Sitting of 1 March 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Madam Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Ron Leighton, esquire, Member for Newham, North-East, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Truancy
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to crack down on truancy following the publication of truancy levels in the recent school performance tables.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): My right hon. Friend recently announced a £14 million programme in 1994–95 to help schools and the wider community fight truancy. Eighty-six English local education authorities successfully applied for funds as part of the grants for education support and training—GEST—scheme. A similar programme has been supporting expenditure of some £9.6 million in 1993–94 on schemes proposed by 71 local education authorities.
    Mr. Heald: I welcome that reply, but does my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend accept that the educational and social consequences of truancy are disastrous for young people? Will he take even more action, first by encouraging the Office for Standards in Education to ensure that the figures submitted by schools are accurate and, secondly, by ensuring that local education authorities employ sufficient educational welfare officers to enforce the provisions?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend's second point is a matter for local education authorities, but I hope that the publication of truancy figures which we began this year will concentrate their minds sufficiently to deal with the problem properly. Ofsted will indeed be seeking to ensure that the returns produced by schools on truancy are correct. We must ensure that all young people of school age are in school where they should be, not only so that they are educated but so that they are kept out of trouble. Those who are not in school when they should be are likely to be getting into trouble, perhaps being pursued by drug pushers or becoming involved in petty crime. Truancy is unacceptable and we must stamp it out.
    Mr. Pope: Is the Minister aware of the problems caused by people posing as social workers in order to gain access to children? Will he accept that schemes such as Truancy Watch are nothing but a gimmick, and a dangerous gimmick at that, and that, if the Government were serious about combating truancy, they would invest in more educational welfare officers and in better training and qualifications for them?
    Mr. Forth: I am glad to say that that rather pathetic and disgraceful point of view is not shared by the Labour local education authorities which are queuing up to participate in the imaginative Truancy Watch scheme. The hon. Gentleman has apparently taken no account of the fact that in the area that pioneered the scheme juvenile crime during school hours has dropped by 50 per cent. in the first few months of the scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude because it will not gain him any friends.
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding Truancy Watch.
    Mr. Forth: One hundred and one schemes were suggested by local education authorities for inclusion in the 1994–95 truancy and disaffected pupils GEST programme. Half the 86 approved schemes include a Truancy Watch element along the lines of a pilot scheme currently operating in Staffordshire. A number of senior police officers and representatives of the business community have welcomed these schemes.
    Lady Olga Maitland: May I give a warm welcome to what is clearly a very successful start for Truancy Watch? Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the pilot scheme, juvenile crime has dropped by half? Does he agree that it is absolutely disgraceful that the civil rights organisation, Liberty, is telling children to stand up for their rights and ignore police requests to return to school? Should not children be in school, learning right from wrong and learning to respect authority, rather than cocking a snook at it?
    Mr. Forth: It would be tempting to dismiss Liberty as a bunch of eccentric mischief-makers if what it was saying was not so serious. To encourage young people to stay away from school when they should be in school is a social scandal about which I hope the organisation is thoroughly apologetic. I hope that it will reconsider its advice, which does not reflect the widespread concern that I know exists about truancy. I am glad to say that most local education authorities are now very concerned about the problem, as evidenced by the number that have come forward with imaginative ideas to participate in my right hon. Friend's scheme, which is offering £14 million. I hope that everyone will co-operate in reducing truancy across the country.
    Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister explain why, despite the success of truancy schemes in Manchester, no resources have been allocated to such schemes for the next financial year?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. They produced a rotten bid.
    Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to reduce truancy is to make schools more attractive to pupils? May I urge him and the Secretary of State to

    767
    reconsider the proposal to make team games compulsory, especially in secondary schools? Does he agree that team games are enjoyed enormously by most pupils and that even those who may not at first think that they would enjoy them often do so once they are involved?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, the importance of team games is very much recognised by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and by the Government as a whole. For precisely the reason that my hon. Friend has given, we must find the best and most satisfactory way of ensuring that everybody connected with schools—teachers, governors and pupils—is involved as far as possible in team games and in all other kinds of sport. I have great confidence that that will happen in future.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students were undertaking courses of higher education 10 years ago and at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): We need high take-up of appropriate and demanding vocational qualifications in the next three years if we are to achieve the challenging national targets for education and training. Our aim is that one in four 16-year-olds should be starting general national vocational qualification courses in 1996. Our longer-term aim is for half of all 16 and 17-year-olds to take GNVQ courses at foundation, intermediate or advanced level.
    Mr. Hicks: I am not sure about my hon. Friend's response to my question—
    Hon. Members: It was the wrong answer.
    Madam Speaker: Order. May I ask the Minister to look at his answer? We are on Question 4.
    Mr. Boswell rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We all make mistakes. Come along.
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Speaker.
    The Government's policies have led to record student numbers in higher education. Total student numbers in England rose from some 718,000 students in 1982–83 to 1,201,000 in 1992–93—a massive increase of more than 67 per cent.
    Mr. Hicks: That sounds a darned sight better answer than the previous one.
    Despite the unease that some of us felt about the introduction of student loans, will my hon. Friend say how the level of funding for students in higher education here compares with that for their equivalents in our European partners? Secondly, will he give an assurance that there is no suggestion that our students should be charged part of their tuition fees?
    Mr. Boswell: Our student funding package, both in grants and in loans, compares most favourably with those of all our European counterparts and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government have no plans to introduce tuition fees.
    Mr. Grocott: Would not it be a good idea if, in line with their thoughts in recent years, the Government started publishing league tables of ministerial competence? It might be helpful if, as well as publishing statistics comparing the number of places in higher education now with the number 10 years ago, they published statistics on the opportunities for school leavers now compared with those a decade ago. Is not it crystal clear that many pupils make the choice simply because there is no alternative open to them? Is not it time that the Government started expanding real opportunities and real choice for school leavers?
    Mr. Boswell: It would be an excellent idea for Departments to publish comparative tables; our Department, under my right hon. Friend, would come high. Also, we have a good record in relation to school leavers. For a start, we now have a comprehensive range of vocational qualifications to supplement the well-tried academic qualifications and there has been an expansion in the number of school leavers over the past five years. We have the highest staying-on rate and young people have ranges of qualifications which they will find of great benefit in their future careers.
    Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent development that will please many students who are benefiting from higher education is the Government's decision to modify their proposals for student union reform and to introduce a sensible code of practice and the right of students to opt-out? Will he confirm that that is now the Government's policy?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We now offer a programme, based on the principles set out by my right hon. Friend, of choice, accountability and democracy in student unions and the control of excesses by codes of practice determined by the institutions. That, too, is positive news for students in higher and further education.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Does not the Government clampdown on expansion in higher education mean that institutions are reluctant to make firm offers until A-level results are known? Does not that mean chaos in August for students and for institutions?
    Mr. Boswell: Many people would like to see greater certainty in that matter and would like to base all offers on actual rather than prospective or projected qualifications. Our student numbers are at record levels and, if that is a clampdown, it merely reinforces a record level of student numbers.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what surveys have been undertaken of the progress being made by grant-maintained schools since acquiring self-governing status.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has found that self-governing schools use their freedom to good effect. Inspectors have observed in most grant-maintained schools a greater proportion of satisfactory or better than satisfactory lessons than in maintained schools generally, commendable pupil behaviour and attendance

    769
    and improved teacher morale. That picture is confirmed by a survey published by the Grant-Maintained Schools Centre in the past month, in which the majority of schools responding reported increasing pupil numbers, improved pupil-teacher ratios and, An the secondary sector, the introduction of new subjects.
    Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment felt by the majority of teachers and governors at St. Thomas high school in my constituency where, in the past week, parents voted down a proposal to become self-governing? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to examine the material circulated by the local education authority and other parties, which, of course, must be governed by a code of conduct?
    Mr. Patten: The holder of my office now has powers to declare void ballots where there has been any doubt about any of the material circulated. If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall not comment on the school in his constituency, for fear that I may have to examine the case. However, I shall ask my hon. Friend to forward all the documents to me.
    Without commenting on that case, I understand that Devon is controlled by the Liberal party and, of course, throughout southern and western England, the Liberal party is notorious for its use of underhand political campaigning. Indeed, there have been attempts, led by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), to cause local authority chief education officers to dance to Liberal party tunes.
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Secretary of State join me in ensuring that, where all the proper procedures have been followed, he will not go any further in introducing legislation to force schools to become grant-maintained against the wishes of local people?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman knows that, as a fellow geographer, I always listen carefully to him, but I am little surprised that he seems to have lost his daffodil, along with one or two others Opposition Members. I keep my legislative options under continual review.
    Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend referred to the lower level of truancy in grant-maintained schools and to higher teacher morale. Is he aware that there is one area in which GM schools do not do so well—competitive sport? The reason is that some local education authorities, for spiteful reasons, will not allow their schools to play competitive sports against GM schools.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Children who are educated in grant-maintained schools are educated by the state—they are state school children, just as children in maintained schools are educated by the state and are equally state school children. It is true that in certain authorities—Middlesbrough, Nottingham and Derbyshire, to name but three—it is difficult or impossible for local county-maintained schools to play competitive sports against grant-maintained schools. It must be wrong that we can send sporting teams to South Africa but it is impossible to send sporting teams to grant-maintained schools. It is a disgraceful form of educational apartheid.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State accept that, given the lower number of schools that have opted out this month, he has wasted £200,000 of taxpayers' money
    770
    on advertisements for GM status? Can he tell the House whether the contents of those advertisements were statements of fact or merely statements of opinion?
    Mr. Patten: The Liberal party has even fewer education policies than the Labour party, which is saying quite a lot. The hon. Gentleman, together with some of his hon. Friends in another place, has mentioned the nature and content of the advertisement. He made a great fuss, public to-do and tumult about referring it to the Advertising Standards Authority, which has now given the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends an answer: go away and grow up.

    Parental Opinion
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what mechanisms exist for his Department to gauge parental opinion, as consumers, to the extent that it relates to the Government's policy for schools.
    Mr. Forth: Like other hon. Members, Ministers receive correspondence from their constituents and are therefore well placed to gauge parental opinion. In addition, parents' views are regularly sought or made known through, for instance, consultations, meetings with representative bodies and special surveys.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister understand that increasingly the consultation on opt-out schools is turning against the Government's policies and opt-out schools are diminishing parental choice, in that schools select pupils, rather than parents selecting schools for their children?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The facts are that the number of schools balloting remains high, the turnout in those ballots remains high and the number of yes votes remains as high as historically it has been since the beginning of grant-maintained schools. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman make a better effort to consult his parents, as he is obviously completely out of touch.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of assessing parental opinion is by looking at what parents do with their children? Will he join me in congratulating St. Mary's college in my constituency, which recently opened, from its own resources, a £750,000 sports centre? That facility will be enjoyed by many children who can take advantage of the assisted places scheme, which allows them to attend that school as a matter of choice by their parents—an opportunity which would be denied to them by a Labour Government.
    Mr. Forth: What a refreshing contrast between my hon. Friend's positive attitude and the carping and negative attitude of Opposition Members. I believe that, at the appropriate time, parents up and down the country will draw their own conclusions from the sort of attitudes exemplified in the Chamber.
    Mr. Beggs: As the Department assesses the opinion of parents, can the Minister tell the House whether there is any evidence of support for those schools that choose to be more selective with their intakes?
    Mr. Forth: I believe that the answer is yes. We have encouraged schools up and down the country to consider their own policies—what they would like to do and how

    771
    they would like to do it—to consult parents locally and then to come forward with proposals for changes in their administration policies if they think that that is appropriate. A number of schools do that and a number of them keep the matter under review. That is something that we encourage because it adds to the elements of choice and diversity in education which my right hon. Friend has been determined to encourage since he took office just under two years ago.

    National Vocational Qualifications
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what targets have been set for the uptake of general national vocational qualifications among 16 to 19-year-olds over the course of the next three years.
    Mr. Boswell: We need high take-up of appropriate and demanding vocational qualifications in the next three years if we are to achieve the challenging national targets for education and training. We are aiming for one in four 16-year-olds to be starting GNVQ courses in 1996. Our longer-term aim is for half of all 16 and 17-year-olds to take GNVQs at foundation, intermediate or advanced level.
    Mr. Coombs: In welcoming the evident popularity of GNVQs and their importance to the national training targets, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree that their future success will depend on the standards that they set? In that context, will he examine the comments by Professor Smithers of Manchester university, who said that the qualifications were not sufficiently knowledge-orientated, rather than skills-orientated, and that they should be assessed universally by an examination?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. As he will know, the message is so good that inadvertently I have repeated it, but it does bear repeating.
    I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's comments on rigour. I refer him to the speech that I delivered this morning at the GNVQ workshop conducted by the Confederation of British Industry, in which I analysed all our remaining concerns about GNVQs and dealt with them in a positive but constructive mode.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure that colleges of further education publish information regularly for parents and employers about their achievements.
    Mr. Boswell: Colleges are required to publish extensive information about the achievements and career destinations of students and make this available to local schools for distribution to pupils in year 11. In 1993, we first included college achievements in the comparative performance tables. We expect colleges to develop their own charters which will highlight performance information. Through these arrangements, we are determined to help young people and their parents to make informed decisions about all the options available.
    Mr. Richards: Does my hon. Friend agree that the performance tables are vital in helping students and employers to decide which courses best suit their needs? Are not they crucial in helping to increase post-16
    772
    education, particularly in my constituency where the excellent Llandrillo college recently won a national training award?
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. We believe in giving schools, colleges, parents and pupils an information revolution in which they will be given as much information as possible. That will expand the opportunities and raise the standards for all in the crucial area between the ages of 16 and 19.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister have any information on the number of students who are being obliged to leave further education because they cannot afford to carry on with their courses? Is not that because they are unable to obtain discretionary grants, income support or housing benefit? Will the Minister, with his colleagues, consider putting together a satisfactory package of funding for further education students, so that we can have an end to the terrible waste of resources and the failure to train our young people to take up their opportunities?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman will know that current provision on discretionary awards varies by local education authority. He will also be aware that, through the Sir John Cass and Gulbenkian Foundation, we are conducting an authoritative study on the matter which we will publish at the end of March. We shall then carefully consider its conclusions.
    Mr. Evennett: While I welcome the publication of more information by colleges of further education, will my hon. Friend give a continuing commitment to school sixth forms? Will he confirm that the Government believe in choice and diversity in education post-16 and that school sixth forms do a good job in developing young people's education in addition to colleges of education?
    Mr. Boswell: I have no difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend. Recently, we published a new framework for the way in which we handle proposals for school sixth forms alongside further education colleges. They are both important, they are not antagonistic and they should be complementary.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Do the achievements of the colleges of further education include the decision of Bath further education college to sack 60 lecturers? The college has now had to rescind that decision and go to arbitration. Would not the Minister do better to urge further education employers to go to arbitration, rather than supporting the employers in a decision to foment industrial unrest?
    Mr. Boswell: I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman suggests that I should involve myself in an industrial dispute. I made it clear, in the context of the holdback letter that we sent to the colleges employers' forum, that we expect some progress on flexibility in contracts. We are not prepared to intervene in the details and I am sure that both parties will be able to resolve the matter amicably and positively between themselves.

    Schools (Drug Abuse)
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures he is taking to combat drug abuse in schools.
    Mr. Forth: Education is an important element of the Government's strategy for tackling drug abuse. The national curriculum requires teaching about the harmful effects of drugs, and helps to develop pupils' capacity to resist pressure to misuse drugs. My Department has published guidance for schools and has funded projects, materials and national bodies working in this field.
    Mr. Ainsworth: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and ask him to continue to provide as much reassurance as possible to parents throughout the country who are rightly worried about this important matter? Will he extend education about drug abuse from the higher stages in children's careers to the youngest sensible age?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I believe that the content of the curriculum covering this important matter is about right at present. We start at a very early stage and build up the information about drugs imparted in the classroom to our young people, the effect that they have on the body, the effects of misuse and so on. That is surely one of the most important contributions that education can make to informing young people about drugs and their harmful effects. I believe that as we see the effect of the national curriculum accumulating over the generations of young people, the beneficial effects of education on drugs will become ever more clear.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: If drug education in schools is so important, as the Opposition as well as parents know why have Government cuts reduced the number of drug education co-ordinators from 135 this time last year to a mere 75 today? What kind of message does the Minister think that that sends to parents and young people alike?
    Mr. Forth: I think that the hon. Lady is referring to decisions by local education authorities throughout the country and their prioritisation for expenditure. It was indeed the case that some years ago my Department initiated a pump-priming grant, for a specific period only, to allow local education authorities to assess the value of the co-ordinators. The pump priming was extended not once but twice. It then came to an end. Local education authorities, correctly in my view, are now making their own decisions about their priorities.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Daily Express, which reported its investigation into drug abuse in schools over three days last week? Does he accept that the problem afflicts not only schools in the inner cities but schools everywhere in the country, including in my constituency? Does he agree that it is essential that staff and teachers maintain the utmost vigilance if we are to eradicate the menace?
    Mr. Forth: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Of course, truancy is another element. It must surely be the case that when young people are not in school where they should be, they are vulnerable in shopping centres or wherever, to drug pushers and others who seek to abuse or mislead the children. Therefore, our strong emphasis on tackling truancy is an important part of the overall strategy to reduce the vulnerability to drugs of our young people.

    Parental Choice
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on parental choice of schools.
    Mr. Patten: The Government have given parents the right to express a preference for their choice of school. In some 90 per cent. of cases, that preference is met. Parents now have much more information, in particular through the publication of school performance tables, school prospectuses and annual reports. There is a wider choice of schools now, with the expansion of the self-governing grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, more schools with sixth forms, and the network of new technology colleges which I launched yesterday.
    Dr. Wright: How does the Minister explain parental choice to the parents at Five Ways primary school in my constituency who have just been told that the Department for Education will not allow them to expand that popular and successful school because someone in Whitehall has discovered that there are surplus places at a school two miles away? What would the Minister further say to the 38,000 parents who last year had to go to appeal because they were not given the school place of their choice? Does not that show that although the Government talk about parental choice, it means increased power for schools to choose parents and less power for parents to choose schools?
    Mr. Patten: Labour-controlled Staffordshire county council does not have the best reputation for local education administration. The second of the hon. Gentleman's two questions about the number of appeals shows how well the parents charter and the citizens charter are working. Parents are rightly making successful use of the appeals mechanism. Nine out of 10 parents receive their first choice the first time, which is good. I do not know about the case of the specific school mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in the first of his two questions. If he writes to me I shall personally consider the position and write to him.
    If there are two schools within two miles of each other, and there are many surplus school places, there should probably be only one school. The school left should be the high-quality school around whose walls parents queue for their children to gain admission. We want top-quality schools, not half-empty schools such as those kept by Labour local education authorities, in Staffordshire, for example.
    Mr. Ashby: What choice do parents in north-west Leicestershire have when the local education authority refuses to pay the travel costs of children whose parents have made a choice of school? That applies particularly in rural districts where distances travelled may be great.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Leicestershire is another local authority that is notorious for discriminating against parental choice. In the same way, the new Lib-Lab pact in Essex is trying to discriminate against those who want to send their children to schools of their choice.
    Madam Speaker rose—
    Mr. Patten: The Liberal and Labour parties are doing the same thing in Wiltshire, where they are deliberately discriminating against parents who exercise the choice to give their children a religious education.
    I am sorry for that, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I should hope so.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to change the standard spending assessment calculation for the education of under-fives.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): As part of his review of policy on under-fives, my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the implications for the under-fives element of standard spending assessments.
    Mr. Pickthall: Since the Prime Minister, and subsequently the Secretary of State, have recently discovered the virtues of nursery education, would it not be sensible, just and financially prudent to change the basis of the SSA calculation for under-fives away from a simple population count in a local authority towards the provision of places in a local authority? That would get rid of what is, in effect, a subsidy for bad providers to spend elsewhere in their budget. It would allow good providers relief from having to cut other sectors in their budget in order to provide good nursery education.
    Mr. Squire: We shall bear the hon. Member's observation in mind—other hon. Members have also advanced that argument. A number of local education authorities provide good provision for under-fives while maintaining spending at the SSA level. If the hon. Gentleman's desire, which is certainly that of the Government, is to see an expansion of the service, it would seem perverse to change dramatically the way in which the SSA is distributed in favour of those who are already serving a large number of under-fives.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend consider, not only the SSA calculations for county councils, but the relationship with first schools and the grant-maintained sector? Send first school in my constituency, which is grant maintained, is anxious to provide nursery provision. I know that the Department is currently considering that case.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend will understand if I avoid giving an answer on the specific school that he mentioned. We shall look carefully at all applications from schools, including grant-maintained schools, that seek nursery provision. Where applicants fall within laid down criteria, we shall seek to satisfy my hon. Friend's justifiable concerns.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Why did not the Minister have the good grace to mention the fact that, of the 40 top providers of nursery education, 40 are Labour education authorities? Why does he not stop including all forms of child care in the same bracket as high quality nursery education, and give advice and guidance to all local education authorities to start providing more and more nursery places?
    Mr. Squire: The reason that I did not give the answer that the hon. Gentleman wanted was that I was not asked the question. As the hon. Gentleman has now asked the question, I shall underline the fact that, of the 34 Labour authorities that the Labour party is anxious to boast about in terms of nursery education, 70 per cent. fall in the bottom 40 for exam results and 82 per cent. fall within the bottom 50 for truancy levels. We should hear a bit about that.

    Schools (Northumberland)
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has any plans to visit schools in Northumberland to discuss school budgets.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Northumberland schools. My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), will visit two schools in Northumberland on 14 March.
    Mr. Beith: I hope that the Minister visits two schools in my constituency so that he can become aware of the problem posed by the combined effect of the county needing to fund the 2.9 per cent. teachers' pay increase and facing a capping limit of 1.5 per cent., the result of which is that all schools in the county face reductions in their budgets. Is he aware of the problem? What does he plan to do about it?
    Mr. Forth: Northumberland does no worse and no better—it is very close to the average if one looks at the pattern of schools' expenditure. I see no reason why an efficient and responsible local education authority should be unable to maintain the standards that we expect of it in the current financial circumstances. There is no proven causal connection between the level of expenditure and quality of education output. I would expect that in the right hon. Gentleman's area, as in all others, school governors, teachers, heads and the local education authority would take it on themselves to continue to deliver a proper standard of education.
    Mr. Bellingham: When the Minister is on his way back from Northumberland, will he make a detour to Norfolk and visit some schools there—
    Madam Speaker: Order. No. I am afraid that he cannot.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: Like the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I am very disappointed by the response from the Minister about the visit to Northumberland. Is the Minister aware that about four fifths of the population of Northumberland live in the urban south-east corner, with the rest in the rural part? We are quite happy to support the high cost of rural education in Northumberland, but would it not be better for the Minister to go up there and see what is happening rather than regard the area as if it were part of a colony in darkest Africa?
    Mr. Forth: Northumberland is treated in exactly the same way as all the other 108 local education authorities. They are all subject to the same impartial, even-handed treatment, both by the funding formula and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We would, therefore, expect Northumberland, like all other local education

    777
    authorities, to ensure that it delivers a proper, acceptable and increasingly high standard of education to all its pupils.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: When considering the budgets of Northumbrian schools, will my hon. Friend reflect on the great success of the policy of devolving budgets to schools in Northumberland and elsewhere, the more responsible spending that has resulted from it and the much more valuable spending from the point of view of the pupils, which is what schools are all about?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. The local management of schools programme has been one of the most successful programmes in the past few years. It has proved some important things, not least that if responsibility is given to governors and heads they will seize it and make full use of it in coming to difficult decisions about priorities in their schools, and that these decisions are far better made where they matter, in the school and in the classroom, rather than in some local education authority which is probably remote.

    Students (Employment)
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has on the percentage of students attending universities who are supplementing their grants or loans by employment in term-time jobs.
    Mr. Boswell: Information derived from the recent student income and expenditure survey indicates that, of students sampled, 23 per cent. had some earnings during term-time, and rather more during the Christmas and Easter vacations. Information is not available to indicate whether the students concerned were in receipt of grants or student loans.
    Mr. Wareing: Is not it absolutely deplorable, after the years of the great Thatcherite economic miracle, that students today are in a worse position than they were before 1979? Is not it disgraceful that the Government seem to have no plans whatever to encourage students to keep to their main task, study during term-time? What are the Government going to do about it?
    Mr. Boswell: I find the question absolutely extraordinary. The hon. Gentleman needs to remember how many universities there were in Liverpool when my right hon. and noble Friend became Prime Minister. He also needs to recognise the huge achievements of the two universities in Liverpool in establishing a city of learning. In his spare time, he may care to reflect that we now have record student numbers, no increase in student drop-out and the most effective and successful higher education system in the world.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of young people's education must include doing part-time and holiday work, and that it is educationally beneficial to them?
    Mr. Boswell: It is very much a matter of degree, but not many students get by without working at some stage during their studies. It is the norm in many other countries that students must work their way through college, whereas we produce a generous student support package. That is reflected in the efficiency arid timing of our degrees and the quality of the results achieved.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps are being taken to encourage schools to consider the option of grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Patten: The governing body of every local education authority-controlled school is now required to consider, at least once a year, whether to hold a ballot on whether the school should seek grant-maintained status and, if they decide against it, to explain their decision to parents. In addition, to be helpful we are setting up a network of local centres to give factual information on grant-maintained schools. There is already one such centre in Bolton, and to be particularly helpful, we are just setting one up at the excellent Castle Hall school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
    Mr. Arnold: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking those steps to combat the immense amount of negative propaganda against grant-maintained schools. Is he aware that, in authorities like Liberal and Labour-controlled Kent, £100,000 of education funds have been diverted to those black propaganda activities? Will he look at the leaflets and at the scaremongering, which is worrying parents and teachers?
    Mr. Patten: The parents of Kent have already voted overwhelmingly in favour of grant-maintained status. For example, by 1 April more than half the secondary school children in Kent will be educated in grant-maintained schools. I will certainly look extremely carefully at what strikes me as a scandalous waste of money by the chief education officer for Kent and his officials on that black propaganda.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the United States for a series of meetings, including some with President Clinton and the United Nations Secretary-General.
    Mr. Mudie: Is the Lord President aware that more than £1 billion of taxpayers' money spent to persuade people to take out personal pensions ended up in the pockets of salesmen through commissions? Is he also aware that more than 300,000 men and women are losing benefit because of bad advice? Given that growing scandal, is not there a case for urgent Government action, or is this, once again, something for which the Government will take no responsibility?
    Mr. Newton: I do not regard the fact that some 5 million people have taken out personal pensions, which will significantly improve their prospects in retirement, as anything like a scandal. The hon. Gentleman will know

    779
    that some of the advice that has been given is currently under examination, which is entirely right. I know of no reason to justify his accusation.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the obvious success of the Prime Minister's visit to the United States? Does he recall that Sir Winston Churchill variously described the temperature of our special relationship with the United States as normal and blazing? What is the temperature now?
    Mr. Newton: I can best describe the relationship as very cordial indeed. It is a long-standing relationship based on shared interests, as has been confirmed at a joint press conference which my right hon. Friend and the President held within the past hour or so. Their discussions have covered a wide range of international issues, including Bosnia, Russia and the world economy. The President's support for the joint declaration on Northern Ireland was particularly welcome. The visit is confirmation that we have a continuing, strong, all-round relationship with the United States.
    Mrs. Beckett: When the President of the Board of Trade has need of legal advice, to whom does the Leader of the House suggest he turns?
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been advised, quite properly, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and made the position entirely clear in his evidence to the Scott inquiry yesterday.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is not the position of the Attorney-General as the Government's chief legal adviser becoming increasingly untenable as Ministers seem to use him as a scapegoat to save their own skins?
    Mr. Newton: The concern of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was clearly an anxiety that people might misrepresent him in exactly the way that the right hon. Lady is now seeking to do. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General's advice on public interest immunity has remained consistent and, of course, he is due to give evidence to the inquiry.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does not the Leader of the House realise that what sticks in the throat of the British public is that, having secretly sold arms to Saddam Hussein, which were used against British troops, Ministers were prepared to see innocent men go to gaol to cover up their conspiracy and that is what people cannot stomach?
    Mr. Newton: Let me remind the right hon. Lady what was written in a letter to The Times as long ago as 12 November 1992:
    "Public interest immunity cannot be waived by either the prosecution or the Ministers. It was for the judge to decide whether the interests of justice in ensuring a fair trial for the defendants outweighed those considerations of public interests referred to in the certificates. There was no question of anyone attempting to suppress evidence".
    That letter was written by counsel for one of the accused.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Department of Health action on safari holidays for young offenders?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed I shall. There is a widespread view that those overseas trips were inappropriate. We are all concerned to see effective, proper treatment and deterrents for young offenders and the statement this afternoon will help bring that about.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: When the Prime Minister returns from his visit to the United States, will he be kind enough to look personally into the case of my constituent Paul Kenney, who did not return from his journey to Portugal, but was found dead on a beach? Will he please consult his colleague the Prime Minister of Portugal, who has not had the common decency to tell the parents, or me as their representative, why this lad died, how he died, whether he was murdered or why the parents could not find the body for a month? If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is the Government's duty to look after ordinary citizens when they travel abroad, will he please start raising merry hell about this case?
    Mr. Newton: I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman's understandable concern for his late constituent and I have of course looked at the Adjournment debate he had not long ago. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that during his visit to Portugal on 24 and 25 February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the case with the Portuguese Foreign Minister and I hope that that was helpful.
    Sir Roger Moate: Will my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Secretary, personally do their utmost to ensure the success of the negotiations, which are at a critical point, on Norwegian entry into the European Community? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite outrageous if the unreasonable demand by the Spanish Government for a few thousand tonnes of Norwegian cod were to prevent the entry into the Community of one of our closest friends and a fine European country?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend knows very well that it has been a prime objective of the British Government to bring about enlargement of the Community and the progress that has been made is one of our significant achievements over the past couple of years. On some reports I have seen today, progress has been rather greater so far in respect of Sweden and Finland; apparently, there remains some way to go, but we shall wish to see negotiations with all four applicants successfully negotiated.
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gunnell: The right hon. and noble Baroness Thatcher missed one Prime Minister's Question Time in 12; the present Prime Minister has missed one in eight. Whatever the importance of the present visit, does not that frequent absence devalue his accountability to the House? Why is he more anxious to answer questions in Pittsburgh than in Parliament?
    Mr. Newton: I must say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I usually regard as among the more reasonable of those on the Opposition Benches, that I reject out of hand the suggestion that he has made. I think that my right hon. Friend's achievement in various international negotiations both in Europe and on the wider scene are among the main achievements that he has put forward on behalf of the Government.
    Mr. Garnier: While my right hon. Friend is in the United States, will he be given an opportunity to tell the people, as opposed to the President of the United States, of the true nature, history and habits of the IRA?
    Mr. Newton: I have already referred to the very welcome support of the President for the joint declaration. I hope that that in itself will have an effect on some strands of opinion in the United States which may perhaps have failed to appreciate the true nature of the IRA.
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mandelson: Does the Lord President of the Council agree that, with unemployment still up around the 3 million level, with many young and long-term unemployed in that number, jobs remain the biggest single issue facing the country? In the light of that, will the Lord President of the Council respond positively to the important initiative taken today by the Trades Union Congress to work in co-operation with all political parties on policies to get unemployment down?
    Mr. Newton: I welcome any kind of co-operation by the TUC or, indeed, anybody else, in the interests of maintaining the recovery from recession, which is the secure basis for the jobs that the hon. Gentleman wants to see. If I may say so, it will not be served by the Labour party's support for a minimum wage, a 35-hour week and many new burdens on business.
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Lady Olga Maitland: May I convey to my right hon. Friend the House's full support for the Downing street declaration on Northern Ireland? Has my right hon. Friend been able to take note of the survey that took place over the weekend in the Irish Republic which showed that the vast majority of the people there call on the IRA-Sinn Fein to renounce violence?
    Mr. Newton: I do very much agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful for her words. As she knows, the Government are making every effort to seek peace in
    782
    Northern Ireland. It is heartening to note that some 94 per cent. of people questioned in the Irish marketing survey agreed with calls on the IRA and Sinn Fein to renounce violence. I am sure that that corresponds with the overwhelming wish in this country and, indeed, many others. I hope that their leaders will take note.
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Lord President of the Council aware that if the highly efficient borough of St. Helens received the same level of revenue support grant as the boroughs of Wandsworth and Westminster it would not be required to charge its citizens one single penny in council tax? Does he feel that there might be a whiff of scandal and corruption in that?
    Mr. Newton: No, I do not.
    Mr. Fabricant: While condemning the appalling massacre in Hebron, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that that was the work of a lone madman and that, for the sake of the 300 million people who live in that area, it should not in any way impede the peace process?
    Mr. Newton: Like, I am sure, everyone on both sides of the House, I share the horror at the massacre of innocent Palestinians in Hebron on 25 February. I am sure that the whole House would once again want to send its condolences to those who were affected and their families. I accept entirely and agree with my hon. Friend that the massacre must not be allowed to jeopardise the peace process. The British Government will certainly do everything that they can to see that it does not.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does the Lord President recall that, referring to the setting up of the Scott inquiry, the Prime Minister said that no restrictions would be placed on its terms of reference? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that ex-employees of Matrix Churchill and their representatives have been denied the right to give evidence to the inquiry, and that Lord Justice Scott has said that he will consider the matter if the Government and the Prime Minister agree? What is the Lord President going to do about it?
    Mr. Newton: I think that it is generally true to say that the procedures of the inquiry are for Lord Justice Scott to consider and operate. Obviously, if there were perceived to be problems and if representations were made to the Government about difficulties that they could do something about, those difficulties would be considered extremely carefully.
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    783
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any Government Department that hands out special green forms to job applicants who are related to politicians—forms that receive preferential treatment—and pink forms to everyone else? Is he aware that that disgraceful form of nepotism is being practised by Labour-controlled Monklands council? Will he join me in urging
    784
    condemnation of the practice by the local Member of Parliament—the Leader of the Opposition, who has been strangely silent on the subject?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may feel surprised that his question has been reached. He has raised a very interesting point; I might speculate that the absence of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) arose from nervousness that the question might be reached.

Air Attack (Bosnia)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With your permission, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so very quietly and rapidly? We have an important statement from the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Hurd: With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on recent events in Bosnia.
At 6.31 local time yesterday morning, six Galeb single-seater air-to-ground attack aircraft were identified by NATO airborne warning and communication system aircraft over Bosnia. A NATO combat air patrol consisting of two United States F16 aircraft went to intercept and investigate. At 6.35, the AWACS issued a warning to the six Galeb aircraft.
At 6.42, the NATO aircraft visually identified the planes. A minute later, the NATO pilots observed what they believe were bombs exploding in and near a factory. It is thought that the target was an ammunition factory near Novi Travnik. Between 6.42 and 6.45, further warnings were issued, and again no response was received.
At 6.45, NATO aircraft shot down one of the violating aircraft, and in the next five minutes three more of those violating aircraft were shot down. The remaining two were reported as having flown into Croatian airspace, at which point the engagement was ended in accordance with the NATO rules of engagement for enforcement of the no-fly zone. There were later reports that the two aircraft were seen landing from the north at Banja Luka airport.
This was the first known violation of the zone by a formation of fixed-wing aircraft. The action was taken under the authority of United Nations Security Council resolution 781, which established the no-fly zone, and resolution 816, which authorised its enforcement and which was adopted unanimously by the Security Council. The House will have noted the unanimity of views on the incident during my right holt Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Washington. I discussed it yesterday with the Greek Prime Minister, the American Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister. Hon. Members will have seen statements by Mr. Churkin, the Deputy Russian Foreign Minister, that any party that violated the no-fly zone had to bear full responsibility for the consequences.
Those events and the reaction to them show that the parties should be in no doubt of our earnest in implementing decisions on Bosnia. We shall continue active work with the international community on how to build on the progress in Sarajevo and reach a negotiated settlement.
I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America have today announced an initiative to promote the reconstruction of Sarajevo in order to normalise life in the city. A joint British-American civil planning mission will be established to work with the city authorities in Sarajevo, with the European Union and with the United Nations to assess what is needed to restore public utilities in the city.
Meanwhile, the UN will be drawing up plans to assess the feasibility and the means of breaking the siege of other cities and towns in Bosnia, including Mostar, Vitez and
786
Maglaj. That is in addition to the plans, of which the House already knows, to rotate the UNPROFOR contingent in Srebrenica and to reopen Tuzla airport to receive supplies of humanitarian aid.
Reports are coming in from Moscow that the Bosnian Serb leader, Mr. Karadzic, has reached agreement with the Russian Foreign Minister on how Tuzla airport might be reopened with Bosnian Serb consent. If confirmed, that, too, would be a welcome step.
On the wider front, the Americans are telling us of substantial progress in the effort, which I support, to reach agreement among the Croats, the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims. Those are all good examples of the concerted international effort now being made to extend the progress in Bosnia and to make the humanitarian effort more effective.
Dr. John Cunningham: I am obliged to the Foreign Secretary for that statement, which I called for yesterday. I believe that many people in the House will share my view that it should have been made yesterday.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we believe that, by arming and dispatching six aircraft on a bombing mission, someone deliberately attempted to flout UN resolution 781, which established the no-fly zone over Bosnia? The right hon. Gentleman was very careful in his statement not to identify the aircraft or those people who dispatched them. Is any evidence yet available to identify the aircraft that have been shot down, and therefore to lead to a conclusion as to who was responsible for that challenge to the authority of the United Nations in the no-fly zone?
The action obviously was a flagrant breach of resolution 781 of the Security Council and, in connection with it, it is quite clear that the action taken by American F16s under the NATO command was fully justified by resolution 816 of the Security Council, which gave effect to the implementation of the no-fly zone resolution. The indisputable legality of the action to enforce the UN Security Council resolution is clear, and it has my support and, I believe, the overwhelming support of hon. Members.
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm reports from Moscow that the Bosnian Serbs have now apparently, very belatedly, agreed to the reopening of Tuzla airport? If so, that would be good news. Has a date been set for the implementation of that decision by the UN? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the apparent threats by the Serbian chief of staff, General Milovanovic, to attack aid convoys? Has UNPROFOR made it clear that such action would not be tolerated?
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the current status of the humanitarian aid programme in Bosnia—air flights and convoys? Does he accept that we support his recognition of the need to keep Russian support for progressive implementation of Security Council resolutions on safe areas, and other resolutions referring to the situation on the ground in Bosnia? If such progress can be achieved and Russia continues effectively to secure Serbian compliance, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it should not be necessary for lethal air power to be used again?
May I welcome the decision of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister to launch an initiative for the reconstruction of Sarajevo, which is very good news? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the

787
House more details of that initiative, and will he confirm that it will involve not only America and Britain, but all members of the European Union?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support for the action taken yesterday. It is not yet clear from where the six Galeb planes came, although it seems at least possible that it was from airports that are under the control of Serbs in Croatia. That is not yet certain.
In my statement, I mentioned the reports from Moscow about Tuzla, which I and the right hon. Gentleman have read. The United Nations has plans, which have been drawn up by General Rose, for reopening Tuzla airport. It remains to be seen how that will mesh in with whatever has been agreed in Moscow. I hope that it will not be too long before that happens.
Aid convoys are proceeding. Of course, each day, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and her representatives on the spot have to judge with our people—the Overseas Development Administration for example—how convoys can safely operate on a particular day, but aid is flowing, although not yet in the quantities that are needed and which we would like.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of keeping the Russians on board. That is why I telephoned Moscow twice yesterday about the incident, and I was glad of the response that I received. It is important—especially if there is continued progress on bringing the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats together—that the Russians should continue to put the necessary pressure on the Bosnian Serbs, so the Russians' part in the matter is important.
I cannot give further details of the Anglo-American initiative on Sarajevo. I have set out the details of what has been agreed between the Prime Minister and the President. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the initiative is not exclusive—others are free to join it.
Mr. Tom King: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he contacted the Russian authorities, and I note the obvious importance of that move at this sensitive time. Does he agree that whoever was responsible for the flagrant violation of the no-fly zone has received the clearest message, as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said? If anyone else seeks to embark on such a course, it is vital that they receive the same message. With the clarity of that message comes far greater hope for peace in the future.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I agree. Whatever the exact origin of the planes, it was clearly a deliberate provocation and a test of the no-fly zone—a test which NATO passed.
Sir Russell Johnston: Whether they came from Banja Luka or Krajina, I am puzzled that we did not have the capacity to detect six aircraft lifting off the ground at much the same time. Perhaps the Secretary of State could explain. What is the policy on helicopters in the no-fly zone? Are they being left alone?
Like the right hon. Member for Copeland, I welcome the Sarajevo initiative. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that it is being initiated on the assumption that Sarajevo will not become a divided city?
788
When the Secretary of State spoke to Prime Minister Papandreou, did he take the opportunity to say that many people think that Greece's attitude to Macedonia and its blockade is wholly unjustified?
Mr. Hurd: The aircraft were identified quickly by the AWACS. It is not clear from where they started, but they were quickly identified and efficiently dealt with.
On future enforcement, as I said, the events were the first infringement of the no-fly zone by a unit or force of fixed-wing aircraft. Serb and Croat helicopters have certainly violated the rule before. Helicopters are much more difficult to deal with. One cannot be certain of their purpose—they may be carrying wounded or supplies, so it is less easy—but it is a matter for local judgment and discretion.
As for Macedonia, the former Yugoslav republic, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I made these very points to the Greek authorities yesterday. The Greeks have anxieties and concerns which are very widely felt in Greek public opinion, but I said that, in the view of Greece's partners, that does not justify action that is almost certainly illegal in terms of trade, and which certainly diminishes the authority and influence of Greece as President of the EC.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement about NATO's swift resolve in enforcing UN resolutions is very welcome, and was much better made today than yesterday, as the facts become clearer?
Will he reassure us that the same resolve will continue to be applied in the renaissance of Sarajevo, which is very welcome news, in lifting the siege on Srebrenica and other towns and, of course, in unblockading Tuzla airport? Does he agree that Russian co-operation, which was welcomed yesterday and which continues to be welcome, is indeed what we want, as long as Russia is playing its full part in the international community, as a member of the United Nations and as part of the peacekeeping effort, and is not seeking to reassert influences from the distant past in ways which, in the distant past, disturbed rather than stabilised areas of the Balkans?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with all my right hon. Friend's points, including the last. These are steps forward. There may well be reverses and disappointments in Bosnia in the future, but it is beginning to look as if we may be at the beginning of the end of what has been a nightmare.
Mr. Tony Benn: As this is the first time that NATO forces have ever been engaged in combat since the organisation was set up—and set up for quite a different purpose—can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Prime Minister were notified in advance of the intention to shoot down aircraft which had not been shot down hitherto in the no-fly zone?
Is it not strange that, despite all the marvellous intelligence available, the Foreign Secretary cannot yet tell us the origin or nature of the aircraft that were shot down? Is he aware that NATO is not the world's policeman and that for a British Foreign Secretary to speak of Russia being "kept on board"—when the responsibility rests with the United Nations of which Russia is a permanent member, and when Russia has a much closer interest in the Balkans than the President of the United States whose aircraft were engaged—is clearly not a matter that can be

