We have, of course, had a general election since then.
Mr. Field: I stand corrected. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find, however, that the Bill had not progressed far before the general election and that its reintroduction in the new Parliament was not prejudiced. If it had been considered in Committee and then fell because of the general election, its legislative process would have had to start all over again. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make that absolutely clear.
The Transport and Works Act 1992 impinges on the revival motion, because it took away a vast chunk of the private Bill procedure from the House. I told Sir Geoffrey Howe that his belief that such Bills should, in future, be subject to a public inquiry as opposed to the private Bill procedure was untenable. Anyone familiar with public inquiries will know that they are not a way of resolving expeditiously the many problems encompassed by the British Waterways Bill. Such a Bill is an expeditious, if expensive, way of sorting out many knotty legal problems that cannot be solved by the courts, and of establishing ownership rights.
The reason that that procedure was denied to the House was that there was once a whole raft of private Bills, and some of them had dragged on—such as the Felixstowe Docks and Harbour Bill, which detained the House late at night. I told the Leader of the House at the time that there would be fewer such Bills in future because there had been a plethora of them as the economy improved—as had happened in Victorian Parliaments—but that if we bided our time, their numbers would fall. The Private Bill Office says that they have. The situation would have resolved itself, and right hon. and hon. Members would not have found themselves so inconvenienced.
It is sad that a huge tranche of rights was taken from Back Benchers. Having served as Chairman during the passage of private Bills, I know that they provide the only opportunity for a Member of Parliament to make a decision that will affect the lives of the citizens of this nation.
Sir Anthony Durant: I remind my hon. Friend that the Select Committee that examined the private Bill procedure —in which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) had some involvement—recommended that it be changed. That is why the then Leader of the House took the matter up.
Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is right, but modernization of the procedure was needed, not its almost total abolition.
You rightly reprimanded me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for straying from the revival motion. I want to be particularly
976
helpful because I know of a particular problem that arose in visiting various sites. I will tell the House of my experience when I chaired the Committee considering a Bill concerning Tees and Hartlepool. Such legislation falls into two categories—works Bills, which the Transport and Works Act 1992 abolished, and powers Bills or measures. The British Waterways Bill is a powers Bill.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend deploys an extremely interesting argument, but a number of us on this side of the House, and probably the House as a whole, seek to ascertain whether he supports the revival motion. I am listening to his arguments with care as a member of both the Standing Orders Committee—which has some interest in the matter—and the Chairmen's Panel. I respect my hon. Friend for making it clear that the establishment reduced the powers and authority of the House. However, I am interested to know whether or not my hon. Friend favours the Bill's revival, because that is the purpose of this debate.
Mr. Field: My hon. Friend will have to maintain his keen anticipation a moment longer.
I want to tell the House about my experience in respect of visits, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred.
Two members of the Committee asked whether we could visit. We were advised by the Clerk in the Private Bill Office that, because this was a powers Bill, not a works Bill, that was not possible—there was no tradition of, or authority for, going on such visits—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but it does not take us far towards finding out whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill should be revived.
Mr. Field: You have been very patient with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during my tour of private Bill legislation. You have a reputation for patience, and it does you great credit.
I was going on to say that a slight frisson was felt by the Committee because of those visits. Had it not been for that, the Bill might already have been out of Committee and this motion would not have been necessary. I had intended to read the motion out to the House, but I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule that unnecessary—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Necessary or not, the fact is that the motion is before the House, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to get back to it.
Mr. Field: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact remains that we have a revival motion owing to the problems that occurred in the Committee. The solution that we found showed that it was quite possible for hon. Members to make visits while considering a powers Bill. So that was done, eventually the hon. Members concerned rejoined the Committee, and the Bill went on its way.
I share these thoughts with the House because this aspect of our procedures is shrouded in cobwebs—not everyone understands these things. I hope to have added to the sum of human knowledge this evening by what I have had to say. Curiously, however, the Bill in question was suddenly dropped, and the trust ports legislation was taken up by the Government and became an Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has asked me whether I am in favour of the motion: I most certainly am. It is a worthwhile Bill. As my

977
hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) says, our inland waterways give great pleasure to many thousands of people. As old Ratty said in "The Wind in the Willows", there is nothing—but nothing—like messing about in boats.
9.22 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Donton and Reddish): I have a somewhat ambiguous view of this motion, because it seems to me that the promoters of the Bill have not piloted it through the House efficiently. I spoke to them back in 1991 and pointed out that some of my constituents were unhappy about the powers contained in the legislation. I advised them strongly to hold rapid negotiations with the people who were objecting to the Bill, suggesting that if they did not, the danger was that as the Bill proceeded through the House it would get caught up in all sorts of other problems.
Interestingly, because the promoters did not enter into those negotiations at an early stage, they have run into many difficulties during the passage of the Bill. One other hon. Member and I have been objecting to this motion for some weeks now. Last week we were persuaded not to object but, of course, the Bill has now run into other problems. That is the reason for the debate. People who promote such Bills should start by trying to negotiate objections out of the way. That is the message that the debate should send to such people.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If a private Bill is supported by the Government they will obviously do everything in their power to push it through. The arrogance of Conservative Members who promote Bills shows that they are not interested in democracy. They have shoved every private Bill through. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is important to speak to people who will be affected by such Bills so that the provisions can be altered before they come to the Hosue. Conservatives should bear that in mind before they start preaching about democracy.
Mr. Bennett: I accept my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I sympathise with the general point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but I was rather shocked by the intervention of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). In many ways the board has done a great deal to try to find out people's worries. I asked about the position of the hon. Member for Don Valley and I was told:
"He did not respond to correspondence from the Agents for the Bill in both 1992 and 1993 seeking a meeting to discuss his concerns and has at no time been in any other firm communications with the promoters… No record can be found, either at Headquarters or Regional office levels, of correspondence from Mr. Redmond with complaints or criticism of the way in which those waterways are managed by the Board."
I am still baffled as to what the hon. Gentleman's objections are. It is obvious that he is not taking up the consultation opportunities that are available to him.
Mr. Bennett: I do not want to go along that path because I know that some of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate and I should like to make some substantive comments.
As I have said, anyone considering the promotion of a private Bill should start negotiations at the earliest possible stage and not wait until the Bill has been delayed in the House. I hope that this is the last debate on this matter and
978
that it will be possible for the Committee, if it resumes, to come to a speedy conclusion. I hope that it will amend the Bill to meet the criticisms of the remaining objectors, so that, when it emerges from Committee, everybody will be satisfied on Report and Third Reading.
I would be unhappy if I had to table amendments and take up more time. Many of my constituents feel that it would be more appropriate for the House to debate matters such as the Child Support Agency or Yugoslavia than to engage in another debate on inland waterwar. The board should have met objectors at an early stage to thrash out amendments to meet their concerns.
It is clear that the board has moved so slowly in this matter that it has created a chain reaction among people who are interested in boating. One or two still write expressing concern about difficulties in the Bill that were resolved six months ago or more. I have a funny postbag at the moment because some people write about current worries while others express concern about issues that have been resolved. I make a plea that people should get such issues out of the way at the earliest stage.
One specific issue concerns my constituents on part of the Ashton canal. The Wooden Canal Boat Trust has done important work trying to preserve the old wooden canal boats. Those boats have an interesting tradition. One of the best remaining folk crafts in Britain is preserved in the boats, in terms of the carving and traditional painting of the barges. They are interesting craft. I am not certain where they originate, but there is a great deal of artistry in the designs on those old wooden boats, and it is important that they are preserved.
Back in April, the board eventually decided that it would have to meet the objections of one of the petitioners on behalf of the Wooden Canal Boat Trust and agreed to set up a new body to work out a mechanism by which any old canal barges or parts of barges which were found sunk on the canals and had any prospect of being re-used, either in whole or in part, could be notified.
The procedure was supposed to have been set up, but I understand that six months later at least two old barges have been broken up. One was because the trust did not act, although it had been told about it in time, and the other because the Inland Waterways Board acted precipitously in dredging or some other activity which resulted in the boat becoming beyond repair.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) would give an undertaking on behalf of the board that the negotiating machinery and consultation process would ensure that what remains of those historic boats would be preserved in future and that there would be all speed in getting the process into operation.
My second point concerns people with houseboats on the canals and the problems that exist, particularly for people on low incomes. There is a substantial difference between people in the south of England, who generally have a reasonable income, and people who live on canals in the north and are on extremely low incomes. They enjoy owning boats and travelling around the canals more slowly than people having a fortnight's holiday and wanting to travel a substantial distance.
Those people like to travel for a few months around the canal network and then stop and find employment for a few months. They feel under pressure because of the sensible concerns about safety. I hope that when the Committee considers the issue we will be assured that people on low incomes will not be penalised if they do not have

979
permanent moorings, and that if they progress around the canal system and do not need a permanent mooring they will not be in difficulty.
There is also the question of insurance. I understand all the arguments for safety and that the boats have to meet certain standards. I understand why people are reluctant to insure them if they do not reach those standards, but I have heard about the problems caused by having to take a boat out of the water to get an insurance certificate. That can involve considerable costs.
Although I agree with the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) that it is important that the boats are safe, there is a difference between being safe and being modern. It is important that the legislation contains measures to ensure that the promoters do not demand high standards which would be desirable, but difficult for people on low incomes to achieve.
Mr. Barry Field: How might the hon. Gentleman resolve that position with one of requiring small craft not to pollute the canals and to meet the most modern standards in terms of drip trays for carburettors and engines and in respect of human waste and sinks?
Mr. Bennett: The people who are concerned about that would claim that their boats are perfectly capable of meeting those requirements. I realise that there is a difficult balance between what it is reasonable for British Waterways to propose and what is reasonable for people on low incomes to achieve. It would be very unfortunate if many of the old traditional craft were to be forced off our waterways.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman and I share several waterways, not least the Cheshire ring and other canals in the north-west, and I respect the stand that he has taken on this matter. When deciding whether to support the revival motion, is it not important that the board should establish a balance between tradition and commercialism? I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that too often commercialism seems to take precedence over tradition. Tradition on our waterways is very important indeed.
Mr. Bennett: That is a very important point, and we must get the balance right. I understand that the board has agreed that there should be a consultative conference some time in March to try to thrash out some of those issues. Why did it not hold that consultative conference back in 1990, instead of waiting until the very end of the process?
As many of my hon. Friends wish to make contributions, I will not delay the House further at this stage.
9.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): It may be convenient for the House if I intervene at this stage on the technical motion tabled by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I do not intend to speak for long, as I am conscious that other hon. Members may wish to intervene.
On Second Reading, I said that the Government have no objections to the proposals of British Waterways, which include important measures relating to the board's powers and duties. Since the House gave the Bill a Second
980
Reading, it has been under detailed consideration in the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). Two members of that Committee told us this evening of the care and diligence that they have taken in considering the Bill. The House owes the Committee a debt of gratitude for its careful work.
I hope that the House will believe that it is right that the Committee should be allowed to complete its work on the private Bill so that the House can reach a decision based on the Bill's merits. The House should also be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) who has steered the Bill through with considerable care.
The Bill has provoked and promoted considerable interest throughout the country. From representations that I have received, I am aware of the considerable concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West has devoted a considerable amount of time, energy and effort to the Bill and that is very much to the credit of the House as a whole.
As you have made clear, on several occasions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not for us tonight to consider the detailed provisions of the Bill. As I have said, and as the House knows, that is a matter for the Committee. On Second Reading last May, I welcomed the opportunity for a debate on Britain's waterways heritage. We have had something of a debate on that this evening although, by definition, as this is a technical motion, it has been more of a technical debate.
In many ways, the Bill is timely. It has coincided with the bicentenary of the canal network taking a grip in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) said, canal mania first gripped the country in 1793. In a very short space of time, Parliament passed no fewer than 24 enabling Acts for new canals. One wonders what the parliamentary timetable at that time must have been like, particularly as there is detailed reference to various ladies' pleasure gardens.
It has also been appropriate that the Bill has not only been part of the bicentenary celebrations, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West said, has had the beneficial impact of reviving in the House an interest in waterways and canals. It has been particularly good news that we have seen the revival of the parliamentary waterways group under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West.
I hope that the Committee will be able to finish its work on the Bill. I hope also that the debate has prompted continuing interest in waterways and canals. There are about 2,000 miles of waterways in Britain. They are a great part of our heritage. The Government invest nearly £50 million a year through grant in aid, and other sums are also invested in the canal network. I hope that we can maximise the contribution that the canal network can make to our nation. I hope that interest in canals will continue.
Mr. John Greenway: I apologise for not having been able to be present throughout the debate, but I had other duties in the House to attend to.
I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the many hundreds of miles of waterways. He will be aware of great concern about the Ouse north of York, in my constituency, and all the waterways to the north of Linton lock, which is in serious disrepair. Unless it is taken over by British Waterways, 50 or 60 miles of canals will effectively not be connected to the rest of the waterway network. I should

981
like my hon. Friend's assurance that, if the motion is agreed, the Government will seriously consider British Waterways having the resources to take responsibility for that lock.
Mr. Baldry: In fairness to other hon. Members who wish to speak, whether or not that stretch of water is subject to the British Waterways Board is a matter for statute. The board has a clear statutory definition of which stretches of canals and other waterways it is responsible for and which are remainder waterways. I will certainly check my hon. Friend's point and write to him on it.
9.42 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: The House has just heard an intervention by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who has just walked into the Chamber, whereas other folk have been waiting all night to speak.
As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I represent a part of the River Clyde which is well used by the boating fraternity—yachting, the lot. Last week, I visited the Earl's Court boat show and I was delighted to see a strong contingent of Scottish boats at that exhibition. I have a genuine interest in the matter. I welcome the developments, albeit very late, that are taking place on our canals. However, I oppose the Bill because we should start afresh. I feel great anxiety when I see how the Government are carrying on in respect of other matters.
I also regard the commercial aspect as very frightening. Will people have the right to walk along river banks? Will the environment be improved? Will there be walkers' rights? Will there be sewerage systems for boats so that people will not throw crap into canals? I want to ensure that such services are provided along waterways. I am not sure whether we are getting assurances. I have not just barged into this debate; I have sat in the Chamber all night. I am not sailing by the skin of my teeth. We must have assurances from British Waterways about the environment.
I was fortunate the other week to watch the Sky Television Discovery channel programme about barges on our waterways. It was an absolutely fabulous programme. It showed what could be done with canals.
I hope that our canals will be improved, that they will be returned to the people and that the people will be able to use them properly. All those matters should be considered along with the Bill. These are not simply commercial considerations; we should think of the public —although, if things are handled properly, there may be tremendous spin-offs. There may be a regeneration of the small boat industry for which Britain was once famous; that includes Scotland, of course.
Scotland is very interested in boats. Since Windermere got rid of all its speedboat fanatics, they have come up to Scotland to have fun playing on the banks of the Clyde. We in Scotland do not mind spending a day or two on the canals. The boating community and industry are very mobile: this is one of the fastest growing leisure sports in Great Britain. I am not opposed to improving the waterways; indeed, I strongly support the idea, and I believe that the Government should put more money into it.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is clearly concerned about environmental issues. One of the 13ill's purposes is to enshrine in law the recommendation made a
982
few years ago by the Select Committee on Environment that the British Waterways Board should have a specific environmental duty. The hon. Gentleman, surely, will welcome that.
Mr. Graham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
I am worried that, following the privatisation of the water industry, many people have not been given the right to walk on ground that is actually owned by the public. I am deeply concerned about the possibility that a similar unfairness will result in this instance. We may end up paying a fast buck to walk along a canal along which donkeys used to walk free.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) has considered the environmental issues. The environment is dear to my heart; as a Scottish Member, I am fortunate enough to live in the countryside, and to have the opportunity to walk free and unhibited along the banks of the Clyde. There is nothing finer than to walk along the banks of the Clyde and watch the yachts and pleasure boats moving up and down. That experience is free, and I hope that it will remain so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is Scottish, but, as far as I know, the Clyde is not a canal.
9.47 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is very difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), and congratulate him on his sponsorship of the Bill. I believe that the carry-over motion will benefit the canals, particularly the Forth and Clyde canal, part of which is in my constituency.
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentioned enabling Bills passed some 200 years ago: at that time, a Mr. Lawrence Dundas, a Member of Parliament, promoted an enabling Bill involving the Forth and Clyde canal. Given our current preoccupation with the Registration of Members' Interests, it is also interesting to learn from the history of the canal that Mr. Dundas owned the Forth arid Clyde Canal company, and saw no reason why he should not promote the Bill in the Commons.
The canal stretches from Dumbartonshire—a town called Bowling—to Grangemouth, in the Forth estuary. I understand that Mr: Dundas also owned a good deal of land in Grangemouth, and wanted to make it into a port.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the leisure facilities that canals can offer. It is not necessary to own a boat to enjoy such facilities.
In my constituency, many people, including myself and my family, enjoy a walk along the towpath of the canal which can stretch for many miles. Those people enjoy not only the canal itself but the wildlife which the canal nurtures. It is important in an industrial city like my own that people have little oases where they can see a part of the countryside that exists within a city centre. I know that that is a contradiction in terms, but the canal within my constituency has created a stretch of urban countryside.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned commercialisation. The Inland Waterways Board has made the Forth and Clyde canal navigable from Port Dundas in my constituency—named after the hon.

983
Member I just mentioned—to a stretch called Kirkintilloch. Pleasure craft can now go on to that stretch, and there is talk of a marina on the boundary of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on a stretch called the Hamiltonhill basin. There is concern that, if that marina goes ahead, the general public may be denied access to that part of the canal.
The Minister cannot reply to the debate, but I wonder whether I could put on the record the fact that it would be helpful if those involved with the canal were able to give assurances that if a marina is to be built for well-off people, the general public will not be denied access to a part of the canal which they have previously enjoyed.
The carry-over motion and the Bill will give the House the power to examine the work of British Waterways. I am sure that the Minister will give British Waterways a free hand, but the Bill will allow him to consult its board and see that it is carrying out its duties.
Over and above the walking facilities that the canal can offer, many young people and their parents get out on the canal for a spot of coarse fishing. That is becoming increasingly popular in Scotland as access to some rivers and lochs becomes more difficult because of the high cost of permits. Many young people go on to the canal to fish, and I hope that the carry-over motion and the Bill allow that type of activity to be encouraged.
The general public do not realise that British Waterways not only owns the canal and the towpath, but, in some places, owns large stretches of land on each side of those towpaths. That can include acres of valuable land, which British Waterways inherited-from the old canal companies. The board has recently sold some patches of land, and entrepreneurs have built pubs on the canal bank. Walkers may enjoy a refreshment there, and the boaters will do likewise when boats start going on to the canal.
I hope that any sale of the land will not deny people access to the canal. I also hope that perhaps at a later stage the Minister will give assurances that the proceeds from any of the land that is sold by the board will go back into maintaining the facilities of the canal, renewing the lock gates that have been lying in disrepair and ensuring that not only the canal banks but the towpaths are not in a dangerous condition. I hope that the Minister will not encourage the board to dispose of land, but if it does so, I hope that it will do so in such a way that whatever finance is raised goes back into the canal and does not go to the Treasury.
Mr. Redmond: May I point out that the Government's record—the Government support this private Bill—is to deny the public access to lots of public land? I was told, "Get it in black and white. Do not leave it until after you have signed on the dotted line. Get it included in the Bill. Get it included in any agreement before you accept." My hon. Friend is making important points. Before he agrees to the Bill, he must ensure that those points become part and parcel of the Bill.
Mr. Martin: That is why the carry-over motion is important. That is what the Bill is all about. We should get things in black and white so that the general public—the people we represent—know exactly where they stand. That is important. I hope that safeguards will be given.
984
Let us consider the commercial aspect. When I first discovered the canals as a boy of 10, there were tenements on the banks of the canal belonging to the workers who serviced and looked after the canal. Thankfully, those tenements have gone. They were very badly maintained. In other words, they were slums. We now have some beautiful developments on the banks of the canal.
Mr. Robert B. Jones rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.
Question put,That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The new system used on the annunciator, which has been in operation since we came back from the Christmas recess, shows the item purely as a Division, whereas it always used to be shown as a Division on the closure. I believe that some hon. Members are mistaken over on what the House is dividing at the present time. Does not that matter need clarification, not only for tonight's business, but for future occasions?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and it will be brought to the notice of the House's authorities. However, I understand that what is currently shown on the annunciator is perfectly all right.
The House having divided: Ayes 271, Noes 151.

Division No. 83

[10.12 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Aitken, Jonathan

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Alexander, Richard

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Allen, Graham

Day, Stephen

Alton, David

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Amess, David

Devlin, Tim

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dewar, Donald

Arbuthnot, James

Dicks, Terry

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Dorrell, Stephen

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Ashby, David

Dover, Den

Atkins, Robert

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Dunn, Bob

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Dykes, Hugh

Baldry, Tony

Eagle, Ms Angela

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Enright, Derek

Bates, Michael

Etherington, Bill

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Evennett, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Faber, David

Booth, Hartley

Fabricant, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Bowden, Andrew

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bowis, John

Fishburn, Dudley

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Flynn, Paul

Brandreth, Gyles

Forman, Nigel

Bright, Graham

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Forth, Eric

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Burns, Simon

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Butcher, John

French, Douglas

Butterfill, John

Fry, Sir Peter

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gale, Roger

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Gallie, Phil

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gardiner, Sir George

Carrington, Matthew

Garnier, Edward

Chapman, Sydney

Garrett, John

Clappison, James

Gillan, Cheryl

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Coe, Sebastian

Gorst, John

Colvin, Michael

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Congdon, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Conway, Derek

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Grylls, Sir Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Couchman, James

Hague, William

988

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hardy, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Harris, David

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Harvey, Nick

Olner, William

Haselhurst, Alan

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hawkins, Nick

Ottaway, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Page, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Paice, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Patnick, Irvine

Hendry, Charles

Patten, Rt Hon John

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hinchliffe, David

Pawsey, James

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Pickles, Eric

Home Robertson, John

Pike, Peter L.

Horam, John

Pope, Greg

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rathbone, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jack, Michael

Rendel, David

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Richards, Rod

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Riddick, Graham

Jenkin, Bernard

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jessel, Toby

Robathan, Andrew

Johnston, Sir Russell

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rooker, Jeff

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Key, Robert

Sackville, Tom

Kilfedder, Sir James

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Kirkwood, Archy

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

Shersby, Michael

Knox, Sir David

Sims, Roger

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Soames, Nicholas

Legg, Barry

Speed, Sir Keith

Lidington, David

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lightbown, David

Spink, Dr Robert

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Spring, Richard

Luff, Peter

Sproat, Iain

Lynne, Ms Liz

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

McCartney, Ian

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McCrea, Rev William

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Steinberg, Gerry

MacKay, Andrew

Stephen, Michael

Maclean, David

Stevenson, George

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Stewart, Allan

Mahon, Alice

Streeter, Gary

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sweeney, Walter

Malone, Gerald

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mans, Keith

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marland, Paul

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Thomason, Roy

Martlew, Eric

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mates, Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Merchant, Piers

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Milligan, Stephen

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

Mills, Iain

Tracey, Richard

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Trend, Michael

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Trotter, Neville

Monro, Sir Hector

Turner, Dennis

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Twinn, Dr Ian

Morley, Elliot

Tyler, Paul

Mudie, George

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Needham, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

989

Walden, George

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Ward, John

Wise, Audrey

Waterson, Nigel

Wood, Timothy

Watts, John

Worthington, Tony

Wells, Bowen

Yeo, Tim

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Mr. Barry Field and Mr. Alan Duncan.

Willetts, David

Wilshire. David

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Faulds, Andrew

Ainger, Nick

Foulkes, George

Austin-Walker, John

Fraser, John

Barnes, Harry

George, Bruce

Battle, John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bayley, Hugh

Godsiff, Roger

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Gordon, Mildred

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Graham, Thomas

Benton, Joe

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Bermingham, Gerald

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Betts, Clive

Gunnell, John

Blair, Tony

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Boateng, Paul

Hood, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Bradley, Keith

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

Hutton, John

Burden, Richard

Illsley, Eric

Callaghan, Jim

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Janner, Greville

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Cann, Jamie

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Clapham, Michael

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Khabra, Piara S.

Coffey, Ann

Kilfoyle, Peter

Cohen, Harry

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Corbett, Robin

Litherland, Robert

Corbyn, Jeremy

Livingstone, Ken

Cousins, Jim

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cox, Tom

Macdonald, Calum

Cummings, John

McFall, John

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dafis, Cynog

McMaster, Gordon

Davidson, Ian

McWilliam, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dixon, Don

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Meacher, Michael

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Meale, Alan

Eastham, Ken

Michael, Alun

990

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Sedgemore, Brian

Milbum, Alan

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Miller, Andrew

Short, Clare

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Simpson, Alan

Mowlam, Marjorie

Skinner, Dennis

Mullin, Chris

Spellar, John

O'Hara, Edward

Tipping, Paddy

Parry, Robert

Watson, Mike

Patchett, Terry

Wigley, Dafydd

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wray, Jimmy

Redmond, Martin

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Tellers for the Noes:

Rooney, Terry

Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Terry Lewis.

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly:
The House divided: Ayes297,Noes 104.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.

Education
10.24 pm
Mr. Don Foster:I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Mandatory Awards) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2914), dated 26th November 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be annulled.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to consider the following motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Student Loans) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2915), dated 29th November 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be annulled.
Mr. Foster: I am sure that the House welcomes the hon. Member for Oldham Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on his first outing on Labour's Front Bench in an education debate. However, this debate was initiated by Liberal Democrats, demonstrating once again the high degree of importance that my party attaches to education. This debate concerns a broken Government promise. It will highlight the way—[Interruption.]
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am seated only a few feet from my hon. Friend, but because of the noise beyond the Bar of the House I cannot hear him. Will you have that noise stopped so that the House can hear my hon. Friend?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am also having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I hope that the House will settle down.
Mr. Foster: This debate will highlight Government attempts to transfer part of the debt created by their economic mismanagement to students in higher education.
To understand the impact of the regulations on students, it is important to consider a number of related higher education issues. This debate is taking place at a time of increasing uncertainty, created in part by the Government's stop-go policies on the expansion of student numbers and frequent changes to the relationship between tuition fees and funding council grant—described only today by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals as policy on the hoof. Universities do not know whether they are coming or going, and they find it almost impossible to make long-term funding planning decisions. The regulations will have the same effect on students.
Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is attacking Government policy on higher education support, but does he not agree that the United Kingdom's system of student support is the most generous anywhere in the free world?
Mr. Foster: On that matter, I will take the advice of the Secretary of State for Education, who told the House only a month ago that we should be wary of making international comparisons of that sort. My next point is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, so I hope that he will listen.
This debate is also taking place at a time when it is becoming apparent that the Government's much-vaunted expansion of higher education has been done on the cheap.
Mr. Marshall: That is not so.
Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to the examples I shall give of the way in which students suffer as a result.
Last month, the Secretary of State boasted to the House that the recent increase in student numbers was the equivalent of 12 new universities—
Mr. Marshall rose—
Mr. Foster: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State failed to tell the House that he had not made available the capital required for those new universities.
Mr. Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member who is laying a prayer to refuse to answer yes or no to a basic question?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman's speech is entirely in order so far.
Mr. Foster: Figures provided by the Library demonstrate that expenditure per higher education student has declined 22 per cent. over the last four years. An analysis of the November Budget by the CVCP shows that it will reduce a further 4.5 per cent. next year. It is no wonder that students are having to face worsening staff-student ratios, overcrowded lecture theatres, inadequate library and other facilities—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: No, I want to make some progress—then I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Students are having to cope with inadequately maintained buildings—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that we have time for only a short debate and many hon. Members wish to contribute.
I undertand that the current repair and maintenance backlog in higher education stands at £1 billion and stories of the problems are legion. For example—I hope that the Minister will respond to this—students at Mid-Kent college were told just before Christmas that some of the courses on which they had embarked could no longer be continued at their college.
Mr. Harry Greenway rose—
Mr. Foster: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members: Sexist.
Mr. Harry Greenway: In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), may I say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I visited the new Thames Valley university for half a day this week? It has problems, but buildings are on the way to accommodate all students properly. I met thousands of students, not one of whom said that he or she was not happy. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they all said that they were happy to be there, and thousands more would like to be there, despite what he says?
Mr. Foster: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had made that visit, but he may wish to know that I have visited a large number of higher education institutions in the past 18 months, and his experience has not been replicated by mine.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Foster: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but that must be the last time I do so.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It would have been easier and more courteous for the hon. Gentleman to do so in the first place.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the superb St. Martin's college and Lancaster university have both completed exceptionally good building programmes which I was happy to take the Minister round a couple of months ago? Those programmes are magnificent. The hon. Gentleman referred to capital spending; the total capital grant overall will be £322 million, £382 million and £424 million between 1994–96. That is a 20 per cent. increase, and I do not know how it can be said that those institutions are being starved of funds.
Mr. Foster: I apologise to the hon. Lady for not giving way earlier, as she has now enabled me to make a point that I might otherwise have been unable to make. The hon. Lady is right to say that there is to be an increase in capital expenditure in higher education—I acknowledge that. Next year there will be an increase of I per cent. in real terms. That increase and the increase over three years mentioned by the hon. Lady will go no way towards compensating for the increased dereliction in our university buildings. Will the Minister be good enough to respond to my claim that there is a backlog of repair and maintenance of £1 billion in higher education?
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: No, I cannot give way any more.
The regulations are part of a double whammy on students. First, they have to suffer the vandalism of the appalling attack on student unions; secondly, they have to suffer the Government's broken promise as contained in the regulations. I will explain how the Government have broken their promise.
When student loans were introduced, the 1988 White Paper said:
"The maximum grant and the average contribution will be maintained at the 1990–91 cash level."
That commitment was underscored by the Baroness Blatch in another place, when she said in 1990:
"The grant will be maintained in cash terms at its 1990–91 level."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 1990; Vol. 517, c. 57.]
At the same time, it was made clear that the value of grants and loans would broadly equalise in the year 2007–2008. But despite those undertakings, the regulations will bring forward the expected date of equalisation by 10 years and would cut the cash value of grants by 27 per cent. over the next three years. That will require an increase over the same period of more than 120 per cent. in the loans necessary to compensate.
What will be the effect on students of these broken promises? They will accelerate the growing problem of student debt and poverty. Students already face significant problems in that respect. Even with grants and loans,
994
almost all students would be better off if they registered as unemployed. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has estimated that this year the average shortfall in students' incomes will be £1,100.
Not surprisingly, students face ever-mounting debts. The Barclays bank survey published in August last year was based on a sample nearly twice the size of that used for the Department's recent survey of students' incomes and expenditure. The Barclays survey revealed that 81 per cent. of students ended the last academic year owing an average of £1,672.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Does the hon. Gentleman regard that survey as more authoritative and comprehensive than ours, one of a continuing series, which was supported by a committee including representatives of the National Union of Students?
Mr. Foster: I am happy to tell the Minister that I have seen that study; there have been a number of other studies, too. Credence must be given to the Barclays survey because its sample size was nearly twice that of the Department's survey.
The survey showed an increase in student debt of 22 per cent. in one year, and the figures ignored many other kinds of debt, such as debts owed to parents.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a widely based survey about which I learned today from a group of students at Sheffield university? Oddly enough, they were more interested in meeting Labour Members here than Liberal Democrats —I cannot think why. This intensive professional survey showed that Sheffield students, after paying housing costs, are left with £100 to live on for a month. That has to pay for heat, light, books, travel, food and everything else.
Mr. Foster: I am aware of that study. The hon. Lady will be interested to know that those same students faxed me some information yesterday.
These regulations, if agreed to, will make student debt worse—the more so in view of the additional pressures created by rising accommodation costs and VAT on fuel. The pressures will bear down heavily on the 5,400 full-time home students aged over 50 who cannot even obtain student loans. They will also affect the thousands of part-time students who—wrongly, in the view of my party —rarely obtain grants, let alone loans.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Foster: I will not give way.
The one thing that students in higher education are guaranteed from their courses nowadays is practical experience in the management of rising debt.
Mr. Keith Mans rose—
Mr. Foster: All this is particularly unfair to students already on courses, who find that they will have to borrow more money than they had planned to. The effects of the debt problem are well known to all hon. Members. An increasing number of students have to take jobs, not just during vacations, but during term time too. The effect on their studies is becoming increasingly apparent.

995
I remind Conservative Members who see no problems arising from term-time working of the view expressed less than four years ago by the noble Baroness Blatch:
"the Government provide an adequate level of support for a student to be maintained without work during the course of study."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June, 1990; Vol. 520, c. 1790.]
Those words will certainly bring hollow laughter from present-day students.
At least two other problems will be exacerbated by the regulations.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: No, I will not.
First, there is likely to be a further increase in drop-out rates. Already there is an alarming all-time high of 8 per cent. of higher education students failing to complete their courses. Secondly, it will inhibit the further widening of access to higher education. While numerically more students from social classes four and five have entered higher education, as a percentage of the student population the increase has been extremely modest. If the regulations are accepted, no increase in that percentage is likely to occur. University education will remain predominantly for the children of the better off.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: I will not give way.
I will conclude with some comments about the loans system. The Student Loans Company received more than £16 million from the Government last year to cover administrative costs, but that does not reflect the true cost of the scheme. The CVCP has estimated that the average cost to universities per application is £7, but the company provides institutions with £4 per loan application. That leaves the university to pick up the tab of £3 per application.
There is little evidence that higher education will benefit financially from the shift to loans. Original Government figures allow 25 years to break even. However, bearing in mind the Minister's written answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 4 November and his correspondence with me prior to the debate, the House will be interested to know when the Minister thinks the student loan scheme will break even and when it will have a negative effect on the PSBR.
There are certainly some worrying trends. According to the Public Accounts Committee last month, the number of students now deferring repayments has reached 40 per cent. That 40 per cent. provide ample evidence, if such was needed, of the difficulty encountered by graduates in finding jobs and of the waste of talent caused by the Government's economic policies.
The CVCP has revealed some other startling figures. It claims that of borrowers in repayment status, 8.8 per cent. —that is, 12,786 students—were in arrears on 31 July 1993, and that 6.6 per cent. were in default, more than two months late in repaying. We may have to wait until the middle of the next century before the scheme breaks even. I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to my next comment, which is that that forecast is based on what we presently know.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: No, I will not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) to recognise that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way to her.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am distressed that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is misleading students who are over the age of 50. Some 5,500 are being misled.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Lady wishes to catch my eye later in the debate, I shall do my best to call her.
Mr. Foster: I am sure that the House will be interested to note that the figure to which the hon. Lady refers in her point of order was provided to me by the Minister.
I hope that the Minister will comment on the following important point, if he has a chance to speak. We are all concerned about when the Student Loans Company will break even and when it will have a negative effect on the public sector borrowing requirement. Even the information that we have been given so far, which may lead us to the middle of next century, is based on what we know to be the Government's intention.
There is a possibility that the Government intend to phase out maintenance grants altogether. Some Conservative Members have referred to the possibility of introducing a top-up fee system. It is important that we have assurances this evening on both those matters, not least because of the anxiety caused by yesterday's announcement that the student awards branch in Scotland is to transfer from direct Scottish Office control, paving the way for the amalgamation of the Student Loans Company and the ultimate abolition of grants. The House deserves a response from the Minister.
The House will be pleased to know that I am about to conclude by referring to a Department of Education press release dated 16 December 1993 which shows the lengths to which the Government are willing to go to put a gloss on their appalling policies towards students. In describing what the broken promise that the accelerated switch from grants to loans will mean, the press release claimed that it would
"enhance still further the flexibility of our system of student support".
Most hon. Members know that for the words "flexibility of" we should substitute "cuts to". In view of what is contained in the regulations, students may well wish to reflect on the flexibility of Government promises.
10.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Those of us who are familiar with the speeches of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and who retain some sympathy and affection for him cannot help feeling that he is a latter-day Malvolio, not so much intellectually challenged as merely intellectually cross-gartered. He produced a typical modern speech from a Liberal Democrat, a speech of virtual reality whereby the performer or propeller flails around in all directions but somehow the aeroplane never manages to get off the ground. It is entirely unsafe and unchallenging.
Mr. Derek Enright: That is a mixed metaphor.
Mr. Boswell: I am delighted to mix metaphors in support of the official Opposition, who will no doubt have an opportunity to clarify their policies.
Among all the stuff was a heavily disguised plea for more resources. There was no mention of where they were to come from or how they were to be applied. There was a grudging concession that, because we were prepared to face the issues, we were prepared to provide an extra 20 per cent. on the capital budget for higher education.
I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman on one specific point. I was surprised that he was not familiar with the authoritative international study of comparative student support carried out by the Australian Government economist Bruce Chapman called "Austudy: Towards a more flexible approach". It concluded by stating that the average United Kingdom student is the most grant-subsidised of all.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Just before we leave my hon. Friend's point about the amount of money spent per student, I hope that the Minister does not deny that, given that there has been a significant expansion in numbers—nobody denies that—capital expenditure on buildings, plant and equipment has not kept pace with the expansion in numbers. That is why vice-chancellors and principals are arguing that expenditure per student is falling.
Mr. Boswell: That is because the university sector has an enviable record of achieving greater efficiency and greater productivity. I am surprised to hear the Liberal Democrats denying that.
These are the latest in a series of annual regulations. I remind the House that their approval is essential to ensure that students receive from next autumn the significant increases in maintenance support that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement on 30 November. Their timing is influenced by the new arrangements for the financial year.
Aside from including the new grant and loan and fee rates for 1994–95, the regulations are largely unchanged from previous years. We have made a few purely technical changes, and we have made two specific changes to the regulations on loans to make the scheme more student friendly. The first change provides for a simpler application process for students who have already taken out a loan. If they want to apply for a second loan—
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Did the Minister hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's recent statement that students should perhaps pay course and examination fees? That would obviously limit access to higher education. On behalf of his Department, will the Minister specifically rule out the possibility that students might be made personally liable to pay course fees?
Mr. Boswell: I will not be tempted, by York or Durham, to speculate on matters that go beyond our very clear proposals that are set out in the regulations. That also applies to the questions of the hon. Member for Bath. We have set out plans and I am doing my best to explain them to the House.
998
The second technical change is that borrowers are to be notified promptly of their entitlement to defer repayments. I am sure that all reasonable Members would want to welcome those important changes.
Quite understandably, the hon. Member for Bath focused on wider issues of student support. I am perfectly happy to stand by the Government's record and to explain it to the House.
"The loans scheme is a success"
are not my words; they are the words of a national newspaper, normally thought to be on the left, when introducing its student finance supplement some months ago.
The loans scheme is an accepted part of the higher education landscape. More than 1 million loans have now been taken out—
Mr. Enright: The words came from The Guardian.
Mr. Boswell: Indeed.
We are already receiving a significant volume of repayment, amounting to £18 million to date. That money is coming in and it is available to the Exchequer for the support of students and the university sector.
Despite attempts to rubbish it, the Student Loans Company is also a success. Its performance matches the best of private sector standards. Its unit cost per account managed was less than £21 last year and is continuing to fall. We have made it clear that any justifiable, reasonable administrative costs of the universities can be underwritten. The figure that is charged is essentially a matter for negotiation between the universities and the Student Loans Company. However, I am willing to receive a case if it was felt that the figure was inappropriate—for example, in relation to volume which continues to expand.
The loans company's collection performance is impressive by any standards. Only 4.1 per cent. of borrowers are currently in default. That is a good record when compared to many commercial companies. It gives the lie to those terrible warnings we heard when the scheme was introduced. The regulations build on the success of that scheme.
We have always intended to replace grants progressively with loans until the two elements were broadly equal in value. As the hon. Member for Bath knows, if any progress were to be made beyond that—and we have no plans for that—it would require an affirmative resolution of the House.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, so far we have moved towards that goal by freezing the level of the maintenance grant and uprating the loan facility each year. But he will have noticed our success in bringing inflation under control. The very fact that we have been so successful in doing that means that that progressive shift would be extremely slow, so we have decided to accelerate the process by reducing the level of main rates of grant for the next three years and making corresponding increases in the loan rates. By 1996–97, the values of the two elements will be equal.
Mr. Enright: What estimates have been made of the number of students who have been put off by the fact that they would have to take out loans?
Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman will hear in just a moment what has happened to student numbers since the introduction of the loan scheme.

999
We hear much propaganda from the Opposition parties about allegations that we are cutting the total level of support available to students. Next year, through the main rates of grant and loan, the total amount available to students will not be lower but 4 per cent. higher than it is this year. That is a good and fair increase in a difficult economic climate. Supplementary allowances payable to older students, disabled students and those with dependants will also be increased by 4 per cent. while the average value of the loan facility itself will be increased by 44 per cent.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boswell: No. I should like to make progress, in fairness to hon. Members who wish to speak.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) would not let me speak.
Mr. Boswell: If I may ask for a little patience, I want to press on with explaining the matter.
It is wrong to suggest that the shift from grant to loan will cause financial hardship or will force students to drop out of their courses. Students do not need to repay anything while studying. The money that they actually receive, as long as they choose to take out the loan available, will be the same in real terms next year as this year. It is scaremongering to suggest that graduates will be weighed down with enormous debts. Borrowers pay nothing back until their income reaches a reasonable level. This year, that is about £14,000. There are very few starting salaries, even in London, at that level. We keep repayment terms under review to ensure that repayments for those earning more than that amount are manageable. The average is currently a modest £11 a month.
Mrs. Campbell: Is not the Minister being a little disingenuous in supposing that all students take out loans? What percentage of students are presently taking out a loan, and what percentage are existing entirely on the grant?
Mr. Boswell: I do not know what goes on in the Labour party, but we believe in freedom of choice. It is open to students to take out a loan or not. The figure has been rising towards approximately 50 per cent. I did not say, nor did I imply, that all students avail themselves. If they do not, one wonders whether their situation is as bad as all that, just as one wonders, bearing in mind the disgraceful attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the London School of Economics, whether some students are so ill financed that, instead of spending their money on eggs for personal consumption, they decide to sling them at the Secretary of State. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) will repudiate that disgraceful action.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) correctly alluded to the fact that students over 50 might not obtain a loan. He omitted to say that a student over 50 who starts a course is, in common with other mature students, entitled to a basic means-tested
1000
maintenance grant of up to £1,045 for which he can apply to his local authority. That fact should be on the record. The hon. Member for Bath might have put off people of that age.
Mr. Boswell: As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right. It is clear that the hon. Member for Bath would benefit from further study.
Of course there will always be a small number of students who find themselves in financial difficulty. For those, and for the small minority who are not eligible for loans, institutions can and do use the access funds to help. For the coming year, we have increased those funds by 10 per cent. Nor should we forget the impact on parents. In the coming year, the contribution from parents whose earnings rise in line with the national average will continue to fall in real terms; for parents whose incomes rises more slowly, even the cash contribution will fall.
The most absurd claim made by many about the loans scheme is that it would have a disastrous effect on access to higher education. In October 1993, for the first time ever, more than 30 per cent. of young people entered higher education. We have reached our target for the year 2000 in 1994–95: that is a triumph. It is more than double the participation rate of five years ago, and 60 per cent. higher than the rate when the loans scheme was introduced in 1990. Is it not interesting that student numbers really began to take off at precisely the time when the scheme was introduced?
There is no evidence to support claims that students from lower-income backgrounds are disadvantaged. Our recently published survey—which, unlike the Barclays bank survey mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath, was not self-referred; it was a representative survey—found that students entering higher education from less well-off backgrounds had shifted from being the minority in 1988 to being the majority now. The loans scheme reduces students' dependence on their parents, and in so doing it widens access.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I believe that my constituency contains the highest proportion of students in the country. Does it not concern the Minister and the Government that the expansion of student numbers has taken place largely in such subjects as humanities, rather than in science and technology? The country desperately needs more people qualified in those subjects.
Is that not partly because it is far more expensive to educate people in science and technology? The Government claim that there has been a reduction in costs for students. That is partly because we are educating those who are cheaper to educate, rather than those who are more expensive to educate but whom the country badly needs.
Mr. Boswell: I am astonished: the paranoia is the paranoia of the Labour party, but the attack on sociology from that quarter is entirely new. Moreover, is it not remarkable that the hon. Gentleman did not give us credit for our new engineering bursary scheme, which deals with our joint concerns?
The Government want a high-quality higher education system that is not confined to an elite. We are not closet elitists.
Mr. Greg Pope: The Minister has talked about the expansion of student numbers since the introduction of loans. Will he explain why the

1001
overwhelming majority of those extra students come from social classes 1 and 2? In 1992, only 7 per cent. of university admissions came from social classes 4 and 5. What increased access is there for the poorest members of society?
Mr. Boswell: I have already given the overall figures from our study of participation. I am very glad to note the increase in participation. I am also surprised that the hon. Gentleman gave us no credit for the huge increase in the number of part-time and mature students. That, too, will deal with our joint concerns.
Dr. Keith Hampson: I remember taking part in a similar debate nearly 20 years ago. Did not the massive expansion in the humanities and social sciences take place in the 1960s, under a Labour Government?
Despite the view expressed in the Robbins report, and echoed consistently by Opposition Members, that a grant scheme would bring in far more from the so-called working class—or blue-collar workers—it never did. Throughout the years of the grants-only system, the increase was marginal and statistically unimportant.
Mr. Boswell: I agree with my hon. Friend. We now have the practical means of access, and the national curriculum, which has been led so well by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends, will deliver high-class education even in the deprived urban areas from which we want people to go to university.
Let us not forget that we do not want to put insupportable burdens on the taxpayer. We cannot will the expansion without providing the resources. Undoubtedly, higher education provides a benefit to the economy and to society, but the main beneficiaries—let us not mince words —are the graduates themselves. Is it not right that they should be expected to contribute? The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals thinks so, the Royal Society thinks so and even some of the more enlightened Opposition Members think so. The Government agree with them, and that is why we made the proposals.
I suppose we shall hear the truth about Labour party policies—"now you see them, now you don't." It is
time to come clean about the Labour policies, as has been
suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I wrote to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 17 November, and I have not yet had a reply. It is four months since the Labour party's so-called "Green Paper" on higher education was prepared and printed. However, it was withdrawn at the eleventh hour on the explicit instructions of the Leader of the Opposition. No wonder, as he was obviously embarrassed to associate himself with it. The document floated such crazy ideas as the introduction of a corporate levy on business to help to pay for higher education. The Labour party's priorities, shall we say, were not quite in that direction.
We need to hear from the Labour party tonight, and I will give it time to tell us what it proposes. There would be no clearer contrast than with the Government's clear policy on higher education. The regulations which we are debating are central and fundamental to that policy. Taken as a whole, the arrangements for student support are fair and generous, and many students in other European countries such as Germany—which I know well—would give their eye teeth for such generous support as we give.
1002
The regulations allow a fair level of financial support for students while they are studying. They provide equal support for all regardless of background, and they share the cost of a student's attendance in higher education more fairly between graduates, parents and taxpayers. The regulations are good for parents, good for taxpayers, good for students and good for higher education, and I commend them to the House.
11.7 pm
Mr. Bryan Davies: I remind the Minister that the debate is about regulations which will become the law of the land once the Government's supporters are driven through the Division Lobby this evening. We are not engaged in a general debate about higher education; we are dealing principally with the Government's appalling legislative proposals which will make life more difficult for students in higher education. In my view, they will reduce the opportunities for students to enter higher education.
In passing, I will mention that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) commented on the fact that tonight's debate has been made possible because of a Liberal party prayer, which of course it has. Prayers are debated on the Floor of the House when they have the agreement of the Government of the day, and some collusion is therefore necessary. The last period in which we were accustomed to having Liberal prayers debated on the Floor of the House was when the Conservative Government thought that the rise of the Social Democratic party might do damage to the Labour party, as indeed it did. I must give a warning to the Liberal party: "Timeo danaos et dona ferentes"—it should watch that lot once they start handing out a few free gifts.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I have only just begun my speech, and I will give way in a moment.
The Government's measures are born of panic. They are not about enhancing opportunities in higher education. They are a response to a £50 billion public expenditure deficit and an attempt to restrict expansion, which the Government regard as out of control. The demand of students for opportunities in higher education—a demand to which we would have thought that the Conservative party, with its free market principles, would seek to respond—has to be choked off by deliberate Government attempts to restrict opportunities next year.
For example, it is clear that there will be 10,000 fewer places in higher education next. year than would have existed, because of the 3.5 per cent. cut in the Government's—
Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: Indeed I will.
Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. First, I apologise. It was remiss of me not to welcome him formally to the Dispatch Box for his first Front-Bench speech.
Would he care to tell the House how many students there were in higher education when the Labour Government of which he was a member left office, and how great the proportion is today if, for the purposes of hypothesis, I accept the likely student numbers next year that he suggested?
Mr. Davies: There is growing awareness, even in the dimmer ranks of the Conservative party, that we need to enhance our skills in this country. We can do so only by increasing the education budget. It is palpably clear from the public expenditure White Papers that the Government are not prepared to fund the continued rate of expansion in higher education numbers that we have had in recent years. The chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, reacting immediately to the Government's proposals of public expenditure in November, said:
"Having stoked up the aspirations of young people and encouraged them into further education, the Government are now attempting to deny them the opportunity for which so many are now clamouring."
I fail to see how the Government can deny that fact.
Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman was asked a question a moment ago. Will he confirm that, in 1979, one in eight were in higher education and today it is one in three? Is that not progress that he should welcome?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that we still have a considerable way to go. The number of people that we are educating in higher education is below the average for advanced countries. It will remain below the average under the Government's present proposals.
The Government are involved in cutting the maintenance grant. That is what the regulations do. Originally, the plan was to create rough equality between the maintenance grant and student loans in the year 2007. That was the proposal in the 1988 White Paper. Why the sudden dramatic acceleration? Is it because the Government have rethought their higher education policy on the basis of fresh principles, or is it a panic reaction to the costs of higher education and a determination that they should be borne out of the private resources of the students, many of whom are those who are least well placed to meet such costs?
Mr. Nigel Forman: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I, too, welcome him to his new responsibilities. Is he aware that, in a society such as ours, it was possible under the earlier arrangements for people from much poorer backgrounds and families to have to contribute through their taxes to the cost of student support? Does he accept that this rebalancing, putting a greater emphasis on loans, is a fair policy?
Mr. Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise that there is inequity in higher education, in that students from relatively prosperous backgrounds are subsidised by the taxes paid by the less well-off. We have not argued that higher education is part of a redistributive welfare state. I believe, however, that there are important gains to the community from the development of higher education. Those gains should be recognised in the way in which we finance higher education, but thrusting the loan system on to the individual student will lead to inequity.
Under the Government's solution, students will be expected to incur substantial debts. The Minister says that such debts are of no concern to students, because the loan element has not deterred them. As the Minister recognised, however, loans have been only a small part of the total resources available to students. Moreover, in a slightly more relaxed vein, the Government's intention was that the period over which the loan would increase as a percentage of the resources available to students would be almost two
1004
decades. Now, with brutal suddenness—within the next three years—students will find that half the resources on which they are individually dependent will have to come from their own pockets or take the form of a loan.
Dr. Hampson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if a student takes the full loan and also receives a maintenance grant, he is well over 20 per cent. and even 30 per cent.—it depends on the balance—better off than he was before the loan was introduced? Was not that one of the main arguments of the first proponent of the loan system in the then Department of Education? Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do—because we attended a conference together many years ago—that the first proponent was Lord Peston when he was the special adviser to a Labour Secretary of State.
Mr. Davies: I am being asked to commend the idea that a student with a loan facility has slightly more resources than under the Conservative Government's grant arrangements in the mid-1980s. Well, I accept that fact. In the mid-1980s, British students' maintenance awards were below the level that obtained throughout the 1970s when my party was last in government.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received figures from Durham students' union? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading; I am merely giving some figures. A Durham student's maintenance bill this year is £1,900. In 1995–96, the student grant will be £1,834, so by 1995–96 a Durham student's college bill will be higher than his grant and he will have to take out a student loan simply to exist, after having paid all his bills. A student arriving in Durham in 1996 will have to borrow £4,156 just to survive.
Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that graphic illustration of my case. To his illustration I would add the obvious statement that, although the loan scheme may not have been a deterrent to entry into higher education when it formed a small part of student entitlement, it will become a great deterrent in future.
The loan scheme is fatally flawed. Private enterprise would not touch the loans for students scheme. We all remember the noble Lady Thatcher, the previous Prime Minister, touting the scheme around the banks with all her authority and their reluctance to have anything to do with it. We all recognise that higher education institutions subsidise the loan companies because the loan companies receive less in resources than it costs them to process the loans for each student. The scheme costs £11 million to administer, and it has been condemned as inefficient by no less a body than the Public Accounts Select Committee.
The system, which the Conservative party suggests is the basis for expansion of higher education and for raising our skills level, offers nothing to part-time students, who account for 35 per cent. of students in higher education. The Government have no proposals to offer support or encouragement to such students.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman was having a short sabbatical when we passed the loan scheme legislation. However, he will see, if he looks back at the debate, that it was difficult to get anybody on the Labour Front Bench to commit himself to the pledge to which he now wishes to commit it—that the Labour party will do away with the loan scheme when it returns to office,

1005
and put grants in its place. May we have that commitment from the hon. Gentleman this evening, or is he talking humbug?
Mr. Bryan Davies: Let me remind, or perhaps inform, the hon. Gentleman that I may have been taking a sabbatical but I was keeping a fairly beady eye on the proceedings of the House from a vantage point that gave me a clear analysis of the horrors which the Government have been visiting on the British people in recent years. The loan system does nothing for part-time students. It does nothing to help the growing crisis in post-graduate education. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Of course, it does nothing to deal with the problems in further education, which also need our attention to develop the skills of our people.
Even the Minister suggested that he could not explain why 57 per cent.—[Interruption.] I repeat the figure, if I may, over the hubbub.
Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make what will probably be my last intervention. May we have a statement clearly on the record: would a future Labour Government abolish the loans and return the value to a full level of grant—yes or no?
Mr. Davies: I sought to point out to the Minister earlier that we are addressing the debate to the proposals of the Government.[Interruption.] We are in the process of developing clearly—[Interruption.] Let me commend to Conservative Members for bed-time reading the extremely well thought through, well written paper by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
Mr. Bruce Grocott: From his vantage point of the past few years, I wonder if my hon. Friend has been able to make any assessment, as I have, of just how long it would take to repair the damage to education and to other areas that the Government have inflicted on the country in the past 15 long years? My estimate is that, even with an incoming Labour Government, it would take a little bit of time. Does he share my mathematics?
Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you noticed that we have not been able to obtain an answer from the Labour Front Bench on the question whether a Labour Government would do away with loans?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
The House must quieten down a little this evening.
Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the Minister's astonishing statement that he though there was little wrong with circumstances in which only 43 per cent. of students entitled to take out the loan facility do so. I will tell him why such a small proportion take out a loan. It is not because they are awash with personal resources. If the Minister thinks that, it is about time that he met a few students and talked to their teachers; then he would recognise the fallacy of that position.
The reason why such a large percentage of students are not prepared to take out even the small amount of loan at present available to them is that they are, rightly, properly, judiciously and intelligently, scared of debt. They share that fear with the vast majority of our people who, once burnt, are twice shy. The Tory party must recognise that the Lawson boom of 1988, the subsequent collapse and the
1006
development of negative equity in the housing of many of our countryment have produced in our nation a desperate concern about debt. Students come from families who are anxious about that.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Gentleman is too craven to say what Labour party policy might be on future loans. He was about to commend the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who, in a paper last October, which was suppressed by the Labour party, argued that people who benefit from higher education should make some contribution towards it.
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree with his hon. Friend? On 8 November 1993, he wrote in The Times that Labour is in danger
"of becoming a professional Opposition"
in that it
"never risks upsetting the vested interests",
and that the world of education has a right to expect politicians, particularly in the Labour party,
"to show some awareness of changing realities. A responsible political party"—
which obviously the Labour party is not—
"cannot hide its head in the sand."
Mr. Davies: It is a forlorn proposition for the hon. Gentleman to try to drive a wedge between my hon. Friend and me. As my hon. Friend will show in the Division Lobby tonight, he utterly detests the Government's policy and this loan system. If Tory Members will be satisfied this evening and otherwise will rest uncomfortably in their beds only by listening to a little bit of Labour party policy, let me give them some.
The Labour party—I quote no less an authority than the leader of the party—is opposed to student loans because we believe
"Students should not be forced to live in poverty whilst they are studying and then carry a heavy burden of debt with them for years afterwards.
The student loans policy is clearly failing and damaging students' ability to study in the process."
Every member of the Labour party shares that belief. None of tonight's interventions and the gloss that the Minister put on student loans will convince us otherwise.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Labour party would do away with student loans but not give any additional grant?
Mr. Davies: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but unless I am greatly mistaken, I gave way to him earlier in my all too short speech. I therefore did not consider that I would be regarded as behaving excessively discourteous if, on this occasion, I did not give way to him again.Tonight, the House has had the opportunity—
It being half-past Eleven o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure))—
The House divided: Ayes 276, Notes 305

Division No. 84]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Alton, David

Adams, Mrs Irene

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Ainger, Nick

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Armstrong, Hilary

Allen, Graham

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

1007

Austin-Walker, John

Fraser, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Fyfe, Maria

Barnes, Harry

Gapes, Mike

Barron, Kevin

Garrett, John

Battle, John

George, Bruce

Bayley, Hugh

Gerrard, Neil

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Beggs, Roy

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Godsiff, Roger

Bell, Stuart

Golding, Mrs Llin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Gordon, Mildred

Bennett, Andrew F.

Gould, Bryan

Benton, Joe

Graham, Thomas

Bermingham, Gerald

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Betts, Clive

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Blair, Tony

Grocott, Bruce

Blunkett, David

Gunnell, John

Boyes, Roland

Hain, Peter

Bradley, Keith

Hall, Mike

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hanson, David

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Hardy, Peter

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

Harman, Ms Harriet

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Harvey, Nick

Burden, Richard

Henderson, Doug

Byers, Stephen

Heppell, John

Caborn, Richard

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Callaghan, Jim

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hoey, Kate

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Home Robertson, John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hood, Jimmy

Canavan, Dennis

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cann, Jamie

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Hoyle, Doug

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hutton, John

Clelland, David

Illsley, Eric

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ingram, Adam

Coffey, Ann

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cohen, Harry

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Connarty, Michael

Jamieson, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Corbett, Robin

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cox, Tom

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cummings, John

Jowell, Tessa

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

Dafis, Cynog

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Darling, Alistair

Khabra, Piara S.

Davidson, Ian

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Leighton, Ron

Denham, John

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Dewar, Donald

Lewis, Terry

Dixon, Don

Litherland, Robert

Dobson, Frank

Livingstone, Ken

Donohoe, Brian H.

Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

Dowd, Jim

Llwyd, Elfyn

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McAllion, John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McAvoy, Thomas

Eagle, Ms Angela

McCartney, Ian

Eastham, Ken

McCrea, Rev William

Enright, Derek

Macdonald, Calum

Etherington, Bill

McFall, John

Fatchett, Derek

McGrady, Eddie

Faulds, Andrew

McKelvey, William

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Fisher, Mark

McLeish, Henry

Flynn, Paul

Maclennan, Robert

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McMaster, Gordon

Foster, Don (Bath)

McNamara, Kevin

Foulkes, George

McWilliam, John

1008

Madden, Max

Rooker, Jeff

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Rooney, Terry

Mahon, Alice

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mallon, Seamus

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Mandelson, Peter

Rowlands, Ted

Marek, Dr John

Ruddock, Joan

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Salmond, Alex

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Sedgemore, Brian

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Martlew, Eric

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Maxton, John

Short, Clare

Meacher, Michael

Simpson, Alan

Meale, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Michael, Alun

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

Milburn, Alan

Snape, Peter

Miller, Andrew

Soley, Clive

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Spearing, Nigel

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Spellar, John

Morgan, Rhodri

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Morley, Elliot

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Steinberg, Gerry

Mowlam, Marjorie

Stevenson, George

Mudie, George

Stott, Roger

Mullin, Chris

Straw, Jack

Murphy, Paul

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

O'Hara, Edward

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Olner, William

Tipping, Paddy

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Dennis

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Tyler, Paul

Parry, Robert

Vaz, Keith

Patchett, Terry

Viggers, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Pickthall, Colin

Wallace, James

Pike, Peter L.

Walley, Joan

Pope, Greg

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wareing, Robert N

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Watson, Mike

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Welsh, Andrew

Prescott, John

Wicks, Malcolm

Purchase, Ken

Wigley, Dafydd

Quin, Ms Joyce

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Radice, Giles

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Randall, Stuart

Wilson, Brian

Raynsford, Nick

Winnick, David

Redmond, Martin

Wise, Audrey

Reid, Dr John

Worthington, Tony

Rendel, David

Wray, Jimmy

Richardson, Jo

Wright, Dr Tony

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Mr. Matthew Taylor and Ms Liz Lynne.

Rogers, Allan

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Aitken, Jonathan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Alexander, Richard

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Booth, Hartley

Amess, David

Boswell, Tim

Ancram, Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Arbuthnot, James

Bowden, Andrew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bowis, John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Ashby, David

Brandreth, Gyles

Aspinwall, Jack

Brazier, Julian

Atkins, Robert

Bright, Graham

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Baldry, Tony

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Burns, Simon

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Butcher, John

Bates, Michael

Butler, Peter

Batiste, Spencer

Butterfill, John

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bendall, Vivian

Carrington, Matthew

1009

Carttiss, Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Cash, William

Gorst, John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Churchill, Mr

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Clappison, James

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Coe, Sebastian

Hague, William

Colvin, Michael

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Congdon, David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Conway, Derek

Hampson, Dr Keith

Coombs, Anthony (Wyrg For'st)

Hannam, Sir John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Harris, David

Cormack, Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Couchman, James

Hawkins, Nick

Cran, James

Hawksley, Warren

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

Hayes, Jerry

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Heald, Oliver

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hendry, Charles

Day, Stephen

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Devlin, Tim

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Horam, John

Dicks, Terry

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Dorrell, Stephen

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

Dover, Den

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Duncan, Alan

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Dunn, Bob

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Dykes, Hugh

Hunter, Andrew

Eggar, Tim

Jack, Michael

Elletson, Harold

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Jenkin, Bernard

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Jessel, Toby

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Evennett, David

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Faber, David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Key, Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

King, Rt Hon Tom

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Fishburn, Dudley

Knapman, Roger

Forman, Nigel

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Forth, Eric

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

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Knox, Sir David

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

French, Douglas

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fry, Sir Peter

Legg, Barry

Gale, Roger

Leigh, Edward

Gallie, Phil

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Gardiner, Sir George

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Lidington, David

Garnier, Edward

Lightbown, David

Gill, Christopher

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Gillan, Cheryl

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Luff, Peter

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

1010

Maclean, David

Shersby, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Sims, Roger

Madel, Sir David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Maitland, Lady Olga

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Malone, Gerald

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mans, Keith

Soames, Nicholas

Marland, Paul

Speed, Sir Keith

Mariow, Tony

Spencer, Sir Derek

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Spink, Dr Robert

Mates, Michael

Spring, Richard

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Sproat, Iain

Merchant, Piers

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Milligan, Stephen

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mills, Iain

Steen, Anthony

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stephen, Michael

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Stem, Michael

Moate, Sir Roger

Stewart, Allan

Monro, Sir Hector

Streeter, Gary

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Sweeney, Walter

Moss, Malcolm

Sykes, John

Needham, Richard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Nicholls, Patrick

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thomason, Roy

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Norris, Steve

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Thumham, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Ottaway, Richard

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

Page, Richard

Tracey, Richard

Paice, James

Tredinnick, David

Patnick, Irvine

Trend, Michael

Patten, Rt Hon John

Trotter, Neville

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pawsey, James

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Pickles, Eric

Walden, George

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Waller, Gary

Porter, David (Waveney)

Ward, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Powell, William (Corby)

Waterson, Nigel

Rathbone, Tim

Watts, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wells, Bowen

Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Richards, Rod

Whitney, Ray

Riddick, Graham

Whittingdale, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Widdecombe, Ann

Robathan, Andrew

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wilkinson, John

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Willetts, David

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wilshire, David

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Wolfson, Mark

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wood, Timothy

Sackville, Tom

Yeo, Tim

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Tellers for the Noes:

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew Mackay.

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Question accordingly negatived.

PETITION

  Commercial Products (Animal Testing)
  11.45 pm
  Mrs. Angela Knight: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of many of my constituents who consider that certain goods sold in shops should be labelled in such a way that those who purchase them know whether they have been tested on animals. The petition contains 3,333 signatures, and declares
  that there should be mandatory labelling of all cosmetic, household and garden products with the letters TA or NTA, to show to the consumer whether a product has been tested on animals, or not tested on animals. (Ingredients or finished products since 1987).
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons allows debate and free vote in Parliament on this matter.
  They trust that their petition will be given careful and
  sympathetic consideration.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Bank of England (Supervision)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  11.46 pm
  Mr. William Powell: The House will recall that, on 6 May 1992, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who I am delighted to see in the House tonight and who will endeavour, with my encouragement, to catch the Chair's eye before the Minister replies, in Hansard at columns 113–16, raised the disturbing case of Mr. Joseph. At the time, I knew nothing about the matter, but was naturally interested in what the hon. Gentleman had to say. I was lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and followed the hon. Gentleman in that debate, which was on the Loyal Address. I started my remarks by expressing the hope that matters raised by the hon. Gentleman would be thoroughly investigated.
  In the circumstances, I had expected that Barclays bank, conscious of my remarks and those of the hon. Gentleman, would have sought to reassure me almost at once. In fact, no notice whatsoever was taken of what the hon. Gentleman had to say. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that what is said in this House should be taken very seriously—not only by Ministers of the Crown, but by other relevant bodies affected or involved in parliamentary observations.
  Accordingly, with no sign at all that Barclays was intending to take the hon. Gentleman's remarks seriously —save that it took the ruthless action of seeking summary judgment against Mr. Joseph on the very next day—I wrote to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the then Governor of the Bank of England, and others implicated in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, seeking assurances that appropriate action was in fact being taken.
  The Governor replied on 25 June 1992. The banking ombudsman sent me a typically unhelpful reply on 11 June 1992. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to me personally on 28 July 1992, and the noble Baroness, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on 27 June 1992. I understand that Mr. Joseph, concerned at the cavalier way in which the serious—and as we now know, restrained and understated—remarks by the hon. Member for Stockton, North, had been ignored, also wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  I am quite satisfied that all the replies received were drafted and signed in good faith. Information had been sought—ultimately from Barclays bank—and I was to be reassured by the fact that judgment had been obtained against Mr. Joseph. Unofficial word was also passed to me that nobody was to take seriously what the hon. Member for Stockton, North had said, because he was a person of no importance. I could be satisfied, therefore, that matters were properly under control.
  In the light of subsequent developments, those replies to which I have referred are completely ludicrous. The observations about the hon. Gentleman could have been flippant, or arrogant, but they were certainly inappropriate. What is said in this House by any Member deserves far greater responsible consideration than that given to the speech of the hon. Gentleman on 6 May 1992. Indeed, he had been brushed aside in a wholly insulting way—a matter which I regard as disgraceful.