789
brushed aside as if this were a western action to maintain peace on behalf of the United Nations, whose Security Council was never consulted specifically on the military action?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has not been following this matter with his usual care. NATO was acting within the framework of United Nations Security Council resolution 781, which established the no-fly zone, and resolution 816, which authorised its enforcement and which the Russians supported.
Therefore, the line of authority is very clear—from the Security Council, with a proper vote and proper support, unanimity—through a NATO decision authorising action. In these situations, one cannot hang about while everyone is consulted. Either the planes, which were rapidly identified and were bombing a target on the ground, are dealt with effectively or they are not. There has to be authority; there has to be a framework of law. They were in place and NATO took effective action.
Mr. John Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the precise nature of the relationship of Russian troops to the United Nations command and control systems in the Balkans? Does he agree that the closer the relationship between Russian, French and British troops in the policing of the operation, the better? Has he had positive signals to that effect from contact with his counterparts in Russia?
Mr. Hurd: Yes indeed; those are Russian troops that have been in Croatia under UN command for some time, and they are now in Bosnia under UN command. They are in exactly the same position under the same authority as are the British troops in Bosnia. They are under UN command.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are Russian motives utterly compatible with those of NATO?
Mr. Hurd: One has to judge the tree by its fruits, and the Russians' actions in the past few weeks, first in Sarajevo, and again yesterday in the way in which they responded to the incident, have been positive and helpful. Of course we cannot take it for granted that there wall be no disagreements in the future, but in the past two or three weeks, their co-operation has been very helpful.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no use talking tough unless one is prepared to act with comparable toughness, and that on this occasion NATO has done both, when put to the first real test of whether it is prepared to take military action in support of United Nations resolutions?
My right hon.. Friend has not told the House where the American aircraft flew from. I presume that they came from an aircraft carrier, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as Italy is a member of NATO, the Italian Government are perfectly happy for Italian air bases to be used in support of NATO operations?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, of course; the answer to my hon. Friend's second question is yes. Those arrangements were made and completed in great detail, with the full co-operation of Italy as a member of NATO. I am sorry, but I cannot remember my hon. Friend's first question.
Mr. Colvin: I asked for confirmation that there was no point in talking tough unless one was prepared to act tough.
Mr. Hurd: The House knows, and I think that it agrees, that in this country we are not in favour of talking indiscriminately of military action as though it could bring peace. We know that it cannot, and that is why, as I have described, the peace effort has to go ahead. However, we have judged that, for certain measured purposes, the use of armed force is necessary, and one of those is in order to respond to infringements of the no-fly zone.
Mr. Max Madden: I welcome the fact that decisive action has at long last been taken to implement United Nations resolutions in Bosnia. Can the Secretary of State say more about what action will be taken to give proper protection to the so-called protected areas? Will he also stifle any prospect of a unilateral withdrawal of UNPROFOR forces from Bosnia in the foreseeable future?
Mr. Hurd: There has never been any question of British troops being withdrawn unilaterally from UNPROFOR. It is clear that their presence and that of those serving alongside them in UNPROFOR will be needed, at any rate for the time to come.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I mentioned Tuzla and Srebrenica. I also mentioned Vitez, which, although it was not one of the original safe areas, is still to some extent under siege. I mentioned Mostar, too. None of those is exactly the same as Sarajevo, and that is why what the French and British are trying to achieve in New York is for the Secretary-General to provide specific plans for the relief of each of those places.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will have noticed a certain unease in the House about the Russian operation involving Tuzla. Of course everyone will welcome the reopening of the airport, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Russian forces in Bosnia are working directly under the United Nations, and that the UN command would have known about the initiative on Tuzla before the Russians entered into it?
Mr. Hurd: I mentioned the plans that Mr. Akashi and General Rose, on behalf of the UN, have already made for the relief of Tuzla, and I mentioned the need to mesh those in with whatever agreement may have been reached in Moscow in the past few hours. Clearly that will mean a UN operation, and the co-operation of the Serbs and of the Bosnian Muslims will be needed if the airport is to be opened.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some of us are profoundly uneasy about what has happened? Is he saying that, whatever President Yeltsin has said, the Russian Parliament and the Russian military have agreed to all that? We are also uneasy because the Greek Foreign Minister has said that what happened was unnecessary. It seems to some of us that those who know most about the subject are the most concerned and uneasy.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's question, like the question asked by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), would have been apposite if the Russians had criticised what was done. Those two questions seem to have been produced by autopilot; the situation is not as those who asked them expected.
The Russians have made it clear—Mr. Churkin made it clear to me on the telephone and then publicly—that, if it

791
turned out as it did turn out and the no-fly zone had been violated by a unit of fixed-wing aircraft, those who launched that unit had to accept the consequences. That is exactly our point of view. I spent a long time with the Greek Foreign Minister on that subject yesterday, and I do not think that, at the end of the day, he disputed the conclusions of NATO.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent decision of the Russian Government to send 800 troops to Bosnia marked a major triumph for British diplomacy during the Prime Minister's recent visit to Moscow? Will he assure the House that, in the current dangerous and escalating circumstances, any further initiatives in Bosnia will be carefully co-ordinated with the Russian Government?
Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister urged the Russians in Moscow two weeks ago to do their utmost to influence the Serbs. The Russians told him on that occasion that they were willing to send troops. I do not agree with every statement of Russian foreign policy. I discussed that in Moscow recently with Mr. Kozyrev and with Mr. Grachev, the Defence Minister. When one considers what the Russians have said and done in respect of Bosnia in the past few weeks, I believe that it is positive and that it justifies our keeping in close touch with them, as we are doing.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does not it seem strange that the Foreign Secretary, even at this stage, cannot tell us where the planes came from and who was responsible for them, especially taking into account the fact that the AWACS planes are capable of spotting almost anything on the ground? Is it not a case of diplomatic blindness? If mistakes may be made at that level with all the technology and equipment at hand, if the war begins to escalate, what may happen if we become more deeply embroiled in the war?
Mr. Hurd: That seems to be an autopilot question, which seems to stem from the proposition that there was a great deal of doubt. Those Galeb planes were identified bombing a factory in the Croatian part of Bosnia. Therefore, before they started bombing, they were quite clearly infringing the no-fly zone. The Security Council authorised that no-fly zone and authorised member states to enforce it, and that is what was done.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Yugoslav aircraft industry has produced more than 150 of those Galeb aircraft, that many are still operating and that we do not know quite where they are operating, it is important that NATO has good intelligence about who is operating them? Bearing in mind that infringement of the no-fly zone, would he consider further restrictions of air movement of aircraft from the different warring factions over the former Yugoslavia?
Mr. Hurd: There is no doubt in anybody's mind that the planes were operating in the Serb cause. Whether they originated from a part of Croatia occupied by Serbs, or from Serbia, or from a part of Bosnia occupied by Serbs, is an interesting but secondary matter, in view of what they were doing and of the rules of international law.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is not the key point the fact that, in the past two months, we have seen more progress than in the previous two years in bringing an end to a conflict which has already claimed almost 200,000 lives and created millions of refugees? Looking ahead to the wider peace process, which the Foreign Secretary mentioned, will he reconfirm that the Government's position is still not to recognise the results of ethnic cleansing or any changes of borders which are brought about by force?
Mr. Hurd: It is clear—I think that it is common ground to everybody, even the Bosnian Serbs—that a negotiated settlement must start with a substantial Bosnian Serb withdrawal, from perhaps up to about a quarter of the land which they now occupy. That is what David Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg accomplished on HMS Invincible and since. The Americans are carrying that forward, to see whether they can proceed to that position by an agreement between the Croats and Muslims. If they can, well and good.
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right: the Serbs cannot expect to hold on, by force of occupation, to all the land that they occupy at present.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the demonstration of resolution on the part of the United Nations and NATO is thoroughly to be welcomed? Does he also agree that the positive steps forward to which he referred are a direct result of, and thoroughly vindicate, our recent decision to pursue violations of UN resolutions in Bosnia with greater vigour?
Mr. Hurd: Various things have come together for good. Undoubtedly, the NATO decision was part of that. Undoubtedly, the leadership of General Rose on the ground is part of that. Undoubtedly, the recent Russian action is part of that. The much more intensive American diplomatic action is very welcome, because it shows all concerned that the Americans are not hanging back. Like the Europeans, they believe that, at the end of this, there must be a negotiated peace, because there cannot be a military victory for anyone.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what representations the Prime Minister has made to President Clinton about the involvement of United States ground forces in helping the humanitarian effort and a peace settlement for Bosnia? Can he give an assurance that we have made it clear to the United States that any future action by US military aircraft must be strictly in accordance with the decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations, and that there cannot be any unilateral assistance on one side or the other in this civil war?
Mr. Hurd: That is the whole basis on which the Americans have been operating, and on which the two F16s operated yesterday.
As to the presence of American ground troops, President Clinton made it clear last year that the United States would be willing to help with troops on the ground once and if there were an agreed settlement which all the warring parties were implementing. That stage has not been reached.
I have told the House about the agreement to rebuild civilian services in Sarajevo, which the President and my right hon. Friend have reached. Obviously, that will

793
involve the active American participation of experts in rebuilding the city, and that is a forward step which the House will welcome.
Dr. Liam Fox: What my right hon. Friend said about Greece will be widely welcomed. Can he confirm that he will do everything in his power to persuade the Greeks to back away from a confrontation with Macedonia—a confrontation which would only aggravate the conflict in the Balkans?
Mr. Hurd: As I said, the Greeks have genuine anxieties —if one goes there and listens to Greeks of many different political persuasions, one understands that. They believe that the integrity of Greece is threatened by the constitution, the flag, the name and so on of this small state to their north. I do not agree with that, and Greece's other partners do not agree with that, but we must reckon with that fact.
What needs to happen is the withdrawal of these measures—which are illegal and will prove very expensive for Greece, as well as for the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia—and continued discussion under the auspices and chairmanship of Mr. Cyrus Vance to resolve these questions and issues between Greece and her northern neighbour.
Mr. John Home Robertson: In view of the serious situation in Bosnia that the Secretary of State has described, how can he justify the redeployment of British UNPROFOR troops away from central Bosnia to support the action in Sarajevo? Will the British Government now respond positively to the request from the United Nations commanders on the ground, including General Rose, for the deployment of extra British UNPROFOR troops?
Mr. Hurd: The Coldstreams were redeployed in Sarajevo because that is what General Rose wanted, and they have done an invaluable job there. It is for the United Nations to redeploy forces under its control. In this case, we readily agreed that, in the circumstances of last week, the Coldstreams were needed in Sarajevo.
It would be excellent if other countries came forward with troops, which could increase the resources available to UNPROFOR and General Rose. We have provided, and are willing to provide, extra specialist help as he requires it. When one is thinking of substantial military units, we believe that the call should go principally to those who, unlike the French, ourselves and one or two other countries, are not responding substantially already.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the action might put our aid workers and troops in more danger? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the recent history of Russia, which shows that President Yeltsin might not be in total control in the near future? Might not the action lead to further rises in the nationalism that is worrying everyone so much? Should not the American President at least commit troops and aid workers to face the same dangers as he expects those of other countries to face?
Mr. Hurd: The American President has made his position clear. Obviously, the greater the American involvement on the ground as well as in the air and in diplomacy, the more America's allies will be pleased. Of
794
course, the hon. Lady is right to say that there is a risk. If our aid workers and troops wanted to avoid risk, they would stay at home.
Mrs. Mahon indicated dissent.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady cannot buck that point. What Government must do—this puts us in a different position from Opposition politicians—is weigh the risks. We have the power to put the lives of service men and aid workers at risk, and we should use that power only when we are clear that the likely benefits outweigh the risks. We are so clear at present.
Mr. George Foulkes: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), does the Foreign Secretary agree that the incident underlines the importance of intensifying the effort to find a peaceful, and, above all, stable, long-term solution? What mechanism does the right hon. Gentleman consider to be the most appropriate to try to find such a solution, and what role does he see in the longer term for Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg?
Mr. Hurd: The role that the UN and the European Union have given David Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg remains as it is. When a negotiated agreement is eventually built brick by brick, their names and proposals will be a part of that building—I do not doubt that.
I have reported on what the Americans are attempting to do, and the House knows what the Russians are attempting to do. The European Union will meet to discuss the matters again next Monday. There is no doubt that the efforts of all those I mentioned are now moving together in a way that was not always true in the past. If we can continue that impetus, we may be able to continue the progress.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Given that the recent and determined UN action must already have had the wonderful effect of saving many innocent lives in Sarajevo, does the Foreign Secretary now accept that equally determined action two years ago would have saved the lives of many thousands of innocent people in the former Yugoslavia? Does he now accept the ancient lesson of history that appeasement can never be supported and can never be successful?
Mr. Hurd: We have been saving lives in central Bosnia month after month. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the arms embargo. I believe that if the embargo had been lifted, the war, instead of dying down, would have blazed up, and perhaps spread to other countries. I do not believe that that would have been a remedy.
If the hon. Gentleman was thinking of a massive armed intervention on the ground, he should be aware of what that might have led to. If he believes that action from the air could have produced a peace settlement, he is wrong. Action from the air can produce certain clear results, including the defence of UNPROFOR, maintaining the no-fly zone and getting heavier weapons removed from Sarajevo.
We carefully worked out those things. We measured the risk against the benefits, and we in NATO decided to take the risk in those areas. To suppose in a lordly sort of way that there were options for the use of force a long time ago

795
which could have saved lives, rather than killed more people, is to assume something that is far from being proven.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: While the opening of Tuzla airport will be important, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be even more useful to open up the northern route into Tuzla in north central Bosnia? That is the spur from Zupanja to Tuzla which leaves the Zagreb-Belgrade highway.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in a couple of weeks, a pan-European convoy with large contingents from Britain will try to get through to Tuzla along that route? The Bosnians in Tuzla do not understand why that route—which is non-mountainous, unlike the southern route—has not been opened for aid convoys. Will the Foreign Secretary look at that and undertake that either himself or one of his hon. Friends will have talks with the Workers Aid for Bosnia group which is forming a convoy in the near future?
Mr. Hurd: It is essential that the convoy should proceed in close contact with the UN and the ODA. Most of the relief that is getting into Tuzla has come by road through Serb-held lands. We believe that the quantity is inadequate. That is why it is important to open the airport.
Mr. John McAllion: United Nations officials have confirmed that, since last October, there have been more than 1,000 violations of the no-fly zone by Serbian, Croatian and Muslim aircraft. Will the Foreign Secretary explain clearly to the House why this violation provoked a NATO attack? Was it because either NATO or the United Nations had confirmation that the planes were involved in a bombing attack, or because it was the first occasion on which more than one fixed-wing aircraft violated the no-fly zone?
Mr. Hurd: The second.
Ms Kate Hoey: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), which the Foreign Secretary did not answer exactly in his normal manner, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Sarajevo is still under siege? It is important that that point gets across. It comes across that somehow Sarajevo has been saved. While I welcome what has happened there, it is clear that people cannot leave that city, and they are under siege. What measures will be taken to improve the position?
Mr. Hurd: The Bosnian Government have not encouraged people to leave Sarajevo. It is partly under
796
siege. There is an airlift. Some supplies get in, but not enough. The civilian life of the city is still to a large extent paralysed. That is why we, with the French and the US, have urged the UN to appoint a commissioner to work alongside General Rose and Mr. Akashi to restore civilian life. That is why the Anglo-American agreement that I have just announced takes the form it does.
We are not talking just about Sarajevo: other places are under siege. Mostar has been under siege by the Croats. Vitez has been under siege by the Bosnian Muslims. Each is a different area, with different participants, difference hindrances. Therefore, different remedies are needed. That is what is being worked out.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West. In one of his responses, the Foreign Secretary said that the Serbs should not be allowed to hold on to "all" of the land that they had gained by aggression. Why did he say "all" and not "any"? If borders are to be violated as they have been, what assurances can he give the people of Albania following recent violations of the border there by the Serbians?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if we were dealing with a simple invasion of Bosnia by the Serbs. Serbs live in Bosnia. We are talking about what is the fair share to be retained by Bosnian Serbs so that they continue to live in their country. That is the question.
The answer worked out is that the Bosnian Serbs need to withdraw from about one quarter of the land which they have seized. Bosnian Muslims should have approximately one third, and that is what they have agreed. The Bosnian Croats should have 17.5 per cent. Those are not absolute figures; they are part of the negotiations now taking place. What is at issue is not so much the total proportions as the quality and nature of the land—which towns, which villages—that should be in each category.
Mr. John Hutton: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the six attacking Bosnian aircraft were first identified by NATO command only during the attack on Novi Travnik or shortly thereafter? If that is not so, is not it a matter of serious concern that the attacks were allowed to take place? Given that the six aircraft were engaged after the bombing mission on Novi Travnik, why on earth was it necessary to give the aircraft two separate warnings?
Mr. Hurd: Because that is the agreed procedure, to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. I believe that the majority of the House would feel that the operation was remarkably effective and successful.

Lloyd's Membership
4.13 pm
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in your power to rule that Members of this House comply with the Register of Members' Interests in respect of declaring their membership of syndicates in Lloyds? If they do not, they are defying the will of the House.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps I can be helpful to the House. The matter was referred to yesterday. It may be helpful if I draw attention lo the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which includes the words:
"to consider any proposals made by Members or others as to the form and content of the register and to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests."
The hon. Gentleman should pose his questions to the Select Committee. In view of that Committee's responsibility, I wish to make it clear that I shall entertain no further points on the subject.

Elimination of Poverty in Retirement
4.15 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population, to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricity and water, to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental, to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes, to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings, and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people.
We are in the throes of a debate on the future of the welfare state. Day by day, various Ministers pluck out of the air yet more and new statistics to claim that this country can no longer afford universal benefits or a universal welfare state. But, since 1979, that very same Government have presided over an economic strategy in which the richest fifth of the population has increased its share of national income from 35 to 43 per cent., while the share of the poorest fifth has dropped to a mere 6 per cent. of national income—from 10 per cent. in 1979, even then an inadequate figure. In Britain, welfare spending as a proportion of both national income and Government expenditure is considerably and significantly lower than in other European countries.
Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) let the cat out of the bag. He was finally brought to the Dispatch Box to admit that, since 1979, average earnings in this country have risen by 35 per cent., and the average state old-age pension has risen by 3.2 per cent. Yet the same Minister claimed that pensioners' average income has risen by 39 per cent. during that period.
What the Minister fails to discuss or admit is that the supposed 39 per cent. increase in the average income of pensioners hides a multitude of sins. It disregards the fact that many older pensioners, particularly older women pensioners, have no access to occupational pension schemes, savings or investments. They are not the people who read the Financial Times to see how their shares are going: they are the people who wonder how they will be able to pay their gas or electricity bills at the end of each quarter.
The use of global average figures is a dangerous trend. Groups that we used to refer to as on the lunatic right and now just think of as completely loopy—such as the No Turning Back group and the Adam Smith Institute—seem to be trying to join in the debate.
The No Turning Back group proposes the abolition of the state earnings-related pension scheme and offers the opt-out of state pensions in return for bribery in the form of national insurance payments. The same Government now pay more and more money into the national insurance fund as a means of promoting the private pension industry. I believe that the Government's pension strategy is largely about promoting the private pension industry, at the expense of the welfare state and the principles of a state scheme.
Yesterday, the Adam Smith Institute came out in its true colours and went even further: it proposed the wholesale abolition of the welfare state. Some Conservative Members propose the destruction of the welfare state in its entirety. The Secretary of State claims that he is the great defender of the welfare state, but, under questioning, he admits that, if the Government stay in office until the end of the

799
century, the state old-age pension will be reduced to a mere 10 per cent. of average earnings, from a high of 26 per cent. when the last Labour Government left office. Inadequate though it was, the pension then was considerably better than it is now.
This is not the first time that I have introduced such a Bill. In fact, it is the 11 th time that I have introduced the same or a similar Bill designed to set out a comprehensive programme to improve the lot of the elderly in this country. The way in which the elderly are treated is a measure of a society's civilisation. The way that we in this country treat our elderly population is a standing disgrace. Too many of them live in poverty, too many die of hypothermia and too many live in fear of their gas, electricity and telephone bills, and having to pay for their television licence.
The Bill is a comprehensive measure. It would require the appointment of a Minister to co-ordinate all aspects of policies for the elderly. They are concerned not simply about pensions, but about education, recreation, culture and a variety of subjects, including housing.
It would also require both local authorities and local health authorities to produce an annual report explaining what they do for their elderly population, what services they provide, how they provide them, what the life expectancy is, and how effective the services are, because too many housebound, bedridden elderly people are suffering from enormous cuts in social services expenditure. They are not in a position to lobby, either here or at town halls. They are the victims of Government spending cuts in respect of local health authorities and local councils.
In addition, value added tax is a wholly regressive form of taxation. The compensation measures proposed by the Government, which they plan to introduce in April, are wholly inadequate. They take no account of the regional differences in fuel bills. Fuel bills tend to be higher where it is colder. Scottish bills tend to be higher than English bills, and so forth.
Likewise, the standing charges for gas, electricity and water, the telephone rental and the television licence fee are like another poll tax for low-income households. In the Bill, I propose that the vast profits being made by the privatised gas, electricity and water companies should instead be put to good use by being channelled into abolishing the standing charges for pensioner households, both to save them money and to protect them from having supplies being cut off.
The right to be able to get about is crucial. In London, we are very proud of the travel permit scheme for pensioners. Its introduction was a great achievement by the Labour-controlled Greater London council, and it has been a mighty struggle to maintain it. Similar schemes have been introduced in many other cities. I believe, however,
800
that it should be extended to the whole country. If the Republic of Ireland can provide a national travel scheme for its retired people, why can this country not do it?
I come now to the crucial part of the Bill. Too many elderly people live in great poverty. Too many are unable to make ends meet. Too many have no savings, and those who have them find that the savings are often eaten up because of the rules on the use of savings before housing benefit and the like are paid.
I therefore propose that the first thing to be done is the recalculation of the state old-age pension to restore the link that was so cruelly and brutally broken in 1980. Until 1975, the basis of the calculation of the pension each April was the link between it and average earnings. The basis is now the average price rise, which means that, as a proportion of average earnings, the state old-age pension has fallen and fallen. As I said earlier, it is due to fall to a mere 10 per cent.
I propose that the link be restored, and that we aim to be able to pay a state old-age pension of half average earnings. It could be achieved, although it would require considerable expenditure, and it would bring us somewhere near the European average in countries where they are trying to protect and look after their elderly.
Those who campaigned a century ago for the principle of a welfare state and for a state old-age pension to banish for ever the fear of the workhouse and of poverty in old age would be appalled if they could have foreseen that, in 1994, we would live in a society which, having achieved a universal welfare state, was prepared to preside over its destruction in favour of greed and private profit.
My Bill seeks to do something different. It seeks to recognise that the richest in the country have done very well over the past 15 years. We spend far too much money on arms; we could be spending it on socially useful things. We are allowing too many hospitals and social services to be destroyed. The Bill goes some way towards redressing the balance, and eliminating once and for all the fear and misery of poverty in retirement.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Don Dixon, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Llew Smith, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Bob Cryer.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population, to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricity and water, to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental, to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes, to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings, and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 March, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
Orders of the Day
  Opposition Day
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Overseas Aid
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.24 pm
    Sir David Steel: I beg to move,
    That this House notes with concern the high proportion of British aid that is tied to the purchase of British goods and services; notes the remarkable coincidence between defence-related contracts and the allocation of British aid; further notes that many of the companies who have benefited from such deals are major donors to the Conservative Party; believes that allegations relating to the Pergau Dam affair have seriously undermined the credibility of the British aid programme; condemns the past conduct of Her Majesty's Government in relation to this matter; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to restore the public's confidence in British aid by setting a timetable for achieving the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. GNP, reducing the proportion of tied aid and increasing the proportion which is spent on the basic human needs of the poorest people.
    In opening the debate, I intend to advance five propositions: first, that the Pergau dam project was a costly mistake to which the Government should never have committed taxpayers' money; secondly, that the only possible explanation for that error was the Government's eagerness to lubricate the trade channels with Malaysia and especially the arms trade; thirdly, that, as in the case with arms to Iraq, the Government proclaimed one policy to Parliament and the public, but, in reality, pursued another; fourthly, that there has been an unhealthy use of the overseas aid programme generally to assist arms sales around the world; and, fifthly, that there has been an equally unhealthy dominance in the receipt of the aid and trade provision by firms that are donors to the Conservative party. In conclusion, I shall propose changes in policy to ensure that those wholly unacceptable happenings do not recur.
    I begin, therefore, with the decision to support the Pergau dam project. In 1987, which was a year before the Government got committed by the then Prime Minister to supporting that project, the World bank's power sector had advised against that hydro-electric project and suggested instead that Malaysia should concentrate on gas-fired electricity generation until the turn of the century. The Malaysian Government turned down a less expensive tender for such a power station, which, incidentally, British companies were well placed to supply and which would have been far less environmentally damaging.
    That was before the then Defence Secretary's now notorious visit to Malaysia in March 1988, when he signed a protocol on arms sales in conjunction with a promise on aid, and before the equally notorious visit by the then Prime Minister. Having got hooked on the project, the Overseas Development Agency sent a team to Malaysia to assess the project. The Public Accounts Committee has described that as the shortest project appraisal ever to come
    802
    before it. Nevertheless, the then Prime Minister offered the Malaysian Prime Minister support for the project, conditional on full economic appraisal.
    A year later, in February 1990, the ODA concluded that the dam was a "very bad buy" and the Department for Trade and Industry proposed a review of the Malaysian power sector. Nevertheless, the Malaysian Government were determined to proceed and, in February 1991, the then Permanent Secretary to the ODA, Sir Tim Lankester, told Ministers that the proposal, which was not some flea-bite incidental project but the largest single funding ever to be made by our overseas aid programme, was
    "unequivocally a bad one in economic terms"
    and an
    "abuse of the aid programme".
    Sir Tim told our Public Accounts Committee a few weeks ago that he therefore required ministerial orders to go ahead with the payments. Mr. Rais Yatin, who was Foreign Minister of Malaysia at the start of those discussions, has said that the deal was a "gross irregularity".
    In its report last year, the National Audit Office drew attention to the history of errors in the project and concluded that the cost to the British taxpayer was £234 million, plus more than £50 million for funding soft loans.
    Among the first duties of Parliament are the voting of moneys to Governments and the check on their use. We should be failing in our most fundamental duty if we did not censure the Government for their assent to that expenditure.
    That brings me to the question, why? The answer is that, so keen were Ministers to re-establish trade with Malaysia that they set aside a series of normal procedures to enable them to do so. There was, first, the agreement made by George Younger, now Lord Younger of Prestwick, to link an arms sales package with the promise of aid. He says:
    "a verbal understanding was given by somebody—to link the aid to the defence contract".
    The House is entitled to know who that somebody was.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relationship between British and Malaysian Ministers became unacceptably cosy, and that there are grounds for investigating the basis on which public interest immunity certificates were signed by Ministers against the interests of Mr. Lorrain Osman, who was then in Pentonville prison in London, which, if they had not been signed, might have led to the disclosure of documents that would have enabled Mr. Osman to present his defence in a proper fashion?
    Sir David Steel: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that there is a case for looking into that connection. In preparing what is inevitably a wide-ranging speech, I decided not to go down that alley, but it is one well worth exploring and I hope that hon. Members will do so in the debate.
    I have a copy of the subsequent memorandum of understanding that was signed by the two Prime Ministers after a meeting from which all officials were excluded. As it is classified as secret, I shall not read any of it to the House. Suffice it to say that it contains some unusual provisions, including the use of concessionary interest rates by private banks to be guaranteed by the Government, rather than the normal export credit guarantee arrangements, the establishment of permanent units in our

    803
    Ministry of Defence and in Malaysia to oversee the contracts and the provision of military training, as well as a list of various arms suppliers.
    Here I have to be blunt and say that, in the course of batting for Britain, which our former Prime Minister did extremely well, her close circle often seems to have been involved. In this case, Sir Tim Bell, well known as her public relations adviser, is also adviser to the Malaysian Prime Minister and to Tam Sri Armugam, who controls GEC Malaysia, and was heavily involved in some of the contracts under the deal.
    Another person who helped broker parts of the deal is Mr. Steve Tipping, a business associate of Mr. Mark Thatcher and, indeed, best man at his wedding. Tim Bell told the The Sunday Times when asked to clarify Tipping's exact role:
    "What he does for a living is introduce people to each other".
    That is lucky for him. It is clear that between them, George Younger, Margaret Thatcher and persons unknown made the deal, which also included an agreement to give Malaysian Airlines a landing slot at Heathrow airport, for which the Treasury had to fork out more than £2 million of public money as compensation to British Airways.
    I now turn to the deception of Parliament. According to the Alan Clark school of thought, none of it, including possible payments to middle men or politicians into Swiss bank accounts, is at all untoward in the determined pursuit of British business interests. [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members say, "Hear, hear", but it is not the stated policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    I do not want to get hung up on the argument about whether it was illegal, but it was certainly wholly against the ODA's declared policy objectives and the published guidelines of the aid and trade provision which specifically exclude as eligible "equipment for military purposes".
    Mr. James Paice: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the principal responsibility of the British Government, of any persuasion, must be to look after British interests first? In that context, is it not quite clear, after the events of Thursday and Friday onwards Concerning the Malaysian trade embargo against Britain, that countless thousands of British jobs are at risk? Would not the right hon. Gentleman be doing Britain more good, and doing more for British jobs by calming the situation down rather than stoking the fire, which he is actively doing?
    Sir David Steel: I will come on to my suggestions about the best way of pursuing British interests towards the end of my speech. But if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that deception, backhanders or anything of that kind should be part of British policy, let us have that stated as British policy. What I am complaining about is that the policy pursued in this case was different from the public policy that was declared to us in Parliament. More than that, Ministers constantly denied any link between arms supplies and aid in several answers to parliamentary questions. I shall give two examples. In November 1989, the then Prime Minister told the House:
    "Overseas aid is frequently used to finance civil engineering contracts … It is not used in connection with sales of military equipment."—[Official Report, 14 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 121.]
    That was already untrue by the time she said it.
    804
    In December 1991, the Minister for Overseas Development, the then Mrs. Chalker, told the House:
    "There is no question of linking aid and arms 'deals"'.—[Official Report, 20 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 331.]
    But there was a question, and she had already been overruled in that instance.
    The columns of Hansard are littered with such denials. As late as 26 January this year, when asked to confirm or deny the specific allegation that aid to Pergau was linked to arms sales, the Prime Minister wrote in a letter to me that the
    "Memorandum of Understanding did not cover aid."
    I cannot accuse the Prime Minister of telling me a lie, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order, and he is technically correct. It is not there. But he and other Ministers have been miserly with their veracity, right up to Sunday, when the Foreign Secretary, in a phrase that ranks alongside "economical with the truth", told us that the two had for a time become entangled.
    One of my conclusions is that, as in the arms to Iraq fiasco, the Government have become not only sloppy in their use of power but cavalier in their treatment of the House, and have sought to mislead us by concealing the truth until finally found out.
    Mr. David Harris: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some of us who are on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs are in a difficult position. Indeed, I have just come from the Foreign Office, where I was looking through some of the papers. I ask him to accept that all these points will be looked into carefully by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I think that he will perhaps want to reconsider some of the points that he makes when the whole story is known. I hope very much that that is so.
    Sir David Steel: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked carefully at all the papers relating to this matter and am choosing my words extremely carefully. I believe that the House was misled in the parliamentary answers that were given, because it is undeniable that aid—
    Mr. Harris: Has the right hon. Gentleman read it?
    Sir David Steel: I have read the memorandum of understanding. Of course there is no reference to it, but if the hon. Gentleman had been following me closely, he would have heard that George Younger, as he then was, made it quite clear that a verbal commitment was given by somebody to promise the aid. I am asking the question that I hope the hon. Member will ask as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs: Who was that person? I invite him to ask that question.
    My fourth proposition is that the Pergau dam affair illustrates something that has gone wrong with our aid and trade provision. There has been a growing correlation between increased aid programmes to other countries and arms sales contracts. Malaysia is not a poor country; its gross national product per capita is $2,500. The amount spent on the Pergau dam project alone, every single year from now through to 2000, exceeds what we gave last year to the whole of Somalia or Ethiopia, each of whose gross national product per head is only just over $100.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the kind of aid that is

    805
    given to Somalia will not be under the aid and trade provision and therefore cannot be truly classified in the same way as the aid given on the Pergau dam?
    Sir David Steel: I accept that it comes out of a different part of the ODA, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that the total, both the trade and aid provision and the ordinary aid programme, amounts to our overseas aid budget. They are together. I shall talk in a moment about the inadequacy of the total packages. Obviously, money spent on one is not available for the other; that is the point that I am making.
    Even further removed from poverty is Oman, with a gross national product per capita of over $6,000—higher than the figure in Portugal, a European Community aid-giving country. Its aid from Britain has doubled during the lifetime of the present Government, and it currently ranks third in the list of purchasers of arms from Britain. For 1994, defence spending is planned to occupy 30 per cent. of Oman's national budget. Thailand and Jordan are other better-off countries with increasing aid receipts and growing arms purchases from Britain.
    Most offensive of all, however, are the sales and aid programmes for undesirable regimes. Let us take Ecuador, for example. In comparison with neighbouring Colombia and El Salvador—which share the same level of poverty —Ecuador receives growing British aid. It currently amounts to 0.33p per head, as against 0.07p and 0.04p in the other two countries. The difference is that Ecuadlor is the fifth largest purchaser of British arms. In 1991, the Ecuadorian human rights commission registered 23 cases of unlawful killing and 38 of torture.
    Even more striking is the case of Indonesia, where our aid programme has quadrupled under the present Government. It has become the fourth largest purchaser of British armaments. Since 1975, when Indonesia invaded its neighbour East Timor, a third of the population—some 200,000 people—has been killed. In 1991, the army massacred 100 civilians at a funeral in the East Timor capital. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has condemned Indonesia. Last year's Amnesty International report lists more than 180 prisoners of conscience, and states:
    "Torture and ill treatment of political detainees, peaceful demonstrations and criminal suspects were common and resulted in some deaths. Government forces extrajudicially executed scores of alleged supporters of independence in Aceh and East Timor."
    Some countries, such as Belgium, have suspended their aid to Indonesia; others, such as the United States, have banned arms sales. Britain has increased both. I believe that most people in this country find that wholly unacceptable, and would prefer us not to sell arms to unsavoury regimes—and certainly not to lubricate those sales by using parts of our limited aid budget.
    I agree with what Lady Chalker, the Minister for Overseas Development, said in a lecture a couple of years ago:
    "excessive military expenditure can create political and military insecurity. It can also seriously damage development by pre-empting resources."
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the public policy of a political party, and what a party says when it goes overseas. Will he confirm that his own party was quick to congratulate the new Liberal Canadian Government on their economic policies, when they had just announced the cancellation of a helicopter project which would have been
    806
    very expensive for the Canadian taxpayer? The leader of the right hon. Gentleman's party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), then told the local press that he had dispatched the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Canadian Government to reinstate the project.
    Sir David Steel: With great respect, that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have indeed discussed the matter with Canadian Ministers. It is evident from the Canadian Liberal election programme, which is clearly set out, that it was designed to reduce the defence budget and increase the aid budget. I have been trying to argue that case here.
    In a recent Foreign Office publication, the Government said that they attempted to promote good government through their aid programme. It seems highly selective. In the foreword, the Foreign Secretary writes:
    "The more open a society is, the more transparent the decisions of government, the more difficult it is to hide corruption and the abuse of human rights."
    Those are fine words, but tell that to the Malaysians and the Indonesians!
    My fifth observation relates to the connection between firms that benefit from the aid and trade provision, and donations to the Conservative party and its allied organisations. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) should listen to what I am going to say before intervening.
    The fact is that companies linked by such donations have been the main beneficiaries of the aid and trade provision—to the tune of 42 per cent.—since the Government came to power. They include Cementation International—owned by Trafalgar House—Balfour Beatty, GEC, AMEC International, Biwater and Davy; not to mention the walk-on part of our old friend the privatised British Airways.
    I am not alleging that there is anything as corrupt as a direct link between those companies' donations to the party in government and their receipt of aid and trade provision from the Government: perish the thought. It is just that the two have, in a somewhat unseemly manner, "become entangled".
    Mr. Simon Burns: May I return to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier point? He mentioned both GEC and Malaysia. No doubt he knows quite a bit about my constituency from his previous role as leader of the Liberal party; he will know that it contains four GEC companies, which employ people who have been hard hit by defence-related redundancies. Over the past week, those workers have become extremely nervous and concerned about the threat of trade with Malaysia, where they are involved in non-military contracts such as the airport project.
    What would the right hon. Gentleman do if redundancies were announced in Chelmsford as a result of pathetic, naive debates of this kind? Will he consider reading an article in The Times by Peter Riddell, which puts the whole issue into perspective?
    Sir David Steel: If any redundancies were declared in Chelmsford, I would say that the hon. Gentleman should look to his own Government, who got into this mess in the first place—unless he is seeking to defend the actions that I have described; I am not sure whether he is or not.

    807
    What are we going to do about all this? Let me take the last point first. Over the years, the House has on several occasions dodged the issue of the funding of political parties. I believe that such corporate donations should be outlawed. I am not in favour of state grants for political parties, but I believe that there is a case for examining a scheme whereby each individual citizen was allowed to donate a small fixed amount from his or her tax bill—say £50—to the party of his or her choice. That would provide an element of public subsidy for democracy, but according to the individual's choice—leaving space for the political parties to go out and get it.
    That is my first proposal for a change in policy. My second is that we should legislate, as the United States Congress has done, against arms sales to regimes with appalling human rights records. I do not believe that the American action is foolproof, but at least it is a start in the right direction.
    Thirdly, I am well aware of the argument—which appears to be supported by some Conservative Members —that, if we do not engage in arms trade sweeteners, payments to middle men or bribery, to put it crudely, others may nip in and secure the contracts. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is well aware of that, and has established a working party on illicit payments.
    Mr. Burns: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand.
    Sir David Steel: I am trying to tell the hon. Member for Chelmsford something. For more than two years, the working party has been battling against the indifference of the British and Japanese participants. I want an assurance from the Government that they will take the issue seriously, and help the OECD to reach an internationally accepted code of behaviour. In the meantime, we should look at the American legislation, which is punitive to the extent of imposing $2 million fines and five years in gaol for corrupt payments.
    Mr. Tim Renton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I think that he must agree that he is misinforming the House about that OECD examination. My understanding is that it is a proposition put forward by the United States, because of the stringency of its domestic law, but it is being discussed, debated and in some degree opposed, not only by Britain and by Japan, but by all our continental European neighbours, because they simply do not think that it is pertinent to their legislation. It is totally unfair, therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman, as it were, to put Britain alone in dock in that context.
    Sir David Steel: I did not put Britain alone in the dock. I said simply that my information was that Britain and Japan had been dragging their feet in that working party, which has been going on, not for two months, but for two years. If the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is suggesting that some of our European Community partners are also dragging their feet, I find that equally deplorable. I am saying that it is no good advancing the argument that if we do not behave badly someone
    808
    elsewhere will, and therefore we might as well behave badly, which appears to be the case that Mr. Alan Clark and others have advanced.
    We all know that our overseas aid budget, far from moving towards the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product, has been moving disgracefully away from it. Moreover, a large chunk has had to be devoted to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, leaving a smaller proportion of the diminished budget for the desperately poor in our world. It is time that the overall budget was progressively increased towards our UN commitment and that the share-out within it was reordered to help the poorer countries. Perhaps we could be given details of the rethinking that has already taken place in the Overseas Development Administration on that last point.
    Finally, I believe, as did our Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that the aid and trade provision should be removed from the ODA and transferred wholly to the Department of Trade and Industry. There is everything to be said, of course, for assisting our industries to obtain contracts—that is not at issue—but that is not one of the declared aims of the ODA and, in the light of this sad episode, it should become solely that of the DTI.
    Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
    Sir David Steel: No; I am concluding now.
    The British are generous people and the response to the overseas development charities by the public proves that to be so. They have been appalled that their tax revenues, instead of going to the poor and the hungry, have been so misused in that way. The Government stand condemned and the scandal must never be allowed to happen again.
    4.51 pm
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'strongly supports the Government's substantial aid programme aimed at sustainable economic and social development, particularly in the poorest countries, which draws on the skills and excellence of British institutions, companies and nongovernmental organisations, and creates significant jobs and wealth in the United Kingdom.'.
    I wonder, having listened to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), whether we are debating the same aid programme. I welcome the opportunity to remind him of the basic purpose of our aid programme and of the realities of the world. I doubt whether the dedicated people working in the field to implement our aid programme in a number of countries will take much encouragement from having listened to the right hon. Gentleman. I quote from the Foreign Office's 1993 departmental report,
    "The purpose of our overseas aid for developing countries is to promote sustainable economic and social development and good government in order to reduce poverty, suffering and deprivation and to improve the quality of life for poor people."
    The best advertisement for increasing our aid programme is its effectiveness. Since 1987–88, we have increased the amount of aid that we give to developing countries by 10 per cent. in real terms. We have the sixth largest aid programme in the world. We remain committed to the 0.7 per cent. aid/gross national product target, but, like many other donors, we cannot set a timetable for reaching it. Levels of aid must take account of our economic circumstances. Those are realities which

    809
    confront other donors. Some, such as Germany, have frozen their aid. Others—for example, Canada, Italy and Finland—have cut theirs. Our programme, meanwhile, continues to grow.
    However, it is not just a question of how much money donors provide. The results of that aid are what count—how well the aid works. That is why the quality and effectiveness of aid are so important. We would not have provided more resources if we were not convinced that we would put them to good use in the interests of the recipient countries and of British taxpayers.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: What criticisms were expressed in what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said last week to the British Government about the quality of our aid?
    Mr. Goodlad: I was coming to that. The development assistance committee of the OECD has just completed a review of the United Kingdom aid programme, while the hon. Gentleman was on his travels in Africa. It is still in business—unlike, I regret to say, the hon. Gentleman, who has been shamefully let down by his own Front Bench —a case of serious injustice.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Minister speaks about injustice to Front Benchers, does he agree that the biggest injustice this afternoon is that he should be put up to answer for the Government in this miserable situation?
    Mr. Goodlad: On the contrary, I regard it as an honour and a privilege.
    The development assistance committee of the OECD has just said:
    "The United Kingdom has a highly concessional, well organised bilateral programme based on substantial national expertise and largely oriented towards the poorest developing countries."
    That conclusion from an internationally respected organisation hardly squares with the Opposition motion, but I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to it.
    Far from being a misuse of funds, the aid programme is effective because it is well targeted. It is well targeted in where we spend our aid—on the poorest countries, especially in Africa and Asia. Seven of the 10 biggest recipients of our bilateral aid in 1992–93 were poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The other three were populous and poor countries in Asia—India, Bangladesh and China. It is also well targeted on clearly defined objectives. They were set out clearly in the speech of my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development at Chatham House last year. The aim is long-term, sustainable development.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things that seem to have annoyed the Malaysian Government is the fact that commentators in the House and outside seem to be saying that they should not play a part in deciding where aid should be spent and that they do not have the ability to know where that is best used? Is not that appalling? Should not the British Government always listen to the Government of the country involved about where they feel that aid is best applied?
    Mr. Goodlad: I think that my hon. Friend makes a very important point. We in government always listen, but I am quite used to patronising, condescending and neo-colonialist attitudes from Opposition Members.
    What are the areas on which we spend our aid programme? Let us move away from the hysteria and allegations of recent weeks and take a cool look at what we are trying to achieve. We support economic liberalisation. Sustainable development needs sound economic policies, which encourage investment, give incentives to producers and improve the efficiency of public services. We promote the productive capacity of developing countries, improving management skills, encouraging more effective public expenditure programmes. We promote good government to ensure sound development policies, to improve legitimacy and accountability, to extend popular participation in the development process and to promote respect for human rights and the rule of law.
    We are increasingly focusing our programme on the direct reduction of poverty. We promote human development, including better education and health and access to family planning services. We help poorer countries to tackle environmental problems and we have a record second to none in providing speedy and effective humanitarian assistance to the all-too-many communities struck by natural or man-made calamities.
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that in 1991 the ODA published a series of reports which were independent evaluations into the use of the aid and trade provision? There were two sets of reports, carried out by academics. One set was for the ODA, and in that severe criticisms were made of ATP in relation to power projects in countries throughout the world. The criticisms of the use of the aid and trade provision were edited out of the set of documents that were published for public consumption, however. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that was the case in 1991 and tell us what Overseas Development Administration practice is now?
    Mr. Goodlad: I have not read the documents to which the hon. Lady referred, but we recommend constructive criticism from whichever quarter it comes, even from academics. An aid and trade provision review has just been conducted and a copy of it has been given to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. Jim Lester: It may benefit hon. Members to demonstrate the difference between the bilateral aid programme, which my right hon. Friend is describing very well, and the aid and trade provision, which is 9 per cent. of the total bilateral aid budget. The latter is covered by different rules and is designed to assist British companies obtain contracts overseas. The two things are not the same. The criticism of ATP has been published and ATP has been reviewed, which has resulted in tremendous changes in the way in which it operates.
    Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I shall talk about the aid and trade provision later.
    Anyone can set out a list of objectives. The key is ensuring that funds are spent in pursuit of the objectives. Aid programmes do not stand still. They reflect a changing international agenda. They must respond first and foremost to the needs of recipient countries. The way we give aid —the form it takes, the channels that we use and the

    811
    countries that receive it—is under continual review to ensure that it is closely geared to the needs of individual countries.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to using overseas aid to help to alleviate poverty and encourage development, we should link it far more closely to trade, so that we enable British firms to benefit and create more employment in this country? The 9 per cent. figure is far too low and we should increase it significantly.
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right. The aid and trade provision includes the objectives that he described, much as it sticks in the gullets of Opposition Members, especially Labour Members, who introduced the aid and trade provision, but do not like British businesses to be assisted.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The Government often proclaim the principle of promoting good government. Does not that principle also relate to the debate? In an answer to a written question on 10 June 1993, the Under-Secretary of State told me that the Government use their aid programme to improve the quality of government. He said that where standards were not met, for example, where human rights were persistently abused, the Government were prepared to withdraw or reduce their assistance. In view of events in East Timor, does not Indonesia come into that category?
    Mr. Goodlad: As I have said, and as the hon. Gentleman has quoted, it is right that good government is included in the criteria that we take into account. I shall deal with East Timor later.
    The ODA maintains rigorous economic, technical and environmental criteria to ensure the quality of the programmes and projects that we support with official funds. In particular, we have systems to determine accurately development needs, to design the aid to meet those needs in the most cost-effective ways, to develop ways to monitor performance and to feed the aid management lessons of each project into the design and management of future projects.
    Our procedures for safeguarding proper use of aid funds are thorough. We and other donors require competitive tendering for procurement contracts. We continually monitor the implementation of our projects to guard against misuse of funds. We would have no hesitation in withdrawing support from a project where it was clear that aid funds were being improperly used.
    We have heard a lot of misguided criticism about aid and trade provision. It is a long-standing part of the aid programme and was started in 1977 by a Labour Government. It enables us to promote development in sectors where British companies have a lot to offer. It is a successful scheme. Nearly £4 billion worth of British exports have been won through projects assisted by the aid and trade provision since the start of the scheme. That has involved more than 270 projects in 50 countries worldwide.
    Let us not delude ourselves. Most aid donors have similar programmes. We estimate that all our major European partners have bigger and in some cases substantially bigger programmes than we do, as do the
    812
    Japanese. Aid and trade provision was set up in response to moves by other countries to offer tied aid financing in markets in which we competed. Does anyone deny that our exporters should have a level playing field?
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will recognise that I have been among those who have urged the Government to reach their agreed target of honour. While I recognise his arguments on the care with which we conduct our ODA policy, does he accept that we as a nation depend on our export business to raise money? Does he accept that because of the freedom of the press and its frailties, from which we often suffer, firms are being hit in regions of high unemployment, including Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman has advanced an important argument.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is in danger of slightly misstating the origins of ATP? During my time at the Department of Industry, I was in charge of the power plant industry. We faced competition from the Japanese, who were giving aid to obtain power station orders, so we agreed to introduce a system whereby aid was supplied for projects for which construction was due to take place. The aid was intended for a specific power station project and not for ancillary deals—that was never envisaged. Given that the strict intention was that aid should relate to the project in hand, how does the Minister explain support of £234 million of soft loans, plus £46 million of Export Credits Guarantee Department support, making a total of £280 million out of a £308 million British content? That amounted to 90 per cent. of the cost of the project to a country that can pay cash on the nail for £1 billion worth of arms.
    Mr. Goodlad: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is loyal to the system that he helped to found. I shall come to the Pergau project later.
    I should like to deal with the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale about the group of companies that have benefited from aid and trade provision. I am sure that he will confirm that all companies providing goods and services out of the United Kingdom have been, and are, eligible to apply for ATP. Without including consortium partners and subcontractors, 141 companies have benefited from ATP-supported projects. Large overseas construction projects are very specialised and only a few UK companies have the expertise to act as the prime contractor. ATP is awarded to the recipient Government for a project and not to UK companies. The grant element of an accepted offer of ATP goes to the recipient Government. Of course, ATP support benefits many smaller sub-contractors and suppliers, whose customer is the prime contractor.
    The suggestion by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that there might be some connection between companies that have worked on ATP-funded projects and contributions to the Conservative party is unfair in two respects. It is unfair to the ODA officials who vet those projects and who seek to make no connection between the Conservative party and ATP. It is also unrealistic and unfair to the Governments who receive

    813
    ATP. Hon. Members would objectively have to agree that that is a classic case of the smear and innuendo that the Malaysians have found so offensive.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: For nine years, I worked for one of this country's largest investors in Malaysia and I believe that my right hon. Friend has shown commendable restraint in his remarks. The truth is that an absolutely nonsensical campaign, whipped up in the media by Opposition voices, has done incalculable damage to our trading relations with an important trading partner.
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend speaks not only from knowledge but with ample justification from the heart.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend see the irony in the fact that, when unemployment rises, the Opposition parties pontificate and mouth platitudes about how disgraceful it is, but, when the Government are working to help British companies to win exports and to safeguard and create jobs, the antics of those parties destroy exports and jobs? They then have the nerve to complain about the unemployment that results from their disgraceful behaviour.
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition parties are quite unashamed of doing what he describes.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I have a particular constituency interest in the aid and trade provision and the benefit that has arisen from it. Biwaters operates from Clay Cross in my constituency and was involved in the contract to provide rural water supplies in Malaysia. A contract for the refurbishment of the water supply, worth £1.5 billion, was ready to be signed but has now been lost. It has been lost not because we have a free press, but because of the link between arms and aid. The Government began something that might have benefited trade, but their action has resulted in my constituents facing unemployment.
    Mr. Goodlad: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is living in a complete fantasy world and is compounding the problems that he rightly highlights. The atmosphere of innuendo has contributed to the unfortunate unemployment in his constituency and I hope that his constituents will notice his involvement.
    I said that I would reply to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale about ATP for the Pergau project. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already made it clear that, in deciding to proceed with the Pergau project, he took account of our wider interests in Malaysia and of the consequences for the United Kingdom in 1991 if we did not go ahead with it.
    The Pergau project formed part of Malaysia's diversification strategy for a new, urgently needed electricity capacity. Since it began, Malaysia's demand has increased even more than forecast. The Malaysian Government had decided that the project should go ahead as it was economically and developmentally in the national interest. We ourselves have a diversified energy policy. If we had not carried through our commitment to the Pergau project, our credibility as a trading and investment partner would have been seriously damaged and would have withered a wide range of British prospects for the future. We should have paid the penalty for a breach of faith.
    Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the comments of Sir Tim Lankester which were not widely reported in the press? In his evidence to the Select Committee, he said that the project was proceeding very well and that it was likely to be finished on time and under budget.
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right and he is also correct to point out those facts.
    Mr. Lester: The Pergau dam is also part of Malaysia's regional policy, something which the Labour party should understand. The project is deliberately in the north of the country, which is the least developed part, and the intention was to bring electricity to a part of the country which does not have the sophisticated power stations that exist in the south. The Labour party is a great supporter of regional policy and should understand that the Malaysians were well within their rights to make that decision.
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is knowledgeable about these matters and he is, of course, absolutely right.
    The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale mentioned so-called links with defence sales and what, in his eyes, were the Government's attempts to conceal what has happened. I have been re-reading some parliamentary questions and found that in June 1989 the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who is in her place, asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry about this matter. My right hon. Friend said:
    "Following the expression of Malaysian interest in United Kingdom overseas aid in early exchanges, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear to the Malaysian Finance Minister that it would not be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government to link aid with the defence sales package."—[Official Report, 13 June 1989; Vol. 154, c.397–98.]
    In 1989, therefore, the matter was in the public domain.
    Furthermore, on 25 January, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of State gave a written reply to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is not in his place. He said:
    "During discussions in 1988 about the proposed memorandum of understanding on defence sales, the Malaysians had requested a reference to aid. A protocol was signed during a visit to Kuala Lumpur in March 1988 by the then Defence Secretary, my noble Friend, Lord Younger of Prestwick. This set out the Malaysian Government's intention to buy defence equipment from the United Kingdom, with the details to be elaborated in the later memorandum. The protocol included a reference to 'aid in support of non-military aspects under the programme'.
    After consultation with ministerial colleagues in London, the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Malaysian Minister of Finance in June 1988 to say that aid could not be linked to defence sales. As a result the issue was not taken up in the memorandum of understanding on defence procurement which the British and Malaysian Prime Ministers signed in September 1988, and which did not cover aid. Our aid programme is not linked to defence sales."—[Official Report, 25 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 145–46.]
    The Pergau project was suggested after Lord Younger had made it clear that there could be no formal link between defence sales and development projects.
    Let us examine the reality of the multi-faceted relationships that Governments enjoy with one another. It is ridiculous to suggest that a country that has a defence sales relationship with another should, because of that relationship, be ineligible for ATP. It is equally ridiculous to suggest that a company involved in an ATP relationship should, because of that relationship, be ineligible for defence sales involving British industries. Provided that

    815
    the two do not depend on each other and that aid is not used —it is not—to finance defence sales, it seems that that is the way in which countries will inevitably proceed.
    Sir David Steel: I do not disagree with that general proposition, but, in this particular case, the Minister is not seeking to deny what Lord Younger has said, which was that someone gave a verbal assurance that the two would be linked in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has just said should not happen. He subsequently corrected that in the letter that was read out.
    Mr. Goodlad: I do not know when the verbal assurances were given—whether it was before the memorandum of understanding was signed—but I have no doubt that the Select Committee will investigate all these matters.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
    Mr. Goodlad: No, I must make progress.
    We agree with the development assistance committee of OECD that aid quality should predominate in decisions to fund projects in which there is a large commercial interest. ATP does precisely that. Our procedures ensure that ATP is spent on projects in creditworthy developing countries where there will be development benefit and where British firms have proven experience to offer.
    Let us put ATP into a proper perspective, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said. It accounts for less than 5 per cent. of the aid programme, which, in 1992–93, meant just over £90 million. In the same year, we spent £290 million on humanitarian assistance. Expenditure on the Pergau project is to take place over 14 years and the peak expenditure in any one year is £27 million—less than 1.3 per cent. of our current but expanding aid programme—so much for allegations that the project is taking over the programme.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, will he comment on the long-term damage being done to our relations with Malaysia as it affects companies—one, for instance, in my constituency, where unemployment stands at more than 13 per cent.—that are engaged in trade related neither to ATP nor to arms sales, yet are in danger of losing product?
    Mr. Goodlad: I have every sympathy with the people whom my hon. Friend is describing—and we know where the blame lies.
    The allegation that aid to a whole range of countries is linked to arms sales, which has been made by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and by others who clearly should know better, is absolute nonsense. There is no link between the provision of aid and the supply of arms. Some of the countries mentioned by ill-informed critics receive such a modest amount of aid from the United Kingdom that the whole idea is ludicrous.
    Our aid is provided according to well-established criteria. Eighty per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to poor countries, with special attention being paid to progress in economic reform and to good government. Of course, we also pay particular attention to historical ties, especially with Commonwealth countries.
    816
    The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale mentioned the selective and misleading World Development Movement analysis and I shall deal with four examples from that. First, Jordan is a lower-middle income country with which Britain has close ties. We have a modest technical assistance programme spent mainly in the education and water sectors. Aid figures in recent years have been amplified not by the provision of more aid but by debt relief and by the inclusion of relief provided to refugees during the Gulf war. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman would prefer us not to have provided that relief.
    In Oman, we provide only a small programme of technical assistance—a mere £750,000 in 1992–93. Our funds are spent on developing the country's human resources, which had been lagging behind its economic progress, and those funds have been put to good use. We are accordingly able to plan an even lower level of aid in future. Any attempt to link those tiny sums to Oman's defence purchases is laughable.
    Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, apart from investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation—which, as he may wish to know, the Government do not control country by country—our overall assistance to Thailand, including ATP, has declined from about £5 million in 1989–90 and 1990–91 to a little more than £2 million in 1992–93.
    Indonesia is not a rich country. Its income per head is only about $650 a year. It is internationally acknowledged as having an outstanding record of sound economic management. According to the World bank, the numbers living in poverty have dropped from 70 million in 1970 to 27 million in 1990. But, of course, that is not a matter of any interest to Opposition Members.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Having said that we provide some form of aid to Indonesia, the Minister told us the income per head there. Will he tell us the comparable figure for Oman, to which he said that we also provide aid? What is the income per capita in Oman?
    Mr. Goodlad: Without notice I cannot give the hon. Gentleman figures for per capita income. However, I can say that our aid to Oman amounts to a mere £750,000—a derisory amount. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen are shouting that there should not be any aid. They obviously take no interest in the people of Oman, but others do.
    As I said, the number of people living in poverty in Indonesia dropped from 70 million in 1970 to 27 million in 1990. That, of course, is not a development in which Opposition Members will take any pleasure, because they could not care less about the poor in Indonesia.
    Our aid supports projects in sectors such as energy efficiency, communications, forest management, education and public administration. Total British aid last year was only 18p per head. By comparison, our aid to Mozambique was nearly £2 per head. Nor is there any truth in the allegations of links between our aid and the sale of Hawk or other defence equipment.
    I said that I would mention East Timor. We take a number of important criteria, including human rights, into careful account when deciding aid allocations. We do not recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor and the Indonesians are well aware of the importance that we attach to human rights both in Indonesia and in East Timor, because we take frequent opportunities to remind them of it. Our aim is to influence, rather than to isolate, the

    817
    Indonesian Government and that is best done through dialogue. Suspending aid to Indonesia would not necessarily improve the human rights situation and could hurt those whom it is intended to help. However, I appreciate that the problems of those whom aid is intended to help are of no interest whatever to Opposition Members.
    Ultimately, it is the policies of the countries concerned that will make the real difference. Let us applaud when poor countries become more prosperous through their own efforts, as many have done—or at least, let my hon. Friends applaud; I expect no applause from Opposition Members. Well-targeted and professionally managed aid has played a part in the success of such countries. But enterprise, entrepreneurship and sound policies play a greater part.
    Aid will continue to be essential for the poorest countries, especially those unable to attract significant private resources. In delivering that aid, we shall continue to look for the best means available to achieve maximum impact.
    We are now involving a larger number of British organisations, both public and private. The amount of official aid to be channelled through British nongovernmental organisations, for example, has increased fivefold over the past six years and my right hon. Friend the Minister has just announced a further increase.
    Our aid programme and its objectives are under continual review and it is right that that should be so. Our aid should be scrutinised. We welcome that, because we believe that we do an excellent job. There is no danger whatever, either in developing countries or in British industry, of Opposition Members being seen to take any interest in the alleviation of poverty, or to be batting for Britain.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Goodlad: I hope that at the end of the debate Opposition Members, while they may be none the wiser—
    Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for permitting me to intervene at this point—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not an intervention."] I do not wish my party or myself to be included in the remarks that the Minister has made—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I greatly deplore that intervention; it was not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order, will he put it now to the Chair? Am Ito take it that what he said was not a point of order but an interruption? That is greatly to be deplored.
    Mr. Goodlad: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, I except the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and his party from what I was saying.
    5.27 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who opened the debate with an excellent, indeed an unanswerable, speech. The Minister who has been put up to reply is one of many Ministers who speak in the House on overseas aid. Another sign of how lightly the Government treat that crucial issue is the fact that, every day that aid is discussed, a different Minister appears. The Minister—
    Mr. Goodlad rose—
    Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
    The Minister said that he was proud and privileged, yet he sounded lumbered and desperate, as well he should have done.
    Mr. Goodlad: The reason why more than one Foreign Office Minister takes part in such debates is that we are all interested in the subject—unlike the Labour party, in which only one person, if that, seems to be interested in it.
    Mr. Clarke: That must be an interest which has been hidden from the House hitherto—unless ATP stands not so much for aid and trade provision as for "assisting Tory paymasters". Many of us are beginning to see that that is what the debate is really about.
    The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale has done the House a great service, because we discuss overseas aid and development all too seldom. It is staggering, but it is another sign of how the Government see such matters, that, although the debate is being opened by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it is apparently to be wound up by a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry. We now see how vested interests have deep control of the Tory party and little to do with the needs of the third world and the poorest in this universe. [Interruption.]
    When the howling mob opposite reflect on the real problems of this debate, they will conclude that we are right to concentrate on the issue of the Pergau dam, even though the Minister left it almost as an aside towards the end of his speech. We are right to do that, not because criticisms have come from Opposition Members—which were wholly justified—but because criticisms have come from almost every quarter where people have been invited to consider these matters.
    The Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office—which is not an affiliate of the Labour party—and many others have been invited to consider these matters. I do not think that The Sunday Times comes into the category of people who support my view. When the Minister failed to deal with the interesting exchange of letters in The Sunday Times last week when he was dealing with arms, he missed a crucial point in this debate. I shall return to that matter later.
    Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Public Accounts Committee criticised the Government in this matter. Can he confirm that the Committee has published its report?
    Mr. Clarke: As the House knows, the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee were very public. The National Audit Office, to which I referred, has published a report. [Interruption.] If there is a little order in the House, I may have an opportunity to refer to that report later.
    The Pergau dam project, which is one of the most shameful episodes among many in the history of this Government, represented not only one bad decision but three. It represented the link between aid and arms; it represented funding of a very bad project; and it represented a Government who, having decided to fund a bad project, then produced a system of financial control which cost the British taxpayer an extra £56 million, according to the National Audit Office.
    Mr. Andrew Hargreaves rose—
    Mr. Clarke: If hon. Members want to take up my limited time by intervening on jobs, I put it to them that £56 million would produce a great number of jobs in their constituencies, so they should support the view of the National Audit Office.
    Mr. Hargreaves: The hon. Gentleman continues to refer to the Pergau dam project as a bad project. Nevertheless, can he state categorically whether he believes that it was the preferred site and the preferred project of the Malaysian Government?
    Mr. Clarke: The Malaysian Government have a right to consider their priorities, as do British taxpayers and this House.
    The Minister attempted to pretend that there was no link between the Government's obsession with Malaysia and blatant arms deals. I ask the House, as did the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, to consider the evidence. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will be considering the evidence. I did not hear a similar welcome from the Minister.
    We begin with the protocol of 23 March 1988, which is an extremely interesting document.
    Mr. Goodlad rose—
    Mr. Clarke: The Minister should allow me to develop this point.
    Mr. Goodlad: To reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we welcome the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We hope that it will clear away some of the sleaze and innuendo that has been propagated by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Clarke: Having generously given way, I want hon. Members to know that I intend to continue my speech.
    When the Minister, in one of his little asides, pretended that there was no link between aid and arms, that was blown apart by the letter dated 28 June 1988 from the then Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. George Younger, to the Malaysian Minister of Finance, which was mentioned in The Sunday Times. The letter clearly stated that
    "the linking of aid to projects was governed by international rules which would preclude the sort of arrangement which the Malaysian Minister of Finance had seemed to envisage at their meeting in March 1988."
    Of course, the then Secretary of State for Defence was very much a part of that meeting. Any suggestion that he was not a party to the decisions and what was envisaged was totally removed on the same day in the letter from the British high commissioner to the Malaysian Minister of Finance dated 28 June 1988. In that letter, the British high commissioner said that the Government were
    "willing to offer further support for contracts… up to a total of £200 million for development projects to be agreed mutually between the two Governments".
    Mr. Llew Smith: Last November, I asked the Secretary of State whether the decision to grant support for the Pergau project in Malaysia was linked to any bilateral trade agreement with Malaysia. The answer was no. When we consider the revelations of the past few days, does my hon. Friend think that I am too polite to accuse the Minister of being economical with the truth?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Minister and his sycophants pretend that the Government have been open and honest, even the most preliminary examination of replies to written questions such as that given to my hon. Friend show that the Government seek to hide from the truth time and again.
    In the exchange of letters on 28 June, especially the letter involving the high commissioner, there is a firm indication that the Government were using the very limited overseas aid budget for the purpose of trade in arms. Not only is that unacceptable to the House, and not only has such a policy never been adopted or endorsed by the British people—it has never been the British Government's objective.
    If the Minister says that it was the Government's objective, I invite him to produce one document from the Overseas Development Administration which says so. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he can produce it. Clearly, he cannot.
    We then examine the role of the Foreign Secretary in this shabby affair. A telephone call from Portugal on Friday showed that the Foreign Secretary said that the business of aid had become entangled with arms. The question that we must ask today is, when will it be disentangled? We heard about the mathematical formula. We are entitled to ask who was invited to give a view on the mathematical formula—the Foreign Office, Downing street, the Minister's civil servants or the then Secretary of State for Defence. Above all, in the light of this debate, we are entitled to ask whether this was a one off.
    My hon. Friends are perfectly entitled to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to what is taking place in East Timor, and the Government's involvement with Indonesia. Time and again, as we saw in Iraq, the Government have been involved in shady arms deals, only to find that our troops have been on the receiving end.
    Would it not be ironic if we found that Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam were in a dispute over the islands in the South China sea and a Foreign Office Minister then came to the House and apologised for our role in providing the arms for such a conflict? Worse still, would it not be ironic if that were associated with our limited overseas development budget? [Interruption.] When the Minister sought to justify the Government's shady deals—
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham)rose—
    Mr. Stephen Day rose—
    Mr. Clarke: I am happy to give way to the Minister or to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), who is trying to intervene from a sedentary position, if he will have the decency to put his point.
    Mr. Day: My constituents who work in the defence industries would be interested to hear how many people the hon. Gentleman is prepared to see put out of work. He seems to have taken upon himself the high moral ground. Is he somehow saying that there is something morally wrong in working in the defence industries?
    Mr. Clarke: No Opposition Member should take lectures about jobs from members of the party which is responsible for 2.8 million people on benefit, and a party which endorsed the view of a previous Chancellor of the

    821
    Exchequer that unemployment was "a price worth paying". I do not remember the hon. Gentleman objecting at that time.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Clarke: I will give way later, but I am entitled to get on with my speech. It may be that Conservative Members agree with the Malaysian Prime Minister that we should not have a free press in this country, but we do have a Chamber where we are entitled to express our views. I shall endorse that privilege. I shall give way for the last time to the Minister.
    Mr. Needham: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am grateful for the fact that this will be the last time he will do so, as we want to get on.
    The hon. Gentleman commented about Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia perhaps having a fight over the Spratley Islands. What would happen if China were to get involved in that fight? Who then would provide the arms to let those countries legitimately defend their national interests? Would the hon. Gentleman deny them that?
    Mr. Clarke: The House is entitled to know what would happen, and that is precisely the point that we are seeking to make.
    Ministers have come to defend the indefensible, and they have told us that our case is merely political smearing. We are entitled to remind them that the dam was well and truly breached by a Lankester bomber of the old school. Some of us listened to the evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, and we heard Sir Timothy Lankester explain that the project was uneconomic. He was certainly in a strong position to do so, because he had forced them to produce the first ministerial direction since the Government came to power in 1979. He had forced the National Audit Office investigation, and he described what took place in Malaysia as an abuse of the aid programme.
    The onus is on the Government. A senior and respected civil servant—so senior that he has now been put in charge of the whole Department for Education—has taken the view that it was an abuse of the aid programme. The Government ought to have put a stronger case than they have managed today. What Sir Timothy said was fair comment. After the appraisal in 1989, the price went walloping up, first by £81 million and then by another £20 million. It was indeed a bad buy.
    We are told that the decision was taken against the advice of many people and organisations. Those included the World bank, which took the view that the project should be gas-powered and not hydro-electric. When the matter has been subjected to any reasonable examination, such as by the National Audit Office, it has been found faulty in the extreme.
    In the light of all the evidence, Conservative Members are belatedly screaming about jobs. That is not a subject to which they have been hitherto terribly committed. If the Government had taken the right decision on Pergau, and had concluded on the evidence—as they were entitled to do —that it was not viable, the worst that could have happened was that we lost Malaysian contracts. Is that not what happened in any case? The loss of jobs is the responsibility of the Government, not of any Opposition Member.
    822
    What did the Government spend £230 million of taxpayers' money on? They did not give a damn for the starving poor: they gave a dam for their business friends. That is a reflection, not only on the way in which the Overseas Development Administration has been abused, but on the way in which our trade policies are conducted. It is a reflection on the Foreign Office that it was prepared to see such things taking place.
    If there are difficulties between Malaysia and Britain, the responsibility lies as much with the Foreign Secretary, who overruled Sir Timothy Lankester, as it does with the Minister for Overseas Development, who apparently advised against the project but did not take action to follow through what appeared to be her convictions.
    Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I have been generous in giving way hitherto.
    The mess that the Government have produced in respect to the Malaysian project has most unfortunately put a question mark over the whole concept of overseas aid. Would it not be so much better if we had a Government who were really concerned about the British taxpayers' money and about a strategy for aid and development? Would it not be better if we had found the opportunities that exist in Africa, Asia and central America, where there are examples of the most crass poverty?
    Those opportunities call for a change in the way in which aid is administered—there should not be a reduction in overseas aid, and it should not be abused in the way it has been on the Pergau project. How much better would it be if the Government took the policy back and made it work for people who are genuinely in need? Would it not be better if the Government placed the administration of those crucial policies at the heart of government, with a proper recognition of the full departmental status which overseas development should have?
    Would it not be better if the Government accepted their responsibilities for the poorest people in the poorest countries, and if the Government managed their spending policies with proper openness and accountability? Above all, should not the Government accept the need, not to downgrade, but to upgrade the ODA?
    Is it not absurd that, on the few occasions on which we have these debates, the Minister is not here? Baroness Chalker interrupted her trips abroad for a brief stopover in Wallasey, where she was rejected at the ballot box. She now pops up again at the House of Lords Dispatch Box, and we are supposed to accept that that is democracy in action in modern Britain.
    As we have seen throughout the debate, the Overseas Development Administration has been treated with contempt by the Government. If we are not careful, the ODA will receive the same fate as the Department of Energy, which is sadly no longer with us. Should there not be a Department to deal with the crucial issues of world poverty? That Department could have a real say in foreign policy, an influence in the Treasury and an influence in the crucial problems of debt and refugees. What we have seen today is totally unacceptable to the House and to the British people.
    In contrast to that sorry mess, the Labour Government will re-establish the essential humanitarian core of our aid policy. We shall do so in a way that is consistent with our

    823
    wider principles of openness, responsibility and accountability. We shall restore the good name of Britain's aid programme, and the moral authority which this country once enjoyed.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Tim Renton: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) utterly despicable. He made a personal attack on Lady Chalker, who has given years of her life to working for the Overseas Development Administration. He talked of shady deals, Tory paymasters and the Pergau dam. What on earth does the hon. Gentleman know about the ODA and its work?
    I declare an interest, as an unpaid vice-chairman of the British Council, along with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I am sorry that he is not sitting on the Opposition Front Bench today, because I think that he would have been as horrified as I was, and he would not have recognised the work of the ODA from what the hon. Member for Monklands, West has just said.
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West recently lost his seat on the shadow Cabinet. I now see why, and I hope that he soon loses his responsibility for the ODA also.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Renton: I am not going to give way.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Renton: I will give way to hon. Gentleman, as I have just named him, but not to anyone else.
    Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman ought to calm down. There were times when he ought to have told us that he was a moderate Tory. Could he please rely on the facts? One of the facts that he might wish to consider is that I was not only re-elected to the shadow Cabinet, but I increased my vote and moved from 18th to 13th place.
    Mr. Renton: I know that the hon. Member for Hamilton has taken the hon. Gentleman's position as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. I assumed that the hon. Member for Monklands, West had lost his seat altogether. If I was wrong about that, I certainly apologise to him.
    Let me remind the House of a little history. In 1987, as a Foreign Office Minister, I visited Malaysia. It was one of the last trips that I made as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I stayed with the high commissioner, Sir David Gilimore, now the civil servant head of the Foreign Office. That visit came at the end of six years of patient hard work in rebuilding the relationship with Malaysia after it had been broken when the Conservative Government decided, for good economic reasons, that overseas students had to pay full university fees.
    The high commission, the Ministers involved, and I too, played a part in the slow process of re-establishing a cordial relationship with Malaysia. The position is inevitably difficult with a country that was once a colony. Britain regarded Malaysia as a source of rubber or tin. As a country comes into full independence as a member of the Commonwealth, it can have a touchy relationship with what one might call its previous matriarch, expropriator or coloniser, depending on the view that one takes. Over the years, we have had exactly the same difficulties with India.
    824
    It is tragic for Malaysia, for Britain and for industry in Britain that the careful rebuilding work has been temporarily jeopardised by the publicity surrounding the Pergau dam and the arms deals. I stress the word "publicity". The Malaysian Government have time after time made it plain that their objection and the reason why they have returned to a "buy British last" policy is not the arms deals, if they existed, or the dam contract, but the media interest in Britain, which has, of course, been stoked up by Opposition Members.
    I shall not rehearse the arguments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has rehearsed them well this afternoon, and he did so in the House last Friday. Although I was not in the House last Friday, I read the comments by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I thought that they were disgraceful, coming from someone who pretends to be a shadow Foreign Secretary. His comments were dishonourable and bad for the reputation of Britain.
    Malaysia is undoubtedly the most successful market in south-east Asia at present. One fully understands why companies such as BICC, P and O, and Trafalgar House are anxious to build up their contacts there. I must say in response to some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) that if one wants to trade with an overseas country, one has to trade according to its manners and customs, not one's own. We may sell on the basis that British goods are best, but we cannot sell on the basis that the British way of doing business is best. In my judgment, it is arrogant to try to do so.
    There are instances in which our way of business is not very good. For example, our major companies are often slow payers. The Government are slow payers. Local authorities are slow payers. That would not be acceptable in Germany. The Germans would find it unbelievable that major companies do not pay a 30-day invoice for 90 or 120 days.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Renton: No. There is little time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own remarks, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Before I entered the House, I spent 20 years with an international commodities firm. We sold commodities around the world. If our chairman of the day did not like the way of doing business in one country—for example, because it was necessary to pay an excessive commission or agency fee to our agent to get the order and we had to look the other way and not inquire too much where it was going—we simply did not go into that country. But someone else got the business.
    We did not try to change that country's ways, because we knew perfectly well that it would be a waste of time. We were a private company, and those were decisions that we could take, but in overseas trade one must do in Rome as Rome does. If people do not like it, they should not go to Rome.
    Sir David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Miss Joan Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Renton: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman simply because I referred to him.
    Sir David Steel: I should genuinely like to know where the right hon. Gentleman would draw the line between payments to agencies and backhanders in Swiss bank accounts, open bribery and so on.
    Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly expect me to pursue that line. I am not saying that I approve of such things, condone them or wish to make them legal. I am simply saying that, in the world as it is and has been for a long time, if people wish to sell overseas they will sell in the manner that is acceptable to that country. If they do not like it, they should not try to get into that overseas market, because they will simply waste their time.
    Miss Joan Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Renton: No, if the hon. Lady will forgive me. I will not give way. I hope that she will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I hope very much that relations will very quickly return to normal between the United Kingdom and Malaysia. Both countries have a real interest in that, because they have a lot to offer each other.
    There are about 12,000 Malay students in Britain at present. After years of repairing bridges, we now have more Malay students in Britain than students from any other place except Hong Kong. It would be tragic for Malay students and for the United Kingdom if their education here were interrupted. When former students return to their country of origin, they usually—I stress the word "usually"—prove to be sympathetic, understanding, sometimes critical, but friends of Britain, to our political and commercial advantage.
    I have already declared an interest as a vice-chairman of the British Council. The House should know that the British Council regards itself as a partner of the Overseas Development Administration. Not only does the ODA provide about a quarter of our grant in aid each year—some £32 million or £33 million—but the British Council acts as agent for the ODA on technical development contracts, to the extent in the last financial year of a declared figure of £127 million.
    The ODA acts as our agent in all human development matters, such as small hospitals, development of small companies and education—the list is endless. If people want to learn more about it, I strongly recommend to them the last British Council report.
    Over 30 years, the British Council has worked with the ODA. It has been a successful co-operation. Increasingly, thanks to Treasury rules, we secure the agency work through our success in the competitive bidding process. We reckon that we win the bids because we have the necessary project management skills and a great deal of local knowledge.
    In order to maintain those skills, we should like to have much more ODA work, because we need a necessary basis of work from the ODA to be successful in bidding for project work that is funded by the multilateral agencies, such as the European Community and the World bank. Here I am certainly making a point on behalf of the British Council.
    The British Council would like to see the approach to the work done with the money made available by the
    826
    diplomatic wing of the ODA as a seamless robe in which diplomatic posts, bilateral overseas aid and British Council know-how funds all had common objectives and a common agenda. That objective would be improvement of the human condition of the recipient country but also, humanitarian aid apart—that is approximately 15 per cent. of the ODA budget—consideration of furthering British interests.
    I have spoken about the growth of the multilateral agencies and of projects that could come to the British Council through the World bank or the European development fund. That is a point which the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale ignored. Of the total money now available to the ODA, approximately half already goes to multilateral agencies over which the ODA effectively has little control.
    If the figure is 50 per cent now, it is likely to rise to nearly 60 per cent. by 2000. Those are the contracts that the British Council wishes to win on the back of a regular, steady bank of experience as agent for the Overseas Development Administration. We must get closer to the European development fund—in order to ensure that many more of its funds are invested in education and training, which are particularly important for us and in health—and, more generally, to the Anglophone countries.
    The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale gave the impression that he saw a slant in our bilateral aid towards countries to which we can make arms sales. To be fair, he should have looked at the programme of the European development fund. He would have seen that more than 50 per cent. of its fund goes to Francophone countries, which is a far higher percentage than can be justified on the grounds of their population or gross domestic product.
    Some 28 per cent. of the European development fund is spent on exchange stabilisation. The major beneficiaries of exchange rate stabilisation were—surprise, surprise—Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Senegal and Papua New Guinea. Cote d'Ivoire alone received more than twice the total African, Caribbean and Pacific expenditure for exchange stabilisation.
    The House should look at that area—it is where the great growth of the future lies and where we must have more influence. It is where we in the British Council are interested in winning jobs to provide income and experience for British training and education. We must increasingly look to that area for our future work.
    Mr. Riddick rose—
    Mr. Renton: I shall not give way, as I am about to conclude.
    I was delighted to catch the eye of the previous occupant of the Chair, as today happens to be the 20th anniversary of the day that I was elected a Member of Parliament for Mid-Sussex. My majority then was 12,000, and it is now more than 20,000things seem to be going in the right direction.
    Over those 20 years, I have learnt that politics is not a simple business. In the past 10 years, I have been at the Foreign Office, two of my daughters have been working for aid agencies that are partly financed by the ODA, and now I am at the British Council; and I have learnt that aid is not a simple, purist business.
    To win overseas contracts, we have to fight with all the means and vigour in our power against industrial

    827
    competitors from all over the world. I hope that we continue to do that for the benefit of the third world, the developing world, overseas countries and, certainly, the benefit of this country.
    6.5 pm
    Mr. Tony Worthington: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) on his 20 years in the House. He used the term "majority"—he has not yet reached that. We hope that there will be an election that will prevent him from reaching his majority.
    I think that, surprisingly, there is some general agreement on both sides of the House that we are in a mess over the issue of aid. There is fear at the effect on jobs of the problems in our current relationship with Malaysia. We are concerned at the way in which the aid for trade provision has been used. The use of that provision has been heavily criticised by the Overseas Development Administration, the senior civil servant within it and, we believe, the Minister within it. The National Audit Office has also criticised the abuse of the aid budget. The criticism has been internal—from within the ODA—and external and objective—from the National Audit Office.
    The abuse of the aid for trade provision has consequences throughout the House and in my constituency. The fine firm of John Brown produces gas turbines. It has provided a bedrock of stability in Clydebank when all else has collapsed around it. It has competed all over the world in difficult markets. ft has competed in Malaysia, where it has won contracts for about £185 million worth of gas turbines without aid and trade provision and without subsidy. It now fears that it will be cut out of further markets to the value of £250 million due to the consequences of the use of the aid and trade provision.
    The Government sponsored the Pergau dam project by Balfour Beatty-Cementation despite the fact that the National Audit Office report criticised it for being bad for Malaysia and the consumer, and for being expensive. The Government sponsored the project despite a World bank report that said that gas turbines should be used in Malaysia. By sponsoring that project, the Government have removed any chance of jobs for my constituents who work in the gas turbine industry.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Malaysian Government have the right to decide their priorities and to decide which infrastructure project they want to support in their own country?
    Mr. Worthington: Of course they do—but it is an easy decision to make when another Government approach the Malaysian Government saying that they will pay for the project. The Government told the Malaysian Government, "You have a free choice, but we will pay for this option." That is what happened with the Pergau dam.
    We are faced with the problems of a Government who have never regarded their aid budget with the long-term aim of developing the poorest parts of the world—as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr Clarke) said. That is the purpose for which an aid budget should primarily be used. The Government have always seen the aid budget first and foremost as an instrument of trade.
    828
    There is some legitimacy in that, but it means that the Government always put issues such as poverty reduction and human rights on the back burner if they get in the way of other issues, particularly the arms trade. We are faced with the hypocrisy of the Conservative Government who criticise developing countries for devoting too much of their budget to arms, but rush to sell arms to those countries. Britain preaches that the countries of the developing world should spend more of their budget on health and education but seeks at every opportunity to sell them arms.
    In a parliamentary answer, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that we did not allow the export of arms and equipment that was likely to be used against the civilian population. We must have a much more serious answer from the Minister of State about what has been happening in East Timor. According to the figures given by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), 200,000 of the 750,000 people of East Timor have died since the illegal occupation of that country by the Indonesians in 1975. How were they killed and what was the role of British arms in that? Even the Americans have cut aid to East Timor.
    I was told in a parliamentary answer that the European Union does not regard Indonesia as somewhere that should be given significant amounts of aid. We have shovelled arms and aid towards Indonesia whereas, considered objectively, our aid budget to that country should be falling. I cannot remember whether it was the Minister himself who said that, according to Baroness Chalker, the numbers living in absolute poverty in Indonesia fell from 70 million to 27 million between 1970 and 1990. When there is rising poverty in the rest of the world, there is at least a case for priority to be given there.
    The diversion of funds that links arms and aid is pretty massive. The £234 million for the Pergau dam is three times the aid for any other capital project. We are spending £234 million on Pergau. In 1991–92, we spent a total of £236 million, £2 million more, on all the 47 least developed countries in the world. That is the scale of the commitment to Pergau. The £56 million—the loose change of the Pergau deal—to find the least efficient way of paying for it, is twice what we have given to Somalia.
    Let me give another example of the diversion of aid to countries that use arms, which increase their use of arms and which buy arms from us. In the Foreign Office's list of capital projects of over £20 million in value—there have been only 18 in total—four have gone to one country, Indonesia. By contrast, in the whole continent of Africa there is only one project of over £20 million, and that is in Egypt.
    Last year, a huge amount of soft loan money went to Indonesia, so soft that nothing need be paid back for seven years. Last year, at very much the same time—I hope that the Minister will tell us the purpose of these visits—the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Defence went to Indonesia. We clinched a deal for £500 million worth of Hawk aircraft, and the amount of assistance to Indonesia in soft loans and other facilities went up rapidly as well. Were those negotiations on arms and aid linked or were they, to use the jargon of the day, in parallel? And what does that mean, in parallel? Or, again using the jargon of the day, was it just done on a "nod and a wink" basis?

    829
    Perhaps the Minister will give me another answer. Will he, either now or in a letter, comment on the press report that negotiations are going on for the release of Xanana Gusmao, the East Timor leader, who was imprisoned after an appalling trial? Are the British Government and their European partners negotiating his release to Guinea-Bissau—
    Mr. Needham: Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman's first question about Indonesia because that is an important part of my remit. The hon. Member knows that we decided to concentrate aid and trade provision on the poorest countries of the world, with incomes of less than $700 per head. That includes Indonesia, which is one of the poorest countries in the world. We are giving the people of Indonesia worthwhile infrastructure projects which will lead in time to increased trade. We have done exactly the same in China., but the hon. Member will use only those examples that suit his argument.
    Mr. Worthington: When I looked at the list of very large projects, I wondered whether to draw attention to the fact that there were two projects of over £20 million for China and to ask where human rights came into them.
    The Minister interrupted what I was saying. I wonder why he interrupted at that particular point. Is any negotiation going on at present between the British Government and their European partners for the release of the East Timor leader? Is his release to take place to Guinea-Bissau so that the European Union will moderate its criticism of Indonesia at this month's meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and so that Britain and others can continue arms sales to Indonesia? We shall watch That with great interest. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) is present and could seek to deny that right now if he wished.
    The pause is interesting. The Government seem to have commented already.
    We must remember also the hidden victims of the Government's use, which I would call a corrupt use, of the aid budget—the Governments of the world who would otherwise benefit from that assistance and the countries that cannot benefit from aid and trade because they have no money with which to trade.
    We must also ask whether this provision is really necessary. It is a complicated issue because hon. Members in all parts of the House realise that we need to stimulate British industry because of its run-down over recent years. The Government boast that British firms benefit enormously from the aid budget. They legitimately boast that, for every £1 of aid, British industry receives £1.40 worth of orders from overseas. The information that I recently received from the World bank was that, for every £1 that Britain puts into the World bank, British industry receives £1.85 worth of British contracts. That raises the issue of how the World bank conducts its business. If it is done on a perfectly fair basis, it seems that British firms benefit more from our putting money into the World bank than from our aid and trade provision.
    The appalling thing is that Britain's aid budget is falling. The Minister, with his selective—
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is dealing with a very important subject when he mentions the World bank and its policies. Will he reflect on the lack of democracy in the make-up of the World Bank's
    830
    board and its decision-making process and on the way in which it tranfers a large amount of wealth from the poorest countries to the richest?
    Mr. Worthington: I am not in the least grateful for that point because it would lead me, in the concluding part of my speech, right up another avenue that I do not want to explore at present, because I want to concentrate on what I am saying now. But the openness and accountability of the World bank are legitimate concerns. Perhaps one of the reasons why we found out about the Pergau dam was that here we have instruments such as the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to find out these things. The problem with the World bank is that if similar events were occurring in its business we would have no mechanism with which to find out.
    Our aid budget has fallen and is still falling. It has gone from 0.51 per cent. of gross national product in 1979 to a figure that we do not now know. We do not know it because the Government are fiddling the aid figures in the same way as they fiddled the unemployment figures. They have put the traditional overseas development budget in with central and eastern Europe, and they will not now tell us the figure for our aid budget.
    The tragedy of the Pergau dam affair is that the relatively poor people of the world are being shrunk out of the aid budget by considerations other than their particular needs. The needs that have been met have been those of the Government to stimulate the arms trade, in the case of the Pergau dam. Who can now doubt that the reason why the Pergau dam went ahead was that, alongside it, in parallel and entangled with it, was the need to procure very large arms orders for this country?
    That is that is wrong about this, and it is why I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on raising the issue in this debate.
    6.18 pm
    Mr. Den Dover: As a civil engineer, and one who was responsible for overseas work in Iran—the joint venture of Laing and Wimpey in 1975–77—and as unpaid parliamentary adviser to the Export Group for Construction Industries for the past 12 years, I express my interest, but I have no paid interest to declare. So here are my own thoughts and comments on tonight's debate, a debate which shows a lack of appreciation on the Opposition Benches of how business is done in overseas territories.
    I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) pointed out the need to pay people in those territories for introducing work. Would any Opposition Member not pay an estate agent for finding somebody to buy his or her house? We have agreed reasonable operating fees in overseas markets and we need to grab the work, in fierce competition with our overseas competitors such as Germany, France and Holland.
    It is alleged that the Malaysian Pergau dam project has received some grant. If it has not, there is no onus on Malaysia to repay that in terms of a defence contract. All that we have given are soft loans, which means a reduced interest rate on the repayments which the Malaysians must make for that project, as well as reduced export credit guarantee rates of cover. No money has been put into the project by the Government. We are simply giving reduced

    831
    interest rates. Why is there, therefore, an onus on Malaysia to place defence contracts with British suppliers of armaments?
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is clear evidence that there was no linkage? The defence agreement reached with the Malaysian Government changed from an agreement to supply Tornados to an agreement to supply Hawk aircraft. If there had been a link, one would presume that it would have had a consequential effect on other projects such as the Pergau dam. There was no such effect, which is clear factual evidence that there is no such link.
    Mr. Dover: I entirely agree that there was no such linkage.
    I welcome the Foreign Affairs Select Committee investigating this matter in great detail. I shall listen carefully to what is said there and look carefully at the record of the discussion and investigations.
    The Pergau project is exactly what the Malaysian Government wanted. That fact is extremely important. The Sunday Times said that the project is no good as it is producing electricity for only a few hours a day. However, the dam is to meet peak demands and it can cost an enormous amount to build enormous power stations or gas turbines to fill that peak demand of electricity. It is far better to go along with a project that the Malaysians wanted and were willing to pay for over a long period.
    The media also tried to show that the 12 or 14 years project is a long period. But it is on programme; it is only a five-year programme; and it is working within budgets.
    Another point of correction is that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the aid-trade provision is only 5 per cent. of the Government's total overall aid budget. I welcome the fact that, under the aid-trade provision, jobs and the provision of equipment from the United Kingdom flows out to those countries; they paid good hard currency for those exports, which results in jobs in the United Kingdom.
    A lot of misrepresentation and misinformation about the project has been rife in the media. I am delighted to have this opportunity briefly to correct one or two points. We must press, in fierce competition, for such projects. We must do everything possible to get future Malaysian contracts back on the road, and I deplore the possibility of losing the international airport project because of stupid media hype, which has done the United Kingdom no good whatever.
    6.23 pm
    Mr. Derek Enright: Because of the comprehensive job that was done on the negative aspects of the motion by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), I need not dwell long on them, save to make a few comments about the remarks by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and, more recently, by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover).
    I have considerable practical experience of firms trading overseas and of overseas aid, which is why I was surprised that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex got wrong the way in which the European budget works. If we are to affect the
    832
    European budget—it is important that we do—it is crucial that we understand the instruments properly before we start to criticise them.
    On the question of currency, the Minister's speech on the Government's positive amendment to the motion was disappointing. He said what far-sighted chaps they were, looking forward to a fine future and concentrating on aid to the poorest, but not once did he mention sub-Saharan Africa or the Government's policies to be pursued there. Given that the Government amendment contains some important, positive aspects, that was the least that he could have done. It was a shame that his entire speech consisted of petty, party-political sniping when something important should have been discussed.
    To take up the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), we might have heard something about the World bank, for example. We are experiencing real problems with the relationship between the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and a variety of UN institutions, which need to be more integrated in their approach; the Government should recognise that they are not operating in isolation. They should consider what policies their partners within the European Community and the United Nations are pursuing. As the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex mentioned the British Council, it might be worth looking at what the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation is doing. I know from personal experience that it is doing some first-class work in basic linguistics, which would be assisted by co-operation with the British Council.
    Given the Government's positive attitude, they might consider funding UNESCO again. It is important that they look at it afresh and see whether they can mingle with the British Council. We can be proud of what the British Council does and I pay testimony to the superb quality of its staff, but it is totally out-gunned by Germany and France, which put far more resources into such work and carry it out in many countries other than the ex-empire.
    In Guinea-Bissau, for example, which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) mentioned, the British Council regularly refused to do anything except pay an occasional visit because it did not have the resources, whereas similar institutions in Germany, France and Portugal were doing a considerable job. The aid that the United Kingdom gave to Guinea-Bissau during the three years in which I was there consisted of a set of football shirts. Although they were welcomed by the football team that received them, they did little for development. Guinea-Bissau is one of the poorest countries in Africa, yet it was given no money whatever.
    My next point impinges slightly on the Malaysian issue and concerns the coal operation business and the effective use of money, particularly that spent on energy. If money is to be spent on energy, be it on a dam or whatever, it should be spent effectively, economically and in a sustainable way. I understand that, technically, that is not necessarily the case with Malaysia as the money could have been spent more economically, although the contract would then not have gone to the company to which it went. It is certainly true elsewhere that, when electricity generators are given, which admittedly produces jobs in this country, the power station can use that electricity generator for its quarter lifetime but it is then incapable, because they go to the poorest countries, of paying for the spare parts and repairs required. One has only to go round