  1013
  I say "ludicrous", because subsequent court decisions have all, including in the Court of Appeal, been in favour of Mr. Joseph, and judicial observations about the conduct of Barclays bank have been most unflattering. Nevertheless, no effort has been made by any of those to whom I wrote to correct the situation or to look at it again. In particular, the Bank of England, with its statutory responsibility for the supervision of this country's banking system, could and should have re-approached me to assure me that, in the changed situation that was unfolding, neither it nor I could rely on the then Governor's letter of 25 June 1992; that it was now reviewing the situation and would be in touch again when appropriate.
  The Bank was first made aware of what I can only describe as a very considerable scandal in September 1991. The speech of the hon. Member for Stockton North, plus my letter, together with many articles in the financial and other press, should have made it alert to allegations of serious wrongdoing, including breach of trust, deception, blackmail, and the theft of intellectual property.
  During my years in the House, I have devoted considerable time and energy to fighting the pirates and thieves of intellectual property, most particularly in computer software. I declare an interest as a determined opponent of all who steal the intellectual property of others. Not the least of the reasons why I have followed up the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, North is that I am confident that Barclays bank appropriated the property of Mr. Joseph—the rabbit logo—and that that constitutes as serious a breach of copyright law, so extensive has it been, as has occurred in this country during the 20th century.
  I am conscious of the seriousness of what I have just asserted, but I have considerable experience in the field, and it is for that reason that I am so disturbed—as should be the Bank of England, together with the shareholders and depositors of Barclays bank. Subsequently, Barclays tried to cover up the serious illegality and applied grossly improper pressure to hide the truth. In short, the bank tried to crush Mr. Joseph to ensure that he could not recover his position.
  In this unworthy campaign, leading officials of Barclays bank and of its solicitors, Slaughter and May, have played their role to the hilt by preventing any investigation of the substantial claims made in the hon. Gentleman's speech of 6 May 1992, and by trying to strangle Mr. Joseph in a series of tangles of preliminary matters. A combination of futile legal actions—all doomed to failure—together with messages to me that Mr. Joseph was a vexatious litigant, that he is a maverick, that he is not to be trusted and, indeed, not quite straight, have all the hallmarks of a most discreditable campaign.
  For completeness, may I say that the hon. Member for Stockton, North also raised the matter in the House during the debate on the Loyal Address in November 1993. As a result, the Bank of England was sufficiently interested to convene a meeting with Mr. Joseph on 11 November 1993. The meeting was attended by Carol Sergeant, deputy head of supervision of the high street banks; Kevin Ryan, deputy head of the supervision department in charge of Barclays bank; an analyst, two lawyers and Mr. Ian Watt, the head of the serious investigation unit of the Bank of England. I have no information about the investigations of Mr. Joseph's complaints, but Mr. Ryan asked at the meeting for extra evidence so that he could add it, as he put it, to the "mounting pile" on his desk.
  1014
  In the circumstances, I had expected the Bank of England to be more concerned. The allegations, clear enough, related to one of the major British banks, the reputation of which is of the greatest importance to this country. It could not be in the nation's interests, or that of Barclays—both shareholders and depositors—that the claims remain unresolved for any period, yet a smoking gun has now been active for two years.
  The Bank of England chooses to exercise its responsibilities under the law in relation to the banking system by what can be described only as informal nods and winks. No doubt there are some advantages in such an approach. However, it means that rarely, if ever, are statutory powers invoked, and the true meaning and scope of the Banking Supervision Act is untested in the courts.
  Whatever may or may not have been done by the Bank of England remains a secret and whatever intervention it may have made to resolve a most unsatisfactory situation have undoubtedly been ineffective. As I have already made clear, I regard its slackness in handling complaints by me as particularly unfortunate.
  The House will have noted the recent observation by the Governor about the need for an ombudsman. Apart from the fact that there is already such an official, the new initiative will rightly draw public interest. I praise the Governor's initiative. Having started his career and been in the position for some months, he has made a promising start to his duties as Governor and is securing a wide degree of confidence across the system.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will draw to the attention of the Governor the fact that what is really required is a conciliation service, so that disputes can be resolved early and quickly without unnecessary recourse to law.
  No doubt the whole case has already earned lawyers —I am a lawyer, although I have not practised for nearly eight years—a handsome sum, and they view the prospect of further litigation with financial enthusiasm. However, there are better uses for their talents and the public interest would be better served by procedures designed to resolve complaints of substance, rather than by the casual manipulation of endless preliminary points. Such tactics reflect little credit on those who instruct or those who pursue such instructions. I hope that Mr. George's new ideas will be given a fair wind and that he will seek a wide range of comment and consideration.
  Over the past couple of years or so, I have wondered whether either the Bank of England or Barclays bank has been capable of coming to grips with the situation. Mr. Joseph has been derided as cheeky, a mischievous gadfly, fundamentally unserious and deserving of little attention or significance. Slowly, it has dawned on those who have wronged him that their preconceived prejudices may have considerably underestimated his talents.
  In recent weeks, an immense amount of management time in Barclays bank has been spent in trying to resolve the position. The former chief executive, Mr. Andrew Buxton, had two private meetings with Mr. Joseph, and his successor, Mr. Martin Taylor, had two meetings with Mr. Joseph before taking his present position, and one since.
  One offer of settlement from Barclays bank was made, the main motive of which was to try to undermine the legal aid order which exists in Mr. Joseph's favour. In no other sense did it address the real issues at stake.
  The real reason that Mr. Joseph has pursued his rights is not because he is a maverick or mischievous or any other

  1015
  impertinent suggestions that have been made about his character. It is because he burns with indignation at the manner in which he has been treated.
  As those who act on behalf of the bank have observed, the bank does not owe to its customers any duty not to seek to take undue advantage of its economic strength. It has no duty not to exercise economic duress or not to intimidate, propositions of law which are widely rejected in the courts and elsewhere. It is because the House would reject such appalling arrogance that I raise the matter with my hon. Friend.
  11.58 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: I apologise to the House for not having been present at the start of the speech of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) this evening. I was delayed between the Division and start of the debate by other more pressing matters and I deeply regret that.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the fulsome praise that I managed to catch when I entered the Chamber and for affording me the opportunity to pursue again matters that I raised in the House in the spring of 1992 and the autumn of 1993.
  Any study of the relevant Hansards would have made it clear that I was most concerned about serious matters which I regarded as outrageous and deserving of the most urgent Government attention. The case is unquestionably a scandal of historic proportions. The Bank of England was put on notice and, given its unique position, I contend that it was under an obligation to pursue with rigour the matters that I raised on the two occasions to which I have referred.
  Lest anyone be in doubt, I remind the House that I referred to events that could legitimately be entitled a "Barclaygate". The central issue of that affair is that Barclays bank, in its position as both client and banker to Mr. Joseph's company Hook Advertising Ltd., took advantage of its dual role for the bank's own financial gain, to the serious detriment of Mr. Joseph and his company.
  In its role as client, Barclays bank delayed, for many weeks, the payment to Mr. Joseph's company of more than £500,000 in fees due to that company. Not unnaturally, that caused Mr. Joseph's company severe financial problems. Then, without Mr. Joseph's knowledge, Barclays secretly handed Mr. Joseph's property—the rabbit logo, which is well known to everyone in this country—over to Hutchison Telecom as part and parcel of a secret deal with Hutchison for which Barclays undoubtedly received substantial financial reward.
  As a result of that deal, Hutchison Telecom acted as though it owned the rabbit logo and then abruptly ended the advertising contract with Mr. Joseph's company which it had inherited via Barclays. That advertising contract would have provided income to Mr. Joseph's company of possibly up to £6 million had it been allowed to run its full term.
  Meanwhile, in its role as banker to Mr. Joseph, Barclays took advantage of that role knowing every particular of Mr. Joseph's predicament, to exert financial pressure on Mr. Joseph and his company by using the stick of threatening the immediate withdrawal of banking facilities if Mr. Joseph and his company did not execute a secret agreement with the bank. That agreement would have exonerated Barclays from all claims that Mr. Joseph and his company
  1016
  had against the bank. Barclays would re-establish banking facilities provided that the agreement was not disclosed to other parties.
  When Mr. Joseph refused to sign that secret gagging agreement, Barclays terminated the banking facilities and sued Mr. Joseph and his company for the overdraft—the extent of which was the result of Barclays' own doing, due to the delay in the payment of fees and the secret deal with Hutchinson Telecom. Barclays had plunged Hook into debt by non-payment of fees. It then claimed finance charges for servicing the debt that it had caused.
  Barclays bank then vigorously pursued Mr. Joseph and his company through the courts for payment of the overdraft, in the full knowledge that Mr. Joseph and his company were now, as a result of Barclays' actions, destitute. To cap it all, Barclays also fails to pay £43,000 of interest due to Mr. Joseph's company while it displays Mr. Joseph's rabbit logo on all its branches throughout the United Kingdom, again for financial reward. That is incredible.
  The bank is penalising Mr. Joseph for a debt that the bank incurred and it is still making a profit from his intellectual property. It is unbelievable.
  The time has now come for the bank and the Treasury to pursue those matters. As the hon. Member for Corby has said, Mr. Joseph is not a maverick, he is not a vexatious litigant, and he is not eccentric, dishonest or shady. The only thing bent about Chris Joseph is the implement he wears where his right arm should be—his hook.
  The best form of redress, not merely the settlement of that personal dispute, is the establishment of a genuinely independent banking dispute resolution procedure which could help to resolve the many dozens of cases that have come to light through an organisation called SAFE—the Struggle Against Financial Exploitation—which Mr. Joseph and others formed to help settle the many disagreements which bankers generally, not just Barclays, pitch straight into court, effectively clogging the litigation procedure for months or even years.
  This afternoon, Barclays offered Mr. Joseph a settlement—of a kind. It told him that it is withdrawing all actions against him and is offering to pay his costs. It has not given an indication of what those costs might be. It is my firm belief and that of Mr. Joseph that that action is taken not to settle the case but simply as a means of trying to counter a counter-claim that Mr. Joseph has against the bank. That is yet another example of how the bank is using the litigation procedure to its advantage, because it holds all the cards in its hands; it has unlimited resources. That is an abuse of the system.
  Mr. Joseph has presented the Economic Secretary to the Treasury with an opportunity to help to resolve not only his case but all such outstanding cases which are clogging the litigation procedures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will offer Mr. Joseph not only his support but his gratitude by helping to establish a resolution procedure.
  12.6 am
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) have raised serious issues of banking principle and practice. I congratulate my hon. Friend on seeking and obtaining the Adjournment debate to champion once more a cause and a case for which he is well known in the House.

  1017
  Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was very lucky, on 6 May 1992, that my hon. Friend spoke immediately after his speech.
  The lesson is this: if hon. Members want a case to be pursued in the House, they should see whether my hon. Friend will speak in the debate, and they can be sure that it will be a runner. I therefore make no complaint about the privilege of the House being used by my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to raise an issue and a case that is a matter of concern to them and, undoubtedly, to the principals involved.
  I am sure that Mr. Joseph in particular will be grateful for the committed and conscientious way in which my hon. Friend has pursued the case over many months. FIe will know that I have been involved in the case, as he wrote to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who charged me with the responsibility of making inquiries with Barclays bank, and I did so with the chairman. My right hon. Friend replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby.
  I hope that my hon. Friend and others will understand that it is difficult and, indeed, improper for the Government to become involved in matters which are sub judice or might be potentially subject to litigation. I hope that my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate at the outset that I cannot comment tonight on the specific dispute between Mr. Joseph and Barclays bank. It would not be right for the Government to attempt to intervene in an individual dispute, and, as my right hon. Friend the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and my officials have made clear in previous correspondence, especially when matters are before the courts, as my hon. Friend has explained is the situation in this case.
  However, it is proper for me to discuss the Bank of England's role in supervising banks—which is relevant to this and many other cases—the steps that have been taken to improve relations between the banks and with their business customers, and the recourse that is available if those relations break down. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. As hon. Members will know, that was one issue covered by the Governor in his speech to the Scottish CBI and Scottish Enterprise on Monday evening; he spoke of the need for greater understanding on the part of both borrowers and lenders of each other's concerns and points of view.
  Let me begin by explaining the legislative background. Parliament has given the Bank of England responsibility for authorising banks, under the Banking Act 1987. The legislation sets out specific criteria for authorisation, which include capital adequacy, and the need to ensure that a bank is run prudently and is controlled and managed by fit and proper persons. The Bank's two main supervisory concerns are to safeguard the interests of depositors, and to maintain the stability and soundness of the United Kingdom banking system. But—and the qualification is an important one—the Bank's responsibility for ensuring that those concerns are met does not extend to the monitoring of individual commercial decisions, or to involving itself in the day-to-day services that banks provide.
  In passing the legislation, Parliament acknowledged the principle that commercial banks—we should never forget that banks are commercial institutions—must be left free to make their own business decisions. The Act does not give
  1018
  the Bank the power to intervene in individual cases, or to question commercial decisions that banks make in their normal dealings with their customers.
  As a number of commentators have observed, the Bank's traditional techniques of supervision have served the country well. The continuing success of London as a leading international centre for financial services testifies that lenders and borrowers from many parts of the world consider the supervisory regime that we operate here to be conducive to the development of lasting and mutually beneficial banking relationships. In particular, I do not think that the case has been made for the Bank, or any other statutory body, to move into the area of hands on regulation of banking services.
  That does not, of course, mean that the Government are indifferent to the way in which banks treat their customers; quite the reverse. Relations between banks and their customers—not least small business customers such as Mr. Joseph—have been the subject of a good deal of public debate and interest in the past two or three years. That interest twice led my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ask the Bank of England to investigate the banks' treatment of their business customers—once in 1991, and again at the end of 1992.
  Those inquiries led, in the first instance, to the major banks introducing codes of practice governing their relationships with their business customers and, in the other, to the banks extending the banking ombudsman scheme to small business customers with an annual turnover of less than £1 million. I think that these measures represent a public recognition by the banks not only that fair and reasonable treatment of customers is importantt in itself, but that it helps them to build up and maintain mutually profitable business relationships.
  The reaction by small business representatives to the Governor's speech on Monday night has given further support to the view that relations are continuing to improve —although I acknowledge that there is still more to be done, and that more lessons must be learnt on both sides.
  The banks' codes also make specific reference to the complaints procedure available to customers when things go wrong. The bank chairmen have made it clear that they take complaints from customers very seriously. Many have established special complaints units, and the chairmen and their chief executives review a large number of cases personally. When these procedures do not resolve a problem, customers have recourse to the banking ombudsman—for issues within his range of competence—or to the courts.
  However, with the best will in the world, problems will remain. I hope that nothing that I have said tonight implies that the banks or the representatives of business are at all complacent about these issues, or that I am. As I go about the country—part of the industrial finance initiative involves me in examining, specifically and regionally, relationships between small businesses and banks throughout the country—I am very conscious of the problems that recur from time to time. I receive representations about those problems, and occasionally exhort commercial banks to do something about them; I hope and believe that those exhortations have some effect.
  The work of the Governor of the Bank of England is taking forward in this area and the further meetings between the banks and representative bodies which he mentioned in his speech will no doubt help. I have no doubt

  1019
  that that theme will continue to feature heavily in the initiative, and the Government's officials as well as those in the Bank will continue to look for ways in which communications and education can be made more effective.
  The basis of an effective and enduring relationship between banks and their business customers is, I believe, beginning to emerge. It is based on transparency and on a mutual understanding of the constraints on both sides, features which my hon. Friend was good enough to refer to in his speech. However, that relationship is a dynamic one and, of course, there is still room for improvement by both borrowers and lenders.
  It is not for the Government to tell commercial undertakings how to run their businesses, but I believe that there is scope for the banks to build on the steps outlined
  1020
  in their codes and to be more open about what they expect of their customers and what their customers can expect of them. I think that more and more bankers believe that, too, but businesses themselves, particularly smaller ones, also have a role to play. They must be more willing to discuss with their banks, well in advance and in terms which can be clearly understood, the problems and opportunities that they foresee. Together, they can build a relationship that will bring benefits, not only to banks and small businesses but to the wider economy on which they, and all of us, depend.
  If tonight's debate on a specific case is successful in moving towards that objective, I think that the cause will have been well served by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and the hon. Member for Stockton, North, who have spoken with such distinction tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, for each scheme operated by his Department under which loans are available, the objectives of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The diplomatic service operates five loan schemes for staff. In all cases, beneficiaries sign an undertaking to repay, and unless otherwise stated officers repay by deduction from salary.

  The schemes and their objectives are as follows:

  (i) Housing Assistance Scheme

  DS officers returning from service overseas to an appointment in the United Kingdom are faced with the problem of needing to find rented accommodation, or buy a property at a time not of their own choosing: officers are eligible for a salary-related advance, subject to a maximum of £10,500. Repayments are deferred for the first three years, and then repaid over a maximum of nine years.

  (ii) Overseas Allowances

  In order to assist staff in purchasing equipment and establishing their household overseas, advances of allowances are available to officers which are repayable over two years. Advances of up to one month's cost of living allowance—COLA—may be taken by staff who have completed a posting in the United Kingdom: for some difficult postings a three-month advance of COLA is available. Advances of six months representational allowances are available to heads of mission and other senior grade staff.

  (iii) Car Loans

  Officers need private cars overseas for domestic and operational reasons. A salary-related advance is available to officers appointed overseas after a tour of duty in the United Kingdom, repayable over two years.

  (iv) Recreational Advances

  This is a small advance made available to junior staff by our missions overseas to help them with the initial cost of joining a local sports club. The loan is repaid to the accountant at the overseas mission within one year.

  (v) Season Ticket Advances

  This advance is available to staff in the United Kingdom to purchase an annual season ticket for home to office journeys. This enables the Department to widen the recruitment catchment area, and alleviates recruitment and retention problems.

  The following loans have not been paid by the due date and recovery action is in hand:
  588

  Scheme

  Year

  Number of loans

  Amount £

  Housing

  1989

  1

  1,279

  Housing

  1991

  1

  3,000

  Car

  1993

  1

  531

  TOTAL

  —

  —

  4,810

  The Overseas Development Administration operates three loan schemes, the objectives and the arrangements for which are similar to those for the diplomatic service.

  (i) House Purchase

  To assist staff who are transferred to a new location in UK at the Department's behest.

  (ii) Overseas Salary Advance

  Available to staff and technical co-operation officers on first taking up an overseas appointment to purchase a new vehicle and to stock up on essential equipment.

  (iii) Season Ticket/Bicycle Advances

  To assist staff with home to office travel.

  The following staff loans were not repaid. In both cases, staff resigned without prior notice. ODA initiated recovery action, but on the basis of legal advice, this was not pursued.

  Scheme

  Year

  Number of Loans

  Amount £

  Season Ticket

  1990

  1

  547

  Season Ticket

  1991

  1

  213

  Total

  —

  —

  760

  Two overseas salary advances paid to aid personnel—technical co-operation officers—have failed to be recovered since 1990. One officer has agreed to repay £7,848 over a three-year period. The other has an outstanding balance of £3,400 and recovery action is being pursued by the Treasury Solicitor.

  The outstanding loans due to the Department are a minute proportion of the total advanced and recovered without difficulty. Outstanding loan recovery forms a very small part of the responsibilities of a number of officers: it is not possible to quantify in financial terms the amount of manpower expended on pursuing loans with a disproportionate amount of research.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department or the Overseas Development Administration; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A total of 2,410 Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by Foreign and Commonwealth Ministers. The cards cost £778·25. The other information is not centrally recorded or readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  EC Development Council
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 6 December,Official Report, column 76, what were the voting figures recorded in the meeting of the European Community's Development Council held on 2 December.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The resolutions of the Development Council on 2 December were adopted by consensus, as is the normal practice.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's Iraq note prepared in the summer of 1990.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave in reply to a question from the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 11 January 1994, Official Report, column 154.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Global Commission on Population and Development
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who are the members of the global commission on population and development; how many meetings the commission has held; what is the proposed timetable for its work; and what is the Overseas Development Administration's contribution to its work.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Two meetings of the Independent Commission on Population and Quality of Life have been held. The commission will conduct regional consultations and other activities during 1994 and aims to launch its final report in June 1995. The ODA is providing a grant of £150,000. This includes covering the costs of seconding an ODA population adviser to the commission secretariat for two years. The commission members are:

  President Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo—Former Prime Minister, Portugal.

  Montique-Begin—Dean of Health Sciences University of Ottawa, Canada. Former Minister of National Health and Welfare.

  Ruth Cardoso—Professor and researcher in anthropology at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.

  Karina Constantion-David—President of the coalition of 3,000 development NGOs in the Philippines (CODE-NGO) Manila. Former Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Development.

  Eleanor Holmes Norton—Congresswoman USA.

  Bernard Kouchner—Founder and chairman of the Foundation for Humanitarian Action. Former Minister of Health and Humanitarian Affairs, France.

  Ewa Letowska—Law professor, Polish Academy of Sciences. Former ombudsman Warsaw, Poland.

  Hannan Mikhail—Ashrawi official spokesperson of the Palestinian delegation in the peace negotiations, Jerusalem.

  Vina Mazumdar—National fellow of the Indian Council of Social Sciences Research, New Delhi.

  Taro Nakayama—Member of the House of Representatives, Tokyo, Japan. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs.

  Olusegun Obasanjo—Founder and chairman of the African Leadership Forum. Former Head of State of Nigeria.

  Jan Pronk—Minister of Development Co-operation, Netherlands. Former Member of the Brandt Commission.
  590
  Augusto Ramirez Ocampo—Special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General in El Salvador. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Colombia.

  Pu Shan—President of the Chinese Society of World Economy, Beijing.

  Juan Somavia—Ambassador of Chile to the United Nations, President of the United Nations, President of the United Nations ECOSOC.

  Aminata Traore—Social science researcher. Formerly regional co-ordinator UNDP water resources initiative, Cote d'Ivoire. Former President of the Population Council, Mali.

  Beate Weber—Mayor of Heidelberg, Germany. Former Member of the European Parliament.

  Anders Wijkman—Director General of the Swedish Agency for Research Co-operation with Developing Countries (SAREC).

  Alexander N. Yakovlev—Vice-president of the international fund for socio-economic and political research, Moscow.

  Ex-Officio, Pierre de Senarclens, Executive Secretary of the Commission, professor of international relations, Lausanne university, Switzerland.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions for 1994 are being made to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations Population Fund and the World Health Organisation Human Reproduction Programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Decisions on the 1994 contributions to these agencies will be made shortly. I will write to my hon. Friend once the agencies have been informed.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations have taken place with United Kingdom and other non-governmental organisations on constructing an EC policy on family planning projects in developing countries; and how many and which non-governmental organisations in the United Kingdom and in other member states have been consulted.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  ODA officials have participated in initial discussions with officials of the European Commission and other member states on the need for an effective consistent EC policy on reproductive health and family planning. The Government would welcome the views of United Kingdom non-governmental organisations once discussions start on substantive issues of policy and strategy.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the total bilateral disbursements on population activities, and to which countries, for 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  New bilateral commitments totalling £11·2 million were made to Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Malawi in 1993. The figures for bilateral disbursement in 1993 are not yet available.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations have taken place with United Kingdom non-governmental organisations on the issues to be considered by the April 1994 third preparatory committee meeting for the international conference on population and development.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since the second preparatory committee meeting for this conference, there have been five meetings of the NGO forum convened to engage
  591
  United Kingdom NGOs in United Kingdom preparations for the conference and three workshops. The Government are, as a result, well informed of the views of United Kingdom non-governmental organisations on issues to be considered by the third preparatory committee meeting.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and which budget lines in the EC development budget are allocated for expenditure on population and family planning projects in developing countries; what was the budget allocation in 1991, 1992 and 1993 for population and family planning projects; and what is the projected budget for 1994.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  One EC budget line, B7–5050 "Financial assistance to family planning programmes in developing countries" is expecially devoted to financing of population projects. In addition, another budget line B7–5047 "Mother and Child Health" includes family planning. A number of other EC budget lines for co-operation with developing countries also finance family planning projects, but it is not possible to disaggregate spending from those lines.

  The allocation—in million ecu—for budget line B7–5050 was 1.5 in 1991; 2 in 1992; and 4 in 1993. Five million ecu has been allocated in 1994.

TRANSPORT

  MV Braer
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the report of the marine accident investigation branch on the loss of the Braer will be published.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The report of the marine accident investigation branch's investigation into the loss of the Braer will be published tomorrow, 20 January. Copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report of my Department's marine pollution control unit on the loss of the Braer and the lessons to be drawn from it, which has already been made available to Lord Donaldson's inquiry, will also be published tomorrow and copies of it, too, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Bob Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what agreement has been reached with Eurotunnel concerning the extension by 10 years of the channel tunnel concession period.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today placed copies of the agreement in the Library of the House.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether surplus BR freight assets will be made available to companies wishing to operate their own rail freight services.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's freight businesses will need to retain sufficient assets to enable them to operate safely, effectively and economically and to discharge their obligations to customers.
  592
  However, where assets are identified as surplus to operational requirements, these will be offered for sale by British Rail on a competitive basis. Companies or individuals interested in purchasing such assets should register their interest with British Rail's vendor unit.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much money his Department has set aside in its 1994–95 budget for making freight facilities grants under the Railways Act 1993; how much of this sum has been allocated to date; and who has been told to date that they will receive such grants;

  (2) how much section 8 grant was paid to encourage the transport of freight by rail in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; how much it is estimated will be paid in 1993–94; and how much is budgeted for such grants in 1994–95.

  Mr. Freeman
  Expenditure on freight facilities grants under both section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 and section 36 of the Transport Act 1981 has been as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  3·500

  1991–92

  1·239

  1992–93

  1·718

  As grant can be claimed only on receipted invoices submitted during the construction of the rail or inland waterway facilities, it is too early to estimate how much will be expended in 1993–94.

  Under the Railways Act 1993 both the existing rail and inland waterway freight facilities grants will be considerably enhanced and a new track access grant for freight service operators introduced. All three measures will be effective from the commencement of the new fiscal year on 1 April 1994 and administered from a single budget which, in 1994–95, has been set at £13·3 million with a present estimate of £43 million over three years. As formal applications cannot be considered until after this date it is too early for my Department to award any grants under the new provisions and I am not in a position to say how the funds will be taken up. Any commitments falling in 1994–95 as a result of previous awards under section 8 of the 1974 act would be met from the new single budget but the amount due will be determined largely by the timing of claims.

  Stratford International Station
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had on the case for Stratford international passenger station being developed; what work his Department has done on the transport implications of such a station for Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have received representations from the promoters of the station at Stratford, from Ipswich borough council and Norwich city council, and from a number of other organisations, individuals and hon. Members. The comparative analysis in Union Railways' October report includes forecasts of patronage at each prospective intermediate station on the rail link, taking into account likely origins and destinations and the results of detailed transport modelling. We are considering Union Railways' report, together with the representations received, and will announce our decisions shortly.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the route of the high-speed channel tunnel rail link and the stations to be built along the new line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement in the next few weeks.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a condition will be imposed on companies obtaining franchises to run rail services to provide facilities for through ticketing with providers of other rail services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if a condition will be imposed on companies obtaining franchises to run rail services to collaborate with other providers of rail services to offer cheap fares at off-peak times.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. We expect franchise operators to offer discounted off-peak travel as British Rail does now, because it will be in their commercial interest to do so.

  Newcastle Bypass
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the diagramatic representations of starting and end points for journeys based on road traffic surveys in respect of the Newcastle upon Tyne Cradlewell bypass scheme, set out in the same format as the published documentation contained in annex B of the Newcastle city council's case for the Newcastle western bypass scheme.

  Mr. Key
  The Cradlewell bypass is a local road scheme promoted by Newcastle city council from which the required information should be sought. The Newcastle western bypass was promoted by my Department as a trunk road proposal.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the key assumptions underpinning the cost-benefit analysis for the Newcastle upon Tyne Cradlewell bypass scheme;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the conformity with his Department's guidelines of the cost-benefit analysis for the Newcastle upon Tyne Cradlewell bypass scheme prepared by Newcastle upon Tyne city council.

  Mr. Key
  It is not practicable to organise a comprehensive check on the background information supporting every application for transport supplementary grant—TSG. The standard of the Cradlewell bypass submission was within the normal parameters for schemes of this type. The system relies on good practice by local highway authorities. The Department operates a series of scheme audits by independent consultants. It will eventually look into all aspects of TSG submissions, including the reliability of cost and other information and whether the forecast scheme benefits have been realised. This is done on the basis of a sample cross section of schemes. Any significant shortcomings that this initiative throws up will be addressed by refining the control the Department applies, and the advice it offers.
  594
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the key assumptions underpinning the cost-benefit analysis for the Newcastle upon Tyne Cradlewell bypass scheme;

  (2) if he will place a copy of the cost-benefit analysis for the Newcastle upon Tyne Cradlewell bypass scheme in the Library; and if he will provide the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East with a copy.

  Mr. Key
  This information is held by Newcastle city council as the scheme promoter.

  Bypass Guidelines
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines are given by his Department to local authorities in respect of the publication of the cost-benefit analysis for bypass schemes.

  Mr. Key
  The Department gives no guidance to local authorities about the publication of cost-benefit analysis on any of their road improvement schemes. This is a matter to be decided by the authorities themselves. There is no requirement for authorities to publish any background information to their schemes outside the statutory framework of current legislation.

  The annual transport policies and programme submissions which the Department invites authorities to make are available to the public. They contain considerable detail about each major scheme for which the authority seeks transport supplementary grant—TSG. The Department specifies the information it needs to assess applications for TSG in an annual circular issued both to local highway authorities and to district councils that do not have that status. The circular is on sale to the public. The latest edition is local authority circular 2/93, issued on 29 April 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines are given by his Department to local authorities when preparing cost-benefit analysis for bypass schemes.

  Mr. Key
  All local highway authorities are expected to familiarise themselves with the Department's cost-benefit analysis—COBA—system. They are advised in annex B to the annual transport policy and programme—TPP—circular to consult the COBA user manual. There is no specific advice on the application of COBA to bypasses.

  Medway Bridge
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what statutory power a rail and road bridge over the Medway could be planned and constructed currently.

  Mr. Freeman
  Parallel bridges over the Medway are being planned for the M2 widening scheme and the channel tunnel rail link; the bridges can be built sequentially or at the same time. It is possible to provide for both approaches either through joint approval in a hybrid Bill, or with separate approval of the road scheme under Highways Act order procedures.

  A1(M)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to delay any current or further plans for the expansion of the A1(M) in Hertfordshire and conduct an assessment of road schemes on an equal basis with other modes of transport.
  595
  Mr. Key
  Our aim is to achieve a balance between the various modes of transport so that each can make its proper contribution to a safer, more environmentally friendly and more efficient transport system. We therefore seek to ensure, for example, that road and rail projects are assessed on a consistent basis using, where relevant, a common set of assumptions about the value people attach to improvements in their journey times.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's strategy, planned timetable and traffic forecasts for widening the A1(M) from junctions 6 to 8 to four lanes in each direction and the future of the section from junctions 4 to 6; and what assessment has been made of whether the proposed expansion of junctions is necessary to facilitate connections with the planned east-west route.

  Mr. Key
  The priority of the schemes to widen the A1(M) in Hertfordshire is being considered in the current review of the road programme and the timetables for widening will reflect the outcome of the review. Our proposals for the section between junctions 6 and 8 were the subject of public consultation in October last year. They are designed to cater for traffic flows in 2012 ranging from 85,000 to 115,000 vehicles per day. The junction arrangements which were shown are not dependent on the proposed east-west route but account has been taken of possible options for it. Responses to the consultation are being considered.

  Aircraft Movements
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of annual aircraft movements that take place over the east London area including the boroughs of Redbridge, Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Havering.

  Mr. Norris
  No such estimates are made by my Department, nor by any other body as far as I am aware.

  Metropolitan Trunk Roads
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much transport support grant was allocated for expenditure on metropolitan trunk roads for each year since 1979 for use by(a) local authorities and (b) the former Greater London council until its abolition.

  Mr. Key
  Local authorities are not allocated TSG for national trunk roads, whether or not in metropolitan areas.

  Coaches
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will allow the running of coaches to a weight limit of 18 tonnes while retaining the existing rear axle load; what maximum tyre load is permitted where the front axle tyres fitted are standard 156 rate; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which that effective load distribution is ensured in those circumstances.

  Mr. Key
  No. The maximum load for a tyre with load index 156 is four tonnes. Correct load distribution, which is critical to ensure axles are not overloaded, is largely determined at the initial design of the vehicle when axle weight limits are set by the manufacturer in compliance with legislation. These weights are enforced by the vehicle inspectorate at weighbridge and other checks.
  596
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the possibility of allowing coaches with a weight limit of 18 tonnes to use a limited network of trunk roads and motorways where the strengthening of bridges is not required.

  Mr. Key
  I have considered the possibility of permitting certain operations, including motorway coaches, to be allowed higher weights. Until the bridge assessment programmes currently being carried out by my Department and local authorities are completed there remains the problem of feeder roads to motorways. Few journeys can be completed entirely on motorways and it is difficult to envisage how a scheme for higher weights on motorways alone could be effectively enforced to protect potentially vulnerable roads.

  Thames Transport
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times the working party exploring the Thames transport potential has met; what reports it has published; and if he will name its current members.

  Mr. Norris
  The River Thames working group which I chair has met twice. It is currently analysing the substantial number of responses received from a wide-ranging consultation exercise and expects to produce a report of its findings and recommendations in the summer.

  The current members of the group are David Bayliss, director of planning, London Transport; David Jeffery, chief executive, Port of London authority ; Eric Sorensen, chief executive London Docklands development corporation; and Robin Clement, deputy chief planner, London Planning Advisory Council. Dick Barker represented London First until recently; I hope to make an announcement shortly about his successor. Officials from the Departments of Transport and of the Environment also attend.

  Inner City Transport Investment
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to publish the study carried out by Dr. Margaret Grieco of Oxford university on the impact of transport investment on the inner-city economy.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. I understand that the author is making her own arrangements for the report to be published.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments his Department has carried out into the costs of highway maintenance attributable to use by heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Key
  Heavy vehicles using the trunk road network are continually monitored in order to evaluate the wear and tear on the roads. The need for maintenance results primarily from traffic wear and tear although other aspects such as climatic effects and aging of road materials have an influence.

  The vast majority of road wear and tear is caused by vehicles over 15kN unladen vehicle weight such as heavy goods vehicles—HGVs—and buses—PSVs. No precise breakdown of the cost of heavy goods vehicle related

  597
  maintenance is readily available but in 1993–94, of the £700 million that we expect to spend on maintaining the trunk road network, less than half is attributable to traffic wear.

  A6(M) Stockport Bypass
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the line of route of the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass.

  Mr. Key
  Although the line is fixed, revised proposals were published in November 1991 to take account of the forecast of increased traffic and changes recommended by the inspector in his report of the 1987–88 inquiry. In February 1992 a draft compulsory purchase order was published. The revised proposals included a modification of the junction with the A6(M) and the A627 Offerton road which has provoked substantial opposition from the local authority and local residents.

  As a result, we have reviewed our proposals in this area resulting in further changes. The draft orders will need to be withdrawn and fresh ones published. Our review is almost complete and we expect to publish the fresh orders this summer.

  Excessive Loads
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to prevent commercial vehicles entering England with excessive loads.

  British Rail punctuality (Yorkshire and Humberside area)

  Four-week periods

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Service group

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  TransPennine Express

  90

  94

  96

  93

  87

  89

  91

  94

  92

  92

  89

  88

  91

  South Yorkshire/Humberside (Long)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  95

  92

  84

  87

  91

  91

  90

  88

  84

  83

  South Yorkshire/Humberside (Short)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Yorkshire (Long)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Yorkshire (Short)

  91

  94

  93

  96

  93

  95

  94

  95

  94

  93

  90

  91

  92

  InterCity Cross Country

  82

  86

  86

  86

  78

  80

  82

  83

  85

  83

  73

  77

  79

  InterCity East Coast Main Line

  82

  86

  87

  84

  90

  84

  91

  89

  91

  88

  86

  87

  85

  Notes:

  1. The passengers charter target for punctuality has been set at 90 per cent. throughout the period for all regional railways and InterCity routes.

  2. Some early figures are unavailable because of changes in route definitions.

  3. Punctuality results are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  British Rail punctuality (Yorkshire and Humberside area)

  Four-week periods

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Service group

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  TransPennine Express

  93

  93

  92

  90

  89

  87

  90

  87

  93

  91

  81

  83

  86

  South Yorkshire/Humberside (Long)

  91

  93

  89

  91

  95

  92

  89

  91

  94

  92

  89

  90

  91

  South Yorkshire/Humberside (Short)

  91

  91

  87

  87

  89

  92

  86

  85

  85

  80

  82

  82

  90

  West Yorkshire (Long)

  96

  95

  95

  95

  95

  94

  95

  94

  95

  95

  85

  89

  91

  West Yorkshire (Short)

  92

  91

  92

  93

  90

  89

  91

  91

  93

  90

  81

  85

  89

  InterCity Cross Country

  80

  87

  83

  84

  84

  84

  87

  89

  87

  86

  84

  86

  81

  InterCity East Coast Main Line

  82

  89

  91

  89

  89

  92

  94

  92

  92

  92

  87

  70

  83

  598
  Mr. Key
  Enforcement against overloading of commercial vehicles will continue to be undertaken at ports, with the agreement of port authorities, and at other inland sites within the vicinity of ports. Where driver self-weigh equipment is available operators and drivers are encouraged to use the facility to check-weigh and to help avoid vehicles leaving ports in an overloaded condition.

  International goods vehicle traffic will also continue to be routinely checked at inland enforcement sites. Arrangements are currently being negotiated with Eurotunnel for checking channel tunnel traffic prior to leaving France.

  British Rail
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing the targets and performance against targets in respect of(a) punctuality and (b) reliability of each of the divisions of British Rail serving the (i) South Yorkshire, (ii) Humberside, (iii) North Yorkshire and (iv) West Yorkshire areas in each month from January 1992.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows. British Rail performance data are published on a four-weekly, rather than a calendar month, basis. The following tables run from period 11 of the 1991–92 financial year—commencing 29 December 1991—to period 10 of the 1993–94 financial year ending 1 January 1994.
  599

  British Rail reliability (Yorkshire and Humberside area)

  Four-week periods

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Service group

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  TransPennine Express

  98·6

  98·8

  99·3

  97·9

  98·2

  98·6

  99·1

  99·7

  98·7

  99·4

  99·5

  99·0

  98·7

  South Yorkshire/Humberside (Long)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  98·5

  98·4

  97·7

  98·7

  98·6

  99·1

  98·5

  98·3

  98·0

  99·3

  South Yorkshire/Humberside (Short)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Yorkshire (Long)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Yorkshire (Short)

  99·0

  99·6

  99·6

  98·7

  99·8

  99·5

  99·6

  99·5

  99·5

  99·7

  99·6

  99·5

  99·5

  InterCity Cross Country

  99·6

  99·6

  99·2

  99·6

  99·5

  99·4

  99·5

  99·5

  99·6

  99·8

  99·3

  98·7

  99·5

  InterCity East Coast Main Line

  98·5

  98·8

  99·0

  99·3

  99·5

  97·8

  99·3

  99·5

  98·2

  99·5

  98·6

  98·5

  98·6

  Note: The passengers charter target for reliability has been set at 99 per cent. throughout the period for all InterCity and regional railways routes.

  British Rail reliability (Yorkshire and Humberside area)

  Four-week periods

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Service group

  11

  12

  13

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  TransPennine Express

  99·0

  99·0

  99·3

  98·8

  98·7

  97·2

  98·3

  97·1

  98·9

  98·0

  98·3

  95·8

  96·9

  South Yorkshire/Humberside (Long)

  99·1

  99·4

  99·0

  98·6

  99·1

  98·4

  97·0

  98·3

  98·8

  93·2

  98·1

  97·3

  98·7

  South Yorkshire/Humberside (Short)

  99·5

  99·6

  99·7

  99·2

  99·9

  99·2

  98·3

  98·6

  97·8

  98·8

  98·9

  98·2

  98·9

  West Yorkshire (Long)

  98·6

  99·6

  98·9

  99·9

  99·6

  98·8

  98·5

  98·7

  99·7

  99·1

  96·7

  95·7

  97·4

  West Yorkshire (Short)

  98·8

  99·1

  99·0

  99·1

  98·2

  99·5

  99·4

  99·2

  99·4

  99·1

  98·0

  96·1

  96·7

  InterCity Cross Country

  99·2

  99·8

  99·2

  99·3

  98·2

  99·7

  99·7

  99·7

  99·7

  99·4

  99·5

  99·8

  99·0

  InterCity East Coast Main Line

  97·5

  99·2

  99·2

  99·1

  99·4

  99·3

  99·6

  99·0

  99·0

  99·4

  99·6

  97·4

  95·2

  Year of Older People
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) in which programmes and events for the European year of older people and solidarity between Generations he has been directly involved;

  (2) what contribution his Department made to the European year of older people and solidarity between generations in terms of financial support, practical support for particular events and the provision of information.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has a continuing programme of initiatives to improve services, facilities and information for older people as pedestrians, public transport users and motorists. These initiatives were promoted by the Department at national and local events throughout the year.

  During 1993 the Department published an information leaflet aimed at older drivers with practical advice on continuing to drive safely. Two million copies were distributed with the help of the Saga group and through doctors' surgeries. A "stuffer" leaflet on the same topic was also distributed to 30 million car owners with their vehicle excise duty reminders.

  In addition, the Department continued to promote, through research, guidelines and advice to local authorities, operators and individuals, the needs of older people for improved bus design and access to bus services and the safety of older pedestrians.

  Motor Cycling
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the method of enforcement will be for the proposed stage II noise limits of motor cycles.

  Mr. Key
  There will be two aspects to the enforcement of the stage II noise limits. In the case of new motor cycles, the manufacturer will have to seek and obtain a valid type 600
  approval certificate to the noise directive prior to sale and registration. The date of mandatory application of these limits has yet to be agreed by the EC Council of Ministers.

  As far as in-use enforcement is concerned, on 10 January I made regulations which require that both original and replacement silencers for motor cycles be marked as complying with a relevant EC directive or—for replacement silencers—an equivalent British standard. I am also now drawing up regulations to control the supply of replacement silencers at point of sale.

  Heavy Vehicles
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many bridges on the trunk road system are not capable of supporting a gross vehicle weight of 18 tonnes;

  (2) how many bridges on the motorway system are not capable of supporting a gross vehicle weight of 18 tonnes.

  Mr. Key
  Our records show that there are three underbridges on motorways and 65 underbridges on all purpose trunk roads in England in which parts of the structure have been assessed as having inadequate capacities for carrying vehicles of 18 tonnes gross weight with the required margins of safety.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 competing for quality programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Much of the
  601
  information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizens Charter Second Report".

  Airport Security
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has received from the communications and transport deregulation task force to justify its statement on the cost and cost-effectiveness of airport security.

  Mr. Norris
  The statement to which the hon. Member refers is in his recent report "Deregulating Disaster". He quotes an early draft by the task force which suggested that the Department approaches airport security with an "overly belt and braces approach at huge cost to industry".

  In its final report, to be published shortly, the task force recommend that security measures must be commensurable with the level of threat and that the aviation industry should be fully consulted in the measures adopted. We accept this view.

  A590
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has, and over what time scale, for improvements to the A590 road between the M6 and Barrow.

  Mr. Key
  The Secretary of State announced last August a review of the road programme to establish more clearly defined priorities within it. The review is now in progress and the aim is to announce the conclusions in time for the launch of the Highways Agency in April.

  The timing of any schemes in the programme for improvements to the A590 between the M6 and Barrow is dependent on the outcome of this review.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held centrally and could be given only at disproportionate cost.

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, for each scheme operated by his Department under which loans are available, the objectives of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Norris
  There are three loans outstanding on the votes of my Department. They are:Humber bridge—built under provision of the Humber Bridge Act 1959, as amended. As at the 30 September 1993, the total debt outstanding is £359,307,192.
  Second Mersey tunnel—built under provision of the Mersey Tunnel Act 1965, as amended. As at 30 September 1993, the total debt outstanding is £24,388,785.
  602
  Tyne tunnel—built under provision of the Tyne Tunnel Act 1964, as amended. As at 30 September 1993, the total debt outstanding is £13,162,996.

  Payments against these loans are made regularly in two instalments each year. The administrative costs of such payments are less than £300 per year.

  My Department also makes loans to staff under their terms and conditions of service. These include loans covering the cost of season tickets, and assistance with house purchase where staff are moved under compulsory terms.

  M62 Relief Road
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations have been received from the Bury, South constituency against the proposed M62 relief road.

  Mr. Key
  So far, some 2,500 representations have been received from Bury, South, from a total in excess of 5,000. These figures include an element of duplication.

  Vehicle Reverse Alarms
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he has plans to review the present 2,000 kg weight limit below which reversing alarms may not be fitted unless that vehicle is a bus, a works truck or engineering plant;

  (2) how many representations he has received concerning regulation 99 of the Vehicle Construction and Use Regulations 1985 in respect of vehicle reverse alarms; and if he will provide a statement on the future of this provision.

  Mr. Key
  During 1992 and 1993, 15 letters were received on this subject. Eight of these were requests for information or from those with a commercial interest, two were complaints about noise nuisance and the rest questioned whether the provision should not be made compulsory and/or extended to other categories of vehicles.

  I shall be reviewing this matter when I come to consider certain other amendments to the Construction and Use Regulations on vehicle noise.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria were used in arriving at the 2,000 kg weight limit below which a vehicle reversing alarm may not be fitted unless it is a bus, a works truck or engineering plant.

  Mr. Key
  Reversing alarms are permitted to be used as an aid to safety on those vehicles where we consider the driver's vision might be obscured by the shape or size of the vehicle. The prime responsibility for ensuring that reversing is carried out safely rests, however, with the driver; and he or she should follow the advice of the highway code.

  Minibuses and Coaches (Safety)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the British Government's current position on the statutory introduction of passenger seat belts on coaches manufactured within the European Union;

  (2) what progress he has made in asking the other members of the European Union to introduce the statutory

  603
  installation of passenger seat belts on coaches manufactured within the European Union; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received on improving the safety of passengers travelling on minibuses or coaches; what the Government's current position is on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  We have been discussing with the European Commission for some years the desirability of amending the directives which deal with the fitting of seat belts in coaches. To date, however, there has not been the support necessary front EC member states for the Commission to make seat belt fitment on all seats a mandatory requirement.

  We have received a great number of representations from a wide range of organisations and individuals, making various suggestions which they feel would improve the safety of minibus and coach travel.

  We are currently reviewing the full technical and cost implications of seat belts in coaches. Until this review is complete and we have full reports on the tragic accidents which happened last year, it would not be wise to consider making further regulations in this area.

  St. Avon
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he proposes to take to seek to ensure that the circumstances leading to the incident in Much St. Avon ran aground at Browndown, Gosport on 21 July 1993 do not recur.

  Mr. Norris
  Following consideration of the grounding of the steam tanker Avon and other accidents, advice on preventive measures has been drafted and will be issued shortly in the form of a merchant shipping notice.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all statements made by Ministers in his Department, and/or press notices issued by his Department, which referred to a possible start and/or completion date for refurbishment of the west coast main line, the date on which each such statement was made, and the possible start and/or completion date which was mentioned.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]On 1 December 1993, my right hon. Friend announced the Government's decision that the modernisation of the west coast main line would be taken forward as a privately financed project. Railtrack would invite expressions of interest from the private sector to work with it in devising new performance standards for the route. At the same time, he announced plans for a competition in late 1994 to select a private sector consortium to modernise the line and maintain it for a defined period.

  Marine Accident Investigation Branch
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each report of the marine accident investigation branch concluded in 1993; and which of those were published.

  Mr. Norris
  Investigations carried out by the marine accident investigation branch, and reports published on its 604
  behalf by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, are listed in the summary of investigations which is produced three times a year. A copy of each summary is placed in the Library.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all statements made by Ministers in his Department, and/or press notices issued by his Department, which referred to a possible completion date for the crossrail project, the dates on which each such statement was made and the possible completion date which was mentioned.

  Mr. Norris
  The then Secretary of State wrote to the chairmen of British Rail and London Transport on 9 October 1990 about crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney line. The associated press notice said that crossrail was expected to open in 1999.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all statements made by Ministers in his Department, and/or press notices issued by his Department, which referred to a possible completion date for the channel tunnel rail link, the dates on which each such statement was made, and the possible completion date which was mentioned.

  Mr. Freeman
  The list is as follows:18 May 1990
  The Minister for Public Transport, in debate on private Members' motion, at column 1179
  "I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who sought to put this debate in the context of the channel tunnel opening in three years' time and a rail link being a decade away, even with the fastest possible agreement on the route, and its design and structure."
  9 October 1991
  Press Notice—from text of a letter by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinbugh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) to Sir Bob Reid
  "Inevitably, the start of a construction of the rail link is some way ahead. On present forecasts, existing capacity is not expected to be exhausted until around 2005. It means account can be taken of demand for rail services through the Channel Tunnel once it opens. This will help to give a more precise view of when the extra capacity of the new line might be needed."
  14 October 1991
  Statement by the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, at columns 25–26
  "Inevitably, the start of construction is still some way ahead; but so is the need for the line. BR's own forecasts are that the capacity of the existing network is expected to be sufficient to meet the demand until around 2005. It will be possible to take account of the actual demand for rail services through the Channel Tunnel, once it opens. Overall, the choice of the eastern route rather than the southern route will not have any material effect on when the new line might come into operation. Suggestions that a decision has been taken not to begin construction before 2000 are incorrect. No such decision has been taken."
  22 March 1993
  Statement by Secretary of State for Transport, at column 611

  605
  "Provided that we press ahead quickly, it should be possible for the railway to be completed by around the turn of the decade."
  23 November 1993
  PQ by hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims)
  Q: "To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he now expects construction of the Channel Tunnel Fast Link to commence."
  A: "Construction is expected to begin shortly after the enactment of a hybrid Bill, which the Government aim to have ready by autumn 1994; the Bill's introduction will depend upon the parliamentary timetable and the private sector's views."

  Deregulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a list of all organisations with which his Department has held meetings regarding the deregulation initiative as it affects his Department, together with the dates on which such meetings were held and the persons present.

  Mr. Norris
  It would not be possible to publish such a list. The Department holds a large number of meetings about legislation with a wide range of people. Deregulation is a central plank of the Government's legislation policy. It is a consideration in all meetings about legislation.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a list of all material sent to his Department by the communications and transport deregulation task force, together with the dates on which such material was received by his Department;

  (2) if he will publish a list of all meetings held between Ministers or officials in his Department and the communications and transport deregulation task force, the dates on which each meeting took place and those who attended each meeting.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has had a large number of dealings, both oral and written, with the task force. The task force's recommendations, along with those of all the other task forces, will be published shortly.

  Roads
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a list of all potential DBFO-design build finance and operate—road projects which have been identified by his Department; and when construction of each project is planned to begin.

  Mr. Key
  We shall announce the first DBFO schemes as soon as possible.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a full list of all organisations with which Ministers or officials have held meetings to identify potential DBFO road projects, the dates on which each meeting took place; and what future meetings are planned.

  Mr. Key
  We have held a number of meetings with construction companies and others to help to identify potential DBFO schemes. The meetings have been conducted on a confidential basis.

  Airport Safety
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to act on the conclusions of the air accident investigation branch that airport safety is threatened by confusion between his Department, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive over responsibility for vehicle safety and staff safety training;

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that a mechanism is in place at every airport to take immediate action on staff complaints about serviceable vehicles; and that vehicles used at airports are checked regularly for roadworthiness and have appropriate vehicle test certificates;

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that all staff at airports have proper safety training;

  (4) what response he has made to the report of the air accident investigations branch published on 7 January on the fatal accident affecting a member of the ground staff at Edinburgh airport, and what action he is taking to ensure that its recommendations are implemented at every airport without delay.

  Mr. Norris
  These questions relate to a tragic accident at Edinburgh airport on 11 March 1993 in which a tractor driver was killed by the propeller of a stationary aircraft. The air accidents investigation branch has made safety recommendations to the CAA, BAA plc and the Airport Operators Association—AOA. Appropriate action has been taken, or is in hand, by those organisations.

  The CAA initiated an aerodrome apron safety management working group with members drawn from BAA, AOA, the British Air Transport Association and the British Airline Pilots Association, with the following terms of reference:

  i. To determine the best practice in safety management and procedures and their application in apron safety management.

  ii. To establish model safety management standards and procedures from which airport operators can prepare the systems and procedures for their airports.

  iii. To determine the most appropriate measures to effect audit control over the safety management systems and procedures at airport.

  The working group is meeting on a monthly basis to expedite its progress. The CAA is also in active discussion with the Health and Safety Executive.

  BAA plc advises me that it has remedies in place or in progress relating to the detailed points emerging from this accident and these will apply equally to all its airports. It took action where possible at the earliest moment. The AOA has already brought these matters to the attention of its members.

  M2 Widening
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the increase in the cost of widening the M2 between junctions 1 and 4; and if he will reconsider the proposal and the necessity for the project.

  Mr. Key
  Since the scheme for widening the M2 between junctions 1 and 4 entered the roads programme, the cost has increased from £43 million to £156 million. This increase has been mainly due to an increase in standard from dual three lanes to dual four lanes over most of the length, the addition of a second Medway bridge, strengthening of the existing bridge, major remodelling at
  607
  junctions 2 and 3, and further structures. The scheme has also been extended 1·5 km to the west of junction 1 to include a short length of the A2.

  The M2 widening scheme is part of the current road programme review.

EDUCATION

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost per pupil at(a) Nun Monkton school near York and (b) Green Hammerton school.

  Mr. Forth
  For the financial year 1993–94, the budget shares allocated to Nun Monkton Church of England primary school and Green Hammerton Church of England primary school under North Yorkshire local education authority's scheme for the local management of schools amounted to £3,446 per pupil and £1,779 per pupil respectively.

  Primary Education
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list local education authorities in order of spending per primary pupil with the actual amount spent per pupil for the last available year; and what spending per primary pupil represented as a percentage of spending per secondary pupil in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table for 1991–92, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Cost per pupil 1991–92

  Nursery and Primary £

  Percentage of spending on secondary pupils

  City of Westminster

  2,902

  89·5

  Corporation of London

  2,609

  n/a

  Islington

  2,328

  79·2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,287

  71·5

  Tower Hamlets

  2,253

  76·5

  Wandsworth

  2,212

  67·5

  Hackney

  2,176

  77·7

  Lambeth

  2,083

  70·0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,047

  74·7

  Camden

  1,943

  79·9

  Haringey

  1,927

  72·7

  Isles of Scilly

  1,849

  44·4

  Greenwich

  1,830

  79·7

  Southwark

  1,828

  74·3

  Ealing

  1,754

  61·9

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,738

  82·2

  Merton

  1,723

  65·7

  Lewisham

  1,717

  72·3

  Barnet

  1,674

  72·0

  Newham

  1,671

  67·7

  Brent

  1,670

  67·0

  Harrow

  1,661

  70·0

  Hillingdon

  1,661

  63·3

  Bradford

  1,652

  92·0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,646

  79·7

  Leeds

  1,642

  83·0

  Enfield

  1,636

  70·5

  Oxfordshire

  1,635

  77·6

  Waltham Forest

  1,625

  62·0

  Nottinghamshire

  1,625

  65·2

  Croydon

  1,593

  67·1

  Oldham

  1,582

  70·0

  Calderdale

  1,570

  78·1

  Hounslow

  1,567

  72·5

  608

  Nursery and Primary £

  Percentage of spending on secondary pupils

  Gateshead

  1,562

  73·8

  Wolverhampton

  1,554

  66·0

  Barking

  1,550

  68·8

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,543

  62·4

  Sandwell

  1,540

  67·6

  Lancashire

  1,535

  69·0

  Bedfordshire

  1,511

  74·2

  Berkshire

  1,506

  69·8

  Leicestershire

  1,498

  66·5

  Shropshire

  1,497

  63·7

  Wakefield

  1,494

  70·7

  Redbridge

  1,489

  64·5

  Isle of Wight

  1,488

  76·9

  Hertfordshire

  1,482

  66·3

  Northumberland

  1,477

  75·2

  Sheffield

  1,476

  67·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,473

  75·1

  Norfolk

  1,465

  69·2

  Rotherham

  1,465

  68·1

  Cumbria

  1,460

  67·1

  Surrey

  1,460

  66·3

  Hampshire

  1,457

  68·4

  Derbyshire

  1,452

  66·0

  Bromley

  1,443

  59·1

  North Yorkshire

  1,442

  67·0

  Sutton

  1,437

  66·5

  South Tyneside

  1,435

  70·3

  Avon

  1,435

  70·1

  Knowsley

  1,432

  62·3

  Sunderland

  1,427

  69·7

  Gloucestershire

  1,425

  81·1

  Kirklees

  1,423

  69·2

  Humberside

  1,422

  68·9

  East Sussex

  1,421

  70·4

  Manchester

  1,421

  62·2

  Tameside

  1,419

  67·6

  Cambridgeshire

  1,417

  70·0

  Dudley

  1,411

  66·3

  Dorset

  1,410

  73·4

  Wiltshire

  1,408

  72·3

  Cornwall

  1,403

  71·7

  North Tyneside

  1,402

  67·6

  Walsall

  1,400

  66·4

  Staffordshire

  1,397

  68·3

  Havering

  1,396

  61·9

  Devon

  1,394

  69·6

  Durham

  1,386

  68·6

  Liverpool

  1,386

  58·8

  Bolton

  1,380

  64·8

  Barnsley

  1,374

  67·3

  Bexley

  1,371

  66·6

  Birmingham

  1,370

  63·7

  Cheshire

  1,364

  64·7

  Buckinghamshire

  1,358

  64·8

  Northamptonshire

  1,355

  68·8

  Solihull

  1,352

  63·6

  Somerset

  1,349

  69·1

  Lincolnshire

  1,348

  64·8

  St. Helens

  1,341

  63·7

  Warwickshire

  1,338

  64·0

  West Sussex

  1,338

  64·2

  Wirral

  1,325

  62·7

  Doncaster

  1,323

  66·2

  Stockport

  1,319

  61·8

  Sefton

  1,313

  65·1

  Rochdale

  1,310

  61·4

  Bury

  1,302

  68·6

  Coventry

  1,300

  61·4

  Salford

  1,299

  59·3

  Trafford

  1,281

  60·8

  Cleveland

  1,271

  60·2

  Kent

  1,263

  60·9

  Essex

  1,261

  55·5

  Wigan

  1,257

  54·9

  Suffolk

  1,250

  73·6

  609
  Notes to the table:

  1. Figures are in outturn prices and are derived from local education authorities' returns of their net institutional expenditure to the Department of the Environment and of their pupil numbers to the Department of Education.

  2. Net institutional expenditure covers the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the costs of school meals, home to school transport, LEA central administration, and financing costs of capital expenditure. Figures include unspent balances held by schools at the year end under local management of schools schemes.

  3. "N/A" indicates not applicable; Corporation of London LEA has no secondary schools.

  Mr. Tim Brighouse
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assistance is being given from public funds or by involvement of Government personnel to him in his defence against the legal action launched by Mr. Tim Brighouse in relation to remarks made by him about Mr. Brighouse in October 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  This is being treated as a personal, not a Government, matter.

  Higher Education (Drop-out Rate)
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research has been commissioned by his Department on the drop-out rate from higher education both before and after the introduction of student loans; and what account this research takes of drop-out rates in different socio-economic groups, and parental income brackets.

  Mr. Boswell
  Higher education drop-out rates are published in the Department's annual report. Table 26 in the last report—Cm 2210—showed that drop-out rates have remained broadly steady over the period from 1982–83 to 1990–91. The figure for 1991–92 is 17 per cent.

  Information about the socio-economic group or parental income bracket of students who drop out is not collected centrally. No specific research has been commissioned on drop-out rates before and after the introduction of student loans.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in which local education authority areas grant-maintained schools now educate(a) more than 10 per cent. but less than 75 per cent. of primary or secondary pupils, (b) more than 75 per cent. of primary or secondary pupils and (c) less than 10 per cent. of primary or secondary pupils; and if he will give the current percentage figures for each area.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The estimated proportions of maintained school pupils attending self-governing—grant-maintained—schools in each local education authority area in January 1994 are as follows.

  Table A

  Percentage of primary pupils in self-governing schools by local education authority area

  Per cent.

  i. 10 per cent, to 74 per cent.

  Essex

  11·6

  Hillingdon

  13·3

  610

  Per cent.

  Lincolnshire

  11·4

  ii. Less than 10 per cent.

  Avon

  0·0

  Barking

  0·0

  Barnet

  3·3

  Barnsley

  0·0

  Bedfordshire

  1·5

  Berkshire

  3·7

  Bexley

  2·4

  Birmingham

  0·4

  Bolton

  1·3

  Bradford

  0·5

  Brent

  2·2

  Bromley

  4·6

  Buckinghamshire

  3·5

  Bury

  1·3

  Calderdale

  0·4

  Cambrideshire

  3·3

  Camden

  0·0

  Cheshire

  0·5

  Cleveland

  0·0

  Cornwall

  0·0

  Corporation of London

  0·0

  Coventry

  0·0

  Croydon

  3·2

  Cumbria

  3·8

  Derbyshire

  2·0

  Devon

  0·4

  Doncaster

  0·0

  Dorset

  0·9

  Dudley

  1·4

  Durham

  0·0

  Ealing

  4·4

  East Sussex

  0·0

  Enfield

  0·6

  Gateshead

  0·0

  Gloucestershire

  3·2

  Greenwich

  0·0

  Hackney

  0·0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·0

  Hampshire

  3·0

  Haringey

  0·0

  Harrow

  0·0

  Havering

  0·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·0

  Hertfordshire

  1·0

  Hounslow

  0·0

  Humberside

  0·3

  Isle of Wight

  0·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  Islington

  0·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5·2

  Kent

  3·3

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1·8

  Kirklees

  0·0

  Knowsley

  0·0

  Lambeth

  6·6

  Lancashire

  0·2

  Leeds

  0·1

  Leicestershire

  0·0

  Lewisham

  1·8

  Liverpool

  0·0

  Manchester

  0·0

  Merton

  0·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  0·0

  Newham

  0·0

  Norfolk

  4·0

  North Tyneside

  0·0

  North Yorkshire

  0·0

  Northamptonshire

  6·1

  Northumberland

  0·0

  Nottinghamshire

  0·0

  Oldham

  0·0

  Oxfordshire

  0·2

  Redbridge

  0·0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0·0

  Rochdale

  4·0

  611

  Per cent.

  Rotherham

  0·0

  Salford

  0·0

  Sandwell

  0·0

  Sefton

  0·0

  Sheffield

  1·2

  Shropshire

  0·9

  Solihull

  2·3

  Somerset

  0·7

  South Tyneside

  0·0

  Southwark

  5·2

  St. Helens

  0·0

  Staffordshire

  0·0

  Stockport

  0·0

  Suffolk

  0·0

  Sunderland

  0·0

  Surrey

  2·4

  Sutton

  6·2

  Tameside

  0·0

  Tower Hamlets

  0·0

  Trafford

  0·0

  Wakefield

  0·0

  Walsall

  2·0

  Waltham Forest

  0·0

  Wandsworth

  3·0

  Warwickshire

  0·0

  West Sussex

  0·0

  Westminster

  0·0

  Wigan

  0·0

  Wiltshire

  3·3

  Wirral

  0·0

  Wolverhampton

  0·0

  Table B

  Percentage of secondary pupils in self-governing schools by local education authority area

  Percentage

  i.

  75 per cent, and above

  Hillingdon

  83·6

  ii.

  10 per cent, to 74 per cent.

  Barnet

  48·6

  Bedfordshire

  19·6

  Berkshire

  16·0

  Bexley

  19·6

  Birmingham

  21·8

  Bolton

  16·6

  Bradford

  11·1

  Brent

  65·8

  Bromley

  63·4

  Buckinghamshire

  25·3

  Calderdale

  34·1

  Cambridgeshire

  37·5

  Camden

  22·3

  Croydon

  25·5

  Cumbria

  26·0

  Derbyshire

  26·8

  Dorset

  21·8

  Dudley

  25·4

  Ealing

  44·6

  Enfield

  32·1

  Essex

  63·6

  Gloucestershire

  60·8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  20·6

  Hampshire

  19·2

  Havering

  25·7

  Hertfordshire

  26·6

  Hounslow

  15·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  19·6

  Kent

  45·6

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  37·6

  Lambeth

  53·0

  Lincolnshire

  44·2

  Norfolk

  21·4

  Northamptonshire

  20·7

  Shropshire

  14·3

  612

  Percentage

  Southwark

  30·3

  Surrey

  25·5

  Sutton

  59·6

  Tameside

  18·1

  Trafford

  25·4

  Walsall

  29·0

  Waltham Forest

  17·3

  Wandsworth

  72·8

  Warwickshire

  16·6

  Wiltshire

  32·4

  Wolverhampton

  14·9

  iii.

  Less than 10 per cent.