    833
    Africa looking at machinery there to see that it is disused, and for one simple reason—there is not sufficient hard currency to buy the spare parts.
    I return to the problem of the World bank, the IMF and the United Nations and to the point made by the right. hon. Member for Mid-Sussex about more money from the European development fund going to French countries than to others for the stabilisation of their currencies. That shows that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that the French franc is used on the Côte d'Ivoire as a basis for the common currency, which is a semi-hard currency. If those who live out there cannot get a dollar or a pound they are very pleased to get francs CFA. The currency is backed by the French and provides a semi-hard native African currency with some purchasing power. The ability to continue to buy is crucial to some African countries. Not one of those problems was mentioned by the Minister.
    At Question Time on Monday, I put some of the problems to the Minister. He had notice of my question, but ducked it completely. Currency in Africa is important for its survival and development and it is about time that a real effort was put into addressing the problem.
    Turning from the World bank to financial development, the most successful lending projects in Africa, South America and, indeed, Indonesia, have come not from the World bank but from small credit lines. There are credit lines in Africa set up by African women and primed by European money, that have a rate of return which would be the envy of the greediest capitalist.
    Those projects are doing something truly effective in agricultural production. They are renewing tools which do not necessarily come from Cheltenham or from the constituency of any other hon. Members who scream about the loss of jobs that will occur if we do not dump on other people unsustainable debts through selling them arms and other such large-scale projects. Those credit lines are producing the small developments which are crucial. That grass roots development should be sustained.
    The hon. Gentleman talks about British people getting jobs directly because they make arms in Cheltenham. I invite the hon. Member for Cheltenham—
    Mr. Burns: Chelmsford.
    Mr. Enright: I apologise for lumbering the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) with Cheltenham. Even representing Chelmsford, the hon. Gentleman should visit my constituency in Hemsworth. He can come to Featherstone, South Emsell and South Kirby and see the pits that have been destroyed directly by the Government. The pits did not depend upon foreign trade, but were closed directly as a result of his vote.
    The hon. Gentleman stands up and says that we do not want to lose jobs, having said that losing jobs in Hemsworth represented the harsh light of real economic facts, whatever they are. I will not accept the crocodile tears of Conservative Members until they have stopped the direct loss of jobs as a result of the Government's actions. I am delighted to see at least one Conservative Member who abstained on the vote on the miners.
    Mr. Burns: With regard to the crocodile tears, I will not take any sanctimonious lectures from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Enright: I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I look forward to the speech by the hon. Member for Chelmsford and I hope that he will give way to me.
    834
    The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex rightly said that bribery often occurs, but it is wrapped up. It is not called bribery; it is called commission. That indeed happens. I do not see why we should call foreigners people who take bribes when we call Mark Thatcher and his partner people who take commission for performing exactly the same job of selling arms abroad. That simply will not do.
    I leave the Government with one thought, and the Minister for Trade has direct responsibility for this matter. The greatest thing that we can do for development in Mozambique, which was mentioned earlier, is to prevent the export of mines from Britain. Will the Minister ban the export of mines unilaterally?
    6.36 pm
    Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, not least because I have worked with three different financial institutions that have had extensive dealings over the years with Malaysia.
    During today's debate and others, hon. Members have mentioned the Pergau dam. I should like to reiterate one point that Labour Members underestimate. There is a staggering intellectual, patronising arrogance when British civil servants or hon. Members tell the Malaysians that they have accepted a dam in the wrong place. If it is Malaysian policy to have a regional spread of such projects and they want energy provided in a certain area for regional development, as well as for the purely and strictly economic benefits that such a project may bring to that area, they are within their rights in standing their ground and saying that they want the dam in that particular spot and prefer it to another type of project elsewhere.
    When the British Government are criticised for having underwritten the financing of the dam, it is unjust to call it shabby or, as some Opposition Members have suggested, the corrupt use of the aid for trade provision.
    "Aid for trade" should be exactly that. Some Conservative Members would disagree profoundly with Opposition Members about the whole nature of overseas aid. Some Conservative Members would say quite openly that they do not believe that our overseas aid should be distributed to foreign countries unless it goes either directly towards humanitarian aid in the poorest possible countries, or specifically where there is some benefit to British interests.
    I support entirely the decision of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were originally involved in the project. In the case of Malaysia, they did exactly what they thought was in the British interests. In the harsh light of day, there may have been economic arguments against putting the dam in that particular place or against there being a hydro-electric project as against a gas-fired project. However, that was the Malaysian preference and it represented an effort to restore our diplomatic and trade links with that country; that was in the British interests.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is so disturbing about the whole affair is that the article in The Sunday Times about alleged corruption in the Malaysian Government was published with a picture of the Pergau dam underneath it, despite the fact that the story was more than nine years old and in no way related to the Pergau dam? That is what the Malaysians were complaining about and why they took the action they did, which proves

    835
    conclusively that their action had nothing to do with the project or the arms sales that took place at about the same time to Malaysia.
    Mr. Hargreaves: I am grateful to hon. Friend, as I can now foreshorten my remarks. I was about to come specifically to that point. What aggrieves me and my hon. Friends is that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) did not take that into consideration. In an uncharacteristic fashion, the right hon. Gentleman went down a route of what can only be described as rather shabby smearmongering.
    Mr. Burns: But that is characteristic.
    Mr. Hargreaves: No, I disagree. I believe that such smearmongering appears to have been promoted by one or two individuals here, perhaps with senior editors of certain Sunday or other newspapers, carrying out a distinct campaign or vendetta, particularly against the Prime Minister, but also against the Foreign Secretary.
    It is sad when British interests and jobs—in companies such as by Biwater or PowerGen, which are in neighbouring constituencies to mine, and in which my constituents work—are put at risk by other people's political smearmongering and by the vendettas of one or two editors against Ministers or against the Prime Minister himself. That is extremely regrettable and I urge Opposition Members to refer their remarks strictly to the appropriateness of the dam and the Malaysians' choice of that project, rather than trying to obtain some cheap political capital out of smeafmongering.
    6.40 pm
    Sir Russell Johnston: On the basis of the old military adage that attack is the best form of defence, I expected the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to wind up. He could then have said to us, "If you think that we are bad, look at all these other chaps; they are so much worse."—[HON. MEMBERS: "Foreigners."] Who can speak about foreigners with more knowledge and certainty than those with foreign blood in their veins?
    In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the former Liberal leader, set out our criticisms and specific recommendations. With respect to some of the reactions that we had from Conservative Members, he was restrained.
    Mr. Burns: Sleazy.
    Sir Russell Johnston: I know that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) virtually frothed at the mouth at one stage.
    Mr. Burns: It was sleazy, innuendo and rubbish.
    Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman obviously believes that shouting at people is good for his soul, but it does not advance rational argument. I am saying that my right hon. Friend advanced a rational argument which is also demonstrated in many other places. There is no doubt whatever that these are matters of public concern. They have attracted particular attention in a number of newspapers. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) indicated that if matters were raised in The Independent on Sunday, the Observer or The
    836
    Sunday Times it is media hype. Other hon. Members said the same. That is quite a surprising view to take of newspapers that attempt—The Independent on Sunday and the Observer certainly do—to maintain intellectual standards of journalism.
    Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the article that caused such offence to the Malaysian Government had nothing whatever to do with the Pergau dam, despite the fact that the newspaper published a picture of it below the article?
    Sir Russell Johnston: I suppose it was triggered by it, but I am not arguing with the hon. Gentleman about that. As some quick-witted chap—quicker witted than I—said earlier, perhaps the Government should do something about Murdoch. That perhaps was quite a good point.
    Mr. Corbyn: It was me.
    Sir Russell Johnston: There is no doubt that the non-governmental organisations are deeply unhappy about certain developments in the British aid policy and programme. That also cannot be denied by Conservative Members. We can always argue about the size of the aid budget, but the House should not forget that the Conservative manifesto of the previous election contained a commitment to meet the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product, and that the Prime Minister renewed that commitment in the run-up to the Rio summit. That is on the record. Yet, under the Conservative Government, whatever words are written or spoken, the proportion of GNP has declined from 0.51 per cent. in 1979 to 0.31 per cent. in 1992 and is projected to fall to a record low of 0.26 per cent. next year. That is a very bad record.
    The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), chided my right hon. Friend. In my opinion, the Minister is usually amiable—sometimes a little deadpan, but certainly amiable. But on this occasion he said, rather uncharacteristically, that my right hon. Friend was unhelpful to those working in the field. I do not accept that at all. Indeed, both Ministers know that the opposite is true. The NGOs have been in touch with my right hon. Friend and me in advance of the debate, expressing views, many of which he articulated. There is no doubt that the leading NGOs in the aid field are concerned about not only aid quantity, but aid quality; whether it is rightly focused, as the Government continually claim; tied aid; and the role of the aid and trade provision and so on. Therefore, it is not at all fair for the Minister to attack my right hon. Friend on that basis.
    The Minister also seemed rather reluctant to engage in a debate on that question. His speech was rather spattered with phrases such as "they could not care less about the poor in Indonesia." He was referring to the collectivity of Opposition Members. What he said was totally untrue. It was quite ridiculous to suggest such a thing. There is a legitimate cause for concern about the treatment of East Timor. He did not respond to that. He said:
    "Our aim is to influence rather than to isolate Indonesia."
    What influence have the Government had in East Timor? It is not an easy issue. I am not trying to pretend that it is or that we have some great simplistic solution. One might say that cutting aid will hurt only the helpless, who are not responsible for these human rights infringements.
    One could equally say that sanctions on Serbia are undoubtedly harming a great many totally innocent people

    837
    who have nothing to do with the adverse side of Serbian policy. But knowing that should not lead us to ignore the problem or not to be willing where necessary to face up to those things. What concerns us is that the Government, so far as we can judge, and I agree that the evidence is circumstantial, are not wrestling with those admittedly difficult problems, but are allowing their judgment to be over-influenced—I put it no stronger than that—by the market for arms. That might be resented by Conservative Members—and is in some cases. That has been consistently denied—I recognise that—but it is widely believed, not for any sleaze reasons, among commentators and the NGOs.
    On Malaysia, no one has explained what the Foreign Secretary meant when he talked about the aid and trade being "briefly entangled".
    Thailand has benefited from a 624 per cent. increase in United Kingdom aid between 1980 and 1992–93. lit was also the fifth largest buyer of British arms; Indonesia was the fourth.
    There is clearly a difference within the House, not always simply on the basis of the two sides on the issue, because it is difficult. It also relates to constituency problems. That is undoubtedly the case. But surely we should have some policy on aid, some view of what Government should do. For example, both Japan and the Netherlands have decided: to adopt an aid policy that consciously favours countries that renounce the arms trade. Many countries are not subject to any perceptible exterior threat.
    Mr. Duncan: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that most of our major competitors see their aid programmes as part of their foreign policy? Does he not accept that most companies should adapt their business practices to suit the markets in which they are working? Is Liberal Democrat policy now "When in Rome, be British"—or, to put it another way, "Always play the game, and always lose"?
    Sir Russell Johnston: The short answer is no. I do not think that I need expand on Tat very much.
    The Government have not been terribly persuasive today. Will the Minister please try to tell me what sort of guideline suspends aid in the case of Kenya—probably quite properly—but does not do so in the case of Indonesia? I simply do not follow the logic. Certainly, the Government themselves would always say that they have a logic, and have sustained it; but I do not see any consistency.
    The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), a former Conservative Chief Whip, has graced the Chamber with his presence for 20 years. He said that we must adjust to ways of doing trade—as did the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—and that we could not tell other people how to trade. There is a good deal of truth in that: I follow the argument. It is, of course, not always corrupt for some enabler to get a commission—but it can be corrupt.
    It seemed to me, sadly,. that the ultimate logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that any illusions about a good governance concept operating in aid policy should simply be dumped, because Governments would simply conform to local conditions. If local conditions mean a few pounds here and there—or whatever currency obtains; rupees, perhaps—that is the way life is.
    838
    As I have said, it is not easy. I am annoyed, however, when people say, "We have a good governance clause", and then do little about it. Conservative Members may say that Liberal Democrats, or even Labour Members, are being naive; I heard that word once or twice. But we must have some bloody ideals, must we not?
    Hon. Members will be relieved—as will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to learn that I do not intend to go over the Pergau dam affair again; it has been dealt with at length by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. Members for Monklands, West (Mr Clarke) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
    I want to make two more short observations before concluding on the controversial issue of political contributions from companies, which will allow certain hon. Members to froth at the mouth again. First, the Government continually claim that 80 per cent. of British aid goes to the poorest countries. I am afraid that that does not mean that it reaches the poorest people. An OECD report on international aid to basic education found that only three donors in the world spent more than 25 per cent. of their educational aid budgets on basic education and adult literacy—New Zealand, which spent 63 per cent.; Sweden, which spent 53 per cent.; and the United States, which spent 42 per cent. We spend 5 per cent., which is not enough.
    Secondly, it is worth reminding the Government that the non-governmental organisations—virtually unanimously, as far as I know—are not in favour of tied aid, considering it in the main more expensive and less effective. They think that it tends to concentrate on large projects which may often be inappropriate. I shall not go over the appropriateness of the Pergau dam project again, but there are other examples in the world: large capital projects have been chosen, not primarily because of attitudes to aid but because the action was commercially driven by the donors, who wanted the work connected with the construction of a large project.
    Let me say a little about the question of "sleaze". Conservative Members took great offence from the comments of The Independent on Sunday—
    "Clique makes millions from aid … Five companies led by Tory loyalists pick up half the cash.….System hurts countries most in need".
    The simple answer that the Minister would give is to say that those are the best companies anyway; that there are relatively few companies with the expertise, the knowledge and the track record to undertake such large capital projects abroad. Other Conservative Members will add that, if those companies give money to the Conservative party, that is only their common sense coming to the surface; they would do that naturally.
    The Government, however, really must address the problem of patronage, and the link between action and "who you know and who you don't". It is true that most companies would rather give money to the Conservative party than to Labour or the Liberal Democrats; but it is also true that, as a consequence, they have a certain influence with the Government. That was, perhaps, more true for the Labour party in the old days, when it was certainly true that the trade unions—as the Labour party's paymasters—had a certain influence with that party.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What about the British School of Motoring?
    Sir Russell Johnston: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is happy with his humour. It is always a good thing to be happy with one's humour. Unfortunately, I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but I ask him not to repeat it.
    My right hon. Friend made the important point that it would be a good idea to review, or reform, the financing of political parties. That would be for the good of our democracy, and would avoid accusations which, in this case, do not add up to a great deal, but do not look at all good. I think that state financing of political parties lifts suspicion and makes everything clear and above board; that is the case in most of our colleague countries in the European Union.
    The Government would be foolish to ignore the unhappiness and concern that exist widely among people who are knowledgeable about, interested in and concerned with overseas aid. I do not think that our record is as good as it should be, and to defend it blindly will get us nowhere.
    6.57 pm
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) made five points, and I shall do the same. I shall talk about the aid and trade provision and arms, the Liberal party and the ATP, alleged company support for the Conservative Government to sweeten aid deals, the behaviour of some of the press recently—particularly as that issue deeply concerns the Malaysian Government—and the lessons to be learnt.
    I shall concentrate on the ATP. As many of my hon. Friends have said, it amounts.to only 5 per cent. of our total aid budget, but it is a very important 5 per cent. Aid leads to trade, and trade leads to an increase in manufacturing exports. As Minister for Trade, I am responsible for trying to help British manufacturers to compete around the world.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends will have noticed one aspect of the speeches of Opposition Members. Not one —apart from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) mentioned what our competitors do. What happens to the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese and the Americans is of no concern to them. Their aims were summarised in the clever, dissembling speech of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.
    I go round the world with the right hon. Gentleman, and when he is cleverly dissembling on behalf of Britain I will be on his side all the way. I have to say, however, that I think that what he said tonight in terms of innuendo, assertion and suggestion was a disgrace. We are not, in the debate, taking part in some university debating society game about what happens with the major markets for our economic potential. As the hon. Members for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said, we are speaking about thousands of jobs and billions of pounds' worth of business. The right hon. Gentleman lambasted the Malaysians and castigated the Indonesians. Other Opposition Members had a nice little go at Thailand. They are the major markets for British increased exports and trade for the future.
    If we wish to get into those markets with our competitors, what do we have to do? We have to establish trust. We have to establish friendships. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke about a cosy friendship between British Ministers and
    840
    Malaysian Ministers. I do not know what he meant by that. I spend most of my life trying to make cosy friendships with buyers overseas. That is what I thought my job was.
    Mr. Beggs rose—
    Mr. Needham: I will give way in a minute.
    One of the ways of doing that is to ensure that aid and trade provision is available to assist infrastructural development. That infrastructural development is so vital to those countries and so vital a base for our manufacturing industry to build on.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister confirm that we in Northern Ireland especially are very dependent on export orders, that those people responsible for careless talk can damage both trade and aid, and that this country would be done a great service by those people who have made unfounded allegations if they would withdraw them and apologise?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman and I spent many months trying to save GEC Larne because of the problems with Rihand II in India. No one has yet spoken about India or China, by the way. That factory was being taken over, as he knows, by F.G. Wilson, now the largest manufacturer of small generators in the world. Where will it be in the markets that it is trying to sell in, if we continue to suggest to the Governments, and to the people who are doing business, that somehow most of them, if not many of them, are involved in some sleazy, underhand dealing?
    The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale asked, quite rightly, what the British Government's view is about underhand dealing. That is a perfectly fair question. We do not support underhand dealing. We do not support bribery. We are perfectly sure that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development working party, which is working towards ways of getting rid of corrupt practices, should be supported, but there is no point in our singularly summing up with a solution that is neither workable nor realistic. That simply makes no sense.
    What we have to do, as our first and foremost principle, is to ensure that the interests of our aid budget, and the trade that follows from that under the aid and trade provision umbrella, are properly protected in the interests of this country.
    If we take the line of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, which is to say that there is a linkage between the ATP budget and the arms sales that we make in those countries, when will we make arms sales to those countries? Should we not give the Indians, the Indonesians, the Malaysians and the Thais the right to self-defence?
    Is the argument of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that we supply arms or that we supply ATP? We cannot do both, because if we do both, the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will link the two. What will be the effect then on the countries to which we are trying to sell? Will they again come to us and give us orders if they are going to be slated and slandered in the press of this country and on the Floor of the House of Commons? Of course they will not.
    That brings me to the subject of the Liberal party and arms and ATP. There was an advertisement published this weekend in the national press which said,
    "We are proud to work in Malaysia."
    One of the companies that was advertising was the

    841
    Westland Group. What is the view of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and his right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party when it comes to selling helicopters to Malaysia? He is perfectly happy to sell helicopters to Canada. Gracious me, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was shoved off to Canada to speak to his Liberal Democrat friends to save the Westland deal. Of course he did not do it. He did not save it. Then he denied it, but he did not do it. What is the view of the right hon. Member for Yeovil about the selling of helicopters to Malaysia? That is the question to which the people of Yeovil would like to know the answer.
    I will tell the House why the people of Yeovil would like to know that. Members of the Liberal party are champions of the defence cause in the constituencies—champions of the defence cause in my constituency—but in Westminster they are champions of the World Development Movement. The Liberal party, as it always does, tries to do one thing in the constituencies and another thing in Parliament.
    Let me just say to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that if, in a few months' time, some of the workers of Westland walk out of the gates on a Friday evening, not with their wage packets but with their P45s in their pockets, they will know where the blame lies.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister knows well the answer that my colleagues would give to that question, which is that it is perfectly proper to seek business overseas, including in defence-related industries, if one is clear about what one is doing, not underhand and not tying it to other secret deals.
    The Minister has not answered the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) asked, which is how this weekend the Foreign Secretary admitted that there had been an entanglement between, on the one hand, defence contracts and, on the other hand, aid, while for the past five years in this place and the other place, Ministers have said that there was no link at all. That is the question which he has not answered.
    Mr. Needham: I do not think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was here for much of the debate when those issues were mentioned. I can say one thing to the hon. Gentleman: it is perfectly true to say that the Liberal party is never clear about anything.
    The third point that I wanted to make, which leads on from the remarks that I have just made about the Liberal party, arms and ATP, relates to the issue that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned at the end of his comments, when he showed us that heading from The Independent on Sunday dated 13 February. The article is headed:
    "Clique makes millions from aid."
    I should like to read it to the hon. Gentleman so that we cannot make any mistake about it:
    "A handful of leading building and engineering companies with close links to the Government and the Conservative Party have been the main beneficiaries of Britain's industrial overseas aid programme, picking up nearly half of the £1.4 bn dispensed since 1978.…
    The companies with an inside track on aid are led by Balfour Beatty, the joint contractor on the Pergau dam project in Malaysia. Its parent company, BICC, has since 1980 given £90,000 to Arms for Industry, British United Industrialists and the Economic League—all right-wing groups closely allied to the Tory party.
    842
    Over the same period, Balfour Beatty received 21 per cent—nearly £300m—of the Overseas Development Administration's Aid and Trade Provision."
    Well, £90,000 over 14 years to three small pressure groups? That works out at £2,000 per year in return for £300 million-worth of business. My goodness—that is value for money.
    Perhaps the chairman of the Conservative party should go down to Transport house, speak to Bill Morris and tell him that if he were to cut the millions that he now gives to the Labour party and instead give £2,000 a year to the Fabian Society, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Labour Co-ordinating Committee, he would lose no influence. He could give the money instead, as one hon. Member said, to John Monks to fund his new Trades Union Congress search for influence. What a ridiculous argument. What a ludicrous argument. The best thing that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber can do is to quote from The Independent on Sunday of two weeks ago about £90,000. What an insult to the Overseas Development Administration officials who are responsible for the way in which the budget is administered. The correspondent involved, Mr. Blackhurst, wisely went to Kuala Lumpur last week to see what effect his article was having. He filed a story this Sunday which stated:
    "British companies in Malaysia will be starved of business and forced to close their operations down in the years ahead."
    Well done Mr. Blackhurst.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister talked of the insult to ODA officials. Does not he recall that the principal accounting officer at the ODA, Sir Timothy Lankester, said that the proposal was not economically viable and was an abuse of overseas aid? Will he therefore explain how £56 million of British taxpayers' money can abused in that way? How can that be justified?
    Mr. Needham: I shall come to that argument. The hon. Member has advanced that argument about five times and he repeated himself in his speech.
    Mr. Blackhurst may have learnt his lesson, but the editor of The Sunday Times has not. On Sunday, as the editor sat on David Frost's sofa drinking his freshly squeezed orange juice, he said:
    "I mean, just remember in the 1930s in this country, newspapers did not tell the truth about Nazi Germany because we were told not to upset nice Mr. Hitler".
    The one sure way to obtain an order is to compare your client with Adolf Hitler. The editor of The Sunday Times continued:
    "So, I think we've just got to be careful on this and the fact is that in building this dam in Malaysia a quarter of a billion pounds worth of British taxpayers' money was used as a sweetener to then get the arms deal for 1.3 billion."
    The hon. Member for Monklands, West made an effort to make the best of a bad show and referred to a letter from Lord Younger in June 1988. That letter formed no part of the arrangements thereafter between the British Government and Malaysia. That is not the point, however. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State showed that only 1.2 per cent. of the aid budget will go on the Pergau dam in any single year.
    The editor of The Sunday Times continued:
    "Now, there is a legitimate matter of British taxpayers interest in this. Was this the proper use of money, especially when all the technical advice from our own officials said this dam was useless".
    Even the hon. Member for Monklands, West did not go so far as to say that the dam was useless. There is nothing

    843
    more patronising or arrogant than for Opposition Members to suggest that the Malaysian Government and people are so foolish that they have no idea what they need and want. The hon. Gentleman said, "Ah, but we could have got a combined cycle gas-fired power station if we had not done this." But that is not the case, because, as my hon. Friends have said, the Malaysian Government would not have accepted such a power station. As one of my hon. Friends said, they would not have accepted it because they wanted to build the dam in a part of the country with little development, and because combined cycle gas-fired turbines would have involved more imports of goods and materials, whereas the building of a dam involves much more local labour and local content.
    If we do not want the business, it is no good then saying, "If they had done what Sir Tim Lankester said, we could have determined that the Indonesians would give us what we want". As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, that is neo-colonialism of the worst sort.
    The editor of The Sunday Times said not only that the dam was useless, but that it would
    "produce electricity for only two hours a day."
    That would make it the biggest lavatory bowl in the world: it would flush for two hours and take 22 to fill up. That is a ludicrous comment on the workings of hydro-electricity. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the dam was designed for peak load at peak hours. The editor continued:
    "it would actually increase the price of electricity to ordinary Malaysians".
    How could it do that when it was powered by water and the British Government were providing the aid for it? He went on to say:
    "Why in our overseas defence … budget are we giving aid to Malaysia? I mean, the budget's meant to be for the poorest countries in the world. Malaysia's one of the booming tiger economies of the Pacific basin."
    The income per head in Malaysia in 1988 was $1,780 a year. That was well within any limit on aid to developing countries. It is one eighth of the income per head that this country enjoys. Are the hon. Member for Monklands, West and the editor of the The Sunday Times saying assistance to Malaysia was provided when it did not deserve aid? Every other country in the world was supporting Malaysia.
    Sir David Steel: The Minister does not have much time, so if he wants to reply to the editor of The Sunday Times he should send him a letter and reply to the debate in the House.
    Mr. Needham: My reading of the newspapers and the reports from Malaysia suggests that the comments and reports of the editor of The Sunday Times, backed up by the right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members, have led to the break-off of relations with Malaysia, threatened our relations with Indonesia and Thailand and could put a vast number of jobs and industries in this country at long-term risk.
    I had always accepted that we had to compete with the Germans, French, Italians and Japanese. I had not realised that we would at the same time have to deal with the distortions of some sections of the press, the hypocrisy of the Liberal party and the patronising neo-colonialism of the Labour party. The Conservative party is the only party in this country that represents the interests of our trade and industry and British jobs in British factories. I ask the House to reject the motion.
    Mr. Simon Hughes rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 305.

    Division No. 149]

    [7.17 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Allen, Graham

    Harvey, Nick

    Alton, David

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Barnes, Harry

    Heppell, John

    Barron, Kevin

    Hinchliffe, David

    Battle, John

    Hoey, Kate

    Bayley, Hugh

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Home Robertson, John

    Betts, Clive

    Hood, Jimmy

    Boyes, Roland

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Bradley, Keith

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Byers, Stephen

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Caborn, Richard

    Hutton, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    Illsley, Eric

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Jamieson, David

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Canavan, Dennis

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Clapham, Michael

    Keen, Alan

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Coffey, Ann

    Lewis, Terry

    Connarty, Michael

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Loyden, Eddie

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Cox, Tom

    McAllion, John

    Cryer, Bob

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cummings, John

    McCartney, Ian

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Macdonald, Calum

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    McFall, John

    Dafis, Cynog

    McKelvey, William

    Dalyell, Tam

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Darling, Alistair

    Maclennan, Robert

    Davidson, Ian

    McMaster, Gordon

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

    Madden, Max

    Dixon, Don

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Dowd, Jim

    Mahon, Alice

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Marek, Dr John

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Enright, Derek

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Etherington, Bill

    Martlew, Eric

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Maxton, John

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Meacher, Michael

    Fatchett, Derek

    Meale, Alan

    Flynn, Paul

    Michael, Alun

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Galloway, George

    Milburn, Alan

    Gapes, Mike

    Miller, Andrew

    Garrett, John

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    George, Bruce

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Mudie, George

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Pickthall, Colin

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Pike, Peter L.

    Gordon, Mildred

    Pope, Greg

    Graham, Thomas

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Gunnell, John

    Redmond, Martin

    Hall, Mike

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Hanson, David

    Rooker, Jeff

    Hardy, Peter

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    845

    Short, Clare

    Wareing, Robert N

    Simpson, Alan

    Welsh, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wicks, Malcolm

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

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Snape, Peter

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Soley, Clive

    Wilson, Brian

    Spearing, Nigel

    Worthington, Tony

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Wray, Jimmy

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Turner, Dennis

    Mr. Andy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.

    Tyler, Paul

    Wallace, James

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Day, Stephen

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Alexander, Richard

    Devlin, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Amess, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Ancram, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Duncan, Alan

    Ashby, David

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Dunn, Bob

    Atkins, Robert

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Eggar, Tim

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Elletson, Harold

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bates, Michael

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Beggs, Roy

    Faber, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forman, Nigel

    Booth, Hartley

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Boswell, Tim

    Forth, Eric

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bowis, John

    French, Douglas

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gale, Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gallie, Phil

    Brazier, Julian

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bright, Graham

    Garnier, Edward

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gill, Christopher

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Burns, Simon

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Burt, Alistair

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Butler, Peter

    Gorst, John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Cash, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hague, William

    Clappison, James

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hannam, Sir John

    Colvin, Michael

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Congdon, David

    Harris, David

    Conway, Derek

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Couchman, James

    Heald, Oliver

    Cran, James

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

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

    Hendry, Charles

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hicks, Robert

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    846

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Horam, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Page, Richard

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Paice, James

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

    Patnick, Irvine

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hunter, Andrew

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jack, Michael

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Richards, Rod

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Robathan, Andrew

    Key, Robert

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Knapman, Roger

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knox, Sir David

    Sackville, Tom

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Legg, Barry

    Shersby, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lidington, David

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Lightbown, David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lord, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Luff, Peter

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spring, Richard

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maclean, David

    Steen, Anthony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stephen, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stern, Michael

    Madel, Sir David

    Stewart, Allan

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Streeter, Gary

    Malone, Gerald

    Sumberg, David

    Mans, Keith

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marland, Paul

    Sykes, John

    Marlow, Tony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Thomason, Roy

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Merchant, Piers

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mills, Iain

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

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

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Tracey, Richard

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Tredinnick, David

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Trend, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Trotter, Neville

    Moss, Malcolm

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Needham, Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nelson, Anthony

    Viggers, Peter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Walden, George

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Waller, Gary

    Norris, Steve

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    847

    Waterson, Nigel

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Watts, John

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Wells, Bowen

    Wolfson, Mark

    Whitney, Ray

    Wood, Timothy

    Whittingdale, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Wilkinson, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Willetts, David

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

    Wilshire, David

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House strongly supports the Government's substantial aid programme aimed at sustainable economic and social development, particularly in the poorest countries, which draws on the skills and excellence of British institutions, companies and non-governmental organisations, and creates significant jobs and wealth in the United Kingdom.

    Investment in Education
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    7.28 pm
    Mr. Don Foster: beg to move,
    That this House, recognising the importance of high quality education provision to all, regrets that, as a result of the policies of Her Majesty's Government, there is growing chaos and division within the education service; is saddened that one of the many adverse consequences has been reduced morale and increased stress among those working in schools; deplores the growing backlog of repairs and maintenance of educational buildings, the increased drop-out rate of students in higher education and the erosion of democratic accountability for education; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to increase investment in education by at least the equivalent of one penny of income tax, and to reconstruct the partnership of parents, teachers, governors, local education authorities and central government as an essential ingredient in achieving high quality education.
    This is the second time since Christmas that the Liberal Democrats have initiated a debate on education, and that is a reflection of the importance that we place on it. Investment in the education and training of the nation's citizens is the most important investment that we can make to ensure a successful future for our country. We want an education service that enables each individual to achieve his or her potential, by providing a first-class education for all, in which quality is the key.
    To that end my party, despite the accusations in the Government amendment, has a well-developed and well-defined set of education policies, which are to be found in our document, "Excellence for All". Our top priority for additional education spending is a significant expansion of nursery education. As other recent debates have highlighted, investment in nursery education makes sound educational and economic sense.
    Our policies cover all aspects of the education service, including, for example, radical policies on the development of a curriculum for people between the ages of 14 and 19, an alternative to the Government's testing and assessment regime, the establishment of a general teaching council, and much more.
    The expansion of nursery education will have an initial cost, as will our plans to increase the availability of books and equipment in our schools, and to provide more support for special educational needs. I do not deny—no doubt this will be stated by Conservative Members—that in recent years the Government have increased expenditure on education. However, we believe that much more is needed. That is why my party is pledged to invest an extra penny of income tax on education to pay for our plans. The use of that increased investment will be clear for all to see.
    Our policies to ensure excellence for all are in marked contrast to Government policies. Our motion addresses the two key crises facing the education service—the failure to invest sufficient resources in education and the break-up of the partnership established by the Education Act 1944.
    I hope that the Secretary of State and other Ministers will wake up and notice what is going on outside their comfy sanctuary in Sanctuary buildings. From those buildings, and from their previous offices in York house, Ministers' actions have led directly to the chaos and division in our education service. The 17 major education reforms that have taken place over the past 15 years—yet

    849
    another is on its way—coupled with a failure to make the necessary investment, have created a complete mess, for which the Government alone are to blame. That mess has led to the lowering of morale throughout the service, and to a loss of direction.
    The House does not have to take my word for it. Last week, a committee member of the Oxford University Conservative association said in a letter to The Daily Telegraph:
    "Mr. Patten's attitude to education has betrayed a staggering capacity for incompetence and ineptitude".
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Just for the record, I should make it clear that the letter was written by somebody claiming to be a member of the Oxford University Conservative association, but that the chair, chairperson, or chairlady of that organisation and other responsible officers subsequently wrote and corrected the record.
    Mr. Foster: The letter stands on the record as coming from that individual, and it is known to be well supported by many other people in Oxford university, as demonstrated by recent statements about the Secretary of State's fellowship.
    In response to a recent National Association of Head Teachers survey covering almost 200 schools, one head teacher said:
    "resourcing is but one aspect of a deteriorating situation. Teacher morale, public respect, a sense of partnership with DFE, the wondering whether anyone in high places has ever been inside a state school are all major factors which, unless corrected, will see the education system in this country in terminal decline."
    Let us consider the effects of underfunding. Nearly two years ago, in my maiden speech, I said:
    "Schools must choose between sacking teachers and doing without books, colleges must choose between decent accommodation and up-to-date equipment and universities between overcrowded lecture theatres and empty bank accounts."— [Official Report, 12 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 522–23.]
    Since then, much has changed—sadly, for the worse. Never has there been greater need for increased investment in our education service.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What would the hon. Gentleman say to Dorset county council, whose members said exactly, almost word for word, what he has just said about educational investment'? But as soon as they got into power, they cancelled a new school in Crossways, in my constituency, for which £800,000 had already been found by the Conservative administration, cancelled the expansion of Wey Valley school and of Purbeck school, and broke all their promises to the electorate.
    Mr. Foster: I do not know all the details of Dorset's education policy, but I can be certain that the members of my party on Dorset county council will do everything they can to increase educational provision in that county—unlike the Conservatives in Suffolk, for example, who only last night proposed in their budget debate the abolition of all nursery education and a cut of £1 million in their capital education programme.
    Ms Estelle Morris: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has already mentioned nursery education three times, and said how much importance he places on it. Does he not agree, however,
    850
    that the words often uttered by Liberal Democrats in the House are not matched by action in the local authorities that their party controls?
    Can he explain why Liberal authorities appear three times in the bottom 18 local authorities for the provision of nursery education, why Gloucestershire, where Liberal Democrats share control with Conservatives, is at the bottom of the table, and why, in the Isle of Wight, which the party has controlled for years, only seven children in every 100 are offered a nursery
    place?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. There is not a great deal of time left for the debate, and many hon. Members want to catch my eye. Long interventions do not help.
    Mr. Foster: If the hon. Lady were to examine the press release on nursery education by her party, she might update her figures a little for the past 12 months. If she did that, she would discover that the Liberal Democratic party's position on support for nursery education has changed dramatically. She should also bear in mind the fact that, in many of the authorities to which she has referred, Liberal Democrat influence is relatively recent.
    Liberal Democrats have had to pick up a considerable amount of mess and a number of problems. The hon. Lady represents a Birmingham constituency, so it is a bit rich for her to talk about education expenditure, because her local education authority has diverted £40 million from education funding to prestige buildings.
    Never mind that; the argument about the need for increased investment has never been more urgent. That was demonstrated only last Friday, when the headline for the front-page story in The Times Educational Supplement was:
    "Schools caught in the jobs-or-pay trap".
    Even this year's modest teachers' pay award—
    Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not customary for Members to declare their interests in connection with a subject before launching into their speeches? Is it not remiss of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) not to declare his interest in two specific items that are declared in the Register of Members' Interests but have not been mentioned in the Chamber?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are quite aware of the rules of the House, and that is a matter for them.
    Mr. Foster: As I did not intend to promote the claims of either of the two teacher unions that I serve as an adviser, and as I have already made clear my involvement with the two unions on previous occasions, I did not think it necessary to restate my interests. However, if it will help the hon. Lady, I am more than happy to put on the record yet again my involvement with the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the National Union of Teachers.
    As a result of the Government's unwillingness to fund the latest pay round, The Times Educational Supplement contacted 50 local education authorities. Of those, only four are now able to increase their budgets. Those authorities able to fund the award in full will have to do so by cutting other departments and services, but in many authorities it will be mean cuts to the schools' budget.
    For example, in Leicestershire, schools will have to find £1.6 million to meet the pay bill, and in Shropshire they

    851
    will have to find £200,000. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that another head teacher said recently in the NAHT survey:
    "We are running a medium-sized business on peanuts and goodwill."
    It is interesting that, when the Government want to find money to suit their own purposes, they are perfectly able to do so. We know about the increased funding to grant-maintained schools, we know about the £200,000 spent, for instance, on advertising grant-maintained status. It is also strange to note that, in February, Buckinghamshire faced cuts of more than £2 million to its education budget, and head teachers were warned to expect cuts of 2 per cent. to their school budgets. Now, the only Tory—
    Mr. David Lidington rose—
    Mr. Foster: I shall finish the point. Now, the only Tory shire county left since the election in the past May has, surprise, surprise, a
    "better-than-expected spending limit set by ministers."
    Mr. Lidington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that standard spending assessments in England and Wales are not skewed simply to benefit Buckinghamshire. The county council simulated—prudently, as it does each year—a series of analyses of what grant might be forthcoming from Government, so that it plans for a good outcome and for a bad. It is sensible stewardship—exactly what one would expect from a prudent county council such as Buckinghamshire.
    Mr. Foster: On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, Buckinghamshire is also an authority which goes round scaremongering all those involved in the education service—hardly in the best interests of that service.
    I have referred twice already, and I shall again, to the NAHT survey, because it brings to light perhaps the most up-to-date evidence of the physical impact of continued underfunding in our schools. Almost 70 per cent. of schools from that survey were planning to set aside less money for capitation in 1993–94, over half were putting off decorating buildings, and two thirds were planning to minimise spending on repair and maintenance. That backlog of repair and maintenance to school buildings across the nation is estimated to be more than £4 billion, with another backlog of £1 billion in further education.
    The picture in higher education is especially grim. If one updates the information from the Pearce review for universities and the Hunter report for the former polytechnics, it reveals a need for £2 billion-worth of capital investment in our higher education institutions. There is an urgent need for £400 million to be spent solely on health, safety and legal requirements. That £400 million alone—not the £2 billion—will not be covered by the increased capital expenditure of £322 million announced by the Chancellor for next year.
    Even the greater increase of 20 per cent. over the next three years is too little and too late and, of course, does not take into account the capital repair needs in Scotland or Wales. The repair and maintenance backlog seems set to grow.
    The House will recall that, in December, the Secretary of State boasted of the expansion of the number of students
    852
    in higher education. He told us that it was equivalent to 12 new universities. Yet, when pressed to explain whether the equivalent amount of capital investment had been made, answer came there none—hardly surprising when one considers that the expenditure per student in further and higher education has fallen by 22 per cent. since 1979.
    The result is clear for all to see—overcrowded lecture theatres, inadequate supplies of books and equipment, a growing backlog of repair and maintenance, falling morale among lecturers and high drop-out rates among students.
    As I have said, it is not only the failure to provide sufficient investment that has led to a crisis in education. The Government have systematically torn up the education partnership created by the Education Act 1944, and have put in place the flawed dogma of the free market, setting school against school, teacher against teacher and parent against parent.
    The Roman Catholic Bishop of Leeds, the Rt. Rev. David Constant, said in a letter to governors of his diocesan-maintained schools in the past month:
    "Sustaining education partnerships at local and national levels is of great importance. At present it is not clear how that can be achieved with the new funding agencies in place of the elected local authorities. Moreover one policy clearly underlying current Government thinking is that market forces are intended to regulate the pattern of education provision. The Bishops' conference has consistently warned against such an emphasis because it considers regulation by market forces to be quite wrong for a service like education…I continue to have certain reservations about GM schools, arising from inequalities of resourcing, from the emergence of a two tier system of schools and from the loss of democratically elected local regulatory and planning bodies."
    That goes to the heart of Liberal Democrat concern over the break-up of the partnership in the education service. How can there be an effective education service with 24,000 quasi-independent schools all vying with one another in the marketplace?
    Liberal Democrats do not accept as the basis for an education service one which has at its heart the assumption that some children will fail. We find it difficult to accept the concept of market forces applying to education, when we know that the practical reality is that the vast majority of children have no choice whatever about the school that they will attend.
    Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious point. May I take it from his criticism of the operation of market forces in education that his party is committed to getting rid of the policies of open enrolment and local financial management, which, far more than GM schools, have given rise to that operation?
    Mr. Foster: We have clearly said, as I shall outline in a little more detail in a second, that we believe that there is a great deal of merit in giving more power and responsibility to individual schools—but not to the point at which all the decisions are made by them. That is why we resent the break-up of local government, which has, and should have, a responsibility in determining strategic planning matters, for example, which would take into account the issue of which pupils go to which school and so on. Those are the issues which should be determined by more people than those at the individual school.
    Another aspect of the break-up of the educational partnership is the erosion of democratic accountability, not least through the continued attacks, as I have mentioned, on local government, but through the centralisation of power into the hands of the Secretary of State.