  Avon

  2·9

  Barking

  0·0

  Barnsley

  0·0

  Bury

  0·0

  Cheshire

  3·8

  Cleveland

  0·0

  Cornwall

  0·0

  Corporation of London

  0·0

  Coventry

  0·0

  Devon

  80·

  Doncaster

  0·0

  Durham

  0·0

  East Sussex

  0·0

  Gateshead

  0·0

  Greenwich

  0·0

  Hackney

  0·0

  Haringey

  0·0

  Harrow

  6·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  7·6

  Humberside

  0·0

  Isle of Wight

  0·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  Islington

  0·0

  Kirklees

  5·1

  Knowsley

  8·0

  Lancashire

  8·0

  Leeds

  2·6

  Leicestershire

  5·5

  Lewisham

  0·0

  Liverpool

  7·6

  Manchester

  0·0

  Merton

  0·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  0·0

  Newham

  4·1

  North Tyneside

  0·0

  North Yorkshire

  0·0

  Northumberland

  2·2

  Nottinghamshire

  2·9

  Oldham

  0·0

  Oxfordshire

  0·0

  Redbridge

  7·4

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0·0

  Rochdale

  8·3

  Rotherham

  0·0

  Salford

  3·6

  Sandwell

  3·7

  Sefton

  0·0

  Sheffield

  7·1

  Solihull

  0·0

  Somerset

  1·4

  South Tyneside

  0·0

  St. Helens

  0·0

  Staffordshire

  6·3

  Stockport

  0·0

  Suffolk

  0·0

  Sunderland

  0·0

  Tower Hamlets

  7·8

  Wakefield

  0·0

  West Sussex

  0·0

  Westminster

  0·0

  Wigan

  0·0

  Wirral

  9·8

  Footnotes to tables:

  1. The percentages in the tables are based on provisional date derived

  613
  from the DFE's January 1993 schools census.

  2. The self-governing schools included in these calculations are those operating by 5 January 1994.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what materials have been distributed to schools during the last year to promote grant-maintained status; and what is the cost of the preparation, production and distribution of this material.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has not distributed any materials promoting grant-maintained status. It does, however, provide booklets containing factual information to help parents and governors make informed decisions about whether grant-maintained status is right for their schools and to tell them how to acquire it. A total of 2·9 million such booklets have been distributed over the last five years, mainly to schools. Expenditure on these in the first nine months of this financial year included £164,000 for production and £8,000 for their distribution. The identification of all preparation costs would entail disproportionate expense.

  FE College Corporations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will introduce a compulsory register of members' interests for members of the governing bodies of further education college corporations.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend sees no need for such a register. The instruments of government for further education corporations provide that, except with the approval in writing of the Secretary of State, no member shall take or hold any interest in any property held or used for the purposes of the institution. Further, a member who has any financial interest in the supply of work or goods for the institution, any contract or proposed contract concerning the institution, or any other matter relating to the institution, and is present at the meeting of the governing body at which such a matter is to be considered, is required to disclose his or her interest and is precluded from taking part in the discussion or vote on the matter.

  Examination Papers (Access)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to allow parents and schools access to marked external examination papers on written request.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The GCE and GCSE examination bodies are independent of Government. It is for them to decide whether to alow external access to marked examination papers. Where candidates are dissatisfied with their results they may appeal through their school or college to the relevant examination body and, if necessary, to the Independent Appeals Authority for School Examinations.

  Outdoor Activity Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his Department's estimate of the number of commercial outdoor activity centres currently operating in England and Wales.

  Mr. Forth
  Precise figures are not available, and the exact number of centres is likely to vary from time to time. It is estimated that about 3,000 are currently in operation.
  614
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many outdoor activity centres will be inspected by the Health and Safety Executive over the next two years.

  Mr. Forth
  As part of the special programme of inspections announced by my right hon. Friend on 11 November 1993, the Health and Safety Executive are planning to inspect about 100 centres over the next two years.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many orders have been made using the powers of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, section 5(10); which trusts have been given such additional powers; and what was the nature of those additional powers.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make arrangements for the Data Protection Registrar to inspect relevant contracts with suppliers of information technology services that involve the use of personal data held by his Department in order to check whether all appropriate arrangements in relation to the Data Protection Act 1984 have been made, and whether such contracts make provisions for the registrar to make random inspections in order to check the suppliers' compliance with the eighth data protection principle.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Data Protection Registrar has a wide range of powers, under the Data Protection Act 1984, to ensure that all individuals and organisations holding personal data on computer systems are registered and observe the data protection principles as required by the Act. When information technology services are contracted out by a data user, the contractor and the user will be subject to the application of the data protection principles, and to the registrar's powers to promote compliance with them, as provided for in the Act. It is for the registrar to decide how he will use his powers under the Act, and I do not consider that any further arrangements are necessary for him to discharge his duties effectively.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where information assembled by the Centre for Mental Health Services Development about the costs of current mental health services in the nine authorities considered to be providing a comprehensive community-based service is available in published form.

  Mr. Bowis
  I am arranging for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library.

  Surgical Dressings
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list NHS expenditure in the latest available year on surgical dressings and bandages, broken down into country of manufacture.
  615
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Peter Savage
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will order an independent inquiry into the death of Mr. Peter Savage in Doncaster royal infirmary.

  Mr. Sackville
  As a result of Mr. Savage's death, the trust asked Mr. Philip Gill, a former district coroner in west Yorkshire, to undertake an independent inquiry into the procedures followed by Doncaster royal infirmary for admission, investigation and treatment of confused patients. His report was published in December 1993, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Alder Hey Hospital
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current waiting time for children needing orthopaedic treatment at the Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Alder Hey hospital is part of the Royal Liverpool childrens hospital national health service trust. Information on this trust's waiting times for in-patient and day case treatment is given in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", which is published twice yearly. The latest published figures are for September 1993 and copies are available in the Library.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the population for each county in the United Kingdom, according to the census taken in each year in(a) 1971, (b) 1981 and (c) 1991; and what are the absolute and percentage differences between the 1971 and 1991 figures.

  Mr. Sackville
  Census figures for each county of England and Wales are published in the report "1991 Census, Historical Tables, Great Britain", copies of which are available in the Library. However, these census figures are affected by people missed from the census and by other factors. The most satisfactory comparisons are those based on the Registrar General's mid-year population estimates of resident population. These figures will be placed in the Library.

  Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement concerning the funding arrangements of the Medicines Control Agency listing all external agencies or companies that supply funds.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control agency—MCA —has, since it was established in 1989, been funded by fees from applicants for and holders of product licences, wholesale dealers licences and manufacturers licences. The MCA also receives fees for inspections of manufacturers and wholesale dealers premises. Ministers review MCA 616
  fee levels annually and widespread consultation takes place on the Government's proposals for the following year. The proposed fee levels, amended as necessary in the light of consultation, are then laid before Parliament for approval. Over 2,700 companies and external agencies paid fees to the MCA in 1992–93, a list of them will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the orders made under sections 5 to 11 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 for the NHS trusts in the Northern region.

  Mr. Sackville
  Copies of orders made under section 8 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 will be placed in the Library. All other orders made under sections 5 to 11 for NHS trusts in the northern region have been made under statutory instrument and are therefore already in the Library.

  Press Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of staff and the cost of the Department's press office for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of staff employed in the main press office for each year since 1989 is as follows:

  Number

  1989–90

  14

  1990–91

  15

  1991–92

  14

  1992–93

  15

  1993–94

  14

  The cost of the press office and staffing figures for 1988–89 are not available in the form requested.

  Workload Supervision
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what routine supervision is exercised by her Department over hospital and health authority workload and caseload performances in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The National Health Service Management Executive—NHSME—holds regional health authorities—RHAs—to account for their performance on the basis of agreed corporate contracts. Corporate contracts reflect both national and regional priorities and purchasing plans agreed by district health authorities, family health services authorities and, where appropriate, general practitioner fundholders. Performance is monitored through formal submissions—corporate contracts and quarterly returns—and continuous reviews between the NHSME's performance management teams and regional managers. This review process culminates in annual meetings held between the chief executive of the NHSME and each regional general manager and chairman. Issues outside corporate contracts are also raised with RHAs as appropriate to ensure performance is satisfactory.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish for each service that has been market tested in her Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 competing for quality programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Much of the information requested will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizens Charter Second Report". On an individual contract basis, much of the information is commercially confidential.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the £300,000 public funds loaned by Mr. M. Davies while director of finance to West Midlands regional health authority to the company HP has been recovered; and what interest on that sum was paid by FIP

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The loan to the financial information project is being repaid to West Midlands regional health authority by instalments on a quarterly basis. The first payment of £50,000 is due on 28 February. Interest on the loan is being charged in line with the health service prices index.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to instigate prosecutions for corruption in respect of the affairs of the West Midlands regional health authority as discussed in the 57th report from the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1992–93, HC 485.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for West Midlands regional health authority and the police to determine what action needs to be taken over alleged corruption in the affairs of the authority.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid to Mr. M. Davies when he resigned from his post as director of finance of West Midlands regional health authority; how much of this was performance related; and what were the reasons for these payments.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  When Mr. Davies resigned from West Midlands regional health authority, he had a contractual entitlement to six months notice, and was paid two months extension of contract for untaken leave, a total of £36,702. He also received £6,222 for cumulative performance-related pay.

  Influenza Vaccine
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made as to the adequacy of supply of inflenza vaccine in the London area; what steps she is taking to ensure adequate supplies; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about the supply of influenza vaccine to particular areas is not available 618
  centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 17 January at columns 391–92, for details on the general supply of vaccine.

  Child Resistant Closures
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she proposes to take to speed the pharmaceutical industry's development of a child resistant closure for liquid medicines.

  Mr. Sackville
  Some liquid medicines are already in child resistant containers. There are, however, technical difficulties in developing a closure which is effective for all types of liquid medicine containers and which could be adopted across the pharamaceutical industry and by pharmacists. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry are in discussions to help speed up the development process.

  Mental Illness Grant
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding will be available for the mental illness specific grant for the year 1994–95; and what are the planning figures for the following years;

  (2) what plans she has to extend the mental illness specific grant beyond 1995.

  Mr. Bowis
  On 28 December 1993, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that the mental illness specific grant will be increased to £36 million in 1994–95, supporting expenditure of over £51 million, and that it is planned that the grant will continue for at least another three years.

  The 1993 public expenditure settlement provided for planning figures of £37·262 million and £38·262 million for 1995–96 and 1996–97 respectively. The planning figures are subject to discussion in future public expenditure rounds.

  AIDS
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support the Government will be giving to London boroughs for their work in HIV and AIDS in 1994–95 and beyond; and what conclusions she has arrived at in reviewing this assistance.

  Mr. Sackville
  Funds will again be available in 1994–95 through the AIDS support grant scheme as a contribution towards local authorities' expenditure on HIV and AIDS. There are planning figures for the two subsequent years, which are subject to discussion in future public expenditure rounds.

  The grant has made a valuable contribution to fostering joint co-operation in supporting people with HIV or AIDS and to limiting the spread of the virus.

  Young People, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds there were in the Doncaster area in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  The population estimates requested, relating to Doncaster metropolitan district, are shown in the table.
  619

  Estimated mid-year resident population of Doncaster: Persons aged 16 to 17

  Thousands

  Year

  Age 16

  Age 17

  1988

  4·1

  4·3

  1989

  3·9

  4·1

  1990

  3·7

  3·9

  1991

  3·6

  3·8

  1992

  3·6

  3·6

  Source:

  Population Estimates Unit, Office of Populaton Censuses and Surveys.

  Abortion
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of terminations of pregnancy in(a) the North Devon health authority and (b) the East Berkshire health authority were carried out under the NHS in the last year for which figures are available; what would be the additional cost if the North Devon percentage applied nationwide; and what steps she is taking to establish reasons for geographical differences on the proportion of terminations of pregnancy carried out under the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  The proportion of terminations of pregnancies for the two health authorities concerned for 1992 is as follows:

  1Total

  1NHS funded

  Per cent.

  East Berkshire HA

  1,157

  120

  10·4

  North Devon HA

  307

  292

  95·1

  1 These statistics are based on the (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Abortion Monitor (AB 94/2) due to be published on 20 February 1994.

  The cost of a termination of pregnancy in the national health service varies according to factors such as gestation and length of stay. It is not therefore possible to provide any meaningful estimate of the additional cost if the North Devon percentage applied nationwide. Arrangements for purchasing abortion services under the NHS are the responsibility of individual district health authorities in the light of their assessment of local needs and priorities.

  Pain Clinics
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pain clinics are at present being operated by the NHS; and what is the average waiting time before patients are treated.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Social Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to encourage social care professionals to raise concerns about bad practice; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is the responsibility of both employers and professionals to ensure that any evidence of bad practice or misconduct is investigated appropriately and without delay.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to commission work on the 620
  definition of national standards in social care; who is undertaking the work; when it will be completed; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We intend to issue a tender specification for a study of possible standards in the delivery of social care. We expect to do so before Easter.

  Smoking
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount was spent by Government on discouraging smoking in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows the amount spent by the Health Education Authority on discouraging smoking over the last five years on behalf of the Government.

  Financial Year

  Amount spent on discouraging smoking £

  1988–89

  1,318,000

  1989–90

  4,151,000

  1990–91

  3,435,000

  1991–92

  4,175,000

  1992–93

  5,438,000

  Overall figures for spending within central Government on discouraging smoking could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she intends to allow special hospitals to apply for trust status.

  Mr. Bowis
  We will decide on this in the light of our conclusions on the proposals in the Reed working group report.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to publish the Reed report on special hospitals.

  Mr. Bowis
  It will be published when we have completed our consideration of its proposals on the future of high security psychiatric services.

  Ashworth Hospital
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instruction was given to doctors following the Swann report into over-use of drugs at Ashworth hospital and on the reduction of drug levels; how this instruction was implemented; and what were the results.

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for the Special Hospitals Service Authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the authority, Mrs. Anne-Marie Nelson.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the members currently appointed to the national health service Supplies Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The chairman is Sir Robin Buchanan, and the other non-executive members are Mrs. Alison
  621
  Cook, Mr. Eric Greenhalgh, Mr. James Hammond, Mr. Fred Hoult and Miss Catherine McLoughlin. The executive members are Mr. Terry Hunt, Mr. Evan Sutherland, Mr. Richard Chantler, Mrs. Roxanne Sutton and Mr. Chris Uden.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the members currently appointed to the registered homes tribunal.

  Mr. Bowis
  The members currently appointed to registered homes tribunals are:

  CHAIRMEN

  Mr. P. Hughes QC

  Mrs. O. B. Jones

  Mrs. M. Rutherford

  Mr. P. Singh

  Mr. J. W. Tinnion

  EXPERT MEMBERS

  Residential care/children's homes:

  Mr. R. Bessell

  Mr. D. Browne

  Mr. M. Burrell

  Mr. J. Churchill

  Mr. K. Coleman

  Mr. G. Dunn

  Mr. F. Edwards

  Mr. J. Fisher

  Mr. B. Garner

  Mrs. L. Gladwin

  Dr. B. Gray

  Mr. J. Hanson

  Mr. R. Humphries

  Mr. G. Harper

  Mr. D. James

  Mr. M. Jobbins

  Miss M. Joynson

  Miss S. Mathieson

  Miss S. Poupard

  Mr. J. Regan

  Miss J. Reynolds

  Mr. J. Stephens

  Mr. G. L. Thomas

  Ms J. Tunstill

  Mr. P. Tyndall

  Mr. D. Wakefield

  Mrs. J. Waldron

  Mr. F. Watts

  Mr. K. White

  Miss M. Woodier

  Nursing homes:

  Dr. A. Admani

  Dr. A. Banerjee

  Dr. J. Cox

  Dr. G. Hall

  Dr. M. Hildick-Smith

  Dr. G. Jones-Davis

  Dr. D. Kerr

  Dr. S. Moreton

  Mr. R. Marcus

  Mr. B. Maurice

  Dr. N. Merali

  Dr. P. Tiplady

  Mrs. S. Adams

  Mrs. C. Alford

  Mr. K. Dainty

  Mrs. R. Doidge

  Mrs. T. Gallety

  Miss P. Jenkins

  Mrs. N. Kelly

  Mrs. M. McGregor

  Mr. J. Sharp

  Mrs. M. Wilson

  Written Questions
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost of answering a written parliamentary question in her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The current average cost of providing an answer to a written parliamentary question is estimated at £97. This information was provided in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 30 November 1993 at column 391.

  Administrators
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many administrators worked in the NHS and trust hospitals five years ago and the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 2 December 1993:] The information available is shown in the table. Many of the administrative and clerical staff directly support medical and other professional staff. The figures for managers need to be treated with caution because much of the increase arises from the reclassification of existing staff. The number of managers has been deliberately increased since the mid-1980s—not just since the reforms —because the service was previously undermanaged.

  Administrative and clerical (A&C) staff and general and senior managers (GM/SM) at 30 September each year, England (hospital and community health services, excluding family health services authorities and other statutory authorities): Whole-time equivalents

  1988 total

  1992 total

  No. included in 1992 total in NHS Trusts

  A&C

  106,990

  122,990

  (37,760)

  GM/SM

  1,230

  14,980

  (3,820)

  Source:

  1988 Non-Medical Manpower Census.

  1992 DH form Km49.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. There were no trusts in 1988.

  3. Figures for 1992 are the latest available.

WALES

  Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made towards establishing an enterprise zone in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Local authorities in the area are preparing an outline case for an enterprise zone.

  Institute of Welsh Affairs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of the Institute of Welsh Affairs to discuss their recent proposals for the future of Wales; what new measures he is considering in the light of these proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I met representatives of the Institute of Welsh Affairs in July to hear of developments since the
  623
  publication of its report, "Wales 2010: Creating Our Future". My officials continue to keep in close touch with the institute on further developments.

  Schools Inspection
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of tenders placed in the financial year 1993–94 for the inspection of secondary schools in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for school inspection rests with the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales. I am informed that the total price of contracts let by OHMCI for the inspection of secondary schools in Wales so far this financial year is £1,510,617, including VAT.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make arrangements for the Data Protection Registrar to inspect relevant contracts with suppliers of IT services that involve the use of personal data held by his Department in order to check whether all appropriate arrangements in relation to the Data Protection Act 1984 have been made, and whether such contracts make provisions for the registrar to make random inspections in order to check the suppliers' compliance with eighth data protection principle.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Data Protection Registrar has a wide range of powers to ensure that all holders of personal data on computer are registered and observe the data protection principles as required by the Act. When IT services are contracted out, the data protection principles and the registrar's powers to promote compliance with them, apply to both the owner of the personal data and the service provider. It is for the registrar to decide how he will use his powers under the Act.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will quantify the cost of the factors which led to an increase in the cost of cars for Ministers in his Department since 1990–91.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 1990–91 the running costs of Ministers' official cars have increased by 12 per cent.—including the VAT increase in April 1991—resulting in additional costs in 1993–94 of £13,000. Further minor increases are attributable to changes in patterns of usage.

  Strategic Planning Guidance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding strategic planning guidance in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received representations from various organisations about strategic planning guidance in Wales both in correspondence and at meetings.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing
  624
  process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 competing for quality programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Much of the information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizens Charter Second Report". On an individual basis, much of the information is commercially confidential.

  Badgers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by county the number of badgers shot and gassed in each year since 1988; and what percentage of those badgers were subsequently shown to have tuberculosis.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of badgers killed, following trapping during state veterinary service badger removal operations, in Wales since 1988 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of Badgers killed

  Number positive

  1988

  32

  0

  1989

  5

  0

  1990

  9

  1

  1991

  22

  0

  1992

  —

  —

  1993

  10

  0

  The figures relate to the county of Dyfed. No badgers have been killed by the state veterinary service in any other county in Wales since 1988. The legal gassing of badgers ceased on 26 June 1982.

DEFENCE

  Artillery Shells
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department holds on the trading relationship between Allivane International Ltd., Allivane International Group or Aerotechnologies Ltd. of London and Glasgow, with the Chartered Chemical Industries Pte. Ltd. of Singapore in regard to the sale and manufacture of artillery shells.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department holds no information on any trading relationship between these companies and the Chartered Chemical Industries Pte. Ltd. of Singapore.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department holds on the trading relationship between Royal Ordnance and the Chartered Chemical Industries Pte. Ltd. of Singapore in regard to artillery shells.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department holds no information on any trading relationship between Royal Ordnance and the Chartered Chemical Industries Pte Ltd. of Singapore.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on matters in regard to the proliferation of plutonium and other nuclear materials discussed at the NATO summit in Brussels on 10 and 11 January.

  Mr. Hanley
  The NATO summit declaration, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred in his statement of 12 January,Official Report, columns 177–79, sets out in paragraph 17 the alliance policy on proliferation. A copy of the declaration has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department prepared proposals for the second preparatory committee meeting for the fifth review and renewal conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty held in New York from 17 January.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department continues to be closely involved with the United Kingdom's participation in the work of the second preparatory committee.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is currently being conducted by his Blacknest verification laboratory into establishing a robust verification procedure to monitor a comprehensive nuclear test ban; and what resources are committed annually to such verification research.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Atomic Weapons Establishment, of which the Blacknest laboratory is a part, has been contracted by the Ministry of Defence to carry out work on the verification procedures necessary to monitor a comprehensive nuclear test ban. Expenditure on unclassified work in this area is likely to be about £1·5 million per annum.

  Landing Platform Helicopter Carrier
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made to the best and final offer accepted from VSEL in respect of the landing platform helicopter carrier since 11 May 1993; and what is the reason for any subsequent adjustments.

  Mr. Aitken
  VSEL has contracted to provide a vessel which meets the Department's requirements as set out in the procurement specification. As the design progresses, it is normal for alterations to the details of the specification to be discussed. These discussions are still ongoing and any changes to the specification will be rigorously controlled to ensure that cost estimates are not exceeded and value for money is achieved. My Department is not renegotiating the contract with VSEL.

  Royal Naval Engineering College
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of recarpeting work carried out at the Royal Naval engineering college in Plymouth during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total cost of recarpeting work carried out during the last 12 months is £10,000.
  626
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of replacing and installing perimeter fencing and lighting at the Royal Naval engineering college in Plymouth since 1990.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total cost of replacing and installing perimeter fencing and lighting since 1990 is £330,000.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of building, maintenance and refurbishment work carried out at the Royal Naval engineering college in Plymouth during the last two financial years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The total cost of building, maintenance and refurbishment work carried out during the last two financial years is £1,557,000 in financial year 1991–92 and £2,798,000 in financial year 1992–93.

  Royal Navy (Visits to South Africa)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made recently for Royal Navy ships to visit South Africa; what was the purpose of each of those visits; and which of those visits has been in connection with the sale of arms.

  Mr. Aitken
  The only visit of Royal Navy ships to South Africa to have been arranged in recent years is that of HMS Norfolk and the tanker RFA Grey Rover. This visit will take place later this month. The purpose of the visit is to re-establish relations between the Royal Navy and the South African navy.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Hague
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the total cost to the Benefits Agency in 1993 of those Christmas cards sent out by senior executives in their official capacity.

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 18 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the total cost to the Benefits Agency of Christmas cards issued by its senior executives in an official capacity.

  The senior executives of the Benefits Agency (BA) are myself, as the Chief Executive, and my Directors, who form the Benefits Agency Management Team.

  A number of greetings cards were issued by myself and my Directors to managers, staff and outside organisations, but the cost of these cards and any postage costs incurred were funded, in the main, by the individual concerned.
  627
  The Agency also produced "official" Christmas cards which appeared in two designs and were of a functional nature, carrying a number of Freeline and Helpline telephone numbers, which are on the reverse of the card. These cards were available to all staff within BA and their intended purpose was one of liaison and information. It was felt that there was a good opportunity at Christmas, by way of a simple greetings card, to issue a reminder to the organisations with which the Agency has contact.

  A number of these "official cards" were issued by myself and my Directors, to government officials and outside bodies and organisations. Where possible such cards were distributed, along with other items of official mail, within the internal courier system at no extra cost to the Agency. Where postage costs were incurred these were restricted to second class postage.

  The cost to the Agency of Christmas cards issued by myself and my Directors in an official capacity, including postage, was £48·96.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Job Seeker's Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent the job seeker's allowance will be financed by the national insurance fund.

  Mr. Burt
  Payments of the job seekers allowance which are made on the basis of national insurance contribution records will be met from the national insurance fund.

  Young People
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds in the Doncaster area applied for severe hardship payments in each year from 1988; and what percentage of applicants were successful.

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 18 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about Severe Hardship Payments to 16 and 17-year-olds in the Doncaster area.

  The information requested in this question is not available in the format required and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. This is because the statistics kept cover the number of applications, rather than the number of individuals who have claimed. Some customers may have made more than one application. Also, the statistics collected do not distinguish between 16 and 17-year-olds.

  However, I have provided figures from the earliest date available, 1989, in the attached appendix, relating to successful applications for Severe Hardship Payments.

  I should point out that the statistics relate to Benefits Agency Districts and are not routinely collected to show the number of claims specific to a town. The statistics given for Doncaster relate to the Benefits Agency's Doncaster East and Doncaster West offices.

  16/17-year-olds severe hardship applications—Doncaster district office

  Year

  Total applications

  Number successful

  Percentage successful

  1989

  97

  64

  66

  1990

  103

  68

  66

  1991

  349

  263

  75

  1992

  541

  382

  71

  1993

  650

  543

  84

  Disability
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are receiving(a) attendance allowance, (b) disability living allowance, (c) family credit,(d) income support, (e) invalidity benefit and (f) sickness benefit in (i) Barking and Dagenham and (ii) Redbridge.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. M Richard to Mr. Mike Gapes, dated 18 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about benefit recipients in Barking, Dagenham and Redbridge.

  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because Benefits Agency District boundaries do not correspond with county or borough boundaries. However, I have provided figures relating to Barking Benefits Office, which covers the Barking and Dagenham area, and Ilford District Office, which covers the Redbridge area. I should point out that both those offices deal with areas other than Barking, Dagenham and Redbridge. The statistics provided, therefore, include a small number of people who do not live in those areas.

  I should also explain that Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance are centrally administered benefits. To obtain figures for specific areas would result in disproportionate cost.

  Statistical data for each of the benefits is collected and collated over different periods and timescales. The figures provided are the latest available for each benefit.

  The numbers of people receiving Income Support, at November 1993, are as follows:

  Number

  Barking Benefits Office

  38,230

  Ilford District Office

  60,239

  The numbers of people receiving Family Credit, at 24 December 1993, are as follows:

  Number

  Barking Benefits Office

  934

  Ilford District Office

  992

  The numbers of people claiming Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit, at the last working day of December 1993, are as follows:

  Number

  Barking Benefits Office

  Sickness Benefit

  2,025

  Invalidity Benefit

  4,083

  Ilford District Office

  Sickness Benefit

  2,766

  Invalidity Benefit

  4,529

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled persons are employed on(a) a full-time basis and (b) a part-time basis in Benefits Agency local offices in the Doncaster area; and what
  629
  Mr. Burt
  The responsibility for Benefits Agency staff is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 18 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of disabled people employed in the Benefits Agency's offices in the Doncaster area.

  There are 320 staff employed in the two offices in the Doncaster area: Doncaster East and Doncaster West. Of the 245 who work full time, nine are registered disabled, and this represents 2·81 per cent. of all staff. Of the 75 staff who work part time, none are registered disabled.

  Information is not available for disabled staff who are not registered.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security where is the weather station which provides the recordings to enable cold weather payments to be made to citizens resident in Doncaster; what reviews he is currently carrying out to change the location of the weather station in relation to Doncaster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the Library. There are currently no plans to change the weather stations covering the Doncaster area.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Investors Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from hon. Members since January 1990 on the operaton of the investors compensation scheme; what discussions he has had with the officers of the scheme arising from such discussions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have received a number of such representations. The Securities and Investments Board has recently consulted about the funding of the scheme and is currently consulting about a number of minor changes to the rules. While the rules are a matter for SIB and decisions in individual cases are matters for the board, I am very conscious of the valuable work carried out by the scheme.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Customs and Excise officers have been in post each year since 1979, solely involved in the detection of the illegal import of drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The only customs staff whose duties are solely involved in the detection of illegal imports of drugs are those who work in the customs investigation division and local collection investigation units. The relevant numbers are:

  Year

  Number

  1979–80

  121

  1980–81

  133

  1981–82

  152

  630

  Year

  Number

  1982–83

  183

  1983–84

  201

  1984–85

  212

  1985–86

  262

  1986–87

  297

  1987–88

  376

  1988–89

  395

  1989–90

  420

  1990–91

  568

  1991–92

  576

  1992–93

  582

  11993–94

  591

  1 estimate

  In addition, all staff employed on anti-smuggling duties at ports and airports have a prime responsibility in the detection of the illegal importation of drugs as well as of other prohibitied and restricted goods.

  Non-elected Authorities
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product was spent by central and local government and within central Government by non-elected authorities, for each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on gross domestic product and central and local government expenditure is readily available on the CSO database in the following series—identified by their database code:

  EBAO: GDP at market prices adjusted for the distortion caused in the abolition of domestic rates

  ABAC: Central government contribution to general government expenditure

  ABAD: Local authority contribution to general government expenditure.

  The database can be accessed on-line by the House of Commons Library.

  Information on non-departmental public bodies is available in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies".

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount corporation tax receipts have been reduced in each of the last five years by the offsetting of costs associated with tobacco advertising, including sponsorship, against taxable profits.

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

  Income Tax
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would have been the average percentage loss of income due to an increase of 7p in the pound in income tax, instead of the measures imposed in the March and November 1993 budgets, for the 10 per cent. lowest income group and the 10 per cent. highest income group.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The distribution of income tax can be analysed using the annual survey of personal incomes which records information about individuals who have some tax liability. On the basis of a projection to 1994–95 of the 1991–92 survey the income net of income tax of the top 10 per cent. of taxpayers would fall by about 4·1 per
  631
  cent. as a result of a 7p increase in the basic rate of income tax. The bottom 10 per cent. of taxpayers pay tax only at the lower rate and would be unaffected by a change in the basic rate.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result: of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractors (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments are currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 competing for quality programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Much of the information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizens Charter Second Report". On an individual contract basis, much of the information is commercially confidential.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend extra-statutory concession A25, claims for tax relief, to include taxpayers restrained by the time limit relating to the setting back of retirement annuity relief and similar statutorily imposed time limits.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to extend extra-statutory concession A25. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, he may wish to write to me.

  English Courses (VAT)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revenue raised from levying value-added tax on fees paid by students undertaking English as a foreign language course in the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Cope
  No estimates are available.

  Unofficial Economy
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to estimate the size of the unofficial economy; and what this represents as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Caernafon (Mr. Wigley) on 26 January 1993 at column 618.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give in cash terms the level of the net public sector debt for each year since 1979 together with his forecasts using the prediction contained in the Red Book for each year until 1999 using either end of financial year dates or other convenient dates.
  632
  Mr. Nelson
  The table shows data for net public sector at end-March for each year from 1979 to 1993, plus projections for 1994 and 1995 consistent with the Budget forecast.

  Net public sector debt (end-March figures)

  £ billion

  Per cent. GDP

  1979

  92·0

  49·50

  1980

  100·6

  45·50

  1981

  115·2

  47·00

  1982

  126·1

  47·00

  1983

  134·0

  45·75

  1984

  146·5

  46·50

  1985

  160·3

  46·75

  1986

  166·4

  44·75

  1987

  172·3

  42·50

  1988

  171·1

  38·00

  1989

  157·2

  31·50

  1990

  151·0

  28·00

  1991

  155·3

  27·50

  1992

  164·9

  28·00

  1993

  201·7

  32·75

  11994

  253·0

  38·50

  11995

  292·0

  41·75

  1Forecast.

  Projections for 1995–96 to 1998–99 for net public sector debt as a percent of GDP are shown in chart 2.3 of the 1994–95 "Financial Statement and Budget Report". These projections show net public sector debt peaking at around 44 per cent. of GDP at end-March 1997, and falling thereafter. They are illustrative and depend on the assumptions made about growth of the economy.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To 'ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Nelson
  A total of 1,175 official Christmas cards were sent by Ministers and 2,497 by civil servants in the Treasury in 1993. These cards cost £1,028·16 to buy. No record is available of the methods used to deliver the cards which would enable an accurate assessment to be made of postage costs. Equally no record is available of staff time involved in signing, addressing and placing the Christmas cards in envelopes.

  Sporting Services (VAT)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for finalising legislation which would exempt from value-added tax sporting services supplied to people taking part in sport or physical education by non-profit-making bodies and local authorities.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 12 January, at column 189.

  Taxation
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of 15 December 1992,Official Report, columns 120–26, and provide latest

  633
  estimates of the burden of direct and indirect taxes for 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95, including figures for the community charge and council tax as appropriate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]Updated figures for 1992–93, including estimates of community charge payments, and the latest estimates for

  Income tax, National Insurance contributions and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings

  1992–93

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  24·98

  46·71

  68·44

  111·90

  181·37

  320·45

  459·53

  598·61

  876·77

  1,294·01

  2,684·81

  NICs

  11·87

  19·69

  27·51

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  Income tax and NICs

  36·84

  66·40

  95·95

  144·57

  214·04

  353·12

  492·20

  631·28

  909·44

  1,326·68

  2,717·48

  VAT

  —

  14·43

  19·24

  29·75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18·89

  23·33

  33·02

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge

  —

  7·19

  7·53

  8·20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  106·91

  146·05

  215·54

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  14·4

  17·9

  19·7

  21·5

  26·1

  30·7

  33·0

  34·4

  36·0

  37·2

  38·6

  NICs

  6·8

  7·6

  7·9

  6·3

  4·7

  3·1

  2·3

  1·9

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  21·2

  25·5

  27·6

  27·7

  30·8

  33·9

  35·4

  36·3

  37·4

  38·2

  39·1

  VAT

  —

  5·5

  5·5

  5·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·2

  6·7

  6·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge

  —

  2·8

  2·2

  1·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  41·0

  42·0

  41·3

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  16·71

  38·44

  60·17

  103·63

  168·14

  307·22

  446·30

  585·38

  863·54

  1,280·78

  2,671·58

  NICs

  11·87

  19·69

  27·51

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  Income tax and NICs

  28·57

  58·13

  87·68

  136·30

  200·81

  339·89

  478·97

  618·05

  896·21

  1,313·45

  2,704·25

  VAT

  —

  13·35

  18·59

  30·03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  21·11

  25·61

  35·43

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge

  —

  11·13

  11·47

  12·16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  103·72

  143·35

  213·92

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  9·6

  14·7

  17·3

  19·9

  24·2

  29·5

  32·1

  33·7

  35·5

  36·8

  38·4

  NICs

  6·8

  7·6

  7·9

  6·3

  4·7

  3·1

  2·3

  1·9

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  16·4

  22·3

  25·2

  26·1

  28·9

  32·6

  34·4

  35·6

  36·8

  37·8

  38·9

  VAT

  —

  5·1

  5·3

  5·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·1

  7·4

  6·8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge

  —

  4·3

  3·3

  2·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  39·8

  41·2

  41·0

  Married, two children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  -0·74

  20·99

  42·72

  86·18

  150·69

  289·77

  428·85

  567·93

  846·09

  1,263·33

  2,654·13

  NICs

  11·87

  19·69

  27·51

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  32·67

  Income tax and NICs

  11·12

  40·68

  70·23

  118·85

  188·36

  322·44

  461·52

  600·60

  878·76

  1,296·00

  2,686·80

  VAT

  —

  13·33

  19·27

  32·23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  20·74

  24·28

  32·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge

  —

  11·47

  12·15

  13·51

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  86·22

  125·93

  196·59

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  -0·4

  8·0

  12·3

  16·5

  21·7

  27·8

  30·8

  32·7

  34·8

  36·3

  38·2

  NICs

  6·8

  7·6

  7·9

  6·3

  4·7

  3·1

  2·3

  1·9

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  6·4

  15·6

  20·2

  22·8

  26·4

  30·9

  33·2

  34·5

  36·1

  37·3

  38·6

  VAT

  —

  5·1

  5·5

  6·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·0

  7·0

  6·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge

  —

  4·4

  3·5

  2·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  33·1

  36·2

  37·7

  Married, both working, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  1·65

  19·97

  41·68

  85·15

  128·61

  226·15

  349·51

  488·59

  766·75

  1,183·99

  2,574·79

  634
  1993–94 and 1994–95 for direct and indirect taxes excluding local taxes are given in the tables on a similar basis to that provided to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 15 December 1992. No estimates of council tax payments for specimen households in 1993–94 can be provided until the 1993 family expenditure survey is published.
  635

  Multiples of overate earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  NICs

  8·09

  15·91

  23·73

  39·38

  53·92

  65·34

  65·34

  65·34

  65·34

  65·34

  65·34

  Income tax and NICs

  9·74

  35·88

  65·42

  124·53

  182·53

  291·49

  414·85

  553·93

  832·09

  1,249·33

  2,640·13

  VAT

  —

  17·17

  22·86

  34·23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  25·58

  29·47

  37·26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge

  —

  11·85

  12·23

  13·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  90·48

  129·98

  209·02

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  1·0

  7·7

  12·0

  16·3

  18·5

  21·7

  25·1

  28·1

  31·5

  34·1

  37·0

  NICs

  4·7

  6·1

  6·8

  7·6

  7·8

  6·3

  4·7

  3·8

  2·7

  1·9

  0·9

  Income tax and NICs

  5·6

  13·8

  18·8

  23·9

  26·2

  27·9

  29·8

  31·9

  34·2

  35·9

  38·0

  VAT

  —

  6·6

  6·6

  6·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9·8

  8·5

  7·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge

  —

  4·5

  3·5

  2·5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  34·7

  37·4

  40·1

  Income tax, National Insurance contributions and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings

  1993–94

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  Single

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  26·02

  48·51

  71·01

  118·67

  190·65

  334·61

  478·57

  622·53

  910·45

  1,342·33

  2,781·93

  NICs

  12·28

  20·37

  28·47

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  Income tax and NICs

  38·30

  68·89

  99·48

  152·55

  224·53

  368·49

  512·45

  656·41

  944·33

  1,376·21

  2,815·81

  VAT

  —

  14·71

  19·64

  30·16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  19·87

  24·45

  34·23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  103·47

  143·57

  216·94

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  14·5

  18·0

  19·7

  22·0

  26·5

  31·0

  33·2

  34·6

  36·1

  37·3

  38·6

  NICs

  6·8

  7·5

  7·9

  6·3

  4·7

  3·1

  2·4

  1·9

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  21·3

  25·5

  27·6

  23·3

  31·2

  34·1

  35·6

  36·5

  37·5

  38·2

  39·1

  VAT

  —

  5·5

  5·5

  5·6

  —_

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·4

  6·8

  6·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  38·3

  39·9

  40·2

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  17·75

  40·25

  62·74

  107·73

  177·42

  321·38

  465·34

  609·30

  897·22

  1,329·10

  2,768·70

  NICs

  12·28

  20·37

  28·47

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  Income tax and NICs

  30·03

  60·62

  91·21

  141·61

  211·30

  355·26

  499·22

  643·18

  931·10

  1,362·98

  2,802·58

  VAT

  —

  13·51

  18·87

  30·57

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  22·31

  27·00

  37·22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  96·44

  137·08

  209·40

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  9·9

  14·9

  17·4

  20·0

  24·6

  29·8

  32·3

  33·9

  35·6

  36·9

  38·5

  NICs

  6·8

  7·5

  7·9

  6·3

  4·7

  3·1

  2·4

  1·9

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  16·7

  22·5

  25·3

  26·2

  29·4

  32·9

  34·7

  35·7

  37·0

  37·9

  38·9

  VAT

  —

  5·0

  5·2

  5·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·3

  7·5

  6·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  35·7

  38·1

  38·8

  Married, two children

  Amounts, £per week

  Income tax

  -0·35

  22·15

  44·64

  89·63

  159·32

  303·28

  447·24

  591·20

  879·12

  1,311·00

  2,750·00

  NICs

  12·28

  20·37

  28·47

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  33·88

  Income tax and NICs

  11·93

  42·52

  73·11

  123·51

  193·20

  337·16

  481·12

  625·08

  913·00

  1,344·88

  2,784·48

  VAT

  —

  13·41

  19·48

  32·73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  22·09

  25·77

  33·80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  78·01

  118·36

  190·04

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  -0·2

  8·2

  12·4

  16·6

  22·1

  28·1

  31·1

  32·9

  34·9

  36·4

  38·2

  NICs

  6·8

  7·5

  7·9

  6·3

  4·7

  3·1

  2·4

  1·9

  1·3

  0·9

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  6·6

  15·8

  20·3

  22·9

  26·8

  31·2

  33·4

  34·7

  36·2

  37·4

  38·7

  636 637

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  VAT

  —

  5·0

  5·4

  6·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·2

  7·2

  6·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  28·9

  32·9

  35·2

  Married, both working, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  2·87

  21·60

  43·77

  88·76

  133·75

  237·63

  368·07

  512·03

  799·95

  1,231·83

  2,671·43

  NICs

  8·36

  16·45

  24·55

  40·75

  55·87

  67·76

  67·76

  67·76

  67·76

  67·76

  67·76

  Income tax and NICs

  11·23

  38·05

  68·32

  129·51

  189·62

  305·39

  435·83

  579·79

  867·71

  1,299·59

  2,739·19

  VAT

  —

  15·57

  21·42

  33·06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  25·88

  29·92

  37·96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  79·51

  119·67

  200·52

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  1·6

  8·0

  12·2

  16·4

  18·6

  22·0

  25·6

  28·5

  31·8

  34·2

  37·1

  NICs

  4·6

  6·1

  6·8

  7·5

  7·8

  6·3

  4·7

  3·8

  2·7

  1·9

  0·9

  Income tax and NICs

  6·2

  14·1

  19·0

  24·0

  26·3

  28·3

  30·3

  32·2

  34·4

  36·1

  38·1

  VAT

  —

  5·8

  6·0

  6·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9·6

  8·3

  7·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  29·5

  33·3

  37·1

  Income tax, National Insurance contributions and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings 1994–95

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  Single

  Amounts, £per week

  Income tax

  27·34

  50·73

  74·13

  126·83

  201·69

  351·41

  501·13

  650·85

  950·29

  1,399·45

  2,896·65

  NICs

  14·16

  23·51

  32·87

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  Income tax and NICs

  41·50

  74·25

  107·00

  165·27

  240·13

  389·85

  539·57

  689·29

  988·73

  1,437·89

  2,935·09

  VAT

  —

  16·78

  22·21

  33·74

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  20·86

  25·68

  35·87

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  111·89

  154·89

  234·88

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  14·6

  18·1

  19·8

  22·6

  26·9

  31·3

  33·5

  34·8

  36·3

  37·4

  38·7

  NICs

  7·6

  8·4

  8·8

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·6

  2·1

  1·5

  1·0

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  22·2

  26·4

  28·6

  29·4

  32·1

  34·7

  36·0

  36·8

  37·7

  38·4

  39·2

  VAT

  —

  6·0

  5·9

  6·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7·4

  6·9

  6·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  39·9

  41·4

  41·8

  Married, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  20·73

  44·12

  67·51

  120·21

  195·07

  344·79

  494·51

  644·23

  943·67

  1,392·83

  2,890·03

  NICs

  14·16

  23·51

  32·87

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  Income tax and NICs

  34·88

  67·63

  100·38

  158·65

  233·51

  383·23

  532·95

  682·67

  982·11

  1,431·27

  2,928·47

  VAT

  —

  15·38

  21·27

  33·76

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  23·24

  28·16

  38·57

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  106·25

  149·81

  230·99

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  11·1

  15·7

  18·0

  21·4

  26·1

  30·7

  33·0

  34·4

  36·0

  37·2

  38·6

  NICs

  7·6

  8·4

  8·8

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·6

  2·1

  1·5

  1·0

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  18·6

  24·1

  26·8

  28·3

  31·2

  34·1

  35·6

  36·5

  37·5

  38·2

  39·1

  VAT

  —

  5·4

  5·7

  6·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·3

  7·5

  6·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  37·8

  40·0

  41·1

  Married, two children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  2·27

  25·67

  49·06

  101·76

  176·62

  326·34

  476·06

  625·78

  925·22

  1,374·38

  2,871·58

  NICs

  14·16

  23·51

  32·87

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  38·44

  Income tax and NICs

  16·43

  49·18

  81·93

  140·20

  215·06

  364·78

  514·50

  664·22

  963·66

  1,412·82

  2,910·02

  VAT

  —

  15·21

  21·92

  36·12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  638

  639

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  Other indirect

  —

  23·13

  27·03

  35·29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  87·53

  130·88

  211·62

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  1·2

  9·1

  13·1

  18·1

  23·6

  29·1

  31·8

  33·4

  35·3

  36·7

  38·4

  NICs

  7·6

  8·4

  8·8

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·6

  2·1

  1·5

  1·0

  0·5

  Income tax and NICs

  8·8

  17·5

  21·9

  25·0

  28·7

  32·5

  34·4

  35·5

  36·8

  37·7

  38·9

  VAT

  —

  5·4

  5·8

  6·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8·2

  7·2

  6·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  31·2

  35·0

  37·7

  Married, both working, no children

  Amounts, £ per week

  Income tax

  4·31

  25·25

  48·07

  94·85

  141·64

  257·97

  396·76

  546·48

  845·92

  1,295·08

  2,792·28

  NICs

  9·60

  18·95

  28·31

  47·03

  63·82

  76·88

  76·88

  76·88

  76·88

  76·88

  76·88

  Income tax and NICs

  13·91

  44·21

  76·38

  141·88

  205·46

  334·85

  473·64

  623·36

  922·80

  1,371·96

  2,869·16

  VAT

  —

  17·58

  24·03

  36·82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  27·19

  31·44

  39·86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  88·97

  131·85

  218·56

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  2·3

  9·0

  12·8

  16·9

  18·9

  23·0

  26·5

  29·2

  32·3

  34·6

  37·3

  NICs

  5·1

  6·8

  7·6

  8·4

  8·5

  6·8

  5·1

  4·1

  2·9

  2·1

  1·0

  Income tax and NICs

  7·4

  15·7

  20·4

  25·3

  27·4

  29·8

  31·6

  33·3

  35·2

  36·7

  38·3

  VAT

  —

  6·2

  6·5

  6·6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9·7

  8·4

  7·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  31·7

  35·2

  38·9

  Notes to tables:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. Since 1990–91, husbands and wives have been taxed independently. Previously the tax liability of couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons with earlier years, the table therefore shows income tax and national insurance contributions paid by a married couple as a proportion of their joint income, assuming, as in the earlier years, that where both partners are earners, the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.

  3. In order to provide comparability with 1978–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowance, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couple with two children.

  4. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are assumed to be £347·70 a week in 1992–93, £359·90 a week in 1993–94 and £374·30 a week in 1994–95, based on illustrative earnings growth assumptions of 3½ per cent. in 1993–94 and 4 per cent. in 1994–95.

  5. The estimates of most indirect taxes are based on equations derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey, uprated to later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. Estimates of VAT on domestic fuel and power are based on equations using results from the 1991 family expenditure survey, uprated using a similar methodology. These estimates are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with the same composition and similar incomes and estimated payments of VAT and other indirect taxes are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range, the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years.

  6. Estimates of the burden of the community charge has been derived from the 1991 and 1992 Family Expenditure Surveys. All respondents were assumed to pay the community charge to which they were liable. The calculations include water charges in order to put the estimates on a comparable basis to the estimates for earlier years. Community charge payments are net of transitional relief and community charge benefit. Since community charge payments vary widely between households with similar incomes, estimated charge payments are only approximate.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a full list of all statements made by Ministers in his Department, and/or press notices issued by his Department, which referred to a possible completion date for the channel tunnel rail link, the dates on which each such statement was made, and the possible completion date which was mentioned.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), in his Budget statement of 16 March 1993, Official Report, column 194, said that he hoped to see the new line completed around the end of the decade.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a full list of all statements made by Ministers in his Department, and/or press notices issued by his Department, which referred to a possible completion date for the crossrail project, the dates on which each such statement was made and the possible completion date which was mentioned.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]I am not aware of any such statements or press notices.

  Private Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the 10 companies included in the survey commissioned from KPMG Peat Marwick by the
  641
  Securities and Investments Board recently, on the transferring of assets from occupational to private pension schemes.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: The survey was commissioned by SIB. I understand that the firms included in the survey—10 LAUTRO regulated firms, eight IMRO regulated firms and 43 members of FIMBRA—were chosen as firms representative of those involved in the selling of personal pensions. Because the study was intended to establish the extent of compliance in the industry as a whole it would be unfair and misleading to single out those firms included in the survey by publishing their names.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigation his Department intends to undertake into the effect of air passenger duty on air fares within the United Kingdom; what estimate he has made as to the impact on business and leisure use of air transport, particularly to the airports operated by Highlands and Islands Airports; and what evidence he has received from other European countries as to the impact of such taxation on transport.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: Air passenger duty is expected to increase return air fares within the United Kingdom and to other EC countries by £5; and to other destinations by £10. For the purpose of analysing the effects of the duty we have assumed airlines will fully pass on the duty to passengers in the form of higher fares. The price elasticity for business journeys is estimated to be -0·3; for non-business journeys to be -1·25. Overall, the tax is expected to reduce demand for air travel by around 2½ per cent. There is insufficient information available to estimate the impact of the tax on airports operated by Highland and Islands airports. No information has been received from other European countries on the impact of the introduction of such taxation on transport.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  DAF Leyland
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the 1990, 1991 and 1992 accounts of DAF Leyland were filed at Companies House.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  This matter is for Companies House. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. D. Durham to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 17 January 1994:

  You tabled the following Parliamentary Question:
  "To ask the President of the Board of Trade, when the 1990, 1991 and 1992 accounts of DAF Leyland were filed at Companies House."

  As this is a matter which is my responsibility as Chief Executive and Registrar of Companies House, I am writing to you direct.

  There is no company currently registered under the name of DAF Leyland. I presume that the company in which you are interested is Leyland DAF Limited. I should point out that there are in fact 13 companies on the register with the name Leyland
  642
  DAF in their title, but for the purposes of this reply I have concentrated on the two major companies within the group, Leyland DAF Limited and Leyland DAF Holdings Limited.

  Leyland DAF Limited and Leyland DAF Holdings Limited both delivered accounts for the period ending 31 December 1990 on 10 October 1991. Failure of the directors of these companies to deliver accounts for the period ended 31 December 1991 were followed up with the companies in accordance with normal procedures.

  I was subsequently notified that an administrative receiver had been appointed for both companies on 3 February 1993. The receiver submitted the relevant receivership documents. The companies will not now be pursued for statutory documents but the receiver has an obligation to send me accounts of the receipts and payments to cover the first 12 months of the receivership and six monthly periods thereafter. A report from the receiver was delivered to Companies House for both companies on 2 September 1993.

  Should the companies survive the receivership and emerge as active and wishing to remain on the register, the directors will be obliged to deliver outstanding statutory documents including those which became outstanding prior to the appointment of the receiver.

  I hope this reply has covered the points tabled in your question. If you are interested in any other company within the Leyland DAF group please do not hesitate to let me know.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will update to the present the answer given to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 17 October 1990,Official Report, column 837, on export credits to Iraq.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is contained in the answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 12 January at column 236.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what benefits have accrued to United Kingdom business from exhibitions at the Baghdad international arms fairs.

  Mr. Needham
  I assume the question refers to the international exhibition for military production held in Baghdad in 1989 in which a number of British companies participated. It is for the companies themselves to say what commercial benefits accrued as a result.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the most recent United Kingdom-Iraq joint committee on trade was held; what matters were discussed; and what was decided.

  Mr. Needham
  The most recent UK-Iraq joint commission was held from 27 to 30 November 1989. It reviewed the implementation of the agreement on economic and technical co-operation signed on 24 June 1981. A financial protocol was signed for ECGD supported medium-term credits, up to a value of £250 million, in respect of the export of capital goods and services to Iraq by United Kingdom companies. In the event, however, loan agreements in respect of this sum were not signed and none of the £250 million, therefore, was utilised by Iraq.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has sent a copy of the Kemp report on the ECGD to the Scott inquiry.
  643
  Mr. Needham
  A copy of the Kemp report which reviewed the status options for ECGD has not been sent to the Scott inquiry since it does not fall within the categories of documents requested by the inquiry.

  Export Credits Guarantees Department
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the nature of his Department's responsibility for and oversight of the ECGD since it was sold.

  Mr. Needham
  The short-term business of ECGD, formerly operated by its insurance services arm, was privatised on 1 December 1991. The privatised company has to meet the regulatory requirements of the DTI pertaining to private sector insurance companies. ECGD continues to be a separate Department of the Secretary of State, principally concerned with credit insurance support for capital goods and project exports, typically sold on medium and long terms of credit. The Government have agreed to provide various supplemental reinsurance facilities to the private sector through ECGD to ensure that sufficient capacity is available to meet the needs of United Kingdom companies exporting on short terms of credit.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department retains records of ECGD activities prior to its privatisation.

  Mr. Needham
  The Secretary of State retains the right of access to records held by NCM Credit Insurance Ltd. to satisfy ECGD's requirements in terms of its trading and appropriation accounts, its public accountability obligations and to ensure the company complies with the terms of agreements entered into with ECGD in the context of the privatisation.

  British Coal
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what total amount of subsidy towards the cost of production has been paid by the Department to British Coal since the 1993 coal White Paper;

  (2) what conditions need to be met in order to claim a subsidy from the Government to British Coal towards the cost of production from a particular mine;

  (3) how many requests his Department has received from British Coal since last March for a subsidy to a mine or group of mines; and how many have been accepted.

  Mr. Eggar
  The coal subsidy is available to both British Coal, and private sector producers, in support of genuinely additional sales of deep mined coal for electricity generation, at world market related prices. Applications are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a range of factors including, the price paid for the coal, which should be related to world market prices, current and projected production costs at the pit, the financial performance of the pit and the position of competing producers, as it is important to ensure that United Kingdom opencast producers are not unfairly disadvantaged.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has received a number of bids for subsidy since March 1993. Details of individual applications are commercially confidential, but so far, two offers of subsidy have been made to British Coal, in support of sales from Ellington colliery. Both offers are subject to EC clearance.
  644
  The subsidy is payable in arrears in line with actual deliveries made. To date, no subsidy has been paid to British Coal. Details of the total amount of subsidy awarded will however be made available to Parliament in the normal way.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the consultants commissioned by him to report on the restructuring and privatisation of British Coal; what are their terms of reference; when each piece of work was commissioned; and when it was completed.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of consultants appointed by the Department on privatisation and associated restructuring are as follows:

  Consultant

  Date

  Scope of work

  NM Rothschild

  30 May 1991

  Provision of financial advice in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry.

  Clifford Chance

  19 June 1991

  Provision of legal advice in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry.

  John T. Boyd

  5 August 1991

  Provision of advice on technical matters related to evaluating the potential for improvements in mining productivity and costs in the United Kingdom coal industry and other similar matters that may be specified in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry.

  Touche Ross

  12 June 1991

  Provision of accounting and regulatory advice in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry.

  RPS Consultants

  12 July 1993

  Identification of and advice on environmental liabilities.

  Dewe Rogerson

  28 July 1992

  Provision of marketing advice for privatisation.

  Wardell Armstrong

  5 August 1991

  Provision of advice on technical matters related to minerals leasing and licensing.

  Peter Williams

  7 January 1992

  Provision of advice on coal mining safety matters in connection with the privatisation of British Coal.

  The consultants' work is continuing as work on privatisation progresses.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost including expenses of all consultancies he has commissioned on the restructuring and privatisation of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure on consultancies in connection with the privatisation of British Coal for 1991–92 and 1992–93 was £3·3 million, including VAT, and £3·5 million, including VAT, respectively. Provision for 1993–94 is £13·5 million, including VAT. The consultancies budget for 1994–95 has still to be decided.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of

  645
  Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department did not have an official Christmas card last year. The use of Christmas cards by the Department's executive agencies is a day-to-day operational matter for their chief executives, but I understand that in 1993 the following DTI agencies sent out official cards: Accounts Services Agency, Companies House, Laboratory of the Government Chemist, National Engineering Laboratory, National Physical Laboratory, National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Patent Office, Radiocommunications Agency and Warren Spring Laboratory. Details of these and any other mailings of Christmas cards are not held centrally.

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which his Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department does not classify consultancy contracts in terms of the type of organisations awarded them and the information requested cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

  AKZO-Nobel Industrier
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer the proposed merger between AKZO and Nobel Industrier to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No. This merger falls to be considered under the EC merger regulation. I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed about this transaction and I can assure him that these were taken into account in the full comments which the United Kingdom has passed to the EC Commission. A decision as to whether a detailed investigation should be undertaken is a matter for the Commission.

  Ofwat Customer Services Committees
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are used in determining nominations for the chairmanship of regional Ofwat customer services committees.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services.

  Jetstream Aircraft
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the agreement of GATT on the future prospects for the sale of Jetstream aircraft overseas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No new agreement on civil aircraft —a category which includes aircraft of all sizes, aero-engines and equipment—was concluded at the end of the Uruguay round. The parties involved agreed to retain the status quo, and to continue negotiations for a further year on the basis of a text drafted by the chairman of the 646
  relevant GATT sub-committee. It is therefore unlikely that Jetstream's sales prospects will be affected in the short term.

  In the long term, our aim is to put into place an agreement which controls all forms of government support to the aerospace industry in a balanced way. Such an agreement would be of benefit to Jetstream as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom aerospace industry.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action he will take to recover the levy paid to Nuclear Electric in the current financial year following the publication of the most recent figures regarding the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on costs of decommissioning power stations recently published by the nuclear industry on the validity of the estimates on which the fossil fuel levy was based; and what plans he has to reduce or end the levy.

  Mr. Eggar
  The fossil fuel levy enables the full costs of nuclear generation in England and Wales, including making provision for the costs of decommissioning Nuclear Electric's stations, to be met. The suMs to be raised by the levy over the period 1990–1998 were determined in 1990 in the light of Nuclear Electric's best estimates at that time of the full costs of its stations and in the light of reductions in these costs which Nuclear Electric aimed to achieve. This is reflected in the fact that the amount raised for Nuclear Electric from the levy is schedule to decline in real terms up to 1998, providing the company with an incentive to reduce its costs. The levy arrangements in respect of nuclear power are due to end in 1998.

  The House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee made certain recommendations in respect of the levy in its report "British Energy Policy and the Market for Coal" (HC 237). The Government will take account of these recommendations in their review of the future prospects for nuclear power.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how GATT will affect the ability of Rolls-Royce in Coventry to compete with other aero engine manufacturers.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  no new agreement on civil aircraft—a category which includes aero-engines—was concluded at the end of the Uruguay round. The parties involved agreed to retain the status quo, and to continue negotiations for a further year on the basis of a text drafted by the chairman of the relevant GATT sub-committee. Thus, the competitive position of Rolls-Royce will not be affected immediately.

  In the long term, our aim is to put into place an agreement which controls all forms of government support to the aerospace industry, in particular the high levels of indirect support which the United States aero-engine industry receives. Such an agreement would help Rolls-Royce to compete on an equal basis in world markets.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what request he has received from Rolls-Royce for launch aid.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our policy to confirm or deny whether applications for support have been received from particular companies, as any such applications are treated as commercially confidential.

  Digital Audio Broadcasting
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has been reached on the allocation of radio frequency spectrum to allow the introduction of digital audio broadcasting into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have decided to make available the frequency band 217·5 MHz to 230 MHz to enable terrestrial digital audio broadcasting—TDAB —services to begin in the United Kingdom. Broadcasters and equipment manufacturers will now be able to make plans for sound broadcasting services and for the production of receivers with more certainty.

  The various interests which were brought together by the President of the Board of Trade in February in a DAB forum, which has the aim of promoting plans for the introduction of this important new development into the United Kingdom, will also now be better placed to take investment and other decision, taking into account factors such as the benefits to listeners and the potential for business opportunities which will be created within and outside the United Kingdom.

  The DAB forum has enabled the various interests to make significant progress in planning for the introduction of DAB including the technical details, the business issues and the regulatory environment. This has built on the success of the Eureka project in which the United Kingdom —(notably the BBC—played a leading role, and has helped the United Kingdom remain in the vanguard of this exciting new challenge and opportunity for broadcasters and manufacturers.

  The Government's decision to make available scarce frequencies in a prime location in the radio spectrum to allow services to start up is a further demonstration of our commitment to play a full part in enabling the devolopment of DAB in this country for the benefit of United Kingdom industry as well as United Kingdom listeners.

  Regulations (Impact Costs)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how the cost impact of complying with proposed regulations is to be assessed with regard to small businesses.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government are introducing today a small business litmus test as part of the compliance cost assessment procedure to ensure that the cost impact of proposed regulation on small businesses is fully taken into account. The test will normally take the form of a requirement for departments to consult two or three small firms typical of the sector affected by the regulation and discuss with them what the impact would be. Departments may apply an alternative test if this would give a better and 648
  clearer picture of the impact. The results of the test are to be included in the compliance cost assessment on the proposed regulation.

  I am arranging for a note of the full terms of the small business litmus test to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  EC Aid Programmes
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place a copy of his response to the European Commissioner's consultative document on the future of Rechar and other EC-wide aid programmes in the Library.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 12 January at column 240.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he will make arrangements for the Data Protection Registrar to inspect relevant contracts with suppliers of IT services that involve the use of personal data held by his Department in order to check whether all appropriate arrangements in relation to the Data Protection Act 1984 have been made, and whether such contracts made provisions for the registrar to make random inspections in order to check the suppliers' compliance in with the eighth data protection principle.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Data Protection Registrar has a wide range of powers, under the Data Protection Act 1984, to ensure that all individuals and organisations holding personal data on computer systems are registered and observe the data protection principles as required by the Act. When IT services are contracted out by a data user, the contractor and the user will be subject to the application of the data protection principles, and to the registrar's powers to promote compliance with them, as provided for in the Act. It is for the registrar to decide how he will use his powers under the Act, and I do not consider that any further arrangements are necessary for him to discharge his duties effectively.

  Unicorn Heritage plc
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the reasons for his decision to declare as unrecoverable the grant made to Unicorn Heritage plc to promote the royal heritage exhibition.

  Mr. Sproat
  The writing-off of debts relating to grants paid under the section 4 grant scheme is an administrative procedure that does not require the intervention of the Secretary of State. In the case of Unicorn Heritage plc, the English tourist board was informed by the company's liquidators that there was no prospect of the debt being paid. The board accordingly recommended to my Department that the debt should be written off. My Department accepted the board's recommendation and once Treasury approval had been granted, the debt was
  649
  duly written off. Unicorn Heritage plc was treated in exactly the same way as any other company would have been in the circumstances.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the practices and criteria used to write off grants made by the English tourist board; and if he will make a statement with regard to the write-off of the £200,000 grant for Unicorn Heritage plc awarded in December 1988.

  Mr. Sproat
  The English tourist board has discretion to seek repayment of any grant made under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 if there is a breach of the grant conditions. Having raised a debt, the board will investigate the likelihood of repayment. If, following these investigations, the board judges that the debt is irrecoverable, it will formally recommend to my Department that the debt should be written off. My Department has authority to write off debts up to a value of £100,000. Debts over £100,000 can be written off only with Treasury approval.

  In the case of Unicorn Heritage plc, I am satisfied that the English tourist board investigated thoroughly the possibility of repayment, and that the write-off procedures were correctly applied. Unicorn Heritage plc was treated in exactly the same way as any other company would have been in the circumstances.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what the accommodation at the occupied royal palaces consists of for(a) Princess Margaret, (b) the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, (c) Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, (d) the Duke and Duchess of Kent and (e) Princess Alexandra.

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows:

  HRH the Princess Margaret

  Kensington Palace

  3 principal bedrooms

  4 principal reception rooms

  TRH the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester

  Kensington Palace

  4 principal bedrooms

  7 principal reception rooms

  TRH the Prince and Princess Michael of Kent

  Kensington Palace

  5 principal bedrooms

  5 principal reception rooms

  TRH the Duke and Duchess of Kent

  St. James's Palace

  4 principal bedrooms

  6 principal reception rooms

  HRH the Princess Alexandra

  St. James's Palace

  5 principal bedrooms

  4 principal reception rooms

  In each case, apart from HRH the Princess Alexandra, there is associated staff and ancillary accommodation.
  650
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the occupants of the grace and favour accommodation at the occupied royal palaces and of the offices most recently held by each of them.

  Mr. Sproat
  Occupants of accommodation at the occupied royal palaces are as follows:

  Occupants

  Number

  (i)

  Members of the Royal Family—Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, The Prince of Wales, The Princess of Wales, The Princess Margaret, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke and Duchess of Kent, Princess Alexandra and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

  8

  (ii)

  Private Secretaries and officials in The Queen's Households.

  46

  (iii)

  Private Secretaries and officials in other Households.

  9

  (iv)

  Domestic staff in the Queen's Household.

  34

  (v)

  Domestic staff in other Households

  13

  (vi)

  Stables staff looking after the Civil List carriages and carriage horses.

  34

  (vii)

  The Queen's private staff and staff who work on the Royal Farms at Windsor.

  7

  (viii)

  Chauffeurs in the Queen's Household.

  9

  (ix)

  Chauffeurs in other Households.

  4

  (x)

  Staff in The Queen's Household responsible for the maintenance of the Occupied Palaces Estate.

  16

  (xi)

  Gardeners in the Queen's Household.

  6

  (xii)

  Gatekeepers and security staff in The Queen's Household.

  7

  (xiii)

  Firepatrolmen in The Queen's Household.

  5

  (xiv)

  Craftsmen and Porters in The Queen's Household.

  23

  (xv)

  Royal Collection Enterprises Limited staff.

  4

  (xvi)

  Crown Estate staff.

  3

  (xvii)

  Military Knights at Windsor Castle—pensioners.

  13

  (xviii)

  Pensioners.

  27

  Total

  268

  Twenty-three of the pensioners are retired employees of the royal household or their widows. The remaining four pensioners were granted accommodation in the past on a grace and favour basis.