    853
    The most obvious manifestation of that is the growing frequency with which it is impossible to find out who is in charge and who should take responsibility. Many hon. Members will be increasingly familiar with the answer to parliamentary questions, in which a Minister replies that the issue is no longer a matter for him, but for some, usually unelected, body. For example, try to get a Minister to answer a question about the Office for Standards in Education.
    To give another example, when some lecturers at a further education college in my constituency recently went on strike over new contracts of employment, I asked the Minister to intervene to establish a process of arbitration. He said that he was unable to do so and added:
    "You don't pay a dog and then bark yourself".
    The Further Education Funding Council also said that it had no powers to intervene. That is strange when one considers that, when it suits him, the Minister can announce a massive holdback of £50 million-worth of grants to colleges, unless they introduce new or flexible contracts for new staff.
    In the new mess and uncertainty created by the Government, even the appointment and dismissal of head teachers is confused. School governors have all the power, but no responsibility, while local education authorities have all the responsibility, but no power. More and more power is being delegated to quangos. We all recall the debate a few days ago.
    I was able to reveal in the past week that, in the current year, more than 55 per cent. of the Department of Education's spending will be through undemocratic and often remote quangos. That is set to increase at an alarming rate, as the Funding Agency for Schools assumes responsibility for GM schools. All too often, those Government quangos are an opportunity for the Tories to featherbed their friends, as the debate last week showed.
    I give the example of the Funding Agency for Schools, whose membership was announced last week. The chairman is Sir Christopher Benson, who will be on a salary of £34,430 for two days a week. Sir Christopher is also the chairman of Sun Alliance, which has reportedly given £280,000 to Tory party funds over the past six years. That is bad enough—I suppose that we are getting used to the Tory party rewarding its friends—but I can also reveal that Sir Christopher's company will benefit from the grant-maintained sector.
    Sir Robert Balchin, another member of the Funding Agency for Schools, as well as being the Tory party chairman for south-east England—clearly, he is fond of lost causes—is also the chairman of Grant Maintained Schools Mutual, an insurance scheme for grant-maintained schools. Who will provide the insurance for members of the mutual scheme? None other than Sun Alliance International. Clearly, Sun Alliance's contributions to the Tory party have had the desired effect. The chairman of Sun Alliance has been given a lucrative part-time post on a new quango, and his company is set to make more money.
    Mr. Gary Streeter rose—
    Mr. Foster: I shall finish my point and then give way.
    That is further evidence of the Government greasing the palms of their friends with taxpayers' money. But Sun Alliance shareholders should be warned, because grant-maintained schools are not a safe bet.
    Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for reading the National Union of Teachers briefing note to the House. Does he accept that, with local management of schools, 85 per cent. of budgets are delegated to schools, giving them power and responsibility? Does he accept that, with grant-maintained schools, we are giving power and responsibilities to parents and governors? Perhaps the fact that we have deprived the hon. Gentleman's pet teacher union of power in the past 15 years is making him bitter. Is he bitter because the Government have rightly broken the partnership that existed between teacher unions and the Government when Labour were in government?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat for the last time that there is limited time available. Many hon. Members want to catch my eye, and long interventions do not help.
    Mr. Foster: I shall respond briefly. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect when he quotes the figure of 85 per cent. The Government intend to increase delegation to individual schools to 90 per cent. In response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), I made the point about our view of the role and importance of local democratically accountable bodies—the local education authorities.
    As I said, Sun Alliance shareholders should be warned that grant-maintained schools are not a safe bet. That is certainly the case because, as everyone now knows, the policy is failing. The evidence is not simply in the latest opt-out figures which show that, of 13 ballots in the past month, only four schools voted to place themselves in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Funding Agency for Schools.
    More immediate evidence can be seen in the wording of the Government's amendment, accusing my party of underhand campaigning against grant-maintained school ballots. The Secretary of State claimed exactly the same thing at the Tory party local government conference at the weekend. He even quoted one of our campaign packs, which said of the campaigns against opting out: "Give open Liberal Democrat support". In accusing us of being underhand, the Secretary of State quoted from a document that clearly contained that phrase. The signs of desperation are everywhere.
    As I explained in a letter to the Secretary of State last week, Liberal Democrats do not believe that opposition should be merely party political. The issue not only crosses party lines but involves the whole community. If the Secretary of State wants examples of underhand tactics during a grant-maintained school ballot, perhaps he should consider what happened in my constituency.
    During a parents' meeting, a governor in favour of opt-out told the parents that, without grant-maintained status, the school would have to lose three teachers, and he even went on to name them. It was only after the ballot was over—fortunately, with a large no vote—that the governors admitted that they were talking through their hats and that no redundancies would be needed while the school was still within the local education authority.
    Clearly, the Government have lost the argument over grant-maintained schools. Despite an expensive advertising campaign, double funding, and an offer of technology status, the Secretary of State is beginning to talk about forcing secondary schools to opt out, even against parental

    855
    wishes. So much for his much-vaunted parental choice. Frankly, the only person guilty of underhand tactics is the Secretary of State.
    I hope that I have demonstrated the way in which Government policies are leading to chaos and division in our education service. I have outlined ways in which Liberal Democrats would set out to reverse the current situation. I have also referred to our belief in the need for increased investment in the education service.
    Of course, I have acknowledged that the Government have increased expenditure on education. However, the National Commission on Education agrees that it is not enough. In its final report, the commission said:
    "as a nation we need to spend more on education and training…It is our conviction that in the long term the improvements in education and training that will result from this increase in expenditure will lead to improvements in the economy and benefits to society with consequent improvements in Government finances."
    Liberal Democrats share that view, and the vision of providing an excellent education service for all.
    7.55 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its far sighted education reforms which are driving up standards and giving more responsibility to schools, more choice to parents and more opportunities to our young people; believes that the Government's commitment to a.high quality education service is further demonstrated by the record sums it is spending; notes that the superficial policies advanced by the Liberal Democratic Party bear remarkable similarity to the policies advanced by Her Majesty's Opposition; further notes that those policies appear to revolve around reversing all the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to raise standards and increase choice; notes the admission by the Liberal Democratic Party that it is a party committed to raising taxes, yet condemns its inability to demonstrate any clear linkage between a demand for more income tax and a well developed and defined set of educational policies on which additional tax revenues are to be spent; and believes that the Liberal Democrats' commitment to education would be better shown by ceasing its practice of campaigning in an underhand fashion against balllots of parents for grant maintained status, which this House utterly deplores.'.
    This has been one of those tantalising debates where the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) started with a bit of a flourish—or at least the best flourish that he could manage in the circumstances—and then disappointed the House as he went on because none of the substance that we had eagerly anticipated came into being. The whole structure and edifice is built around the slogan on which the hon. Gentleman's party campaigned in the last election—"A penny on income tax". Incidentally, they lost votes in that election.
    One penny on income tax would yield some £1.6 billion. That sounds like a lot of money if one says it quickly or slowly. However, the interesting thing is that that tantalising increase in education expenditure should be set against the fact that in the past few years—to take as an example the period 1991–92 to 1993–94—education spending in England has risen as a matter of fact and history from £24 billion a year to nearly £30 billion a year. In other words, the Government have already presided over an increase of some £6 billion, dwarfing the sort of increase that Liberal Democrats have promised.
    Mr. Michael Stephen: My hon. Friend mentioned the idea of the Liberal Democrats putting one penny on income tax to finance their education expenditure. Does he have any idea how many pennies the Liberal Democrats would have to put on income tax to finance all the other schemes with which they tempted the electorate?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend tempts me, but I suspect that if I go down that road I will get into some trouble in terms of the subject of the debate. However, it is a fair point which we should all bear in mind when we discuss what the promise may well produce.
    Let us examine the context again, because we are up against a background of historical increases in education expenditure of some 18 per cent. in real terms over the period of this Government. Those increases go right across the spectrum to cover school expenditure, higher education expenditure and capital expenditure. All have had real increases. I say that in all humility and against the background that it has not yet been proven that there is any necessary causal connection between an increased level of education expenditure and an increased quality of output. Quality of output is related not to expenditure but to something quite different.
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: How do the Government justify spending £750,000 on refurbishing a four-year-old building for the Funding Agency for Schools? That works out at just under £6,000 for each of the 130 people who will work in the building, compared with only £47 in capital expenditure for each child in North Yorkshire schools. Is not it more important to get rid of outside toilets and temporary classrooms? Does not education take place in schools, not in office blocks? Will the Minister do something to stop the profligate waste of £750,000 on a new office block?
    Mr. Forth: The maintenance of schools is entirely a matter for local education authorities which have responsibility for them. If the hon. Gentleman's education authority is letting its children down, that is very sad, but it is not a matter directly for me. If the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Secretary of State for providing decent working conditions for public employees, I expect that the unions, to which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is slavishly adherent, will have a word or two to say about that.
    Mr. Bayley rose—
    Mr. Forth: I will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, and I have given him an answer. I am proud that we are providing decent working conditions for public employees, and I hope that we always do that. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. No seated interventions, please.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Member for Bath did not at any point let us in on the secret of how the £1.6 billion was to be spent. The truth is that if one looks at some of the subject headings on which he touched, but did not elaborate, one will find the reason why he did not go into more detail.
    For example, the hon. Gentleman referred to pre-five nursery education. I shall return to that in more detail in a

    857
    moment, but I shall mention it briefly. Providing nursery education in the full sense of the term for the pre-fives would cost about £1 billion a year.
    The replacement of student loans by grants—a subject which the hon. Gentleman did not mention, but I should be surprised if it were far from his mind—and the return to a full-scale, non-means tested grant regime would cost £1 billion a year for the number of students which I am proud are now in higher and further education. The hon. Gentleman mentioned capital and building programmes, and skipped across figures which are not unadjacent to £2 billion in total. I think he mentioned £400 million for one sector alone.
    The hon. Gentleman also skipped lightly across the matter of books and equipment, which was mentioned but not in detail, and increased support for special educational needs. I know that it is a long time since the Liberals have been in government, and I know that the value of money has changed since then, but stretching £1.6 billion to cover even a fraction of the headings upon which the hon. Gentleman touched but did not detail is typically and liberally irresponsible.
    Mr. John McFall: The Minister mentioned that it has been long time since the Liberals were in power. Is not it a long time since 1973 when the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, made an unambiguous statement about nursery education and said that it would come along? Is not Britain, 20 years later, almost at the bottom of the league in European terms? Does not the Minister think that that is art example of the Government's hypocrisy and humbug? Should not they do something to assist nursery provision, and to live with the comments that Baroness Thatcher made when she was Minister of Education in 1973?
    Mr. Forth: I have always tried to live by everything that Baroness Thatcher ever said. It has been one of my lifelong aspirations, and it is one which I still strive to achieve.
    The hon. Gentleman has led me to the subject of pre-five provision, and it may become one of the great shibboleths of our age if we are not careful. Opposition Members attribute all possibilities and all solutions to the provision of nursery education for those aged three and four years old. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs Taylor) will no doubt do it shortly, and I make that prediction with utter confidence.
    The reality is that the value of that provision in education terms has yet to be demonstrated. It has yet to be shown that providing nursery education for three and four-year-olds will advantage those pupils throughout their school careers. I will go further, and say that some of the local education authorities that have a long-established nursery education provision in the present system come out consistently with the worst key stage 1 results, and the worst GCSE results.
    The repeated assertions that there is a direct causal connection between the universal provision of nursery education by the taxpayer and an improved educational outcome throughout the mandatory school years has yet to be demonstrated. There may be other advantages, bin that is not necessarily one.
    Mr. David Jamieson: Hats the Minister costed the Prime Minister's recent proposal for universal nursery education?
    Mr. Forth: The Prime Minister made no such proposals. [Interruption.] I have discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, and I will share that conversation with the hon. Gentleman if he will let me. The Prime Minister made clear that he believes that a properly structured pre-five provision is something to which we should be moving when it is justified and when resources allow.
    My right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear and asked the Secretary of State to institute a proper inquiry into the matter. That is now being undertaken, and the results will be available to the Prime Minister in due course.
    There are many other issues that that investigation will want to cover. Those issues have not been answered, although the hon. Lady may well do so in a moment. I will look forward to it if she does. Will the pre-five provision for nursery education be mandatory or optional? Would it be all day or part of the day? Would all the teachers who were involved be graduates? What would be the capital and building implications of the provisions? What about the transport provisions? Have those matters been taken into account?
    I can tell the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that we are talking about a figure not unadjacent to £1 billion a year if all those matters are taken into account and the fullest possible provision is made.
    Of course, the matter should be considered, and it may well have been, but the hon. Member for Bath did not let us into the secret. The matters must be looked at, as do all others, as matters of priority. If one had £1 billion to spend, which aspect of education would one spend it on? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me.
    Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful for what the Minister said. There is a clear willingness now from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to undertake that necessary detailed costing. That gives some encouragement for the future.
    The figures to which the Minister refers are similar to those we have suggested. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that savings would be made in the 40,000 jobs created by the introduction of nursery education for all. Would not that reduce the cost somewhat?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman must take careful account of the relationship that exists between his regime and the successful and flourishing pre-school playgroup movement. That movement does excellent work for the pre-fives and may well be jeopardised by the regime that I suspect the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    The hon. Gentleman made great play during his speech of a concept which he called the break-up of the 1944 partnership. That sounded pretty good and statesmanlike. I suspect however, that he really meant that he regretted the passing of the LEA monopoly grip on education provision, and that he rather regretted the passing of the drab uniformity of comprehensive education provision. I suspect also that he somehow resented the fact that our education system is being increasingly opened up in terms of choice and diversity, as outlined in my right hon. Friend's excellent White Paper two years ago.
    The Liberal Democrats may have lost touch with their philosophy and their original intellectual justification and beliefs, because Liberals no longer welcome freedom of choice and diversity in education. They want to hark back to a lack of choice in terms of local education authority

    859
    monopolies and comprehensive education. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman hinted at this, but he again did not spell it out.
    The hon. Gentleman also harked back to the rather incestuous inspection regime that we used to have, under which local education authorities inspected themselves. He went further, and seemed to imply that the excellent new independent Ofsted inspection regime was not to his liking. None of these subjects was detailed in any way, and they were all left hovering in the background. We did have enough of a flavour from what the hon. Gentleman said to realise that he is not in favour of them.
    Mr. James Wallace: The Minister talks about inspectors inspecting themselves. Does he accept that, in the preparation of the five to 14 curriculum in Scotland, a large part was devised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, which goes into schools to inspect the curriculum which it set for itself. How are the inspectors to come to an objective assessment of whether any shortcomings are due to the failure of teaching or to the failure of their proposals?
    Mr. Forth: It is not for me to explore the mysteries of the Scottish education system, which is the prerogative of my colleagues in the Scottish Office. I am sure that they will have taken due note of the point made by the hon. Gentleman, and they may well want to get in touch with him. I do not want to stray from my modest responsibilities.
    Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are regularly told by Conservative Members that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, and this is a United Kingdom debate. Is not it common courtesy that a Scottish Office Minister be here to deal with any Scottish matters which might arise?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are here to answer the terms of the debate which the hon. Member for Bath raised. As far as I can recall, he did not mention a word about Scotland, and I was listening rather carefully. It is a well-known tradition here that Ministers do not even attempt to answer on behalf of their colleagues in other Departments. I have told the hon. Gentleman that his words will have been noted by my colleague in the Scottish Office. I am sure that my colleague will do him the courtesy of reading what he has said, and may well answer him.
    Dr. Robert Spink: Could I bring my hon. Friend back to the debate, which is on investment in education? Is he aware that Essex county local education authority, now run by a Liberal-Labour coalition, refuses to spend even to the Government's standing spending assessment set for education? It is putting money collected this year from council tax payers in my constituency into reserves, instead of spending it and investing it in education for our children. What does my hon. Friend think about that? Is not it raw hypocrisy from the Liberal party?
    Mr. Forth: That excellent example draws to the attention of the House that Opposition Members will find it increasingly difficult, if they even want to attempt to do
    860
    so, to defend the actions of local education authorities that their friends control. There is an increasingly wide gulf between the promises made in the pre-election frenzy of little more than a year ago and the reality that we are seeing on the ground in local education authorities. That applies equally to authorities that are controlled by the Liberal party or some unholy coalition of Opposition parties. Opposition Members will have to face the increasing embarrassment, if they dare, of attempting to defend what their authorities said.
    I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion fairly quickly because I know that others want to speak in this regrettably short debate. A few words were said by the hon. Member for Bath about grant-maintained schools. As usual, Opposition Members do not know whether to be dismissive or fearful of grant-maintained schools. They have never been able to make up their minds whether the growing grant-maintained school sector is something to be ignored because it is irrelevant or an enormous threat which will subvert the whole education system.
    We now have a healthy, successful, confident and growing grant-maintained sector powered by parental ballots which, even now, are holding up in terms of voting. Some 70 or 80 per cent. of parents vote yes when the ballot takes place, with excellent turnouts. More than half a million pupils are now educated in grant-maintained schools. More than half a million parents have voted yes in ballots.
    If Opposition Members want to threaten the grant-maintained sector, that is a matter for their judgment. Conservative Members are increasingly proud of what grant-maintained schools are achieving in providing real choice for parents about the future of a school and in admissions of their children. We are also proud of the quality of provision that grant-maintained schools have demonstrated that they are capable of making. They have broken out of the drab uniformity to which I referred earlier.
    Mr. Bayley: The Minister justified earlier in his speech the spending of £0.75 million on the office headquarters of the Funding Agency for Schools because there should be good conditions for employees to work in. Does he believe that there should be equally good conditions for children in both grant-maintained and local authority schools?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, of course I do. That is why we make such large capital provision each year and expect local education authorities to play their full part in setting their priorities so that they are able to make proper provision for school buildings. Many local education authorities have demonstrated over the years that they are capable within the budgets that they are given and raise locally of making such provision in both capital and revenue terms.
    The interesting thing is that there is no relationship between the amount of money spent per pupil and the educational outcomes in one education authority compared with another. Opposition Members' obsession with the idea that if we simply throw enough money at education all will be well is entirely divorced from the truth. Quality will come from a combination of the national curriculum, objective testing of schools—the hon. Member for Bath hinted that he did not approve of it, but did not elaborate —Ofsted, the independent inspectorate, which we have set

    861
    up and which has our full and unequivocal support, and the element of competition and choice in education of which the Opposition seem to disapprove so much.
    It is a combination of such factors, properly supported by finance, as I outlined at the beginning of my brief remarks, with the full support of the Department for Education and the Government, which will continue to deliver improving and increasing quality in schools. It is not some return to previous regimes. It is not some dropping of all the policies that we have put in place, as the hon. Member for Bath constantly hinted. I suspect that we shall hear some more of that from Opposition Members as the evening proceeds.
    I utterly reject all the terms of the motion before the House tonight. I hope that in my few remarks I have persuaded hon. Members to reject the motion when we come to vote on it later.
    8.14 pm
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am pleased that we are having this debate, however brief it may be. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), I am happy to declare my interest first as a parent—that is the overriding interest that I should declare—and secondly an interest that I share with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) as an adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
    It is interesting that both the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and the Minister spent some time discussing nursery education. The Opposition take it as a mark of success that we have placed nursery education so high up the agenda that the other parties just cannot ignore that vital issue. The Minister is not quite sure which argument to rehearse. He is not sure whether to tell us that nursery education has no educational merit or that the Government will provide it when resources allow. Obviously, his discussions with the Prime Minister have not been completed. I am not sure who will win at the end of the day.
    The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made many remarks that I welcomed. Indeed, at times I felt that he had been reading the Labour party's green paper on education, with his emphasis on partnership and accountability. I hope that we shall have many other occasions to discuss our proposals.
    This evening, I want to take on board some of the important issues that arise from the motion and from the Government's amendment. One of the main problems that we face in education today—apart from the Secretary of State, who I am sorry is not on the Front Bench this evening—
    Mr. Win Griffiths: He is playing truant.
    Mrs. Taylor: He is truanting again.
    One of the main problems is the priorities that the Government have set. Government decisions on education seem to have three main themes. The first is that resources are allocated on the basis of Conservative political correctness, not educational need. Time and again, Ministers do not show their interest in the quality of education received by every child in the country. Their obsession with political funding of education is dangerous in a democracy. The second characteristic of recent years is that Government policy is incredibly wasteful in a variety of ways. If Ministers were subject to the same rules
    862
    as local councillors, they would all be surcharged every year. The third theme that runs through Department for Education policy-making is strange for a party which so often claims to want to get government off our backs. That is the vast increase in centralisation and bureaucracy under the Government.
    I shall substantiate those allegations in some detail. I deal first with the Conservative version of political correctness which extends not only to those appointed to quangos, although we have seen that time and again, but, even more worryingly, to the day-to-day funding of every school in Britain.
    Ordinary schools which educate the vast majority of our children are being discriminated against because they do not fit the Government's political mould. We should spend a little time this evening considering exactly what are the Government's priorities in education spending.
    When the city technology colleges were introduced, we were told two things: first, that private sponsors were keen, eager and waiting to pick up the bill; and, secondly, that the CTCs would be centres of excellence and lights for others to follow. The reality has been so dismal that the Government have abolished and abandoned the policy.
    The latest Ofsted report for 1992–93 on standards and quality in education gives Ofsted's view on the success of CTCs. It states:
    "No CTC has yet established itself as a beacon of excellence". But millions of pounds have been poured into the CTCs. They have received £30 million of sponsorship money. The cost to the taxpayer has been £120 million, for just 15,150 pupils—an average cost per pupil of £7,997. Everyone in the House this evening should consider what that money could have been spent on in hard-pressed schools in our constituencies. It could have been used for science laboratories, language facilities, technology blocks or even nursery education. The cost of CTCs in revenue terms has also been great. The average cost has been £4,000 per pupil per year. The average cost per pupil per year in a local education authority school is £2,200. Those are the figures, despite all the assurances given at the time by the then Secretary of State.
    That project has been scrapped and there are to be no more CTCs. But the taxpayer has had to pay for the Government's folly. Children in other schools are the losers because of the Government's insistence that political correctness and their dogma should come first.
    Mr. Jamieson: Perhaps one reason why the Government scrapped the CTC policy was that the first one at Kingshurst was given a damning report by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Ironically, the most damning comments related to technology.
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right—it is worrying that progress has not been made. One would expect the Government to learn from that, but what do they do? They abandon the CTC policy and devise the technology college initiative. They change direction to cover up the fact that their previous initiative has failed.
    We were promised in the press release issued yesterday that there would be substantial sponsorship from business. That makes me wonder whether there will be another massive bill for the taxpayer. I do not understand why the Government cannot appreciate what the Confederation of British Industry said:
    "We want all schools to be strong in technology."

    863
    The CBI does not believe that funding compulsory education should be a business responsibility.
    Ministers are breaking faith with all those other schools in the country that need extra resources for technology—the majority of schools—but are not prepared to walk into the Government's trap of grant-maintained status because they value their independence too much. That is a clear example of the way in which Government funding goes according to their version of political correctness.
    Mr. Boswell: Before the hon. Lady leaves the subject, will she comment on the Labour party's proposals to involve private sector money in the public sector? Whatever the views of the CBI on the matter, how does she feel that such private money should be involved? Does she believe that it would be appropriate in the case of the schools sector?
    Mrs. Taylor: The Minister, who has some responsibility for higher education, will know that there is a great deal of private money in that sector, which is where I should like to see an expansion of private involvement.
    The Government showed their priorities by introducing the assisted places scheme, the cost of which has escalated every year.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady referred to further education. May I remind her that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), in an interview on the "Today" programme, specifically mentioned schools in that context. Does the hon. Lady endorse the views of the Leader of the Opposition?
    Mrs. Taylor: Yes, of course we are considering all ways of obtaining more private money, but not methods that allow the private sector to control what happens inside schools—that is the opposite of what the Government are trying to do. If we can find ways of raising money in the private sector to use on crumbling schools and the backlog of repairs that we are bound to inherit from the Government—through bonds raised at local level or something of that sort—it will be appropriate to consider them. But we do not want control to be imposed on schools in the way that the Government are trying to impose it.
    I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) should want to divert attention away from the assisted places scheme and its cost to the taxpayer. I am sure that I have heard him and other Conservative Members talk about the importance of the taxpayer receiving value for money. In 1992–93, the assisted places scheme cost the taxpayer £92.8 million—£3,405 a pupil. That compares with the average figure of £2,200 in other schools—half as much again as the amount received by the typical pupil. Last year, Ministers overspent on their assisted places budget by nearly 20 per cent. I wonder which local education authority is able to overspend its budget on schools by 20 per cent.
    We have seen the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools stand in for the Secretary of State on many occasions. He has frequently told us that he is keen to tackle the problem of surplus places. He estimates that there are 1.5 million surplus places, but he is willing to use taxpayers' money to pay for 28,000 places in the private
    864
    sector. Where is the logic in that and where is the value for money for the taxpayer? That is the price that we as taxpayers are paying for Tory political correctness.
    The bribes are running out for grant-maintained schools, but why has the grant-maintained capital budget been ring fenced in the past if not as a reward for political correctness? Why was cash protection rigged—as the Public Accounts Committee has shown—if not for political reasons? I am glad that the bribes are running out. I am glad that all schools, including grant-maintained schools, are realising the consequences of opting in to centralised control under the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Lady says that the bribes are running out and I hope that she is right. But I have a letter from the chairman of governors of Prospect school which is currently contemplating opting out, The letter states that if the school becomes grant maintained,
    "central Government will initially add to this investment £300,000".
    That is rather a large bribe.
    Mrs. Taylor: The example that the hon. Gentleman has just given is similar to the case of St. Thomas high school in Exeter, which voted last week. In that case, such promises were made and, I think, parliamentary questions were asked to find out whether a guarantee had been extracted. The parents had a choice and used it. They smelt a rat and overwhelmingly rejected grant-maintained status. They had no doubt heard of many of the problems facing grant-maintained schools. Those problems included the fact that, last June, 88 per cent. of grant-maintained schools had not received their budget for the current financial year. They also included the fact that many capital bids have been turned down. I read with great interest the Adjournment debate on 18 February this year when the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) talked about the refusal of capital to a grant-maintained school in his constituency. he said:
    "It is with some sadness that I bring to the Minister's attention the fact that the capital grant application that the school was invited to submit for the 1994–95 financial year has been turned down."—[Official Report, 18 February; Vol. 237, c. 1233.]
    He went on to point out—this may be interesting to the hon. Member for Bath, in view of this question earlier—that he had had assurances from Sir Robert Belchin that that school was high on his agenda for capital in the following year.
    Mr. Forth: Is the hon. Lady complaining that too much capital is available to the grant-maintained sector, or that not enough is available? She seems to be trying to say both.
    Mrs. Taylor: What I am trying to tell the Minister is that we will have more Adjournment debates of that kind from conservative Members as grant-maintained schools realise that the bribes are not materialising and as more and more of them run into difficulties.
    Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend could learn from the experience in Scotland, where Paisley grammar school, in the constituency of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education in Scotland, was supposedly opting out. The proponents of the opt-out brought up a head teacher from a grant-maintained school in England to make the point that, although the English school had a comparable school population with that of Paisley grammar school, Paisley had 13 more teachers than the English grant-maintained. The Scottish parents, despite

    865
    the seeming bribes of the Scottish Office, knew that their future lay with a good local education authority. Is not that a lesson for them?
    Mrs. Taylor: It is a very important lesson that we should all learn, but we should also bear in mind what happened in the other ballot in Scotland.
    Mr. Forth: Scotland gets a lot of money.
    Mrs. Taylor: The Minister is saying from a sedentary position that Scotland gets so much money, but there was one grant-maintained ballot in Scotland that went in his favour and the school decided to opt out, in order to avoid closure. What happened? In contrast to what has happened time and again with English Ministers, the Scottish Conservative Minister turned the school down because, he said, it was only seeking to opt out to avoid closure. So there are quite a few differences between what happens north of the border and what happens south of it.
    Ms. Estelle Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps we can understand the Minister's confusion about what he is doing wrong—whether he is spending too much or too little money—because he is guilty on both counts? He is spending too much on capital to bribe schools in the initial years of opt-out and now he is spending too little on capital because he is part of a Government who are not prepared to see an overall increase in the amount of money going to education.
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. Many schools have realised the consequences of going into the grant-maintained net. It is also a problem that has been highlighted by what is happening in some schools at the moment, given the squeeze on cash protection which will be more severe after April.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: The title of the debate is "Investing in Education". The Liberals are quite clear that they would spend a good deal more on education at a cost to the taxpayer. What would Labour do?
    Mrs. Taylor: We would not be wasting the money that, as I have outlined, is being wasted at present.
    Let me give the House another example of the difficulties that the Government are causing for grant-maintained schools. Some grant-maintained schools are having to sack teachers and others are facing redundancy. I will watch with interest the outcome of an industrial tribunal which will take place in Carlisle later this week, following the sacking of 10 teachers by Kirkby Kendal grant-maintained school late last year. Some of the teachers are taking the school to an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal. Perhaps that is a clear example that not everything in the grant-maintained sector is rosy.
    Perhaps it is not surprising that Kirkby Kendal was not among the schools mentioned in the Government's recent advertisements on grant-maintained status. They spent £200,000 trying to persuade other schools to go down that path. I wish that the Minister would tell us whether Hatchford primary school in Solihull, one of the schools featured in the advertisements, gave its consent to being featured in that way before it had heard from the Government that it would not receive one penny of its capital bid for the next year and whether it knew that it would be losing cash protection.
    Most schools have understood that there is a great danger in opting into central control and being at the mercy
    866
    of Ministers. That, no doubt, is why the number of ballots for grant-maintained status has declined significantly, contrary to what the Minister said at Question Time today, and why the percentage of no votes has increased significantly to 38 per cent.
    Mr. Boswell: Does the hon. Lady agree that the yes vote in January was 89 per cent?
    Mrs. Taylor: The figures that I have are for the whole of the last term and a half, which is a very good time to look at. I do not have the January figures with me, but there were probably about six ballots in January. In the autumn and spring terms of 1992–93—if the Minister really wants the figures—there were 259 ballots. In the comparable period this year, there were just 53 ballots. The number of yes votes in 1992–93 in that period was 199. In 1993–94, the number of yes votes had declined from 199 to 33. The percentage of no votes in 1992–93 was 23 per cent., whereas in 1993–94 the figure was 38 per cent. If, therefore, we are looking at trends in grant-maintained ballots, the number of ballots is going down and the proportion of no votes is increasing.
    The Government's three flagship policies—CTCs, assisted places and grant-maintained status—are all proving extremely costly to the taxpayer. We see that across the board. The hallmarks of the Government are waste, inefficiency and bureaucracy. The costs of centralisation and of running the Department, as well as staffing costs, have gone up. We have had the ridiculous expense of running Sanctuary buildings. The Department for Education told the Select Committee that the increased costs were due primarily to the Government's school reforms. Considering that we are back to the drawing board with the national curriculum, after spending £500 million, and that the Government have overburdened teachers with more administration and more bureaucracy than ever before, that is a very sad picture after so many years of Conservative Administration.
    Before I sit down, I should like to mention something that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) touched on. I have not much time, because others want to speak, but I just mention it as an example of the stupidity of the Government and of what happens time and again when Ministers refuse to listen. When the Education Act 1988 was going through, Labour called for a joint body on curriculum and assessment. The Government refused. The National Curriculum Council was established in York, the School Examinations and Assessment Council was established in London, and the two went their separate ways.
    In introducing the Education Act 1933, the Government accepted that we were right all along and have merged the two bodies into SCAA. The cost of the merger is £4 million, but it leaves the Government with an empty building in York. They have therefore created a new quango—the Funding Agency for Schools—and sent it to York. That is an incredible example of what the Government think it is right for a quango to do and have.
    Taxpayer's money is involved in all that. When the National Curriculum Council was established in York it had a budget for fittings and fixtures of £560,000. It actually spent £2.3 million. But when it moved out so that the new quango could come in, there was a refurbishment budget of £763,000—more than three quarters of a million

    867
    pounds to refurbish a building that is less than four years old. That shows Government priorities and waste on a massive scale.
    Ridiculously, the National Curriculum Council had to have a special carpet with the letters "NCC" interwoven throughout. Less than four years later, it must be thrown away and a new carpet must be laid for the Funding Agency for Schools.
    Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Taylor: No, I have nearly finished my speech.
    All that adds insult to injury for schools, which face a massive backlog of repairs and a massive shortage of resources. It is an insult to the pupils who are trying to learn in leaking classrooms and crumbling schools and to the teachers who are trying to teach without enough books to go round the class. The Government have shown by their actions that they are not interested in the education of every child. Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister said that 15 per cent. of children in this country got an education equal to anywhere in the world, but that, unfortunately, the rest did not. That is a damning indictment of 15 years of Conservative Government.
    8.42 pm
    Mrs. Angela Browning: In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was quick to flag up the additional 1p in the pound to which the Liberal Democrats committed themselves before the last election, and to outline what that would provide in educational improvements. We are familiar with such traditional ruses from the Liberal Democrats. They blithely go around the country telling people on doorsteps that putting just a penny, which sounds fairly innocuous, on income tax will provide any education item chosen from a menu according to the person interviewed. That has a certain appeal, but it is totally dishonest.
    According to the Liberal Democrats' own document, "Excellence for All", 1p in the pound on income tax would provide £1·75 billion extra over five years for the repair of school buildings and for nursery education. Tonight, the hon. Member for Bath agreed with my hon. Friend the Minister that that is likely to cost nearly £1 billion, although it is costed in his party's document at £525 million. He said that the shortfall would be covered by a saving on jobs created. That spurious argument does not stand up to close investigation.
    The document also says that the penny would pay for the fact that no class would contain more than 30 pupils. That is set against rising school rolls in primary education, contrary to the trend in recent years. It would also pay for a significant increase in funding for local management of schools, which would mean more money for the budget of any school represented by the person to whom the Liberal Democrats were talking on the doorstep.
    Mr. Streeter: Is not my hon. Friend being a little harsh on the Liberal Democrats? After all, would they not save money by dramatically cutting the defence budget, thus throwing many of her constituents and mine on to the unemployed list?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a good point. But the Liberal Democrats do not intend to use savings
    868
    made through defence expenditure cuts on education. They say categorically that 1p on income tax will pay for all that. Perhaps they should get back to basic sums.
    The 1p is also supposed to pay for
    "reimbursing governors for earnings lost in the course of their duties";
    to increase funding for in-service training for teachers; and to
    "establish an adult education and training unit with its own budget in the Department for Education."
    As if that were not enough, that penny is stretched to the smallest decimal point in further education, where the Liberal Democrats would abandon the student loans system. The document says that all students would be eligible for a "fixed grant" to cover "specific additional costs" incurred as a result of their studies. A means-tested benefit would also be given to students, based not on their parents' income but on their own. The cost of that would be enormous.
    All those measures already exceed £2 billion expenditure. Are those further education pledges to be funded also by 1p on the social security budget? They take us into the realms of a lot of money.
    Mr. Heald: Has my hon. Friend also considered the cost that would be involved in reorganising every educational institution in the country? Those would include education departments where once there were local education authorities, a student council organisation in every school, a single Ministry reorganised for education and training, a new pay review body, a new national qualifications council and a new general training council. What would all that cost?
    Mrs. Browning: It would cost considerably more money—certainly well in excess of 1p on income tax.
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend may not be entirely fair to the proposers of the motion. Has she noticed that the original pledge of 1p on income tax has been transformed in the motion to a reference to
    "increase investment in education by at least the equivalent of one penny of income tax"?
    In proposing all those measures, might they not put much more on income tax than they have yet admitted?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The wording,
    "at least the equivalent of one penny"
    means that, on the doorstep, Liberal Democrats can pick any one of the items mentioned by hon. Members tonight and say, "If this is what you want, we'll deliver it and it will cost you only 1p on income tax". It is nothing but a device for the doorstep and has nothing to do with increasing standards in education. It is a dishonest proposal.
    Ms Estelle Morris: The hon. Lady is right to say that what the Liberal Democrats promise on the doorstep is not what they deliver when they are in control in local authorities. But will she accept responsibility for what Conservative local authorities do? Will she explain why Devon county council, when it was Tory controlled before last April, managed to put only 11 per cent. of its children through nursery education comparied with Labour-controlled Newham, which managed to put 64 per cent. through nursery education?
    Mrs. Browning: I have great pleasure in providing that explanation. When the Conservatives were in control of

    869
    Devon county council before the county council elections, it cut its cloth accordingly. Labour and Liberal Democrat local education authorities throughout the country choose their priorities. If they choose to prioritize nursery education, it is inevitably at the loss of other areas of education that are just as, if not more, important.
    The motion talks of "growing chaos and division" in education. We have certainly had growing chaos and division in education in the county of Devon since the county council control went to the Liberal Democrats, particularly surrounding those schools seeking grant-maintained status.
    Before Liberal Democrat control, I was asked on several occasions by schools that were considering grant-maintained status whether I would speak in support of it. I told them categorically that if they wanted specific information I would do all that I could to assist them, but I did not feel that it was a matter for politicians and refused on each occasion. In recent weeks, however, the way in which the Liberal Democrat council and the LEA in Devon have behaved has been quite disgraceful.
    Earlier today during Education Question Time my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) drew attention to the way in which the grant-maintained status ballots for St. Thomas high school in Exeter were conducted, and reference has been made to those ballots tonight. I informed my hon. Friend that I would be mentioning the subject because at the same time as St. Thomas was balloting, so was Ottery St. Mary primary school in my constituency. I have referred to my hon. Friend the official complaint by the governing body about how the LEA conducted the negotiations and the public meetings with parents.
    The figures for insurance costs that were given to parents were not quoted on the basis of a primary school in Devon. The LEA quoted insurance costs for a secondary school in the midlands, thus worrying parents about the additional costs if the school became grant maintained. In addition, a member of the governing body who did not support grant-maintained status was able to conduct detailed negotiations with the LEA about the financial running of the school. That information was given to the newspaper so that the chairman and governing body had to read the details concerning their school in the public press. In other words they—the official body—had been sidelined so that the LEA could continue to conduct the way in which information was given to parents—through the newspapers instead of through the governing body.
    Mr. Don Foster: I shall attempt to be brief. The hon. Lady raises many interesting points. First, I am not sure whether she was congratulating the Liberal Democrats on keeping their promises about grant-maintained schools. In view of what she has said, does she believe that it would be wrong for Members of Parliament to write to parents involved in grant-maintained school ballots? Does she believe that insurance for grant-maintained schools is easy to come by, or would she confirm my understanding that many are having considerable difficulties in getting insurance?
    Mrs. Browning: Whether hon. Members wish to be involved is a matter for them, as is whether they wish to put a party political slant on the subject or choose to do as I did
    870
    and seek specific pieces of information. I have had no difficulty in obtaining insurance quotations, so I see no reason why a governing body should not obtain them.
    Mr. Jamieson: Surely the hon. Lady must be aware that the only information put out by Devon county council was approved both by Local Schools Information and by the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust.
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about a matter in my constituency and I resent the fact that he has not done his homework. If he has an interest in what went on at the Ottery St. Mary primary school in my constituency, I hope that he will do his homework and find out the information.
    The LEA responded to one governor and not the governing body. The chairman and the rest of the governing body read that information in the press. When they tried to correspond with the LEA and negotiate directly with them, they were denied that opportunity. That is an improper way for any LEA to communicate with a governing body.
    If the hon. Gentleman has such an interest in my constituency, perhaps he will write to me privately and explain just what he knows about the way in which the discussions and ballot took place. It is no coincendence that there is a great deal of overlap of interest. When the local newspaper, the Exeter Express and Echo, printed a photograph of one of the meetings at St. Thomas high school, the audience included people from the Ottery St. Mary primary school which, to my certain knowledge, had absolutely no interest in St. Thomas high school.
    Under the Liberal Democrats in Devon, the LEA will disclose information to anybody and leave the governing body last, until they have to ask for the information. We also seem to be in the area of flying pickets who go from meeting to meeting, regardless of whether they have an interest in the particular school. That is not how the grant-maintained status option should be considered. It should be considered rationally and impartially—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There is now so much noise that I can scarcely hear the hon. Lady. Will hon. Members keep rather quieter?
    Mrs. Browning: Such discussions, particularly with parents, should be considered impartially and with full information on both sides. There are obviously two sides to the argument; none the less, the democratic process set up by the Government has been subjugated by the Liberal Democrat council in Devon and the National Union of Teachers and others who have a vested interest in making sure that it does not happen and who are making sure that parents are not given access to full and impartial information.
    I close with a quotation from Devon county council's chief education officer, following the St. Thomas high school vote. He said:
    "The vote is particularly significant as it keeps the authority well below the 10 per cent. threshold for secondary school pupils attending opted out schools. Beyond that level, Devon has to share responsibility for planning the provision of secondary schools with the Funding Agency for Schools…A yes vote would have taken the percentage of secondary pupils in Devon to 9·95 per cent."
    It is not in the interests of fairness and impartiality or a matter for the judgment of parents and governors; it is a matter of sustaining an LEA department that is at the fore

    871
    of the activities perpetrated by the Liberal Democrats in Devon—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman put that away. I do not want to see rude pictures across the Chamber.
    8.56 pm
    Mr. Tom Cox: Tempting though it is to comment on some of the points raised earlier, in fairness to hon. Members and the requests from the Chair for short speeches, I intend to concentrate solely on one issue. As a Member representing inner London, I raise an issue that is causing enormous concern to schools throughout London —the future of section 11 funding.
    In London at the present time, some 650 teaching posts are funded under section 11. In my constituency, 48 full-time teaching posts are funded under section 11, and 21 schools benefit from it. The grant paid to the London borough of Wandsworth—I am a Member for that borough—is well over £1 million a year. Those figures result from a series of questions that I have asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department over the past two weeks in the House.
    Under section 11 funding, the present percentage-75 per cent.—will, in April, be reduced to 57 per cent. It is already clear what the effects of that cut will be, not only in my constituency but in many boroughs throughout inner and outer London. As a result of that reduction, London will lose some £16 million. It will affect many schools in boroughs such as Brent, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hackney, Ealing and Islington. No hon. Member, on either side of the Chamber, who represents a constituency in those boroughs can be unaware of the effects that it will have on schools in their constituencies unless there is a drastic reappraisal of the cuts.
    Mr. Heald: Is it official Labour party policy to reinstate any cuts that are made in section 11 funding, as we have not heard about that from the hon. Member's hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench?
    Mr. Cox: I would expect that every Labour authority will do all that it can to reimpose section 11 funding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman goes through the Lobbies as Lobby fodder on the many occasions on which we see cuts being made in local authority funding, in whatever sector that funding may be spent. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's question, he may be interested to know that the borough of Wandsworth, which makes great play of having the lowest council tax in the country, has clearly said that it will only keep section 11 funding until the summer, and will give no guarantees that, for the rest of the year, or future years, it will pick up any of that funding. This issue goes to the heart of the argument that I am seeking to present, not only for my constituency but for constituencies that are represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I confirm that when the Government announced the cuts in section 11 funding, although it is a Home Office matter, my hon. Friends the shadow Secretary of State for Education and the shadow Home Secretary, jointly made it clear that it would have a
    872
    serious adverse impact on the education of children who benefited from the funding and for whom English was not their first language. We would restore those cuts.
    Mr. Cox: In the schools in my constituency, I have found that section 11 funding benefits the whole school, not just part of it. If no teachers in the school are employed under section 11 funding, because schools often manage their own budgets they do not have the resources to pick up the staffing levels that section 11 funding allows them to have, the whole school will suffer. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) may be interested to know that the funding next year will be reduced still further to 50 per cent. At the moment, it is 75 per cent.
    In the past three weeks, I have visited five schools throughout my constituency, not just in certain areas. Not one head teacher or member of staff, when we have talked about this issue, has said to me that they are in a position to pick up the funding out of their existing budgets to make up for the loss of money that they will soon experience. That is what is so crucial to us in London, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, the whole role of the school will start to suffer. No school in inner London—or, I suspect, anywhere in the country —can say, "We are lucky. We have surplus teachers. If we lose a teacher because of funding withdrawals, we have the additional staff to make up the loss." From the visits that I have made in my constituency and the detailed discussions that I have had with head teachers and staff, I can say that not one of them said that they could pick up that funding and therefore keep staff now employed under section 11. What they do say is that they are enormously fearful about the effect on their schools. The cuts will not only affect teachers' morale, although that is crucial; they will affect parents' trust in schools and the standards in schools.
    As we all know, whatever the difficulties—and there are some difficult schools in London, as there may be in many other parts of the country—it is to teachers' credit that they do everything possible to raise standards, and often succeed. I am convinced, however, that that can be done only when staffing levels are adequate: without adequate staffing levels, classes become larger and problems arise. Those of us who visit schools, and talk to heads and other teachers, know that when enough staff are available they can move the youngsters with problems, and continue to pursue the standards that schools are working to achieve.
    This is a crucial issue, for London and for Members of Parliament. I know that it is primarily a Home Office issue, but I beg the Minister to consult his Home Office colleagues and try to readjust the cuts that are threatened for April. Otherwise, we shall undoubtedly experience enormous problems as a result of the breakdown of morale and loss of hope—and, above all, the loss of the expectations felt by many youngsters, and especially by their parents.
    The Minister may say that this is indeed a Home Office matter, but the issues are intimately linked. As I have said, the funding for schools is due to fall from 75 to 50 per cent. next year; councils will be stretched to the limit. It will be a disaster for London schools in areas such as mine, whose authorities refuse to compensate for the loss of funds.
    I do not believe much of what we hear from Ministers; I take far more notice of what I am told by heads and other teachers. But if the Minister who opened the debate really believes what he said about the progress that had been

    873
    made, he really should consider section 11 funding. If the cuts proceed, how will progress be made? Sadly, we shall see the reverse of progress—loss of morale and hope, and a loss to the communities in which the schools exist. Surely, no hon.. Member on either side of the House can condone such behaviour.
    9.7 pm
    Mr. James Pawsey: Let me declare an interest immediately: like the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), I am a consultant with the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) will forgive me if I do not follow his lead on section 11 funding. I was interested by what the hon. Member for Dewsbury said—or, rather, what she did not say; I thought it significant that, in a speech lasting some 28 minutes, she did not set out the Labour party's programme. She seemed more than content to attack grant-maintained schools—yet, if they are failing, why should she spend so much time attacking them? As Shakespeare said, methinks the lady doth protest too much.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pawsey: I will in a moment. Let me get into my speech first.
    The motion strikes me as somewhat contrived. Of course education requires investment: that is why the Government spend more per child, in real terms, than was spent in 1979. We spend more on pre-school education, we spend more on children in school and we spend more on our young people in advanced education.
    We have invested in the nation's teachers with pay increases that better reflect the importance of the work that they do. I have argued in the House over a long period that the overwhelming majority of the nation's teachers are dedicated to their profession and to the children in their charge. It is, therefore, right that they now receive a salary which is more commensurate with their responsibilities and duties.
    In education, as in life, however, money is not everything. Ideas and policies are even more important. There is little doubt that new ideas and policies have come from the Conservative party and from the Government.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: On the subject of new policies and what the hon. Member was saying earlier about my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), may I point out that my hon. Friend was attacking not grant-maintained schools, but the policies of the Government that created such a cockeyed and wasteful system?
    Mr. Pawsey: I found that to be genuinely an extraordinary intervention. As the hon. Gentleman is not now attacking grant-maintained schools, and if the Labour party is not now attacking grant-maintained schools, let me hear him say, in simple words of one syllable, that under any regime of which he is a member, grant-maintained schools will remain. Of course they will not. Of course his hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and other Opposition Members continue their spiteful action against the grant-maintained schools, a matter to which I will refer later.
    I say that the new ideas and policies come from the Government and from the Conservative party. We have
    874
    sought genuinely to improve the quality and standard of state education by introducing the national curriculum and testing, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and national targets for education and training, and by substantially increasing the number of students in advanced education. In 1979, only one in eight of the target group was in advanced education. Today, the figure is one in three—an unprecedented increase.
    That increase emphasises two things—first, that the nation's schools are producing substantial numbers of young people well able to take advantage of advanced education and, secondly, that resources have been increased in the universities, enabling them to take more students.
    I will now turn to the subject of local education authorities. We have endeavoured to reduce the monopoly; indeed, the LEA monopoly has been increasingly challenged by the emergence of grant-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools build on the success of local management of schools—yet another of the Government's initiatives. LMS ensures that more funding—or, as the motion puts it, more investment—reaches the individual school and reaches down to the individual classroom, to the individual pupil. That must be to the benefit of the nation's children.
    I understand why local education authorities dislike grant-maintained schools. They are, after all, a challenge not only to the established bureaucracy and empire of the LEA but to the policies and the ethos of the LEA. In spite of the opposition, however, 814 grant-maintained schools have so far emerged, with another 67 in the immediate pipeline, which makes a total of 881. In addition, a further 118 have voted yes.
    Grant-maintained status introduces diversity into the nation's education system. Where there was one single basic school, the neighbourhood comprehensives, there is now real choice for children and for parents, and that choice will grow because of GMS and because the Government are allowing those schools to change their character.
    Parents like choice, a point emphasised by the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools pointed out, more than half a million pupils are now being taught in grant-maintained schools —schools which have cut the apron strings that once secured them to the local education authority.
    Yet another initiative introduced by the present Government was the introduction of the Office for Standards in Education, which ensures that every school will be inspected at least once every four years—a substantial improvement on what went before. I recall that when the measure was introduced, it was thought that it would be the end of inspection as we knew it. The reverse is true. Ofsted is a success story. It is accepted and working well and its inspectors go into the nation's schools and make a positive contribution to improving the quality and standard of state education.
    The initiatives that I have so far described are only some of the ideas that the Government and the Conservative party have introduced, but it is instructive to compare our policies with those of the Opposition. Inasmuch as the Labour party has a policy, it is simple and single: one policy, one choice, one school. In Labour's view, bureaucracy is best and the man in shire hall has all the answers.