  Stately Homes
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from English Heritage about the effect on the future upkeep of stately homes of the financial situation of their owners.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received no recent representations from English Heritage on the general issue of the effect on the future upkeep of stately homes of the financial situation
  651
  of their owners, but various aspects of English Heritage's on-going work bear on this issue. For instance, English Heritage's tax review panel is considering the impact of current taxation on owners of historic property, including stately homes. My Department is kept in close touch with that work.

  National Lottery
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy that all capital building projects financed by revenue from the national lottery will include access and facilities for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Brooke
  It will be for the bodies identified in section 23 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to consider applications for national lottery funds. I shall be encouraging them to ensure that capital projects financed from the national lottery take account of the needs of people with disabilities, as required by the building regulations.

  Windsor Castle
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the National Heritage what damage has been caused to medieval wall paintings at Windsor castle by contractors; and if he will review the application of listed building controls to inhabited royal palaces.

  Mr. Sproat
  One chase approximately 8 ft high was made alongside a door architrave for the insertion of wiring, before the evidence of some paintwork concealed behind panelling and limewash was identified. The damage was localised and represented a fraction of an extensive area. Remedial conservation work has been undertaken.

  The occupied royal palaces are not statutorily subject to scheduled monument consent or listed building consent because they are Crown property. However, in the case of Windsor castle and Kensington palace, which are scheduled ancient monuments, any proposed development is subject to a similar non-statutory procedure known as scheduled monument clearance. It is also the practice of the royal household to comply with listed building consent requirements at the other occupied royal palaces which are listed but not scheduled. There are no plans to alter these arrrangements.

  British Library
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what additional costs have been incurred following the problems with wiring at the new British library building in St. Pancras.

  Mr. Sproat
  I expect the additional costs incurred in the employment of expert consultants, the direct costs of remedial works and the indirect cost of delay and disruption to be borne by the parties who have contributed to these costs, and not by the Exchequer. It is too early to estimate what the sum involved is likely to be.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the
  652
  cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 competing for quality programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Much of the information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizens Charter Second Report". On an individual contact basis, much of the information is commercially confidential.

  Geese
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many geese, of what species and in which locations, have been culled on the authority of his Department; and if he will give similar details for any proposed future culls.

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Welch to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 17 January 1994:

  Mr. Ian Sproat, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number and types of geese that have been culled in the Royal Parks.

  We sought licences from the Department of the Environment last year, under the Countryside and Wildlife Act, to cull 100 Greylag and 200 Canada geese. In the event, we culled 61 Greylag and 107 Canada geese.

  We will continue to monitor the situation, in the light of which we may apply for further licences in the future.

  Year of Older People
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what contribution his Department made to the European year of older people and solidarity between generations in terms of financial support, practical support for particular events, and the provision of information.

  Mr. Sproat
  Almost all of my Department's executive functions are carried out by its two executive agencies and by its 43 non-departmental public bodies which operate at arm's length from Government. My officials wrote to the chief officers of those bodies in 1992 to advise them that 1993 had been designated European year of older people and solidarity between generations so that they could consider what contribution could be made by their respective bodies within the programmes funded through the Department.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage in which programmes and events for the European year of older people and solidarity between generations he has been directly involved.

  Mr. Sproat
  None; the chief officers of the 43 non-departmental public bodies through which my Department's programmes are delivered and which operate
  653
  at arm's length from Government, were asked to consider what contributions could be made in support of the year by their respective bodies.

  Television, Wales
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will discuss with S4C the feasibility of securing satellite television air time to ensure that all residents within Wales are able to receive Welsh language television programmes.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. Responsibility for coverage of television services lies with the broadcasters, including S4C, which determine their priorities in the light of the resources available to them.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which communities within Wales which are at present unable to receive a reasonable reception of programmes transmitted by S4C and at least one English language television channel based in Wales could technically be served by a system of low power local relay masts; how many residents could be served by each mast; and how 'much each mast would cost to erect and maintain.

  Mr. Brooke
  Information about reception of television services by communities in Wales was given in my replies to questions from the hon. Member on 14 December 1993,Official Report, columns 577–78. The additional information about coverage could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The broadcasters estimate that the average cost of building a low-power television relay station is about £40,000, with maintenance costs of about £3,000 a year.

  "Big Story" Broadcast
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what discussions he has had with the Independent Television Commission regarding the espousal of burglary, surveillance and war on the water by Greenpeace in pursuit of the making of Carlton television's "Big Story" broadcast on 6 January;

  (2) what action he intends to take following the illegal forced entry to premises by Twenty Twenty Television during the making of Carlton television's "Big Story" broadcast on 6 January.

  Mr. Brooke
  I do not intend to discuss this with the Independent Television Commission. It would be for it to decide whether any action should be taken. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission can also examine complaints about unwarranted invasion of privacy. Ultimately, it would be for the courts to determine whether criminal activity had taken place.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what recent representations he has received concerning incentives for investment in film production; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to issue a consultation document on the introduction of incentives to encourage investment in film production; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when he last met representatives of the British film industry to discuss the prospects for that industry; with whom he met; and what action he proposes to take as a result of that meeting.
  654
  Mr. Brooke
  I regularly receive representations concerning possible measures to increase investment in film production. In December, I discussed the prospects of the British film industry with representatives of the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television and the film producer Mr. Edward Simons. So far as possible future Government action to help the industry is concerned, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 11 January,Official Report, column 70.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Sproat
  Some 2,500 Christmas cards were purchased by the Department of National Heritage at a cost of £628·76. Of these, some 1,100 were supplied to Ministers. The remaining cards were available for use by civil servants. Cards were dispatched at normal second class postal rate, or were sent via the Government inter-departmental service. It is not possible to quantify the cost in staff time to sign, address and envelope the cards.

  I have asked the chief executive of the Historic Royal Palaces and the Royal Parks agencies to write to the hon. Member about the practices in their agencies.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Policy
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has had to the consultation document on London policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  So far over 9,000 completed questionnaries from "London: Making the Best Better" have been returned and I have also received over 200 letters in response to the publication. I will publish a digest of the response in March when replies have been analysed by my Department. All completed questionnaires received by mid-February will be taken into account in this analysis.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the Government's current attitude to local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Curry
  We are committed to the Local Government Commission's reviews of shire counties in England, which should lead to more convenient and effective local government reflecting the identities and interests of local people.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in favour of local government reorganisation in England.

  Mr. Curry
  Since issuing our consultation paper on the structure of local government in April 1991 we have received many representations in favour of reorganization
  655
  from local authorities, individuals and representatives of the business community, as well as Members of the House. It is not possible, however, to produce a definitive list of all the representations we have received except at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress to date made by the Local Government Commission.

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Government Commission's reviews are proceeding on schedule. It has submitted final reports on the Isle of Wight, Derbyshire, Cleveland, Durham, Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset. Its final recommendations on Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire are clue on 23 January. It began on 13 December 1993 reviews of all the remaining shire counties in England and has been directed to submit final recommendations on these counties by the end of 1994.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current extent of local authority debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  At 31 March 1993, the total outstanding debt of local authorities in England was £37·6 billion. We shall continue to encourage authorities to reduce their debts.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received over the shortage of affordable rented accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  I and my Department continue to receive a regular flow of representations about the quality and quantity of rented housing. I am glad to tell the hon. Member that we are on course to exceed our commitment to providing 153,000 homes through housing associations over the first three years of this Parliament; the Housing Corporation now estimates that on the latest plans some 178,000 will have been completed by the end of 1994–95.

  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the amount of affordable housing in inner London.

  Sir George Young
  The Housing Corporation recently announced the allocation of £285 million of resources to Housing Association projects in inner London. This will provide over 5,000 additional homes to rent and over 2,000 additional lettings through the tenant incentive and sale programmes.

  Local authorities can increase the supply of available housing for rent by reducing the number of vacant and squatted properties. Inner London has made good progress in the last five years, reducing by 7,500 the number of vacant and squatted council dwellings, but there is more to be done.

  We expect to provide about £358 million in 1994–95 to assist the repair and regeneration of inner London estates through HIP, estate action and housing action trusts. We will also be funding cash incentive schemes which increase the number of council homes available for letting and we will provide £86 million over the next three years through the rough sleepers initiative, largely to provide homes for single homeless people.
  656
  We also have initiatives such as flats over shops, housing associations as managing agents and tax incentives to take in lodgers which increase the supply of affordable housing through private renting.

  Bathing Water Quality
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what standards he wishes to see implemented for the regulation of the quality of bathing water at Britain's beaches.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government wish to see bathing water quality standards which are based on good scientific and medical advice. The forthcoming review of the EC bathing water directive will be an opportunity to ensure that the Community focuses on essential quality and health parameters.

  Housing, Birmingham
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of the impact of the Budget on housing in Birmingham.

  Sir George Young
  Birmingham housing has done extremely well from the Budget. Resources totalling over £78 million have been allocated in 1994–95 to renovate existing housing and build new. In addition, very large investments have been targeted to renovate some of the worst council estates through the estate action, city challenge and housing action trust initiatives, amounting to a further £60 million.

  Respiratory Disease
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he is carrying out into the links between air pollution and respiratory disease.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government sponsor a substantial body of research on links between air pollution and respiratory disease. Last July the Institute for Environment and Health was established to act as a focal point for research into the links between health and environmental quality generally, including air pollution.

  Birds Directive
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites the United Kingdom have been designated under the EC wild birds directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  Seventy-seven special protection areas have been designated in the United Kingdom. Further designations are expected shortly.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with his opposite number in the Commission of the European Communities in relation to the designation of the lower Severn estuary special protection area under the 1979 wild birds directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government finance since July.
  657
  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle).

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will calculate the total potential spending by all local authorities in England in 1993–94 if they all spent to the maximum of the capped levels, and the similar total potential spending for 1994–95 according to the provisional figures so far announced.

  Mr. Baldry
  The aggregates of the maximum budget requirements which could be calculated by English local authorities within the capping principles adopted for 1993–94 and the provisional capping criteria for 1994–95 which my right hon. Friend has announced are respectively:

  £ billion

  1993–94

  36·790

  11994–95

  38·097

  1 Provisional.

  These figures exclude the receiver for the Metropolitan police district—which is not subject to designation for capping under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1992—local precepts, and appropriations from reserves.

  Spending Plans
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reduction there is in the spending plans for 1994–95 to 1995–96 compared with his Department's plans in the 1992 autumn statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Changes from the spending plans for my Department in the 1992 autumn statement were set out in table 5B.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the estimate for spending in 1994–95 and 1995–96 contained in the 1992 autumn statement; what is the current spending plan for those years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department's spending plans for 1994–95 and 1995–96 were contained in table 2A.5 of the 1992 autumn statement. The latest plans are in table 5B·3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95". Copies of both documents are in the Library.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the operation of current legislation on the operation of incinerators for the burning of waste material.

  Mr. Atkins
  Operators of waste incinerators are required by part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to apply for authorisation of the process and must demonstrate the use of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—BATNEEC—to prevent or minimise pollution before the authorisation is issued. Guidance is given to local enforcing authorities by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and for Scotland, and to the national 658
  inspectorate—HMIP and HMIPI in Scotland—by the chief inspectors. Both guidance notes and authorisations will be reviewed by the enforcing authorities at not more than four-yearly intervals.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the critical loads advisory group can assist with decisions on the provision of incineration of industrial and domestic waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  Critical loads maps are published by my Department, and these may be used by the relevant pollution control authorities. The critical loads advisory group is currently investigating methods of improving the resolution of the maps.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in his plans to extend compulsory competitive tendering to councils' professional services.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department is currently consulting local authorities and other interested parties on detailed proposals for extending CCT to local authority legal services. We will begin consulting on other white collar services in the course of this year. I anticipate that legislation will take effect in a phased programme beginning in October 1995.

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in putting out local services to compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Baldry
  Many blue collar services are already subject to CCT and are coming up for their second cycle of tendering, comprising approximately £2 billion-worth of contracts. CCT will be introduced for further blue collar services and a wide range of white collar services, starting with on-street parking and vehicle management from 1 April 1995 and legal and construction services from 1 October 1995. These are further large areas of council activity involving services amounting to well over £4 billion in value.

  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy in relation to the preferred method for the charging for domestic water and sewerage services.

  Mr. Atkins
  The basis of charging is a matter for the water companies. We have said that in our view there is a case for selective use of meters chiefly in areas of significant potential water shortage.

  National Parks
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made with the implementation of the Edwardes committee recommendations for national parks in England and Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1992 we issued a major policy statement setting out our proposals for the national parks, including a commitment to legislate to establish independent authorities for all 10 parks. Unfortunately
  659
  pressure on the parliamentary timetable has not allowed us to secure a place in the current session. However, Lord Norrie has recently announced his intention to introduce legislation in the House of Lords to establish independent authorities for all the parks and I am optimistic that the Government will be able to support it.

  Minerals Planning Guidance
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will have completed his review of minerals planning guidance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We published revised mineral planning guidance for coal mining and colliery spoil disposal for public consultation on 14 December 1993. Comments are required by 18 March 1994. When the comments have been considered we would hope to make any necessary revisions and publish final guidance in the summer.

  Standard Spending Assessment, Bournemouth
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the standard spending assessment for Bournemouth for 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  Within the proposals for revenue support grant in 1994–95 announced on 2 December 1993, the provisional standard spending assessment for Bournemouth is £18·18 million. We have consulted local authorities on these provisional figures and will reach final decisions shortly.

  Housing Quality
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's policies to improve the quality of housing in outer ring areas of cities; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Housing in outer ring areas of cities benefits in the same way as housing in other areas from the Government's policies to secure better value for money from the use of public funds; to encourage investment in the private rented sector, widening choice for tenants and increasing the supply of homes for rent; to promote the growth of owner occupation; and to direct public expenditure more effectively towards those people and areas that most need support.

  As far as council housing is concerned, we aim to direct a larger share of spending power to those local authorities with the greatest needs, so outer ring areas with the most

  3.2 Land with outstanding planning permission for pirvate housing development by region and type of authority1: 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92

  Thousand/thousand hectares

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Region

  Dwellings

  Area

  Dwellings

  Area

  Dwellings

  Area

  North

  42·4

  2·0

  247·7

  22·2

  45·9

  1·9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  67·1

  2·9

  271·1

  23·0

  71·7

  2·3

  East Midlands

  92·3

  4·2

  299·7

  24·5

  100·3

  4·6

  East Anglia

  72·3

  3·5

  74·6

  3·5

  72·3

  3·5

  South East

  Greater London

  62·1

  1·0

  254·3

  20·8

  57·7

  0·9

  Rest of South East

  217·6

  8·6

  2207·2

  28·6

  200·2

  9·1

  South West

  110·7

  4·1

  2110·0

  24·2

  110·8

  4·3

  West Midlands

  72·9

  3·1

  272·1

  3·6

  69·0

  3·0

  North West

  70·4

  3·0

  277·2

  3·3

  77·7

  3·2

  660
  serious housing needs will receive greater help. Where local authority estates face particular difficulties, estate action helps local authorities to tackle their management and social and economic problems as well as their physical problems. For a few of the most severely run-down estates housing action trusts have been established to secure comprehensive regeneration—for example, in Castle Vale. The resources for both estate action and housing action trusts for 1994–95 were increased in the Budget; both will be included in the single regeneration budget, which will come into operation from April.

  Litter
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of Chelmsford borough council's use of the power in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to enforce the law against litter.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Tidy Britain Group, which monitors local authorities performance under the Environmental Protection Act, tells me that Chelmsford borough council continues to make good use of the powers available to it. By employing litter wardens, adopting the fixed penalty scheme, and fining offenders, it is providing a strong deterrent to prospective litter louts.

  Housing Land
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of available housing land broken down by region and estimated in terms of the number of properties.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not available.

  The Department does collect information on land in England with outstanding planning permission for residential development, which represents one component of land available for housing. The latest results, for 1991–92, relate to private sector development only and were published in "Development Control Statistics: England 1991–92" which is available in the Library. The table, showing the area of land with planning permission for private housing development in each region of England, and the corresponding number of dwellings, is taken from that publication.

  Since 1992, the Department has collected information on outstanding planning permissions for all residential development in England, public as well as private sector. The 1992–93 results will be published by the Department this summer in "Development Control Statistics: England 1992–93".
  661

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Region

  Dwellings

  Area

  Dwellings

  Area

  Dwellings

  Area

  England

  807·8

  32·4

  2813·9

  233·7

  805·6

  32·8

  of which:

  Metropolitan Districts and Greater London

  154·7

  24·7

  2152·5

  24·8

  151·8

  4·5

  Non-Metropolitan Districts

  653·1

  227·7

  2661·4

  228·9

  653·8

  28·3

  1 All figures are estimates based on available figures for 92·3 per cent, of English local authorities in 1989–90, 94·8 per cent, in 1990–91 and 91·3 per cent, in 1991–92.

  2 Figures refer to the stock of sites with outstanding planning permission at the end of each financial year.

  Lancashire (Pollution)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received on the pollution arising from the pollution incident off the coast of Lancashire on 2 January.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit was first informed of the incident on 1 January. Samples of the substance recovered from the Fylde and Cumbrian coasts have been analysed by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, and indicate that the source of

  Local authority housebuilding, excluding purpose-built dwellings for the elderly and disabled

  (numbers of dwellings)

  Starts

  Completions

  England and Wales

  City of Manchester

  England and Wales

  City of Manchester

  1979

  43,123

  801

  61,336

  738

  1980

  24,692

  861

  65,164

  913

  1992

  1,140

  6

  1,922

  2

  12-month period to November 1993

  1773

  —

  11,078

  6

  1 These cover 76 starts and 96 completions of local authority house building in Wales which include dwellings purpose-built for the elderly and disabled.

  (numbers of dwellings)

  Starts

  Completions

  England and Wales

  City of Manchester

  England and Wales

  City of Manchester

  1979

  12,098

  62

  15,472

  365

  1980

  12,473

  227

  19,360

  94

  1992

  26,044

  553

  20,209

  238

  12-month period to November 1993

  134,906

  606

  129,170

  477

  1 These cover 3,070 starts and 2,410 completions of housing association house building in Wales which include dwellings purpose-built for the elderly and disabled.

  House building is only part of housing associations' provision of additional social housing. Homes are also provided through a variety of other means including purchases for rehabilitation and, the tenants incentive scheme.
  662
  the pollution is likely to be a commercial lubricant additive. Further tests are being carried out to establish the precise cause of the pollution.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority dwellings, excluding those purpose-built for the elderly and disabled, were(a) started and (b) completed in the latest 12-month period for which figures were available and how many were (i) started and (ii) completed in the comparable 12-month period for 1979–80, for (1) England and Wales and (2) the City of Manchester.

  Sir George Young
  The available figures for local authorities are as shown:

  Housing associations now have the main responsibility for new building in the social sector and the figures equivalent to those for local authorities are as follows:

  Local Authorities (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed by each local authority in Northamptonshire(a) full time and (b) part time in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Baldry
  The available information is given in the table:
  663

  Numbers employed in Local Authorities in Northamptonshire at June of each year

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Authority

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Northamptonshire

  11,784

  9,751

  11,832

  9,735

  11,857

  10,254

  11,890

  10,934

  Corby

  527

  122

  550

  112

  582

  108

  572

  141

  Daventry

  268

  48

  268

  43

  275

  53

  287

  54

  East Northamptonshire

  263

  70

  266

  73

  264

  73

  265

  72

  Kettering

  509

  92

  494

  105

  486

  103

  485

  108

  Northampton

  1,606

  172

  1,608

  159

  1,599

  183

  1,606

  178

  South Northamptonshire

  261

  35

  263

  34

  257

  34

  252

  37

  Wellingborough

  386

  67

  389

  73

  384

  77

  376

  79

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Authority

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Northamptonshire

  11,594

  11,223

  11,819

  11,477

  11,536

  11,295

  11,005

  12,365

  Corby

  583

  170

  580

  135

  613

  134

  667

  153

  Daventry

  298

  59

  311

  73

  N/A

  N/A

  314

  106

  East Northamptonshire

  261

  69

  260

  80

  267

  78

  213

  57

  Kettering

  478

  109

  478

  96

  468

  104

  464

  105

  Northampton

  1,482

  216

  1,431

  235

  N/A

  N/A

  1,554

  192

  South Northamptonshire

  255

  43

  255

  26

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Wellingborough

  378

  83

  384

  90

  388

  93

  388

  105

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Authority

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Northamptonshire

  10,943

  10,966

  10,752

  10,409

  10,015

  9,362

  Corby

  621

  135

  613

  133

  N/A

  N/A

  Daventry

  312

  118

  315

  86

  312

  89

  East Northamptonshire

  200

  57

  203

  57

  N/A

  N/A

  Kettering

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Northampton

  1,602

  281

  1,518

  151

  1,429

  255

  South Northamptonshire

  N/A

  N/A

  342

  43

  336

  74

  Wellingborough

  392

  100

  383

  119

  346

  116

  * Provisional data

  N/A: Data not available

  Source: Joint Staffing Watch for England.

  Notes:

  (i) Education, highways, fire services, law and order and social services are administered by Northamptonshire county council. The other authorities shown are district councils which, amongst other services administer housing, planning and refuse collection.

  (ii) Polytechnics and higher education institutions were transferred from the local authority sector in April 1989.

  (iii) Further education institutions became the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council in April 1993.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make arrangements for the Data Protection Registrar to inspect relevant contracts with suppliers of IT services that involve the use of personal data held by his Department in order to check whether all appropriate arrangements in relation to the Data Protection Act 1984 have been made, and whether such contracts make provisions for the registrar to make random inspections in order to check the suppliers' compliance in with the eighth data protection principle.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Data Protection Registrar has a wide range of powers, under the Data Protection Act 1984, to ensure that all individuals and organisations holding personal data on computer systems are registered and observe the data protection principles as required by the Act. When IT services are contracted out by a data user, the contractor and the user will be subject to the application of the data protection principles, and to the registrar's powers to promote compliance with them, as provided for in the Act. It is for the registrar to decide how he will use his 664
  powers under the Act, and I do not consider that any further arrangements are necessary for him to discharge his duties effectively.

  Rates (Transitional Relief)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment if he will list for each district council the actual and percentage reductions in transitional relief from 1993–94 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available at individual authority level. The total cost of transitional relief in England in 1993–94 is £399 million; the estimated cost in 1994–95 is £130 million.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many outstanding planning applications by local authorities are yet to be decided upon by him.

  Mr. Baldry
  Seventeen.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the Housing Corporation budget is dedicated to(a) shared ownership schemes, (b) tenants incentive schemes and (c) do-it yourself shared ownership for each year from 1987 to the percent.

  Sir George Young
  The percentages of the Housing Corporation's gross approved development programme —ADP—going to(a) conventional shared ownership schemes—LCHO—(b) tenants incentive schemes—TIS —and (c) do-it-yourself home ownership—DIYSO—from 1987–88 to 1993–94 are as follows:

  LCHO, TIS and DIYSO as percentage of gross ADP

  LCHO

  TIS

  DIYSO

  1987–88

  11·3

  —

  —

  1988–89

  11·4

  —

  —

  1989–90

  8·8

  —

  —

  1990–91

  6·1

  —

  —

  1991–92

  35·5

  2·4

  —

  11992–93

  4·6

  3·0

  2·5

  21993–94

  4·3

  3·1

  5·4

  1 Including housing market package.

  2 Estimated outturn.

  3 Includes DIYSO pilot scheme.

  Standard spending Assessments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the material deprivation index devised by the School of advanced Urban Studies at the University of Bristol in the context of his review of standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Baldry
  The measurement of social and economic deprivation proposed for use in standard spending assessments arising from the review is based on detailed statistical analysis discussed with the local authority associations. The proposed assessments use a wider range of indicators than that devised by the school of advanced urban studies including some outside the census, such as unemployment.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to further amend the formula for the calculation of standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend has consulted on the provisional revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95 including his proposals for standard spending assessments. All the representations which have been received and any other relevant information will be carefully considered before final proposals are brought before the House shortly.

  County Hall
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the latest value placed on London's county hall prior to the London residuary body selling it to the Shirayama Corporation of Japan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Prior to its sale, any valuation of the riverside building of County hall would have been a matter 666
  for the London residuary body and potential purchasers. The terms of the contract for the sale of the riverside building were confidential between the LRB and the Shirayama Corporation. But the LRB was required by law to obtain the best price.

  Social Index
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment was made of the possible impact on local authorities of the changes to the ethnic definition within the social index.

  Mr. Baldry
  A wider definition of ethnicity was felt to be more appropriate for the measurement of social deprivation within the revised all ages social index. No assessment has been made of the separate effect of this change within the context of a number of changes proposed as a result of the review of standard spending assessments.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the members currently appointed to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the national health service in England and Wales.

  Mr. Baldry
  Audit Commission: Members serving at 17 January 1994.

  Chairman

  Sir David Cooksey

  Deputy Chairman

  Murray Stuart

  Sir Peter Bowness CBE

  Alan Brown CBE

  Anthony Christopher CBE

  Lawrence Eilbeck

  Sir Terence English

  Sir Donald Irvine CBE

  Kate Jenkins

  Sir Peter Kemp

  Jeremy Orme

  Clive Thompson

  Tony Travers

  Sir Robert Wall OBE

  Chris West

  Clive Wilkinson

  Peter Wood

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are the members currently appointed to each housing action trust.

  Sir George Young
  The names of the board members of each of the housing action trusts are as follows:

  North Hull—

  Lord Bellwin (Chairman)

  Cllr. John Black (Deputy Chairman)

  Prof. Peter Arnold

  Mr. Chris Fenwick

  Mrs. Maureen Foers

  Mr. Ray Ford

  Mrs. Joan Maginn

  Mrs. Jill Sowersby

  Mr. David Urquhart

  Cllr. Dennis Woods

  Waltham Forest—

  Mr. John Chumrow (Chairman)

  Mr. Simon Bartlett (Deputy Chairman)

  Mr. Roger Baker

  Mrs. Wendy Chapman

  667

  Mr. Roy Evans

  Ms Jacky Flanders

  Mr. Clive Landa

  Mr. Howard May

  Ms Melinda Phillips

  Mrs. Sharwar Sadeque

  Mr. David Shepherd

  Liverpool—

  Mrs. Paula Ridley (Chairman)

  Mr. Michael Appleton (Deputy Chairman)

  Mrs. Irene Clark

  Cllr. Margaret Clarke

  Mr. Rodney Dykes

  Mrs. Marjorie Gallimore

  Mrs. Susan Last

  Mr. Edward McGonagle

  Mrs. June Roberts

  Mr. Jack Sheridan

  Castle Vale—

  Mr. Richard Temple Cox (Chairman)

  Cllr. Ken Barton (Deputy Chairman)

  Cllr. Stan Austin

  Mrs. Joyce Curtis

  Cllr. Pat Forester

  Mr. Horace Gillis

  Mrs. Valerie Lawrie

  Mr. John Newton

  Miss Pat Niner

  Mr. Alfred Owen

  Mrs. Carole Rafferty

  Mr. Robert Wharton

  Tower Hamlets—

  Dr. Michael Barraclough (Chairman)

  Cllr. Janet Ludlow (Deputy Chairman)

  Ms Susan Angoy

  Ms Sheila Drew Smith

  Mrs. Jackie Harris

  Mrs. Doris Lewis

  Rev. Andrew Mawson

  Mr. Rory Moore

  Mr. Barry Shaw

  Ms Tricia Zipfel

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are the members currently appointed to the Housing Corporation.

  Sir George Young
  The current members of the Housing Corporation board are:

  Sir Christopher Benson (Chairman)

  Stella Clarke JP DL

  David Cochrane OBE FCA

  Peter Cooke

  Dermot Gleeson

  David Kleeman

  Lady Montgomery

  Robin Thompson

  Julia Unwin

  Wilfred Wood

  Anthony Mayer (Chief Executive)

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are the members currently appointed to the Property Advisory Group.

  Sir George Young
  The current members of the Property Advisory Group are as follows:

  Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Chairman)

  Chief Executive of Prudential Portfolio Managers and Director, Prudential Corporation plc.

  Mr. Roger Aldridge

  Executive Director, Marks and Spencer plc.

  Mr. Robin Broadhurst

  International Chairman, Jones Lang Wootton.

  668

  Mr Harold Couch

  Partner, Hillier Parker May and Rowden.

  Professor Lyn Davies

  Professor of Planning at the Department of Land and Development, University of Reading.

  Mr. David Doubble

  Assistant General Manager (Estates), Friends Provident Life Office.

  Mr. Stuart Lipton

  Chief Executive, Stanhope Properties plc.

  Mrs. Lesley MacDonagh

  Managing Partner, Property Sector of Lovell White Durrant.

  Mr. Anthony Pender

  Chief Executive of English Estates.

  Mr. Martin Shaw

  Director of Planning and Transportation, Norfolk County Council.

  Mr. Anthony Solomons

  Chairman, Singer and Friedlander plc.

  Mr. Alan Tate

  Consultant, Healey and Baker.

  Mr. James Tuckey

  Managing Director, MEPC plc.

  Mr. William Wells

  Chairman, Chesterton International Ltd.

  Mr. Derek Wood QC

  Principal, St Hugh's College, Oxford.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are the members currently appointed to each valuation tribunal.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are 56 valuation tribunals in England which in total have around 2,500 members.

  The tribunals are independent bodies. Their members are appointed by local authorities. Detailed information about membership is not held centrally.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who are the members currently appointed to the Building Regulations Advisory Committee.

  Sir George Young
  The current members of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee are:

  Professor J. M. Anderson (Chairman)

  Mr. K. W. G. Blount

  Mr. N. J. Bright

  Mr. J. W. Carter

  Mr. B. A. Cox

  Mr. H. J. Dawson

  Mr. R. A. Dibben

  Mr. M. D. Finn

  Mr. D. C. Goodsir

  Mr. R. A. Graham

  Mr. S. J. Ham

  Professor Sir Edmund Happold

  Professor P. O'Sullivan

  Miss P. R. Tindale

  Professor T. J. Wiltshire

  Ms R. Wyles

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which currently implement a designated sales policy of the type referred to in Mr. John Magill's report on the accounts of Westminster city council; and what action he plans to take.

  Sir George Young
  The Department does not collect information on voluntary sales undertaken by local authorities in a way which would permit the identification of policies of the type mentioned.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of the right-to-buy scheme by people who are not council tenants; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The right to buy only gives public sector tenants the right to purchase, at a discount, the home in which they live. The tenant purchaser is required to repay all or part of the discount to the vendor authority if, within three years of purchase, the freehold of the property is conveyed, the lease assigned or a new lease granted, or an option to purchase is given to a third party. Any question about the repayment of discount in an individual case is a matter for the vendor authority.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority owned homes were sold in each year since 1989–90.

  Sir George Young
  Details of sales and transfers of local authority dwellings in England in the years 1989–90 to 1992–93 are given in the table.

  To owner occupiers

  To Housing associations 1

  Other sales and transfers 1

  1989–90

  141,832

  15,068

  —

  1990–91

  81,236

  37,453

  8,029

  1991–92

  51,961

  10,862

  2

  21992–93

  40,404

  26,488

  17

  1 Includes block transfers to housing associations and the private sector. Transfers to housing action trusts are excluded.

  2 Provisional.

  Homelessness, Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are currently homeless in Durham.

  Sir George Young
  Figure for households accepted as homeless by individual local authorities are given in the supplementary table to the quarterly information bulletin "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act 1985: England"; copies of both are in the Library. The latest available statistics are for the third quarter of 1993.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what improvements he has in mind for building regulations in relation to the energy efficiency of building.
  670
  Mr. Baldry
  Last January the Government issued for consultation proposals for strengthening part L of the building regulations relating to energy conservation. These included:

  increasing the standards for fabric insulation;

  improving building air-tightness whilst ensuring adequate ventilation;

  improving the control and insulation of heating and hot water systems;

  the provision of energy ratings for new dwellings using the Government's standard assessment procedure;

  new requirements for non-domestic buildings aiming to ensure the provision of efficient lighting with effective means of control, and the provision of air conditioning systems only where they are reasonably necessary—and, where they are necessary, provision for their effective control.

  As a result of the responses to this consultation the proposals for air conditioning have been revised and a further consultation exercise ended on 14 January. We are continuing to consider the responses to the other proposals for part L and those to the inter-related proposals for improving part F—ventilation—which were also issued for consultation last year. The intention is to lay revisions to both parts of the regulations before Parliament in the first half of this year and to bring them into force by the end of the year.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of green belt have been covered with(a) housing and (b) other buildings in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. Individual local authorities may be able to provide information about green belt decisions in their areas. Government policy is set out in planning policy guidance note 2, published by HMSO in January 1988. Recently completed research has demonstrated that green belts are effective in containing urban sprawl—"The Effectiveness of Green Belts", HMSO, July 1993.

  Housing
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the level of housing grants, (b) the number of council houses built, (c) the size of the council housing stock, (d) the number of families legally accepted as homeless, (e) the number of such families housed in local authority housing and (g) the number of such families housed by nomination to housing associations or other housing for the years 1979–80 to 1993–94 for each local authority in England.

  Sir George Young
  The available information on housing stock, households accepted as homeless, homeless households housed in local authority dwellings and homeless households housed by nomination to housing associations or in other ways can be found in the annual "HIP1 All Items Print", copies of which are in the Library. The column reference numbers in the prints are as follows:

  Local authority dwellings at 1 April

  Within local authority's own area—Column A11

  Outside local authority's own area—Column A16 (only available for 1987 to 1993)

  Households accepted as homeless in the year ending 31 March

  1980 and 1981—Column C5

  1982 to 1984—Column B5

  1985—Column B6a

  1986 to 1989—Column C1a

  1990 to 1993—Column C11

  671

  Homeless households housed by LAs in the year ending 31 March

  Secure lettings only

  1980—Column D4b1

  1981—Column E4b1

  1982—Column E8b

  1983—Column E9b

  Secure lettings, non-secure lettings and mobility scheme lettings

  1984—Columns D5a + D9b + D10a

  1985—Columns D5b + D9b + D10b

  1986 to 1988—Columns E5b + E9b + E10b

  1989—Columns E5a2 + E5b2 + E5c2 + E7 + E9b + E10b

  1990—Columns E5a21 + E5b21 + E5c21 + E81 + E9b1 +E10b1

  1991 to 1993—Columns E5a21 + E5b21 + E81 + E9b1 + E10b1

  Homeless households taking up LA nominations to housing associations in the year ending 31 March

  1980—not available

  1981 and 1982—Column D1b

  1983—Column C1b

  1984—Column C1a

  1985—Column C1b

  1986 to 1990—Column D1b

  1991 to 1993—Column D1b1

  Homeless household taking up LA nominations to bodies other than housing associations or taking up LA or housing association tenancies in other local authorities in the year ending 31 March

  1980 to 1989 not available

  1990—Columns D2b+D3b+D4

  1991 and 1992—Columns D2b1+D3b1+D41

  1993—Columns D2b1 +D3b1 +D51

  Details of the housing investment programme—HIP —allocations, which give an indication of what the Government consider are the relative resource requirements for capital expenditure on housing, for each local authority in England for the years since 1979–80 are also available in the Library.

  Figures for house building by individual local authorities are published on a calendar year basis; the publications in which they can be found, which are again available in the Library, are as follows:

  1979

  Local Housing Statistics Issue No. 59 Table 4(b)

  1980–84

  Housebuilding in England by local authority areas Tables 1.1–1.5

  1985–90

  Local Housing Statistics Issue No. 103 Tables 1(a)-(f)

  1991

  Local Housing Statistics Issue No. 105 Table 1(b)

  1992

  Local Housing Statistics Issue No. 106 Table 1(b)

  1993*

  Local Housing Statistics Issue No. 107 Table 1

  * January to June only

  Figures for financial years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Traffic Levels
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for which local authorities the figures to be used for calculating the standard spending assessments assume a reduced level of traffic; and what evidence exists that the traffic levels have actually reduced there since the previous figures were calculated.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: The authorities with a reduction in annual average traffic flows on principal roads as calculated for the purposes of 1993–94 and 1994–95 provisional standard spending assessments respectively are listed in the table. The figures used in the calculation of SSAs are estimates of the annual average flow of all motor vehicles on principal roads—excluding principal motorways—for which the authority is the highway authority. They are based on data from the Department of Transport's traffic census.
  672
  Authorities with a reduction in traffic flow data between 1991 and 1992

  Manchester

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Stockport

  Tameside

  Trafford

  Knowsley

  Liverpool

  St. Helens

  Sefton

  Wirral

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  North Tyneside

  South Tyneside

  Sunderland

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Bradford

  Calderdale

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  City of London

  Camden

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Southwark

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Bexley

  Brent

  Bromley

  Croydon

  Enfield

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Merton

  Redbridge

  Richmond upon Thames

  Sutton

  Waltham Forest

  Isles of Scilly

  Avon

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Humberside

  Kent

  Northumberland

  Somerset

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

  673

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: The abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be offset in the same way as for all employers, by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs baseline.

  Noreast Building Management
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out(a) the proceeds from the sale of Noreast Building Management, (b) the amount of money set aside to cover possible redundancy costs and (c) on the latest available figures, the total number of redundancies and the cost involved.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: The vendor will receive proceeds of £8 million from the sale of the Noreast Building Management business. The agreed limit to the Department's liability for severance payments to Noreast Building Management staff is £29·5 million, covering staff made redundant in the first five years post sale. The Department shares liability pound for pound with the purchaser for severance costs in excess of £25 million—until the cap of £29·5 million is reached. The total number of staff made redundant since sale is 222, at an estimated cost of £9·1 million; of these only one was a transferred member of staff made redundant by the purchaser.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest estimate of the effect of common agricultural policy reform upon the cost of the CAP on the average European Union citizen in(a) tax transfers and (b) consumer transfers as indicated by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on 12 June 1992, Official Report, column 555.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimates provided by my predecessor at the time of the CAP reform agreement still stand. To provide revised estimates, revised assumptions would need to be made about the situation if the reform had not taken place. There is no basis for making any such assumptions.

  Birds (Imports)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when her Department will publish the mortality statistics for imports of birds for 1993; and what plans have been made for the publication of these statistics in future years.

  Mr. Soames
  We aim to publish the 1993 importation of birds mortality statistics by the middle of this year. Arrangements for publication of future studies will be kept under review.
  674

  Tied Cottages
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) male and (b) female agricultural workers live in tied cottages in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No official figures are available for the number of agricultural workers living in tied cottages. However, the results of the sample survey of earnings and hours of agricultural workers indicate that 38 per cent. of male regular hired workers and salaried managers and 7 per cent. of female regular hired workers and salaried managers in England and Wales in 1992 received a house or cottage as payment of wages in lieu of payment in cash.

  Horses (Exports)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what measures there are to ensure that horses exported live to the Republic of Ireland are not subsequently exported to other EC member states for slaughter;

  (2) how many cases are known to her of horses being exported to (a) the Republic of Ireland, (b) other EC states and (c) elsewhere for slaughter, in each of the last three years; how many horses were involved; and how many of these horses had false documents;

  (3) what tonnage of horse meat was exported from Britain to (a) the Republic of Ireland, (b) other EC states and (c) elsewhere in each of the last three years;

  (4) how many horses were exported live from Britain to (a) the Republic of Ireland, (b) other EC states and (c) elsewhere in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Soames
  Welfare regulations made under the Animal Health Act 1981 require all horses exported to the continent of Europe, except race horses certified by the Jockey club, to be licensed. The Ministry does not license horses exported for immediate slaughter. Any trade in animals from the Republic of Ireland is a matter for the Irish authorities. I am not aware of any horses travelling with false welfare documents.

  No horse meat was exported to the Republic of Ireland in 1991–92. Exports of horse meat to other member states were 1,069 metric tonnes in 1991 and 1,010 metric tonnes in 1992. In 1992, seven metric tonnes were sent to other destinations.

  The number of horses exported to the Republic of Ireland were 3,042 in 1991 and 2,538 in 1992. Exports of horses to other member states were 2,786 in 1991 and 2,844 in 1992. Exports to other destinations were 2,717 in 1991 and 3,765 in 1992. In 1992, three horses were exported to the Republic of Ireland for slaughter.

  Trade data for 1993 are not yet available.

  Source: H M Customs and Excise.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the requirements for IACS applications in England and Wales in 1994.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Following the 1993 IACS exercise, I have consulted closely with the industry to ensure that the IACS requirements for 1994 are kept as simple as possible in line with the Government's policy to
  675
  keep any necessary regulation to a minimum. The arrangements to apply this year reflect the conclusion of those consultations.

  A guidance note to enable applicants to prepare the necessary mapping and field information is being sent out; copies should be received next week. The main explanatory booklets should be issued in March. The documentation is designed to be as helpful and easy to follow as possible given the complex nature of the system.

  The mapping booklet makes it clear that no maps will be required where applications relate only to forage area and that they will not be required for arable area as long as the land was registered as eligible for future arable payments in 1993 and has not changed significantly since then.

  Applicants will need to supply the national grid reference number of each field and the Ordnance Survey map sheet reference in order to comply with the basic area requirements of the EC regulation. Estimates will continue to be accepted, but if areas are over-declared, we are required to apply strict penalties. I strongly urge all farmers to begin obtaining any necessary maps, field numbers and area measurements as soon as possible so as not to risk missing the application deadline.

  MAFF argued strongly in Brussels for a United Kingdom deadline later than 31 March 1994 for submitting IACS applications; and will be applying the latest possible date of 15 May.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total payment made under suckler cow premium to United Kingdom farmers up to the last available date in the current financial year; and if she will express this as a percentage of the full payment available in the current financial year.

  Mr. Jack
  The total payment made to United Kingdom farmers under the 1993 suckler cow premium scheme up to Friday 14 January was £11·66 million. This is about 17 per cent. of the amount to be paid in the current financial year.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make arrangements for the Data Protection Registrar to inspect relevant contracts with suppliers of information technology services that involve the use of personal data held by his Department in order to check whether all appropriate arrangements in relation to the Data Protection Act 1984 have been made, and whether such contracts make provisions for the registrar to make random inspections in order to check the suppliers' compliance with the eighth data protection principle.

  Mr. Jack
  The Data Protection Registrar has a wide range of powers, under the Data Protection Act 1984, to ensure that all individuals and organisations holding personal data on computer systems are registered and observe the data protection principles as required by the Act. When IT services are contracted out by a data user, the contractor and the user will be subject to the application of the data protection principles, and to the registrar's powers to promote compliance with them, as provided for in the Act. It is for the registrar to decide how he will use his 676
  powers under the Act, and I do not consider that any further arrangements are in fact necessary for him to discharge his duties effectively.

  Lambs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average percentage mortality figure for(a) upland lambs, (b) lowland lambs and (c) all ewes during the lambing season; and what are the main reasons for mortality.

  Mr. Soames
  Mortality figures for sheep are not collected. Mortality of young lambs varies considerably depending on the weather and other factors but is likely normally to be about 10 per cent. Hypothermia in the first two days of life is likely to be the main cause. For adult ewes, annual mortality is estimated at about 4 per cent. for which there is no single predominant cause.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to undertake research to identify the incidence of subclinically infected BSE cattle.

  Mr. Soames
  Research into the incidence of subclinically infected BSE cattle would require the development of a practical test to identify the presence of the infective agent in live cattle and this Ministry is already supporting a substantial volume of research aimed at developing such a test.

  Fruit
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the safety of fruit which has been waxed or sprayed with fungicide.

  Mr. Soames
  Fruit which has been waxed or sprayed with fungicide may be sold in the United Kingdom only if it complies with the relevant legislation. Such treatments are carefully evaluated by independent expert committees to ensure they are safe, and the evaluations are subject to review as approriate.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she plans to initiate the operations of Milk Marque; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Under the Agriculture Act 1993 it is for the Milk Marketing Board to decide what date to propose for the ending of the milk marketing scheme in its reorganisation scheme. The board has agreed that a 1 April date, as it originally proposed, is not now possible. It is considering what later date now to propose. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales will decide on its eventual proposal along with the rest of its reorganisation scheme in accordance with the terms of the Act.
  677

  Badgers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list by county the number of badgers shot and gassed in each year since 1988; and what percentage of those badgers were subsequently shown to have tuberculosis.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of badgers shot in each year since 1988 in England, and the numbers of badgers that were subsequently shown to be positive for tuberculosis —M.bovis—are listed by county.

  Gassing has not been used as an official means of controlling badgers since 1982.

  County

  Number shot

  Number positive for M.bovis

  1988

  Avon

  110

  38

  Cornwall

  100

  20

  Devon

  193

  36

  Dorset

  77

  15

  Gloucestershire

  242

  102

  Somerset

  23

  1

  Wiltshire

  6

  —

  TOTAL

  751

  212 (28·2 per cent.)

  1989

  Avon

  129

  35

  Cornwall

  176

  27

  Devon

  180

  18

  Dorset

  13

  4

  Gloucestershire

  206

  37

  Somerset

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  18

  1

  TOTAL

  722

  122 (16·9 per cent.)

  County

  Number shot

  Number positive for M.bovis

  Number of results awaited

  1993

  Avon

  123

  24

  6

  Cornwall

  360

  67

  38

  Devon

  127

  37

  13

  Dorset

  49

  8

  —

  Gloucestershire

  161

  38

  43

  Somerset

  130

  48

  5

  Wiltshire

  131

  50

  6

  TOTAL

  1,081

  272 (28 per cent.)

  111

  RAF Aston Down
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 3 December,Official Report, column 852, if she will define the operational role of her Department at Royal Air Force station Aston Down; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies of 26 October at columns 563–64 and 6 December at column 101.
  678

  County

  Number shot

  Number positive for M.bovis

  1990

  Avon

  55

  13

  Cornwall

  385

  63

  Devon

  188

  45

  Dorset

  7

  2

  Gloucestershire

  109

  27

  Somerset

  17

  —

  Wiltshire

  3

  —

  TOTAL

  764

  150 (19·6 per cent.)

  1991

  Avon

  55

  17

  Cornwall

  422

  75

  Devon

  159

  20

  Dorset

  49

  2

  Gloucestershire

  75

  12

  Somerset

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  178

  34

  TOTAL

  938

  160 (17 per cent.)

  1992

  Avon

  159

  38

  Cornwall

  470

  68

  Devon

  162

  35

  Dorset

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  96

  38

  Somerset

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  141

  30

  TOTAL

  1,028

  209 (20·3 per cent.)

  Yorkshire and Humberside Base Area
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish the figures in hectares for(a) set-aside, (b) pulses, (c) oilseed rape and (d) cereals for each year since 1988 which were used to calculate the base area in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 3 December 1993 to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), regarding the calculation of the base area in England,Official Report, column 850. There is no separate base area for Yorkshire and Humberside.
  679

  Cats and Dogs (Transport)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what system of permanent identification will be used for cats and dogs transported between member states under the provisions of the Balai directive from 1 July.

  Mr. Soames
  The Standing Veterinary Committee of the European Commission is currently discussing what system will be used to identify traded dogs and cats moving between member states under the provisions of the Balai directive after 1 July this year.

  Hunting
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide details of the terms and conditions of the licences issued by the Forestry Commission to the Badsworth hunt allowing it to hunt on its lands; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission has not issued a licence to hunt over its land to the Badsworth hunt.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the names of the hunts which have been given licences to hunt on Forestry Commission land in the county of Essex; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission has issued licences to hunt over its land in Essex to the following hunts:

  East Essex hunt

  Essex hunt

  Puckeridge hunt

  Suffolk hunt

  Thurlow hunt

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which hunts have been given licences to hunt in Epping forest.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact the City of London corporation which acts as conservators of Epping forest.

  Sewage Sludge Disposal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 1 December,Official Report, columns 589–90, when the hon. Member for Don Valley can expect to receive the fourth report of the marine pollution monitoring management group's co-ordinating group on monitoring of sewage sludge disposal sites.

  Mr. Jack
  Our records show that a copy of the report was sent to the hon. Member in early December last. A further copy has now been sent to the hon. Member, together with a copy of the recently published fifth report of the co-ordinating group. Copies of both publications have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the
  680
  cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 competing for quality programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Much of the information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizen's Charter Second Report". On an individual contract basis, much of the information is commercially confidential.

  Sheep Quotas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she will set up a tribunal to consider applications for sheep quotas from the national reserve which do not easily fit into the categories defined by the Government but merit consideration; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: The categories of producers eligible to claim on the national reserves reflect the requirements of Community legislation. They were drawn up extremely carefully following extensive consultation, bearing in mind that availability of reserve quota will be restricted. The fullest consideration was given to defining hardship cases. There are no plans to set up tribunals to consider claims of producers falling outside these categories.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value at 1980 and 1992–93 prices of hill livestock compensatory allowances in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Expenditure on HLCAs (£ million)

  Financial years

  Current prices

  1980 prices (a)

  1992–93 prices (a)

  1980–81

  95·0

  96·0

  192·1

  1981–82

  84·5

  76·2

  153·0

  1982–83

  88·3

  72·8

  149·4

  1983–84

  91·5

  72·5

  148·0

  1984–85

  93·8

  70·7

  144·3

  1985–86

  104·9

  73·9

  152·5

  1986–87

  121·7

  83·2

  171·3

  1987–88

  121·0

  79·4

  163·9

  1988–89

  112·6

  71·1

  143·8

  1989–90

  122·4

  71·5

  145·0

  1990–91

  130·4

  69·7

  140·9

  1991–92

  160·9

  80·8

  166·0

  1992–93

  139·4

  67·1

  139·4

  (a) Deflated by the retail prices index—all items.

  Livestock Premium Quotas
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will set out the reasons why the judicial review on livestock premium quotas is being carried out by the European Court of Justice; and if she will make a statement.
  681
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: This case turns on the interpretation of Community legal provisions relating to ewe premium and suckler cow quotas. Article 177 of the Community treaty provides that, where a national court considers that a decision on such a question is necessary to enable it to give judgment in a case before it, it may request a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice; and must do so if the court is one from which there is no appeal. In this case, both parties to the case agreed with the court that a reference was necessary and the terms of the reference were also agreed. The national court will determine the issue when it has the European Court's response.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Union Flag
  Mr. John D.Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to provide a Union flag for the hospital at Tower Hill, Armagh; what arrangements have been made to fly the Union flag at these premises on the designated dates; why it was not flown on 1 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Union flag is normally flown at Tower Hill hospital on the designated dates. A breakdown in the local arrangements for flying the flag resulted in the flag not being flown on 1 January.

  Cattle Premiums
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will make payments of the beef special premium and the suckler cow premium; why these payments have been delayed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to press release No. 5/94 dated 11 January 1994 from the Department of Agriculture—Northern Ireland—which sets

  Glenshane Co Londonderry

  Belraugh Co Londonderry

  Glenwherry Co Antrim

  Acreage restricted in September 1987

  10,744

  2,248

  8,620

  Acreage derestricted 14 January 1991

  247

  943

  —

  Acreage derestricted 11 December 1991

  568

  —

  —

  Acreage derestricted 14 January 1993

  —

  —

  1,112

  Acreage to be derestricted 19 January 1994

  —

  —

  618

  Approximate acreage still under restriction

  9,929

  1,305

  6,890

  The highest levels of contamination measured in the restricted areas in vegetation, peat and mineral soils were 2367,1566 and 651 becquerels radiocaesium per kilogramme, respectively. The levels of contamination in peat and mineral soils have reduced by approximately 15 to 20 per cent. Variable changes have been seen in herbage with reductions of up to 50 per cent. depending on location and species. The soil—plant—animal transfer of radioactivity is complex and is influenced by many factors. Hence, it is not possible to predict when the remaining restrictions will be removed.

  Measurements of caesium levels in sheep are the best way of monitoring the change in caesium status of the soils and vegetation.
  682
  out the current position on payment of claims under these and other livestock premium schemes. A copy has been sent to the press notice desk in the House of Commons Library.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will quantify the cost of the factors which led to an increase in the cost of cars for Ministers in his Department since 1990–91.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The increase in the cost of providing cars for Ministers in 1990–91 and 1992–93 was around £177,000. Some £72,000 was in respect of cars provided by the RUC for Ministers in Northern Ireland and the remainder in respect of cars provided by the Government car service—GCS.

  There are two main factors that have led to an increase in the cost per GCS car. The first is the effect of inflation on GCS costs, particularly pay, vehicles and fuel. The second is that, during this period, the GCS restructured its charges to reflect the fact that it had been under-recovering its full costs in 1990–91.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by date of change of status the various areas and locations of those parts of Northern Ireland which came under Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Orders as a result of the Chernobyl incident; what were the highest levels of contamination measured in each of those areas in(a) vegetation, (b) peat and (c) mineral oils; what are the levels in each area now; when he expects, at the present rate of decline of radioactivity in each area, to be able to lift the remaining restrictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The change of status of those parts of Northern Ireland subjected to restrictions as a result of the Chernobyl incident is as follows:

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the radioactive substances found in(a) peat, (b) mineral soils and (c) vegetation in Northern Ireland as a result of the Chernobyl incident; for what period of time the various plants found in hill forage retained such substances with particular reference to heather; and what has been the uptake of such substances by deer in the affected areas.

  Mr. Ancram
  The radioactive substances found in peat, mineral soils and vegetation in Northern Ireland as a result of the Chernobyl incident are isotopes of caesium—caesium-137 and caesium-134. Hill forage, including heather, in the restricted areas in Northern Ireland still contains these substances. The uptake of these isotopes measured in deer in the affected areas has been very low.
  683

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make arrangements for the Data Protection Registrar to inspect relevant contracts with suppliers of IT services that involve the use of personal data held by his Department in order to check whether all appropriate arrangements in relation to the Data Protection Act 1984 have been made, and whether such contracts make provisions for the registrar to make random inspections in order to check the suppliers' compliance in with the eighth data protection principle.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Data Protection Registrar has a wide range of powers under the Data Protection Act 1984, to ensure that the individuals and organisations holding personal data on computer systems are registered and observe the data protection principles as required by the Act, unless the data are exempt. When IT services are contracted out, the data protection principles and the registrar's powers to promote compliance with them, apply to both the owner of personal data and the service provider. It is for the registrar to decide how he will use his powers under the Act, and I do not consider that any further arrangements are necessary for him to discharge his duties effectively.

  Wildlife Numbers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary for Northern Ireland what recent studies he has made into the number of(a) badgers, (b) foxes, (c) hares, (d) rabbits, (e) grey crows, (f) magpies, (g) otters and (h) feral mink in Northern Ireland; what information he has as to whether each species is increasing, diminishing or stable in population; and what is the impact of each species on farm animals and fish stocks in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Badgers—The Department of Agriculture(NI) is currently funding a study, by Queen's university Belfast, of the distribution and abundance of the badger in Northern Ireland. The results of the investigation are not expected to produce any conclusive evidence about the impact of badgers on farm animals but should provide useful information on badger numbers and habitat.

  (b) Foxes—I am not aware of any recent studies into the number of foxes in Northern Ireland.

  (c) Hares—I am not aware of any recent studies into the number of hares in Northern Ireland. However, the Department of the Environment(NI) is part-funding a postgraduate student at Queen's university Belfast to undertake a three-year study into the distribution of hares, commencing January 1994.

  (d) Rabbits—I have no information on any recent studies into the number of rabbits in Northern Ireland.

  (e) and (f) Grey Crows and magpies—The only information the Department of the Environment(NI) has on the numbers of these birds is from the British Trust for Ornithology's common bird census. In the UK as a whole these species increased in numbers by 168 per cent.—magpies—and 164 per cent.—grey crows—during the period 1968–91. The only data for Northern Ireland specifically relate to magpies during the period 1983–92. This revealed an increase in numbers of 27 per cent.

  I am not aware of any studies on the impact of each species on farm animals and fish stocks in Northern Ireland.

  (g) Otters—Studies completed on an all-Ireland basis in 1981 and 1991 showed that this species is widespread in Northern Ireland, but recorded the presence of otters and made no attempt to assess their abundance.

  I am not aware of any studies into the impact of otters on farm animals and fish stocks.

  (h) Feral Mink—I am not aware of any recent studies into the number of feral mink in Northern Ireland or the impact of
  684
  feral mink in Northern Ireland or the impact of feral mink on farm animals and fish stocks. It is, however, generally believed that mink are now present throughout Northern Ireland wherever there is suitable habitat.

EMPLOYMENT

  Work Leavers
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his best estimate of the number of people who leave the work force each year; and if he will differentiate between those who leave due to retirement, ill health, unemployment and other reasons.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Of those people classified as economically inactive—not employed or International Labour Organisation unemployed—in the spring 1993 labour force survey for Great Britain, 1,050,000 said that they had been in employment a year earlier. Reasons given for leaving their last job were: retirement—23 per cent.; ill health—14 per cent.; redundancy, dismissal or temporary job ending—17 per cent.; other reasons—45 per cent. Further, of those people classified as ILO unemployed in spring 1993, 950,000 said that they had been in employment a year earlier. The reasons given for leaving employment were redundancy or dismissal—39 per cent.; temporary job ending—16 per cent.; other reasons—45 per cent.

  Economically Active Population
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of(a) men and (b) women are economically active at age (i) 55, (ii) 56, (iii) 57, (iv) 58, (v) 59, (vi) 60, (vii) 61, (viii) 62, (ix) 63, (x) 64, (xi) 65 years and (xii) over 65.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates from the labour force survey of economic activity rates by age, for Great Britain in summer 1993, are given in the table:

  Economic activity rates by age Summer 1993 (not seasonally adjusted) Great Britain

  Per cent.

  Age (years)

  Males

  Females

  55

  81

  61

  56

  79

  58

  57

  79

  56

  58

  70

  47

  59

  68

  45

  60

  66

  34

  61

  56

  30

  62

  53

  21

  63

  46

  21

  64

  40

  17

  65

  17

  8

  over 65

  6

  3

  Special Aids to Employment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled people in the Doncaster area currently benefit from the special aids to employment scheme; and how many disabled people he expects to lose their jobs once employers have to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of special aids in the workplace.
  685
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the current financial year, since 1 April 1993, there have been eight disabled people in the Doncaster area helped by the special aids to employment scheme.

  In reaching final decisions about the details of the access to work scheme, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Lord Henley are considering carefully a range of representations made by disability and employer groups including representations about the proposed employer contribution. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce decisions soon.

  Bridging Allowances
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds in the Doncaster area were in receipt of a bridging allowance at the latest available date, and on that date in each year since 1988.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 19 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about bridging allowance.

  The information you have requested, taking 16 and 17 year olds together, is provided in the attached table. Unfortunately, separate figures for each age group are not available, nor are the December 1988 and 1989 figures for Doncaster. However, the table provides figures for Yorkshire and Humberside for these dates, together with comparable figures for following years.

  Bridging allowance can be paid to young people as long as they are registered at a Careers Office for Youth Training (YT) and have left or lost a job or YT place. Youth Training Bridging Allowance was introduced at the same time as YT to allow a young person to find another YT place if their existing one proved unsuitable. Bridging Allowance is available to young people outside the child benefit extension period.

  It is a short term allowance paid for up to 40 days in any 52 week period while a young person finds another job or YT place.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Numbers in receipt of bridging allowance in Doncaster and Yorkshire and Humberside: December 1988–December 1993

  Doncaster

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  December 1988

  —

  1,224

  December 1989

  —

  841

  December 1990

  38

  917

  December 1991

  43

  777

  December 1992

  39

  672

  December 1993

  28

  475

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the current average length of time males aged(a) over 55 years, (b) over 35 years and under 55 years and (c) over 16 years and under 35 years remain unemployed in the Doncaster area;

  (2) what is the current average length of time females (a) over 55 years, (b) over 35 years and under 55 years and (c) over 16 years and under 35 years remain unemployed in the Doncaster area.
  686
  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is given in the table on the "median" durations of unemployment, with respect to computerised records only—the vast majority of all claims —of those claimants whose spell of unemployment was completed in the period between 11 November 1993 and 9 December 1993. At this small area level information on the "mean" duration of unemployment of these claimants is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Median Durations of claimant unemployment in the Doncaster Travel-to-work Area

  Median Duration of Unemployment (weeks)

  Age

  Male

  Female

  17–34

  12·0

  12·0

  35–54

  12·6

  19·5

  55 and over

  36·8

  156·0

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of adults(a) male and (b) female registered unemployed in the Doncaster area in December (i) 1979, (ii) 1983 and (iii) 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Figures for comparable travel-to-work areas are available only from June 1983 and are given in the table:

  Unadjusted Claimant Unemployment for the Travel-to-Work area of Doncaster

  Male

  Female

  December 1983

  12,258

  5,857

  December 1993

  11,856

  2,928

  Youth Employment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds in the Doncaster area who entered full-time employment in each year from 1988.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list for the last five years the number of disabled individuals in the Doncaster area who have benefited from the Government's present provision of assistance towards(a) special aids to employment, (b) adaptation to premises, (c) fares to work and (d) the personal reader scheme;

  (2) what has been spent in the last five years in the Doncaster area on disabled individuals on assistance towards (a) special aids to employment, (b) adaptation to premises, (c) fares to work and (d) the personal reader scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  687
  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 19 January 1994:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of disabled individuals and what has been spent in the last five years in the Doncaster area on assistance to people with disabilities on the Special Schemes; (a) special aids to employment (b) adaptation to premises (c) fares to work and (d) the personal reader scheme.

  The information you have asked for is not held centrally and I have asked my people to investigate the availability of the details you request. I will send details to you as soon as they are available.

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

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for the Doncaster area the companies that currently display the two-tick symbol denoting them as positive about disabled people and are complying with the criteria required.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 19 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question requesting a list of companies in the Doncaster area who currently display the disability symbol (the "two-tick symbol") denoting them as positive about disabled people.

  Unfortunately I am unable to enclose the list you request with this reply. As you may know, the disability symbol was first introduced in 1990. It was reviewed towards the end of 1992 and, in order to clarify its meaning and improve its impact, we have introduced changes to the initiative which came into effect on 1 June 1993.

  These changes have meant that the earlier symbol users needed to re-examine their practices and, in some cases, to introduce changes before confirming whether or not they would continue to use the symbol. My field disability service has been working to contact all symbol users, discuss the new commitments and confirm which employers would continue under the new arrangements.

  Although we have recently compiled a draft list of symbol users throughout the country, we are not yet satisfied that older users of the symbol who are not continuing as symbol users have been fully weeded out. It is, of course, very important that we are able to provide a full and accurate list of organisations using the symbol and we are reluctant to release it, or any parts of it, until we have had a further opportunity to check its accuracy.

  The checking process is now in hand and I would hope to write to you again within the next few weeks with a list of current symbol users in the Doncaster area. The national list of symbol users will also be included.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the current measures he is taking to reduce youth unemployment in the Doncaster area; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  All young people aged under 18, who are not in a job or full-time education, are guaranteed the offer of a suitable youth training place if they want one. On 9 December, the latest date for which information is available, there were five young people in the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council area wire were covered by the guarantee and had been waiting for a place for eight or more weeks. This is 86 per cent. fewer than in March last year.
  688
  The Employment Service and the TEC deliver an extensive programme of employment, enterprise and training initiatives to help employment prospects for unemployed people. In addition to this mainstream provision, the following schemes are available specifically for young people in the 18 to 25 years age group: the Doncaster education business partnership; the careership programme; pre-release courses involving the Employment Service, the careers service and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders; a mentoring programme; and workshops advising on job search and careers.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 competing for quality programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Early results have shown some significant savings, and much of the information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizen's Charter Second Report". On an individual contract basis, many details are commercially confidential.

  Scientists
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what data he holds on the numbers of scientists at postgraduate and postdoctoral level leaving their profession for(a) other employment and (b) employment abroad.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does not collect statistics on this subject. However a recent report by the Science and Engineering Policy Studies Unit on "The Migration of Scientists and Engineers 1984 to 1992", shows that, while 0·6 per cent. of university staff in these disciplines emigrated in 1992, the rate of recruitment of staff to the United Kingdom from other countries was higher at 1·3 per cent.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many youth training scheme or youth training places there were in the Doncaster area in each year since 1988.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is unavailable prior to 1991; however, since the opening of the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council in 1991 the number of YTS or youth training places in the Doncaster area have been as follows:

  Year

  Places

  1991–92

  2,348

  1992–93

  2,464

  1993–94

  2,394

  689
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17 year-olds are currently on waiting lists for youth training places in the Doncaster area; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As at 9 December 1993, in the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council area, there were five young people who had been waiting more than eight weeks for a place on youth training. This is due to constant co-operation between Barnsley and Doncaster TEC, Doncaster careers service and Doncaster training suppliers.

  Science Postgraduates
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of science postgraduates who successfully complete their doctorates within British universities have found employment in the United Kingdom within(a) six months and (b) one year for each of the last five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The percentage of those gaining science doctorates in 1991 who were in employment at the end of that year was as follows:

  Per cent.

  Biology

  76

  Physical Sciences

  63

  Mathematical Sciences

  74

  Engineering and Technology

  78

  These statistics are based on a special analysis of the annual "First Destinations Survey of Graduates" carried out by the universities.

  Statistics are not available for other years or on the definitions requested.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in manufacturing industries in the Yorkshire and Humberside region on 1 December(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1989 and (d)

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is shown in the table:

  Employees in manufacturing: Yorkshire and Humberside

  Number

  December 1979

  698,800

  December 1983

  510,400

  December 1989

  501,000

  September 19931

  437,600

  1 Latest available date.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, for the Doncaster area, the name of the employers who have been given the Investors in People award and the names of the employers who have made a commitment to meeting the standards; and if he will make a statement.
  690
  Miss Widdecombe
  Employers in the Doncaster area who have achieved the Investors in People award are as follows:

  Bridon Ropes Ltd.

  Bullseye Motorist Centre

  J I Case (UK) Ltd.

  Reed Northern Newspapers

  Rockware Glass

  Weldricks

  Employers who are committed to Investors in People status are as follows:

  Doncaster MBC Personnel and Catering Services Directorate

  Doncaster/Rotherham Group Training Association

  L J Monks

  The Aucklands Nursing Home

  ACE Conveyors Equipment Ltd.

  David Hall Partnership

  DBL Associates

  Rossington Comprehensive School

  Walkers Solicitors

  Benton House Nursing Home

  Norwell Structural and Site Services

  Danite Hard Metals

  South Yorkshire Training Trust

  Mr. Tony (HairDressing)

  Frigoscandia Ltd.

  Miller Brother (Doncaster) Ltd.

  Doncaster College

  DEYT (Training Provider)

  Hexthorpe First School

  Colbear Dixon

  Roger Worth Training

  DONBAC

  Yorkshire Training Centre

  G P Holdings

  ESL (Training Provider)

  Darfen

  BLP Group

  RFS Engineering

  Lindholme Prison

  Wages
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the median, highest decile/lowest decile, upper quartile, lower quartile and mean weekly and hourly earnings of(a) male, (b) female, (c) manual, (d) non-manual and (e) all full-time workers on adult rates in Yorkshire and Humberside, the north and Great Britain for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested can be found in part E of the new earnings survey for each year since 1979. Details of decile, median and quartile earnings are published in table 116 and average earnings in tables 122 and 123. Copies of the report can be found in the Library.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the average weekly and hourly earnings of(a) manual, (b) non-manual and (c) all part-time workers on adult rates in Yorkshire and Humberside, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Humberside, the North and Great Britain.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Average gross weekly earnings of part-time employees on adult rates— pay unaffected by absence: April 1993

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  73·1

  105·8

  92·5

  West Yorkshire

  71·2

  109·9

  94·4

  South Yorkshire

  73·1

  101·3

  89·7

  691

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Humberside

  73·3

  104·2

  91·5

  North Yorkshire

  78·3

  —

  92·8

  North

  70·6

  98·3

  87·1

  Great Britain

  75·1

  109·8

  97·0

  Average gross hourly earnings of part-time employees on adult rates— pay unaffected by absence: April 1993

  Manual

  Non-manual

  All

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3·90

  5·35

  4·76

  West Yorkshire

  3·88

  5·42

  4·82

  South Yorkshire

  3·89

  5·28

  4·72

  Humberside

  3·76

  5·24

  4·58

  North Yorkshire

  4·15

  —

  4·87

  North

  3·77

  5·04

  4·54

  Great Britain

  3·96

  5·67

  5·03

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions his Department has given to the Health and Safety Executive in the light of the Peto report on the projected increase in the number of deaths from mesothelioma.

  Mr. Michael Forsythe
  I have given no specific instructions; Professor Peto's estimates are based on statistical data provided by the Health and Safety Executive. He has not yet produced a written report.

  The HSE and Professor Peto are co-operating in closely analyzing the data more fully and determining their possible significance. Consideration is also being given to setting up an epidemiological study to subject the estimates to further investigation.

  New Businesses
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of new business start-ups in each year since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The enterprise allowance scheme—EAS—began in 1982–83. In April 1991, EAS was replaced by the business start-up scheme. The numbers of new business start-ups each year are shown in the table.

  Enterprise Allowance/Business Start Up

  1982–83

  2,500

  1983–84

  27,600

  1984–85

  46,000

  1985–86

  60,000

  1986–87

  86,800

  1987–88

  106,300

  1988–89

  98,500

  1989–90

  78,000

  1990–91

  60,000

  1991–92

  50,000

  1992–93

  41,000

  11993

  21,700

  1 April–October.

  692

  Irvine Offices
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much it cost his Department to move the Irvine unemployment benefit office and the Irvine jobcentre into the same purpose-built facility in Irvine.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about how much it cost his Department to move the Irvine Unemployment Benefit Office and the Irvine Jobcentre into the same purpose built facility in Irvine.

  Since 1990 the Employment Service (ES) has been pursuing a policy of bringing together Unemployment Benefit Offices (UBO) and Jobcentres with the aim of providing a more efficient and effective service to our clients. Already 824 offices have been integrated nationally in this way and ES plan to have 1,100 such outlets by March 1996. Irvine featured as part of this programme of integration and the new office opened for business on 9 August 1993.

  The new Jobcentre at Irvine has been acquired on a 25-year lease at an annual rental of £115,400 subject to five-year rent reviews. Capital costs of fitting out were £338,000. Costs will be offset by the disposal not only of both the former UBO and Jobcentre but also premises for the Jobclub which is now accommodated in the new building. Investment appraisal of the new office running costs over a 25-year period demonstrates that it is a cheaper option than retention of the former premises.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Coltman Precast Concrete Ltd.
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he was notified of potential redundancies made by Coltman Precast Concrete Ltd.; whether this notification was made within the time period required under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; what other representations he has received in relation to the notice of redundancies; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information supplied under the notification provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is given in confidence.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number, type and funding of apprenticeships currently in Nottinghamshire, the east midlands and England.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates of the number of apprentices are available from the labour force survey. Latest available figures indicate that, in summer 1993, 12,100 people in the east midlands, and 172,000 people in England were undertaking apprenticeships. Figures for Nottinghamshire are not available.

  The labour force survey gives figures by industry, by occupation and by personal characteristics of apprentices. Information on funding is not available.
  693

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures are in place to evaluate the effectiveness and performance of training and enterprise councils.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department undertakes regular evaluation of the range of programmes delivered by the training and enterprise councils—TECs—and assesses the contribution of the TEC movement to the performance of those programmes.

  The performance of individual TECs against contract is monitored by the Department's regional offices. Information on the performance of individual TECs in delivering Employment Department programmes is used to construct inter-TEC comparison tables. A copy of these tables for 1992–93 has already been placed in the Library.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what view the Health and Safety Commission has expressed to the Minister in the interim report of its review of regulations regarding pre-1974 health and safety regulations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 January 1994]: I have placed a copy of the report in the Library, along with a copy of my response to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, and I have written to the hon. Member, enclosing a personal copy.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: The Department has calculated that the effect on its budget for 1994–95 of the abolition of the 80 per cent. statutory sick pay reimbursement rate will be more than offset by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions.

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the date and the terms upon which his Department took out a lease on the accommodation currently occupied at Dyson's chambers, Briggate, Leeds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 19 January 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the Employment Service premises at Dyson's Chambers, Briggate, Leeds.

  It may be helpful if I explain that it is not Government Policy to disclose details of any of the leases it negotiates, as these are
  694
  Commercial in Confidence. I can say, however, that the Department of the Environment, Property Holdings, acquired this property for the Government Common User Estate and was able to achieve a substantial rent free period. At the expiration of that period my agency will be paying Property Holdings £400,000 per annum by way of internal rent. The lease commenced on 1 January 1993.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 105–106, what is the formal International Labour Organisation definition of unemployed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: The International Labour Organisation definition of unemployment as used, for example in compiling labour force estimates, counts as unemployed those people who at the time of interview were without work—that is, working less than one hour per week—were available to start work within the next two weeks, and had either looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview or were waiting to start a job they had already obtained.

  Loans
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list, for each scheme operated by his Department under which loans are available, the objectives of the scheme, the number of unrecovered loans, the total value of unrecovered loans, the average number of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990, the average value of unrecovered loans for each year since 1990 and the annual cost of recovering loans.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The career development loan —CDL—scheme, run in partnership with three high street banks—Barclays, the Co-operative and the Clydesdale—is the only loan scheme operated by the Employment Department. The objective of the scheme is to provide assistance to people who wish to undertake vocational education or training of their own choice, but who are unable, on their own, to raise sufficient funds to pay for it. The programme helps to encourage individuals to take greater responsibility for their own education and training. Details of the number and value of unrecovered CDLs, where a default notice has been issued, are given in the table for each year since the start of the scheme. The cost associated with recovering defaulted loans are borne primarily by the lending banks. The Department incurs minimal cost—on average, less than £400 per year total costs over the last four years.

  Unrecovered CDLs (Loans where a default notice has been served)

  Year

  Number

  Total Value (£)

  Average Value (£)

  1986–87

  3

  2,469

  823

  1987–88

  14

  15,402

  1,100

  1988–89

  40

  40,955

  1,024

  1989–90

  115

  187,515

  1,631

  1990–91

  419

  798,249

  1,905

  1991–92

  1,113

  2,539,291

  2,281

  1992–93

  1,501

  3,550,631

  2,366

  1993–94

  1,233

  3,242,991

  2,630

  Total

  4,438

  10,377,503

  695

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made on the effect which the next steps programme will have on equal opportunities in public service employment; and what steps he is taking to monitor the effect.

  Mr. Davis
  The Government are committed to a policy aimed at ensuring equality of opportunity in civil service employment. It is the responsibility of all agency chief executives to implement that policy effectively within their organisations. Progress on equal opportunities across the civil service, including the agencies where 60 per cent. of civil servants now work, is monitored by OPSS. The latest progress reports on women and ethnic minorities, which continue to show steady improvement including increasing representation in management grades, were published last month and copies placed in the Library of the House. The progress report on disabled civil servants will be published in the spring.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 competing for quality programme. Much of the information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizens Charter Second Report".

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information as requested is not held centrally and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Scanning Radiometer
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what support his Department is giving to back basic scientific development of the along-track scanning radiometer, which was announced by the Department of the Environment on 21 December 1993.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government make funds available under the science budget to the research councils, which determine their priorities in accordance with the terms of their royal charters.

  The Natural Environment Research Council—NERC —will contribute £1·8 million towards the cost of building
  696
  the advanced along-track scanning radiometer—AATSR. The remainder of the total cost will be provided by the Department of the Environment and the Australian space office.

  The AATSR has been developed from two previous instruments: the ATSR1 and ATSR2, towards which the Science and Engineering Research Council—SERC—provided funds of £7·3 million and £12·3 million respectively.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will qualify the cost of the factors which led to an increase in his Department's cost for ministerial cars between 1990–91 and 1992–93; how many cars were involved in each year; how many of these cars are for Government Whips and which Whips have cars personally allocated to them; how many were for Government Whips in 1990–91; and how many were personally allocated at that date.

  Mr. David Davis
  The increase in the costs borne by the Office of Public Service and Science for ministerial cars between 1990–91 and 1992–93 was due mainly to increases in the prices charged by the Government car service—and restructuring of GCS tariffs—the addition in April 1992 of a vehicle for use of the holder of the second ministerial post established at the inception of the OPSS, and more intensive use of the GCS generally.

  In 1990–91 three vehicles were allocated to ministerial use, of which two were allocated for the use of the Chief Whip (Commons) and the Leader of the House and Chief Whip (Lords) respectively. The total number of allocated vehicles was increased to four from April 1992.

  Research
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures for Government spending on research; and what proportions were spent on (i) applied research and (ii) fundamental research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Government research and development activity is analysed into the internationally agreed OECD Frascati categories of basic, applied and experimental development. The latest expenditure figures, for 1991–92, were published in the 1993 annual review of Government-funded research and development and are as follows:

  £ million

  (i)

  (ii)

  Applied Per cent.

  Basic Per cent.

  Civil R and D

  2,780·9

  47·0

  48·4

  Defence R and D

  2,267·0

  17·8

  nil

  Total R and D

  5,047·9

  33·9

  26·7

  The remaining R and D is classified as experimental development.

  A similar analysis for the outturn year 1992–93 will be published in the forward look of Government-funded science and technology in April 1994.
  697

  Bypasses
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what provisions of the citizens charter assist private citizens wishing to ascertain the cost-benefit analysis provided by local authorities to the Ministry of Transport in respect of bypass schemes.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The citizens charter aims to ensure that there is no secrecy about how public services are run, how much they cost, who is in charge, and whether or not they are meeting their standards. In line with this principle, there are no restrictions on private citizens looking at the results of cost-benefit analysis provided by local authorities to the Department of Transport in respect of bypass schemes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ethnic Minority Grants
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the actual spending by his Department on section 11 grant for 1992–93 for each local authority;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of posts which will be lost in 1994–95 as a result of cuts in section 11 funding;

  (3) if he will list the actual amount of section 11 grant allocated by his Department to each local authority for the first two quarters of 1993–94;

  (4) what is the total allocation of spending by his Department on section 11 grant for 1994–95; and if he will list the individual allocations for each local authority.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Receptions into prison service establishments by offence, 19921

  Offence

  Immediate imprisonment

  In default of payment of a fine

  All

  Percentage in default of payment of a fine

  All Offences

  51,324

  19,977

  71,301

  28

  Violence against the person

  7,082

  1,313

  8,395

  16

  Murder

  234

  0

  234

  0

  Manslaughter

  142

  0

  142

  0

  Other Homicide and attempted Homicide

  435

  6

  441

  1

  Wounding

  4,461

  678

  5,139

  13

  Assaults

  1,219

  510

  1,729

  29

  Cruelty to Children

  30

  1

  31

  3

  Other offences of violence against the person

  561

  118

  679

  17

  Sexual Offences

  1,858

  28

  1,886

  2

  Buggery and indecency between males

  172

  4

  176

  2

  Rape

  527

  4

  531

  1

  Gross indecency with children

  161

  —

  161

  —

  Other sexual offences

  998

  20

  1,018

  2

  Burglary

  9,479

  1,318

  10,797

  12

  Robbery

  2,988

  34

  3,022

  1

  Theft and Handling

  9,249

  3,561

  12,810

  28

  Taking and driving away

  1,310

  437

  1,747

  25

  Other thefts

  6,291

  2,725

  9,016

  30

  Handling stolen goods

  1,648

  399

  2,047

  19

  Fraud and Forgery

  1,807

  674

  2,481

  27

  Frauds

  1,677

  638

  2,315

  28

  Forgery

  130

  36

  166

  22

  Drugs offences

  3,168

  448

  3,616

  12

  698

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time taken by him to reply to letters received from official spokespersons of Her Majesty's Opposition.

  Mr. Howard
  In the period from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1993 the average time taken to reply to letters received from the hon. Member and his colleagues the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was 25 working days.

  Prisoners
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were sentenced to a prison term under each offence category for the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the number and percentage who were fine defaulters.

  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 Mr. William Ross, dated 19 January 1994:

  RECEPTIONS UNDER SENTENCE

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many people were sentenced to a prison term under each offence category for the latest year for which figures are available; and the number and percentage who were fine defaulters.

  The information requested is shown in the attached table.
  699

  Offence

  Immediate imprisonment

  In default of payment of a fine

  All

  Percentage in default of payment of a fine

  Other Offences

  11,364

  11,042

  22,406

  49

  Arson

  480

  19

  499

  4

  Criminal damage

  1,027

  1,464

  2,491

  59

  Immigration Act 1977

  17

  2

  19

  11

  In charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs

  1,236

  546

  1,782

  31

  Other motoring offences

  3,846

  5,811

  9,657

  60

  Offences relating to prostitution

  26

  113

  139

  81

  Drunkenness

  41

  569

  610

  93

  Vagrancy

  42

  66

  108

  61

  Other

  4,649

  2,452

  7,101

  35

  Offence not recorded

  4,329

  1,559

  5,888

  26

  1 Provisional figures.

  Prisons
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates in prison establishments within England and Wales were disciplined for the possession of an unlawful drug during 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  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 Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 19 January 1994:

  POSSESSION OF AN UNLAWFUL DRUG

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many inmates in prison establishments within England and Wales were disciplined for the possession of an unlawful drug during 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. The numbers are 2,650, 2,798, 2,041 and 1,759 respectively. They include those found guilty of inciting or assisting other prisoners to possess controlled drugs. The 1990 figures is part-estimate and the 1993 one is provisional.

  Probation
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would be the extra costs involved in resourcing the probation service to work with people sentenced to less than 12 months' imprisonment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Adult offenders sentenced to less than 12 months' imprisonment are not subject to statutory supervision on release, but the probation service already offers supervision on a voluntary basis. If all offenders in this category were supervised on the same statutory basis as offenders sentenced to longer terms, the annual additional cost would be of the order of £13 million.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation orders were made with added conditions, as a proportion of all probation orders made in England and Wales for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest published information shows that some 26 per cent. of probation orders commenced in 1992 had additional requirements, but that in the first three months after the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 on 1 October 1992 this rose to 29 per cent.
  700
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of persons on(a) probation and (b) community service orders had a previous custodial sentence at the latest available date.

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available figures were published in summary probation statistics England and Wales 1992 which is available in the House of Commons Library. The percentage of persons commencing supervision by the probation service with a previous custodial sentence in 1992 were(a) 38 for probation and (b) 32 for community service orders.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to meet the National Association of Probation Officers, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation or the Central Probation Council to discuss changes in the probation budget.

  Mr. Maclean
  I plan to meet representatives of the Central Probation Council and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation to discuss issues of current concern. I have no immediate plans to meet the National Association of Probation Officers.

  Horse Thefts
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many horse thefts have been reported to the police in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by county, the number of reported incidents of horses being stolen in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Community Service
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reduce the minimum age for community service.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans at present to bring forward legislation to lower the minimum age for community service of 16; but I want to consider, as part of the review of national standards for community sentences,
  701
  increasing the scope for younger offenders to undertake tasks of a reparative nature for the benefit of local communities as part of effective supervision programmes.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase or strengthen community penalties.

  Mr. Maclean
  I plan to strengthen community penalties through the review of national standards now in progress.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the recommendations made by the firearms consultative committee in each year since it was set up; which of them have been the subject of a circular issued by him indicating that the recommendations should be implemented; what information he has as to whether those recommendations have been implemented; and by which police forces they have been implemented.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A summary of the committee's recommendations is contained in each of its four annual reports, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Revised guidance on the definition of antique weapons and collecting of firearms was issued to chief officers of police following a recommendation made by the committee in its third annual report. In addition, Home Office circulars have been issued which include advice on implementing recommendations made by the committee on revised criteria for approved rifle and pistol clubs and the EC weapons directive.

  Details of the other recommendations of the committee which have been implemented were given in my reply to the hon. Member on 15 December 1993—column 657.

  The administration of the firearms licensing system is the responsibility of individual chief officers of police. Detailed records of individual force practice are not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all grant allocations made under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 for the year 1994–95.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the studies for which(a) Ernst and Young and (b) Towers Perrin were engaged in the two years prior to the establishment of the Sheehy inquiry; and what was the cost thereof.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Details of the contracts awarded by the Home Office during the period July 1990 to July 1992 to the specified companies are as follows:

  July 1990–July 1992

  Total Value

  Consultant

  Towers Perrin

  —

  Ernst and Young Court Escort Area Survey and associated research

  —

  702

  July 1990–July 1992

  Total Value

  Consultancy assistance in ensuring VFM from the Court Escort Service.

  —

  Firearms licensing costs.

  —

  Validation of IT strategy.

  —

  PROMIS/SPITS Strategy Study

  —

  Feasibility of Artificial Intelligence.

  —

  £433,930

  Immigration
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to the immigration department concerning arresting alleged illegal immigrants during their wedding services.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Instructions to the immigration service stress that visits to register offices to detain offenders under the immigration laws are particularly sensitive and should normally be undertaken only where the individual's whereabouts before and after the wedding have been and will be unknown.

  I am not aware of any recent case where an immigration offender has been arrested during a marriage service but know of two cases where illegal entrants were detained prior to their intended marriages.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the west midlands inquiry unit's use of early morning raids on the homes of suspected illegal immigrants.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have not received any recent representations about early morning visits carried out by immigration service staff attached to the midlands inquiry unit.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993(a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992–93 competing for quality programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Once it has been finalised, much of the information requested will be published in aggregate form in the "Citizens Charter Second Report". On an individual project basis, much of the information is commercially confidential.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes are planned in prisoner numbers at HMP(a) Armley, (b) Brixton, (c) Ford, (d) Full Sutton, (e) Hull, (f) Lindholme, (g) Moorland, (h)

  703
  Pentonville, (j) Wandsworth, (k) Wolds and (l) Wormwood Scrubs over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 19 January 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about prisoner numbers at 11 prison establishments.

  The number of prisoners received by the Prison Service is not directly subject to planning but depends upon the decisions of the courts. In order to cater for expected growth in the population, the Prison Service is planning to build six new prisons and is preparing plans to build new places in existing establishments. Final decisions have not yet been taken on which prisons will have their capacity expanded. These are, therefore, no firm proposals to build new accommodation in any of the establishments you list.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many communications he has received during the consultation on deregulation on(a) the Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991, (b) the Pet Animals Act 1951, (c) the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 and (d) the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925; how many were in favour and how many against; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of responses which the Department has received to its consultation letter concerning the deregulation review of certain Acts is as follows:

  In favour of retaining the present controls

  In favour of deregulation

  The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and 1991

  11

  1

  The Pet Animals Act 1951

  13

  3

  The Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963

  11

  2

  The Performing Animals (Regulations) Act 1925

  6

  0

  Year of Older People
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution his Department made to the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations in terms of financial support, practical support for particular events, and the provision of information.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My Department continued its funding of the retired and senior volunteer programme, which was represented on the UK core advisory group for the year, and of the retired executives action clearing house. In 1993 the grant to the retired and senior volunteer programme was £50,000 and to the retired executives action clearing house £41,592. It also funds many other organisations such as the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, which though not aiming specifically at older people encourage volunteering by people of all ages. Ministerial colleagues and I made regular reference in our speeches to the importance of older volunteers.
  704
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which programmes and events for the European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations he has been directly involved.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None.

  Combination Orders
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many combination orders have been made since 17 October 1992; and how many have been breached to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Combination orders were introduced on 1 October 1992 by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Between 1 October 1992 and the end of June 1993 it is estimated that some 5,300 combination orders have commenced in England and Wales probation areas. Information on breaches is not yet available.

  Strip Searches
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many strip searches have been carried out in England and Wales in the last five years; and for what purposes strip searches are carried out.

  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 A. J. Butler to Ms Jean Corston, dated 19 January 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about strip searching.

  Prisons are not required to maintain statistics of the number of strip searches carried out. Strip searching is a routine security measure, carried out under the provisions of Rule 39 of the Prisons Rules 1964, to which all prisoners are subject. It enables prison officers to detect small items of contraband, such as drugs or a weapon, which may be concealed about the person and which might not be discovered in an ordinary rub-down search. The prospect of being strip-searched also acts as a deterrent to concealing such items.

  City Status, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to support Doncaster being awarded city status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the title of city is an honour conferred by the sovereign, by letters patent, on the recommendation of the Home Secretary. The title is nowadays a very rare distinction, granted only in exceptional circumstances and usually in connection with a royal occasion. Any application for city status on behalf of Doncaster would be considered in the usual way.

  Football (Policing)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the total number of police officers on duty at Carling premiership and Endsleigh football league matches in England and Wales, the total number of police officers as a percentage of the total attendances for those matches and the total cost of those officers for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.
  705
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not held centrally.

  Door Supervisors
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he or his Department have received on a national registration scheme for door supervisors.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In the past six months, four letters have been received on this matter.

  In addition, Home Office officials have met a group of interested parties, to discuss local regulatory schemes. Consideration is now being given to proposals prepared by that group and further discussions will take place shortly.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will bring forward proposals for a national registration scheme for door supervisors;

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a national registration scheme for door supervisors.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no plans to introduce such a scheme.

  Fir Tree Grange Probation Hostel
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from magistrates, the police and the probation service concerning his decision to close Fir Tree Grange approved probation hostel.

  Mr. Maclean
  No direct representations have been received from the police; representations have however been made by Easington magistrates court and by a Member of Parliament and a Member of the European Parliament on behalf of members of Durham probation service. A 234-name petition against closure, including signatories from all three of these areas, has also been received.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who was consulted before the decision was taken to close Fir Tree Grange approved probation hostel.

  Mr. Maclean
  For reasons of confidentiality it was not appropriate for consultation outside the Department to take place in advance of the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received(a) in support of and (b) in opposition to the closure of Fir Tree Grange approved probation hostel.

  Mr. Maclean
  (a) None, (b) four, plus a 234-name petition.

  Asylum
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the granting of political asylum to Rashid Ghannouchi; if he has now given further consideration to his decision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Representations expressing concern about this case have been received from several 706
  hon. Members, the Government of Tunisia and some members of the public. The decision has been re-examined and I am satisfied that it was correct. There are no present grounds for withdrawing Mr. Ghannouchi's refugee status. I will be writing to the hon. Member in response to his recent letters on this matter.

  Royal Veterinary College
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from the department of veterinary pathology at the Royal Veterinary college in regard to his proposals about aggravated trespass; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a letter from Professor Bleby of the Royal Veterinary college about our proposals. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have also sent copies of this letter to the Home Office. A copy of our reply will be forwarded to the right hon. Member.

  Safer Cities Programme
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to make an announcement about the selection of areas for the safer cities phase 2 programme.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I announced on 29 December that decisions have been made on the first wave of projects to be set up under phase 2 of the safer cities programme and on the organisations which will manage them on our behalf. The competitive nature of the bids received together with the commitment of additional resources from key local agencies means that projects can be set up in all 10 of the shortlisted areas.

  After careful evaluation of the tenders two organisations have been chosen to run the projects: Crime Concern and the National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders—NACRO. Both organisations have significant experience in crime prevention, project management and working with voluntary agencies.

  Crime Concern will manage projects in Blackburn, Burnley, Greenwich, Lambeth, Manchester, Merthyr Tydfil and Plymouth and NACRO in Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield. Projects will start to come on stream early in the new year.

  Further waves of phase 2 projects are planned, but as safer cities funding will be included in the single regeneration budget from 1 April 1994 decisions about future projects will be taken in conjunction with the Department of the Environment.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to draw up a plan for the implementation of the forest principles agreed at the Rio summit.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Our plan for the implementation of the forest principles agreed at the Rio summit will be published shortly.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to sell off any of the forests
  707
  owned by the Forestry Commission in the Roxburgh and Berwickshire constituency under its current disposals programme;

  (2) if he will list all forests owned by the Forestry Commission in the Roxburgh and Berwickshire constituency.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Forestry Commission is preparing a list of all its woodlands in the hon. Member's constituency, and this will identify those which are currently being considered for sale. I shall send a copy to the hon. Member and I shall also arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list Forestry Commission property in the Cunninghame, South constituency and in Ayrshire as a whole.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There are no Forestry Commission woodlands in the hon. Member's constituency. The commission is currently preparing a list of its woodlands in Ayrshire and I shall send a copy to the hon. Member. I shall also arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Livingston Development Corporation
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of assets owned by Livingston development corporation.

  Mr. Lang
  The corporation's annual report 1992–93 shows that the value of Livingston's total fixed assets at 31 March 1993 was £238·7 million.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what target for capital receipts from sale of property and land he has set for Livingstone development corporation for the next two years.

  Mr. Lang
  The provisional targets set are as follows:

  £ million

  Housing

  Industrial, Commercial and Land

  Total

  1994–95

  7·677

  26·900

  34·577

  1995–96

  8·375

  42·340

  50·715

  These will be the subject of further discussion with the development corporation before final targets are set.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will quantify the cost of the factors which led to an increase in the cost of cars for Ministers in his Department since 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  The cost of providing cars for Ministers in my Department increased by £11,877—5 per cent.—over the period 1990–91 to 1992–93. The difference is due to modest cost increases in a number of areas, notably fuel and maintenance costs and salaries and associated staff costs.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make arrangements for the Data Protection Registrar to inspect relevant contracts with suppliers of IT 708
  services that involve the use of personal data held by his Department in order to check whether all appropriate arrangements in relation to the Data Protection Act 1984 have been made, and whether such contracts make provisions for the registrar to make random inspections in order to check the suppliers' compliance in with the eighth data protection principle.

  Mr. Lang
  The Data Protection Regstrar has a wide range of powers, under the Data Protection Act 1984, to ensure that all individuals and organisations holding personal data on computer systems are registered and observe the data protections principles as required by the Act. When IT services are contracted out by a data user, the contractor and the user will be subject to the application of the data protection principles, and to the registrar's powers to promote compliance with them, as provided for in the Act. It is for the registrar to decide how he will use his powers under the Act, and I do not consider that any further arrangements are necessary for him to discharge his duties effectively.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish Office files were destroyed last year; and what general subject matter, by category, was contained in them.

  Mr. Land
  A total of 155,097 files—out of a total of over 1·5 million—were destroyed during 1993 following consultation with the Scottish Record Office. The subject matter covered the full range of Scottish Office functions. The split among Departments is:

  Number

  Agriculture and Fisheries

  7,904

  Environment

  15,509

  Education

  148,002

  Industry

  5,660

  Home and Health

  270,616

  Central Services

  7,406

  1 Includes case files relating to student awards.

  2 Includes case files relating to teacher and NHS pensions.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioners received gross payments in excess of £200,000 per year in each year since 1991–92.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is not available for 1991–92 and is available for 1992–93 only on a practice basis. In 1992–93 the average payment per general practitioner within a practice exceeded £200,000 in 12 practices containing a total of 13 practitioners.

  All 12 of the practices were dispensing practices and the payments included all payments in respect of dispensing —including payments for the supply of drugs—as well as the usual gross payments in respect of the provision of general medical services.

  Museums and Galleries (Attendances)
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the attendance figures for 1993 reported by the national museums and galleries in Scotland, broken
  709
  down into the individual institutions but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1992.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: The information is as follows:

  1993

  Percentage change since 1992

  National Museums of Scotland

  1,072,716

  +6·70

  National Galleries of Scotland

  746,508

  -1·66

  The national museums of Scotland comprise the Royal museum of Scotland buildings at Chambers street and Queen street, Edinburgh, the Scottish Agricultural museum, the Scottish United Services museum, the Museum of Flight, the Museum of Costume and the Gasworks museum. The national galleries of Scotland comprise the National Gallery of Scotland, the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art and the Scottish National Portrait gallery.

  Special Education Services
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had in relation to proposed local government reform from Mr. Sandy Watson, director of education for Dundee, on behalf of the Scottish Directors of Education, relating to the provision of specialist education services for the handicapped, pupils in music, and other groups, dependent on large-scale education authorities for the current standard of provision.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 January 1994]: I have received a number of representations from Mr. Watson in his capacity as secretary to the professional association of the education directorate, on behalf of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland in connection with our proposals for local government reform.

  In his most recent letter, dated 14 December 1993 written on behalf of the association and other bodies and addressed to all Scottish Members of Parliament, Mr. Watson expressed concern that small authorities with reduced spending power would have difficulty in maintaining professional support services and that special needs provision would be vulnerable. I believe this concern is capable of being satisfactorily addressed within the Government's proposal.

  Salmon
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation he has now had, following the report of the Salmon Advisory Committee, about the provision of fish passes and fish screens; and whether he now intends to make regulations on this question under the provisions of the Salmon Act 1986.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 January 1994]: Consideration is now being given to the responses received, in the latter part of 1993, from the wide range of interests consulted on proposals for new Scottish fish pass and fish screen regulations. I hope to lay the regulations before Parliament by the summer.
  710

  Scottish Art
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish the submission received from the trustees of the national galleries for Scotland in respect of the proposal to build a new gallery of Scottish art; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish representations received by him in respect of the proposal to build a new gallery of Scottish art; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: My right hon. Friend has not yet received any fully developed and costed proposals from the board of trustees and it would therefore be premature for him to make a statement. It will be for the board in the first instance to decide whether or not to publish details of its submission.

  My right hon. Friend will certainly taken into account all of the representations received on this issue but it would be inappropriate to publish representations put to him in correspondence, some of which have been marked specifically as "confidential".

  Mr. Laurence Peterken
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date a cheque was sent to Mr. Laurence Peterken, terminating his employment; what was the amount of the cheque; what the payment was in respect of; and when this cheque was cashed.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: Greater Glasgow health board sent Mr. Laurence Peterken on 4 November 1993 a cheque for £36,447·45, representing six months' pay in lieu of notice and payment for work undertaken on 1 and 2 November. The cheque, which had already been cancelled, was returned uncashed by Mr. Peterken to Greater Glasgow health board on 23 November.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the appointment offered to Mr. Laurence Peterken on 12 November 1993 of special projects director was conditional on his not accepting the six months' pay in lieu of notice granted by Greater Glasgow health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: When Mr. Peterken was appointed special projects director, he relinquished all claims for payment of whatever kind other than pension payments and outstanding salary and performance-related pay relative to his employment with Greater Glasgow health board. This was a condition of his appointment and it would have applied to any payment in lieu of notice.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hamilton, (Mr. Robertson) of 14 December 1993,Official Report, column 604, what was the sum involved in granting Mr. Laurence Peterken six months' pay in lieu of notice, and for what reason no payment had been made to Mr. Peterken by 14 December 1993.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: The sum involved in respect of six months' pay in lieu of notice to Mr. Laurence Peterken was £36,223·50. The cheque, which had already been cancelled, was returned uncashed by Mr. Peterken to Greater Glasgow health board on

  711
  23 November in accordance with the conditions relating to his appointment as special project director with the national health service in Scotland. No payment had therefore been made to Mr. Peterken by 14 December either in lieu of notice or as compensation for leaving Greater Glasgow health board prematurely.
  712

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to statutory sick pay provision upon his departmental budget for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: The abolition of reimbursement for statutory sick pay will be offset, at least in part, by a 0·2 per cent. reduction in employer's national insurance contributions. Any additional costs will be absorbed within my Department's existing running costs baseline.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Falkland Islands: Investigation
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the debate on the Falklands Islands investigation held in this House on 15th December 1993 (H.L. Deb., col. 1361), whether the investigations set up in August 1992 by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Attorney-General have provided acceptable evidence of an act of murder away from the battlefield; and, if not, whether they intend to make a statement on the matter and whether the files may now be closed.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the position in this respect has not changed since the debate on 15th December. Police inquiries are continuing and they expect to submit a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions quite shortly. No decision can be taken prior to consideration of that report. Nor would it be proper at this stage to comment on the evidence.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his response. In that context may I ask him whether consideration has been given to the incidence of the rules of war where a key position has to be taken and held at all costs; where, after an arduous all-night campaign, that position is taken against superior numbers of well-trained and well-armed troops; and where, after it is taken it is subjected to continuous artillery bombardment giving rise to the expectation of a counter-attack? Perhaps I may respectfully ask my noble and learned friend to confirm, first, that in such a situation there is no obligation to accept an offer of surrender and accord prisoner-of-war status under Articles 4 and 5 of the Geneva Convention. Secondly, and finally, I wish to ask whether, in view of his assurances given on 15th December, as the battlefield is still open, no prosecution for murder could ensue?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that it would be somewhat unwise for me to venture an opinion on a hypothetical case, although I understand that the assumption of the question put to me may be that those were the facts on the occasion in question.
I believe that the correct time to consider all aspects of this matter is when the police report is completed and the Director of Public Prosecutions has an opportunity of considering it.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, why was this matter taken out of the hands of the services, which know something about the problems involved?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I explained in the debate on 15th December that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence took the advice of the Attorney-General and then submitted the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The result has been the police inquiry.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend put me right if am wrong? I had always understood that as regards prosecution, ever since the Campbell case of 1923 and a subsequent but rather later statement by Sir Hartley Shawcross (as he then was), the question of prosecution or no prosecution was a quasi-judicial one in which political statements in either direction were not particularly welcome.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend is absolutely correct. In the course of the debate on 15th December I narrated a statement in connection with an earlier case that was given by the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan (as he then was). I believe that what my noble and learned friend says is entirely in accordance with the practice as it has been understood.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether there has been any occasion in the past where the public prosecution services have been brought in on a military case? If not, why is this case being treated and allowed as a precedent? Is there not the implication that if this is accepted, and at some time in the future the military forces of the country—the Army, the air force or the navy—were called into action and a loss of life occurred during a war, someone may decide, as time passes by, to rehash the situation and make accusations of murder? Are we not creating a dangerous precedent if we go along that track?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already explained the circumstances in which the inquiry was instituted. I have no doubt that all the relevant circumstances, as they appeared, were taken into account in deciding that that was the proper course for the inquiry. In preparation for the debate on 15th December, I inquired of the Judge Advocate General whether he would expect to have been consulted prior to that. My understanding of his position was that he would not have thought it appropriate for him to be consulted at that stage.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor aware that the longer the inquiry continues, the more agony and grief will be caused to the innocent widows, bereaved parents and orphans of those who served in the campaign?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is undoubtedly true that inquiries of this character, and inquiries which may occur in other circumstances in which the Director of Public Prosecutions is involved, should be taken to a conclusion as rapidly as possible in the interests of all concerned.
On the other hand, in most cases it is necessary for some time to be taken in order that the inquiry can be

603
properly pursued. My understanding of the matter is that the police have pursued the inquiries as quickly as circumstances permitted and in the light of the circumstances as they emerged during the inquiry.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question which was not answered in the debate, according to my reading of Hansard. Was it the account of the Battle of Mount Longdon and the story—one might almost say hearsay story—of an incident in that account that triggered the investigation? Following the comments of another noble Lord, why were the proper military channels not followed to the end? The noble and learned Lord is well aware of the tried and proven system within Her Majesty's forces of courts of inquiry and courts martial which can be carried out in the field. The whole system can be dealt with by the military. Was the Chief of Staff of the Army, having taken advice from the Judge Advocate General or any other senior military Army officer, consulted by the noble and learned Lord's right honourable friend the Secretary of State? Or was it an arbitrary decision by the Secretary of State to go alone to the Attorney General?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, so far as I know the position, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence considered the matter carefully, as I explained in the debate, from the point of view of his own department and responsibilities. He then made a decision—and I should not wish to describe it as arbitrary—to seek the advice of the Attorney General. As I understand it, he then acted upon the advice of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that when the matter was raised at Question Time on 6th December, I asked whether the Judge Advocate General would be consulted, as it was a military matter. My noble and learned friend said that all responsible authorities would be consulted. Can my noble and learned friend say whether the Judge Advocate General has at last been consulted?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think I have just indicated that when I last inquired of him he had not been consulted and that he did not expect to be consulted at the stage which the matter had reached.

European Council Meetings: Information Access
2.47 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have prepared a programme of proposals to put before the European Council during the Greek presidency; and whether, in conformity with "open government", they will publish it.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, there is no UK programme as such for the Greek presidency. The Greek presidency programme has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Our priorities are the completion of the enlargement negotiations, following up the Commission report on subsidiarity and further work on growth, competitiveness and employment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Will she inform the House whether the question of public access to information concerning Council meetings will be brought up during the Greek presidency at the European Council, as distinct from the Council of Ministers established under Article 145? Is she aware that at the Council of Ministers' meeting on 6th December last year, a series of regulations were passed concerning public access to Community decisions? That virtually guaranteed in the text that very little information would be given to anyone anyway.
Since it is desirable that the papers should at some time cross the desk of the Prime Minister, will the noble Baroness ensure that those documents which were forwarded to the Foreign Office by COREPER on 3rd December and 12th January are laid before the Prime Minister so that he may consider the desirability of raising this important matter at the next meeting of the European Council?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce; and there should be public access—something for which the British Government have argued—to documents which have been seen by the Prime Minister. It was of course under the Belgian presidency that the meeting of the European Council was held on 6th December. While I do not have the detail of the documents which, no doubt, the noble Lord has in his hand, I know that the Prime Minister is deeply anxious to see proper public access. I shall bring the noble Lord's remarks to his attention.
The point is that we cannot have a programme for the Greek presidency; but we can and will follow up our priorities during the Greek presidency, not only at the European Council but also at the Council of Ministers' meetings in the interim.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I have already been through the proceedings of the European Council's activities in Brussels, and there is nowhere in the document any mention of this question even being considered? Will she please ensure, in association with the matters that I have ventured to lay before her today, that copies are made available of the procedures adopted by the Council—which I was able to get after winkling them out for about four months, and which have been amended, essentially by the documents to which I have referred?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point. I shall certainly look into all that he has said today.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that during the debate over the Maastricht Treaty, her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said that if and when the treaty was ratified, subsidiarity would become the guiding principle of the Community? Does she further agree that there has not been much evidence of that so far, despite the ratification of the treaty? Can she say when we can expect to see a massive and determined effort to implement the principle of subsidiarity?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord was not able to be with us at Question Time yesterday. It is important that 16 out of the 24 of those issues on subsidiarity on the Anglo-French list were agreed to at the last Council. One directive has already been amended; namely, that on fisheries, and a number of other issues will come before successive Councils. As the noble Lord will see from Hansard, we do not intend to let this all-important issue go.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as I understood the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, it was not only that the general public should be better informed as to what went on at European Councils, but that the Government should be adequately and properly informed as to what these terrible institutions in Brussels were getting up to. Is the noble Baroness satisfied with the flow of information coming from the Government's representative on CUR EPER as to what the Community is considering and the documentation to back up that consideration? Or does she take the same view as some other people do, which is that perhaps our ambassador to the Community does not do his job properly?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, let me straight away refute the allegation just made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard—
Lord Richard: I have not made an allegation.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is the implication of the noble Lord's remarks. Sir John Kerr is one of the best of Her Majesty's permanent representatives, and is absolutely diligent. I have no doubt that all documents, other than those on very trifling matters, do come to Ministers and do come to the Prime Minister. But I accept that there is worry that documents circulate within the Commission which do not always come to the Council. I know that is the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington; and he knows that I share it with him.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can I be perfectly clear about this? I am not saying a word against John Kerr. He is an excellent civil servant, and so far as I know he does a very good job. If any such implication could be drawn from my remarks, then I unreservedly withdraw it.

British Rail Pension Fund
2.53 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made in fulfilling the terms of the memorandum of understanding signed by a Minister of the Crown and the Chairman of the British Rail Pension Fund Trustee Company.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, progress has been made in our discussions with the trustees on these complex matters. The Government intend to honour fully the terms of the memorandum of understanding. Both we and the trustees hope to bring these discussions to a mutually acceptable conclusion as soon as possible.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—and perhaps he will remind his right honourable friends of this—that it is six months to the day since the memorandum of understanding was first signed? Does he agree that, to put it mildly, it is inappropriate to drag into the proceedings matters which were not in contemplation at the time of the signing of the memorandum; and that there is beginning to hang over this whole affair the odour of procrastination which is bound to involve discredit for Ministers?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have not introduced matters that were not provided for in the memorandum of understanding. We have made progress in the discussions, by agreeing principles that should be satisfied in any arrangement. It is in the interests of all parties concerned that a. satisfactory solution is reached as soon as possible.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for once again raising this matter. It was a very important question during the debate on the Railways Bill; and there is still a great deal of unease among railway pensioners. Can the Minister say whether there has been recent correspondence between the pensioner trustees and the Government; and whether the. Government have been able in any way to reassure the pensioners that a solution is not far off?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that meetings are continuing on a regular basis, in good faith and in a spirit of co-operation. We all agree that it is in everyone's interest for agreement to be reached as soon as possible. But the trustees consider, and we agree, that the separate issues must be considered together as a complete package on which we need to reach agreement.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that the Government are not attempting to make fresh arrangements for the capital payments into the fund? That matter was not contained in the memorandum of understanding, and I am surprised to learn from him that it is not a subject that is now under discussion.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the memorandum of understanding made clear the possibility of deferment of government support contributions to the pensioners' closed fund, taking account of the absolute solvency guarantee being provided by the Government.

Russian Commemorative Medal
2.56 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have reconsidered their decision on the wearing of the Russian commemorative medal and, if so, with what result.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Queen has approved a recommendation that the Russian commemorative medal—or to give it its correct title "The Russian 40th Anniversary of Victory Medal"—may now be worn by eligible British recipients. An announcement to this effect was published in the London Gazette on 4th January 1994.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer, which will come as a source of great satisfaction to those who served with such courage on the Arctic convoys in the Second World War. Will she now be good enough to pay tribute to those Members of this House who campaigned for a period of months on this issue: my noble friends Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and Lord Mason of Barnsley, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and—last, but indeed foremost—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, who was the man who really got this matter moving? If the noble Baroness is still in a benign mood, will she try to explain to the House why it took so long for the Government to arrive at a sensible decision?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I gladly pay tribute to all noble and gallant Lords, and particularly to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, for his campaign, which resulted in this satisfactory outcome. The changed circumstances in Russia are what has enabled us, since the medal was first issued, to make this decision. It is a very special circumstance, and I think that it justified exceptional treatment. That is what we have done, and I am most grateful to all noble Lords who pursued this matter, to the great satisfaction of everyone concerned.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that all Members of this House will be very glad indeed to see the Government's decision and that most of us recognise that this medal was earned by extremely arduous, and in many cases dangerous, work on the Arctic convoys—in which, I am happy to reflect, a kinsman of mine was involved?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is certainly right that we should pay tribute to all those who have fought so long and hard for the freedoms which we sometimes take for granted in this country.
608
There is no doubt that this was a popular, if delayed, decision. It is one with which I am glad the Government could be associated.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, as one who was surprised to be awarded this medal, after an interval of a mere 40 years—my noble friend Lord Fitt is in the same position—I welcome the noble Baroness's Answer. But could she give me any idea of the kind of occasion on which I might want to wear it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord poses a teasing question. I am sure that grandchildren ought to know exactly what was done in the name of this country so that children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren will look with pride on such a medal worn by their relative.
Lord Lewin: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please accept that the elderly gentlemen who are eligible to wear that medal—they come from the Royal Air Force that was based in North Russia, the members of the Royal Artillery maritime detachments who served in the merchant ships and the men of the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy—are most grateful to Her Majesty for her gracious permission to wear the medal, though a little sad that it has taken so long for that happy conclusion to be reached? Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that Remembrance Day is a very good occasion on which to wear the medal.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and gallant Lord. The difficulty is that there was a long tradition—I know that the noble and gallant Lord agrees—that only foreign awards approved by the sovereign should be accepted and worn by British citizens. We are all delighted that Her Majesty has seen fit to grant permission to wear the medal. I am sure that it should be worn on Remembrance Day.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that now would be the time, in view of the circumstances, to have a review of the regulations with a view to some amendment? Is she aware that the British in the European Community monitoring mission in the former Yugoslavia have been advised by the Foreign Office not to accept the EC monitoring mission medal? Is she further aware that holders have been advised especially not to wear it? This is a case similar to the one we are now discussing? Is she able to say whether those who served in the former Yugoslavia eventually will be recognised by Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, during my researches into this Question I discovered that it was far more complicated than it seemed at first sight. Certainly there is a difference between a campaign medal, which is issued on the anniversary of a campaign, and a medal issued to recognise service in the campaign itself.
There has also always been a tradition that a British citizen would not wear a foreign medal when his or her services have already been recognised by the award of

609
a British medal for the same campaign. While some review, as happened in this case, might be necessary, I am not prepared to speculate about the future.
The EC monitors' medal is not a campaign or anniversary medal. It is not granted in circumstances similar to those that we have just been discussing in the main Question. In the absence of a relevant national award we felt that British monitors should be given permission to accept that particular special recognition for their service in Bosnia and Croatia.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are not all as sophisticated as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken? I received a letter this morning from one who is entitled to wear the medal. He said—and I believe that he meant it quite sincerely—that he had tears in his eyes when he heard the news. So there is room for a difference of opinion on these matters.
Does the Minister have any information about the number of medals that are available? Is it accurate to say, as I have been informed, that about 2,000 of those people entitled to receive them have not done so and that sufficient medals have not been issued by the Russian authorities? If that is correct, will she approach the Russian Government to see that a proper supply is provided?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not have that information to hand. I shall study what the noble Lord has said and see what can be done if persons who are obviously entitled to that medal have not so far received it.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, does the Minister agree that had it not been for the involvement of the Soviet Union in the last war, many thousands of lives would have been lost? The medal in question was given to merchant seamen and others who have been mentioned. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said, I was on a ship (a tanker) which was attacked by German submarines and he was on a Royal Air Force plane from an aircraft carrier in the same convoy. We found that out here in the corridors of your Lordships' House.
Referring to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is the Minister aware that there is great difficulty with regard to the number of medals that have been issued? Does she further agree that, naturally, all the people who were on Russian convoys would want to claim a medal for the services that they gave in those times? I believe that there is great dissatisfaction about the number of medals that have been issued, particularly in regard to merchant seamen. I appeal again, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, for representation to be made to the Russian Embassy or the Russian authorities. Is she further aware that this is only a late invention by Mr. Gorbachev, to make certain that everyone involved in those Russian operations at that time is entitled to a medal that they will wear with pride?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that that is exactly the meaning of the Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. We also congratulate the noble Lords on all that they did.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any money goes with the Russian medal? A friend of mine during the war held a high Russian decoration and when he ran out of money in London he would go to the Russian Embassy and collect a considerable sum.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not sure that that is a question that I can answer.

Business of the House
3.5 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 in the name of the Lord Bonham-Carter set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Viscount of Falkland to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Quangos
3.6 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter rose to call attention to the increase in the number of quangos, non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies, the size of the resources at their disposal and the extent of democratic control and representation; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are fortunate that this debate follows yesterday's debate on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. We shall discuss themes which arose in that debate, in particular the removal of responsibility from local authorities and the concentration of power in Whitehall. In addition, we shall discuss the issue of patronage and the accountability of quangos. Those four issues are grave and important constitutional issues and it is high time that your Lordships turned your attention to them.
The trigger that prompted this debate was the Answer to a series of questions that I asked about the number of peers on quangos. When I confine myself to the number of peers on quangos who receive salaries, it emerges that in all there are 44, of whom 31 are Conservative and 10 are Labour; there are no Liberal Democrats and three are Cross-Benchers. The Home Office appoints six paid peers, three of whom are Conservative, one is Labour and two are Cross-Bench, the Cross-Benchers being the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Wyatt of Weeford. The Department of Health appoints 12 peers, 11 of whom are Conservative and one who is the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough. The Department of the Environment appoints 15 peers, 11 of whom are Conservative and four are Labour; there are no Liberal Democrats and no Cross-Benchers. I give just specimen answers. The salaries range from £92,000 a year to £230 per diem. That is not a scientific sample, but I suspect that it is not altogether unrepresentative of the political complexion of a number of quangos.

611
The questions also elicited an unusual hierarchy of values. The part-time chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board receives £92,000 a year and the part-time chairman of the Parole Board (an office of some considerable responsibility) receives £45,000 a year. I do not know what one can conclude from that. It demonstrates how unsuccessful governments have been in carrying out the undertaking made in 1980 by the then Prime Minister who said,
"There will always be pressure for new bodies … We shall be robust in resisting them".
I do not propose to become involved in a metaphysical discussion of the precise meaning of "quango", about which much has been said. In the course of my remarks, when I refer to a "quango" I shall be referring to organisations with executive powers appointed by Ministers or by bodies appointed by Ministers which spend public money. The members of those bodies have come to be known as "the new magistracy" and almost without exception they remove powers from local authorities democratically elected; they transfer those powers to persons appointed by Ministers; they reduce public accountability and they increase party patronage. They also dispose of an increasing proportion of public expenditure now amounting to around one-fifth.
That process has gone on quietly and steadily with little public awareness of what was happening. The main steps have been analysed comprehensively by Professor Stewart of the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham University. I will not weary your Lordships with the various steps in that process which have taken place over the years but prominent among them is the removing of responsibility from local authorities in the fields of education and health in particular; the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan county councils; and the removal of further education and sixth form colleges from local authorities. The planned changes in the composition of the police authority is another example and we discussed that yesterday. The Education Bill and the Railways Bill will introduce new quangos and the national lottery will be directed by a quango.
So the process continues day after day in all the legislation which passes through your Lordships' House. What does the scene look like today? Estimates are that by 1996 there will be 7,700 quangos. Today 40,000 people are appointed by government. Expenditure by those largely non-elected and largely unaccountable bodies has increased since 1979 from £6,150 million to £13,750 million per year.
In Wales one sees an almost extreme example of what goes on. As your Lordships will be aware, in Wales 71 per cent. of the people voted against the Conservative Party in the last general election. The response of the Government was to outflank Welsh institutions, though democratically elected —local authorities—by letting loose on Wales 100 quangos largely manned by government supporters. According to the University of Wales, 34 per cent. of all Welsh
612
Office expenditure will be through quangos. The people responsible for that are 1,400 people appointed by the Secretary of State.
Among those quangos is a notorious body known as the Welsh Development Agency, funded by £170 million of taxpayers' money. In the words of Mr. John Redwood, that quango was responsible for,
"a catalogue of serious and inexcusable breaches of expected standards".
In the words of the Financial Times—they are significant in relation to what I shall say later—those practices,
"might have attracted little attention in the private sector, but were not acceptable in a government funded agency accountable to Parliament".
They included £1.4 million on an unauthorised redundancy scheme and £228,000 for a retiring international director preceded by (a peculiar provision) eight months' gardening leave. So much for value for money! Its chairman was Dr. Gwyn Jones and he is now, surprisingly, Welsh governor for the BBC.
Those are appointed bodies and one might therefore suppose that their public accountability would be particularly rigorous. But as Professor Stewart shows in another study, that is not the case; indeed, it is the reverse. For example, they are not required to hold meetings in public; they are not subject to the jurisdiction of an ombudsman and neither are the members liable to surcharge.
The most sophisticated defence of quangos was made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. William Waldegrave. His argument rests on two legs. First, accountability has been strengthened by making services responsible to consumers; in his words,
"by making public services directly accountable to the customers".
Secondly, the accountability to Parliament remains unchanged. But it is the first argument on which he really rests his case.
While it is perfectly true that some government services can be looked at in that way, it is not true of all. The argument is based on the assumption that public services should follow the private sector model. That, of course, was the assumption on which the Sheehy Report was built and yesterday we saw the consequences of making such an assumption in inappropriate circumstances. There is a difference, and it must be faced, between the ethos of public service and private sector business and the practice, as the Financial Times comment on the Welsh Development Agency indicated.
There can also be some difficulty in the public sector in identifying precisely who is the customer. To take an extreme case, who is the Army's customer? Is it the enemy? Or is it the nation? To take a more relevant example—education in schools—who is a school's customer? Is it the pupil? Is it the parent? Or is it the nation? If it is not the nation, why do we have a national curriculum?
The fact is that in many cases the customer cannot be precisely identified. Therefore, the analogy and argument is not quite as powerful as might strike one at first sight. With regard to ministerial responsibility, as the Scott Inquiry indicates, it is often difficult to identify who is responsible for what. It is certainly difficult to

613
exercise responsibility over 4,400 bodies and 40,000 individual people. Therefore, the use to which the quangos have been put by a government which preaches subsidiarity abroad and practises centralisation at home has been the perversion of a brilliant idea and a clever device. The classic quangos —the BBC and the Arts Council—were invented in order to keep the Government out of an extremely sensitive area where governments had no right to be; to provide a buffer between the broadcasters and the artists and interfering, ignorant politicians. Quangos are now used for the reverse purpose: that is, to introduce government into areas where previously democratically elected local authorities operated; to introduce central government into areas where it has no right to intervene and to give central government more power than any of us think they should have.
In this country we have no written constitution. We have no Bill of Rights and we have no constitutional court. But we have a sovereign Parliament. In those circumstances, our liberties and the liberties of our communities and the freedom of our lives depend on self-restraint by Parliament and by government. I do not believe that the present Government have exercised adequate self-restraint and as a consequence Mr. Waldegrave, who claimed that he joined the Tory Party because he wanted a limited government, is now facing a situation of unlimited government, and that is greatly to be deplored.
If quangos are to continue—and I assume that they will in some shape or form under any government—we have to take steps to see that they are made more accountable to the public, to see that the mode of appointment of people to quangos is more open and is by rules and regulations which we understand, and above all to see that the opportunities for party political patronage are limited. That is what we must do if we are to avoid a situation which would have made Lord Rockingham green with envy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in the beginning was the quango. And the quango was small and advisory. And its members were appointed by a benign Minister from the ranks of the good and the great, and the fairly good and the slightly great. And it was given a vague remit, and a budget of tuppence halfpenny, and left to get on with its job, and to publish an annual report, with recommendations which Ministers often implemented. And behold, it was very good. And it went forth and multiplied.
There are still a few such bodies in existence, doing a necessary and blameless job rather well, and they are a good buttress to central government. Their members are all unpaid, and claim only expenses "actually and necessarily incurred" in attending meetings. Until quite recently, I had the honour of serving on one for more than 15 years, and of being its chairman for the last five: the Museums and Galleries Commission. That body, under my infinitely more distinguished successor, Mr. Graham Greene, advises government on everything to do with 2,000 and more museums and galleries in the
614
United Kingdom. It speaks, quietly, but with experience, knowledge and authority. It has recently created a registration scheme for museums which has greatly raised standards and which is the envy of Europe. It is up-to-date, and it has always been in the "sponsorship game", since one of its original terms of reference in 1930 was,
"to stimulate the generosity and direct the efforts of those who aspire to become public benefactors".
It distributes small amounts of public money, principally to the very cost-effective area museum councils, and it is, itself, very cheap to run. Not all the commissioners of the Museums and Galleries Commission have been members of the Conservative Party; indeed, it is rumoured that quite recently one was spotted surreptitiously reading the Guardian.
That is what a quango ought to be: independent but accountable; at "arm's length" from government, made up of members selected without reference to their party political opinions, who work part-time and unpaid in a tradition of public service. And the Museums and Galleries Commission is not unique. The National Heritage Memorial Fund, under the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield (who I am delighted to see in his place), and his successor, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, operates in precisely the same way, and is universally acknowledged to be one of the most successful and efficient non-departmental public bodies in existence.
While they were few they were good. But they went forth and multiplied and the members became paid, and Ministers began interfering with their day-by-day working, and they were given large budgets and things got out of control. And in 1980 Mrs. Thatcher said of them:
"There will always be pressure for new bodies. We shall be robust in resisting them".
True, at that time some quangos were put down; but many new ones were set up, too; and they were given greatly increased resources. NHS trusts arid the reform of district health authorities, the plans for new police authorities and for schools and colleges all hinge on transferring £54 billion of taxpayers' money. It seems likely that £25 billion of spending has already passed from local authorities to non-elected quangos. Cardiff Business School suggests that some 40,000 quango appointments are at the personal disposal of Ministers. Think, my Lords, of a battalion of soldiers, if you can remember such a thing—40 of them.
Education in this country is now controlled by quangos. If you are in a university, you do exactly as you are told by the Higher Education Funding Council, and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority dominates what is taught in English schools and controls the testing of pupils. The new Funding Agency for Schools will direct government money to opted-out schools, and in areas where 10 per cent. of pupils are in opted-out schools it will have enormous education planning powers. And these bodies are responsible wholly, and solely, to the Secretary of State. These bodies are merely a smokescreen to cover complete governmental control from the centre of education in England and Wales.

615
If I may turn to Wales for a moment, not all your Lordships may be aware of the investigation by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs into nominated bodies. According to official government figures, the Secretary of State for Wales was responsible for appointments to 81 public bodies in 1991. Their overall expenditure in that year amounted to over £1.4 billion. They employ 57,000 staff. The Welsh Office has appointed a total of 1,261 people to those bodies; and, not surprisingly, 82 per cent. of those appointed were male. Even when a token woman is occasionally appointed it often gives rise to the suspicion that it is another party political appointment, as when a constituency secretary to a Welsh Office Minister was appointed to the board of the South Glamorgan Health Authority, and, after protests in Parliament led by Welsh Labour Members, felt obliged to tender her resignation. The remark attributed in the press recently to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, to the effect that she had never knowingly appointed a Labour supporter to any of the jobs under her wing would cause very little surprise in the hills and valleys of Wales.
Your Lordships' House has before it this very week further examples of quango-making with complete political control vested in the Secretary of State for Wales in the creation of the Residuary Body for Wales and the Staff Commission for Wales in Schedules 11 and 12 to the Local Government (Wales) Bill. Schedule 11, on the residuary body, begins:

"(1) The Residuary Body shall consist of not less than 4 nor more than 7 members appointed by the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the members to be chairman.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order alter either of the numbers in sub-paragraph (1)".