    875
    Opposition Members oppose tests, league tables and anything that smacks of independence. Opposition Members have become not so much the party of Opposition, more the party of obstruction; or, perhaps more accurately, the party of abolition. Opposition Members would abolish grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is applauding and I have a longer catalogue to give him, so he will be able also to applaud the abolition of the assisted places scheme and, according to the hon. Member for Dewsbury, independent schools.
    Opposition Members march under a slogan of "Back to the 1960s", and they want to return to the trendy fashions that did so much to destroy British education. Theirs remains a true policy of envy—a policy displayed and re-emphasised last week by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. In an interview given in the magazine of the Independent Schools Information Service, she reaffirmed her party's opposition to independent schools and her desire to abolish the assisted places scheme, which provides places to about 30,000 children from low-income families.
    I noted, almost with incredulity, the intention of the hon. Member for Dewsbury to reopen the issue of charitable status for independent schools, thereby reversing the policy of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition, in his quest for respectability, makes of the albatross that she has hung around his neck and that of the Labour party?
    I shall turn to the policy of the mover of the motion —the Liberal Democrat party, or whatever it is called this week. I do not accuse the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) of being two-faced, for if he had two faces he would not be wearing the one that he is wearing today. I. accuse him, however, of facing two ways. After all, on testing the Liberal Democrats said:
    "very little information of use to parents has ever been produced."
    They went on to say that they would have a system of tests based entirely on continuous assessment.
    The hon. Member for Bath appears to disagree with his party—he shows the independence of mind for which he is rightly becoming famous. In a report in The Times he states:
    "the issue is not about the fundamental principle of testing and assessment".
    It is, however, true that, from time to time and when it suits his party, it attacks the
    "fundamental principle of setting each child the same objective test at a given time."
    Naturally, the Liberal Democrats would abolish most formal examinations, including the GCSE, the national vocational qualification and A-levels. They would be replaced by qualifications modelled on—this will amuse the House—the piano exams principle. That is the best that they can come up with.
    The debate has provided Conservative Members with an opportunity—albeit very brief—to highlight some of the Government's initiatives and expose the paucity of thought among the Opposition parties. We now require a period in which schools can digest the reforms that have been introduced. I have no doubt that the past six years will be
    876
    seen as a time of great change and challenge and that from that challenge will emerge an education system well suited to the needs of the next century.
    9.20 pm
    Mr. David Jamieson: It is always a pleasure to follow a peroration from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) whose speech was, as always, lively although it owed more to rhetoric than to fact—it improves every time I hear it. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and I shall make my contribution brief as I know that other hon. Members wish to participate.
    There are many stresses on schools today, mainly due to the myriad innovations of the past few years, such as LMS —the local management of schools—a concept that I broadly welcome. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned it but I must point out that it was pioneered by Labour authorities and copied—sensibly—by the Government. The national curriculum and the constant chopping and changing have also placed stresses on our schools. There have been many U-turns and only last week the common funding formula was announced.
    Last week the Select Committee on Education took evidence. The Government spokesman on education in another place said that one essential fact about the common funding formula was that it had to be transparent and easily understandable. The Committee heard from the head teacher of a grant-maintained school who was asked whether he understood how the figure for his school's budget was arrived at. It was most revealing that he replied:
    "I have to confess that I do not understand how the figure was arrived at".
    I liked his next comment which was:
    "I also understand why I do not understand."
    Clearly, more chaos and confusion will enter the education system if we have a common funding formula that head teachers, directors of education and treasurers do not understand. The real test will come tomorrow when a Minister from the Department for Education comes before the Committee and we find out whether he understands the common funding formula.
    We have heard tonight that many schools have been disrupted by the ballots for grant-maintained status. The Education Act 1993 guarantees that every year governors have to consider the disruption of their school because they have to vote on whether to have a ballot. It is simply a one-way track to Government control—schools have to keep on balloting until they have made the "right" decision.
    Reference has been made to a ballot that took place at St. Thomas' high school last week, the result of which was announced on Thursday. It is yet another example of disruption. The school is an excellent comprehensive school with 1,200 pupils. It has a good reputation and high standards but found itself holding a ballot on grant-maintained status.
    What happened in the balloting process? The head teacher held only one meeting, at which he did not allow any contrary view to be expressed. The only way in which the contrary view could be expressed to the head teacher and the governors who wanted to opt out was for a group of parents to hire a hall some distance from the school and

    877
    to advertise a meeting. The 650 parents who turned up, with an independent person chairing the meeting, heard both sides of the argument clearly put forward.
    What the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) said tonight was totally wrong. I repeat to her that the information put out by the local education authority in Devon was similar to that put out when it was under Conservative control. That information was approved both by Local Schools Information and the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust. What went wrong with the ballots at St. Thomas' high school and at Ottery St. Mary was that the parents did not make what Conservative Members thought was the right choice.
    Mrs. Browning: It is amazing, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport —a seat more than 60 miles from Ottery St. Mary—has such detailed knowledge that he professes to know far more than the local Member of Parliament does about how the matter was conducted with the governing body, which has been in correspondence and communication with me on the subject for the past three weeks. If the hon. Gentleman knew so much about those events I wonder why he did not raise with me the fact that he intended to trespass on my constituency over a matter affecting Ottery St. Mary.
    Mr. Jamieson: If an hon. Member raises a matter in debate in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, surely it is in order for another Member to speak about the substance of what has been said. The hon. Member for Tiverton is attacking me for coming to the Chamber well informed. I shall always accept such an attack from her, or from any other Conservative Member. I shall come to the Chamber well informed. The hon. Lady does not like what she is hearing, and most of all she does not like what the parents in her area—perhaps voters or former voters of hers —said in the ballot, not what the parents sad at St. Thomas' high school.
    So espoused are Conservative Members to parental choice that when the ballot goes against them they come to the Chamber whingeing and complaining about information not being presented clearly and fairly. I should have thought that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannarn)—he might have attended the debate tonight, such was his concern about the outcome of the ballot—would say that what is needed in those schools now is a period in which the wounds caused by the ballot can heal, and the school and the teachers can get on with the job of educating children rather than having to go through politically motivated ballots.
    There has been some talk about capital expenditure on schools tonight. At one time, that was used as a part bribe to grant-maintained schools, to entice schools to opt out. I am sure that the hon. Member for Tiverton will have done her homework, and like me will have noted that six grant-maintained schools in Devon put in a bid for a total of £2·85 million for capital works in 1994–95. Although those are the so-called flagships of Tory policy, what were those schools actually offered? I hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) is listening, too, because he has a particular interest in one of the schools. Of the £2·85 million that the grant-maintained schools in Devon bid for, the Government, with all their generosity to grant-maintained schools, offered them a mere £23,000. They must now be reflecting on whether
    878
    they would have been better off staying with the local education authority, because then they would probably have received substantially more.
    Mr. Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jamieson: I shall certainly give way if the hon. Gentleman will explain why the grant-maintained school in Plymouth did not get its £750,000 bid. In that case I shall be pleased to hear from him.
    Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is extremely hostile to grant-maintained schools, but why does he not join me in congratulating the headmaster and staff of an excellent grant-maintained school in his own constituency—St. Boniface college, which this year achieved far better exam results than the comprehensive school just along the road, of which he used to be deputy headmaster?
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is an absolutely absurd idea. He may answer the question why he does not send his own children to the school in his constituency. Since the school in Plymouth went comprehensive and we got rid of part of the system of secondary moderns and some of the selection, we have seen standards improve more and more in the city. If the hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would also know that.
    One other matter that I shall raise concerns the fact that many of the children in my constituency are children of service families. Since the parents are serving abroad, sometimes in war zones, their children attend private schools through the boarding schools allowance scheme. Those schools are mainly private schools and an answer given by the Minister shows that, in total, £120 million per year is spent on that scheme. I am not opposed to the scheme, but to what degree is that huge investment of public money checked? So few of those schools receive an inspection, which was talked of by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—the four-yearly Ofsted inspection. Inspections are not made of those private schools, yet they receive large sums of public money. I have examples of some of the few schools which have been inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate and Ofsted. Those schools receive respectively a quarter, one half and two thirds of their money from the taxpayer, but they have the most damning HMI reports.
    I have written to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, who has replied. I asked him if those reports had been made known to all the parents and children in the school. He said that the school is supplied with copies of the published report and that
    "it can distribute as it sees fit".
    If there is a good report, it is sent to all the parents, but if, like those schools, it is a bad report, it is not. The Minister's letter continued:
    "The onus is on the school to distribute the report to interested parties or to advise them where reports can be obtained."
    Needless to say, in the case of those schools, the reports never found their way into the hands of the parents. I look forward to hearing answers to some of the points that I have raised. In particular, I should like to hear what the Minister intends to do to ensure that children of service men and women get a decent education in those private schools which at present are not inspected by Ofsted.
    9.32 pm
    Mr. James Wallace: I confess that I went too far earlier when I protested about the total absence of Scottish Ministers on the Government Front Bench. It is fair to say that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) had indicated that he would not be able to attend the debate because of the Standing Committee. It is also fair to say that at least one member of the Scottish Office, the Secretary of State, is not so committed. In the United Kingdom Parliament, dealing with the subject of education which affects people north and south of the border, while the Labour party Scottish spokesman has been present for a good part of the debate, there has not been a single Scottish Conservative Member present. That reflects the attitude of the Conservative party to an important matter such as education north of the border.
    Mr. Burns: What about the Scottish Nationalists?
    Mr. Wallace: I am not here to defend the Scottish Nationalists.
    Mr. Boswell: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the House how many members of the Liberal Democrat party were present during the extremely important debate before Christmas on the national education and training targets?
    Mr. Wallace: It was a far larger percentage than that of Scottish Conservative Members present during tonight's debate, since anything is greater than zero.
    To add to the injury that -I felt when the Minister said that he could not reply to my intervention, I was asked by the Scottish Office to indicate some of the matters that would be raised. Perhaps I had overestimated the Minister's speed learning on issues as complex as those relating to Scotland, notwithstanding his background.
    It is a pity that there are no Scottish Office Ministers here because there are one or two kind things that we would have said—for example, about the early introduction of the five to 14-year-olds curriculum in Scotland. It is fair to say that the curriculum has been introduced in Scotland with greater public and professional acceptance and willingness to make it work than has been the case south of the border. However, aspects of the national curriculum have been changed even before some parts of it have been implemented.
    In testing, we have seen the Government's willingness to back down to a considerable extent under joint pressure from teachers and parents. Now, instead of imposing an ideological position, local authority staff are agreeing that teachers will be free to determine whether it is appropriate to test and, if so, when. The fact that there have been relatively few tests has not brought the huge outcry from parents that Tory Members lead us to expect. In Scotland, we have not the product of this Government but an inheritance of a much broader-based approach to secondary education and the examinations at the end of it.
    It is understood that perhaps tomorrow we will get the Government's response to Professor Howie's report. While there is general consensus that Professor Howie has identified a weakness in a system which has served Scotland well for many years, I hope that the Government will not go down the road of having a two-tier system of examinations at the end of secondary education.
    880
    I was not allowed to intervene in what is substantially a debate dominated by English Members. The debate has had its moments. We enjoyed the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) describing the advertisement displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) as "rude". In case there is any doubt in the minds of those who read the record later, I hasten to add that the advertisement on the advantages of grant-maintained schools that the hon. Lady described as "rude" was placed in the Radio Times by the Department for Education.
    Mrs. Browning: As hon. Members will observe, I have now put on my glasses. I tend not to wear them in the Chamber—that way, Opposition Members remain a blur to me. When the picture was suddenly flashed at me across the Chamber, without my glasses on it looked like a rather rude picture and I did not want to have anything to do with it.
    Mr. Wallace: Hon. Members on this side of the House would perhaps think it was rude in other respects, but I do not think that anyone could say that it offended public decency.
    Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wallace: No. The hon. Member for Tiverton made two criticisms: first, having campaigned in the county council elections in opposition to grant-maintained schools, the Liberal Democrats maintained their election promise when they swept aside the Tories in Devon; and, secondly, she seemed to have an aversion to open government and to be frightened that too much information was getting into the public domain. Undoubtedly, the fact that there was that amount of information led to the voters and parents taking the decision which they did in the ballots that have been referred to.
    Much of this debate has rightly concentrated on the need for investment in education and the question of resources. When one looks at the developments in places such as south-east Asia and the changes that will come from eastern Europe, it is clear that we must invest in our young people if we are to be able to compete economically in an ever more competitive global market.
    Dr. Spink: The hon. Gentleman will be happy to congratulate the Government on their investment in education since 1979. They increased by 50 per cent. in real terms the total amount that is spent on education, by 19 per cent. the amount that they spend per pupil on capital, by 47 per cent. the amount that they spend per pupil in education and by 31 per cent. the amount that they spend on books and equipment in education.
    Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman could not have teed up my next point better if he had tried. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath referred to the brief from the Library for the debate on the Budget resolutions and the economic situation on 6 December. He pointed out that if one takes account of the appropriate education price deflators and the changes in pupil numbers, the increases in resources is not about 40 per cent., but just 2 per cent. That reveals a fall in real terms in spending on secondary education, and spending on further education has fallen by 22 per cent.
    The report by the National Commission on Education shows that spending on books per pupil has fallen by 17 per cent. and expenditure per pupil was no higher in

    881
    volume terms in 1990–91 than it was in 1980–81. At 1991–92 prices, capital expenditure in schools in Scotland when the Government came to power was £149 million. In 1991–92, it was £72·5 million, having fallen in one year to as low as £63 million.
    Many of the figures are far from accurate. There has been a fall in investment in education if one takes into account all the relevant factors. It is not just a question of money and resources. The motion makes it clear that there must also be investment in goodwill and people, and an investment in the partnership described in the motion between all the main players.
    Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wallace: No, I will not give way. I have been generous in giving way, and I am speaking against the clock.
    The Government have been weak. There has been a negative investment in terms of goodwill at all stages, and the alienation of many of those employed in the education service has led to a staggering loss of morale. Looking north of the border, we can see the reasons behind the campaigns that the teaching unions have been mounting about the greater work loads, or overloads, which have been placed on them.
    We need only to look at an assortment of the 24 Government initiatives since the 1987 election. There has been a new initiative every three and a half months. Most of those are not trifling, and some are welcome. They include school boards; the five to 14 programme; performance indicators; devolved school management; modern language teaching in primary schools; formal development planning; action against bullying; national teating; computers in the classroom; case conference machinery; regulations recording truancy; staff development and appraisal; enhanced school inspection; self-governing schools legislation—one could go on.
    Those are important developments, but, taken as a whole, they give a strong impression that the Government have substituted vision and strategy for a policy of change for change's sake. The policy lacks coherence. On the one hand, there is the promotion of decentralisation, and on the other the imposition of central control.
    The Association of Head Teachers of Scotland prepared a report which was sent to the Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office last year. The report said:
    "If there is any underlying consistency to this catalogue of reforms, it certainly escapes casual scrutiny. People know it is not possible to travel in different directions at the same time. The problem is overcome…by the use of phrases familiar to headteachers, for example:—'Emphasis on…should not be to the exclusion of…without losing sight of the need of and the like. What this kind of language amounts to is a belief that by uttering a few well-chosen words, the laws which usually govern human affairs will somehow be suspended."
    There are two unifying factors. Most, if not all, are time-consuming and require extensive work over and above the basic function of the teacher—teaching children and young people in a classroom.
    When the AHTS named the report to which I referred, it was no coincidence that it called it "Children Incidentally". The report said:
    "The title chosen…reflects our view of the way in which the immediate needs of children are being pushed to the periphery as all attention is concentrated on change as a process, and, seemingly, an end in itself."
    882
    There is stress and low morale, and that affects teachers and inevitably has an effect on the children they teach. It cannot be conducive to creating a proper educational environment in which the highest standards are achieved.
    The staff of Inchmore primary school wrote to the Scottish Educational Journal—the journal of the Educational Institute of Scotland. They said:
    "In the primary sector we, as individual teachers, have to address all curricular areas not just one subject. If the Government want quality then they must pay for it by ensuring that our children, in Scotland, are being taught by teachers who are not suffering from the stress of implementation."
    When well-documented cases are presented to the Scottish Office, it appears that only lip-service is paid to the problem. The remedies that are put forward make no impact on the work load of the teacher in the classroom, and they fuel further the suspicion that officialdom at the highest level has no real concept of what it takes to teach children in the classroom of the 1990s.
    We should not lose sight of the people who matter. They are the children in the classroom and the young people in our colleges and universities. At nursery, primary and secondary level and in further and higher education there have been tremendous pressures.
    In Scotland, the proportion of three and four-year-olds who attend nursery education is lower than even the United Kingdom average, which does not always bear worthy comparison with other countries. I have mentioned some of the problems in primary schools with the introduction of curriculum change. In further education, the important link between local communities and further education colleges has been broken as the Government pursue centralising tendencies.
    While the Government boast about the increase in student numbers in our universities—a worthy achievement—they say little about the strain that additional numbers place on lecture theatres, laboratory equipment and tutorial sizes. Little is heard about the significant drop-out rate among students and the financial hardship that many of them face.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools asked what evidence there was that increased resources led to better standards in education. I know that it is not a very good authority, but perhaps I could quote from the Government's amendment to our motion. It suggests that the House
    "believes that the Government's commitment to a high quality education service is further demonstrated by the record sums it is spending".
    We have challenged whether those sums are as great in real terms as the Government claim.
    Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman mentions the sums that have been spent, but he knows as well as I do that in Scotland we are going through local government reorganisation—not reform—which the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have estimated will cost £720 million. Given that the reorganisation is being put in place against a backdrop of reducing public expenditure, does the hon. Gentleman feel that the schoolchildren of Scotland in the future will be less well off than they have been up to now?
    Mr. Wallace: The current generation will be very much affected by those changes, on top of all the other matters to which I have referred.

    883
    It is clear from the agonised protests of the hon. Member for Tiverton that the policy commitment made by the Liberal Democrats—
    Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wallace: I have only one minute left. The policy commitment of increased resources amounting to 1p on income tax is a popular policy. It gives substance to what we have argued. It is more convincing than the promise by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). She said that Labour's commitments would be met by tackling waste and not having so many carpets in the office of the National Curriculum Council. That lacked a certain degree of credibility.
    We have costed our programme. It was put to accountants before the last election. We argue that our sums add up a lot better than those of the Conservative party, given the public sector borrowing requirement that it has created compared with the false prospectus that it put to the electorate at the general election.
    Education is an investment that we cannot afford not to make. By souring the relationships that are vital for creating a partnership to deliver a high-quality education service, and failing to invest the necessary resources, the Government are in danger of failing a generation. Glossy pamphlets and league tables will never be a substitute for the dedication and professionalism of the teaching profession. Our young people deserve far better than they have received after 15 years of Tory rule. Our motion makes it clear that we are the party which has the commitment.
    9.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) at least paid my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the compliment of picking up on the most interesting remark of the evening, which my hon. Friend made at the beginning of the debate. He properly made the point that there was no direct correlation between the total expenditure and the success of a particular school system. The Government's amendment makes it clear that we have a commitment which is evidenced by the high and rising level of provision of finances for education.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred inaccurately to the drop-out rate. He spoke as though it had increased. The Liberal motion also says that the drop-out rate has increased. He referred to spending on further education and deplored the breaking of the link with local education authorities. I thought that exactly that decentralising of power and empowerment of the local community was a Liberal priority. The hon. Gentleman also warned us, in a number of windy phrases, that we should not lose sight of children in the classroom—I agree. He said that we should make a heavy investment in education, which we have also done.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The annunciator is referring to the Minister as Mr. Baldry—it has just been corrected.
    Mr. Boswell: What a splendid waste of time.
    884
    Let us now consider the facts. When I consider the debate I am reminded of the famous old remark about the Opposition Benches reflecting a row of extinct volcanoes. It is clear that the explosive force of the Labour party's spending pledges has been effectively, if temporarily, plugged by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who is sitting on the core. Nevertheless, in those places that I believe are known in the trade as round the back and out of sight, at the sides of the volcano of explosive spending, are pyroclastic flows. They appear at local gatherings such as teachers' conferences, where idle spending pledges are made. I anticipate that the plug will be removed from the central core and we shall see a return of the characteristic Labour habit of showering pledges all over the place in an uncontrolled manner.
    To pursue the analogy, the Liberal Democrats, who tabled the motion, have seemed much more like the tail end of volcanic activity. They are gently rounded, non-threatening and entirely non-intrusive grassy mounds, but if one moves close to them one can observe the outcrops of volcanic pumice. If one moves closer still one finds that the stuff is abrasive, but essentially lightweight. That has been well evinced in the debate.
    The substantial part of the contribution of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has already been dealt with and I shall respond to the issues raised by the Liberal Democrats later.
    I shall deal first with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). She offered her familiar litany of grouses, although she set them out more elegantly than she sometimes does. She referred in an almost thoughtful way to political correctness. If she wants to look for examples of political correctness in action she should look at local education authorities.
    The hon. Lady referred to the alleged wastefulness of Government policies. It was conceded that there were well over 1 million empty places in schools. Those places have not been under the direct control of the Government—it is important to deal with that issue at a local level.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give a guarantee that no school will be allowed to opt out to avoid closure as part of a plan to reorganise and to get rid of surplus places, as has happened?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Lady has made such assertions, but my brief experience and the experience of my colleagues has shown that we always turn our attention to potential problems such as that. We have not allowed it to occur.
    The hon. Lady also spoke of centralisation. The number of school governors with a proper job to do in the local management of schools and grant-maintained schools is about 250,000. That is a huge increase in the number of people with a practical job to do on behalf of their schools and it is very much to be welcomed.
    The hon. Lady was on familiar territory when she spoke about grant-maintained schools. She neglected to say that the great majority of parents, pupils and staff of grant-maintained schools are delighted at the provisions that have been obtained and the improvements in standards.
    Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend has mentioned grant-maintained schools and the effect of local education authorities. Does he deprecate the fact that Bedfordshire county council has withdrawn library services from

    885
    grant-maintained schools? Does he also deprecate the fact that Kent and Essex have withdrawn repairs and maintenance from school budgets? Does he particularly deprecate the fact that, in Cornwall, potential school governors apparently have to take an oath of allegiance against grant-maintained schools? Does he agree that we do not want placemen as school governors, but people who want to contribute to the school?
    Mr. Boswell: Time is short—the answers are yes, yes and yes.
    The hon. Lady referred to the assisted places scheme without referring to its policy. I noticed, as did my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, that in her speech there was no reference at all to policies for education and no reference to a concern for the quality of education, except obliquely. Those are the reasons why we need to innovate and to make changes in educational policy.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) spoke with great passion. She analysed and destroyed the Liberal Democrat case for the one extra penny, but I will return to that myself because I will enjoy doing it as well. My hon. Friend then referred to a particular school and a complaint about a ballot which I think she has referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I remind the House that the Government believe in democracy and in the right of parents to choose the best future for their schools. If, where cases are brought to my right hon. Friend's attention, he judges that an LEA or anyone else has engaged in activities which have prejudiced the outcome of the ballot, he has the power to void the ballot, and he would use that power if it were justified. I think that I should not comment beyond that.
    The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke with some force about his concerns over section 11 funding. He rightly anticipated that this is primarily a matter for the Home Office and we can draw his remarks to the Home Office's attention, but I should remind him for the record —it is an important point —that the needs of children in that category are not catered for solely by section 11 but are also reflected in the standard spending assessment formula.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) spoke with this characteristic force about what was going on and he pointed to the weaknesses of Labour policy. He referred, for example—as a higher education Minister, I should do so, too—to the remarkable achievement that we have produced in empowering young people and in expanding student numbers so that we now have more than 1 million students in this country. He also referred to the importance of challenging the settled monopoly of local education authorities and of increasing choice and he is entirely right about that, too.
    The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) wound up the Back-Bench contribution with his characteristic whingeing about this and that, his dislike of certain grant-maintained schools, and his concern about the common funding formula, on which we have consulted fully and which is no more complicated than LMS standards of devolution. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman was a mathematician, but I could be wrong about that. He exemplifies one of the essential problems about the attitude of the Labour party, which is that nothing must ever be changed, and every innovation that we make is automatically rubbished because they have nothing to offer instead of it.
    886
    If I may return to the motion itself, I remind the hon. Member for Bath—I hope that I have not besmirched him, but I have it on the record—that he once said that his party would be very keen to see the benefits of grant-maintained status being passed to all schools. It is a sort of vicarious GM, no doubt including the LEA in the case of the Liberal Democrats.
    I must return to the central point of the debate, which is the one penny. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton destroyed the case for one penny because she made the point that it had been amply recycled into a range of provision from nursery books to student loans. We have been told that it is "at least" one penny, but the Liberal Democrats have spent their penny in such a way that it is even more recycled than Thames water is.
    I notice also that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), in the kind of debate that is never noticed because it happens on a Friday, referred to a visit to Hong Kong, where the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland may also have gone. He reported to the House on 14 January:
    "There is no doubt that it is easier to do business where tax has a ceiling rate of 15 per cent.—[Official Report, 14 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 443.]
    One or two extra on top of what we have, and what is the price of that?
    In the middle of all these false trails, false complaints and false nostrums, the Government are getting on with the job of improving the nations's education. We should record that on the schools side alone, through the revenue support grant provided by the Department of the Environment, we are spending £17·1 billion directly into local education authorities. At the same time, we are asserting choice and diversity. We are driving forward, through performance indicators, higher standards. That is not divisive, but is what parents want. We shall continue to do that and to raise educational standards.
    For that reason, I invite the House to reject the motion and to support my right hon. Friend's amendment.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 282.

    Division No. 150]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Alton, David

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Barnes, Harry

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Beggs, Roy

    Lewis, Terry

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Canavan, Dennis

    Skinner, Dennis

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Cohen, Harry

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Tyler, Paul

    Cryer, Bob

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Etherington, Bill

    Wallace, James

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Harvey, Nick

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood,

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Ashby, David

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Alexander, Richard

    Atkins, Robert

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Amess, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Ancram, Michael

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Baldry, Tony

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    887

    Bates, Michael

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Batiste, Spencer

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gorst, John

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Booth, Hartley

    Hague, William

    Boswell, Tim

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bowis, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hannam, Sir John

    Brazier, Julian

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Bright, Graham

    Harris, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Burns, Simon

    Hayes, Jerry

    Burt, Alistair

    Heald, Oliver

    Butcher, John

    Hendry, Charles

    Butler, Peter

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hicks, Robert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Horam, John

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cash, William

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clappison, James

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

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Congdon, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Conway, Derek

    Jack, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jessel, Toby

    Couchman, James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Cran, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Day, Stephen

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Knapman, Roger

    Devlin, Tim

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

    Dover, Den

    Knox, Sir David

    Duncan, Alan

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Dunn, Bob

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Legg, Barry

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Eggar, Tim

    Lidington, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Lightbown, David

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lord, Michael

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Luff, Peter

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Faber, David

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fabricant, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Maclean, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Forman, Nigel

    Mans, Keith

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Marland, Paul

    Forth, Eric

    Marlow, Tony

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    French, Douglas

    Mates, Michael

    Gale, Roger

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Gallie, Phil

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Merchant, Piers

    Garnier, Edward

    Mills, Iain

    Gill, Christopher

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    888

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Spring, Richard

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Stephen, Michael

    Needham, Richard

    Stern, 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)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Norris, Steve

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    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

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thurnham, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

    Pickles, Eric

    Tracey, Richard

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Tredinnick, David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Trend, Michael

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Trotter, Neville

    Rathbone, Tim

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Richards, Rod

    Viggers, Peter

    Riddick, Graham

    Walden, George

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Waller, Gary

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Watts, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wells, Bowen

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Whitney, Ray

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Whittingdale, John

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Sackville, Tom

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wilkinson, John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Willetts, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wilshire, David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Shersby, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Yeo, Tim

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments): —
    The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 121.

    Division No. 151]

    [10.13 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bates, Michael

    Alexander, Richard

    Batiste, Spencer

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Amess, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Ancram, Michael

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Arbuthnot, James

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Ashby, David

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Booth, Hartley

    Atkins, Robert

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Bowis, John

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Baldry, Tony

    Brandreth, Gyles

    889

    Brazier, Julian

    Hannam, Sir John

    Bright, Graham

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Harris, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Burns, Simon

    Hawksley, Warren

    Burt, Alistair

    Hayes, Jerry

    Butcher, John

    Heald, Oliver

    Butler, Peter

    Hendry, Charles

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hicks, Robert

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cash, William

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

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

    Clappison, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hunter, Andrew

    Colvin, Michael

    Jack, Michael

    Congdon, David

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Conway, Derek

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Jessel, Toby

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Couchman, James

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Cran, James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Knapman, Roger

    Day, Stephen

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Devlin, Tim

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

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knox, Sir David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Dover, Den

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Duncan, Alan

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Legg, Barry

    Dunn, Bob

    Leigh, Edward

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lidington, David

    Eggar, Tim

    Lightbown, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Luff, Peter

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Faber, David

    Maclean, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Malone, Gerald

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Mans, Keith

    Forman, Nigel

    Marland, Paul

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Marlow, Tony

    Forth, Eric

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    French, Douglas

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Gale, Roger

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Gallie, Phil

    Merchant, Piers

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Mills, Iain

    Garnier, Edward

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gill, Christopher

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Gorst, John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Needham, Richard

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hague, William

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Norris, Steve

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Ottaway, Richard

    890

    Page, Richard

    Sweeney, Walter

    Paice, James

    Sykes, John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Pawsey, James

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Thomason, Roy

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Potter, David (Waveney)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Rathbone, Tim

    Thurnham, Peter

    Richards, Rod

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Riddick, Graham

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

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Tracey, Richard

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Trend, Michael

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Trotter, Neville

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Viggers, Peter

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Walden, George

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Sackville, Tom

    Waller, Gary

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Watts, John

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Wells, Bowen

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Whitney, Ray

    Shersby, Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Sims, Roger

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Soames, Nicholas

    Wilkinson, John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Willetts, David

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wilshire, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Spring, Richard

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Yeo, Tim

    Stephen, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Stern, Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Streeter, Gary

    Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

    Sumberg, David

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Alton, David

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Eastham, Ken

    Barnes, Harry

    Etherington, Bill

    Bayley, Hugh

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Fatchett, Derek

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Betts, Clive

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Blunkett, David

    Foulkes, George

    Boyes, Roland

    Garrett, John

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

    George, Bruce

    Caborn, Richard

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Callaghan, Jim

    Godsiff, Roger

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Graham, Thomas

    Canavan, Dennis

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clapham, Michael

    Gunnell, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hall, Mike

    Coffey, Ann

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Cohen, Harry

    Harvey, Nick

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Heppell, John

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cox, Tom

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cryer, Bob

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Home Robertson, John

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hood, Jimmy

    Darling, Alistair

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Davidson, Ian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Dixon, Don

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Hutton, John

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Illsley, Eric

    891

    Jamieson, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Jowell, Tessa

    Pope, Greg

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C & S)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lewis, Terry

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Loyden, Eddie

    Redmond, Martin

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Rooker, Jeff

    McAllion, John

    Short, Clare

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Simpson, Alan

    McCartney, Ian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Macdonald, Calum

    Snape, Peter

    McFall, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    McLeish, Henry

    Spellar, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McMaster, Gordon

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Madden, Max

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Mahon, Alice

    Tyler, Paul

    Marek, Dr John

    Wallace, James

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Wilson, Brian

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Martlew, Eric

    Meale, Alan

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Michael, Alun

    Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its far sighted education reforms which are driving up standards and giving more responsibility to schools, more choice to parents and more opportunities to our young people; believes that the Government's commitment to a high quality education service is further demonstrated by the record sums it is spending; notes that the superficial policies advanced by the Liberal Democratic Party bear remarkable similarity to the policies advanced by Her Majesty's Opposition; further notes that those policies appear to revolve around reversing all the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to raise standards and increase choice; notes the admission by the Liberal Democratic Party that it is a party committed to raising taxes, yet condemns its inability to demonstrate any clear linkage between a demand for more income tax and a well developed and defined set of educational policies on which additional tax revenues are to be spent; and believes that the Liberal Democrats' commitment to education would be better shown by ceasing its practice of campaigning in an underhand fashion against ballots of parents for grant maintained status, which the House utterly deplores.

    Community Care
    10.25 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I beg to move,
    That the Special Grant Report (No. 10) (House of Commons Paper No. 218), which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
    This report sets out the proposed allocation of the special transitional grant to local authorities in England for the next financial year for expenditure on community care services. It also describes the main features of the grant and the conditions that the Government intend to attach to its use.
    I am always happy to discuss the success of community care policy. At this time last year, we were knee-deep in predictions of doom and disaster, and I am pleased—but far from surprised—that we can now look back on a very sound and promising beginning.
    No one was more keen to forecast doom and gloom than the Labour party. The Opposition are like Christopher Robin on an off day—kneeling at the foot of their beds praying that something will go wrong. How cross they were when it did not. They said that community care would be underfunded by about £1 billion. Then they dropped their bid to £70 million—I suppose that that was a mere blip in Labour economics.
    Social services departments had the nerve to say that they thought that the funding was fair and were savaged by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), to the extent that he provoked a response in Community Care magazine from the director of social services in the London borough of Croydon, who said:
    "Having failed to alter the national political map for the past 13 years, Blunkett, like so many other disgruntled and frustrated politicians, goes home and kicks the cat; In this case local councillors and directors of social services."
    They kicked in vain, however.
    The report represents the Government's tangible commitment to the continued success of the new arrangements. It transfers about £736 million to local authorities. Taken together with the funding rolled forward from the current year, that means that, next year, authorities will have more than £1·2 billion available to meet their new community care responsibilities.
    Most authorities now realise that, used sensibly, that is sufficient for the job. That sum is, of course, in addition to the personal social services standard spending assessment resources, a substantial part of which has always been used for domiciliary and day services and public sector residential care.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I have just come to the House from a meeting about the Government's proposed plans to run down Guy's hospital. Do the figures—in Southwark's case a little more than £6 million—allow for the additional burden on the community care budget of the plans for reducing services in some parts of the capital's health service?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman referred to the increase that Southwark council is to receive this year. He got the figure wrong, but he got right the fact that it is an increase—from about £56 million to about £66 million, which is an increase of 16·4 per cent. If Southwark council is well managed and can use its resources efficiently—he will have to tell me whether it is, and whether it is capable

    893
    of doing that—it will certainly be able to cater for the community care needs of people in the borough during the coming year.
    I was saying that I was especially glad that this year we have been able to include a further £20 million in next year's grant over and above the total that had previously been announced. I hope that that will please the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. The aim is to encourage the further development of respite and home care services.
    Indeed, the level of diversification, enabling people to have a real choice between staying in their own home—where possible—and moving to residential care is one of the success stories of the past 11 months. In many parts of the country, diversion to domiciliary care is proceeding faster than anyone had expected, and we are getting reports of rates of 10 per cent. or more. That is one of the factors that have allowed us to speed up some of the transitional aspects of the grant.
    In particular, we have been able to phase out the use of historical data about income support claims from residents of care homes and nursing homes as a basis for distributing the grant between authorities. Instead, we can now use the personal social services standard spending assessments exclusively, the same basis as for virtually all other social services funding. The effects of the move will benefit more than two thirds of authorities.
    Another of this year's successes has been our commitment to real choice for users of community care services, whether residential or domiciliary. Continued success depends on a continuing diversity of service providers, especially in the. independent sector. I have, however, been disturbed by the number of complaints that I have received from proprietors and managers of private and voluntary care homes who allege that some local authorities are willing to waste money by ignoring the independent sector and placing people in much more expensive council-owned establishments.
    The importance of the independent sector to community care reforms can hardly be overstated, and the Government will continue to support its role.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: As the Minister said, choice is an important issue. Will he acknowledge that the requirement in the current and the next financial year to spend 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant in the independent sector restricts choice? In many instances, it means forcing people into expensive institutional care because of the lack of domiciliary care and support at a local level.
    Mr. Bowis: Of course it does not. Before community care, 100 per cent. of the moneys that came from social security went to the independent sector. We are talking now about the 85 per cent. of the transfer element that we are asking—indeed, requiring—local authorities to spend in the independent sector. It is a modest demand and has nothing to do with the disbursement of the moneys that were previously spent on domiciliary and day care and which came from the broad social service budgets.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his colleagues in local government to play their part in ensuring that the independent sectors—private and voluntary—can diversify and help to provide a wider choice for people, whether for residential or domiciliary care.
    894
    Local authorities should use their purchasing power to develop and stimulate new independent sector services, especially in the day and domiciliary spheres. I expect authorities to consider all potential providers and to strive for quality and value for money at all times. The independent sector has been a major player in community care services for many years, and its expertise must be harnessed to the challenges of the new policy. I want private and voluntary providers to be fully involved in the planning and provision of the range of services needed.
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister acknowledge that changing from a formula based partly on income support payments and partly on SSAs to a formula based wholly on SSAs seriously disadvantages some authorities? In a letter to me three weeks ago, he said that such a distribution mechanism
    "involves both winners and losers".
    He went on:
    "I recognise that there are some authorities, like North Yorkshire, whose special transitional grant will be lower next year than they had been anticipating."
    In fact, it will be more than £3 million lower, even after assurances that the change would be phased in over a number of years. How does the Minister expect an authority such as North Yorkshire, which has a traditionally low spend—in my view, too low a spend —on social services for the elderly to deal suddenly with a £3 million cut in its budget without severely disadvantaging the elderly people who rely on its services?
    Mr. Bowis: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be in close touch with the North Yorkshire social services department, and I ask him to go back and discuss with it the precise figure that we are offering this year. He will find that, instead of a cut, there is an increase of about £10 million—or 15·2 per cent.—for social services as a whole. Will he then ask why, if the social services department in his county is so concerned about its ability to look after local people in need, the authority has underspent by about £5 million on its social services budget in the current year? There was £55 million in its standard spending assessment for this year, but only £50 million in its budget.
    We shall again require all authorities to use most of their grant on services provided by the independent sector. Moreover, that condition is cumulative, so that next year authorities' independent sector expenditure must increase significantly over that for this year. I shall also give some thought to our definition of the word "independent". [Laughter.]
    The hon. Member for Brightside laughs, and I am not surprised. Many people have laughed at some of the devices employed. I have serious doubts about some homes that in theory have been transferred from councils to charitable trusts and so on, but which do not seem to be truly free from local authority interference and influence. If I think it necessary, I shall amend the definition in the condition accordingly.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Minister comment on our experience in Nottinghamshire, where, when the county council was forced to contemplate the closure of homes, several housing associations and not-for-profit associations in the voluntary sector went through the books with the council to find out whether they could run the schemes?

    895
    What am I to say to the housing associations whose representatives have written to me explaining their reason for pulling out of such a transfer was that, on the basis of the existing formula, they would not be able to run the homes without reducing staffing standards to dangerously low levels that would threaten the standard of care for the residents?
    Mr. Bowis: For a start, the hon. Gentleman would do well to examine the current record of Nottinghamshire social services department, which is indeed giving us great cause for concern. I have had to invite the director and chairman to come to my office to discuss the situation, and to see how they can put Nottinghamshire social services back on a proper, fair and just footing.
    I also suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers the figures and, realising that this year Nottinghamshire's resources will increase from £108 million to £122 million, sees whether he can persuade the county to provide a decent service in the best interests of the people of Nottinghamshire.
    We provide more than financial support. We have put in place a careful programme of monitoring and evaluation, and every authority has been visited at least twice to discuss progress, and to offer advice where appropriate. The outcome of the monitoring has been encouraging, and I have already referred to some of it. Not only are the basic structures all in place, but it is clear that people are already being offered more appropriate support.
    Generally, people who would previously have looked to the social security system for-support can now get a timely assessment of their needs. There do not seem to be widespread backlogs. However, a number of authorities report that their procedures have turned out to be over-complex. They are reviewing them, and I hope that that will lead to simpler and more comprehensive procedures. I am also conscious of the message that I have received from my own national users and carers group that the information and communications for users and potential users leaves room for considerable improvement.
    Fortunately, a great deal of enthusiasm and energy seem to be going into improving consultation with and involvement of both users and carers. There are welcome signs of users and carers becoming much more involved in the assessment procedures, although there is still a long way to go.
    Mr. Michael Stephen: Is my hon. Friend aware that many independent care home proprietors are worried because local authorities are unfairly preferring local authority homes when making referrals, and also unfairly applying much higher inspection standards to private care homes than they apply to their own premises?
    Mr. Bowis: I am aware that that is alleged, and also that, if it were happening, it would be wrong, because public sector homes are required to be inspected and assessed according to the same standards as are set for voluntary and private sector homes.
    I am equally aware, as my hon. Friend says, that, in some parts of the country, perhaps in parts of his own area, there are examples of people being persuaded to go into residential care homes in the public sector which are more expensive than appropriate and suitable accommodations available in the independent sectors.
    Mr. Hinchliffe rose—
    Mr. Bowis: I am responding to an intervention from my hon. Friend.
    The Audit Commission is one of the monitoring organisations which consider the cost and value for money of community care, and I expect it to draw it to the attention of local authority social services departments should it find that that is the case. Of course, that will become apparent as the year progresses.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: On the issue of the choice of people and the question of the use of local authority accommodation, is it not a simple fact that vast numbers of older people prefer to go into local authority accommodation because that accommodation is of a good standard, and especially because it is often located in areas where those people have lived all their lives? The Government are destroying that choice, because they are deliberately attempting to close down local authority accommodation. Where does the choice of local authority homes lie in the Government's policy?
    Mr. Bowis: It is for local people, local authorities and local social services to decide the sort of provision they may or may not wish to provide in their own sector. It is also up to them to purchase, on behalf of people whose needs they have assessed, suitable accommodation in residential care where that is the preference—as opposed to domiciliary care—of the individual who has been assessed. That individual should then have a choice under our statutory direction of choice on the home to which he or she is directed. That choice can be there in the public sector as in the independent sectors.
    What I am saying, what my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) is saying and what far too many care home managers and owners are saying, is that, all too often, that choice is not real in Labour authorities, which seek to promote their own homes at the expense of choice for the individuals who wish to choose homes in the independent sectors. I hope that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will begin to support us on that line, instead of showing his innate hostility to the private sector.
    On bed blocking, the dire predictions of some people have also happily proved unfounded. Some parts of the country are reporting lower levels than before April. There have been some small isolated problems, for which local managers have been prepared and which they have been able to deal with, as we expected.
    Joint working between local authorities and the national health service is also generally good. The agreements we required them to make on discharge arrangements and placements in nursing homes have had a positive effect, and there are welcome signs of commitment to joint development. That condition is one that I am repeating this year.
    That is the big picture, but I have also been impressed by earlier reports of what it has been possible to achieve for individual users of services. For example, the lady with a husband suffering from dementia who wanted him to be cared for at home has been able to receive 28 hours of home help each week, district nursing, and two weeks' respite care in every six.
    Another lady with significant health problems, who would previously have had to enter a residential care home, has been able to stay in her own home, thanks to a

    897
    comprehensive package of care—meals on wheels, home help seven days a week, respite care to ease her isolation, district nursing, various aids and adaptations and a laundry service. All the ladies so worried about coping alone—
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Where?
    Mr. Bowis: Of course, the Opposition do not want to hear these things, because they are examples of the success of the policy. As I began by saying, they are only happy when they think that the policy is not working. If they will listen, I am giving examples of people who are benefiting from the policy, such as the lady who was so worried about coping alone that she was thinking of moving into residential care, but was reassured when her local authority arranged for someone to visit each night before she went to bed to ensure that the gas was turned off and the house was locked up.
    Ms Tessa Jowell: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Bowis: In a minute.
    Equally, I have seen good examples of the provision of residential care, such as the lady who woke up one night to find a burglar in her room and decided that she needed to move to a home for reassurance and company, and who was able to choose a home where friends of her Church of denomination were living.
    Ms Jowell: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House celebrate examples where community care is working well. Can the Minister tell the House which authorities these examples have been taken from?
    Mr. Bowis: I wish that the hon. Lady would replace some Labour Front-Bench Members, because this is the first time that I have heard from Labour Members a recognition that the reforms are going well? When we produce examples selected—
    Mr. Morgan: Where?
    Mr. Bowis: —from around the country as a result of the monitoring process, the hon. Lady will celebrate those successes, even if Labour Front-Bench Members will not.
    It has been said that the implementation of the community care reforms marked the beginning of a decade of change, rather than an overnight revolution. That is perfectly true. It is now clear that the early days of the reforms represent a satisfactory foundation for that decade —a view shared by many other observers, including the Audit Commission and the Association of Directors of Social Services. [Interruption.] The Opposition spokesman on health is in the wrong debate. This is about local authorities in England. If he listens, perhaps he will learn some lessons for Wales as well.
    Mr. David Blunkett: Given the Minister's flattery of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), perhaps he will now answer her question and tell us which English authorities he drew his examples from.
    Mr. Bowis: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the examples come from a variety of areas of the country, and we could give him many more if he so wishes.
    The point is that the policy's success is a tribute to the considerable efforts made up and down the country by local authorities, health authorities and users and carers.
    898
    We need to be vigilant to ensure that that progress continues. I look forward to the next year of community care with some confidence, and I commend the report to the House.
    10.46 pm
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Opposition welcome this opportunity to have an albeit brief debate on Special Grant Report (No. 10). I think that people would be alarmed if they knew how rarely we get the opportunity in the House to discuss such an important subject as community care. As the Minister said, the report contains the amount of grant to be made available to individual local authorities during the second year of operation of the changed community care arrangements.
    In view of the Minister's comments, it is worth reminding the House that Labour supported the broad thrust of the community care provisions in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 as a means of unravelling the mess created by the Government's ill-thought-out, publicly funded expansion of private institutional care.
    In many respects, the arrangements set out in the report are still constrained by the same Government preoccupation with the market that we heard throughout the Minister's speech. That preoccupation led to the need for the 1990 changes in the first place. Labour believe that as long as Government policy remains more concerned about the interests of private providers of care than about service users and their carers, genuine community care reform will remain a long way away.
    As the Minister is well aware, the central motivation for the changes introduced last April was Exchequer anxiety over the soaring cost of DSS expenditure on income support claims made by residents of care and nursing homes. Following a change of policy in 1981, those rose from £11 million per annum to £2·5 billion per annum in the past financial year, and constituted a £10 billion investment in the resurrection of institutional care as the central plank of the Government's community care policy. A vast number of people entered private residential care and nursing homes without any formal assessment whatever, and many could and would have been able to remain in their own homes if some of those resources had been invested in genuine community care.
    Last April's changes aimed to address what has been now recognised as the gross misuse of public funding. The Opposition fully supported the introduction of care planning at local authority level and, in particular, the arrangements for assessing care needs. Our worry, however, is that in the funding arrangements for both the first and the second year of care, the changes are placing deliberate barriers in the way of the achievement of progress in community care provision.
    When the House debated the current year's funding arrangements on 11 February and 3 March 1993, as set out in the special grant reports 6 and 7, I made clear the Opposition's concern over the adequacy of grant mechanisms used for its distribution, and the requirement on local authorities to spend 85 per cent. of that in what the Government call the independent sector. I wish to reiterate some of these concerns tonight, but, before I do, perhaps I can issue one word of welcome to the Minister. He should make the best of it, as it might be the only one he gets.

    899
    The Minister is aware that the Opposition felt that the formula used to distribute the current year's special transitional grant was profoundly unfair, and that it verged on the bizarre. The grant was based 50 per cent. on the individual local authority's standard spending assessment and 50 per cent. on the previous income support claims by people in private care and nursing homes in the area. The nonsense of that formula was that it was weighted heavily in favour of councils with the most private care and nursing homes, despite the fact that many of the residents concerned originated from other local authority areas and had preserved their entitlement to continuing income support payments being unaffected by the changes.
    I know that the Minister was concerned about the unfairness of the formula. He intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) during the debate on 3 March, and said:
    "the allocation is perhaps weighted towards rural areas—as opposed to the inner cities"—[Official Report, 3 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 401.]
    The Minister shares my concern about that point.
    The unfairness of the formula to which I have referred was brought home to me most strongly when I went to an establishment in the constituency of my hon. Freind the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Nightingale House, which may be known to the Minister, is a Jewish home which is jointly registered as a care and nursing home, and offers nearly 400 places. Many of the residents receive income support and their claims counted in the grant calculation for the local authority in which the home is situated, even though most of the claimants originated from other local authority areas.
    It is clearly coincidental that the local authority gaining grant in this way is Wandsworth, because, in certain other respects, that authority, like nearly all London boroughs and many metropolitan authorities, lost out badly under the formula used during the current year. If the funding had been distributed on the basis of SSA—as it will be in 1994–95—Wandsworth would have nearly £900,000 more in its existing budget.
    The fact that London boroughs alone lost nearly £25 million as a result of the first year of community care changes puts the Secretary of State's announcement last Thursday of an extra £10 million for London's mental health provision into some perspective.
    Regardless of arguments about the overall care funding, the majority of local authorities—68 out of 108—lost substantially on the grant that they received during the first year. Sheffield lost over £2 million, Southwark lost £1·7 million, and Leeds lost £1·3 million. Smaller authorities such as Wakefield—my own local authority—lost nearly £1 million. Those are huge chunks of resources which should have been made available on the basis of the Government's calculation of population needs.
    Many councils have struggled desperately to make decent care available against a background of the totally inadequate special transitional grant and, according to the Association of Directors of Social Services, alongside spending freezes and cuts in the base budgets of social services departments in the current year. The association obviously welcomes the fact that the Government have abandoned their previously discredited distribution formula and, in this report, are moving to SSA as a basis for the formula.
    900
    While the Opposition applaud the Government's long-overdue conversion to common sense, we would strongly press the Minister to address the problems that have arisen during this first year because the formula was completely wrong.
    First, the Minister should address the serious difficulties facing those authorities that have lost out on millions of pounds in the current year. Secondly—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley); my hon. Friend has left the Chamber, but he made an important point—the Minister should recognise that authorities that gained in the first year will, in many instances, come down to earth with a severe bump as a result of the contents of the report. The Government have bungled the funding arrangements badly and made the proper planning of community care year on year a total impossibility.
    The original funding formula was badly skewed because the Government acceded to pressure from the private care home industry, which feared the impact of the care changes. The difficulties facing so many local authorities stem from the fact that the Government take more notice of the business interests of private providers than the needs of users and carers. They relate to a manifestly inappropriate market ideology at Government level, which is holding back in so many ways properly planned and thought-out responses to the needs of users and carers. The Minister's speech was full of phrases such as "use of the independent sector". The Government's policy is not to provide what people positively choose or need. It is use of the independent sector, right or wrong. That is not good enough.
    The Government have conceded that their previous distribution formula was wrong. But in this report, they continue to shackle the development of genuine community care, again by insisting that 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant should be spent in the so-called independent sector. That requirement stems purely and simply from an ideological desire by the Government to protect the interests of private care providers and extend their involvement into domiciliary care.
    The Government are again putting their obsession with market forces before the real interests of those who receive services. That obsession is clearly preventing the provision of a range of services geared to offering alternatives to institutional care.
    I am sure that the Minister will be aware that social services directors and local authority associations have urged the Government to review their 85 per cent. requirement because it obstructs proper community care provision. I have no doubt that the Department of Health's intelligence networks have advised the Minister that in the past few weeks the Labour party has undertaken a survey of directors of social services on the impact of the 85 per cent. requirement. We shall publish the detailed results within the next few weeks and, as usual, I shall sent the Minister a copy.
    The initial findings of the survey are worrying. It is clear from the range of responses received that the 85 per cent. requirement means for many people unnecessary admissions to residential care because in various parts of the country private or voluntary sector domiciliary care remains either non-existent or minimal. It says a great deal about the Government's priorities on community care that they are prepared to see unnecessary and expensive institutional care used inappropriately because of a

    901
    dogmatic refusal to allow special transitional grants to be used to extend and improve local authority care home provision.
    The Minister will recall that, shortly before Christmas, the chief social services inspector and the chief executive of the national health service management executive wrote local authorities a letter saying that their decisions on community care expenditure should be based on value-for-money grounds. But we have been told by local authorities in the survey that we have undertaken in the past couple of weeks that the requirement to spend 85 per cent. in the independent sector is bringing them into direct conflict with that directive. It is causing them to misuse and waste their scarce resources in unnecessary admissions to institutional care. Will the Minister state which directive has precedence—the 85 per cent. requirement or the Laming-Langlands letter? I shall give way if the Minister wishes to respond to this point because I could do with a drink of water.
    Mr. Bowis: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said in response to his intervention in my speech, he would recall that I reminded him that, in the past, what is represented by the 85 per cent. for the independent sector was 100 per cent. for the independent sector. We are talking about the money that previously went direct to the independent sector to look after the residents in those homes. Substantial resources are available from the social services general budget which traditionally have been used to support people in part III homes and in domiciliary and day care.
    I should like to know what the hon. Gentleman is doing to ensure that authorities controlled by his party look to use that money sensibly, wisely and in the best interests of individuals. It is in their interests that the widest possible choice is made available. That includes, of course, the services provided by the independent sectors, private and voluntary.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: The House will have noticed that the Minister failed to answer the question that I put to him. I repeat that question. Does the 85 per cent. requirement take precedence over the Laming-Langlands letter? it is as simple as that. The House requires an answer—[Interruption.] If the Minister has now received a message from his officials, I shall willingly give way to him again.
    We have clear evidence that the 85 per cent. requirement is forcing people into unnecessary and expensive institutional care that they do not need. Local authority directors are telling us that, and they must be telling the Department of Health. What will the Minister do to unravel that mess? Does he wish to intervene?
    Mr. Bowis indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: He does not wish to do so—the House will draw its own conclusions from that.
    I want to make it clear that the Opposition's argument is not simply that there has been an underinvestment in community care. The Government, through their obsession with private provision—which the Minister mentioned throughout his speech—have grossly misused the resources provided.
    What could have been achieved if much of the £10 billion investment, through supplementary benefit and income support payments in private residential and nursing homes, had been used instead to develop real community
    902
    care where people need it? People need home care, day care, day and night sitting services, meals provision, communication technology, aids and adaptation, respite provision and the range of mental welfare services that can provide safe and caring alternatives to psychiatric hospitals. What could have been achieved if the Government had not abandoned community care to the market?
    The Government are now trapped. Private home owners are screaming at them because referrals for permanent care are falling—we have heard their views represented tonight by Conservative Back Benchers. How sad it is that the Government seem to see their task as ensuring a continued and wholly inappropriate use of outdated institutional provision simply because it is in the private sector. The Opposition recognise that the non-statutory sector has a role to play in care provision, but that role has to advance the development of community care, not hold it back.
    Mr. David Congdon: If the hon. Gentleman means what he says, why does he not encourage social service departments to promote the development of the private sector in domiciliary and home help services rather than obstruct their development?
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Unlike, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman, I worked for many years in a social services department. When dealing with someone in need, one does not bother about which sector provides the services, but merely tries to provide for that person's needs. The hon. Gentleman suggests that social services departments, with all their massive daily pressures, should have to spend time on trying to find entrepreneurs, who simply do not exist in many areas.
    The second issue that the hon. Gentleman should consider is that such providers are not regulated or inspected. They are not registered, and could come straight out of prison or from the courts, with all sorts of convictions. They could enter people's homes and offer domiciliary and physical care. They could be dealing with an old person's finances—the Labour party do not believe that such people should offer community care.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman paints a picture of a divided Britain that I find distressing. In my local district, the purchasing authority has made it perfectly clear that it will not buy services from people who do not meet the standards that it has laid down. It has had no difficulties, and I do not understand why other local authorities cannot make the same decisions.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in social services, for which I commend him. But he has missed a fundamental aspect of the checks and guidelines on domiciliary care, as has the Minister. We are assuming—as the Minister does constantly—that all domiciliary care is provided through the contracting process. Vast numbers of elderly and disabled people purchase domiciliary care directly, without the involvement of the local authority. They have no safeguards. The fact that the Government are not acting on that is disgraceful, and the Minister knows it.
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Greatly increased resources are available to social services departments. He said that he used to work in a social services department; I bet that he never had a year such as Wakefield did this year. with resources increasing from

    903
    £29 million to £40 million. More money is available, and if we are asking for a proportion of that to be spent in the independent sector, that means more money for domiciliary care in the independent sector, over which there is control through the contractor. We are able to ensure that standards are required of the voluntary or private sector placing tenders for domiciliary services.
    The problem is that too many authorities run by the hon. Member's party refuse to put out a specification so that the independent sector can tender at all.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I am happy to debate until the cows come home the position of Wakefield social services and its financial situation. Nobody was more surprised than the acting director of social services in Wakefield when the Minister quoted those figures last Tuesday. I have a letter here which, if the Minister cares to read it, I will pass over to him and which shows that the way in which the Minister has come to calculate the questions is beyond everybody in Wakefield.
    If the transitional grant is put to one side, there is to be a real reduction in the revenue budget for 1994–95 of £400,000, in order that the council can avoid being capped. When the Minister talks about SSA, special transitional grant and all the other things that he mentions, he seems to forget that, although we are being given all these generous resources, local authorities, including a responsible local authority such as Wakefield, are also being capped. I am proud of my local authority and I will debate with the Minister, if he wishes, the issues of deep concern to me in my own locality.
    I was saying that the Opposition genuinely recognise that the non-statutory sector has a role to play when it is developing community care, innovating, offering new services; but the sad fact is that in so many respects the private sector, in particular, is hanging on to outdated models of institutional provision that are totally inappropriate to this day and age.
    I have certainly seen in the private sector excellent examples that can offer something of genuine relevance to people's comunity care needs. I have looked in some detail, as I think the Minister is aware, at communication technology, where what is on offer from the private sector enhances real choices and opportunities for those in need of care and does not hold back the development of community care, as is unfortunately happening in some respects at present.
    I urge the Minister seriously to consider the problem being caused by the 85 per cent. requirement. I am not suggesting that he drop the specific quota in its entirety, as I understand the need to safeguard the voluntary sector, in particular, for example, in those areas concerning drug and alcohol provision where the voluntary sector has a specific role to play—a role of which the Minister is well aware and which, like me, he values very much. But the 50:50 split suggested by the local authority associations would, I am sure, enable a radical improvement in care provision and overcome many of the problems that I have mentioned.
    The Minister has again implied that the Government have been somehow generous in their special transitional grant provision. It is important to make it clear that the STG is money for new local authority responsibilities which would have been spent anyway by the Department of Social Security. May I press him again on the point that
    904
    he did not answer in last week's health Question Time and which he has not referred to tonight? If the funding is, as he suggests, so generous, why are the Government urging local authorities to introduce charges for basic care services that have been freely provided in many areas from the time that they were first introduced? He must be aware that that is a matter of huge concern in various parts of the country, especially, for example, to the parents of young people with learning disabilities who find themselves being charged quite high prices for the attendance of their sons and daughters at day care establishments. Many people feel that to be totally inappropriate and highly insensitive. I should welcome the Minister's comments on that point.
    Our debate takes place against the background of growing public concern about the Government's community care policy. As the Minister knows, my party has consistently supported the development of community care, but we recognise that the Government's commitment to market forces in health and care obstructs and undermines strategic planning at national and local level and the achievement of a seamless service.
    It is an unfortunate coincidence that tonight's debate takes place only a few days after the publication of two separate reports concerning the care of the mentally ill, both of which expose the fundamental contradictions of Government policy. The first, with which the Minister will be familiar, was commissioned by the North West Thames health authority and found that managers of a proposed health trust were so obsessed with achieving trust status that they neglected disturbing shortcomings in care that may have contributed to the deaths of some 14 patients.
    The second report concerns the case of Mr. Christopher Clunis. I am surprised that the Minister did not refer to that important and tragic case. Mr. Clunis, who suffered from schizophrenia, caused the death of Mr. Jonathan Zito in December 1992. The report clearly demonstrates that the Government have yet to start proper co-ordination and collaboration of care provision at a local level. It exposes how the lack of resources contributed to that appalling tragedy and shows how limited the alternatives to hospital care still are.
    I am genuinely sorry that the Secretary of State, who is not present in the Chamber tonight, chose to try to make political capital out of this issue at the weekend, singling out a Labour council for specific mention, when page 105 of the report clearly states:
    "We do not single out just one person, service or agency for particular blame".
    I pay sincere tribute to Jonathan Zito's widow, Jayne, who, since her husband's death, has campaigned ceaselessly and courageously for proper care and help to be given to the likes of Christopher Clunis. I urge the Minister to listen to her message—a message not of vengeance and malice but of genuine concern for the likes of her husband's killer who, as she says, have been condemned to a life of degradation and poverty. On Thursday, she said:
    "It is not enough to make a market out of mental health. These people need care and supervision. You cannot compete when you are dealing with people's lives".
    For those very reasons and the other concerns that I have expressed, I urge all hon. Members who share our anxieties about community care to join us in the No Lobby at the end of the debate.
    11.11 pm
    Mr. Barry Field: May I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the 20th anniversary yesterday of your arrival in this House? My hon. Friends and I hope that it will be many years before you require community care.
    I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) because he attended the conference on the Isle of Wight when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the ring fencing of funds for community care. I know from recent conversations with the hon. Gentleman how seriously he takes community care. He observed me in the Members' car park with my car engine running and was so concerned about my welfare that he returned three hours later to make sure that I was all right.
    On the Isle of Wight, 26·4 per cent. of the population are of pensionable age. That is the 17th highest percentage in England and Wales, where the national average is 18·7 per cent. Moreover, 18·8 per cent. of households consist of one pensioner living alone, which is 3·7 per cent. above the national average of 15·1 per cent. Care in the community is, therefore, of considerable importance to the island.
    I wish to raise two points. The first concerns Haylands farm at Ryde, which was formed under the auspices of Mencap in 1977 and provides sheltered work for mentally handicapped students. It has a number of sheep and goats, sells 300 eggs locally, and rears pigs that are sold as meat. The farm extends to more than 16 acres, most of which are owned by the Isle of Wight county council, which charges a fair and unsubsidised rent. One acre is owned by Mencap.
    The farm is entirely supported by donations of money and its own manpower and materials. It is now recognised as a day centre unit by the Isle of Wight county council and receives very limited funding. The local authority should purchase the services and facilities offered by the farm under the care in the community legislation. The farm meets all the requirements of a provider of services but does not get much of the cash. For the past three years, the county council has promised to put the farm on a permanent financial basis but, unfortunately, it still staggers from month to month. A number of us on the island are concerned that that excellent facility continues to have that problem.
    My second point is about the concerns of members of the Isle of Wight Registered Care Homes Association. We seem to have made a little progress on funding. When the funding was first announced, we were told that it would run out in July. We are now told that it might stretch until September. Clearly, things have moved on a little.
    I should like to explore the possibility of using any notified underspending by councils against their 1993–94 special transitional grant allocation. First, let me make it quite clear that the Isle of Wight county council has not suffered a cut in community care funding in 1993–94. The council received £2·354 million in special transitional grant funding. The figure for 1994–95 is £3·376 million, an increase of just under £1 million on the pervious year. I should like my hon. Friend to tell me in due course whether he has yet reached a decision on the possibility of the unused STG money being reallocated to the Isle of Wight and I hope to hear from him shortly as to whether that is possible.
    There is and always has been considerable mistrust on the island between the councillors and the private sector. To try to reduce that, I asked the private sector to set up its
    906
    own association, which it did, and by and large that has done a great deal to break down the barriers of suspicion and mistrust so often voiced by Liberal councillors about the private sector when I was a county councillor. The private sector still has misgivings about the county councillors' operation of Islecare and the way it was financed, the subsidies that the county council day care facilities receive and the almost total lack of opportunity for the private sector to participate in the provision of those care facilities. Having said that, while I would like to see the councillors take a step back from the management of the companies providing these facilities, as well as the residential homes in competition with the private sector, the district auditor might yet feel compelled to insist that the whole arrangement must become more transparent and arm's length—at least, I hope so.
    Despite that caveat, community care is working well on the island, and to some extent I suspect that part of the difficulty is the fact that so many elderly people are now being maintained in their own homes—the very intention of community care. However, I believe—and the Minister's letter shows—that the formula has worked against the interests of the Isle of Wight this year and that there is a problem.
    I consider it my job to separate the hype and attention-seeking tendencies of the leader of the council whose ability to deploy extravagant language has created more tension in the Isle of Wight than Lindy St. Clair's stays and whose contribution to a reasoned debate is about as welcome as woodworm in a rowing boat, but I would be remiss not to bring the concerns of Haylands farm and the Isle of Wight Registered Care Homes Association to the attention of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    As so often happens in the House, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I therefore leave the last word to Mike Leyshon, the editor of the association's newsletter entitled, "Homing In". On page 17 he writes:
    "What are we really faced with here? A few less social service funded placements each. A faster rate of contraction of our market than originally predicted. A dozen or so businesses pushed over the edge on which they may have been teetering for some time. It may be most care homes will survive this year's struggle, some may even prosper".
    11.18 pm
    Ms Liz Lynne: The report that we are discussing tonight gives us a rare chance to debate community care, an issue of great importance to many constituents of many right hon. and hon. Members.
    Unfortunately, we are limited tonight to debating the money that the Government consider sufficient to fund community care and how they have decided that that money should be allocated.
    On the first point, it is quite clear to me that the resources that the Government have allocated to fund care in the community are totally inadequate. One need not take my word for it; one has just to read the report of the inquiry into the Christopher Clunis case. In what has been universally acclaimed an excellent report—including by Jonathan Zito's widow, Jayne—the inquiry team declared that the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis was a
    "catalogue of failure and missed opportunity in which lack of resources played a part."
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) raised the Clunis case. It is a

    907
    tragic case. We take it seriously, as indeed we would any other instance of a breakdown in the care of people with mental health problems. But the hon. Lady should recall and remind the House that the Clunis-Zito case pre-dates community care. We are talking about a case in 1992, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. We are now talking about resources for community care that started on 1 April 1993. The hon. Lady should recall that the background to that case and the report, as the hon. Gentleman said, mentioned a number of areas in terms of discharge, information, communication and so on. Reference was made to the resources for medium-secure units, particularly in London, but that does not relate to the report, important as it is.
    Ms Lynne: I am grateful to the Minister. He must realise, however, that the report stated that lack of resources played a part. We must address that in this debate on resources for community care. I do not think that we can ignore it. I know that other parts of the report stress that lack of monitoring was a problem. I sincerely wish that when the Government brought in care in the community —I am grateful that they did—they had set up the proper monitoring. If they had, we might not be in the state that we are now in. Resources played a part and there is no way that the Government can get away from that fact.
    Mr. Bowis: That was before community care.
    Ms Lynne: It might have been before community care, but that does not make it—[Interruption.] The lack of resources is still there—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue with my speech? In response to that, the Secretary of State announced a further £10 million—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I should be most grateful if the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) would either listen to the hon. Lady, who is making an important speech, or retire—[Interruption.] Order. I do not know who the hon. Gentleman is pointing to, but I am not interested. He should either stay quiet and listen to the hon. Lady or go out of the Chamber.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. The point that she is making is important. In response to her comments on the Clunis case, the Minister seems to imply that community care suddenly began on 1 April last year. Community care has existed for generations, before most if not all those in the Chamber tonight were born. She is right to say that of course community care existed when the Clunis tragedy happened. The Minister must address that fact.
    Ms Lynne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
    Mr. Bowis: The point is that this tragic case pre-dates community care as funded under the report this year, and the report of last year.
    Mr. Morgan: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Bowis: It is exactly what I said.
    Mr. Morgan: No, it is not.
    Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.
    Mr. Bowis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    The hon. Lady should address her remarks to the resources for community care that she would like to see, bearing in mind that over the four years we are raising them to £2·2 billion.
    Ms Lynne: I am grateful to the Minister. I will reach that point in my speech, but we must take into account the Christopher Clunis report, because it was extremely damning of the Government. It is essential to remember that.
    What was the response by the Secretary of State for Health? She announced a further £10 million for mental health care in the capital. That is a nice round figure, and appears to be generous, but do we have any idea whether that is enough? I do not think that we do, because there is no monitoring system. Will that money be new, or will it be diverted from another cash-starved programme? I would like the Minister to answer that when he replies.
    Another illuminating comment arising from the Clunis inquiry was in section 52.0.1 of the report, which says:
    "it has been noticeable how little routine attention appears to have been paid by anybody to the quality or outcome measurement of the community management of mentally ill people."
    The report added, in section 52.0.2:
    "purchasers do not know what they are buying nor do providers know what they are selling. No one has a means of telling whether the community service provided is an effective or an efficient use of resources."
    Essentially, no one knows what they are doing, how much it costs or whether they are meeting the needs of the people whom they are meant to serve.
    How, then, did the Government reach the conclusion that £10 million was enough? How, for that matter, did they reach the conclusion that the money that we are debating tonight was adequate for the various needs that must be met by social services departments across the country? The Government need to set standards for community care, and then openly determine the resources that are needed to meet those standards. If that is more than they can currently afford to pay, let them at least have the decency to be honest with the electorate and say so. Perhaps they could also consider giving the electorate the freedom to decide whether they want more resources to be spent on community care.
    If we cannot be convinced that the Government have provided enough resources for community care nationally, can we be convinced that the available resources have been distributed fairly? Again, I am not convinced. Last year, the DSS transfer was distributed in a way that took into account the historic income support expenditure. As I am sure hon. Members know, that was done to take account of the past costs to the DSS of supporting people in residential and nursing homes.
    It had been suggested that the use of past income support data would continue for the next few years, although it would be tapered off. Instead, the Government have decided to rely entirely on the standard spending assessment as the means of calculating the amount required by each local authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) pointed out in a debate on this issue last year, it has been admitted by many—including the Government, or so it seemed at the time—that the SSA system was not right.
    At that time, there was a commitment to review the system. Has that review taken place, and did it take community care responsibilities into account? Did the

    909
    Minister or his Department consult local councils? I am sure that such consultation must have taken place, but I should be delighted to hear that from the Minister. Did he and his Department ask local authority representative bodies for their views on the decision?
    It is possible that the decision to rely wholly on the SSA will not affect all regions, although a social services director in my region said that it was too early to say. There is particular concern, however, in areas with especially high numbers of older people. Many retired people have moved to one of our pleasant coastal towns, and social services departments in such areas fear that the SSA does not take into account the effect of that movement. In the south-west, for example, more that £35 million has been taken away; not surprisingly, that is regarded as a devasting blow to the region.
    Although any money for community care is welcome, it still concerns me that there is not enough, and that the Government are not open in how they determine what is needed and where it is needed. I also hope that the Minister will look again at the requirement to spend 85 per cent. in the independent sector; I am sure that many social services directors have asked him to do so. I hope that some of my concerns can be remedied.
    11.28 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: I shall be brief, but I think it important to contribute my view that community care is working a great deal better than the picture painted by Opposition Members suggests. Recently I met representatives of two of my local health trusts, along with the social services departments and local general practitioners. Morale was extraordinarily high; tribute was paid to the work done by care managers and the way in which they work together to ensure that patients' transition from hospital into the community is as smooth as possible. That is very encouraging.
    Sod's law dictates that, as I speak, something is going badly wrong somewhere in a case in Kent. There are millions of relationships every day between social service staff, the private or public sector and individual clients and inevitably things will go wrong. One of the things that has been remarkable about the development of community care in Kent is the willingness of local staff of social services departments, the health department, the general practices, the caring organisations and the voluntary organisations to work together to achieve as good an outcome as possible for their clients.
    Speaking as a Member of Parliament, I point out that we have had a dramatic decrease in the number of letters complaining about the way in which people are cared for and I believe that that reflects great credit on the development of community care in Kent. Of course, there are shortcomings. There always will be. We have a rapidly escalating number of people aged over 65; we have a growing number of young people coming from broken homes. Everyone knows that. We could spend twice or three times as much and still be asking for more.
    I have drawn the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), to the fact that my local social services people are a little anxious about the cost of some of the equipment that is required to enable people to stay in their own homes. I have no doubt that in the years to come we shall have to consider carefully the sophistication
    910
    and technological advances of equipment which makes it possible for people to stay in their own homes but which is very expensive.
    I believe that we shall also need to make rapid progress towards giving the public the assurance that social workers are properly qualified. Everyone knows that some staff in social services departments have had an exhaustive training whereas others have not. The introduction of national vocational qualifications has made, or will make, a dramatic difference to the self-confidence and competence of many staff, especially residential care staff and domiciliary staff. I welcome it enormously. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is taking seriously the many occasions on which I and others have urged him to make progress with the social work council, because I think that it is not fair to attack social workers for a lack of professional self-confidence and competence while denying them the right to register as fully qualified professionals or, at any rate, giving them a level of competence that the public can recognise. They may not be fully qualified, but if at least there were a council which said what their qualifications were, the expectations of them would become more realistic.
    I strongly believe that community care has been a tremendous improvement on what went before. A vast amount remains to be done, but I have to pay tribute to the remarkable way in which all the people concerned, as far as I can see, in my county, where they have been pioneers in the development of social services, are working together, and to their very clear perception that they are only at the beginning of the type of fruitful relationship that will result in ever-increasing improvements in the care delivered to clients in the community.
    11.33 pm
    Ms Tessa Jowell: There is nothing that divides the House about the desirability of community care. It is beyond dispute that elderly or disabled people are best, and indeed prefer to be, cared for in their own homes for as long as possible. What Opposition Members find so frustrating is the extent to which ideology has replaced a practical debate about what will deliver that objective for elderly and disabled people throughout the country.
    I pressed the Minister to give the names of the authorities and people for whom community care was working so well and I recognised them all because of my previous work with the Labour-controlled authorities in Birmingham and Islington and with my present council, in Southwark. They are good news and we should celebrate them. They should not be the subject of ideological point scoring.
    Opposition Members are concerned to persuade the Government to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of the community care that people want and need being delivered to people in their own homes. What users of community care and their carers tell us time and again is pretty consistent. It is of little importance who provides what they get. In many cases, people do not even know who provides the care that they receive. A recent study shows that about 40 per cent. of people thought that social security was provided by the local authority.
    Flexibility, reliability and affordability are what matters. Research evidence about what residents of homes for the elderly value shows that it has little to do with

    911
    whether the home is run by the local authority or by an independent provider. However, elderly people view the sudden and often unannounced changes of management that are a feature of the private sector as one of the most disruptive influences. Homes change owners about every three years—that is a good run—and every change is profoundly disrupting for the elderly residents.
    The Minister talked about local authorities giving preference to putting people into their homes, when the Government have erected every obstacle to local authorities continuing to act as providers of residential care. The role of local authorities in the provision of that care for the elderly has never been more important. Elderly people are being admitted, on average, to residential care when they are 10 years older than they were 10 years ago —[Laughter.] Will hon. Members just listen to my point, because it is a serious matter?
    Ten years ago people were admitted to residential care when they were in their early 70s, but the average age for admission now is the early 80s, when people are much more frail and dependent. Invariably, their care needs are beyond the resources of most independent, private care homes. It is relatively easy to find an independent care home for someone who is not dependent, incontinent or demented. It is much more difficult to find a place in the private sector for an elderly person who requires that level of care. The local authority, therefore, has to provide the essential backstop of reliable, available care. The Government have put every conceivable obstacle—financial and otherwise—in the way of local authorities trying to continue to offer that choice to the relatives of elderly people contemplating residential care.
    My constituents have little access to nursing homes locally—I believe that there are about 12 nursing home beds in the whole of Southwark. If my constituents need to be admitted to a nursing home, they have to move many miles away to get the care that they need, which makes journeys difficult for families who wish to visit them. That leads me to another component of the complex web of factors which cannot be ignored in judging the success of community care.
    One reason why the independent or private nursing home sector has grown at such a rate is that it is an aspect of care which was previously provided free of charge by the national health service and which is now almost entirely in the private sector. If one is looking for an element of care which was previously provided free by the health service and which has now been effectively privatised, one needs look no further than nursing home care for elderly people.
    I refer now to some of the comments made in the wake of the thorough inquiry into the murder of Jonathan Zito by Christopher Clunis. I think that all hon. Members will accept that the Christopher Clunis case sets back the cause of community care by 20 years. One tragedy obscures the hundreds of thousands of success stories that have been part of community care for people with mental illness for the best part of 30 years.
    It is important not to forget what a long haul mental illness is for many people who may suffer from it for most of their life. I was reminded of that recently when I opened the Ivydale centre in my constituency. It provides excellent community mental health support for people living in
    912
    south Southwark. I met again three or four regular users of the centre whom I knew from working as a psychiatric social worker at the Maudsley day hospital in the early 1970s. For them, mental illness and the certainty of a recurrence is a way of life.
    I remember very well a man whom I will call Terry. He is in touch with people who use the Ivydale centre. When I worked at the Maudsley day hospital, he was being admitted for the 17th time. The consultant psychiatrist reminded everyone that it was a cause for celebration that he had stayed out for three weeks longer than ever before. It is no good regarding care for people who suffer from mental illness as a series of one-off, acute episodes. It is important to consider the type of care that will support people who become chronically ill for the rest of their life.
    The conclusions of the Christopher Clunis inquiry make it important that the debate is conducted on the basis of fact, not muddied by some of the myths that are creeping in as a substitute for fact. How many Christopher Clunises are there likely to be? About 1 per cent. of the population suffers from schizophrenia and, of that 1 per cent., a further 1 per cent. is likely to become seriously mentally ill as Christopher Clunis became seriously mentally ill—a top estimate of no more than 4,000 at any one time.
    We also need to remember that all those people who have committed serious offences while disturbed were known to their local services, all were young, and none had ever been long-stay patients in hospitals. So their circumstances had nothing to do with the closure of long-stay mental hospitals. However, what the Christopher Clunis inquiry has raised so sharply is need, and the desperate need in south-east London, for guaranteed funding for the number of medium secure places needed for people who suffer from serious mental illness so that the rest of the mental health services can function properly. I hope that the Minister will give a guarantee that such places will be provided.
    Mr. Ian McCartney: Will my hon. Friend highlight one more important aspect of the Clunis case —the fact that the introduction of the market system has made self-referral almost impossible in inner London and other inner city areas for people suffering from an acute illness? The introduction of the contract system has eradicated self-referral within the system, which in turn makes it almost impossible for the individual concerned to seek emergency services.
    Ms Jowell: I shall bring my remarks quickly to a close, but I must reiterate my concern that medium secure places in south-east London should receive the planned funding that is needed, and that the Government's current proposal to require 75 per cent. of funding for people who are mentally abnormal offenders to be met from capitation funding should be dropped.
    11.47 pm
    Mr. Hinchliffe: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make one or two concluding comments. I am pleased to follow the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), who speaks with such great knowledge and experience of the issues before us. I repeat what she said—that we want community care to be a success. Although there are significant

    913
    differences between us, which have been aired tonight, there is a consensus in the House that we all wish to aim in that direction.
    I shall reinforce some points that have been made by other hon. Members and make one or two points that have not yet been made. The position of carers is one of the issues that we have not touched on specifically, and there should have been more comment on it in the context of the report. Carers do not now have any statutory right to demand a service or even an assessment. Moreover, in the present arrangements for community care there is no provision for grievance procedures after assessment, for appeals on assessment or for reassessment or review, which would often be helpful.
    The other question that worries many people in social services is the confusion that has arisen concerning the measurement of unmet need. Local authorities appear to have been discouraged from making a note of unmet need —yet surely the Minister must accept that measurement of a national care deficit would help any Government to address the problems that we face in developing a proper community care policy.
    It would have been helpful if there had been some discussion on the problems arising from the rundown of the Independent Living Fund, which to my knowledge is having an impact on community care in many cases. The limit of £500 is pushing people into institutional care when that could have been avoided. According to parliamentary answers that I have received, that is happening in various parts of the country. Housing provision, too, should have been touched upon, because in anybody's book housing is one of the most fundamental elements of community care.
    There have also been some important contributions on wider issues connected with social work. I commend the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for his reference to a general social services council. He made a point that Ministers should take up. It is no good people, especially Conservative Members, bashing social workers about lack of professionalism when social workers themselves are saying that they want a professional body that will regulate and ensure good standards. The Government cannot sit back and ignore the demands of the profession for such an important body.
    The significant and profound difference in ideology between speeches by Opposition Members and most of those by Conservative Members has come across clearly. The differences really do come down to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich called ideology, The Minister was obsessed with the need to use the independent and private sector, and his speech was riddled with comments on that theme.
    The speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) consisted of his desire to see beds filled in private homes. Conservative Members see care as a business. That is the fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition. Community care is not a business. Community care is about addressing the real needs of vast numbers of people which will not be met by simply leaving the provision to the market.
    11.50 pm
    Mr. Bowis: May I reply to some of the points which were raised? The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) raised a number of items which he said were not addressed. Let us concentrate on those that were. He
    914
    referred to the question of charging, which is, of course, one way in which to bring a contribution from users into the provision of social services. It is discretionary. It is always supposed to be according to ability to pay and not to exceed that and it is perfectly reasonable.
    My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) raised an important point about the Mencap home. I hope that the Isle of Wight social services will listen to the points that he made and we shall certainly consider that further with him. He also referred to matters affecting the island's budget. He will know, as I know, that the island's budget for social services as a whole will rise by 12·4 per cent. in the current year. He will know as I know that the authorities there have had problems in the past because of their especial cost of fire prevention provision, being an island. He will also know, because we have discussed it before, that in social services we cannot take on board the other aspects of local government funding. The island's council has to use its resources efficiently and sensibly. I must say to him that his director of social services was the only one in the whole country who had not understood that the money from the first year's transitional grant was going to the standard spending assessment in the second year. We shall consider the points that my hon. Friend raised on the question of the underspent reallocation.
    The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) referred to the allocation for her borough. That represents an increase in the current year of 12·7 per cent. for Rochdale. She also referred to the south-west and, in the case of Devon, there has been a 13·5 per cent. increase in total resources in the current year and an increase of 17·7 per cent. for Cornwall. I hope that she will tell her political friends in that part of the world that that settlement is generous. It requires in return the efficient use of resources.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was correct in his assessment of what has been achieved. He talked of good progress and that is the message which has come from all the monitoring that we have conducted in the first 11 months of community care. The right assessment is that good progress has been made and that there is more progress to be made. It is a programme for a decade, not for one year, and we shall build on that. My hon. Friend referred to the general social services council. I have discussed that with him before and I know how closely he is associated with the arguments on that issue. It is certainly an issue which we are considering and we shall have to see the sort of social work level of qualification which one may consider in such a council. Other hon. Members referred to a council which would cover everybody working in social work. There are different arguments, but we welcome the debate.
    The hon. Members for Rochdale, for Wakefield, for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and others referred to the tragic Clunis case. It is not directly relevant to the debate because it pre-dates the way in which we fund community care and goes beyond it. Nevertheless, I accept the points that have been raised about the need to take on board the lessons of that and other comparable cases if we are to reassure the public, people who have mental health problems, their families and the professionals as a whole. Let nobody suggest that we are not doing just that. It is not only a question of £10 million in response to that inquiry. That was an important £10 million towards resources in London, but it is by no means the whole answer. The whole answer begins with the £2 billion that we are putting into mental health provision in the current year and it continues

    915
    through the code of practice, which I am sure that the hon. Member for Dulwich recalls was laid before Parliament in the past year and is now revised and in current usage. The whole answer also refers to the £45 million programme for the medium secure unit building programme. It refers to the key workers training, which is so important and on which I shall be addressing a conference later in the week. It refers to the supervision register which we are requiring should be in the programme by 1 April for contracts from from that time.
    It applies to the discharge guidelines on which we are consulting at present. It applies to the supervised discharge and extended leave proposals for which we are awaiting legislation. It applies to the £20 million homeless mentally ill initiative, which supports 2,000 people in the community. It applies to the £35 million supporting £50 million of specific grant—800 schemes supporting 64,000 people.
    We are talking about the cost of community care doubling from £565 million to £1·2 billion this year. We are talking about £6·4 billion for social services, which is an increase of 48 per cent. in real terms since 1990–91. I have no hesitation in asking the House to support the generous settlement for this year which is provided in the report for the benefit of people in community care.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 52.

    Division No. 152]

    [11.54 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Alexander, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Amess, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Arbuthnot, James

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Eggar, Tim

    Ashby, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bates, Michael

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Faber, David

    Beggs, Roy

    Fabricant, Michael

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forman, Nigel

    Booth, Hartley

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Boswell, Tim

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bottornley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bowis, John

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    French, Douglas

    Brazier, Julian

    Gale, Roger

    Bright, Graham

    Gallie, Phil

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Gill, Christopher

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bums, Simon

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Gorst, John

    Carrington, Matthew

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Cash, William

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hague, William

    Clappison, James

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Congdon, David

    Hannam, Sir John

    Conway, Derek

    Harris, David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Harvey, Nick

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Cran, James

    Hawkins, Nick

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Day, Stephen

    Hayes, Jerry

    Devlin, Tim

    Heald, Oliver

    916

    Hendry, Charles

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

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

    Riddick, Graham

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rows, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jessel, Toby

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Sackville, Tom

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Sims, Roger

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Knapman, Roger

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Spring, Richard

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Knox, Sir David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Stephen, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Stern, Michael

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Sweeney, Walter

    Legg, Barry

    Sykes, John

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Lidington, David

    Thomason, Roy

    Lightbown, David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Luff, Peter

    Thurnham, Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

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

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Tracey, Richard

    MacKay, Andrew

    Trend, Michael

    Maclean, David

    Trotter, Neville

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Malone, Gerald

    Wallace, James

    Mans, Keith

    Waller, Gary

    Marlow, Tony

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Watts, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Wells, Bowen

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Whitney, Ray

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Whittingdale, John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Moss, Malcolm

    Wilkinson, John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Willetts, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wood, Timothy

    Norris, Steve

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tellers for the Noes

    Paice, James

    Mr. Irvine Patnick, and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Pickles, Eric

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Home Robertson, John

    Barnes, Harry

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Betts, Clive

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Blunkett, David

    Illsley, Eric

    Caborn, Richard

    Jowell, Tessa

    Coffey, Ann

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Connarty, Michael

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Lewis, Terry

    Cryer, Bob

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    McAllion, John

    Darling, Alistair

    McCartney, Ian

    Davidson, Ian

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dixon, Don

    McMaster, Gordon

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    McWilliam, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Mahon, Alice

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Marek, Dr John

    Foulkes, George

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Graham, Thomas

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Gunnell, John

    Michael, Alun

    Hall, Mike

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Hanson, David

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Hinchliffe, David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    917

    Simpson, Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mr. Hugh Bayley and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

    Wray, Jimmy

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Special Grant Report (No. 10) (House of Commons Paper No. 218), which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.