What greater control could anyone have, short of putting them on a lead and taking them for "walkies"? The Secretary of State shall also determine what remuneration, pension, allowances, compensation and gratuities members shall receive. I am sure that they will all be truly thankful.
And all this is perfectly public—though its meetings will not be—and the Government are neither discomfited nor abashed. Indeed, if he is reported aright in the press, Mr. William Waldegrave, the Citizen's Charter Minister, defends the replacement of local authorities by quangos. He is not ashamed to do so.
The present situation puts democracy in peril. There are far too many quangos, and they are far too powerful. Many should be abolished and their functions restored, wherever possible, to local government. All of them should be made more accountable and more responsive to their main users, not to a Secretary of State alone. Mr. Geoff Mulgan, the director of Demos, recently suggested an innovative reform which might do something to check the present Gadarene headlong rush to centralise every aspect of Government under the total control of the Secretaries of State. He suggested a new approach to appointment, and a new public power of dismissal. Appointment to bodies like the health authorities would be the responsibility of an "appointment commission" representing the set of democratically elected institutions with a legitimate
616
interest in the make-up of the relevant organisations. Similarly, it would be possible, in his submission, to sack a quango that under-performed. Security of tenure is a luxury that no quango ought to be allowed.
I, personally, would add further proposals for the urgently-needed reform of quangoland. Every quango should have an agreed, public, regular form of rendering account to its users; no quango should be created to usurp functions which can efficiently be performed by local government; the "arm's length" principle should be restored and revered wherever possible; and, to encourage the old, basic virtue of service to the community, members of quangos should be entirely unpaid. The need for reform is there, and it is urgent. Democracy in this country is under threat. The present burden of quangos is intolerable, because as the right honourable John Smith wrote recently of the present Government:
"Having aggregated unprecedented central power in Whitehall, they now impose their will through the new magistracy of Ministerially appointed quangos. The only qualification for membership is to be 'one of us'. The only purpose is to carry out Ministerial instructions. Any sense of a political plurality—that it might be proper to recognise differing interests in the community—has been ruthlessly abandoned".
3.31 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, expresses concern that is felt by both supporters and opponents of this Government about the growth of an apparently unaccountable appointed bureaucracy, especially in the public services, and also concern about the seemingly inexorable growth of regulation under a government whose watchword was deregulation.
I would like to concentrate on the first matter because many of the problems to which both noble Lords alluded are the result of the attempt, laudable in itself, to make the public services more accountable to their users and to the elected government, than they used to be. It is that paradox, which is the attempt to make services more accountable and then setting up bureaucracies which seem to make them less accountable, which is really at the heart of the problem.
I have two serious reservations about the arguments which we have heard so far. The first is the view that public service reform has made the services less democratically accountable than they used to be. That suggests that the best model for the public services is the direct central management of services by their elected representatives. There are big problems in that. Aneurin Bevan, the Minister of Health in the 1940s, used to say that the clatter of bedpans in hospital wards ought to resound in the office of the Minister of Health.
Today MPs complain that when they write to Peter Lilley with an inquiry about benefit delivery they get a response from Michael Bichard, head of the Benefits Agency, rather than from Mr. Lilley. The suggestion is that the creation of the Benefits Agency under the unelected Mr. Bichard, has reduced accountability. But who do we think wrote the letter in answer to the complaint before the Benefits Agency existed? The answer is that it was written by a civil servant without involvement or responsibility in the area concerned, and

617
simply signed by the Secretary of State. At least we can now identify Mr. Bichard's role, hold him accountable through his pay arid contract renewal, and hold the Secretary of State accountable for the action for which he is truly responsible; namely, the appointment and supervision of Mr. Bichard.
A layer of hypocrisy at least is removed by making accountability more transparent in this sense. It does not of course stop enormous abuses and it does not stop enormous mistakes being made, but at least one does not have to seek for redress through a system which is nominally accountable but in which accountability is almost impossible to identify.
The other more serious flaw in the argument of the noble Lord who introduced this Motion is that the answer to the perceived unaccountability of quangos is to make them more democratically accountable; to increase democratic control over their management. However, the political system at whatever level is an extremely blunt instrument for ensuring that users get what they want out of services or that governments get value for money.
I have had considerable experience of the unaccountability of local authorities. Their system of control over education has been praised by both speakers. But I have had experience of the gross abuse of power by nominally accountable local education authorities. I got involved in the education debate myself out of a sense of great injustice at what was done to people who spoke out against the tyranny of local government.
My argument is not that local elections are not decided on local issues, but on the national standing of governments and therefore cannot be represented as votes of confidence in the delivery of local services. My stand is simply on the old liberal principle that majorities do not have powers to coerce minorities when there are issues of conscience and principle involved. That is exactly what was happening in local education services up and down the country.
That is where I entered the debate. So I am not a great supporter of local government as an accountability mechanism, which does not mean to say that I do not believe some services are best administered by local government.
Another suggestion is that the democratic accountability of quangos might be increased by having their members nominated by professional bodies who are themselves democratically based or having them representative of interests. That would at least avoid the problem of their appointment at the whim of an individual Secretary of State. That sounds very plausible. It is the idea that they would be more representative if appointed in that way. But the danger in that kind of system of appointment is that they simply become representatives of the producers of the service.
It is a problem often disguised by the notion that bodies must be representatives of professional interests. Professionals should always be a very important element in the management of any service with a strong professional component. But they should not be the only element. Winston Churchill said that professionals should be on tap, riot on top. There are other interests;
618
the interests of consumers and users are very difficult to get represented on bodies of this kind through that method of appointment.
Noble Lords have worried not so much, I believe, about the democratic failure in some of the appointments, but more about the lack of independence of many of the quangos. They are worried that the Secretary of State reserves to himself the right to appoint whoever he wants. But the argument of independence—I believe that that is a very important requirement—is not overcome by simply saying that we must have more democratic accountability. Perhaps I may give an example. The Liberal Democrats are in favour of setting up one of the most powerful quangos I can imagine. It is called an independent central bank. Its purpose is not to increase democratic control over monetary policy, but to remove monetary policy from the discretionary control of politicians. I am not against that. I think that it is a very good idea.
There are other examples of what used in the past to be called "the arm's length principle", and very valuable that principle was. "My hero", as some would say, Lord Keynes, set up the Arts Council in 1945 exactly on that principle. He was a fervent Liberal, but was not unduly enthusiastic about democratic control over the arts. The University Grants Committee used to be a quango of that kind, designed precisely to keep the Secretary of State at arm's length.
However, there was nothing democratic about those bodies. What was valuable about them was that they were independent. They were staffed by people who, in their characters and in their experience, would be independent of the wishes of a particular Secretary of State. The problem is to get appointments which guarantee that kind of membership. No one has solved that problem. One cannot get that degree of independence simply by suggesting that the representative principle should be applied to such appointments.
The public sector reform programme has not made the problems of accountability worse. It has made them more transparent. They were always there; now they have come to light. When public services are broken down into operating units and put under the acknowledged leadership of the people who have been running them for years, the problems of accountability that have always existed are revealed for all to see. Where I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is right is in suggesting that the Government have given inadequate thought to the problems that that new transparency reveals. Indeed, they have begun to dismantle the democratic model by appointing non-elected managers without properly designing alternative means of accountability.
I should like to end by suggesting a way forward. I was much influenced by a book by Albert Hirschmann called Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, in which he suggested that there were two models for the accountability of firms and services to their users. He called the first "Voice", which means kicking up a fuss and exercising democratic control over the service, and he called the second, "Exit", which is the market alternative. It is simply the right and ability of people to choose not to

619
use a service which they find unsatisfactory. It is the choice model which operates over a large range of economic activity.
I think that in education particularly, which is something in which I have been involved, the most direct way of establishing the accountability of schools to their users is to give parents not only the right of exit, but the power of exit. That means that parents can choose for their children any school from a whole range of schools. They are given the financial power to do that through, for example, the operation of a voucher system. That has been tried in Sweden recently. I do not know how that experiment will work out, but the Swedes have abandoned their long-established method of democratic control over education in order to explore that route to accountability.
I think that it is an important route to explore. Unless we explore it, we shall be burdened with more and more regulation and more and more quangos. Provisions affecting the national curriculum, the testing system, the funding authority and the regulations governing the entry of schools into the system will all grow and will arouse the opposition of the professionals and the teachers. There will be a never-ending quarrel between the Government, the producers, and the users. Therefore, I recommend those alternative methods. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for introducing this very important debate.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, in opening this debate my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter outlined the great concern that is felt by people all around the country and not only in this House about the ever-increasing number of non-elected agencies which are being created to run key services in our economy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that at the moment those bodies are responsible for administering something in the region of £54 billion of taxpayers' money with very little opportunity for ordinary citizens to make an input into the selection of the people running those services. There is undoubtedly a lack of any real obligation on those quangos to account for themselves to the community on a regular basis. Under the present system of ministerial appointments, there is a natural inclination—and it is a natural inclination—to appoint people of compatible political views.
I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to concentrate on the National Health Service and the changes that have taken place since the introduction of the internal market and the creation of health service trusts. I shall refer also to the diminution of community involvement and of accountability which that has created.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to go back in history to make my points—back as far as the first re-organisation of the health service in 1974. I am not saying that the establishment of the regional health authorities, the area health authorities and the district health authorities in 1974 was an ideal set-up. They were too large and cumbersome for efficient
620
decision-making. They did, however, have a very valuable asset. They contained members who were much more representative of the community than the present DHAs and NHS trusts. Their boards contained between four and six members who were appointed by the local authorities. There was, therefore, a certain amount of elected representation on the boards. The boards also comprised one university appointment—or two where teaching hospitals existed in the region. They also comprised a hospital consultant, a general practitioner, a nurse, a midwife or a health visitor and a trade union representative as well as representatives of voluntary organisations. It is possible to find people from the community to become members of such bodies through the voluntary organisations. Even then, however, it was an appointment system although there was much greater nomination input from the community as a whole.
Here I should like to pay a special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph. He was the man responsible for the first appointments under the new system in 1974. During that selection process, I was certainly not aware of any political bias on his part. He concentrated on finding people with knowledge of the health service and with a contribution to make.
However, since then things have changed. In all the reappointments and reorganisations that have taken place since then under whatever government, Labour or Tory, the political bias has been increasing. I have personal experience of that. When I retired from the regional health authority for family reasons in 1982, I was asked if I had any suggestions to make about who might be my successor. I went to see the then Secretary of State to recommend a man whom he might appoint. I expected to be questioned about why I was putting that person forward. When I saw the Secretary of State he asked me whether I knew what that man's political opinions were. I said, "No, I am afraid that I have not asked him. I think that it is irrelevant". The Secretary of State said, "But you do realise that almost every MP in your region is a Tory MP and we have to make certain that there is compatibility". That seems to me to be the last thing that anybody should consider when appointing a regional chairman. Even today political allegiance seems to be the overriding factor. That is not the right way to find the best man or woman for the job.
Since 1974, reorganisations have taken place more than once, but since the introduction of the principle of provider-purchaser the picture has changed completely. DHAs and NHS trusts are much smaller. They consist of five executive and five non-executive members plus the chairman. We all agree that small authorities are likely to be more efficient, but they must not become closed shops. The NHS belongs to the people and is funded by them through taxation. Taxpayers have the right to know how their money is spent.
The only statutory requirement on those new bodies—the DHAs and the NHS trusts—to communicate properly with the community that they serve is to hold one public meeting a year. That is not enough. There is no statutory requirement upon them to allow representatives of the CHCs, who represent the local communities, access to their local hospitals. That is a

621
denial of the right of communities to know what goes on in their hospitals and what decisions are taken about the provision of services. I know that some trusts are enlightened and act differently, without a statutory requirement, and communicate with CHCs and voluntary organisations, but they are not in the majority, and there should be a statutory requirement to do so.
While I recognise that the NHS management had to become more businesslike, there is great concern about the make-up of the membership of DHAs and NHS trusts. It is estimated that three quarters of the non-executive directors have had no previous NHS experience and have come mostly from the business world or from professions, such as accountants and lawyers; about 12 per cent. only have come from voluntary organisations or community group organisations. That balance cannot possibly be right.
It is not necessary to hold up the previous organisation of the NHS as a model of accountable, accessible efficiency to question the present non-accountable, non-accessible structure set up by the present Government.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we are indebted to the Liberal Benches for introducing this important subject this afternoon. It should be clear that the debate is not about abolishing quangos: some quangos are good, useful and necessary. The debate is about the impact on our society of a vast increase in the number and power of quangos; their effect on the democratic structure; the consequences of increased centralisation; the dangers inherent in a system which places so much power and patronage in the hands of a Minister; and the lack of accountability. That is what the debate is about.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, some quangos are extremely useful. I have had the pleasure of serving on a number of them. Indeed, I have served on so many that I used to think that I was the statutory Scot among the Minister's appointments; but I also had the opportunity many years ago of sitting on the Glasgow City Council. In those days, the local authority was responsible for health, education, housing and for the police—all the things that impacted seriously on the daily lives of the people of Glasgow. We held our meetings every two weeks. We had our committees. There was a public gallery to enable people to see what we were up to. There was a direct accountability to the people who had elected us.
Today the situation has changed. Those responsibilities are handled now by quangos appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. As was said by a previous speaker, there is inevitably political partiality—that happens in all parties—with regard to some of those appointments. That means, of course, that the people of Scotland—75 per cent. of whom voted against a Conservative Government—now find themselves governed in those basic and essential services by the nominees of the Secretary of State who happens to be a Conservative. So one can see that there is a feeling in local government that the powers and influence of local government have diminished substantially. That means
622
that fewer and fewer people are prepared to do the necessary work of rubber stamping on local authorities. That is serious for the democratic structure.
The trouble is that only 45 per cent. of the people vote in local authority elections as compared to 75 per cent. at national elections. In France, the participation is 70 per cent.; in Italy 85 per cent.; and in Sweden 95 per cent. Why? Why do the people participate in municipal elections in those countries? It is because local authorities have a constitutional position within the government of those countries. They have constitutional rights laid down which cannot be impinged upon by a centralised government.
I am sure that all in the House applaud the Prime Minister's insistence at his European meetings on the principle of subsidiarity as being essential in democratic government. All we are asking is that the same principle of subsidiarity and decentralisation be a basic feature of our democratic society. Our democratic society is diminished by anything that centralises power. So I want to look at one or two of the things that have happened under the present arrangements.
The Financial Times has pointed out that one-fifth of all public expenditure now is spent by quangos. Excluding the NHS and the TECs, there are over 100,000 board members; a million members of staff serve those quangos. The general public has little knowledge of what goes on in that vast bureaucratic system. So I feel that it is time that we looked at that growth of quangos as being a serious threat, to the whole basis of our whole democratic government. By 1996 it is expected that there will be 7,700 non-elected boards in this country, and one-quarter of total government expenditure will be spent on those non-elected boards. That cannot be a healthy development in what we claim to be a democratic society.
Perhaps I may mention the experience of some of those business-orientated boards. There is a report in the Library on a recent survey into the operation of TECs—the training and enterprise councils. I commend that to your Lordships for reading. The survey indicates that the study of TECs is a quango; a business-led body mainly doing the Government's job for the unemployed. The deflection of TECs from their economic purpose of focusing on the workforce to the social problem of targeting the unemployed is seen as a central failure. The councils have become the dumping ground for government problems.
A report of the survey in The Times stated that a scheme to pay firms up to £2,340 for every job created for the long-term unemployed, which is being discharged by the TECs, has become a flop. The system is not working.
We are in for another collection of quangos following privatisation; their members will run our railways. On Monday 22nd November the Daily Telegraph outlined that in the same breath and on the same day as the Government were criticising red tape in government they appointed a giant environmental agency, a coal authority and the Teacher Training Agency. There are now in addition the British Rail organisations, which are to be overseen by quangos. Presumably "Ofrail" will be the title of the new quango. The Daily Telegraph also

623
reported that Mr. John Swift QC, rail regulator, needs a chief economic adviser at a salary of £57,000; a director of freight regulation, a technical adviser and a pair of assistant directors at a salary of £49,000 each; a handful of economic and financial analysts and several senior managers all at £41,000. And so the figure multiplies. Mr. Horton, who is responsible for Railtrack, will draw £120,000 per annum.
There has been a proliferation in the number of quangos and the cost must be met by the taxpayer. There will not be a charge against British Railways because it will be privatised. Such expenses are multiplied each time the number of quangos is increased. The Government must look seriously not only at the economic justification of the quangos and whether they are working but at the democratic implications of the loss of power at local level and the greater centralisation that is taking place in our society.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the issue is not how many quangos there are, but whether they do an effective job. The issue is not how much they cost, but whether they give the taxpayer value for money.
I begin by declaring an interest, or perhaps three interests. I am, or have been, a member of three quangos. I also wish to apologise because a previous engagement may mean that I am unable to stay until the conclusion of the debate.
My experience in each of the quangos is relevant to this debate. For two years, until last December, I was a member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Immediately my elevation to your Lordships' House was gazetted, I was removed from an inquiry into the recorded music industry because that inquiry had its origins in the report of a Select Committee of another place, and there was a clear potential for a conflict if the MMC should come to a different conclusion.
After discussion with my honourable friend the Minister I tendered my resignation so that there could be no suggestion about the independence of the MMC both from Parliament or any political party—as indeed, considering its quasi judicial role, it must be. That is how for the first time in my professional and business career I had the traumatic experience of being handed my Form P45!
Speaking of salary, on my appointment to the MMC I was told that the time required would average about two days a week. What a joke that was! After my first inquiry, I returned to shred a pile of documents eight feet high that the commission had had to consider. That was apart from about 20 meetings to take oral evidence or to conduct internal discussions between members of the inquiry and one out-of-town site visit. The result of that inquiry was an immediate reduction in the price of contact lens fluids. The Historical on Line Data inquiry filled a complete filing cabinet drawer and the recorded music one was getting that way before I was taken off it.
This is an appropriate time for me to pay tribute to the hard work, skill and professionalism of the staff of the MMC in preparing and analysing the mass of material
624
received or researched by them in the course of an inquiry. I also can confirm that once the evidence is in the report and conclusions are those of the members, uninfluenced by the staff. The MMC performs an important, efficient and effective public service, which gives the public considerable value for money. The cost of each inquiry is a matter of public record.
As the chairman of a family health service authority I am responsible for the primary health care of about 300,000 people. The budget for which I am responsible is some £40 million a year, which in industry or commerce would be regarded as a pretty large company. The salary is based on the assumption that I would have to put in only two half days a week. That is another joke! That does not take into account the statutory bi-monthly open public meeting, all the reading of everything that involves the NHS, conferences with region and others and recently four separate evening consultations with the public on local health service changes where, for the first time in my life, I met rent-a-mob. I can say, even to those of your Lordships who have experienced being heckled on the hustings, that there is nothing quite like it.
In the interests of efficiency, my authority is unofficially combining with our district in a joint health agency. My responsibilities, together with a colleague, now include secondary health care. My budget increases to £162 million, but because my position does not exist officially, despite all my increased productivity, I still receive the same salary as in 1991, which for fun I worked out to be less on an hourly basis than our cleaning lady.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not complaining but merely wish to point out to your Lordships, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in particular, that membership of a quango is no cushy sinecure or job for the boys—or in my case, job for the girls.
The Crown Agents, of whom I am a non-executive director, has an unparalleled international reputation for integrity and efficiency. Strictly speaking, it is not a quango but a statutory corporation whose directors are nominated by the Minister for Overseas Development. Among other things, it is the channel for overseas aid for the World Bank, the European Development Fund, the EC, United Nations, the Japanese Government, the Overseas Development Agency and others. We had a turnover of some £37 million last year, and although we are not only involved in the supply of British goods and services our work has resulted in £2 billion in exports for British industry in the past 10 years and is probably worth 6,000 jobs in the country.
All of this is done without costing the Government a penny and despite being severely constrained by statute from doing many profitable things; things that we are well equipped for. It is also despite the fact that the Overseas Development Authority, a department which the noble Lord shadows, and other government departments which could use our services more, insist that we are given no special preference in the award of contracts. The Crown Agents were responsible for the

625
earliest shipments of food aid that were sent to prevent a disaster in the disintegrating Soviet Union. We led and organised the delivery of aid to the former Yugoslavia.
In case any of your Lordships should think that that too was a cushy job, my son went along with one convoy to film it for the Crown Agents' archives, and found himself in the midst of flying bullets and being confronted, along with the rest of the drivers, by very angry, heavily armed militiamen. Incidentally, following what seems to be a family tradition, that job was unpaid, and he even had to buy his own flak jacket. I have arranged for the full details of the unsung efforts of the Crown Agents to be left in the Library for your Lordships' further information.
The noble Lord who initiated this debate has in the course of his very distinguished career of public service himself been the chairman of two quangos for no fewer than 11 years. I refer to the Race Relations Board and Community Relations Commission. That is apart from six years as vice-chairman of the governors of the BBC. He was also a director of the Royal Opera House for almost a quarter of a century, and has been chairman of the Royal Ballet for some eight years.
Those two organisations receive a great deal of public money, for which they are, of course, indirectly publicly accountable via National Heritage. I am certain that from all that vast experience the noble Lord is well aware of the considerable degree of close supervision that is exercised over quangos by Parliament or by the relevant government department and Minister. They, in turn, are fully accountable to Parliament.
I am also certain that the noble Lord, with all his vast experience, knows that the criterion for a public appointment is not mere "democratic representation", which means political intrusion into what should be the performance of non-political duties. Public service of that sort does not require placemen and political time-servers. The noble Lord does less than credit to those who, in a public spirited manner, give of their time and expertise for a reward that is less than their qualifications would earn them in a board room.
Anyone who thinks that he or she is qualified can ask the Public Appointments Unit to be considered for service. In 1987, the Women Into Public Life Campaign—supported by all parties, and of which I am the chairman—presented the Public Appointments Unit with a pile of CVs of highly qualified women. I am pleased to say that the number of women receiving public appointments has risen dramatically. It is not yet enough, I might add, but we have run out of campaigning money. I know very well how carefully the Public Appointments Unit vets all candidates and I know very well from personal experience how people of different political persuasions work together and perform their duties in an absolutely impartial manner. I should like to remind your Lordships what the word "quango" stands for: quasi autonomous non-governmental organisation. In my view, quasi autonomy is better than no autonomy at all.
This Government are dedicated to minimising government intrusion into the life of the country. What better way to do it than by taking responsibility away
626
from the mandarins of Whitehall and putting it into the hands of those who have expertise in the real world of commerce, medicine, science or industry.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, after that excellent speech, I am relieved to say that I have no interest to declare. Either because of my youth, or because of the party to which I belong or because of some other deep flaw in my character, I am involved with no quangos whatever.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: You are a failure!
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am a complete failure but, thank God, it gives me time to do something better. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made one extremely interesting comment when she said that when she was elevated to the House of Lords, she asked her friend, the Minister, what she should do. That is interesting. Why should one have to ask one's friend, the Minister, whether or not one should continue or resign? I should be master of my own judgment. No doubt I shall never be appointed to a quango.
A great deal has been said about quangos. I believe that there has been a misunderstanding. It is not the case that quangos are bad. Indeed, as a youth I remember studying the British constitution in India and there was a great deal of pride in quangos such as the BBC, the UGC and so on. Those organisations were not quasi-autonomous; they were autonomous. They were made to be autonomous because they were a buffer against the arbitrary interference of political power. Those models—the BBC, the UGC and so on —were used by many other countries as examples to follow.
Today we have something very different. It is not different by accident. If you read the analysis carried out by the Peterhouse intellectuals and Sir Keith Middlernas and others of the political foundations of Thatcherism, its first programme was to discredit those autonomous organisations. They were discredited as being powered by the elite (the great and the good) who were not representative of society. They were considered to be part of the British disease. They were a problem rather than something to be proud of in our British constitution.
Having undermined the credibility of those independent institutions, and having attacked civil society in that way, later, under the same kind of shell, a completely different type of organisation was created. Those are the organisations about which we are complaining today. They are not autonomous or quasi-autonomous. They are the servants of the Ministers who appoint them. They do not exercise independent judgment or authority. That is our complaint.
Indeed, one wonders sometimes when one reads about the people on the quangos, whether they be on an Essex health authority or in the Midlands. Not only do they prove to be massively incompetent and waste a lot of public money, but they also resist admitting that they have wasted public money. There are many inquiries in the press and by the Public Accounts Committee before

627
they admit to the gigantic mistakes that have been made. But they have no shame. They continue or go on to something better.
The case of Dr. Gwyn Jones has been mentioned. How is it that after the Public Accounts Committee has criticised that person openly for a massive mismanagement of public funds—and it has not been denied—that same person can occupy a position representing Wales as a governor of the BBC? Why does he not resign? Why does not the Minister concerned make him resign? How many mistakes must one commit before it is admitted that one is incompetent to occupy a position of public trust. The BBC is extremely important because the Government are never slow to criticise the BBC for failing the great British public on questions of morality. They complain about the violence and sex that is shown on television. And yet, there is a certain moral corruption taking place, and I am surprised that such matters are allowed to continue in the name of quasi autonomy.
The trick here is very simple. First, you say that you want to take the power back to the people and away from local government. You say, "local government is terrible. Why is that? Because most councils are Labour-controlled; but we will not go into that". That power is then shifted but it does not go to the people. It goes back to the Ministers. A Minister then makes his own arbitrary little creations, and all the people serving that Minister know that they hold grace and favour appointments. They know that they are to obey only the Minister and they dare not oppose him. It will be a great day when a quango does oppose the Minister. We are all waiting for that day. There is a misuse of rhetoric as regards power to the people.
Secondly, there is the question of accountability. By creating such quasi autonomous bodies, we are allowing the Minister to be unaccountable. Therefore, when questions are asked Ministers can say, "It is nothing to do with us; they are autonomous things and therefore I cannot answer questions about them". Indeed, we have heard many examples of that during Question Time. The point is that although accountability has gone the power remains with the Minister; in other words, the Minister now has power without responsibility. Noble Lords opposite may recall what a former Conservative Prime Minister said about whose privilege it was to have power without responsibility.
What we have is a fundamental undermining of the constitution. It does not matter very much to me how much money is spent or how many people are employed. However, what does matter is that such money is being spent by people who are neither accountable to Parliament nor to the people. Therefore, they are getting away Scot-free. Indeed, we have seen that the Government's claim, so to speak, as regards competence has been proved to be wrong. Moreover, their claim to hold high moral office has also been shown to be defective.
Not only would I like to see the name of every person involved in quangos being publicly available for anyone to check, but also, if anyone is found by a parliamentary process or in any other way to have committed some
628
sort of misdemeanour, they should be disqualified from holding any such office for ever. That is the minimum action required to ensure that we get some decent government in this country.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may first congratulate my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter on introducing this very important subject to the House today. I must also say how pleased I am to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who made an extremely interesting contribution. I should like to address most of my remarks to three subjects very briefly: first, the subject of accountability, which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in a very interesting way; secondly, the independence of quangos; and, finally, the civic society which we in Britain have for so long been proud to uphold.
However, before I begin, I should like to say a few words about one of the aspects of quangos that we saw literally during the past few days. In this House yesterday we agreed to the Second Reading of a Bill which, as we all know, will create a new set of quangos. It will take away at least in part the final remaining major responsibility of local authorities; namely, the police. Noble Lords on all sides of the House expressed with much justice their anxiety about the decision to replace the power of local authorities with at least the partial power of appointed men and women.
A few days previously, we heard a remarkable speech made to the Conservative Way Forward society by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Michael Portillo. I have that speech with me this afternoon. In it, Mr. Portillo referred to his fear about those who,
"hold our national institutions in contempt".
He went on to talk about the fact that those to whom no respect is offered lose respect for themselves. The Government must ask themselves how far they are putting some of our greatest and finest national institutions into contempt, not least the police service which was throughout the world one of the most admired institutions for which this country was responsible in its history.
I could give your Lordships other examples. For instance, the reaction of a distinguished physicist who said to me a few months ago in the United States that we had succeeded in destroying one of the finest university systems in the world. I do not know whether I would agree with him; but I can certainly say that that kind of attitude of concern about this country, its institutions and what is happening to them is not uniquely one that I alone have heard.
Perhaps I may now turn to the three issues to which I referred; namely, accountability, independence and the civic society. There have already been several contributions on the issue of accountability, and I do not wish to duplicate them. However, as my noble friend Lady Robson said, one of the striking aspects of the quangos is how little accountability they have. My noble friend referred to the fact that in the case of the health service it is possible for a district health authority in its new guise—that is, that of a community health

629
association or a National Health Service trust—to hold only one meeting a year. It is also possible for quangos to issue no public reports about what they do.
Moreover, it is widely unknown throughout the country just who members of quangos are and, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out, there is no public list available anywhere from which one can check such membership. There is also no direct structure of accountability to the Minister. Increasingly, for the reasons so eloquently given by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, Ministers are able to argue that they no longer follow the details of cases, and therefore cannot be held responsible for them. What the Prime Minister said Ito the Scott inquiry a few days ago is something that most Ministers today would echo, and that is even more so where their powers have been devolved upon a quango.
Accountability does not need to be as obscure and difficult as it is in this country. In the United States—a country to which Mr. Michael Portillo especially pointed to as sharing with us the peer position with regard to the establishment of democracy—there is a straightforward system of accountability for quangos. The chairman of every quango has to be confirmed by Congress; every quango can be questioned by a committee of Congress; and, every quango must make public its objectives and what it does about them. There is no need for the extraordinary obscurity and secrecy that shrouds quangos in our country. I do not believe that the people of Britain deserve to be treated like children from whom the facts of what is happening must be concealed.
Secondly, I turn to the subject of independence. My noble friends Lord Bonham-Carter and Baroness Robson, and other speakers, pointed to the fact that there is no such thing as independence for members of quangos. When I was a Minister, I appointed that incorruptible and fine public servant the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, to be chairman of the Price Commission because he was the best person available for the job. I knew that he was not of my political view and that he was unlikely ever to be so; but I also knew that he was a man who would carry out his public service without fear or favour.
There are other instances of Ministers selecting for their merit men and women who do not share their political views; but, alas, it is increasingly being seen as a kind of extraordinary idiosyncrasy to speak of public service as if it is not directly related to political activity, political contributions and political donations.
Finally, I should like to speak about something which fills me with growing concern. More than any other country in the world, the UK has built up a civic society to which our citizens believe that they contribute. They believe that they participate in it and that they share responsibility for what our society is like. Seeing citizens as customers wholly misses the concept of public deliberation, the concept of participation and the concept of shared responsibility. For useful though the market is, it cannot capture in its psychology the concept of a civic society.
Like other Members of this House, I quite often go and speak, lecture and conduct seminars in Russia, in
630
the Ukraine, in Czechoslovakia, in Poland and in Hungary. Looking at my notes, I notice how often I refer to the civic society that is the ideal that we want such new democracies to move towards. But how can I talk about the ideal of the civic society as realised in my own country when the latter is constantly limiting the abilities of ordinary citizens to contribute to policy, to ideas, to the development of their communities and to this society? That is the final tragedy, and I do not say that with partisan spirit. I have tried to indicate that I do not think that should be the ruling force in our discussion on these matters. I say it because I am sad to see my country losing the capacity to involve citizens, to be accountable to citizens and to recognise the responsibility of citizens. That is what the multiplication of quangos says in the most eloquent language every day that we create yet another one which takes powers away from elected officials.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I have always thought we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for introducing this important subject and the course of this debate has made me even more grateful to him. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Monis, for his splendidly biblical speech. I wish a few of the Bishops had been here to hear the speech as it might have convinced them of the grace and beauty of the Authorised Version.
There is such a thing as society—I believe that is the point the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was addressing—and in this country it is a democratic society in which power rises and falls in a circular motion. This was recognised by my own party when we invented the term "quango" as a tease on Labour during the premiership of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. The quango system is essentially socialistic and it sterns from the authoritarian streak inseparable from socialism. Government and Civil Service, under the quango system, reach down into all parts rather like Heineken beer. In 14 years of Tory rule—we should be ashamed of this—we have pushed quangos to the point where they now take (as someone mentioned) £54 billion of public money. Soon that figure will rise to one-quarter of public expenditure.
Ever increasingly quangos replace elected local authorities who dispose of fewer resources and fewer responsibilities. Yes, the noble Lord, Lord Skiclelsky, is right in this matter. When local education authorities were riding high, they sometimes exerted a tyranny. I remember that from my time in local government. There was a case for the move towards quangos in the days when militant, conspiratorial caucuses of wreckers could hijack local authorities. But thanks in equal measure to Neil Kinnock and Mikhail Gorbachev, times have now changed and our party can afford to reduce the number of quangos and increase the participation of the people, knowing that the people have now become more responsible. There is no sign now of any great extremism in any party in this country. We are fighting a dead enemy in proliferating these quangos and trying to save ourselves from the danger of extremist local authorities.

631
The danger now is different. It is that if the Government were by any chance to change, Britain could become like America with its spoils system. If all the members of all the quangos were replaced, I suggest that chaos would result. If the present Opposition were to take advantage of their new power—if they were ever to get to power—and if we were to protest against such abuses, they could say, "You did it too". If that were to happen, how would we reply to that accusation? I believe that this danger should be taken seriously by Ministers. We should remember that we do not necessarily have a permanent lease on power. I also believe that our permanent lease on power becomes the less likely the more we try to rule the country as if we were trying to do everything for everyone. When I first learnt to ride a horse I was told, "Riding is 90 per cent. balance and only 10 per cent. grip". I believe that the art of government is similar.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, on this matter and to note, very properly, that he has now taken out an insurance policy against the defeat of his Government in the next election. I have a non-interest to declare in this matter. It has been my fortune over my fairly long political career—it extends back to 1931—to have been appointed to two non-governmental organisations. Perhaps one cannot class my first post as such as I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Aneurin Bevan. That was an unpaid post and therefore it does not bring any grist to the mill. Later, from 1975 to 1979, I was appointed to another unpaid post, which in those days was the European Parliament. Therefore I can talk about this matter with some experience, albeit with experience that was not gained at a high remunerative level.
I also have some experience of working at the Ministry of Health with the right honourable Aneurin Bevan. I am minded to mention that by the remarks that passed through the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who mentioned my colleague. I well remember when Aneurin Bevan was appointing the regional hospital boards in those days, that there were loud lamentations in the parliamentary party that we were appointing Tories to those posts. Indeed, there was much acrimony between some members of my party, notably the late Mrs. Bessie Braddock, as regards the composition of the Liverpool regional hospital board. In point of fact my right honourable friend adopted the principle—this was referred to in the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—of selecting the best person for the job.
There is one thing about which I am quite certain. I do not think we have yet heard, or will ever hear in today's climate, any complaints from the Benches of the party opposite that Labour people are being appointed to these various quangos because of course they can have no complaint on that ground at all. I implore the noble Earl when he replies not merely to refer to non-departmental quangos, for which the comparative figures are given in Public Bodies 1993 which is
632
published in a glossy form and at a cost of £12, but to refer also to the departmental quangos where comparative figures have not been provided. If he challenges the figures that have been produced by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, he would be wise not to refer to the restricted version contained in the Government's own publication on public bodies which, as I have said before, contains no comparative figures in respect of departmental quangos. The noble Earl will be aware of that.
I very much agree with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I believe that there is scope for these non-governmental organisations. I do not believe it is always possible in respect of very specialised functions to have related bodies; but what is important is the political climate in which these quangos are established. Immediately following the war and almost up to the time that the present Government came into office there was a political climate in this country which broadly—I speak across party—believed in "fair do's" for all parties. A genuine endeavour was made by all Prime Ministers of whatever party to ensure that no accusation could be made against them that they were being partial in respect of their supporters. I doubt whether that condition exists today. Since 1979 we have had a progressive politicisation of the Civil Service of which there have been many examples, notably the recent court hearing in the Matrix Churchill case. In that case civil servants were forced to admit that they had been party to the deception of Parliament. All one has to do is read the proceedings to appreciate that. That is not the kind of climate in which public accountability flourishes.
Moreover, there has been a general growing tendency on the part of a government that has become arrogant after 15 years in office to assume that people who are to be given responsibilities are "one of us". That process has gone on to a considerable extent and has accelerated over the past few years. I do not wish to give too many quotations involving such instances. However, I must refer to a report that appeared in one of the remaining newspapers which are faithful to the present Government. I have not thought fit to make any quotations from the Guardian which I realise is highly suspect in government circles, although I draw your Lordships' attention to an article in that newspaper on 17th November last which contained a detailed examination of quangos. I refer your Lordships to a short feature which appeared in the Sunday Express of 16th January of this year:
"The newly-appointed chief of a hospital trust in Derbyshire is to earn £20,000 a year for working as few as seven hours a week. David Dawson will start work as chairman of the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary Trust this April. He already earns £50,000 a year in another job as chief executive of the Government-funded Derby Pride Ltd".
This gentleman is a former managing director of Rolls-Royce and Associates in Derby.
If the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, were here he would have been able to refer your Lordships to the reports of the Public Accounts Committee in another place which showed the gross incompetence and inefficiency of the Wessex and West Midlands Health

633
Authorities. There is no reason to suppose that these are by any means isolated instances. This cannot go on. We must have far greater accountability than exists now.
The attitude of the Government has been made quite clear: it has either deliberately abolished local authorities with which it disagrees or severely limited them. Your Lordships will recall the abolition of the GLC. That was done on the somewhat spurious grounds that some of its expenditures of very minor amounts were eccentric in nature. In point of fact, the reason why the GLC was abolished was that after its enlargement it still obstinately refused to vote Conservative.
I may be wrong, but I predict that exactly the same thing will happen in relation to Kent County Council. That body is due to be abolished despite the resistance of all parties, including that of noble Lords opposite. In its place are due to be inserted seven independent f ld10district councils at an estimated extra cost of £26 million. On the basis of what has happened in the past, I predict that the district councils will be found to be inefficient—indeed, that is bound to be so because of their number and duplication—and the situation will resolve itself into another reorganisation that will further limit the powers of the new councils.
Exactly the same thing has been done to local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. From the point of view of the Government they have a titular responsibility, but in reality they cannot carry out the responsibility because the Government deliberately cap and limit them in every conceivable form. Instead, we have a plethora of quangos responsible to no one who are charged with getting value for money out of services that were never conceived as anything other than public services. I do not believe that this is an atmosphere that the country will put up with for very much longer. In the past few weeks there has been much talk about "back to basics". We have to get back to honour, integrity, justice, fairness and compassion, not merely the naked cash nexus 'twixt man and man.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow a speaker such as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, with his robust common sense and manifest sense of dedicated public service. I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter for having drawn attention to the almost tropical luxuriance of growth of quangos under this Government.
I wish to speak about the serious problem of partisan political patronage and the breach of the arm's length rule, to which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, referred earlier. I am sorry to say that party connection and personal favouritism are eroding the back-to-basic or great Victorian principles of a public service based on individual merit, integrity and trust. The massive scale of abuse through political patronage is, I believe, unprecedented. We have seen example after example of political bias in appointments to quangos and executive agencies. (The lights are going out all over the House; I hope they will come on again before long).
I wish to give just one example of a gross misuse of a Minister's powers of appointment of patronage. Three
634
years ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, published a thorough and comprehensive review of the causes of the prison riots. One of his main recommendations for greater justice in prisons was the creation of a prison ombudsman. In his report he emphasised the vital importance of the independence of that new public officer. He or she would have to deal with complaints and appeals concerning the rights and liberties of prisoners vis-a-vis the public prison administration. In their consultative paper, the Government accepted the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. The Home Secretary of the day, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, authorised a selection procedure using the Civil Service Commission. The selection procedure was based upon public advertising and one of the newspapers used was the Guardian. Those who took part in the Civil Service process were the Civil Service Commissioner, Mr. Michael Geddes, a Home Office Deputy Under-Secretary of State in charge of personnel, Mr. Terry Platt, and an independent expert in the field, Mrs. Mary Tuck who, until 1989, had been head of the Home Office Research and Planning Unit. She was described in the report as a particularly well versed person.
After considering the response to the public advertisements, the names of three people were submitted to the new Home Secretary, Mr. Michael Howard: Professor Sean McConville, a well respected academic who has spent many years teaching in Chicago, and I believe that he favours prison privatisation; Professor Rod Morgan, the Dean of the Law Faculty and professor of criminal justice at Bristol University and a magistrate of some 30 years' standing; and Stephen Shaw, the much respected director of the Prison Reform Trust.
However, the new Home Secretary, Mr. Michael Howard, rejected all three candidates as being too Left-wing or, in the Home office euphemism, because he wished to consider candidates from "a wider range of backgrounds". Apparently Mr. Howard even refused a request by his own Permanent Under-Secretary of State to meet one of the candidates in person who could not by any stretch of political language be described as Left-wing. The Home Secretary cannot have acted on the basis of an informed view of the objective merits of those well-qualified candidates, each of whom had been independently selected on the basis of public competition, public advertisement and objective criteria. Mr. Howard exercised a political veto because he did not like the political views which he ascribed to the three candidates.
Your Lordships will be interested to know that selection is now under direct Home Office control. The post has been readvertised, this time in the Daily Telegraph rather than the Guardian, and not by the Civil Service Commission. A firm of accountants—my own accountants—Coopers & Lybrand Executive Resourcing Limited have been retained to find a list of candidates more to Mr. Howard's liking. Given that history, whoever is chosen will be widely regarded as the Home Secretary's placeman, or woman, diminished by the political manner of the selection and appointment. The essential confidence of the public and

635
prison population, and of prison staff, in his or her vital independence will have been gravely undermined by this misuse of the power of patronage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, pointed out, it was not ever thus. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby has already reminded us of her arm's length ministerial record. However, perhaps I may mention another. When I served in the mid-1970s as special adviser to the Home Secretary, my noble friends Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and Lord Harris of Greenwich were careful to appoint well qualified candidates on their merits to important public offices on quangos irrespective of their politics. Prominent Conservative supporters were appointed, like Lady Howe as deputy chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission and Sir David Lane, the former Conservative Minister of State at the Home Office, as the first chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. It was well understood that those responsible for independent public authorities should be selected for their individual qualities from all political parties and from none.
Members of this or any future Government would do well to remember, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, that they are only temporarily in office: that they enjoy power, not for its own sake but only in the interests of their fellow citizens. Government would do well to remember that public appointments are not the personal property of Ministers; that public officers occupy positions of public trust; and that appointments to those positions should be based on merit and ability rather than upon a positive answer to Mrs. Thatcher's famous question, "Is he one of us?". If Ministers continue to abuse their powers of appointment, to fragment public authorities and to sap their independence and morale, and to breed a mood of public cynicism about the corruption of patronage then I, for one, fear for the health of the great public service of this country.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I, too, am worried about the political patronage of members of quangos, the high pay that they seem to attract, and their control over public resources.
As tail-end Charlie yet again in one of your Lordships' debates, I shall consider the matter from a slightly different matter—the erosion of democracy. As a supposedly democratic Government, it does them no credit to go about their business in a way that does not esteem the democratic process, as they have done for 15 years, and as they continue to do so.
One of the issues that worries people about quangos is the direct control that Ministers can exercise because members of quangos tend to be accountable to them. They are picked by them, appointed by them, paid by them and disposed of by them. One of the intriguing matters about which we have learnt this week is that Ministers are not in a position to exert such control because they cannot read all the papers that pass across their desks. They do not know what all their placemen are doing. That is critical. If a system has developed over the past few years whereby those men—it is
636
predominantly men, and some women—who exercise power, spend public money and run public or quasi-public institutions are not accountable almost to anyone, we run grave risks. The problem of the Wessex Health Authority is one such example. There is so much of this going on that it is impossible for Ministers to direct those placemen in their activities. We need to think in terms of a structure, of the devolution of decision making. It must be a democratic structure which enables accountability to the people. We must recognise that that accountability is important and we are talking predominantly about the expenditure of public money—though it goes wider than that—which is provided by taxation paid by everyone.
With this structure which could be developed to provide accountability, I suggest that we start at the lowest level with the parish or town, a level that is responsible for dealing, for example, with nursery and primary education, the community and the family doctor health services, local roads and similar matters. At the next level, we could think in terms of the city, borough or district which would have responsibility for high schools, further education, tertiary colleges and the local district general hospital under the health service. Then going up another level, we may come to the metropolitan counties, the counties or regions of our country. That level would have the accountability of universities, teaching hospitals and other institutions which serve at county or regional level. At national level, there would be responsibility for national research and the equalisation of resources which will be disbursed.
If we had a structure built up in that way with various levels of accountability, we may then realise that all the activities currently carried out by quangos could be fitted in at one level or another and therefore they could be held accountable. It is sad that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is no longer in his seat because I was going to make a point about his anxiety over politics overriding professional judgment. Another noble Lord commented that it was important that professionals should be on tap and not on top. Most confident accountable politicians are happy to take the advice available from professionals and to use it wisely in the furtherance of public service.
One of the difficulties we have at the moment is a government in retreat who have no confidence particularly in the people of the country and the democratically expressed will of the people. While it is not in our hands to give the Government that confidence, I hope that they will realise that if they were to trust people more and trust democracy more, they might receive more support.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this has been an extraordinarily interesting debate, with several notable contributions during the afternoon. It is probably invidious to single out one particular noble Lord, but I should like to mention the aplomb with which my noble friend Lord Lester—who is relatively new to the House—dealt with the flickering lights, reassuring those of us with a nervous disposition that the

637
debate would continue. Our principal thanks are due to my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, not just for prompting the debate and putting down the Motion, but for the extremely spirited introduction which he gave and which set the tenor for our subsequent discussions.
Several noble Lords mentioned the Cardiff Business School projection that there will be 7,700 quangos of one kind or another by 1996. We know that that is true from personal experience because there is hardly a debate in the House, hardly a Bill put before your Lordships which does not have as one of its provisions the creation of a new public body or quango. My noble friend Lady Williams mentioned yesterday's debate. What we have been witnessing over past years is a massive transfer of power from elected government to this new magistracy.
As we have been reminded this afternoon, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when Prime Minister, set herself as one of her objectives the defeat of quangos, to roll them back. We all know what happened; we can see what happened—the quangos defeated her. The party opposite is nothing if not pragmatic in its pursuit of power; when it realised that it could not beat the quangos, it decided to join them. So the members have, in their thousands. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who sadly is not here now. What we need in a member of a quango is independence and sound judgment. I add another criterion to which several noble Lords referred—we need people who are public spirited, who look to the wider public interest.
I am not saying that many members of the Conservative Party do not have that public spirit, that wisdom or do not have some independence. But we need to look at what is happening in terms of appointments to those bodies. It has been estimated that 40,000 are in the gift of the Government. It is difficult for that process to be seen as reinforcing independence, if it is against a background of a government which used to be led by a Prime Minister who asked the question: "Is he or she one of us?"; where a government Minister is reported as having said as recently as March last year: "I can't remember knowingly appointing a Labour supporter".
We should make no mistake, what we see here is a veritable fountain of patronage. Many Conservatives bathe in that fountain; some may come out cleaner, but most of them come out wealthier as a result. We in this country have created a comprehensive system of social security for the Conservative Party—supplementary benefit for the boys. Despite the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, they are mostly boys. It is a kind of welfare state within a state.
As for the recipients, what we have is what used to be called in the 18th century, "placemen". My noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter referred to Lord Rockingham and I would say that we have a spoils system now which would have made even the Duke of Newcastle's mouth water.
There is only one bright spot; this is not all gloom. With the increasing demand for places on quangos and what I understand is the rapidly declining membership of the Conservative Party, at some point the
638
Government will run out of dependable friends. Demand for those close students of the market will begin to exceed supply.
More seriously, there are only three possible motives for the fact that the "one of us" philosophy has become so comprehensively entrenched in appointments to quangos. Two of them are disreputable and the third is unbelievable. The first has been referred to in this debate by the noble Lords, Lord Desai, Lord. Moyne, and others. It is that appointing Conservatives and Conservative supporters to the bodies allows Ministers to retain control through shared loyalty and shared ideology at the very point where they should be seeking independent judgment. It is government by stealth. It is Conservative government by other means, rather than part of the pluralism of the civic society to which my noble friend Lady Williams referred in her most interesting speech.
The second motive is perhaps even more disreputable. It is that membership of such bodies is a reward of some sort for faithful party support—a sort of pay-off for services rendered.
The third possible motive strains credulity to the limit. It is that Conservative Ministers might—and I ask noble Lords to entertain this proposition—actually believe that Conservatives have a monopoly on wisdom and civic virtue, and that those qualities are not to be found in members of other parties and people of no politics at all who do not support the Conservative Party. But perhaps even that motive is hot as incredible as it should be. After 14 years in power, with all the inevitable creeping arrogance to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred, the Conservative Government seem very often to confuse party interest with the public interest, and the Conservative Government with the British nation. They are not the same.
I ask noble Lords opposite—I do not expect the noble Earl, nor indeed the Front Bench, to agree, but I include those who have made such thoughtful speeches this afternoon —to reflect whether this drift to the assumption that Britain is somehow a one-party country, and the arrogance that accompanies it, do not help to create the very cynicism to which Mr. Fortino referred last week.
We need new definitions of the proper best practice for quangos which will deal with questions of appointment; of arm's-length relationships with the sponsoring Minister and ministry; of responsibilities for their report and the form in which they measure progress against their given objectives; and of their independence of judgment. Then, we need the equivalent of the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament to ensure proper parliamentary supervision of quangos. Public confidence must be restored. I believe that that will need greater wisdom and restraint on the part of the Government in the way that they select members for such bodies and the way in which they allow them to proliferate. It will also need a greater willingness on the part of us all, on the part of Parliament, to exercise the responsibility of ensuring independence and proper operation.
5.13 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, much of the Maastricht debate was about the democratic deficit—yet it took place in a country which, as has been said today, has seen the disappearance of its Civil Service and the destruction of local government. Taken together, they generate a democratic deficit that is infinitely more damaging. Like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for today's debate.
The Civil Service is increasingly fragmented into next-step agencies which are at one remove from ministerial and parliamentary scrutiny. By next year they might well cover two-thirds of the entire Civil Service. There has been a managerial revolution based on market testing, contracts and eventually competition; changes which, as Vernon Bogdanor has said, are subverting our constitutional understanding. The assumption that public services may be delivered more effectively along business lines is misleading. Many services are public, as the noble Lord, Lord Rayner, said, precisely because no sane business would undertake them—as the absurdities of the Railways Act have taught us all, except perhaps the Government.
In that process we have discarded the public ethic in a Civil Service that is unrivalled in Europe. We have discarded the idea of ministerial responsibility, the unity of the Civil Service, and the consensus governing its integrity, objectivity and impartiality. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility, as "Iraqgate" should tell us, is not (the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, notwithstanding) that Ministers are blamed, but that a Minister takes the blame; that is, that he rectifies mistakes and corrects situations that have gone wrong. It is designed not to protect a Civil Service from criticism, but to locate accountability for the actions of government where in a democracy it should be located; namely, in the hands of elected politicians.
Let us look at the Child Support Agency, which decided to maximise its yield and improve the performance related pay of its chief executive not by targeting those who paid nothing, but by hounding those who might be pressed to pay more. That was a shift of policy dictated by commercial considerations. That is financially very sensible if what matters is Treasury support and not child support, but it is utterly at odds with the intentions of Parliament. Yet there is no way for Parliament to hold the agency to account for that policy shift.
Let us take the Benefits Agency. How can it be considered to be a business when its 20 million customers cannot shop around, cannot remove their custom, cannot use market mechanisms to demand different services and cannot ensure increased expenditure on benefits in any way save through the ballot box? When, one commentator has asked, is a business not a business? The answer is: when it cannot go out of business.
In the past 15 years, and increasingly now, we have seen the Civil Service become increasingly fragmented,
640
privatised, commercialised, more secretive and less accountable. And all that has long been happening to local government.
The Thatcher years placed their tanks on the lawns of dissent, gunning at trade unions, universities and, above all, local government. Local government failed the only test that the Government cared about; namely, that it should do as it was told. It is precisely because local government had its own democratic mandate, spoke for its local communities and reflected local differences that in the past 15 years the Government have introduced 150 Acts of Parliament in order to bring it to heel. They have done so because in government eyes it said too much, did too much, spoke too much, spent too much, and it was "Labour" too much.
Therefore, the Government capped and controlled local government finances and insisted that no matter what local citizens were willing to vote for and pay for, the Secretary of State would determine what they got—citizens had to be protected from the consequences of their own democratic judgment.
Did too much! Said too much! "Labour" too much! That is the core of today's debate. Government have removed local government responsibilities to central government and to quangos, placing them beyond local scrutiny and local accountability.
In consequence, as many noble Lords have said, spending on quangos is now far greater than that of all the local authorities put together. In East Anglia, at the last count, nearly 30 major quangos were spending my money in my name without my knowledge, my consent, my vote or my scrutiny. We have regional government in this country but we do not have regional democracy.
Let us take London. In 1985 the GLC was abolished. But London continued to have a government; it was merely not a democratic or an elected one. It was replaced with a corporate elite: the London Regional Transport Authority; the London Docklands Corporation; the London Residuary Body; the London Arts Board; the London Tourist Board; the London training and enterprise councils; the Housing Corporation; the London health authorities; the London city challenge boards. They all spend, without a vote, some £7.5 billion. Efforts are now ahead to bring them together in a London forum, which the Secretary of State, being the man he is, insists on calling London Pride.
Who replaces the elected representatives? Why, it is businessmen, of course. Thus, the three objectives of government are met: business methods, however inappropriate; the imposition locally of central government policies; and, as the previous Minister for the Environment said in this House, being "never knowingly Labour". In Professor Stewart's phrase, they are the new unelected magistracy.
Who are these bodies? A year ago the Financial Times survey of the 40 largest quangos showed that 38 of the 40 people who chaired them were men; 36 of the 40 had been to public school; and not one was identifiable as a Liberal Democrat or Labour supporter. It also showed that most of the companies from which those men were recruited donated to Tory Party funds.

641
As an article in the Local Government Chronicle of 3rd December 1993 records, the London Docklands Development Corporation has four board members linked with companies donating to Tory party funds, as do four of the 11 members of the British Coal Corporation, the boss of London Transport and the chairman of the Housing Corporation, who is also chairman of Sun Alliance and who just happened to donate £50,000 to the Conservative Party in 1992. I could go on in the same vein.
As Phillip Holland wrote:
"Ministers have discovered that the system of quangos can be used for shedding personal responsibility, rewarding friends, expanding the corporate state, diminishing the authority of Parliament (and local government) and enabling them [the Ministers] to retain a measure of control over the interpretation of their own statutes".
The growth areas into which quangos have moved—local government, health and education, as we have heard tonight —are precisely those areas where there has been strong ideological support for Left of Centre and often Labour Party policies. The more that the Government have lost local elections, the more they have stripped power and functions from elected bodies to give to unelected bodies run by their friends and financial supporters. It has become an extension of the honours system. It is another way of giving "gongs" with pay to loyal supporters of the Tory Party, whose firms in turn contribute to Tory Party funds. As the Economist noted (quoted in the Local Government Chronicle):
"What power Ministers have taken for themselves they are giving to their friends".
Such cronyism, as my noble friend Lord Bruce suggested, may be the path to corruption.
When, in the last years of the 19th century, Gladstone, Chamberlain and Lord Salisbury corralled the unelected quangos of their day—the improvement commissions, poor law boards, health boards, school boards and the Metropolitan Board of Works—into elected local government, they did so for three reasons that are as valid now as they were then. The first reason was the issue of public probity. In most cities local government have annual elections, visible councillors, a register of their interests, annual reports and comparisons with other authorities, and performance indicators by which those who pay for the services may judge them. Councillors must declare financial interests and then not vote. It is much tougher than any code of conduct operating in this House or the other place.
The public in turn have a right to information, to attend meetings and to see documents. What angers me about the Westminster City Council scandal is not just the wretched way in which they treated the homeless, nor just the social cleansing for political gain but—to paraphrase Michael Portillo—the deliberate cynicism which has destroyed the civic values of public probity.
Quangos, by contrast, are deliberately secretive. The public and press have no right to attend any meeting other than an AGM. They have no right to inspect documents and no right to know. Private arrangements are made for audits. They have no district auditor and, except for the health authorities, they have no ombudsmen. They are not locally accountable and not
642
even locally known. Their names, addresses and telephone numbers are kept anonymous, precisely to ensure that what they say and do cannot be scrutinised by the people who pay for them. To be accountable is not why such people joined a quango. Notwithstanding the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, at best there is a long, opaque and uncertain line of accountability from such quangos to the Minister who appointed them or appointed the people who appointed them.
But if the first objection to quangos foreshadowed by Gladstone and Salisbury was the issue of public probity, the second was that quangos make bad policy. By definition they are single service bodies, confined to and blinkered by the boundaries of their formal responsibility and therefore with no responsibility for interconnecting with other organisations. So water authorities disconnect. They disconnected 21,000 properties last year and there has been a threefold increase in dysentery and hepatitis. Houses become unfit and families become sick. The bill for health, social services and housing rises. But so do the profits of water companies because they have exported their costs and their problems to other people. Who, in a world of individualised quangos maximising their profits, has an eye to community need or community interests.
Consider the police. We are in a time of rising crime and desperate need for policing by consent—for community policing. Yesterday's debate showed that we shall be destroying the old police authorities and snapping their links with local communities. They are bad policies. Or consider housing and the outrage at single mothers who lay back and thought of a council house. Precisely because rented housing is being bought by individuals and transferred to quangos and trusts, local authorities do not have the resources that they need to meet the needs of the homeless and those on waiting lists. As a result, the Government have turned the homeless, who are the victims of its housing policy, into the villains of the Government's moral decline.
Consider planning. There have been enterprise zones, UDCs, city action areas and urban regeneration agencies required to act commercially. They have declared UDI from local planning and thereby local authorities have lost the power to ensure that the benefits of economic regeneration are recycled back into local government. So for every three jobs created by a UDC, two jobs are lost elsewhere. They have often stripped rather than strengthened the economic fabric of their communities.
Or consider health. At just the point in time when Care in the Community needs networking and connectedness between health, social services and housing, it has been fragmented into free-standing trusts. We have removed local councillors from health authorities and joint planning has been fractured. It is the sick who are hurt.
The third and final reason that the quangos were corralled, and it still applies, is the democratic deficit. Public probity—yes; better policy making—yes; but above all what matters is the democratic deficit. In a quite extraordinary lecture last summer, the Minister for open government, William Waldegrave, insisted that the

643
development of quangos strengthened public accountability because they were more responsive to their customers. Apparently, for him democracy is simply mass consumerism; citizen means customer; and public accountability means the market. We hope to heaven that the hidden hand in politics, as in economics, will deliver the community good. Turn citizens into consumers and customers and you empower the powerful and magnify the voices of the big spenders; but you render invisible those with little access to the market place: the old, the poor, the sick and the inarticulate.
Democracy is about representation and accountability. As Professor John Stewart, said: those who exercise power in society should be answerable for it, because the power does not belong to those who exercise it but to the citizens on whose behalf it is exercised.
Monetarism has helped to wreck our manufacturing economy. Quangos have done the same to our civic economy. Cronyism and corruption, as at Westminster Council, will wreck our moral economy. The evidence is around to see and has brought politics into contempt.
5.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the House will undoubtedly be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for tabling this very interesting debate. It has stimulated some eloquent and indeed forceful contributions. I shall endeavour to cover as many points as I can in my reply.
First, we ought to be clear about what the Motion asks us to do. It has been said that every list of quangos is as long as a piece of string. That is because of the difficulties of definition and classification. "Quango" is an American term in origin. As my noble friend Lady Miller reminded us, it is an acronym for quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation. The Motion yokes quangos with those more definable animals, non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies, which are in fact part of government departments.
The Motion is a blunderbuss. In one discharge it sprays with shot such very diverse organisations as the Benefits Agency, the Housing Corporation, the Patents Office, the Passport Office, the Arts Council, the British Council and a whole host of tribunals and advisory committees. Some noble Lords who have spoken want to add new forms of organisations in the education sector; others want them in the NHS. We are debating an amorphous list within which is an immense variety of organisations in terms of size, purpose and spending power. Can sensible generalisations be made about such an aggregation of different purposes and functions? I doubt it.
What would perhaps be useful therefore is to home in on the more definable terms in the Motion and, more specifically, to non-departmental public bodies, or NDPBs. By that we normally mean those public bodies which have a part to play in the processes of national government and which, although part of the public sector, are in some degree distinct from and independent
644
of government departments. The number of such bodies has been recorded on a consistent basis since 1979—that is to say, on the basis of definitions broadly corresponding to those set down by Sir Leo Pliatsky in his report on the subject. The count of such bodies does not therefore include individual educational establishments; it never included universities, for example, and does not include grant-maintained schools.
If we look at NDPBs in the context of the Motion, there is a simple fact which deserves stating: it is that numbers, far from having risen, have fallen substantially. Certainly it is true that within those lower numbers expenditure has grown. Among the big spenders we find the funding bodies for housing associations, legal aid and many of the arts, sports and heritage funding bodies. We find also the regional health authorities, the bodies through which resources for much of the health service are channelled and the higher education funding councils. It is therefore worth asking noble Lords opposite a question. Do they really deplore the size of the resources at the disposal of bodies such as those? I will expand on that theme in a moment.
Then we come to executive agencies. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is aware, executive agencies are those units within government departments which have been set up as a result of the programme of reorganisation of the executive functions of government under the Next Steps initiative. That programme has been very successful. It brought into the open whole areas of the executive which were previously submerged in Whitehall departments and made them more accessible. Ministers are accountable for their functions now as they always have been. And if we look at the substantial resources at the disposal of those bodies, there is nothing sinister about them. Their size is simply a result of transposing a large range of functions from the traditional departmental Civil Service into a new form of organisation. The principles of the Next Steps agency have been extensively debated and to a great extent have bipartisan recognition and support. It is perhaps due to the blurred focus of the Motion that the agencies are included in what must be one of the most extensive charge sheets ever placed before the House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, perhaps he will refer to page viii in the document Public Bodies 1993, which refers to another category which has not yet been touched upon. I refer to the number of departmental appointments by gender to boards and tribunals. Included in those are NHS bodies which he himself included in the previous category. The total number of people employed there in 1993 was 42,606. No comparative figures are put in for 1979.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am coming to the detailed numbers in a moment. If we look in more detail at NDPBs during the period 1979–1993, as I said, there has been a reduction in their number from 2,167 to 1,389. That is a fall of 36 per cent. The 1993 total includes 829 advisory bodies which cost little and provide specialist advice, as well as 68 tribunals which protect the interests of the individual. Those figures were published

645
last month in Public Bodies 1993. The figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, of 7,700 quangos by the year 1996, has no basis in reality.
Executive NDPBs are set up generally under specific legislation to operate at arm's length from government. That has always been their purpose. They include bodies which provide useful functions such as the housing corporations, museums, English and Scottish National Heritage and funding councils such as the Arts Council. Similar bodies have existed for a long period; for example, the poor law boards in the 19th century. I fail to see why we should condemn the existence of NDPBs as the Motion invites us to do. Indeed, as I shall explain, everything points to the opposite view.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, looked at me disapprovingly when I dealt somewhat briefly with the figure that he mentioned. That figure was lifted straight out of an article in the Guardian. How did they purport to arrive at it? They did so by including executive agencies which do not fall into the category of NDPBs. But, more significantly, they did it by including an estimated future total of 5,000 grant-maintained schools. If one includes every grant-maintained school as a quango, one begins to distort the English language.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I trust the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting him again. I did not quote any figures from the Guardian. He may be confusing me with another noble Lord who spoke either before me or afterwards. If the noble Earl looks at the report tomorrow, he will find no figures from the Guardian in my speech.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the figure was quoted. I apologise if it was not the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who quoted it.
Executive NDPBs have governing boards whose members serve out of a sense of public duty, some of them receiving little or no remuneration. Whatever noble Lords opposite suggest, appointments to the boards of those bodies are made solely on the basis of suitability.
I want to pay tribute to noble Lords and others who give their time and expertise to those duties. As a number of noble Lords have dwelt on this topic in an air of some unreality, let me briefly put reality on the record. The names of potential candidates for appointments may be drawn from a variety of sources. They may come from the public appointments unit; from professional and representative groups; from self nominations; from advertising; from executive researchers; or they may be names already known to the Minister or senior officials involved. But wherever the names come from, selection is on merit and aptitude and depends on the careful appraisal of candidates against the specification for the appointment.
Ministers need always to be satisfied that the successful candidate has the qualities and expertise required, and the necessary time to give to the appointment. As for political bias, the public appointments system is an open system. Individuals are free to nominate themselves or other people to be included on the databases of people willing to serve on public bodies. Opposition parties regularly nominate
646
such people and prominent posts in public bodies have been and continue to be held by those who do riot support the Government.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl can name one chairman of any of the 40 leading quangos who has an association with any party other than his own.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not carry names in my head but I shall gladly write to the noble Baroness. What I say is correct.
My noble friend Lady Denton was mentioned in the debate. The quotation given was accurate, but only because my noble friend never inquires into a candidate's political affiliations. As she said at the time of that quotation, and as the newspaper which quoted her conceded in a correction, she aimed always to appoint the best qualified person for the job. That is as it should be.
That said, it is right that every proposal for new NDPBs should be examined very carefully. In fact, a new body is set up only if it can be demonstrated to be the most appropriate and cost-effective instrument for the task. The relationship between each NDPB and its sponsoring department is clearly defined in a way which supports the appropriate degree of delegation and independence of the NDPB, while assuring the accountable Minister and departments that financial management arrangements are as they should be.
Furthermore, each executive NDPB is subject to a comprehensive review at least every five years. The review addresses the continuing need for that body, the scope for privatisation or contracting out, the body's objectives and its financial and other management systems. In order to take account of the views of those outside parties which may have an interest, Ministers have agreed that the reviews of each large executive NDPB will be publicly announced so as to allow an opportunity for discussion about its future structure and status. Advisory and other bodies are also reviewed every five years. And of course bodies which have completed their task or are no longer needed are wound up.
The Motion invites us to assume that most NDPBs were once under democratic control and are no longer so. That, as it happens, is by no means true. But the idea that NDPBs are not accountable for the use of public funds because they are not elected is completely misconceived. I remind noble Lords opposite that the Minister responsible for an NDPB is accountable to Parliament for the degree of independence which that NDPB enjoys, for its usefulness as an instrument of government policy and so, ultimately, for the overall effectiveness and efficiency with which it carries out its functions.
As I previously said, most executive NDPBs operate under powers laid down in statute. That is an important point because their role is thereby restricted to specific purposes designed to serve national aims and objectives. Every executive NDPB publishes annual reports and accounts which enable Parliament, the taxpayer and customer to judge whether that NDPB is securing value for money. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter,

647
well knows, accountability does not stop there. The accounts of executive NDPBs are subject to audit by the National Audit Office which reports to Parliament on their operations. The Public Accounts Committee scrutinises the activities of NDPBs closely and may summon the chief executive of an NDPB to give evidence if there is any suggestion that it is not conducting its operations as economically, efficiently and effectively as it should. Those are very real controls.
There are, however, ways of improving accountability, both to Parliament and to customers. The Government are committed to applying Citizen's Charter principles to NDPBs and encouraging executive NDPBs to prepare management statements—similar to Next Steps Agency framework documents—as a means of clarifying respective roles and responsibilities. We also want to see increasing emphasis placed on the use of performance targets covering financial performance, quality of service and efficiency; and publication of how well those targets have been met.
During the past year, the number of NDPBs has fallen by 23. Expenditure and government funding have gone up. It is worth just saying that the rise in funding has been confined to a small number of bodies and relates to increases in programme expenditure—in other words, resources that are distributed—not administrative costs. Between them, the Housing Corporation, the Legal Aid Board, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and Scottish Homes accounted for more than two-thirds of the total funding and expenditure increases in 1993.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has criticised the Government's public service reforms on the alleged grounds that they have transferred power from elected and therefore accountable bodies to a range of appointed and therefore unaccountable quangos, trusts and other organisations; and instead of increasing the control of the individual citizen over his or her public services, he contends that the reforms have reduced it. That theme was echoed by many noble Lords. When one hears that kind of criticism it is generally accompanied by a call for more power to local authorities, particularly in the fields of health and education. Indeed, so it proved today. Of course, these issues are not new. There has always been some tension in the boundaries between central and local government. However, far from there being a loss in accountability of this country's public services to the electorate, there has actually been a gain.
Let us take education. Education is often regarded as a prime example of the loss of accountability because of the removal of grant-maintained schools from local authority control. But what the Government have actually done is to break crucial new ground in strengthening real accountability. The establishment of the national curriculum enables parents to be clearly aware of the distinct and separate responsibilities for this fundamental element of their children's education. The Government are accountable for the framework of the curriculum and the ground rules for its application; while individual schools are accountable for the standards of teaching within that framework. That is a considerable gain over the previous arrangements, where accountability for establishing and following a
648
curriculum was effectively shuffled and lost between the schools themselves, the local authorities, the then Department of Education and what one might call a broader education establishment. In the old system there was no real accountability and no open debate about the most crucial element of all in schooling—the curriculum.
In other respects, the Government have made schools directly accountable to parents through the provision of information. Because of the Parent's Charter, clear and comprehensive information about schools is available to parents often for the first time, enabling them to make fully informed decisions about their children's education: a full written report at least once a year; comparative tables of exam results; truancy levels and information on the career paths of former pupils. I associate myself with the pertinent remarks of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky on this subject. In providing parents with information, the Government are ensuring that control is genuine. I do believe that a school's headmaster and governors are more likely to be able to run a school more efficiently and effectively, and with a greater sense of responsibility to pupils and parents, than are local councillors.
If the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, really thinks that this is all a smokescreen for complete government control, I suggest that he has not spoken to many parents, head teachers or governors. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that citizens are more than just customers. They are active participants. They have a say in the running of the services which they enjoy.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, made a most eloquent but somewhat misleading speech. I point out to him that the process of becoming a self-governing school is in itself a democratic one. No school becomes self-governing without a parental ballot. The Funding Agency for Schools will take on an executive and operational function, a function which incidentally I believe is inappropriate to a department of state. It will pay grants to self-governing schools and the functions that it has are defined in statute. It will not get involved in the day-to-day running of schools. That is for individual governing bodies. Governing bodies of self-governing schools contain more elected members than all but the largest of their LEA counterparts.
The noble Lord, Lord Moms, referred to the Higher Education Funding Council. He said that it is there to ensure that universities do as they are told. He knows that that is not correct. For a start, the Higher Education Funding Council is not a new principle.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I did in fact say that if you are in the universities you do as the Higher Education Funding Council tells you. That is a slightly different thing.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I accept that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said and I apologise for not paraphrasing him correctly. But the point is still valid, because it is precisely to ensure that higher education is at arm's length from Ministers, and thus that the independence of universities is strengthened, that the

649
HEFC has been created. As I said a moment ago, it is not a new principle in itself. Again, the funding councils do riot direct in detail how the grant should be spent. That is a matter for the individual universities. The legislation prevents the Secretary of State from imposing conditions of grant on the funding councils relating to individual institutions or to matters such as the curriculum.
The other area of most frequent debate is the NHS. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred in her speech to a long, opaque, uncertain line of accountability. Before the Government's reforms started to take effect the NHS was a prime example of confused accountability, dissipated between too many half-responsible interests—that is to say, the hospital administrator, the district health authority, for a time the area health authority, the regional health authority and the Department of Health.
The NHS reforms have retained the Secretary of State's ultimate responsibility to Parliament for the service as a whole. Once again, the purpose has been to clear up the confusion below. We have established a firm division between purchaser and provider, which has been absolutely fundamental in clarifying responsibility. And we have delegated that responsibility down to individual units. As a result, management accountability has actually never been clearer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. In his remarks will he explain in what way accountability has been enhanced with health authorities by removing democratically elected councillors from them?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am glad to do so. If the noble Baroness will bear with me I hope to satisfy her on that point. When there are problems in an individual hospital, it is now the chairman or chief executive of the trust board who answers. Not surprisingly, this encourages the feeling of local ownership. In the NHS, public debate and accountability is being increased for the first time by clear, published information at all levels. Strategic purchasing plans from regional and district health authorities are published, allowing debate for the first time about health priorities. Reports on the performance of individual local hospitals and ambulance services are available. Quality standards and maximum waiting times under the Patient's Charter are produced throughout the service. National priorities, openly debated in the Health of the Nation process, can be set where necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, complained in particular about the accountability of NHS trusts. I remind her that trusts are accountable for the delivery of care through contractual relationships with purchasing authorities. Those authorities are accountable to the public for the care they purchase. Both the authorities and trusts are accountable, through the NHS management executive, to the Secretary of State, who in turn is accountable to Parliament.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, how is it accountable to the community in which it functions under the present set-up?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said, trusts are accountable for the delivery of care through contractual relationships with purchasing authorities, who in turn are accountable to the public for the care which they purchase. As the noble Baroness knows, trusts have an annual general meeting open to the public. As she said herself, many go much further than they are legally required to do. Their annual report and accounts are published; health authority meetings are open to the public; both trusts and health authorities are subject to independent audit by the Audit Commission. These are real controls.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister is always courteous in giving way. Perhaps I may emphasise a point with which I am sure he will agree: to simply increase information is not the same as being accountable to the public for the policies pursued. Will the Minister tell us how the public has control over the policies by the accountability of those trusts?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness was advocating passing back the control of services to local authorities. If that is the case the question has to be asked: how can it strengthen accountability to pass to local authorities unfettered control of services for which they do not raise the money? There is the idea that local authority control will solve everything. Control should rest with those who manage the services and with those who use them. Those who use them now have a voice because they have the necessary information on which to base a judgment about the standard of those services.
Alongside these changes there also has been a democratic gain in the Civil Service. In the Civil Service, executive agencies are not independent organisations, nor are they hived off, but are fully accountable to Parliament through their respective Ministers. They are not therefore the same —not remotely the same—as NDPBs or quangos.
Let us remind ourselves of what an agency is. An agency is a government department, or semi-autonomous unit within a department, headed by a chief executive who is accountable to Ministers, which carries out executive functions within a policy and resources framework set by Ministers. I stress, particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that agencies are part of the Civil Service.
The creation of agencies stems from a recognition that the executive functions of government, as distinct from policy advice, should be carried out by clearly defined and designated units within departments. Our policy since 1988 has been to put that principle into practice. There are now 91 agencies, with responsibilities ranging from weather forecasting to managing prisons; issuing driving licences and providing support services to the Armed Forces. If you count the 31 executive units of HM Customs and Excise and the 33 executive offices of Inland Revenue (which also operate on Next Steps lines), then it is true to say that agencies now cover some 60 per cent. of the Civil Service, or 350,000 civil servants. This percentage should rise to 75 per cent. within the next 18 months to two years.

651
This rapid programme is not being undertaken just for the sake of it. The Government's aim continues to be the best long-term value for money in the delivery of services. That is why, before any agency is created, Ministers conduct a thorough review of the activity in question to ensure, first of all, that it is needed; and secondly, if it is needed, that other possible ways of carrying it out, namely privatisation or contracting out, are not appropriate.
Then, once an agency is up and running, it is subject to a regular and equally rigorous review by its parent department —with the benefit of public consultation—to ensure that it continues to offer the best long term value for money. The benefits of the Next Steps initiative are plain to see.
Next Steps has increased accountability by making the workings of government more visible and more easily understood by the public. Publication of framework documents, annual key targets, annual reports and accounts has significantly increased information available to Parliament and the public; thereby allowing more thorough parliamentary scrutiny. Through the framework documents, the links in the accountability chain are clarified, with a particular emphasis on the respective responsibilities of the Minister and the chief executive.
Ministers remain fully accountable to Parliament for their respective agencies. It is Ministers who remain responsible for setting strategy and key targets. Chief executives are civil servants (or military personnel in some MoD agencies) and as such are bound by rules on political impartiality. Like other civil servants, chief executives help explain government policy, but they do not decide policy. The chief executive is accountable to Ministers and Parliament for the performance of the agency and the efficient use of resources. He or she may be required to appear before the Public Accounts Committee and other parliamentary Select Committees to account for the discharge of his or her responsibilities.
Accountability to the "customer" by means of responsive services does not, however, replace accountability to the public through elections, it complements it. That is why we have ensured that the fundamental structure of accountability to Parliament has been maintained. As I have already said, some critics have suggested that public accountability through local government needs to be rebuilt. In fact, local democracy—real local democracy—has been strengthened. There has been a democratic gain throughout locally provided services.
The gain lies in clear divisions of responsibility, and contracts which make explicit the performance targets and standards expected. It lies in the Citizen's Charter and its derivatives for parents, patients and others, which promote consultation of service users and effective methods of redress. It also lies in greater openness or, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, in greater transparency.
The Government's White Paper on open government took forward a key area in making the working of
652
government more accessible and hence more accountable. This is, of course, one of the main principles of the Citizen's Charter. The White Paper's proposals include a new code of practice on access to information held by central government and public bodies, and consultation on the introduction of similar codes for the NHS and local authorities; independent policing of the new code by the parliamentary ombudsman; and statutory rights of access to a range of official information.
The key point in these arguments is not whether those who run our public services are elected, but whether they are producer-responsive or consumer-responsive. You do not necessarily ensure that services respond to the public simply by giving citizens a democratic voice in how services are delivered, which would in any case be a distant and diffuse voice. Services can be responsive by giving the public choices or by instituting mechanisms which build in publicly approved standards and redress when they are not attained. That is the essential guiding principle in the accountability argument.
Let me conclude by summing up the central points which rebut this Motion. The number of non-departmental public bodies (or quangos) has not increased, but in fact has decreased by 36 per cent. since 1979. Although their expenditure has increased over the years, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the use of public money for functions such as the provision of housing, legal aid and support for the arts is very important. Moreover, by improving and clarifying the lines of accountability, the Government are not weakening democratic control, but strengthening it.
Equally, my Lords, the increase in the number of Next Steps executive agencies, which, as I pointed out earlier, are quite different from quangos, has in no way diminished democratic control or representation. On the contrary, the agency programme has brought tangible benefits and clearer accountability. It has done so within a framework of tough financial and commercial disciplines which have helped to ensure the best possible use of taxpayers' money.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that the noble Lord's Motion should be rejected.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether he can answer one point and shed a little more light on it than was available to me during my brief intervention. The Minister has not dealt at all with the allegation of political bias and political patronage. I gave one detailed example which I took the trouble to investigate and check with the Home Office—the allegation being that at the moment a judicial officer is being selected on politically partisan grounds by the Home Secretary. I should be awfully grateful if the noble Earl could deal with that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the only reason that I have not dealt with it is because the clock is against us and I wanted to give the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, an opportunity to sum up. I should be very happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but I can tell him that a

653
selection board will meet in early February and that an announcement will be made shortly thereafter as regards the prisons ombudsman.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I always think that the last words in such debates cannot usefully be employed in responding to the answer that the Minister has given, particularly as the noble Earl took 36 minutes and covered a very large area of ground. Before saying anything about that, however, I should like to thank all those who have participated in the debate for their contributions, to which I shall refer in a moment.
I shall say only this on the Minister's response: he is the only noble Lord to participate in the debate who has found any difficulty in deciding what we were talking about. We were talking about quangos. He talked about a large number of things that had nothing whatsoever to do with quangos. He did not really touch on the question of centralisation. He avoided the issue of patronage. He did not face up to the importance of the transfer of powers from local authorities, except to say in some fashion which I could not follow that it did not matter because that is not a good way of representing the people's voice. I must confess that I have found his answer extremely unsatisfactory.
I have come to the conclusion at the end of the debate that there is substance in the point made by my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the convention which obtained for many years—in fact, until 14 years ago—whereby appointments by government to public bodies attempted to he impartial and exercised what I call self-restraint, has now gone. That is a grave loss. When the noble Earl says that these matters—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Motion?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Nursery Education and Child Care Costs
6.7 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland rose to call attention to the case for an increase in the provision of playschool and nursery education and help with the costs of child care throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in deprived urban areas; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to introduce this debate on nursery school education and other provisions which include playgroups, with particular emphasis on the provision in deprived areas. I am no expert and I am gratified to see that a number of experts will be contributing to our debate, as will a number of noble Lords who are deeply interested in the subject. I count myself in the latter category. I am very much looking forward to welcoming the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Bath. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has
654
indicated that if it is at all possible he would like to say a few words in the "gap" before the Front-Bench responses. I am very much looking forward to hearing him.
The context for this debate is that, in my view, children in this country start their formal school life probably at too low a level. Others may disagree with me on that point. The level varies from country to country. The categories of provision which precede formal schooling fall into two main classes: nursery school and playgroup; but there are also three others: primary school reception classes, local education authority day care and private child care. Levels of publicly funded provision over that whole range are low.
I do not think that we should be too timid or too shy to compare ourselves with other countries now that we are more firmly in Europe. Compared with France and Belgium, for example, which are extreme examples, we do not do at all well. Both those countries have funded provision of the nursery education type for 95 per cent. of children aged three and four, and there is 20 per cent. provision for the under-threes. In this country, education authority-funded nursery provision is available to only 25 per cent. of three and four year-olds. What is important is that most of that is part time only, and continuity of cash funding for that provision is not assured. The majority of children in that age group use playgroups. They are run voluntarily. Whereas nearly 60 per cent. of children in that age group attend playgroups, there is provision for only about 35 per cent., which of course implies that places are shared. Children can expect to have about two sessions a week, if they are lucky. There is not a great deal of choice for parents. They take roughly what they can get. Demand far outstrips supply.
The reasons for most parents agreeing that such provision is necessary vary between the two groups—the better off and the not so well off. Better-off parents tend to want to send their children to whatever may be available so that their children can make contact with others socially and be better equipped to go on to school. For poorer parents, particularly those in deprived areas, the reason is often merely to provide care for their children when they work or study or even, in some cases, and far too many cases, when the parent is too exhausted and under too much stress to carry on and wants somewhere to leave the child.
The different types of pre-school provision have different aims and purposes. They are open for different hours; they make different charges to parents; they are staffed by workers with different training and conditions of service, and so on. Of course they are used by children from different backgrounds with different needs. Local authority day nurseries are primarily for children in need. Private nurseries and childminders are for the children of working parents. Part-time nursery education in some areas and play groups are for children of parents for whom part-time provision is convenient or who cannot find full-time places.
I do not believe that there is any great argument about the need for the provision. There is general consensus in the country on that. The difficulty arises over what kind

655
of provision there should be and how it should be funded. The arguments are strong and have been expressed in many powerful quarters. In the past 10 years the number of women in this country with children under five who work has increased enormously. It has increased from about 25 per cent. to nearly 50 per cent., and some 12 per cent. of children under five live with one parent only. Of course in some areas that concentration of single parents is much higher. The number of children who live below the perceived poverty line—one which we all accept—has increased from 10 per cent. to nearer 25 per cent. All those factors make it clear that there is a need for day care and early pre-education.
The Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts of the other place reported on this subject in 1989. It made some interesting comments, but I shall not go into them in detail. It emphasised the great pressure that there is on parents, and the increase in the numbers of families where both parents work. That means that the family has less time to focus on the development of children. I believe that that is true and that no one would argue with it. The stimulus for children under five, whether it is provided in a play group or nursery, is important. Few people would disagree with that. In fact when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Secretary of State for Education some 22 years ago she drew attention to that fact. Other reports, especially the Rumbold Report, confirm what I have said and emphasise that the behaviour patterns which are established in the first years of a child's life are essential for providing a firm basis upon which a proper education structure can be built.
I do not believe that we need to go into the arguments for such provision, although other noble Lords may stress and expand upon what I have said. The Warnock Report pointed out that one in five children between the ages of three and five need some kind of specialist help. Those special needs are identified at nursery age. Children who do not have access to such provision could be damaged enormously later in life as a result of the enormous stresses which follow in the family.
One of the most conclusive studies, although in our country we are always wary about experiments in the United States, was one where 126 children from a poor, black neighbourhood took part in a high quality nursery programme. That is generally known among experts now as the High/Scope Programme. They became disenchanted because when the children reached the age of 11 there was no clearly identifiable link between their behaviour then and the nursery school education they had had, but at 19 there were some remarkable results. Compared with other children, they had done much better in school and were much more likely to have gone on to higher and further education and to have jobs. People conducting the experiment made the point that those children were less likely to get into trouble with the police and the girls were less likely to have unwanted pregnancies. As is typical of an American report of that kind, they gave the financial benefits
656
which were estimated to be a 7 dollar return for every dollar invested. That is a long-term experiment which has produced some interesting information.
Nursery school education is favoured above most other forms of pre-school provision; sometimes, I believe, rather too rigidly, but others may disagree with me. The report of the Select Committee of the other place to which I have referred, rightly said that the case for education for the under fives should not be put merely in terms of the longer term benefits, but that such provision caters for the child's needs at the time and can be justified in those terms alone.
I believe that nursery schools and playgroups are complementary. I may be at variance over this with some of my colleagues on these Benches and with some noble Lords on the Labour Benches. I do not see that it is necessary to stick rigidly to a demand for universal nursery education. It depends upon how playgroups and nursery school education inter-react on the basis of particular needs in particular areas. For example, a Labour-controlled local authority has been extremely successful and progressive. It provides nearly all the nursery school education in its area, but, curiously, in the deprived areas, and there are some very deprived areas within that local authority, the parents have not responded well to the provision of nursery education. There is some hostility to the professional teaching which is supplied. It is the old fear of the superiority of middle class expertise felt by the deprived. In those areas playgroup provision has proved to be successful. An experiment carried out in Bootle was particularly telling. In that poor area 80 per cent. of the mothers were single; but, as a result of inspired voluntary help, they became involved and the effect on them and their children was truly dramatic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has a great deal of experience of playgroup education. She knows of a promising playgroup which existed in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Although it was proving to be of great benefit, the funding was taken away, rather like the Bootle experiment. The local authority considered that there were other priorities for the funding; probably nursery education.
I am no expert on the subject. I have five children and so I suppose that gives me some right to speak on this matter. My youngest child is coming up to nursery school age. I have been fathering children over the past three decades and have seen many changes. There have been a lot of changes in the language and I find it difficult to understand much of my brief. What we said in the 1960s is now described in a different way. We no longer talk about working-class people but about people living in deprived areas.
I am optimistic; there is a lot in modern life that is extremely good. We are excellent at talking ourselves down and saying how bad everything is but there is a great spirit in this country as regards young children. There is a universal energy there that wants to put things right. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will tell us the Government's views and intentions on this matter. I am sure that they will be comforting to us.
Time is short and therefore I shall not deal with the other types of care. They are minor compared with these

657
two main types. The quality of provision is constantly improving, in particular that of playgroups, and more training is available. However, as always there is a great deal of confusion about the Government's policy. That may be due to the fact that the Prime Minister, for whom I have great regard in many ways, appears to get his messages confused, whether it is about back to basics or whatever. If he had said he was going back to basics on education, "full stop", I would have supported him all the way. But he allowed himself to be misinterpreted and allowed some dangerous new ideas to be introduced.
Will the Minister tell us whether the argument between the Prime Minister and Secretary of State exists or whether it is a figment of the imagination of the national press? The noble Baroness nodded, and I expected her to do that. However, her right honourable friend has somewhat distorted the figures for nursery education because he has added to the figures for provision other items which are not nursery education, and that is misleading. He has produced a figure of about 55 per cent., which is incorrect. The figure is about 25 per cent., and therefore the Minister has introduced some items which are not nursery education. I know that the noble Baroness will respond to that.
It is well known that my party was prepared to extract an additional penny in the pound from taxpayers which was to be spent on education. My party takes the view that nursery education and other provisions should be provided properly and imaginatively and that money should be spent on doing that. I shall cut my speech drastically short and look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords who are more expert than I am.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing the debate. He always makes speaking well sound so easy and he is always well informed. We are all grateful to him for his speech, despite the fact that he had cut it short. On behalf of other noble Lords, I welcome the noble Marquess, Lord Bath. He has considerable interests in various fields and we look forward to hearing him speak on the subject for debate tonight and on other subjects in the future.
My noble friend the Prime Minister is on record as saying that nursery schools and schools for young people under the age of five are desirable when affordable. That was reported in the Daily Telegraph. Perhaps tonight we can send out the message that they need to be affordable now—as soon as possible and sooner rather than later.
The Chamber is full of academics who are brilliantly clever. They have shown the world how clever they are by becoming heads of various universities, colleges and other centres of higher education. But it is rare that we have the opportunity to discuss the future of small children. It is rarer still to have the great pleasure of being able to hear the Minister reply to such a debate. She has taken the trouble to come here tonight to do so.
658
In my view children between the ages of three and five are the most important people in our country today. We are educating, or are failing to educate, in various ways the children who will grow up to lead the country when they have completed their education. In my view, those are the most formative years.
I speak with a certain amount of knowledge because although it might not be of interest to your Lordships I live in a farmhouse whose farm buildings until recently were used for housing Jersey cattle. One of the big farm buildings now houses a nursery school for children between the ages of three and five. In order to obtain a nursery place at the age of three their names must be registered at birth. The school is run privately—there is nothing wrong with that —and is staffed by fully-qualified people. There is a long waiting list.
I have the opportunity of seeing the children and. the way in which they are taught. That is mostly by example and also by discipline. They learn from each other and from their adult teachers. Their behaviour is almost impeccable. I never hear any of them cry. They come out to play and kick the balls around and throw themselves around as all small children do. It is a formative part of their lives and I believe that we should plough more money into that age group as the future generation.
I was interested in the fact that the children learn by example and that they will retain what they have learnt for the rest of their lives. Yesterday morning as I was leaving my house I was interested to hear them singing nursery rhymes which I was taught 75 years ago. They were exactly the same nursery rhymes. They will teach them to their children. They will have the discipline which they have learned in a nursery school. My aim—and I hope it is the aim of the Government—is for all children to be taught by qualified people in nursery schools. If that is done, the outlook for the future will be much brighter than it is at present.
One of the problems as regards babies and young children is that created by one-parent families. We are all extremely worried about the increase in the number of one-parent families. As we all know, those families usually consist of a mother with one child. I remember during the war trying to bring up one of my children without losing my temper. I have two children but the one to whom I am referring is my first child who was always a thorough nuisance. However, she has grown up to be so beautiful that it does not matter now that she was a thorough nuisance. At that time there were no nursery schools. We had to look after our children without any help at all. I am sure that my temper became ragged and frayed at the edges, far more so than would have been the case had there been nursery school provision.
If the mother of a one-parent family is able to send her children to a nursery school, I am quite certain that her family life will be much happier, more regulated and more tenable for the children than if she had nowhere to send them during the day. Also, children from a one-parent family need to be able to play with other children. Children need encouragement to be able to play by themselves, but they need to be able to go out during the day and learn how to play with other children.

659
I know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich wishes to speak in the debate so I shall cut short my remarks. However, I wish to ask the Minister whether she will try to encourage young males into the teaching profession. Some young children rarely hear a male voice at all and often they do not have a male teacher until they are eight or nine years old. It makes a considerable difference if children hear a male voice giving commands and making them obey the discipline of the school.
My main point relates to Northern Ireland. I believe that the state should provide mixed-faith schools for all three to five-year olds. That should be mandatory. All children in Northern Ireland should have to attend those mixed-faith nursery schools. The reason for that is obvious: the children of mixed faiths would learn to play together; the parents would come together for events such as carol services, fetes and other functions, which parents must attend. The parents of the children would then meet one another, talk to one another and, in some cases, they may even become friends. I feel sincerely that if we can make that provision in Northern Ireland we shall build a future for the very young children in that extremely unhappy Province.
I should like the Minister to take away the message that I hope that the Government will be able to spare the time in the foreseeable future to educate in play and discipline the three to five-year olds of this country.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for initiating the debate.
For far too long child care has had a low priority on the political agenda. It has been understood only as a welfare issue which allows women to work and which protects vulnerable children. However, child care arrangements are an essential component of the economic infrastructure, something which the Government have consistently failed to understand.
Child care is an issue of the labour force, of family policy, of the welfare of children and women, of child development and equality. It relates to the work and responsibility involved in caring for children and meeting a child's full range of needs, and to how that work and responsibility are organised and divided.
At present, the division is unequal. Women carry too great a share, while society, employers and men carry too small a share. Despite the growing number of women at work, despite the fact that 45 per cent. of mothers of children under five are at work, and despite the economic importance of women's work both to the family and to the country as a whole, the care of working mothers' children is still seen as a private matter for the mother to arrange and pay for. The cost is a hidden tax on women.
Even taking into account the child care allowance announced in the Budget, which will provide limited relief to working parents, many mothers will still be precluded from working because of the cost of child care. As has been pointed out, that is especially true for lone parents.
660
For most working mothers, finding adequate and suitable child care is a headache. I have been through it; I have had the experience. It is rather like a national lottery. If you live in Cleveland, Nottinghamshire or Humberside—three Labour-controlled authorities—you will have a better chance of access to child care than if you happen to live in Somerset, Norfolk or Kent. The European child care network study carried out in 1990 identified only Portugal as having a worse record than Britain as regards the provision of nursery education. But Portugal recognised the problem and launched a national crusade to increase the level of provision.
Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the level of nursery education remains at only 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. There are child minding and day nursery places available for less than 10.5 per cent. of children under the age of five.
There has been discussion about playgroups and I have no wish whatever to denigrate their role. But it must be clearly understood that for working women who wish to carry out a full-time or even a part-time job, a playgroup will not satisfy their needs. Sending a child to a playgroup for two or three mornings per week still restricts a women as regards being able to work and contribute to the family budget. Nor do playgroups have the educational content that should be and is required for children of the age in question.
A quantity of care is not by itself sufficient. We are talking about quality. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, which recognised that nursery education and child care are an indivisible and vital part of national and personal development when it stated in its 1989 report:
"Education for under-fives can not only enrich the child's life at the time but can also prepare the child for the whole processing of schooling".
The report further pointed out that, while early years education is of benefit to all children, it is particularly beneficial for those with special needs, those from socially or economically deprived backgrounds and those whose first language is not English. There is ample evidence of the effectiveness of good quality early education leading to improved educational performance and better social behaviour, particularly in children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The noble Viscount referred also to the High/Scope research undertaken in the United States. That showed that, for every dollar invested in good child care, some seven dollars were returned to the taxpayer by way of savings in the costs of juvenile delinquency, remedial education, income support and joblessness.
The lack of national urgency in Britain has led not only to a poor service but to a confusing array of services in both child care and education for the under-fives. That includes nursery schools, nursery classes in primary schools, day care nurseries, pre-school playgroups, child minders, family centres, out-of-school hours provision in schools, workplace nurseries, nannies and the invaluable support of family and friends. They all have a part to play, but the lack of proper co-ordination has led to considerable overlap and gaps in the service.

661
The latter underlines another key problem; namely, the failure to unify responsibility under a single competent national authority. I shall be interested to hear the Minister indicate whether there are any such proposals. Such divisions are mirrored at local level with the split of responsibility between education and social services. The development of more and better services could be more simply achieved if child care matters were the responsibility of a single administration. That administration would be responsible for co-ordinating the supply and funding of the services. I know that there is considerable opposition from the Government to the role that Labour-controlled councils play. However, I believe that the Government might do well to look at some of the provision being provided by Labour-controlled authorities and assess the impact on the local economy of those schemes which have been achieved by an imaginative partnership of public and private finance.
For example, the borough council in North Tyneside has attracted money from employers who have sponsored places in nurseries. In my home town of Leeds, local employers; have hired the services of the council to manage their workplace nurseries and to co-ordinate child-minding schemes for company employees. The Northam Neighbourhood Training Centre in Southampton provides a crèche dedicated to trainees' use which is funded jointly by a number of private and public sources, including support from the European Social Fund.
There is a growing consensus as to the need for a national child-care strategy co-ordinated by government. The organisation Employers for Childcare has stated that,
"unless there is a nationally recognised childcare policy and strategy, any efforts to enable staff effectively to combine work and family responsibilities can only be piecemeal and fragmentary".
The National Commission on Education has called for a national strategy for improving early childhood education and care, as have the Daycare Trust and many other organisations working in the field. The Government's response has been to ignore that consensus and, instead, to attack those who are already disadvantaged by the lack of child care. However, I have to say that the Government's response is not surprising. Indeed, one can go back, for example, to October 1979. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, was then Secretary of State for Social Services—and I regret the fact that the noble Lord is not present in the Chamber today—and made clear his opposition to provision for the under fives when he said:
"If nurseries are made available at public expense too readily they can all too easily be seen as the expression of a philosophy which preaches that parents can do as they like and it is the duty of the state to look after children".
I find that to be a most extraordinary statement. Again, in 1991, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Secretary of State for Education and Science, publicly abandoned the promise made in 1972 by a former Secretary of State for Education and Science (now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher) to provide a nursery
662
place for all three to four year-olds whose parents wanted it by saying that he did not think it was a promise that anybody could sensibly renew.
It was therefore encouraging to hear that it is the Prime Minister's ambition to renew that promise when affordable. But, yet again, we have a different view being expressed by the Education Secretary, who rejected nursery education for three to four year-olds on the grounds that it is too expensive. I see that the Minister who is to reply to the debate is shaking her head. I look forward to hearing her explanation for that, as what I have said has been well and truly reported.
We therefore have to ask if the newspaper report last weekend under the headline, "Nurseries seen as a Tory vote-winner", is true; namely, that prior to the European elections the Government will initiate a campaign to boost the number of three to four year-olds in nursery classes and bring provision nearer to continental levels. We can only hope that that will be the case and that this time the view of the Prime Minister will actually prevail; that his Government will accept the need for a national strategy and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said, the need for the ploughing in of more resources to provide good quality nursery provision.
I hope that the Government take on board and understand that the effectiveness with which they deal with the reconciliation of employment, family responsibilities and equality of opportunity will have profound consequences for the economic prosperity, the social well-being and the quality of life for families in this country. Let us sincerely hope that, in the Year of the Family, the Government will take that challenge seriously.
6.45 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, have already mentioned the report from the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts of 1989 on educational provision for the under-fives. In its conclusions and recommendations, the Select Committee states:
"We recognise that in a world of scarce resources it is not enough to say something is very valuable, and we have considered it equally important to demonstrate why it is particularly vital now".
Its reasons are, first, that the child of the 'eighties may be lonelier than in the past; families are smaller; and it is more difficult for children to play with others in public places. The second reason is the increase in the number of families where both parents work, and there is less time to focus on the development of the child. That seems to me to be just as relevant today, if not more so, than in the 1980s.
The Select Committee also strongly supports the place of the playgroup movement as part of the various forms of provision for the under-fives. In our mixed cultural society of today, it is important that children are able to play together and learn together whatever their ethnic origins were. My own children started their school lives in East Africa (Tanzania), then in Aden and also in Ghana where many nations were represented— not only the local population, but also from many

663
countries of the world—and where they played and learnt together very happily. It also helps those whose first language is not English. They quickly learn the language through playing together.
More children will attend playgroups than any other form of provision; yet many playgroups do not receive a grant. The Education Committee of the North Yorkshire County Council values the work of the pre-school playgroups, especially in rural areas, and has given them a small grant which I am sure is very welcome. The NSPCC finds that the early years of education are undoubtedly enhanced by the diversity of ways in which the provision for under-fives is provided; for example, nursery schools and classes, local authority and voluntary sector nurseries, playgroups, parent and toddler groups, among others. The latter is an important one in rural areas or very small communities, where the toddler and parent are on their own all day, in helping the child to learn to play with other children and giving the parent the opportunity to talk with other parents.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is to be congratulated on his choice of subject for today's debate as education is so much in the public eye at the moment. The Motion mentions the need for playgroup "and nursery education", in particular in deprived inner-city areas. I am sure that we are all agreed on the need for parent and toddler groups, as well as playgroups and nursery schools in deprived city centres. However, there are equally deprived situations in rural areas. They may have different needs in rural areas, but, nonetheless, they are just as real.
In my county of North Yorkshire, there are enormous variations of need to be met. In the rural areas when trying to site a nursery school, or playgroup, or any under school age group, account has to be taken of community circumstances, social circumstances, the availability of access to provision and family mobility. As in many very rural areas families often have no car, or one, which the breadwinner needs to get to work, or even use for work, and no bus service. For this reason North Yorkshire Education Department started peripatetic nursery education.
In rural areas where pupil numbers are lower and schools smaller, it would not be feasible to have full-time nursery schools or nursery classes in individual schools. They have therefore at present established four peripatetic nursery schools, which serve 12 village schools in total, each nursery school serves three schools. This provides for anything between two and five half-day sessions in each of the schools served. The number of sessions provided varies according to the size of the school. The arrangements vary from place to place according to availability of accommodation. So far the nursery schools have been able to use spare space in existing schools.
It is also arranged with local voluntary providers, usually a playgroup working under the auspices of the Pre-School Playgroups Association, to target the nursery school provision on days of the week, when any other local voluntary group is not operating, thus maximising the provision in any particular area.
664
Also in North Yorkshire, one of the LEA's objectives in trying to build a network of nursery schools across the county is to ensure that there is access to a nursery school for any young child with special educational needs. Special schools and units are inevitably thinly scattered in a rural county because they need a concentration of pupil numbers. A young child with special needs could therefore be many miles from a special centre, so that nursery schools or nursery classes in primary schools can provide great help and a starting point for such children. All this of course costs money; but may I ask the Minister whether the need for extra financial provision for these clearly essential needs in our educational system will be looked at sympathetically when the Education Bill goes through Parliament?
6.52 p.m.
The Marquess of Bath: My Lords, I would like to voice my support for the idea of universal nursery education. But I remain concerned over the choice in the direction which this could take, according to whether or not it should be introduced as an integral part of the state system.
My preference for the concept of state education, even at its nursery level, relates to the value I attach to a fully integrated society. Although I myself am an unashamed product of the private system in education—I enjoyed it greatly, and might even claim to have been successful while there—I chose the comprehensive system for my children on the ground of it being less class divisive. If we promote a system where the majority of those who are affluent send their children to private schools, while those who are devoid of affluence send theirs through the state system, then we entrench the class divisions in our society in a manner where they are likely to endure over the course of that entire generation.
Universal nursery education offers each community the possibility of a bonding experience, even when their subsequent educational tracks might differ. I believe in the importance of that bonding. I would be happier, of course, if the Government were to advocate a more prolonged period of shared educational experience, in that the bonding would then be even greater and the class divisiveness that much diminished. But I would like to think that whatever the Government advocate could be regarded as an initial step towards an eventual universalisation of the whole schooling process.
The bonding experience is perhaps more important still to those who are disadvantaged in our society, and I am particularly concerned for the welfare of one such group—namely, single parents: both single mothers and single fathers incidentally—where the existence of nursery education will be invaluable. The position of single parents is currently under threat, especially in the case of unmarried mothers. It might be anything from the proposed loss of benefits to the question of reverse discrimination in their application for housing. There is also a suggestion that the Government might be intending to force them into the monogamous fold with threats of disadvantage while they choose to remain single.

665
One of the threats is that benefits could only be paid to them via the grandparents, even when this might be seen as a denial of an adult's option to set up house for herself. Or there is talk about obliging single parents (as a condition that has to be met before benefits are on offer) to dwell together in distinctly unlisted buildings, which might otherwise be ready for demolition—a suggestion that could be paraphrased as driving them into ghettos. Then, on raising such a family within the disadvantaged environment that our society creates for them, they find their children categorised as potentially criminal. This may take the form of a statistical forecast, which is then offered as spurious justification for pressing the case for adoption, which goes against any mother's natural inclination to raise a child herself.
It is a matter of great importance to single parents that free nursery education should be on offer and readily available at the hands of the state. With all the problems peculiar to her situation, the knowledge that her children are in safe professional hands throughout the time of day releases such a parent to the freedom to get back to work. Even prior to nursery schooling, there should be day care centres and playschools which would furnish for her children the most appropriate arena for their initial bonding with society. When objection is raised as to the expense to the taxpayer on this issue, then the cost should be measured against the reward to all of us in the attainment of an integrated society, and in the satisfactory development even of its more disadvantaged members.
I would like to stress that single parents frequently do not choose that status for themselves in that it often takes the form of an unintended situation which arises to clobber them (so to speak) from out of the blue. When it does arise as something planned, then it should not be our role as legislators to punish them for not having chosen differently. A mother's freedom of choice as to the family form which might suit her the best should be respected, no matter what form that it takes. It is the psychological welfare of her children, even if we have personal reservations concerning the advisability of that choice, which should emerge as our prime concern. So it is especially, though not solely, in the interests of single parent families that I beg your Lordships to do all that is possible to accelerate the introduction of both day care centres and nursery education in general.
7 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, when I found out today that it would fall to me to congratulate the noble Marquess on his maiden speech little did I know that I would be able to do so wholeheartedly. We have heard a radical speech. Having followed his career, I know that he is a person with radical and different views. He has argued his case with such power and eloquence that I look forward to many more of his speeches in the House.
I shall confine myself to a fairly limited argument about the affordability of day care, playschool and nursery education. It is often said, "It is very good but we cannot afford it". About 10 years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Joseph (then Sir Keith Joseph), was Secretary of State for Education, I remember the argument being made that the nation could not afford
666
higher education. He commissioned a study by Professor Robin Marris of Birkbeck College who had recently returned from America. At that time the UGC (as it then was) put out a circular asking how it was intended to restrict the expansion in student numbers. Professor Marris, being a straightforward, good, applied economist with no political affiliation, i.e., he was not a member of the Labour Party, found that the return to higher education was 18 per cent—much higher than the return from any other investment that the Government could possibly make. It was possibly due to that that a few years later we saw, quite correctly, a substantial expansion in higher education. I have some minor complaints about resourcing but I will not go into them.
When we talk about affordability we ought to examine the question very carefully, because things are affordable if we take a broader and longer rather than narrower and shorter term view. I do not want to stick to "nursery education". I refer to universal provision for children between the ages of two and five to do creative and interesting things for a substantial part of the day. I am referring to active education of children under five. I cannot imagine that such activity is not affordable. I believe that not only is it affordable but that it will be massively profitable. It will help children when they are small and improve their performance when they are older—socially, economically and as members of the community. It will release their parents so they can do things that they wish to do. Last but not least, it will perhaps produce some revenue to the Treasury when those parents go out to work and pay taxes.
I know there is good will. I believe that there is less partisan division here than has perhaps been apparent. I believe there is a consensus among people that this provision is needed. The doubts are about affordability. I strongly urge the Government to have the question examined as carefully as possible. I know from studies done in other countries—for example, those conducted by the World Bank and other agencies—that this kind of education produces higher yields per dollar spent than is normally suspected.
Having said that, I will stop. I know that the right reverend Prelate wishes to speak during the gap, and I wish to give him time. I also apologise to the House that for the first time in many years I cannot stay to the end of the debate. Therefore, I beg forgiveness.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the House a little fairy story. The story is about a king who lived in a country where the children were liable to get rickets. Being a generous man, he bought crutches for the children when they got rickets. One day, along came a doctor, who was a wise man. He told the king that if he gave the children vitamin D they would not get rickets any more. But the king said that he could not afford to do that; it would be much too expensive. He went on buying crutches. I think that some of your Lordships will agree that that was an unwise decision on his part.
There is ample evidence that good parenting of under-fives and their preparation for entry into school

667
saves later social costs and wasted lives. I should like to quote the words of one or two people wiser than myself. I turn first to the report of the National Commission on Education by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and Sir Claus Moser. I quote from page 114:
"The research which has already been undertaken, supported by informed opinion, does provide convincing evidence of the beneficial impact which good pre-school services can have on young children's learning and social behaviour. Studies in the USA and in the UK have amply demonstrated this potential".
I turn now to a report by the Family Policy Studies Centre, Crime and the Family, with which some of your Lordships will be familiar. The report notes (at page 11):
"Seven out of ten deprived children receiving poor maternal and domestic care before the age of five became delinquent compared with four out of ten whose parental care was judged to be good".
The report goes on to say (at page 17):
"One early-stated conclusion of this report is that the scope for family-based crime prevention work begins as early as parenthood itself".
The report also says (at page 23):
"David Farrington and Donald West in one of the most recent reports from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development call for a series of practical experiments: 'It is clear from our research that problem children tend to grow into problem adults, and that problem adults tend to reproduce problem children. Sooner or later, serious efforts, firmly grounded on empirical research results, must be made to break this cycle".
Finally, to show the breadth of opinion on this matter, I turn to Relate, the marriage guidance counsel service. Their experience covers over 70,000 couples and individuals each year. They say:
"The quality of the parents' relationship in a family is crucial to their capacity to provide effective parenting … there is now plenty of evidence of the correlations between the quality of parenting and juvenile crime".
The consistent theme of these reports is the need for universal affordable access to pre-school education of high quality in partnership with parents. The problem is cost. I found the evidence on cost confusing, and it took me a little time to discover why. Having made inquiries and discovered the underlying costs, I realised that some authorities were talking about the basic needs of care for the child whilst other authorities effectively talked about the needs of the parents.
Therefore I produced some budgets. I set out a "menu" of services which, in my view, and in the view of other experts, provide a better than adequate level of support in relation to the needs of the child. The average cost per year over the four and a half years before the child goes to primary school was approximately £1,000 per year. All-day care, calculated to enable both parents in the case of the two-parent family, or the single parent in the case of a single-parent family, to go out to work, costs four times as much.
There is a danger that we may be allowing the best to become the enemy of the good. I immediately acknowledge that allowing parents to go out to work when they want to do so is an extremely important political issue which needs to be debated. To a significant extent, it is a separate question from the welfare of the child. No doubt we shall debate that subject on other occasions. I do not intend to address it today.
668
Perhaps I may detail my menu of services for the child. From nought to one year, I envisage some home support; for the one to two year-olds, parent-toddler groups; for two to three year-olds, a playgroup or parent-toddler group; for three to four year-olds, nursery school; and for four to four and a half year-olds, nursery school. The total cost over four and a half years is approximately £4,500, or an average of £1,000 per year. When parents cannot pay, I believe that it is in the interests of the taxpayer to pay for these services, which are necessary to ensure that every child has a good start in life. We have adopted that principle in regard to physical health. Why should we not adopt it in relation to emotional health?
Investing in vitamin D is a good investment as compared with investing in crutches. Two noble Lords have already said that the evidence from the High Scope scheme in the United States indicates that there is a seven to one return on an investment in good quality nursery education. Furthermore, we have to bear in mind the costs of doing nothing. A Home Office working party report estimates that the prevention of crime, and losses due to crime, are together costing the country something like £18 billion a year. We know that the cost of the new secure accommodation that the Government propose will be of the order of £200,000 per child per year on recurrent costs alone.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to give an indication, if it is known, of the cost to the taxpayer of disruption in schools by disruptive children, of truanting, and of provision for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. Those costs could be largely eliminated if children went into primary school emotionally and socially adapted to get on with the job of learning.
Clearly, if support is given it has to be targeted. There are two problems about targeting support in the area of concern. One is the possibility of stigmatisation; the other is the importance of keeping an appropriate mix in schools of children from disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged homes so that we do not end up with all the disadvantaged children together. Such a situation is difficult to manage and is not in the interests of the children.
I propose a voucher scheme. Out of a total under-five population of 3 million, there are a little over a million children under five whose families are on income support. That is 35 per cent. Every child whose parents are on income support should receive a free moneys-worth voucher encashable only on behalf of a named child at registered facilities appropriate to the age of the child. Parents who are not on income support, and not disadvantaged, should have the opportunity of buying similar vouchers at the Post Office, or wherever, so that every child's parents would arrive at school presenting a voucher. There would be no social distinction. If all parents could afford to pay in that way, there would be a rapid increase in the facilities available. That increase would arise as a result of demand; and the problem of certain children being privileged and using up the available facilities would not arise.

669
I shall be grateful if the Minister will seek to persuade her eight colleagues—it may be seven—who have involvement in the issue that it is better to provide vitamin D than to pay for crutches.
Finally, I commend to the Government the proposal of the right honourable Member for Devon West and Torridge that, as a token of their good faith, they should provide user friendly facilities for children in the place of employment which is probably the most child-unfriendly in the United Kingdom—the Palace of Westminster.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Faithful: My Lords, during the passage of the Education Bill through your Lordships' House many noble Lords argued the case for nursery school education. We were greatly encouraged by the understanding and support for the value of nursery education given by the Prime Minister.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will forgive me if I talk about more than the nought to five year-olds. I make a plea to the Minister that, as they are about to leave school, we educate our children in what family life will involve. We do not give our children that education. Family life, and the care of children, is a personal affair. If it is a personal affair, people should know what is wise, right and good for the children for whom they may be responsible.
The noble Marquess, Lord Bath, spoke about the bonding experience. Perhaps I may tell noble Lords a story. One Sunday morning I was called to a hospital where two women had just had their babies. One was a happily married woman. She had had her baby at the same time as a very unhappy woman. I spoke to both as I walked out of the ward. The one woman had her baby in her arms, was crooning to it and was looking sublimely happy. The other woman's baby was in its cot and she was looking at it not with love and affection, but with appalled horror at what she had done and what lay before her, knowing that she had an unhappy life to face. She was not bonding with her baby; and I have to say that I needed to give her considerable care all through her life. Indeed, I am still in touch with her—and I am 83 and she is 40-something.
The bonding experience is something that children in schools should learn about. I believe that in every school human growth and development should be taught as a subject. Older children should learn the importance of bonding with their children by having a relationship with them, caring for them, loving them, giving them security and consistency and giving them education when they are small by reading to them. I believe that to be important. Older children should learn to use the toy libraries and look after their health. How can we expect people to have personal responsibility without training them for it? We do not train our young. By the same token, teachers in the teacher training colleges have given up the subject of human growth and development, whereas those who spend long hours with children should know of the need for bonding and care for children.
We should also know of the research being done at the Maudsley Hospital and the teaching of two
670
outstanding psychiatrists, the late Dr. Winnicott and Dr. John Bowlby. We have not realised what it is for a child to be cared for by someone who is unhappy and at odds with life. The Maudsley Hospital has shown that, when a child is looked after by parents or a parent who is insecure and unhappy, that unhappiness and insecurity are mirrored in the child.
How do we know that? An extraordinary organisation started by the Rowntree Trust is called the Nurturing Group. With it, either a health visitor or a teacher will recommend a disruptive, unhappy child to the nurturing unit. The unit will not visit the child; it will be concerned not with the child but with the parents. Teachers in primary schools will say that, when parents have faced and understood their difficulties and gone some way towards resolving them, that in turn helps the child, which loses its disruptive and unhappy behaviour. These points should be known to our adolescents leaving school.
Many parents love their children deeply, but, if they have practical difficulties with finance, housing, work and relationships, the texture of their love alters. It is not that they do not love their children, but they do not have the love within themselves to give to the children. Therefore, the texture of the love is riot as deep and helpful as it should be and does not show awareness. Children in our schools ought to know that. Therefore, they should know what family life, marriage and the upbringing of children are concerned with. I make a plea to my noble friend the Minister, now that the Education Bill is being considered, that children should learn of these things so that they can make the right decisions. I say hurriedly that that applies to boys as well as girls. Not enough help is given to the boys in their late teens on what it means to be a father and to the girls on what it means to be a mother and what the family means to a child.
In this country an enormous number of organisations have carried out an outstanding piece of work. I should like to enumerate them all but I shall not. I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister whether it has ever been considered that the structure of education should be altered and that up to the age of six education for children should fall under the umbrella of nurseries and from six onwards it should happen in our schools. That is what happens on the Continent and I believe it is the right way to do it. We ought to work towards it and I am sure that many people agree with that.
My other point is that there are many outstanding organisations dealing with the needs of children. The parents must have choice. It must not be for us to put on to parents what they should do and how they should do it. I believe in nursery school education and that the pre-school playgroups have much to offer. I received a letter today giving the figures they deal with. I believe that some parents want to stay at home. A brilliant woman with a good degree said to me the other day in Oxford, where I live: "Why am I made to feel inefficient and hopeless because I want to stay at home and look after my children?" Everyone has the choice to do what he or she wants, but the choice must be based on knowledge, understanding and the teaching they have received.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, it is right that in the International Year of the Child your Lordships' House should address itself to the issues of nursery education and child care costs. In general, it has been shown, particularly in research in America—which is the best example of research in depth and was referred to by my noble friend Lord Falkland—that children who are exposed to education early respond more positively to education throughout their school lives.
It has also been suggested that children at this formative stage are highly receptive to certain forms of education. It is very important. For example, in the multi-cultural society which we now have, and which is becoming even more so, the ability of children to acquire facility with languages is considerable. This point has been excellently illustrated in my country, Wales, and I shall return to that later, save that I make the observation that we start teaching second languages in our country generally at far too late a stage.
The positive response of young children is not limited to the area of languages. Early exposure to education also shows advantages in many other areas; basic arithmetic and reading are two good examples. Numeracy and literacy in adults are very often the product of early training in both those subjects.
The American report to which I referred showed that the benefits of nursery education were not limited to the educational development of children. Children who had been to nursery schools were less likely to get into trouble in their teens and also stood a better chance of getting work after leaving school.
The social benefits of nursery education need not be limited to children. Nursery schools can offer an excellent opportunity for mothers and fathers to meet and develop an interest in their communities. The bonding is not confined to the children. Equally, the school may provide a mother or father with an opportunity to get away from a child for a brief period a few times a week.
Those functions may be of particular benefit to children and parents coming from deprived or unstable backgrounds. In such circumstances the nursery school, as well as providing a degree of stability and care for a child, may also provide an opportunity for tension and strain in parents to subside; thereby reducing the risk of such latent irritation manifesting itself in an unattractive form.
In some areas, a nursery can operate as an alternative creche, allowing mothers to supplement their income with part-time work and helping them to avoid the sometimes prohibitive costs of child care which might otherwise condemn them to a life of state dependency during the infancy of the child.
If I may, I shall now direct myself to the position of nursery education in Wales and the exceptional functions that it fulfils there. As well as the internationally recognised benefits of nursery education which I have outlined briefly and which apply as much in Wales as in any other area, nursery education in Wales can and does perform the highly desirable function of encouraging children to learn the Welsh
672
language at an early age. Children become bilingual by the age of four or five. Learning the language is not a separate part of the nursery experience. Rather it goes on simultaneously with the learning activities common in any other nursery. Through all the activities of the nursery group—for example, playing music, listening, observing, discovering and creating—the children also acquire a mastery of language, and an appreciation that there is more than one language and more than one culture. That approach has been very successful with young children. Indeed, the younger the child, the greater is the hope for effective teaching.
Among other organisations is one called Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin—the National Association of Welsh Medium Nursery Schools and Playgroups. It has played a leading role in promoting nursery education for that purpose. The organisation is a voluntary body which charges children who attend its nurseries a minimal amount, determined in each case by its local committees. It has over 600 nursery groups in Wales attended by over 10,000 children. It should be noted that over 60 per cent. of those children come from non-Welsh speaking homes, showing the considerable demand that exists for such a provision. The greatest area of growth in that organisation's activities is in the predominantly English-speaking south-east Wales, where the call for more Welsh nurseries accompanies the development of several Welsh medium primary schools.
The playgroups and the nurseries meet daily. However, owing to a shortage of staff, space and other limitations, each child gets only two to three sessions a week. Statutory nursery education for five mornings or afternoons a week would offer considerably more contact hours with each child, perhaps in the region of 10-plus hours a week. The implications of increased contact time on the rate of learning are obvious.
Another reason for the adoption of statutory nursery education is to provide and improve the uniformity in the provision of nursery education in Wales. At present provision varies greatly from county to county, and policy can vary between schools in the same authority. For example, in the county of Gwynedd, in North Wales, if there is a viable group of children older than three, then nursery education is provided by local schools. That happens in about 20 schools in that county. Resources are supplied by the county council and children going to those schools get free nursery education. In contrast, children under three, or those who live in other counties, must pay to attend voluntary nurseries. There is little doubt that at present the provision of nursery education throughout the country is irregular and inadequate.
During the course of this debate I have enjoyed no contribution more than the exhilarating maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Bath. He touched on an important matter. I could not help thinking as I listened to his speech—I do not know who coined the phrase, but the noble Baroness will know—that the language of politics is the language of priorities. The question for our country is: what priority do we give to nursery education? At the moment I regret to say that it is a fairly low one. Yesterday this House was concerned

673
with great arguments on two very important aspects of he criminal justice system, in which I have been involved in varying degrees throughout my adult life. In my view, if one looks forward 20 or 30 years to the kind of society that will exist then, the investment that we make in nursery education is at least as important as any aspect of the criminal justice system.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I greatly enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Marquess, the Lord Bath. I hope that we shall often hear him in this House. I congratulate him. I also congratulate the noble Viscount on having introduced this Motion calling for an increase in the provision of playschools and nursery schools throughout the United Kingdom and particularly in deprived urban areas. I cannot honestly pretend that 14 years as Provost of Eton has particularly equipped me to be an expert in this subject, although we did have a school for some 30 under-threes who were on the campus. It was a great success and I used to visit it.
I am very interested in this question and I give the noble Viscount's Motion my full support. I am convinced that nursery education, which is a convenient blanket phrase to cover the various different types of playgroups, nursery schools and child-minders which are available is a thoroughly good thing. I believe that nursery education has been shown statistically to be beneficial, not only in straightforward educational terms but also in helping children to become better adjusted socially. If I may he allowed to put it rather more bluntly, when they grow up they are less likely to get into trouble than those who have not enjoyed nursery education.
That that should be the case is not in any way surprising. On the contrary, it is exactly what anyone who knows anything about children would expect. In good nursery education they are taught the very difficult business of getting on with other children and accepting authority. It is not possible for that kind of learning to begin too soon. What is more, what is learnt when one is two, three and four stays with one for the rest of one's life. The Jesuits have told us that if they can have a child for the teaching until he is seven years old, he will remain faithful to the Roman Catholic religion until his death. I believe that nursery education can help to make people good citizens all their lives.
Good nursery education can help the parents as well as the children. I do not mean that it gives them time to do a job outside parenthood. I mean that it can help them to be better parents. In good nursery school education young parents will come into contact with other parents and with older women who can give them good advice. That is particularly important for the single parent who perhaps has to live at the top of a tower block in a deprived area. In the old days the whole of life took place in the street, and one was always in contact with other families over the garden fence. Things are very different now. Life at the top of a tower block can be dangerously lonely.
If it is correct that good nursery education has the advantages that I have outlined—and all the evidence shows that it does—it is a pity that we do not have more
674
of it. According to the statistics prepared by Kathy Sylva and Peter Moss in 1992, some of which have already been reported, Britain is way down at the bottom of the European league table when it comes to publicly funded nursery education. According to those figures, Britain has between 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. of children catered for. Belgium and France each have 95 per cent.; Germany has 77 per cent.; and Italy 85 per cent. Only Portugal, with 35 per cent., is lower than we are.
If we are to have more provision, it will cost money. But, as we have been told, research seems to indicate that it is not very long before one gets one's money back. That is simply because if you have good nursery education, you get fewer people in approved schools and in prisons. There are all kinds of questions about the form that nursery education should take. Should it be a part of existing schools or should it be separate? Should it be voluntary or should it be compulsory?
My own view is that it should be voluntary but available to all. I concede that if it is voluntary it may mean that those most in need of it for their children will not take advantage of it. But if it is made compulsory, I fear that the system will become entangled in a jungle of bureaucracy. For instance, I have heard that some excellent nursery schools had to be closed because the ratio of "loos" to children required by the Children Act has not been achieved. I feel that one must not be too exact or pernickety when it comes to "loos" for small children. I believe that a great deal can be done with pots.
I believe that I am correct in saying that there has never been a comprehensive review of nursery education in this country. There ought to be one which would make recommendations on any required harmonisation with what is now available and recommendations on what needs to be added, so that we are properly equipped with facilities for nursery schools. Those should be available for all. They should be first class. The system should not be over-bureaucratised. It should probably be run by a few professionals with a great deal of voluntary support from mum's army.
7.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, on his excellent maiden speech which was both compassionate and courageous. We look forward to many such contributions in the future. They will be well received on these Benches, especially if he continues to honour us by wearing a purple tie.
I am also most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this important debate and to other noble Lords for their generosity in cutting short their speeches and allowing me to speak in the gap.
I fear that my contribution will be slight and not worthy of their generosity, but I shall speak quite briefly.
There are three kinds of argument put forward in this matter: economic, educational and what one might call social and moral. I understand that there are good economic reasons for increasing the provision for very young children, though I do not feel at all qualified to comment on that aspect. The educational advantages

675
have been thoroughly researched and convincingly demonstrated. They have been comprehensively set out, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, in the report of the National Commission on Education. Those educational reasons will be very familiar indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I do not believe that there is any need to labour them at this point.
I want to speak briefly about the third factor: what one might call the social and moral aspect. There has been much discussion both inside and outside Parliament on the subject of single parent families. Most people would say that there is little doubt that the interests of a child's welfare are better served by an upbringing involving both parents. I hope that we would also agree that the encouragement of that natural care for children can more effectively be achieved by the provision of economic benefits to the married than by the negative device of penalising the single parent.
We might also wish to say that the care of a child up to the age of five years by one of its parents in a secure and loving home while the husband or wife is at work is the best preparation in early years for school and adult life. However, we do not live in an ideal world. The phenomenon of the single parent is a fact of life. We may regret it, but it is the reality with which we have to live and the situation that we are asked to address.
That leads me to my second point. Christian moral thinking is cautious about the concept of rights. Much of the talk about parents' rights is both muddled and morally questionable. When speaking of parenthood it is not the language of rights but the duties and responsibilities of parents which should be the guiding principle.
This is not the time to comment further, but the recent discussion about infertility treatment and embryo research has been dangerously distorted by talk of the rights of women to bear children. If one wishes to talk of rights in that context, the only legitimate use of such language is to stress that it is the rights of the children which should dominate all other considerations. Although the needs of parents, especially single parents, matter very much, I am sure that we all agree that in the Motion before us it is the needs of young children that must be at the forefront of our thinking. That is most certainly the priority for any Christian approach to these issues.
When Jesus admonished His disciples: "Let the children come to me. Do not try to stop them", He was rebuking those who found the children's presence a nuisance which interfered in the supposed rights of adults to His undivided attention. Jesus underlined the point dramatically: "Of such," He said, "is the Kingdom of God. Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child shall never enter it." In this area, as in so many areas of moral debate concerning children, the interests of the child must be paramount.
The noble Viscount's Motion calls attention to the needs of children in deprived urban areas. Social and moral deprivation is not always confined to urban priority areas. There are many poor families in which children are brought up in a loving, secure and
676
disciplined home. Conversely, wealth is no guarantee of a secure and morally sound upbringing. Also, though it is not on such a wide or well advertised scale, there is real deprivation in many rural areas, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, pointed out. I hope that this Motion could be understood to embrace those areas too, where the problems can be very severe indeed.
However, the truth remains that in our inner cities there are worrying trends. Apparently there is an increasing number of such areas where children experience neglect and abuse, where there is no experience of consistency, affection, firm and loving discipline and no understanding of what is and is not acceptable behaviour or of what is right and what is wrong. Those are the very experiences that help a child to grow in mind and spirit and to relate to other children and adults.
Those are rights which children have. They are rights which, as a society that has a duty to care for its little ones, we have a responsibility to provide, especially when parents do not or cannot provide them. Where parents are struggling to survive, the lack of child minding, playgroup and nursery facilities makes the prospect of paid work impossible; and where the educational and social skills of the parents are themselves lacking, the peril to the moral welfare of the child is obvious. The effects are long term, as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, pointed out. Studies have conclusively demonstrated that the influences received in the early years of childhood are formative into adult life. If those influences are morally confused or even depraved, the long-term effects on society are grim to contemplate.
There is already an increasing provision in the private sector, which is good. Few people are asking for wholesale provision of state nursery education. At the moment many of the parents of children most in need of that provision cannot take advantage of it. There is an area of serious need which can only be addressed by government action.
I repeat the question asked by many noble Lords this afternoon: is there a good reason why the United Kingdom should have one of the lowest levels of publicly funded pre-school provision in Europe? In response to that the Minister will doubtless say that we have to take seriously economic realities. That is correct. As a Bishop I am no stranger to the discipline of hard economic reality. But I believe the citizens of this country are deeply concerned about its moral welfare; that they are deeply anxious about moral confusion in society in general and in the young in particular. I believe that there is a willingness to support measures which would make possible a better provision for our children's moral and spiritual upbringing.
I may be naive but I find it difficult to understand why politicians think that the subject of increased direct taxation should be anathema to the public. I cannot believe that I am alone in my willingness to pay more taxes if the revenue raised is used for the kinds of purpose the Motion envisages and which I wholeheartedly support.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I begin my brief remarks by adding my voice to the many voices who have already congratulated my noble friend Lord Bath on his maiden speech. He spoke with both conviction and compassion on a subject about which it is not always easy to speak. The sense that he had of the plight of single parents, the feeling that he had of the importance of children bonding with their society at an early age, is one which I believe impressed all those in the House. We all look forward to the contributions he will make not only on education but on many other aspects of the issues about which he spoke in his speech. I am therefore glad to add my thanks to the many that he received this evening.
I should like to say also that there will be no point in my repeating what has been a series of extremely eloquent speeches on the need for nursery and pre-school education. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, all addressed those issues with great strength and passion. I add just one point to what the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said. She spoke of the position of mothers who are obliged to work when their children are young. It is worth adding to the group of single parents the devastating truth that it is increasingly difficult for men from the old industrial skill areas to obtain work at all.
I was looking recently at the figures which indicate that in the North of England unskilled men between the ages of 21 and 60 now have a rate of unemployment of 24 per cent. That means that in many cases the husband of the family cannot obtain a job because of the area in which he lives and the decline of heavy industry throughout the western world. Therefore, in that family it is a necessity for the wife to go out to work. Yet it is often in such families that the habit of husbands being very much fathers is one that has been slowest to develop.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke of the importance of training children in parenting. I want to underline her passionate plea for boys as well as girls to be taught about parenting. We have increasingly learnt of the importance of the father and the significance of his being a model and example to his children.
Lastly, in referring to other speeches, I refer to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, who spoke of rural deprivation. My noble friend Lord Hooson spoke of some of the problems of trying to produce nursery education in the rural parts of Wales. Both produced some extremely interesting evidence regarding how early children can benefit from some form of structured education.
Having said that, I turn briefly to a question that I wish to ask the Minister regarding policy and finance. Several speakers in the debate—I associate myself with them—indicated that they fully approve of the recent changes made in the Budget with regard to families drawing child benefit which allows them to claim on the basis of the child care expenditure into which they enter. That is a step in the right direction which all of us
678
welcome. I hope that it will be extended to tax relief for child care for working families as well, for the reasons I stated.
I should like to consider two points in regard to policy. The first is that my understanding is that the standard assessment made for local authorities is not, to use the jargon, ring-fenced in regard to the education of pre-school children. In other words, local authorities, under the pressure of rate capping and the recession, may begin to raid the very budgets which are currently ear-marked for under-fives in order to meet other more urgent needs. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, shaking her head. I hope that she can give us full assurance on that point.
It may be more difficult to give a full assurance on the other issue that I want to raise but the noble Baroness may be able to explain to the House the situation into which the Government have entered. I refer to the funding agencies for grant-maintained schools which, as I understand it, have no obligation made upon them to provide pre-school nursery education. The anxiety in that regard is that we may See a development of that sector which does not carry its share of responsibility for pre-school provision at a time when the strain on the schools that remain within the state system is likely, if anything, to be greater. Can the noble Baroness tell us what the position is with regard to grant-maintained schools and the responsibility of the funding agencies for the education of the under-fives?
Because I have some sympathy with the Minister I believe that she always finds it difficult to argue the urgent against the important. I recall that it was in my case, too. The urgent in government so often replaces the important, especially when the important contains a long-term aspect; in other words, the benefits will occur in 10, 15 or 20 years' time. Arguing with one's Cabinet colleagues about the importance of long-term provision is always a dreary activity. The short-term needs always come up and tend to push the long-term needs to one side.
I therefore conclude by saying that one of the areas that I believe could be most responsive to the kind of eloquent statement on moral and social needs described by the right reverend Prelate is the bringing together, in a single broad umbrella provision, of playgroups, child minders, nursery schools and day nurseries. Nursery schools can provide resources for those other areas of under-five education as well as for themselves.
We spoke of pre-school playgroups and they can certainly benefit from some training. But even more urgent is the position of child minders who are so often the residual legatees of the most disadvantaged children of all in urban areas: in areas where there are large minority populations and in areas where many parents are unemployed or in difficulties. Child minders are the provision of last resort. Those of us in this House who have seen child minding sometimes at an appallingly low level, with children being lined up and not developed in any useful way, will know that child minders should have the benefit of training, of toy libraries and reading libraries and of the expert advice of trained nursery school teachers.

679
Bringing those things together—I know that the Minister has herself indicated how complementary these provisions are —would enable the least advantaged children, to whom my noble friend referred in his opening remarks, to be caught up in the general provision of pre-school education so that their needs can be met alongside those of their more favoured colleagues in the same age group. I commend the suggestion to the Minister that we try in urban and rural areas alike to bring together the provision and to see nursery schools as the central resource to train, advise and counsel those other kinds of provision that we make for the under-fives.
I have one final word with regard to what the right reverend Prelate had to say. He described in very eloquent terms the position in which many children find themselves. I could not agree with him more that it is the child's rights that need to come first and that we should think very hard indeed about what may be a selfish demand to take a designer child off the shelf and to do it even by the use of embryos from mothers who never saw adult life at all. The consequences of those ideas seem to be almost infinite in what they could mean for the mental and moral security of children in the future. I should like to associate myself very strongly with the words of warning that the right reverend Prelate gave to the House.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to deal with the important points that have just been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, deserves the appreciation of us all for having given the House the opportunity yet again to debate this vital topic. His own speech was distinguished and helpfully reflective, and we appreciated that. It is also good that the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, chose an issue so central to the future of our nation whose greatest asset is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, so persuasively said, its children. That he chose this subject to make his maiden speech augurs well for the future. He spoke powerfully and has given us all considerable food for thought. I greatly look forward to his future contributions to our deliberations.
I am afraid that in all the muddle surrounding the present Government's policies nursery education is no exception. Last April in this House the Minister told us during our deliberations on the Education Bill not to put,
"an impossible imposition on this House and the country",
and that comprehensive nursery education would be,
"an impossible bill to impose on this or another place".—[Official Report, 20/4/93; col. 1495.]
At the Report stage in the summer the Minister adamantly refused to accept an amendment argued from this side of the House and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, with all her vast experience, which again sought to extend the provision of nursery education.
When the National Commission on Education reported in November last and added its stamp to the
680
case for extending nursery education the Secretary of State himself immediately responded by saying that it could not be afforded. But within a week a major story appeared on the front page of the Daily Express, with all the indications of an authoritative leak. It told us that, notwithstanding the Secretary of State's position, the Prime Minister aimed to give every child of three a place in the nursery classroom; an objective repeated by the Prime Minister in an interview published in the Daily Telegraph on 23rd December. However, when questioned on the Daily Express report in the other place on 23rd November by Shadow Secretary of State for Education, Ann Taylor, the Secretary of State declined to comment. Significantly, in a letter to Ann Taylor dated 22nd December last—the day before the report of the interview appeared in the Daily Telegraph—the Prime Minister disappointingly said:
"Apart from the question of diversity, education for all three and four-year olds would be very expensive and, given the Government's other more pressing priorities for improving the standards of primary and secondary education, is unrealistic in resource terms at present".
The letter made no mention of even a long-term aim. And yet the confusing reports continue.
On 26th December the Sunday Times firmly stated:
"Parents of young children will be given government vouchers to help them pay for nursery education under plans to be unveiled by John Patten, the education secretary".
And only this past weekend the Observer told us that,
"Department of Education officials are working flat out on a scheme, to be announced shortly, that will bring provision nearer to continental levels".
The Minister is nothing if not candid, and even, let us face it, blunt. She is not one to prevaricate. Will she therefore categorically clear up this matter tonight? Are the Government or are they not about to do a U-turn and accept the case, repeatedly put from this side of the House, to make comprehensive provision for nursery education? I, for one, will lead the cheers if they are.
What, however, would not be acceptable is some fudge in the name of choice with nursery education available to all who can afford to pay for it, albeit with voucher subsidies, but only, as now, patchily available for those who cannot. Such a compromise would be grossly unfair. It would mean that far too often the children arguably most in need of nursery education —those from deprived circumstances—still would not get it. We are for variety and choice. Of course we are. Good play groups and other facilities have a vital place. While we favour the availability of nursery education with professionally qualified staff, we nevertheless respect the principle of parental choice with a variety of provision before the age of five. But it must be choice for all and not simply for those able to afford it.
At a time when community and community values are everywhere under attack amidst inflexible and unimaginative doctrinaire application of market dogma, what would also be sad is to see the future of nursery education increasingly in the hands of the private sector, unduly driven forward by the profit motive rather than by the motives of care and service. What is desperately needed, as tragic events last year so well illustrated, is a strengthening of community and neighbourhood concern for the young. That, I do beg the Minister to try and understand, is the reason why the role of local

681
democracy in education is so important. When local democracy has failed, as it sometimes fails, the response should not be to run away or find alternatives but to determine to reinvigorate it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has underlined, at present two different departments at national level—the Department of Health and the Department for Education—have the responsibility for services for young children. The Health Department oversees day nurseries, playgroups and the regulation of child minders. The Education Department is responsible for pre-school education. They do not plan together, budget together or provide comparable statistics. The discussion surrounding the Children Act recognised these problems but the legislation failed to take all the necessary steps to resolve them.
These divisions are mirrored at local level. Services for young children are split between education and social service departments with out of school care often funded through recreation departments. This is a recipe for disorder when new services are being introduced. Parents, employers and independent providers often do not know whom to approach for advice or to find out what the regulations are. This results in duplication and large gaps with no services at all. It would be helpful to hear the Government's thinking on all this, especially if they are, pray God, after all at last contemplating extended provision. Do they see the Department for Education or the Department of Health as the lead Ministry?
I have argued the case for the key role of local democracy, but I recognise that there is room for a genuine debate about which department of local government should take the desperately needed lead in achieving the best possible integration of child care, nursery education and other services to young children. I believe the LEA is a strong candidate, but what is essential is that a clear lead responsibility is established. It would therefore be helpful to know the Government's thinking.
On these Benches our position is unequivocally clear. We believe in the availability of nursery education to the children of all parents who want it, irrespective of their social circumstances—a goal powerfully and rationally argued in the cogent sixth chapter of the report of the National Commission on Education. We cannot conceive of any other single investment in our young which would yield more fruitful results both in improved performance through our primary and secondary schools, given adequate resources and a sensible role for those sectors themselves, and in helping to reduce delinquency and social fragmentation.
Nursery education for all children would be a constructive step towards making a success of our multicultural society where significant numbers of children start school at five from homes in which English is not the first language. It would be an ideal way to involve more parents naturally in a sense of shared responsibility for the education of their children. It would release more parents to enhance the financial well-being of their families and to contribute to the strength of the nation's economy. As we have heard again tonight, all the reliable evidence from both sides
682
of the Atlantic powerfully suggests that in terms of enhanced educational performance, a strengthened economy, and greater social stability, it would rapidly pay for itself. The issue is not whether we can afford it, but how on earth the United Kingdom can convincingly meet the future without affording it.
No less than 50 per cent. of intellectual development takes place in the first five years of life. In no other advanced nation in the world is it necessary to argue that nursery education and childcare are an indivisible and vital part of national and personal development. As the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said, at the beginning of this decade the Institute of Education in London revealed that, while in Belgium and France more than 95 per cent. of three to five year-olds were in nursery education, in the United Kingdom it was still only between 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. In the European Union only Portugal was below the UK. As my noble friend Lady Gould said, on recognising this Portugal set out to put things right.
Perhaps I may conclude by repeating the words of Charles Pollard, Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police, speaking on Question Time last October. He said:
"Pre-school education is very important. It is at that stage that children learn habits. They learn right and wrong, life skills, so that when they get into school they can grasp what the school is teaching them and grow up as mature adults. If they don't, when they get to school they are lost and they just become completely alienated from society and that's where crime starts."
In the Government's current desperate struggle to decide on the definition of the basics to which they want to get back, they could not do better than to settle for a truly comprehensive system of pre-school education.I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to announce her conversion to that immediate objective tonight.
8.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education. (Baroness Blotch): My Lords, as always, the enemy tonight is going to be time, but I shall do what I can to answer the points made in the course of the debate. Perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate. It is a very important debate and I have enormous pleasure in answering it. I also join with the whole House in welcoming and congratulating the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, upon his speech. I know what a daunting experience it is. We look forward to hearing much more from him. Perhaps I may also say that I have the happiest possible memories, not only for myself, but of taking my own children—occasionally Sunday school children and playgroup children —to his great family home. We look forward to hearing from him on many more occasions in future.
This has been an interesting debate, as always in this House, with a wide range of issues raised. It is right that we should have this debate. Provision for under-fives is an important topic and it can lay the foundation for children's subsequent personal, academic and social development.
Let me take first the education provision for under-fives. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we inhabit different planets. He speaks with almost total

683
disregard for what has been done and what is being done for under-fives in this country. I find it a great sadness that we cannot at least arrive at some consensus on what is being done by our local authorities and by the encouragement which is being given by my department.
I understand the concerns which lie behind the speeches in favour of more and better education for under-fives. This Government recognise the benefits which can be derived from good provision, particularly for those who have special educational needs or who are socially disadvantaged. We have a very real commitment to development in this area, but to propose that universal free state nursery education as such is the answer to all our problems is greatly to over-simplify the position.
First of all, such an answer takes a very narrow view of parental and child needs. The present situation is one of a range of needs and a range of provision to match those needs. There are various providers—state, voluntary and private; a variety of settings—nurseries, nursery classes, nursery units and play groups; and different modes of attendance—sessional, part-time or full-time. For many, including working mothers in particular, a nursery class place would not provide the length of day care that is sought. New working and domestic patterns will increase further the need for a flexible response. That is why government policy is to encourage choice and diversity.
Secondly, to go down the route of universal free state nursery education would have an adverse effect on other forms of provision and might put them at risk. Pouring taxpayers' money into nursery education would make many perfectly good playgroups and private nursery schools unviable, perhaps to the point of closure—indeed, in the playgroup movement, perhaps to the point of extinction. That would be extremely wasteful of all the expertise and resources and personal commitment invested in the private and voluntary sectors as well as imposing another restriction on consumer choice. I welcome the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on the diversity of provision which he certainly gave voice to in his speech.
Thirdly, it is not proved that a nursery class place offers a better outcome, pound for pound, than other forms of provision, including better infant schooling. The pro-nursery education lobby is far too dismissive of alternatives. There is much evidence to support the view that well run playgroups, often working in co-operation with infant schools, can offer an excellent and cost-effective social and educational experience for under-fives and provide a good preparation for primary schooling. The close involvement of parents in a playgroup is a particular strength of which we should not lose sight.
These factors explain why the Government's long-term ambition is to promote a variety of high quality, cost-effective forms of pre-school education, open to all who want it. But further progress must depend on the availability of resources. There is no conflict in that view across the Government as a whole. We are looking again at what might be achieved in that field and we are currently studying a range of possible
684
options for the future. If and when we are ready to announce any new proposals we shall do so in the usual way.
Within the related child care area I want to remind the House of what initiatives this Government have announced in the past few months. In the last Budget speech my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined a new child care scheme to be introduced. As from October of this year eligible families will receive extra help, worth up to £28 a week in family credit, towards the cost of a variety of registered child care.
Child care does not cease to be an issue when children reach school age. Indeed it can sometimes be harder to arrange, which is why the disregard extends to children aged 10 years. We already have a £45 million programme of out-of-school child care being administered by training and enterprise councils. That is providing capital and running costs, funding a variety of schemes to help with the care of children aged five to 12 years. It will stimulate much good practice in this area. We hope to create up to 50,000 new child care places over a three-year period.
These initiatives build on earlier ones, such as the underpinning of child-minder and day care quality, through the registration and monitoring arrangements introduced by the Children Act and tax concessions to employers to encourage the provision of workplace nurseries. These things will all indicate quite clearly that the Government wish to help families whose economic well-being is dependent on a sufficient supply of affordable child care.
Perhaps I may now turn to points raised during the course of the debate and begin with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I deeply appreciate the points made in his speech. Many children do not enjoy a nurturing and loving home life. Therefore, for many of those children, school is the only anchor in their lives. It is the only place where they will receive any kind of ground rules and where they will have a framework within which to grow and develop. It is the only place where they will have any sense of right and wrong or of desirable and undesirable behaviour or be given any sense of morality and immorality. It seems to me that it is absolutely right that not only my department but local authorities also should give priority to making provision for those children. When my department approves nursery school places, we look for such factors when improving and considering priorities. I understand that investment. What we hope to do is to make better parents of those young people, who will be the parents of tomorrow's children.
I return now to statistics. Enough have been bandied around during the debate. At present—the latest statistics relate to 1992—over 90 per cent. of three and four year-olds receive some form of pre-school education with 26 per cent. admitted to maintained nursery schools and classes; (of whom four per cent. are in nursery schools and 22 per cent. in nursery classes); 23 per cent. are admitted to maintained primary schools (mainly four year-olds in reception classes); and 4 per cent. are admitted to special or independent schools. Thus, including pupils in independent and special

685
schools, the overall participation rate in education is 53 per cent. In addition, 41 per cent. attend playgroups (including some who go on to under-fives schooling daring the year and may also attend school and playgroup) and about 5 per cent. receive other group day care. Most playgroups are affiliated to the PPA. The playgroups cater for about 525,000 three and four year-olds. If one includes the under-threes also, the figure rises to 770,000—or 21 per cent. of all under-fives. That process involves 250,000 parents in running the groups.
As for four year-olds and what we call the "rising fives"—that is, the children who enter school in the term in which they are five—82 per cent. of four year-olds—that is, not including the rising fives or those children who are four by 31st August but of compulsory school age by January —are admitted to maintained nursery and primary schools.
When one puts all that together, one sees that the overall participation rate has gone up 10 percentage points since 1983. Over the same period, the maintained sector rate has risen by 9 percentage points and the number of under-fives in independent schools has risen by 56 per cent. So, the record is a good one.
The funding mixture of education, which is again probably a fine point between us, is a mix of private and public. All nursery education for the 53 per cent. of children to whom I have referred is free provision.
We are often compared with our European neighbours, so I should point out that 71 per cent. of the provision in Germany is paid by private funds. Indeed, in many of the European countries with which we are compared, some of the costs are met by private funds.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to the importance of taking into account another group of parents. The interests of the parents who wish to stay at home must be taken into account. We need to bear in mind that the rights of those parents who wish to stay at home to look after their children must be respected.
Reference has been made to a strategy on education and care for young people. Our policy is to encourage diversity and to devolve decisions to the local level. That way the needs of parents are more likely to be reflected in the services provided. It is important to ensure co-ordination between the various services. The Children Act provides for this at local level. At central government level, there is an inter-departmental consultative group. It is chaired by my honourable friend Mr. Bowis. The group relates specifically to under-fives and involves regular contact between departments. Those points of contact should be sufficient to ensure effective co-ordination of education and child care interests.
I think that there is agreement right across the House on the long term and wider benefits of nursery education. We accept that there are long-term educational and social benefits to be derived from pre-school education. Where we would depart from those who call for nursery education for all children is that we believe that this benefit can also be obtained equally, or more cost effectively, from other forms of under-fives provision such as playgroups. It is important that the provision should include the involvement of
686
parents; a suitable curriculum; appropriate resources and effective transition between stages. I have said that the issue of universal funding remains a point of conflict between us.
Reference has been made to research in the United States. I know of the High/Scope scheme, which was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. As he acknowledged, it is fair to say that that was a limited scheme. It was very intensively funded and involved special provision with very close parental involvement in a particular type of pre-school experience for especially disadvantaged children. It is not clear that that could be readily translated to Britain, so we are not comparing like with like. We shall certainly take account of all the research that is conducted into the provision for the under-fives.
The noble Viscount was also concerned about the United Kingdom's provision as compared with other countries. International comparisons are quite inadequate unless they allow for the range of settings for the under-fives and the ages from which the different countries provide compulsory schooling. When this is done, the UK compares very favourably. As I have said, over 90 per cent. of our three and four year-olds attend either playgroups, education or group day care. This is an impressive figure especially as we have compulsory full-time schooling from age five. I note what my noble friend Lady Faithfull said about that. However, not only do we admit children at the age of five in this country, but we also provide the highest number of years of compulsory schooling. We are equalled only by the Netherlands, where children start school at five and finish at 16. Most other countries provide only eight, nine or 10 years of education.
Children who are socially disadvantaged or whose first language is not English are certainly a. government priority. Under the Children Act, local authorities have a general duty to provide a range and level of services appropriate to the children in their area who are "in need". This includes those with social problems. The Children Act also lays down principles of good practice on how to respond to needs arising from different racial, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds. Our colleagues at the Department of Health issue guidance to assist local authorities to meet this responsibility. There is real evidence of local services being better targeted as a result of these new arrangements.
Criticisms have been made that playgroups are under-resourced, have inadequate premises, lack equipment and have insufficient trained staff. Some playgroups may not come up to scratch: some, we know, are excellent. As a means of delivering pre-school education, playgroups have shown that they can achieve results. In recognition of this, the Department for Education has very substantially increased its grant for the training activities of the Pre-School Playgroups Association—to £887,000 in the current year—with the aim of developing the educational content of playgroup activities. The Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence also make grants to the PPA.
We are aware that LEA financial support for playgroups is very variable—but almost half receive an

687
LEA grant towards running costs or receive some help with fees. In 1992 this contribution amounted to almost £7 million. We join with others in encouraging local authorities to regard playgroups as part of their comprehensive provision of education.
Many noble Lords have made the point that more help should be given to enable mothers to return to work. We have taken steps to help mothers who wish to return to work. Since April 1990, employees have not been taxed on the benefit of workplace nurseries provided by employers. Employers were already able to get tax relief, under the normal business rules, for day-to-day expenditure on child care provision. Also, the Department of Employment's current out-of-school child care grant—for which an allocation of £45 million has been announced—is helping employers. Many women returners benefit from the help in finding work that is given by the Employment Service and from the training programmes that are offered by the training and enterprise councils.
Many noble Lords were concerned about lone parents. It is not always easy for parents—particularly lone parents—to reconcile employment with family commitments. It would not be right to use taxpayers' money to subsidise the child care costs incurred by all parents, but there are special provisions that can help lone parents. These include the extra help given through the benefits system to lone parents, and the provision in the tax system whereby lone parents may claim an additional personal allowance.
My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve wanted us to encourage male teachers into the system. We have a teaching-as-a-career unit which is doing just that: trying to persuade young men to come into education, especially into the early years of education. My noble friend made a point about Northern Ireland. I am sure we all accept that greater integration of young people, and at the earliest age possible, can only be a good thing and would help to solve some of the problems.
My noble friend Lady Thatcher was mentioned a number of times during the debate. Reference was made to her statement back in 1972. The first thing I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is that her party has been in office a number of years since then. Its record does not bear too much scrutiny. I do not remember it having much of an impact on nursery education and certainly not on higher education. The proportion of children in nursery education at that time was only 40 per cent.; it is now 53 per cent. Only one in eight children went into higher education then and now one in three children goes into higher education. But the aim remains the same. When it can be afforded, when the balancing act between competing needs is addressed, we shall do what we can to improve the provision.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was interested in preparation for parenting. Much is already being done by schools, but my noble friend will know, as indeed will the House, that there has been an issue on the overloading of the national curriculum, which is being addressed by Sir Ron Dearing and his colleagues at the moment. The intention is to free up time during the
688
school day and week to allow schools more flexibility to provide alternative subjects. I know that a subject close to my noble friend's heart, such as home economics, could be reintroduced in what will be the equivalent of a day a week freed up during a child's school life.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, proposed the use of vouchers for under-fives. Let me answer him by quoting from a speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the North of England conference earlier this month, when he said:
"We do intend to explore ways of adding, as resources allow, to the choice already available to parents from all sources".
Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. We shall be exploring all possibilities.
On special needs for under-fives, a draft circular has been issued for children with special needs as guidance for local authorities which are making provision for under-fives. I know that that will be welcomed. It includes working together with the voluntary and private sectors as well as the state sector. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was worried about truanting and its cost. I notice the clock. I am running out of time. I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to continue that debate at another time, because the point he raises is complex.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked one or two questions. First, on ring-fencing expenditure, this is a House that has spent many hours arguing for the independence of local authorities to enable them to make their own decisions at a local level. If we were to pre-empt their funds and to ring-fence them for nursery education it would mean that we should be making the decisions nationally. I believe that local authorities will jealously guard their right to spend their grants in the way that they decide. I can say to the noble Baroness, because this is an important point, that no local authority can, in a cavalier fashion, merely close down nursery provision. Local authorities have to go through a procedure and come to our department. I cannot remember an application to close down nursery provision. It is much more likely that we should be asked to improve or expand nursery provision.
As for grant-maintained schools, they are in the same position as LEA-maintained schools, because the responsibility for expanding nursery education is that of the local authority. That does not prevent an individual school from saying, "We would like nursery provision", but it will be the local authority that will have to approve it.
I end on the point of balancing priorities. For bedtime reading, I have been browsing through some of the past Hansards and some of the political papers produced by the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, and they have made good reading. I have listed just a few areas upon which people wish to spend more money: nursery education, of course; more teachers in schools; more school transport; more on capital; more for housing; more for police; more for social services; more for local authorities; more for legal aid; greater increases in social security benefits; and greater increases in aid for special groups. That list is by no means complete.

689
Governments in office have to face the challenge of balancing competing needs with the cost of those needs to the people who pay.
Finally, I reiterate our approach towards the provision for under-fives. We are not complacent. We recognise the case for continuing to move towards greater access to a wider range of better quality provision. We have already made good progress, but further progress will depend, in part, on the resources that can be made available in this field, and that will mean, as I have said, balancing this and urgent calls with the limited total of public funding that can be afforded. Your Lordships' debate today, as always, will be a powerful contribution to that discussion.
8.35 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the clock is against us. I would like merely to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. There have been many moving and forceful speeches made today. I should like to draw attention, in particular, to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Bath, which, by any standards, was exceptional. We on these Benches obviously hope to hear him talk on our behalf and his own behalf on many occasions in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Summer Time
8.36 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that the European Community will delay the termination of Summer Time until 20th October, they will now take action in accordance with the Summer Time Consultation Paper (Cm. 722), the result of which demonstrated a majority in favour of this country adopting the same time as the rest of the European Community.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should perhaps explain at the outset that I may have the phraseology of the Question somewhat wrong in that I have referred to the date upon which the Community proposes to end its Summer Time as being definitively 20th October. I obtained that piece of information from a respectable newspaper; namely, the Daily Telegraph. It was only when I happened to look at the day upon which that date fell—a Thursday—that I realised that there might be some mistake. The seventh directive from the European Community refers to the fourth Sunday in October. The difference is only marginal and does not alter the subject matter of the Question.
Let us be clear about the Question that I am asking. It is, definitively, whether Her Majesty's Government:
"will now take action in accordance with the Summer Time Consultation Paper"
of 1989. I do not advocate, one way or the other, whether it is right or wrong to make any change, and, if so, what, or whether we should keep the status quo. It is a far-ranging question. I suggest respectfully to noble
690
Lords that if we went down that route we should be here for a long time. It is a matter for proper and serious debate.
I suppose that we have to hark back to the Summer Time Order debated in your Lordships' House on 14th July 1992 from which I should like to take one or two remarks made by my noble friend which appear in Hansard (cols. 198 to 202) of that date. We have been assured frequently—I repeat the word "assured"—that we should have an opportunity to consider this matter after the Community had come up with its own suggestions and requirements. For instance, during that debate my noble friend Lord Astor said:
"Strong views were expressed on both sides of the argument, and … we concluded that more time for reflection was required before bringing this matter to a decision".— [Official Report, 14/7/92; col. 198.]
That was nearly two years ago. It is a long time to be considering a matter. My noble friend went on to say that the Government also would wish to take account of a review of the future of Summer Time within the Community. That review has been completed.
In that debate support came from the party opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked whether the Government also had in mind that at the appropriate time there would be a proper parliamentary opportunity for a debate. Therefore, it would seem that the party opposite would like the opportunity of considering the issue in further detail.
At the end of the debate my noble friend Lord Astor said:
"it would clearly be premature to ask Parliament to reach a decision before the Commission's approach is clear. We shall keep in close touch with developments and report back to your Lordships in due course".—[Official Report, 14/17/92; col. 202.]
That simply has not happened.
In response to my letter of March 1993, my noble friend Lord Ferrers concluded his reply by stating:
"The short answer is that we shall want to wait until the European Commission has divested itself of its deliberations before we take any action ourselves".
I do not wish to play upon words but that appears to be a reasonably definitive statement; that when the Commission has made a decision there shall be a review of the matter or action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government.
The seventh directive from the Commission was proposed in September 1993 and it laid out the proposals. In essence, it was proposed that the termination of European Summer Time should be deferred from, I believe, 1st September to the end of October. The Commission wanted to fall in line with Great Britain and Northern Ireland and put back the change of the clocks on the Continent until the fourth Sunday in October. It was proposed that that situation should continue until 1998, some four years hence. I understand that no less than 10 member states of the Commission agreed with that; they actually agreed to harmonise with Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is only half a loaf, but I suppose that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. It avoids the infuriating business of changing all clocks and timetables twice within four or five weeks. However, I do not believe that it goes far enough.

691
The fact that 10 member states agreed attempts to harmonise their time with this country indicates that it is appropriate that we should at least be seen to be addressing ourselves to the point and that we should reach a definitive decision on what we want to do. Apart from anything else, it is not good manners towards our colleagues in Europe to do otherwise. We know that they want to harmonise completely. I should not have tabled the Question if I were not slightly inclined to that opinion myself. What will happen if, in four years' time, the Commission finds that it does not like the change on the fourth Sunday in October and wishes to return to the status quo? Is it not therefore eminently desirable that we in this country should reach a decision on what we want to do?
The results of questions circulated in the 1989 Green Paper broke down as follows: in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 96 per cent. of those who answered the questions indicated a wish to adopt Central European Time. In Scotland—and we know that there is a problem in Scotland —only 13 per cent. went along with that idea. The overall position for the United Kingdom showed 81 per cent. in favour.
I wish to choose my words carefully because I do not want to be seen to be anti-Scottish. I respectfully point out that there were only 5,475 responses from people in Scotland whereas, somewhat naturally, with a larger population, the responses from people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland totalled 25,392. It is a point for consideration that perhaps the tail ought not to wag the dog too much. If a majority in the rest of the United Kingdom wished to see a change it would not be right for the smaller minority to carry so much sway.
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to a magnificent publication entitled Time for Change published by the Policy Studies Institute. It is a clear and concise report and makes interesting reading. With reference to the 1989 Green Paper, the report states:
"In the event no action was taken. Given the convincing case for change which the Green Paper had presented, the survival of the status quo was bewildering. What the Guardian called 'a classic case of the views of the vocal minority triumphing over those of the silent majority'"
I need not elaborate any further on that. I could not have raised it better myself.
Are not Her Majesty's Government logically obliged to bring forward the necessary primary legislation, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Astor, and which would be required to adopt Central European Time? Should they not have it fully debated and aired and, it is hoped, voted upon in order that the matter can be settled in one way or the other? At least we would know then where we were going. Have there been any Cabinet consultations on the subject? What was the cost of setting up the inquiry? I have been unable to discover that because the analysts do not appear to be able to tell me. The fact is that public money was spent on the inquiry and it is pointless to publish a Green Paper, to ask questions, to receive the answers and then to pigeonhole the matter. If the Government are not prepared to do anything about it, will the Minister tell the House whose decision it was to pigeonhole the Green Paper?
692
As your Lordships can imagine, I feel strongly about the matter. If, when my noble friend replies, he finds that he is unable to provide even a chink of light at the end of the tunnel to indicate that there may be a reasonable opportunity of a debate and a decision taken on this matter within the very near future, I feel that it is incumbent upon somebody—it may be myself—to set in motion the necessary machinery to implement primary legislation. The matter can then be put to a vote and we can see what everybody wants. I make no pre-judgments about that. I believe that we, and the country, are entitled, to know that the matter is being properly and widely considered.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it is customary on these occasions to congratulate the noble Viscount who has tabled the Question, and I gladly do so. However, I rather wish that he had not done so.
The Green Paper was published in June 1989, and apart from a slight flurry of excitement a few months later and another palpitation two or three months ago, it has lain fallow for most of that time.
I should like to see the Green Paper lie fallow for all eternity because I do not at all support the notion that we should take up what the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, called Central European Time. The Government prefer to call it single double summer time—SDST. By doing that, I do not believe that they mean to dissociate themselves in any way from Europe.
We must remember that we have twice been round this course. During the war when I was a student in Glasgow, I lived in Troon. At that time we had double summer time. We had that experiment during the war because it seemed appropriate then —and no doubt it was. We take certain actions which seem appropriate in war time which may not seem appropriate in peacetime. It had an up-side. At the height of summer, on the longest day, towards the end of June, one could play golf at midnight. Not many people want to do that but it is possible. There was a down-side; namely, in January, in order to reach my college in Glasgow, I would catch a train from Troon at two minutes past seven in a kind of stygian darkness which is difficult to imagine. I arrived in Glasgow at quarter past eight, made my way up to college and I was in good time to watch the sun rising at around ten o'clock. That is ridiculous. That is the actuality of what life is like not very far away.
The point is that when one looks at one's diary and sees the time zones, one thinks in terms of the sun behaving in a neat way so that the zones are along the lines of longitude, which of course they are. But that is an idealised and inaccurate representation of what actually happens. Sunrise and sunset do not occur in a neat east-west configuration which fits snugly along the lines of longitude. If the sun behaved in that way, it would be necessary merely to shift the clock an hour or so for every 15 degrees that one moved east or west. But, in fact, the world is tipped on its axis and instead of being a north and south line, the path of the sun is like a spiral around the globe. That is demonstrated by the fact that Cape Town, which is almost due south from

693
London, is in a plus two hour time zone. Although it is on the meridian, near enough, the time there is not the same as it is in London.
The effect of that is exaggerated by the fact that the United Kingdom does not lie north and south. We think of it as lying north and south but it is tipped to the west. For example, Bristol is further east than Edinburgh. Therefore, the effect of the axis of the earth in relation to the sun is compounded by the fact that the country is tipped over towards the west. That means that the sunrise in Glasgow is something like 40 minutes later, and in Inverness it is rather more than an hour later, than it is in London. That is not a trivial matter. It is not a matter of the tail wagging the dog but rather of the dog taking a good look at what happens to the tail; and it should do that.
In effect it means that if the change were made and the Londoner were to arrive at his office at dawn, at round about 9 o'clock, his counterpart in Inverness would arrive an hour before dawn. That is no way to treat our fellow countrymen.
If that is uncomfortable for office workers, it is dangerous for construction workers. We must recall that the average hours of work in the construction industry are from about half past seven in the morning until about half past four in the afternoon. At half past seven in winter, the conditions are uncomfortable. They are obviously dark, although there is artificial light these days on building sites. It is cold, miserable and uncomfortable. Because it is cold, miserable and uncomfortable, it is also dangerous. People fall off scaffolding at half past seven in the morning. If the clocks are changed, we are not talking about half past seven in the morning but half past six in the morning when it is colder, darker, more miserable and more dangerous.
It may be said, "Oh well, the construction industry can change its hours and work later in the day". That is possible. However, the only effect of that would be to throw something like 1 million workers into the rush hour in the morning and in the evening. That would make the situation worse than it is at present.
There are technical difficulties. At this point, I should remind the House that I have been involved with the construction industry for many years. I may be said to be speaking on its behalf in a sense although it has not asked me to do so. One problem is that the wet trades—concreting, plastering, and so on—are affected considerably by temperature. Concreting cannot be carried out at a temperature below about three degrees centigrade. Generally speaking, that is reached at about half past nine in the morning. In SDST, that would be at about half past ten in the morning, and that would mean the effective loss of one hour's construction work. It is estimated that the cost of that would be about £400 million. I should add that that was the estimate when the Green Paper was published. No doubt there would be a higher estimate now. That would be a burden on society.
There is another group of people which we must remember; that is the postmen. In that regard I merely wish to draw the attention of the House to a debate in another place on 27th October 1993, a few months ago, when Mr. Nigel Waterson of Eastbourne proposed a Bill
694
to amend Summer Time. He received a reply from my honourable friend Mr. Peter Hain, a man with whom I hardly ever agree. However, I agree with him on this occasion. He argued the case for postal workers and referred to the dire effects on them of the proposed change. I do not wish to do any more than draw attention to that passage in the Official Report of the other place at which noble Lords may feel inclined to take a look.
We had another such experience in the late 1960s when the country was eager—indeed, avid—to go into Europe. It was felt that taking up European time would be a great aid to business. Well, we have been in Europe for 20 years and I must say that I cannot imagine that any of our difficulties in our European experience have actually been due to the time differences among ourselves, France and Germany.
The idea of time zones over a community the size of Europe is not unusual. Let us think, for example, of the United States. Suppose one were to superimpose the United States on a map of Europe. New York would be round about Constantinople—or, perhaps we should say, Istanbul—and California off the coast of Africa with Arizona somewhere in the Sahara Deserts. But the general mass of the United States would be not unlike that of western Europe, although somewhat further to the south.
The United States manages with four time zones. It is quite capable of carrying on business despite that fact. Last August, I travelled from Chicago to Pittsburgh, which is a distance of about 400 miles. That is about the distance from here to Glasgow. I am not asking for a time zone between London and Glasgow, even though it may come to that in due course. However, it is a little shorter than the distance between London and Frankfurt.
In my experience, businessmen in Chicago seem to be able to carry on business with businessmen in. Pittsburgh, despite the fact that they have to cross a time zone. It does not cause them the slightest bother. For example, if they have to telephone a man in Pittsburgh at 9 a.m., they actually get out of bed and telephone him at 8 a.m. Chicago time. It is quite possible. Indeed, my own colleagues do so. In my magazine publishing activities, we have advertising agents in Holland, Italy and elsewhere in continental Europe. My colleagues—happily, not myself—are involved in the advertising business. They get out of bed in time to telephone their counterparts in continental Europe. So far as I know, they suffer no great harm as a result. Sometimes, I dare say, they call from their motor cars using their mobile phones. Therefore, businessmen can get around the problem.
I have noticed that the argument in the press has changed a little. Whereas on the first occasion we spoke about war time and the exigencies of war and in the 1960s we spoke of the need for businessmen to get into Europe, the concentration now is on road accidents and how the proposed change would lead to increased road safety. I dare say that that is probably right. However, I have just two points to make in that respect. First, the most exciting and dire road accidents that happen in our country happen in the morning. They happen on the motorways and in conditions of fog. Of course, we have

695
motorway madness, and so on, compounding the situation; but those catastrophes would undoubtedly be made worse. There is no questioning that fact.
In conclusion, I should like to remind the House that the last experiment in the 1960s was brought to an end because a group of schoolchildren in the North of Scotland were mown down on their way to school in the darkness of the early morning. That had a salutary effect on the other place and the experiment was brought to a close with a vote, I think, of something like 360 or so against it and about 80 or so in favour. The other place expressed its views quite convincingly at the time. I have no reason to suppose that those views have changed. I sincerely hope that the Minister tells us at the end of the debate that he has had an interesting evening and that he proposes to put the Green Paper under his pillow and leave it there.
9.5 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I must say, first, that I do not really think that two years is a very long time to be considering such a very basic matter. Secondly, I think—and I say so unashamedly —that I shall speak for Scotland and explain how the people there feel about the proposed change. When the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, speaks about the country, I rather think that he is not really speaking about Britain; he is speaking about England.
When I opened the consultation document I started at the back with the appendices. In the list of those organisations wishing to retain the status quo which appears in Appendix E, I noticed without surprise that exactly half the 128 names—that is, 69—were Scottish. Then I looked at Appendix D containing the list of those in favour of SDST (that is, GMT plus one in winter, and GMT plus two in summer): only 15 out of 188 organisations were Scottish.
Appendix C—those favouring harmonisation of Summer Time dates—had eight Scottish names to it, or just under a fifth of the total, the population of Scotland being about one-tenth of the total. There was no appendix giving a list of those opposed to harmonisation, I presume because no one was.
I then looked at Appendix B—the comparison between the sunrise and sunset times in London and Glasgow. I looked at it with disgust for Glasgow is well south of the middle of Scotland even if you take no account of Orkney and Shetland. When you get to the far north, the time difference is far greater. It seems to me that, so far as the Home Office is concerned, Scotland stops at a line drawn between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Perhaps they think that north of that lies nothing but uninhabited wilderness.
I then turned to the conclusions and to the arguments in favour of SDST in paragraph 97. I must say that I do not think much of them. I cannot see that there is any proof that the adoption of SDST would reduce the number of accidents. In fact I believe the reverse might be the case. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has just said on that matter. I should think that, if we adopted SDST, there would be more accidents in the morning and fewer in the evening.
696
I do not think it would save much electricity, certainly not in the north. Consumption would merely increase in the mornings and decrease in the evenings.
As regards crime, surely the way to combat crime is to hang or punish adequately criminals and not to monkey about with the clocks. As the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, further stated, businessmen cope perfectly well with different east/west time zones and I cannot see that there is any problem in coping with north/south time zones. As the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has also said, the adoption of SDST would pose all sorts of problems for construction workers and also for farmers. Finally, why should the Scots be forced to accept something they do not want because the Scandinavians have it?
The most important argument of all is that the Scots, particularly those living in the north and those living in the country, do not want this provision. It is important to remember that we had a trial run in 1968 to 1971 for three horrible years. Therefore we know what the proposed measure is like and we hated it. Where I live, which is about on the same parallel as Inverness, it was dark until nearly 10 o'clock in the morning, and further north it was dark until far later.
If people in England want SDST, let them have it, but let us in Scotland retain the status quo. I believe that that is what most people want. I have to say that the Government are extremely unpopular in Scotland at the moment and forcing SDST on the Scots will merely make matters infinitely worse, and I think it would be a foolish thing to do. What I am arguing for is a form of subsidiarity. It should be possible to have the Border as a demarcation line, or alternatively the 55th or 56th parallel. Personally, however, I should favour the Border. I believe that that would be much simpler. On the other hand, having argued like a tiger cat against synchronisation of times, I would certainly support the suggestion that Summer Time dates should be harmonised. I note that no one seems to be quarrelling with that.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, we are indeed indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, for raising this issue. The arguments for setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year to coincide with continental time are well rehearsed. Indeed I believe that the social and economic advantages to the United Kingdom are so overwhelming that the tardiness of the Government in introducing this reform is near incomprehensible.
I hope noble Lords will not mind if I follow two speeches that have accentuated the negative by trying for a moment to accentuate the positive aspects that might come out of this move. Noble Lords will recall the end of the 1971 experiment. At that time the vast majority of local authorities and organisations that were consulted—it was a comprehensive consultation—voted in favour of the change but their MPs failed to echo that opinion in the House of Commons. The reason for that failure was the rather emotional stance that was adopted—it was adopted tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon—that children would be killed when going to school in the morning because it would

697
be darker. First, I wish to remind your Lordships that children in Scotland already go to school in the dark and that sunrise in Inverness is already 40 minutes later than that in London.
There are advantages at the other end of the scale: children will come home in daylight, construction industry workers will be able to work longer in the afternoon in daylight, and the tourist industry will benefit enormously because there will be greater recreational time in the evening. All of that will greatly benefit the economy of Scotland. It seems to me that to take this decision on the entirely emotional basis that more children will be killed on their way to school is to miss the balancing statistic that very many fewer children will he killed in the afternoon on their way home from school. If we are to look at this matter objectively and not too emotionally we must try to weigh that in the balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, dismissed the fact that there would he many fewer accidents. This matter has been extremely well researched. There is no doubt that the figures put forward have great merit. We are not talking about the lives of one or two people being saved as a result of the change. We are talking about annual savings of 140 fatal injuries, 520 serious injuries and 1,300 minor accidents. Those are quite apart from 32,000 fewer cars being damaged, which is one of the projected benefits if this change is introduced into the United Kingdom. What is more, in Scotland alone 60 deaths and 270 major injuries on the road will be prevented, quite apart from the car accidents themselves.
These are very important figures to bear in mind. One thinks about how the Government reacted to the Hungerford massacre where a lunatic got hold of a gun and killed a few people. The House was subjected to days and nights of legislation designed to prevent people being killed in such a manner. One would have thought that in any balance of priorities the significance of the huge saving of life and injury from which this country could benefit as a result of the time change would be a primary consideration in our minds.
There is more to it than that. Lighter afternoons will bring about a huge social benefit, not just tourist and recreational benefits. The fact is that an increasingly elderly population of this country are curfewed in their homes by darkness. Another hour's light in the afternoon will give them more freedom and pleasure and broaden their lives significantly. That is why on those two counts alone, quite apart from the economic advantages, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and such well trusted organisations as Age Concern are very much in favour of this measure. Almost every major national body that one can think of is in favour of it. Therefore it is extraordinary that the Government resist it for what I believe are somewhat uninformed, emotional reasons put forward by those in Scotland. Those in the extreme north will no doubt be affected but no more than those in parts of Scandinavia who seem to be able to live perfectly satisfactorily with this situation.
At the end of the day, it is the job of the Government to lead and reach a balanced and statesmanlike decisionon
698
on such serious matters. I have not stressed the economic advantages of co-ordinating time fully with Europe because they are self-evident. It is a paradox, to say the least, that in the year that we joined the EC (1971) the Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, took us out of the same time period.
I understand and accept the sensitivity that the Government have about Scottish opinion. No doubt if I lived in the north of Scotland I would also feel strongly about the matter. However, perhaps I may draw a parallel between this measure and the recent introduction of the measure to co-ordinate male and female retirement ages at 65. It appeared that the Government dodged and put off biting the bullet on that issue for about five years, but subtly during that period they let the arguments speak for themselves. Right is might. The expected vociferous feminist opposition to this very sensible co-ordination simply never happened. It did not happen because the facts spoke for themselves. The logic of the need for change was quietly put and the case was self-evident.
I believe that it is the job of the Government not to run away from the decision to effect this change, but to take the trouble to explain the facts, take Scotland by the hand, point out the economic and social advantages which would flow to Scotland—not just the disadvantages that have been accentuated tonight—and honestly to admit that, though there will be some inconvenience to a very small minority of people in the north, in a democracy the massive overall public gain that will flow elsewhere has to be regarded as paramount. Therefore I urge the Government not to continue to run away from the issue, but to face up to it and to make the change that will be socially and economically beneficial to the country.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I normally agree wholeheartedly with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, says. However, on this occasion I have to part company with him. In introducing the Question, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, drew attention to an error in the wording to do with 20th October. I have to point out another error in the wording which refers to the possibility of this country,
"adopting the same time as the rest of the European Community".
There is no way in which this country can have the same time as the rest of the European Community because there is no way in which the European Community can have the same time throughout. It is not the case that the United Kingdom is unique in the European Community in not adhering to central European time. As noble Lords would expect in a Community which spans 39 degrees of longitude from the Dingle Peninsula in the west to Kastellorizon, just east of Rhodes, in the east, the Community contains three different time zones, just as Australia does. Australia spreads across 40 degrees of longitude and in that respect is almost identical to the European Community.
The western time zone, GMT, contains the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, Madeira and the Canaries. Until last year it also contained mainland Portugal. However, the Portuguese—I think mainly in

699
an effort to attract well-to-do tourists from Spain where people are used to light evenings and eating late—changed to Spanish time in 1993. My Portuguese friends are still reserving judgment on the change.
In the centre zone one has most of western and central Europe and in the east one has Greece. I am sure that the proponents for moving to central European time would not suggest that the mere fact of EC membership obliges all member states everywhere to adhere to a common time. For example—it seems fanciful in the extreme at this moment but miracles happen—if Russia ever became democratic and prosperous enough to qualify for EC membership, presumably she would be admitted to the Community in due course. There is a seven-hour time difference between Moscow and Vladivostok—the same time difference that exists between London and Denver, Colorado, in one direction and London and Bangkok in the other. It would be amusing in the extreme if M. Jacques Delors or his successor were to decree that, nevertheless, all European Community countries should adopt a uniform time zone.
What is the EC doing issuing directives on this matter? What has happened to the principle of subsidiarity about which we have heard recently? In the United States, the land of the free, individual cities are free to decide their own starting and finishing times for the adoption of Summer Time. For hardheaded, economic reasons most of them decide to co-ordinate their starting and finishing times. Nevertheless, any city which wishes to break away from the crowd is free to do so. In the centralised dirigiste Colbertian entity in which we now find ourselves, such freedoms evidently will not be permitted.
A few days ago, a well known Cabinet Minister, Mr. Michael Portillo, attacked elites who, he claimed, were mocking and undermining long-admired British traditions and institutions. What could be more of a British institution in which to take pride and from which to draw inspiration than Greenwich, and everything that goes with it—its magnificent architecture, its observatory and, of course, the Greenwich Meridian?
If Britain—followed in due course, I dare say, by Ireland, north and south—decided to become part of the central European zone, then the only territories left to adhere to the once-famous GMT would be, roughly from north to south: the Faroes, Iceland, Madeira, the Canaries, Morocco—the only country of any size in population terms —Sierra Leone, Gambia, Togo, Liberia and half-a-dozen other very small West African countries, Ascension Island, St. Helena and Tristan da Cunha. What a come-down!
Some may argue that these considerations of sentiment and tradition are all very well, but what about practical considerations? What about the poor businessman who has to get up at some ungodly hour to fly to Paris, Brussels, Dusseldorf or Milan to arrive at a meeting in the office that day at 9 a.m. or 10 a.m.? As the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, reminded us, exactly the same problem is faced by our American counterparts when flying from Chicago to New York or from Los Angeles to Phoenix, Arizona. Our Canadian
700
counterparts face the same when flying from Vancouver to Calgary or from Toronto to Halifax. Indeed, they are rather better off than our Australian counterparts who have to fly from Perth to Adelaide because, as your Lordships know, there is a time difference of one-and-a-half hours between Perth and Adelaide.
One of the reasons that London is still about the world's most highly favoured financial centre is because, from the time point of view, it lies nicely between the financial centres of New York, Hong Kong, Sydney, Tokyo, and so on. Some of those advantages, especially vis-a-vis the USA, would—"evaporate" is too strong a word—diminish if we switched to central European time.
That may be so, some would argue, but the switch would nevertheless massively reduce crime and road accidents. Under the present dispensation—in other words with ourselves sticking to the GMT time zone—sunset and sunrise in midwinter would occur at almost exactly the same time in Berlin as they do in London and almost exactly the same time in Copenhagen as they do in Glasgow, give or take five or six minutes. So if the hard-headed, practical, highly scientific Danes and Germans believed that there is anything in the argument that darker mornings and slightly lighter evenings would reduce crime and traffic accidents, they would surely have switched to eastern European time many years ago.
Do I think that any further change from the status quo is desirable? Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. I urge Her Majesty's Government to do their best to persuade our continental partners of the merits of switching the starting date of Summer Time from the end of March to mid-March, as used to happen in this country until quite recently. Such a change would not be at the expense of the Scots, the Northern Irish, the farmers or the construction industry. It is a modest example of harmonisation which would bring disadvantages to practically no one and would find favour with and benefit practically everyone in whatever country they happen to live.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity given by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret to debate the issue tonight, not least because I found myself largely in sympathy with many of his arguments. I have to say at the outset that I was not desperately sympathetic with those advanced in favour of Scotland.
We, or Europe, have taken a small and tenuous step in the right direction by agreeing to harmonise the autumn changeover date. That will be of enormous benefit to a very successful branch of our industry—the carriers. I know that when I mention the word "carriers" my noble friend on the Front Bench twitches a little; but I shall not go down our usual path tonight. The fact that one no longer has to produce three different timetables every year is an enormous advantage to them.
However, I believe that at the moment we have the chance to build on Europe's example and to go further by means of joining a European time zone rather than lagging behind it. Business would benefit because there

701
would be an extra hour of the day when most of Europe's businessmen are in their offices at the same time as British businessmen are.
I declare an interest on behalf of the British Tourist Authority. When I worked in Stockholm, London was always one hour behind. When I worked in London, Stockholm tended to be one hour ahead. That complicates matters because it shortens the time that is available to one. Also, because we come in one hour later, we all get onto the international dialling network at the same time. I wonder how many noble Lords can remember that dulcet tone: "All lines to Brussels are engaged. Please try again later". In that sense, the change would certainly be of benefit to businessmen. There would also be the benefit of face-to-face contact, since travel patterns would be changed.
I said that the harmonisation of the autumn date would benefit the carriers. But I believe that harmonisation throughout the time pattern would benefit them even more. To support that, there is the timetable point that we have already raised. There would be some reduction in the need for British airlines to night-stop aircraft in Europe in order to take account of the morning peak period for travel into Britain. At the same time, they would benefit a little as there would be a disadvantage to European carriers, who at the moment get into London in particular so early that they can take advantage of the outward rush from London into Europe at the end of the morning peak. Common time zones would certainly reduce that advantage a little; and it would be to the advantage of our aviation industry.
As has already been mentioned, the tourism industry certainly believes that a common time pattern would be advantageous. On the one hand, the industry believes that more daylight later in the day would extend the autumn tourism season by some two months. Such a change must benefit the industry, which is already one of Britain's fastest growing and successful ones. That would increase both domestic tourism—Britons travelling within Britain (dare I say it, English people travelling to Scotland?) and also international tourism, which would be of benefit to our tourism balance of payments, which is not, alas, as favourable as I should like it to be.
Furthermore, the Sports Council has established that additional daylight later in the day would be of great benefit in exploiting the many sporting facilities that are nationally, municipally or privately owned in this country.
I have one final reason for hoping that eventually we shall get into the same time zone as Europe. It is a more personal one. I like daylight, and I prefer to have it when I am up and about than when I am down and abed.
Of course I take note of the Scottish anxieties. But I should like to put the counter-argument. I have spent a quarter of my life in Sweden and Norway. Much of that time was spent in Gothenburg, which is on the same level of latitude as Aberdeen, and much of it was spent in Stockholm and Oslo, on approximately the same latitude as the Fair Isle Channel. Having done so, I have become used to the Scandinavian life-style, which maximises the use of available daylight. Schools start early. Business starts early. Shops are increasingly
702
opening earlier. Everything happens much earlier. The rush hour on my local train in Stockholm was 6.30 to 7.30 a.m., whereas in London it would probably tend to be 7.30 to 9 a.m. That is an important point. Obviously, if one is to try to change people's life-styles—and quite clearly a time zone change would have a major impact in Scotland—one has to give the people whose life-styles one is changing the facilities to make that change.
I am a European by heredity (through my grandparents), by environment, upbringing, education, eventually by marriage, and by career. I hope that it will not be too long before I am also a European in terms of time zone.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in this discussion. However, I feel that there are some elements of confusion in it. Apart from some noble Lords who may have confused longitude with latitude, there may also be some confusion in the wording, some of which was referred to by the noble Viscount himself.
I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to wind up the debate for some clarification. The Question implies that the European Community has already decided an agreed day of termination of Summer Time. However, I understand that that is not the case. The noble Viscount mentioned that Denmark and the United Kingdom have still not signed the directive which requires that all the clocks be changed on the same day. It would be very helpful if the noble Earl could clarify the position and tell us whether the document has been signed or when it will be signed and, if there is any delay, the real reason for it. This country is one of the main beneficiaries of having clocks set at the same time all over Europe.
That day is the day following the third Saturday or, if that day is Easter Day (which will not be in this century), the day following the second Saturday in March and the day following the fourth Sunday in October. If those specific days can be agreed throughout Europe it will help enormously in time-tabling, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and other speakers, especially on the cross-Channel rail service, which is to come into operation this year. Millions of pounds will have to be spent on rescheduling the timetable and on additional train services, and so on, if this matter is not sorted out before then. Despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I see no advantage in delaying or forgetting about the directive. It is quite right that it should not go away.
Speaking as a fellow Scot to some noble Lords who have already spoken, I feel that there is always a general hostility to any suggestion that comes from south of the Border or across the water and affects Scotland; that such a suggestion must be a bad one, and therefore rejected. This proposal is just one more. I sometimes allow myself the luxury of sharing with many other Scots, and possibly some Members of the other place who speak on this topic, the feeling that Scotland somehow should be preserved independently of both time and space. It can be seen as some sort of

703
"Brigadoon" where every night is Burns' supper night—somewhere that is different from the rest of Europe and something that is entirely Scottish. The debate about time is a perfect example of how the Scots can show their independence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and others asked, how is it that people in Norway, Sweden and other Northern latitudes are not bothered by this situation? It seems to bother some of the noble Lords who have spoken. They seem to be bothered by the time and the dark. There are adequate proper lighting systems in their streets. People do not walk about in the dark. They walk abut in the light. Scotland exports more than 50 per cent. and possibly 70 per cent. of all the electricity that it generates. I feel that perhaps some of the local councils should not be quite so mean as they are by not providing adequate public lighting in small villages and around schools and places where children are picked up by cars in the morning. That is something that could be done. With the lighting systems that are now available on the market it is possible to have more lighting without polluting and obscuring the night sky with a horrid orange glow.
There have been one or two misalignments in longitude and latitude in some of the comments so far. If noble Lords will bear with me for a second, I shall try to explain. Since time immemorial in Britain the reasons for the various daylight changes have been astronomical. They are changes which are due to the two equinoxes and the two solstices that occur every year. At the equinoxes the local times of sunrise and sunset are roughly equal all over the world. Most of the year the variations of sunrise and sunset in different northern latitudes do not affect the working day. They affect the times of leisure, a point which again has been mentioned by other noble Lords, but not the working day.
At the summer solstice there is an early sunrise in the north of Scotland combined with a late sunset. In fact, if double Summer Time were in operation the sun would set in Inverness about half an hour into the next day—0030 hours. It is in the months of November, December and January that difficulties begin to arise in the working hours. For instance, today the sun rose in London at approximately 0755 hours and set at 1628 hours, while in Inverness the sun did not rise until 0844 but set around the same time as it did in London. A number of noble Lords did not make the point that sunsets are virtually the same in winter regardless of the location in Britain; it is only the sunrise which varies. I shall not go into the complications of why that occurs.
The difference in the times of sunrise and sunset are governed by nature and cannot be altered. What can be altered are the times of the working day to suit, for instance, the schools in those latitudes. There is a strong case for the Government to do more than they are at the moment to try and persuade local schools and councils to consider putting back the time of the morning school in northern latitudes. There is also a case for doing more to supply school children with reflective clothing or belts, again in northern latitudes.
My noble friend Lord Monson asked what was to happen in Russia. When the noble Earl replies perhaps
704
he will confirm that, as I understand it, Russia has agreed to take Central European Time regardless of the extraordinary time zone differences in that country. They want to do business with Europe and are prepared to move into Central European Time. That was bound to happen. Businessmen the world over are trading in markets on a global basis. I see nothing wrong or peculiar in their using Europe, even an expanded Europe, to use the same time zones for business.
We must recognise that there are changes which are due to nature and nature alone that cannot be altered. It is us, as homo sapiens, who must adapt to them as best we can; we must obtain the best out of our working day and maximise the use of the natural sunlight that is given to us in northern latitudes. I therefore ask the noble Earl a final question. If the directive is to be signed shortly, as I understand it is, can he confirm that there will be harmonisation on the day that all the clocks change? I refer to the day I described in March and the day in October. That will be simple to achieve and will not affect any of the problems that other noble Lords seem to experience. It will take us a great step forward.
The British Horological Institute, to which I am a consultant—which does not seem to have been consulted under the Green Paper but I hope that it was, even though it is not recorded—would like confirmation that the Government intend to do something about the situation. It makes obvious commonsense and takes us one step nearer the possibility of a global synchronisation of those days which recognise the natural changes by which the planet is affected.
9.43 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the gratitude of those of us on this side of the House to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, for bringing this matter back before the House is, at the same time, matched by sympathy for the Minister who must shortly reply. Yesterday evening he faced a barrage of criticism from every part of the House during the Second Reading of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. He manfully defended the Government with his characteristic swash and buckle against charges which included introducing unnecessary legislation without seeking proper consultation.
No sooner has he bandaged up his wounds and limped back to his post tonight than he finds himself under attack yet again, somewhat less extensively and less comprehensively perhaps, but this time for the Government's inaction, for their failure to legislate and for the interminable consultation on this matter. I am not in the least bit surprised that the Government have chosen to prevaricate on this one.
When he was last called upon to deal with this matter in the House back on 10th December 1992 the noble Earl described the whole subject as one of,
"beastly and foul complexity".—[Official Report, 10/12/92; col. 312.]
I can well understand the Government's reasons for indecision. If they take one course on Summer Time they will surely incur the wrath of 15,000 members of the Scottish NFU. I have no doubt that the noble Earl can picture thousands of elderly crofters, led perhaps by

705
the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, packing into the Peers' Lobby to complain that they are going to be forced to milk their cows in darkness and thus incur additional paraffin costs for their Tilley lamps. If the Government do nothing then I suspect that the noble Earl fears for his safety at the hands of some crazed Eurobond dealer who, with millions at stake, has been sitting drumming fingers on his desk top, trying to telephone Continental offices when everyone has gone home due to the time change, and has finally snapped. But I am afraid that the Government can prevaricate no longer over this issue.
The consultation document on the whole issue of Summer Time was presented to Parliament as long ago as June 1989. Those consultations could scarcely have been wider. Among those who made submissions, according to the appendices at the end, were the Briar Pipe Trade Association, Butlins, the Jockey Club, Friends of the Earth and the Zip Fastener Manufacturers Association. Indeed a list of those who did not make submissions would have been very much shorter. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has managed to identify one of them.
An overwhelming majority of those who made submissions or were consulted found in favour of the adoption of a Central European time. Did the Government reach a decision as a result? In the inappropriately titled "Conclusion" section of the paper the Government's position is set out. I quote from page 27:
"the Government recognises that there are many, particularly in Scotland, who are opposed to any change in the present position. This paper is intended to stimulate discussion on the issue and the options to assist the Government in reaching a decision".
That was the Government's conclusion at the end of that paper. That was four and a half years ago.
Two years later, on 14th July 1992, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was sent into bat introducing the Summer Time Order in the House. That gave the Government a further two years of the status quo in order,
"to enable the Government to complete their consideration of the options for future Summer Time policy including whether there is a case for change".
The noble Viscount promised to discuss the position and report back to your Lordships' House.
Six months passed and by December 1992 the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was growing restless about the position and asked Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the single European Market in early 1993 and the imminent opening of the Channel Tunnel, they would expedite their review of the desirability of adopting Central European time. The noble Earl then told him that the Commission was reviewing its position, and added:
"We shall bring forward our proposals when the approach of the Commission is clear".—[Official Report, 10/12/92; col. 312.]
Another two years have passed by and now the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, wants some answers, as do some of the rest of us. The Government, I fully understand, may not wish to upset the Ladies Scottish Climbing Club, which argued for the status quo in the consultative document, or the British Edible Pulse
706
Association, which wanted single/double Summer Time. But in the words of a well known television quiz master, it must surely be "Make your mind up time".
I speak for myself in expressing a personal view. But at the very least, when France is only about 30 minutes away; when we are part of a single market; when, like it or like it not, we are daily more closely linked to the European Community and when many people are commuting regularly to and fro, both for work and pleasure, business, travel, communications and tourism would all be simplified if we shared the same time as our European partners or at the very least, if the question of Summer Time dates was harmonised.
Apart from some of those who live in Scotland, who, if their arguments tonight are right, are doomed to live short lives in total darkness until, perhaps mercifully, they are wiped out on the roads should Central European Time be adopted, I suspect that it does not really matter to most of us in practice what dates are adopted for Summer Time or how that time is calculated, so long as the dates are the same as those of our close European neighbours and we all know where we are.
So I ask the Minister tonight to muster such strength as he can command after last night; to take his courage, as usual, in both hands and to tell us at last what the Government intend to do.
9.51 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is always a fascinating person both to listen to and to follow. I shall cogitate a little on what she has said. She spoke in reply to the Question of my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. He has always had a longstanding interest in this subject which he has frequently expressed in that characteristically forthright style of his when expounding the views which he holds. Of course, in this he is not alone.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for what she said. She began her speech, and I thought, "Now, there is a person who really understands the difficulties". In what she said she encapsulated exactly what I was thinking. Yesterday we had the police Bill and I, as the representative of Her Majesty's Government, was castigated for being, as I believe someone said, a young man in a hurry who wants to get on and do things. Why can he not listen and take note of what everyone else says? Today I am being castigated as an old man in a rut who will not get on and make up his mind and come to a conclusion. The noble Baroness understood that. I wish she had been here yesterday, but she was not—anyhow, not participating in that respect.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret is always keen on getting a move on on this subject. When he made his speech it seemed to me pretty obvious that that is what we should do. That was until the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that the whole thing is totally different in Scotland and that he could not think why on earth anyone should agree with my noble friend sitting behind me. Then the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, said that she agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.

707
As they were talking, I recalled the days when I was in Scotland during the war. We had Greenwich Mean Time plus two. We were in Stranraer, which is only just north of the Border. I remember that it was light at night at 12 o'clock. I always wondered how that was. It seemed to me that, if you subtract two from GMT plus two, two hours from that would mean it would still be light at 10 o'clock. But it is not like that in the south of England. I always think of that as part of my childhood which I shall always remember. The curious part was that my school was moved to Stranraer, oddly enough, to the home of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. I well remember the headmaster saying to us, "We have a new boy coming this term. We must all be polite to him because this is his house. He is a fellow called Simon Mackay". That fellow, Simon Mackay, appeared in a kilt and we all thought that was very strange because we had all come from the south of England. We still think that he is quite strange—in a very agreeable way. I shall always think of that occasion whenever I think of that castle; and whenever I do, I think of the very light nights as a result of GMT plus two but, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said, that is nothing compared with the light in Inverness.
I was fascinated, too, by the argument of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that if we were to move to Central European Time, crime would decrease. She had a very abrupt answer—that we should hang everyone but not monkey around with the clocks. We can all understand that very simplistic attitude. Some of us might agree with her—but not everyone. However, I think that comparing whether one should hang people for certain crimes or whether we should move the clocks back is rather like saying, "Would you like a slice of Gorgonzola or would you prefer to go for a drive in a motor car?" There does not seem to be total relevance between the two.
My noble friend Lord Vinson then came along to say that he thought that the Government should take, as he described it, a strong and statesmanlike decision on this matter. In other words, why do the Government not get on and agree with his point of view? My noble friend Lord Mountevans said that he likes daylight to be when he is up and not when he is in bed. So, there is an enormous divergence of view over what appears to be quite a simple subject. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, encapsulated that by saying that he cannot see any reason why on earth we should not change to Central European Time now. All that I can say to that is that it shows that those who hold views on this matter are quite convinced that only their view is reasonable and that everyone else's view is totally unreasonable.
There are many people who would agree with the firm conviction of my noble friend Lord Mountgarret of the benefits which would accrue if the United Kingdom were to adopt Central European Time; but others take the opposite view. I hope that my noble friend will at least be reassured to hear that the Government are actively considering whether there is a case for moving to Central European Time and that we expect to reach a conclusion soon. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, always an impatient young lady in a hurry, wants to
708
know the answer straight away, but she must wait just a little. We shall need to weigh both sides of the argument carefully and we shall have to take proper account of the many issues which my noble friend and others have raised.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret referred to the change to the end of Summer Time which is proposed by the 7th European Community Directive. This directive proposes that, from 1996 onwards, all member states should end Summer Time on the last Sunday in October. This would have the effect of bringing the rest of Europe, which at present ends Summer Time one month earlier at the end of September, into line with the United Kingdom and Ireland. And so, in the words of 1066 And All That, that would be a "Good Thing".
Negotiations on the directive are not yet complete, but the outcome will be relevant to our consideration of future Summer Time arrangements, as it will, in effect, change the periods of summer and winter as they occur under Central European Time.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was concerned about the European Community directive and subsidiarity. I can only tell him that the European Community's interest in Summer Time is confined only to the start and the end dates. The United Kingdom is content with the terms of the latest draft directive; but we have argued in the negotiations in Brussels that, on subsidiarity grounds, it should be a matter for a recommendation—in other words, for guidance rather than for a directive, which is a European Community law.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was also concerned about the directive. A common position on the directive among member states has not yet been reached because the procedures which are required by Community law, including consultation with the European Parliament, have not yet been completed. No member state has yet formally indicated acceptance of the directive. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in answer to a specific question, that if the latest European Community directive is adopted it will mean that all European Community countries start and end Summer Time at the same time. I cannot say when the Council of Ministers will be in a position to decide upon the directive. It will depend upon when the procedures under European law are complete.
Although the European Community proposes harmonisation of the end dates of Summer Time, there is no question of the European Commission obliging the United Kingdom to join Central European Time. In other words, it is not seeking harmonisation of time zones. Whether the UK should move to Central European Time will be decided on its merits, and I fear that that is not as straightforward an issue as my noble friend or others would seem to suggest.
As many of your Lordships will recall, the 1989 Green Paper canvassed opinions on options for future Summer Time arrangements. The retention of the status quo—that is, Greenwich Mean Time and Greenwich Mean Time plus one hour from the end of March to the end of October was the option most strongly favoured in Scotland. In England and Wales there was considerable

709
support for the adoption of GMT plus one hour in winter and GMT plus two hours in summer; in other words, moving to Central European Time.
Opinions were strongly divided, and the Government concluded that, as there was such a divergence of view, it would be in the wider interest to allow more time to enable the arguments to be given the consideration which they deserved.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret asked about the cost of the Green Paper. The information on the cost of the consultation exercise is not readily available, but apart from the cost of publishing the Green Paper, which would be at least partly met by sales through HMSO, there was no significant additional expenditure. The cost of drafting the Green Paper and analysing and advising the responses was met within established resources. It has not been pigeonholed as he rather obliquely suggested; it has merely highlighted the extraordinary divergence of opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, taking, as usual, the opposite view, said, "Put it under the pillow and forget about it". A child's joy in putting a sweet under the pillow is that it can always pick it out later and suck it. I dare say that that is what will happen.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret was worried about the responses to the Green Paper. He quoted various figures. They include both the letters and the signatures on the petitions. In England and Wales, a total of 598 letters and 100 per cent. of the signatures on petitions supported Central European Time. In Scotland, of course, the reverse is the case: 90 per cent. of letters and 80 per cent. of petitions supported the status quo.
The arguments put forward in support of a move to Central European Time rest mainly on the expected reduction in road traffic casualties, to which my noble friend Lord Vinson, referred; the easier communication between the UK and Europe, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred; and the social advantage of lighter evenings. Of those, the savings in road casualties is the one which is the most easily supported by statistical evidence.
My noble friend Lord Vinson gave figures. I can give him the same or different figures. My figures are that the Department of Transport has estimated that, if Central European Time had been in force in 1991, about 140 deaths, 520 seriously injured people and 2,000 casualties in total would have been saved. I do not quite understand how one works out such mysterious figures, but the statisticians have a remarkable way of doing those things. I have no reason to think that they are incorrect. It is of particular interest that three-quarters of those savings would have occurred in the 22 weeks during the winter months when GMT is at present in force.
The move to Central European Time would also be supported by many in the business community. They argue that by entering the Central European Time zone the United Kingdom will gain a competitive advantage from the longer period in which business can be transacted. Business travel will also become easier, reducing the need for very early starts and overnight stays. Against that, it must be acknowledged that
710
countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia straddle several different time zones and there appears to be no evidence that businessmen there cannot adapt themselves perfectly satisfactorily. Of course, the harmonisation of our time with that of our European partners would widen the difference between members and the United States.
Among the other arguments for Central European Time is that tourism, which is a major growth industry in the British economy, would benefit by enabling the tourist season to be extended. The responses to the Green Paper also showed that the opportunity which might be afforded by lighter evenings for greater participation in sport and leisure activities after work and school weighed particularly heavily. While there is no evidence that a change to Central European Time would affect crime rates, it could help at least to reduce the fear of crime, in particular among the more vulnerable members of society such as the elderly, who are less willing to go out after dark. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who has such an abrupt reaction to crime, will no doubt take comfort from that fact.
While there would undoubtedly be benefits from a move to Central European Time, we must also recognise that there could be drawbacks. This would apply in particular to those sections of the community who would be most affected by the darker winter mornings which Central European Time would certainly bring. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that, for instance, Central European Time would have the result that the sunrise in Glasgow in December would not be until 9.48 a.m.—that is, nearly 10 o'clock. It would, of course, be later still for places further north.
There are reservations too about a change to Central European Time among those groups which start work early, especially those who work out of doors, such as postmen, building and construction workers and farmers. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, they are concerned that under Central European Time there would be a longer period when they would be working in the dark before sunrise, which would not only be unpopular but which could, they fear, lead to more occupational accidents and slower working. The National Farmers' Union has said that the darker winter mornings would necessitate arable farmers delaying an hour before beginning work on their crops in the growing season. As a farmer, I have never followed that argument but I am sure that if the National Farmers' Union says so it must be true. Livestock farmers would be similarly disadvantaged because, I suppose, the cows would eat their food an hour earlier or later depending on how the clock moved. It is argued that the time could not be spent on other important tasks such as the maintenance of machinery. Again, I am surprised by that because it seems to me that one can maintain one's machinery in the dark just as well as one can in the light. Apparently, the National Farmers' Union find that an important factor.
Builders, like farmers, also spend most of their working time out of doors. Traditionally they start work early, usually between 7.30 and 8 a.m. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred to that and said

711
graphically that they fell off their scaffolding at 7.30. He does not want the change because, as he explained, they will then fall off their scaffolding at 6.30. I thought that that was a cavalier argument. I should have thought it more important that they should not fall off their scaffolding at 7.30, 6.30 or 5.30. Apparently, in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that is an important reason not to change the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, also said that it would be colder at 6.30 a.m. That is a forthright statement. He said that it would also be more miserable and more uncomfortable at that time. I must say, he paints a horrible picture of the country from which he comes but he must be right in saying that it is horrible, colder and more uncomfortable. No doubt that is why he is always down here—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it was not a picture of the country; it was a picture of half-past six in the morning.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only suggest that the noble Lord accepts the advice which my grandfather used to give to me. He said, "I always sleep slowly". If one does that one does not have to get up at 6.30 in the morning.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said, builders are concerned that on cold winter mornings it would be necessary to delay work for an hour because plastering, concreting and so on does not set until there is a temperature of three degrees centigrade.
There are other less obvious groups of people who would object to a move to central European time; for example, the community of Orthodox Jews whose hours
712
of prayer are governed by the times of sunrise and sunset. Those people feel sufficiently strongly about it that they have written to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Therefore, there are many problems associated with moving to central European time. It is possible that some of those difficulties may be overcome by changes of routine, working practices and even prayer practices. But inevitably some general inconvenience would be caused by darker winter mornings which would need to be set against the general benefits of lighter winter evenings.
From the representations which the Home Office and other departments have received and from the responses to the Green Paper, it is apparent that feelings on this issue are just as strong as they ever were. Therefore, it is important that the fullest consideration should be given to all the arguments before a decision is made which will affect the daily lives of every man, woman and child throughout the United Kingdom. Those arguments within government are the same as—and, indeed, a reflection of —arguments which have prevailed today.
I should love to tell my noble friend Lord Mountgarret and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, this evening that the Government have reached a wonderful, clear, concise conclusion. I cannot do that. I cannot say when a decision will be made, but, in reaching a conclusion, we need to determine where the balance of advantage lies for the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. If there is to be a change, primary legislation will be needed.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past ten o'clock.

  EC COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  EC COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  POLICY AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP PROPOSALS
  POLICY AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP PROPOSALS
  SOCIAL FUND COMMUNITY CARE GRANTS
  SOCIAL FUND COMMUNITY CARE GRANTS
  SOCIAL SECURITY EXPENDITURE: CONTRIBUTORY BENEFITS
  SOCIAL SECURITY EXPENDITURE: CONTRIBUTORY BENEFITS
  INVALIDITY BENEFIT AND VOLUNTARY WORK
  INVALIDITY BENEFIT AND VOLUNTARY WORK
  SICK PAY
  SICK PAY
  AIRPORTS: ECONOMIC REGULATION SYSTEM
  AIRPORTS: ECONOMIC REGULATION SYSTEM
  "BRAER": LOSS REPORTS
  "BRAER": LOSS REPORTS
  EUROTUNNEL: EXTENDED CONCESSION
  EUROTUNNEL: EXTENDED CONCESSION
  BRITISH RAIL SURPLUS ASSETS: DISPOSAL
  BRITISH RAIL SURPLUS ASSETS: DISPOSAL
  DRINK-DRIVING: CHRISTMAS CAMPAIGN
  DRINK-DRIVING: CHRISTMAS CAMPAIGN
  SMOKING AND WORKING DAYS LOST
  SMOKING AND WORKING DAYS LOST
  PASSIVE SMOKING
  PASSIVE SMOKING
  CLEVELAND: FUTURE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  CLEVELAND: FUTURE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  DONCASTER: YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
  DONCASTER: YOUTH EMPLOYMENT