    Criminal Injuries Compensation
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
    12.6 am
    Mr. Alan Simpson: I understand that the purpose of Adjournment debates is to develop a personal and intimate relationship and dialogue with the Minister involved, so I hope that you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why my starting point this evening is to say something about my family. I have three children. I suspect that, like me, most Members would happily say that they would give their life for their children. It would be a different matter if I were asked whether I could give my life "to" them? And what would I do if that, in itself, were not enough? I take that as my starting point because one of my constituents, a man named Peter Jones, has had to confront precisely those questions in dealing with the issues facing the life of his son Ross.
    The national press picked up the case of Ross Jones a few weeks ago. He is likely to be the last child to receive an award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board before the Government's new rules come into force. I should like to say a bit about Ross. At the age of three, Ross was criminally battered. He barely lived. The fact that he has survived is a great tribute to the medical skills of those who dealt with him and to the love, affection and commitment of his father, grandmother and brothers.
    Ross is now 14 years old. Only a matter of months separate him from the youngest of my children. I am somewhat humbled by the knowledge that, throughout the years that I have played football with my youngest son, Peter Jones has changed nappies for his son, Ross. Throughout the years that I have taken my children out careering around the countryside, Peter Jones has carried his son Ross everywhere they have gone. As I stand and look with a sense of excitement and optimism at the ability of my children to grow into independent adults, Peter Jones knows that his son will never experience that growth into independence. Ross will for ever be a child's mind trapped in an adult's body that does not really work.
    The reward that Ross is likely to receive through the CICB will be about £1·3 million. The award will be based on an assessment of the actual damages that he has suffered and the "actual" costs of care entailed in supporting Ross and ensuring that his family are able to live with him in a caring and loving environment. He began to be carried around when he was three years old and his grandmother was in her 60s; he is now 14 years old and his grandmother is in her 70s and riven by arthritis, so the position has changed greatly. The family's greatest fear has been that they would not have the physical ability or financial resources to continue to provide the supportive and loving environment with which they have been able to surround him in the 11 years since he was criminally injured.
    Despite everything, Ross is lucky. He comes from a remarkable family who have been able to give him a degree of care and love that is a tribute to the best parts of society. He is lucky in that he will have received the award before the changes in the rules. If Ross Jones's claim had been entered after this April, the maximum amount that he would have been able to receive would have been £250,000. His family would have been left in the dreadful position of having to decide what would be best for him. Would it be better for Ross to live a long life, drag them

    919
    into penury and be left, should he outlive them, in penury, isolation and loneliness himself? Or should they hope that he dies before the money runs out? That is an appalling choice to confront the victims of the most serious multiple criminal injuries. Yet it is precisely the choice with which such families will be confronted under the new scheme.
    The danger is that Ross will be the last in a line of victims to be compensated for the actual injuries received, based on the actual costs of care that they will face for the rest of their lives. Instead, there will be a system of arbitrary tariffs. I do not think that the public outside the House can begin to understand or sympathise with the idea of a victim of child abuse receiving a maximum award of £1,000—the same amount as that awarded for a chipped tooth. I do not think that they will understand that rape victims should be entitled to a maximum of £7,500, the same as if they had suffered a fractured hip or a broken knee. They will not understand how victims of multiple rape should be entitled to a maximum award of £10,000. They will not understand how, for those who lose an eye, the award of £20,000 will apply whether the victim lost his or her eyesight at the age of eight or 80. In a world peopled by humans, the implications are far more complex.
    The public will not understand the Government logic that proposes developing a new scheme around a framework that ignores the idea of separate calculations for loss of earnings, medical expenses or the consequences of medical multiple injuries.
    Instead of a human-focused system of compensation and awards, we are moving towards a system of arbitrary ceilings. Not content with rate capping, it seems that the Government are now intent on death capping and disability capping. The police officer who, under the current system, having been attacked and having to retire permanently disabled, received an award of £121,167 would be cash-limited to £7,500 under the new scheme. The mother of two children—whose husband was stabbed to death and died on their doorstep—who received an award of £137,236 would be limited to £17,500.
    There have been problems under the existing scheme, but the nature of those problems was clear: they were mainly to do with medical delays, with the absence of legal aid and with the lack of a statutory framework of criminal compensation on the same basis as the compensation available under civil law. What the Government propose is to move us from injustice to rough justice. It is, in fact, a movement towards no justice at all. The proposals seem to be about the abandoning or devaluing of the victim rather than putting the victim first. They are about having a crazy system which is tariff-centred and not people-centred. Fundamentally, they are about the saving of money.
    On 31 March 1993, the then Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), wrote a letter to the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in which he said:
    "The real costs of the Scheme lie in the size of the compensation bill … [A] major element in the compensation bill is the size of the award … Once the basis on which payments are made is changed, with the tariff scheme, the linkage to common law damages and to their rate of increase will be broken."
    The current Minister made it even clearer in his answer in Hansard on 3 February this year, when he pointed out the actual savings involved. There would be savings over a three-year period, with a 25 per cent. reduction, from £204
    920
    million to £153 million, in the amount expected to be paid out in criminal compensation. It would be an enormous figure for those actually making the claims, but we ought to put it in context. What are large amounts of money for victims of criminal attacks are small beer for the Government.
    The figure needs to be seen against a different set of measures. It amounts to one third of 1 per cent. of the £13·8 billion of public debt that the Government wrote off in the privatisation of public industries. It is less than the £57·6 million "bung" that the Government tried to give to British Aerospace when they sought to palm off Rover on it, and which has now had to be repaid by British Aerospace.
    It is against those sorts of figures that the scheme must really be judged. It is a shabby way to treat victims of serious crime. It is an insult to innocence. It is an affront to those who might have sustained their injuries by trying to prevent a crime rather than perpetrate one.
    Outside the House, the Government need to understand that they barely have a supporter in the land. They have no backers among the public, who see this as a measure of the Government's contempt for them. The Victim Support campaign now has 37 organisations, including the Police Federation, the Prison Officers' Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Trades Union Congress and the General Council of the Bar, all of whom are flatly opposed to the tariff scheme that the Government seek to introduce. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in its statement, told the Minister:
    "The intention throughout the history of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme has been that an individual victim of a crime of violence should be compensated in exactly the same way as he would have been had he sued his assailant in the Civil Court."
    I presume that that would apply equally had the "he" been a "she". It then said:
    "the Board have repeatedly made clear to Ministers their considered view that, whilst sharing the aims of Ministers to provide as efficient and quick a service as possible, these proposals are fundamentally wrong."
    Tomorrow, in another place, the Government will hear noble Lords of all parties roundly denounce the basis of the Government's proposals. If that is not enough, the Government should understand that their proposals would clearly breach the European convention on compensating victims of violent crime, article 4 of which makes it clear that
    "compensation shall cover at least loss of earnings, and in the case of dependants, loss of maintenance".
    Last March, the Home Office Minister told the CICB that the reformed scheme would no longer offer compensation, but only
    "a tangible recognition of society's sympathy and concern for the victim".
    Victims of crime do not want "tea and sympathy" from the Government. They want decency, equality before the law, justice and sufficiency. That is not much to ask in a society that claims to be civilised.
    How do we begin to enshrine those principles in a framework of criminal injuries compensation? I suggest that we adopt a different notion of "back to basics", which involves setting out clear and simple principles. First, the victim of criminal injury should be treated no less favourably than someone similarly injured who obtains compensation through the civil court—a system based on common law damages. Second, compensation must incorporate at least four elements: the cost of future care; loss of earnings; medical costs; and a dependant's

    921
    entitlements. Third, victims must have access to legal aid. Fourth, a victim's relatives must have entitlements to cover their own financial loss resulting from the victim's injury or death. Finally, those suffering long-term serious injury should have access to "structured settlements", adapting to the actual costs of care, not the arbitrary indifference of a tariff system.
    The good news is that the framework for such a scheme already exists in the form of the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. The whole framework now operates within Northern Ireland, so the Government need not acquire the skill of joined-up thinking; they must simply learn to listen and understand. The failure to do so will leave society open to serious and damaging consequences, especially for those in Northern Ireland. Only a fool would presume that, if the rest of the United Kingdom changes to an arbitrary system of tariffs, the existing provisions in Northern Ireland could be guaranteed to survive tomorrow.
    The second consequence is that the families of the most seriously injured victims would be haunted by the fear of penury if the victims lived too long, torn apart by feuds over how to divide the windfall spoils in the event of a victim's early death, or feel a sense of foreboding about what would be left of the victim's life if he or she happened to outlive the carers within the family. And the victims themselves will be embittered by the arbitrariness of this tin-pot tariff system.
    I urge the Minister to recognise only two things: that the current proposals are a framework for fools and horses, but that it is not too late to turn around.
    12.23 am
    The Minister or State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We are in the business not of giving victims tea and sympathy but of providing the most generous compensation scheme for victims in the world. When the tariff scheme is introduced, it will remain the most generous compensation scheme in the world.
    Let me make it clear that the Government are committed to ensuring that the needs of victims are properly recognised, and that they are treated with consideration and respect. That is why we have increased the grant to Victim Support by more than 50 per cent. in the past three years and why we are increasing it by a further 20 per cent. next year to more than £10 million. Very few organisations today have benefited from such a massive increase in expenditure.
    We have accepted all the recommendations to help victims in the royal commission's report, and even now we are taking further measures to improve the position of victims in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
    Support for victims can be provided in many forms. It can be practical, emotional and financial. I want to concentrate on the last aspect tonight.
    Our criminal injuries compensation scheme has been in operation since 1964. As far as we are aware, it is the second oldest such scheme in the world and the most generous anywhere.
    Listening to the hon. Gentleman tonight, one would get the impression that we were paying out just a few million pounds, and that other countries were much more generous, so it is worth putting on record the fact that we pay out far more compensation than all the other countries in the European Union put together. Only the United States
    922
    of America pays out more in total than we do, and considering that there are considerably more victims of crime in the United States, our awards are 3.5 times more generous than the average United States award.
    We shall continue making generous awards to victims —that will not change—but a scheme whose essential features were designed 30 years ago, when reported crime was much lower and the number of applications far fewer, is no longer the right way to achieve that aim.
    We now need a simpler, more straightforward and transparent scheme that gets awards to victims reasonably quickly and with as little fuss and inconvenience as possible. Applicants should start with a good idea of how their claim will be considered, and how much money they are likely to get. They should not need to seek specialised expensive legal advice to make an application. That can be very expensive, and can slow things down.
    We do not believe that those basic requirements can be met by a complex quasi-legal scheme based on common law damages and individual assessments. We believe, however, that they will be met by our new tariff scheme.
    Under the scheme, compensation will be paid more quickly and simply from a scale of awards for injuries of comparable severity. All eligible applicants with similar injuries will be treated in the same way, and will receive the same lump sum payments. Despite suggestions to the contrary, those payments will continue to be generous. As our White Paper made clear, the tariff has been based on awards made recently by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, reflated to bring them up to current-day values.
    There is nothing arbitrary about the scale of the tariffs. If the hon. Gentleman considers that the award for rape victims is insulting, he should complain to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, because we took the board's average award to rape victims and increased it. We have not picked the figures out of thin air; we have put all the compensation awards the board has made into the computer and added them up, and we came up with the median award.
    The net result is that at least 54 per cent. of claimants can expect to get as much as or more than they could have expected under the present arrangements. The figure will be still higher, because the level of inflation we assumed when setting the tariff is starting to look extremely generous. Moreover, under the tariff scheme, it will no longer be necessary to deduct from the award any benefits that claimants may have received from the Department of Social Security. That too will benefit many claimants, and will have the added advantage of speeding up payments.
    There will be a new, fully independent appeals system for those dissatisfied with their award. Unlike the present arrangements, in which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board effectively acts as both judge and jury, there will be complete separation of the initial decision taking and the appeals process. That too will benefit victims.
    We have been asked why we did not bring into force the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which, for most practical purposes, would have made the present scheme statutory. The simple answer is that the board asked us not to, because it would have seriously disrupted its work in dealing with the ever growing backlog of cases. The Home Affairs Committee in 1990 accepted the force of that argument.

    923
    In the meantime, the picture has been changing dramatically, even since the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The volume of cases received has gone up 50 per cent. and, regrettably, is still rising, while the amount paid out in compensation has increased threefold. The old scheme is simply not geared to cope with such levels of business. That is why we need the radically different approach that is provided by our tariff scheme.
    Some cynics say that the real purpose of the change is merely to save money. That is not the case. The main objective is to provide a better service to victims. The key feature of the tariff scheme is that awards are based on those given under the old system. Most victims will receive as much as, or more than, they would have done under that system. The tariff scheme will still remain one of the most generous in the world.
    Once the changeover to the new system is complete, the expenditure on compensation will continue to rise. Any hon. Member who suggests that the global amount that we will be paying out will be cut, or will be less than we are currently paying, is talking nonsense; it is not true.
    The overall expenditure on the tariff scheme will continue to rise, but it will rise less quickly than it would have done had we kept the present compensation scheme. I make no apologies for that. Securing best value for money is something to which we must have regard. We cannot simply allow a major area of expenditure to continue its rapid upward spiral unchecked.
    Concern was expressed that the tariff scheme will not take individual circumstances into account and, more particularly, that it will no lnger pay loss of earnings. It has even been said that this contravenes the European convention on the compensation of victims of violent crime, which the United Kingdom has ratified. I do not agree, but I can tell the House that we are sending full details of the tariff scheme to the Council of Europe, as the convention requires, and will take careful note of any response made.
    I am tempted to say that, if any hon. Member is suggesting that Britain should put its scheme on the same basis as Europe, my hon. Friends in the Treasury would agree, and would say, "Could we please not pay out £150 million this year, but merely the £6 million or whatever that Germany paid out?"
    I believe that the tariff scheme includes an element for loss of wages and the other heads of damage currently payable, although those heads are no longer assessed separately. The tariff levels were set by reference to awards made by the board, and those awards included loss of earnings and so on. So the tariff awards similarly include an element for loss of earnings inside each award and include other heads of damage, albeit unquantified and not assessed separately.
    I accept that some people will get less than they might have expected under the present scheme—that is an inevitable consequence of such a major change—but it must be remembered that most claims are comparatively small. In 1992–93, 86 per cent. of all awards were under £5,000, and only 5 per cent. exceeded £10,000. That means that most of those who will get less will not get much less.
    924
    That is a rather different picture from the one that has been painted, which may have left some hon. Members with the impression that most people will be losers under the new scheme, and that they will all lose badly. The awards will be paid more quickly and with much less fuss. It is important that victims who want to put the incident behind them as quickly as possible and get on with their lives should get their compensation as quickly as possible.
    We must not lose sight of the fact that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is not the only source of state aid that victims of crime can look to. With respect, that is the mistake that the hon. Gentleman made: assuming that the only help that would be available to victims had to come from the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
    Victims can rightly, and do, receive generous and long-term help from the national health service and from the Department of Social Security, as indeed can any other person in this country who sustains a non-criminal injury or is unfortunate enough to suffer some accident or comparable misfortune, with no one else to sue for it, or if it is not a criminal injury and they cannot get financial help.
    Many thousands of people suffer the horrendous injuries referred to by the hon. Gentleman. There is no one to sue and no compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, but the full resources of the national health service and the Department of Social Security—all the caring help and the various allowances—are payable to them. They will be payable to victims of crime as well, and rightly so.
    Our tariff scheme will not differentiate between different classes, or between different occupational groups; everyone experiencing similar injuries will receive the same award. We consider that arrangement more generally understandable, and no less fair, than the current system.
    I know that some will dispute that, arguing that the tariff scheme cannot cope with certain types of injury, such as shock, child abuse or sexual offences; the hon. Gentleman, for instance, suggested that the tariff levels for particular injuries were wrong. He argued that certain types of injury were more serious than others attracting the same award. I do not accept that argument.
    Mr. Simpson indicated dissent.
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he is calling me a liar, we must address the point. Our tariff scheme is based on some 20,000 awards made by the board: that is the truth. It reflects the true levels. We have not picked out half a dozen figures, and produced a scheme out of our heads; we put 20,000 awards through the analysis before basing the tariffs on them, and increasing the tariffs.
    The scheme therefore reflects the level of awards actually made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and maintains the relativities established.
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to One o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judiciary
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish the total number of lay magistrates, as at 1 January, with statistics showing(a) the occupational and age breakdowns of this total, (b) the proportion of women and (c) the proportion of magistrates of black, Asian and non-white origins; and if he will give the same set of information for the year 1989.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  At 1 January 1994 the total number of lay magistrates in England and Wales, including the Duchy of Lancaster, was 30,054, of whom 13,903—46·3 per cent.—were women. At 1 January 1989 the figure was 28,211, of whom 12,214—43·3 per cent.—were women. No information is available centrally on the number of magisrates of black, Asian of non-white origin but in 1993 5·5 per cent. of those appointed were from ethnic minorities; in 1989 the figure was 4·7 per cent. Statistics on occupation and age could be provided only at disproportionate cost, but should the hon. Member require this information for a particular bench it could be supplied to him.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes took place between 12 February 1993 and 1 January 1994, in the total number of(a) Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, (b) Lords Justices of Appeal, (c) heads of division, (d) High Court judges, (e) circuit judges, (f) recorders, (g) assistant recorders, (g) stipendiary magistrates and (i) full-time chairmen who are (i) men, (ii) women, (iii) barristers, (iv) solicitores, (v) black or Asian and (vi) ex-Oxford or Cambridge; and if he will give revised figures for the average ages in each category.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 7 February 1994,Official Report, column 11, which updated the information I gave on 12 February 1993.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Planning Policy
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when planning policy guidance note 15 was issued for public consultation; and when he expects to issue it in its final form.

  Mr. Brooke
  A draft was issued for public consultation on 8 July 1993 together with an associated paper on the protection of conservation areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I expect to publish the final version, embodying decisions on the latter, in the late spring or early summer.
  622

  Historic Buildings
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with(a) the Secretary of State for the Environment and (b) the chairman of English Heritage in respect of the effect on historic buildings of enabling development.

  Mr. Brooke
  None.

  Turner Paintings
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which paintings by Turner are currently on loan to Government Departments and agencies.

  Mr. Brooke
  There are two paintings by Turner, both from the Tate gallery, currently on loan through the agency of the Government art collection to Government Departments and agencies. These are "TG0487 The Quiet Ruin; a sketch, evening" and "TG2990 Ariccia (Italianate Landscape)". Both are on display at 10 Downing street.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Standards
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the results of his Department's consultations into future United Kingdom resourcing of the preparation of standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  On 10 June last year,Official Report, column 302, I announced that I was reviewing the need for Government financial assistance to the British Standards, Institution, BSI, and ways in which the BSI and standards contribute to improving competitiveness. A consultation document was issued to which over 400 replies were received. I am now able to announce my conclusions and the action which my Department and the BSI plan to take.

  Our consultation has shown that the business community believes that standardisation makes an important contribution to competitiveness. Both through voluntary use in the marketplace and in the legislative field, especially in the single market harmonisation programme, standards contribute increasingly to a level playing field in Europe and world wide. The cost of the BSI's role in the standards-writing process, around £30 million per year, is borne largely by industry through subscriptions and purchases of standards. Industry accepts this as appropriate but also values the financial support of Government as a way of maintaining the neutrality and impartiality of the process; as a reflection of Government's own use of standards ill procurement and legislation, and on behalf of the wider public interest in standards.

  I have listened carefully to the views of business and have concluded that my Department should continue to provide financial support but in the future such assistance should be more precisely targeted. For 1994–95 my Department will contribute £7·3 million to BSI and industry in respect of standards-writing. This will consist of £1·5 million grant in aid to the BSI; £2·5 million of targeted assistance to the BSI to be spent in areas of work to which industry attaches priority—including training of delegates and other support from BSI for overseas standards work—£2·45 million direct to industry through

  623
  the assisted international travel scheme—an increase of £500,000 to reflect the higher proportion of standards committee work now taking place overseas—and a further £750,000 to industry under schemes to expedite the drafting of standards and £100,000 to consumers to cover the costs of their representation.

  In the course of the Government review, concerns have also been expressed about BSI's relationship with its members and about other aspects of corporate governance. I am pleased that the BSI has responded to the concerns of its members and has already taken steps to sharpen up its internal efficiency. Now it will respond further by giving business a bigger say in determining programmes and resource allocation; by being more proactive in overseas standards meetings; and by providing more training for business delegates to overseas meetings. The BSI is also reviewing its relationship with, and its accountability to, its stakeholders in the course of changes to its royal charter and byelaws.

  One particular standard which has generated much comment is BS5750, the standard for quality management systems. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Technology has already made an announcement to the House on 7 February, Official Report, column 2, about help for small businesses applying for BS5750. I have asked the BSI to consider how it can build on the success of BS5750 and to use its role in standards-making to work with British industry towards the improvement of the general quality of its products.

  Concerns have also been expressed to Government about the hybrid role of the BSI as both the national standards organisation and a certification and testing body. My Department has discussed these issues with the BSI. In response to the concerns expressed, the BSI will be taking steps to reinforce the ring-fencing of the BSI standards within the overall organisation.

  This is primarily a matter for the BSI and its membership. The BSI must continue to have the confidence of its members and I have asked my officials to keep me informed on developments.

  I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the report of the consultation which has been issued, together with a copy of the responses, other than those where respondents requested the information remain confidential.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the principles of trade and sustainable development before signing the Uruguay round global trade accounts in Marrakesh in April.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will attend the Marrakech ministerial meeting of the Uruguay round trade negotiations committee in mid-April, and he will sign the final act of the Uruguay round on behalf of the United Kingdom. The Government are in no doubt that the Uruguay round results, when implemented, will advance the interests of sustainable development throughout the world.

  Tidal Energy
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current position with regard to the survey being done to assess the potential to generate electricity from the tidal flows in the Duddon estuary in Cumbria.
  624
  Mr. Eggar
  A preliminary feasibility study on the Duddon estuary has recently been completed and the final report should be published in approximately one month.

  The feasibility study included an assessment of the design, alignment, energy capture, cost and likely cost of electricity from a barrage scheme across the Duddon estuary, together with an assessment of the environmental impact of such a scheme.

  European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what safety hazards arise from changing the plug on 16 amp electrical appliances from CENELEC to British standard if it is plugged into circuits of the new European standard lower voltage;

  (2) what safety hazards arise from fitting a CENELEC two-pin plug into a BS three-pin socket; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Safety considerations will be an important part of the wider consultations to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member on 23 February,Official Report, column 229.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who conducted the consultation in relation to the construction deregulation task force report in relation to fire protection; if he will place a copy of that report in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Consultation on the recommendations of the construction industry deregulation task force on fire safety regulations and their enforcement and other related issues is currently under way as part of the review announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 17 January 1994,Official Report, column 381. The working papers of the task force will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to publish the total imports in 1993 of(a) house coal and (b) industrial coal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of coal imported during 1993 was as follows:

  Thousand tonnes

  Industrial coal

  2,028

  Domestic coal

  628

  Following the introduction of the "Intrastat" system for collecting data on trade with our EC partners, the figures involve some estimation of unrecorded imports. They are, therefore, likely to be subject to greater subsequent revision than figures collected on the previous basis.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department has taken to prevent the importation of coal from countries who use child labour slavery or labour exploitation to mine such coal.
  625
  Mr. Eggar
  As a general rule, there are severe practical difficulties in identifying goods, allegedly produced using child labour or exploited labour, given the complexities of international trade. Also, it is highly doubtful whether the social conditions that give rise to such practices can be improved by restricting trade.

  In the specific case of coal from Colombia, which the hon. Member may have in mind, I recently met Dr. Pretelt, the president of Carbocol, who assured me that Colombian labour law, and mining law, prohibits women and under-18s from going underground, and that no Colombian coal for export is mined by children. The Government call on all states which have ratified international instruments covering slavery, servitude, forced labour or child labour to meet their obligations.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish for 1993 details of the 10 major importers of coal and the quantities and cost of the coal imported.

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of individual companies' coal imports are commercially confidential.

  Newspapers and Magazines
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to end the restrictions on supply of newspapers and magainzes by wholesalers to small retail outlets.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Following the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of national newspapers in England and Wales on 9 December 1993, a statutory notice of the Secretary of State's intention to make an order under the Fair Trading Act 1973 in relation to the wholesale supply of national newspapers to retailers in England and Wales was published on 21 December. The MMC's report related only to the supply of national newspapers in England and Wales and the order would not therefore extend to the supply of magazines. A copy of the notice has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his Department's proposals with regard to newspaper distribution.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Following the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of national newspapers in England and Wales on 9 December 1993, a statutory notice of the Secretary of State's intention to make an order under the Fair Trading Act 1973 in relation to the wholesale supply of national newspapers to retailers in England and Wales was published on 21 December. A copy of the notice has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the number of coal mining jobs lost since 1979(a) in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency and (b) in south Wales.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since January 1979, the number of coal mining jobs lost in South Wales is 27,218. Information on job losses in the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency is not available.
  626

  Car Parks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from motoring or other organisations regarding the no liability clause of major car parking providers.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  This issue has been raised with the Government on a number of occasions, most recently at a meeting on car park security at the Home Office on 2 February which was attended by car park operators and other interested bodies, including motoring organisations. Any specific complaints about anti-competitive actions in respect of car parking should be referred to the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg.

  Trade Marks
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the totals of applications and registrations made for trade marks in each year since 1988; and what is the mean average processing time required by the Patent Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The answer is:

  Applications

  Registrations

  1988

  38,000

  14,381

  1989

  40,052

  22,374

  1990

  39,632

  28,389

  1991

  34,983

  30,421

  1992

  35,968

  35,137

  1993

  34,871

  33,071

  For 1993–94 the Trade Marks Registry has a target to register 80 per cent. of unopposed trade mark applications within 24 months of receipt.

  The rights in the eventual registration start from the date of application.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to announce the budget for the Insolvency Service commencing in April 1994; what plans he has to increase the level of resources available to the Insolvency Service in 1994–95 to enable the agency to increase the number of directors prosecuted for fraud and the number of directors disqualified for misconduct; and if he will give reasons for his decision.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I hope to be able to publish the results of "MINIS '94" early in the 1994–95 financial year.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money was paid to consultants employed by the Insolvency Service in 1993.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In 1993 a total of £888,550 was paid to consultants employed by or engaged in work for the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to why an unabridged copy of the Stoy Hayward report into the Insolvency Service has not been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The summary which has been placed in the Library has been agreed by Stoy Hayward as a fair reflection of its report.
  627
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to use the private sector to assist the official receiver in his duty to investigate compulsory insolvencies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The focus of the recently announced feasibility study is to assess the costs, benefits and value for money of options to increase private sector involvement in the mechanical processing work of the official receiver thus ensuring that official receivers are able to concentrate more on their investigating role.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to whether cost will be the major consideration in deciding if work currently carried out by the Insolvency Service will be transferred to the private sector.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Value for money will be the major consideration in determining the scope for involving the private sector more in the mechanical processing work in insolvencies.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to the effectiveness to the Insolvency Service of the staff currently on loan from other Government Departments.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Staff on loan to the Insolvency Service from other Government Departments have proved generally very effective in assisting on a range of tasks and in the service's efforts to increase the focus on its investigative role.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the projected figures for compulsory insolvencies, differentiating between bankruptcies and companies, for the next five years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department does not publish forecasts for insolvencies. The working assumption being used in the current "MINIS" resource allocation exercise is that there will be some 28,000 bankruptcies and 7,000 compulsory liquidations in the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the conclusion in the Stoy Hayward report into the Insolvency Service relating to the costs of the private sector undertaking the work of the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The recently announced feasibility study will involve further, more detailed work to assess the costs and benefits of the various options identified in the first stage of the review. Any further comment must await the results of the feasibility study.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what resources the inspector general and agency chief executive of the Insolvency Service requested for each of the past six years; and what were the resources granted.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy on 9 February,Official Report, column 321.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff in the Insolvency Service are currently on loan from other Government Departments; which are the Departments concerned; and how many are on loan from each.
  628
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  As at 1 March 1994, the Insolvency Service has 93 staff on loan from other Government Departments. These are HM Customs and Excise, 34 staff, Employment, 23, Inland Revenue 20, Social Security, 15, and Health, one.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether payment for the second stage review of privatising part, or all, of the Insolvency Service will come from the Insolvency Service budget.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The purpose of the review of the future of the Insolvency Service is to examine the ways in which official receivers may concentrate more on their investigatory role by involving the private sector more in the mechanical processing work in insolvencies. The costs of the second stage of the review will be met from Insolvency Service resources.

  Gas Suppliers
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department has taken to encourage other Government Departments to use independent gas suppliers.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for each Department to choose the gas supplier that offers the most appropriate combination of price and service standard.

  United Kingdom Exports
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 233, on United Kingdom exports, when relevant figures for the full 1993 calendar year will be available; and if he will publish relevant figures for each (a) month and (b) quarter of 1993 for as many months or quarters as are currently available.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on United Kingdom exports of goods to the EC is published monthly by the Central Statistical Office. Information on invisible exports to other EC countries is available only annually and the Central Statistical Office plans to make figures for the whole of 1993 available in August 1994.

  Oil Exploration
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if any cuttings discharged from exploration or appraisal wells since 31 December 1993 have contained oil exceeding the 1 per cent. limit laid down by the Paris Commission; and if he will name each operator who has breached the limit.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Since December 1993 there have been no requests by operators for exemptions from section 3 of the Prevention of Pollution Act 1971 to discharge oil contaminated cuttings from exploration and appraisal wells.

  Bio-fuels
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the most recent forecasts of the contribution bio-fuels are expected to make to energy production from renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: The Department of Trade and Industry does not make forecasts

  629
  of the contribution any renewables are expected to make to energy production. The Government are working towards a figure of 1500 MW of new electricity generating capacity from renewable energy sources. The renewable energy advisory group report, published in November 1992 as Energy Paper 60—HMSO, ISBN 0 11 414287 4, £15·95—copies of which are in the Libraries of both Houses, gave estimates of the potential for each renewable source of energy and the assumptions on which these estimates were based. Ultimately, the contribution from renewables depends on how competitive they are and whether constraints on their exploitation can be overcome. For example, the waste contracting policy of the waste disposal authorities will largely determine whether municipal wastes are available for beneficial use by energy recovery.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993", including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for the appointment of trustees to the Maxwell Pensioners Trust, the Maxwell Pensioners Charitable Trust, the Motability 10th Anniversary Trust, the Far East (Prisoners of War and Internees) Fund and Queen Mary's Roehampton Trust. He also appoints the pensions ombudsman, the social fund commissioner and the chief executives of the Department's agencies.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Economic and Social Council
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the results of the elections of the Economic and Social Council in New York on 25 January; how the United Kingdom voted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Economic and Social Council held an organisational session at the United Nations headquarters in New York on 25 January. During the meeting the president of ECOSOC and three vice-presidents were elected by acclamation. There were no other ECOSOC elections held on 25 January.

  Spying
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with his counterparts in(a) the United States of America and (b) Australia in regard to (i) spying by a Central Intelligence Agency officer and (ii) bugging of offices in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have had no communications with my counterparts in the United States of America or Australia about the allegations referred to in the hon. Member's question. Officials have been in contact but I am not prepared to comment on their exchanges.
  630

  Malaysia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the role of the diplomatic wing of the Foreign Office in the Pergau dam project.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The diplomatic wing plays a full role alongside other Government Departments in considering and advising on aid and trade provision projects, including the Pergau dam.

  "The European Community: Facts and Fairytales"
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, columns 553–54, how many copies of the booklet "The European Community: Facts and Fairytales" were published; what was the budgeted and the actual cost; and how many copies were requested by members of the public.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Some 35,000 copies of the booklet "The European Community: Facts and Fairytales" have been printed. The budgeted cost was £11,500. The total cost was £12,498. The initial distribution was 10,000 copies. Since then, a further 23,500 copies have been requested, mainly by Members of Parliament, United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, trade associations, chambers of commerce, consumer organisations and individual members of the public.

  British Youth Council
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds funding has been withdrawn from the British Youth Council.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The decision to phase out funding for the international work of the British Youth Council was taken because BYC's activities are essentially an extension of its domestic identity, and we can no longer justify giving this activity priority for scarce FCO funds.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings of the round table forum with non-governmental organisations on arms control, security and non-proliferation his Department has hosted since 1979; when the last forum was held; when the next one will be held; and what criteria are used in deciding which groups are to be invited.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not possible, without incurring a disproportionate cost, to determine accurately how many meetings were held after 1979. They were, however, usually held on a twice-yearly basis. Invitations to take part were issued to groups known to be actively interested in arms control and disarmament issues. There are no plans at present to hold another meeting in the near future.

  Central European Undergraduates
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to establish official programmes of support for central and eastern
  631
  European undergraduate students who wish to pursue courses at universities in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under the EC's Tempus programme a number of undergraduates from central and eastern Europe spend short periods of study at United Kingdom higher education institutions.

  Her Majesty's Government's scholarships and training programmes are targeted at postgraduates and young professionals. For example in 1993–94 the FCO is providing some 500 scholarships worth over £2·5 million for central and eastern Europe under the British Chevening scholarships programme, formerly FCOSAS.

  UN Conference on Women
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the siting in Beijing of the United Nations conference on women in 1995; what views have been expressed by his Department to the United Nations and other interested bodies regarding the matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The choice of Peking as venue for the World Conference was made by United Nations member states on the recommendation of countries in the Asia region of the United Nations and in accordance with the United Nations principle of geographical rotation. We want to play a strong role internationally on women's rights and we believe that more can be achieved for women throughout the world by attending the 1995 conference than by not doing so.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers and officials will expect to be attending the United Nations conference on women in 1995.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No decision has yet been taken on the exact composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the conference, but we expect the Minister who leads the delegation to be a woman. It is likely to include representatives from the Women's National Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, as well as Government officials.

  Mrs. Liberty Nicos Cloke
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision will be taken on the application made by Mrs. Liberty Nicos Cloke and her son—Ref: 15508—at the United Kingdom in the Philippines to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of any information about this case, I have asked the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to let the hon. Member have a substantive reply in due course.

  Commission of European Communities
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will produce a table to show the average number of people employed by the Commission of European Communities now and in each of the last 10 years.
  632
  Mr. Goodlad
  There were 14,325 Commission employees in February 1993. We are seeking the figures for previous years.

  Entry Clearance (Jamaica)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the independent monitor of refusals in entry clearance cases has to visit Jamaica; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The independent monitor, Lady Anson, will visit our posts in Dhaka, Bombay, Istanbul and Accra between 1 and 15 March. She has no plans to visit Jamaica.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid and Trade
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all projects under consideration for support under the aid and trade provision in countries with a per capita income of over $700 per year; and what progress is being made in his policy of concentrating on developing countries with per capital income below the level announced in June 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member for Monklands, West to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 28 June 1993,Official Report, column 356.

  Of the transitional projects mentioned, the small technical co-operation projects referred to are no longer under consideration having been won or withdrawn; and the other two projects listed are still under consideration. As announced on 17 June 1993, the aid and trade provision is now focused on credit-worthy low-income countries with a GNP per capital under $700, and all new ATP cases from that date are subject to this policy.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the priorities in the allocation of the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding reply 28 February 1994]: The priorities in the allocation of the aid and trade provision are the support of sound development projects of particular commercial and industrial importance to Britain in credit-worthy, low-income developing countries.

  Caribbean Islands
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the professional discipline, (b) the duties and responsibilities and (c) the annual cost to the Overseas Development Administration, including the cost of offices and support staff, of each of the technical co-operation officers working in the field of banking, finance insurance and/or taxation in (i) Anguilla, (ii) the Cayman Islands, (iii) Montserrat and (iv) the Turks and Caicos Islands; and if he will place a copy of the job description of each of those posts in the Library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are four such posts filled by technical co-operation officers in the Turks and Caicos Islands, all in the general finance field; two in Montserrat, one in finance and the other in taxation; and none in Anguilla or the Cayman Islands.
  633
  The cost of offices and support staff are met by the host Governments. The cost to the Overseas Development Administration of each officer depends on individual personal circumstances but the average cost, including salary and accommodation and air fares, is approximately £70,000 per annum.

  A note containing the terms of reference for each post has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Somaliland
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what strategic plan has been proposed by the United Nations Development Programme to improve conditions in Somaliland.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Principal responsibility for strategic planning in all regions of Somalia lies with UNOSOM' s development office. Providing the environment is secure, UNDO aims to undertake planning missions to the north-west region soon. In the north-west, UNDP is supporting small-scale community-based rehabilitation projects and reviewing plans for demobilisation, revenue generation and reintegration of the population.

  Thailand
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the World bank report entitled "Thailand: the Pak Mun Hydropower Project—Mid-Term Review" in the Library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As I explained in my reply of 13 December to the hon. Member,Official Report, columns 475–76, this report remains confidential under the bank's disclosure of information policy; so I regret that I cannot place a copy in the Library. The bank, however, has recently published an information note on the Pak Mun project, copies of which are being placed in both Libraries of Parliament.

  Arun III, Nepal
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether the United Kingdom position on the Arun III project proposal has been determined; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects the Arun III project proposal to be presented to the board of the World bank;

  (3)whether the ODA has completed an independent assessment of the Arun III project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Subject to completion of the necessary formalities, the World bank expects to present the Nepal power generation project to the board of directors at the end of April. We will form a view once the project documents are circulated. We have not commissioned an independent assessment.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will institute a public inquiry into the circumstances of the grant of aid to the Pergau dam project in Malaysia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding reply 28 February 1994]: No. The Government will co-operate fully with the inquiry of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee into this matter.
  634

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the proposals put forward in the draft communication of the Commission of the Council and the European Parliament on immigration and asylum policies on how to counter the dangers of polarising opinions on immigration.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The European Commission has not yet published its proposed communication on immigration and asylum policies. When it is made available to member states, copies will be deposited in both Houses and the Government will submit an explanatory memorandum in accordance with the scrutiny procedures for title VI matters.

  Marriage Guidance
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of grant his Department has given to(a) Relate and (b) the London Marriage Guidance Council for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Maclean
  Administration of the Government's marriage guidance grant in aid programme is the responsibility of the Home Office. The grant to Relate for each year from 1987–88 to 1993–94 is set out in the table:

  £

  1987–88

  912,870

  1988–89

  935,910

  1989–90

  958,890

  1990–91

  1,006,840

  1991–92

  1,107,500

  1992–93

  1,511,400

  1993–94

  1,530,500

  In addition, over the period in question, Relate has received Home Office funding for specific projects totalling £648,000.

  The London Marriage Guidance Council does not receive funds from central Government.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) by what authority a general practitioner can prescribe cannabis;

  (2) what is his policy in respect of the issuing of a cannabis licence to (a) a general practitioner, (b) a consultant neurologist or (c) a patient.

  Mr. Maclean
  Cannabis is a controlled drug designated under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and it is therefore unlawful for a medical practitioner to prescribe it to a patient. Our policy of not issuing licences under the 1971 Act to allow it to be prescribed is based on long-standing advice that cannabis has no recognised medical use.

  In the absence of convincing evidence, which would need to include the necessary evaluation and approval by the Medicines Control Agency, that there was a legitimate use for cannabis in specific medical conditions, I see no reason to reconsider this policy.
  635
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all court cases since 1990 that resulted in cannabis being made available to multiple sclerosis sufferers.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am not aware of any such cases.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East will receive a reply to his letter dated 12 January to the Midland inquiry unit with follow-up to the Minister of State on 17 January.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 22 February.

  Mobile Phone Theft
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to curb the theft of mobile phones, especially from motor vehicles.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office is supporting the Department of Trade and Industry in its discussions with the mobile phone industry on what further measures can be taken to reduce the theft of mobile phones, such as the promotion of equipment marking and improved controls of electronic serial numbers.

  The Home Office is also continuing its car crime prevention campaign. One of the key aims of this is to encourage motorists not to leave valuables in their cars.

  Deportation Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will respond formally to the Police Complaints Authority report on deportation policy arising from the investigation into the death of Joy Gardner; and if he will place a copy of the report's recommendation in the Library.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Police Complaints Authority has not made any such report.

  Car Parks
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many car parking providers have joined the Association of Chief Police Officers-Automobile Association secure car parking scheme;

  (2) how many of the major car parking providers have joined the Association of Chief Police Officers-Automobile Association secure car parking scheme; and what is his policy on the scheme.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, a range of car parking providers, including local authorities, British Rail and private operators, have so far received "Secured Car Parks" awards. As of 23 February 1994, 167 awards—129 gold and 38 silver—had been made to car parks under the scheme.

  The Home Office fully supports this initiative and has recently provided £30,000 to assist in its promotion. I urged major car park operators to participate in it when I met with them on 2 February to discuss car park security.
  636

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the study undertaken by Dr. Jonathon Brostoff and Superintendent Peter Bennett to compare the dietary histories of persistent young offenders with matched control groups of non-offenders and clinically diagnosed hyperactive children was started; and when it is likely to be completed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The study began on 1 July 1993 and is due to be completed by 31 December 1994.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (6) women are presently serving sentences in prison for the non-payment of fines.

  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. Stephen Byers, dated 1 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) men and (b) women are presently serving sentences in prison for the non-payment of fines.
  On 31 January 1994 there were 540 fine defaulters (518 males and 22 females) in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Traffic Restrictions, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the implications for central London arising from the City of London's traffic restriction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the traffic scheme introduced by the City of London police was the subject of prior consultation, and that there is continuing liaison between the two forces to ensure that any disruption is kept to a minimum. I understand that, as a result, no significant problems have been experienced.

  European Commission
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed by the European Commission to work under the direction of the Commissioner responsible for internal and judicial affairs, and immigration; and what is the equivalent number employed by or seconded to the European Council working on the common policy on justice and home affairs.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that approximately 30 staff in the European Commission and 11 staff in the Council of the European Union are engaged in work arising from title VI of the treaty on European Union.
  637

  Quayyam Abdul
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will instruct the high commission in Islamabad to issue a visa to Quayyam Abdul ref: TH/63011/93, following the decision of the immigration appeal tribunal on 30 December to refuse the Home Office leave to appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In accordance with normal procedures a copy of the determination refusing leave to appeal was sent to Islamabad on 20 January. It is for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office post in Islamabad to decide whether to issue entry clearance. The hon. Member will be informed of the outcome in this case.

  Wahid Akhtar
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will instruct the British commission in Islamabad to issue a visa to Wahid Akhtar, ref: TH/2480/93, following the decision of the immigration appeal tribunal on 17 December to refuse the Home Office leave to appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In accordance with normal procedures a copy of the determination refusing leave to appeal was sent to Islamabad on 28 January. It is for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office post in Islamabad to decide whether to issue entry clearance. The hon. Member will be informed of the outcome of this case.

  Immigration (Jamaicans)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints the immigration and nationality department complaints audit committee has received concerning Jamaican nationals refused entry as visitors to the United Kingdom at Gatwick last December; to whom complaints may be made; and to what address they should be sent.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 14 January,Official Report, columns 338–39, to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). The complaints audit committee has received no such complaints, but since it is not responsible for the investigation of individual complaints it would pass any such correspondence direct to the complaints unit, immigration and nationality department for action.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each region, how many prisoners were occupying police cells at the latest date for which figures are available because of lack of prison accommodation; how many police officers were diverted from their duties as a result; and what is the cost in financial terms for police pay or otherwise.

  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 Mr. Derek Lewis to Mr. David Young, dated 1 March 1994:
  638
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for information about the number of prisoners occupying police cells at the latest date for which figures are available, because of lack of prison accommodation; how many police officers were diverted from their duties as a result: and what is the cost in financial terms for police pay or otherwise.
  On Monday 28 February 1994, the number of prisoners being held in police cells due to lack of prison accommodation was 294. All of these were held by Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Northumbria, Lancashire and Humberside police forces.
  Information on how many police officers were diverted from their duties as a result of these lockouts is not readily available. Police forces arrange their own duty rostas, and usually use overtime or rest call ins to look after Prison Service inmates.
  As yet we have insufficient details from the police to provide information about police costs. I will write again as soon as we have it.

  Constituency Reorganisation
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will table the interim costs of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission's reorganisation by each constituency in England and Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The costs incurred by the Boundary Commissions for England and Wales in carrying out their general reviews of parliamentary constituencies were, at 31 December 1993, £5·5 million. The information is not available on a constituency basis.

  Deaths by Fire
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will produce a table showing the deaths by fire of(a) infants, (b) adolescents, (c) adults and (d) the elderly for the latest 20 years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The latest published statistics of the number of fire-related deaths by age from fires attended by local authority fire brigades in the United Kingdom are shown in table 23 of the annual Home Office report, "Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1991", a copy of which is in the Library. I will reply as soon as possible with information for earlier years.

PRIME MINISTER

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issue of the global proliferation consequences of plutonium reprocessing at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield at his forthcoming meeting with President Clinton in Washington.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no plans to do so.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had over the last three months with the Indian Prime Minister on matters concerning Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had no direct discussions with the Indian Prime Minister since their meeting in January 1993. My right hon. Friend the

  639
  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed Kashmir with Narasimha Rao during his visit to India last November.

  We have continued to take every opportunity to discuss our concerns about Kashmir with the Indians. Senior officials had extensive talks in Delhi in early February.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 March.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the United States for a series of meetings including with President Clinton and the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much his office has spent on official gifts for visiting dignitaries since November 1990; and what are the criteria for determining the cost and appropriateness of such gifts.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: I have been asked to reply.

  It is not the normal practice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to provide official gifts for visiting dignitaries.

ENVIRONMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the letter sent to him by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on 10 November on the subject of Castle Morpeth borough council's objections to the Government's proposals on market franchise rights.

  Mr. Curry
  I replied to the right hon. Member's letter on Monday 28 February.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify for each of the proposals put forward to Government by the business deregulation task forces, and represented by numbers 193, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 229, 264, 273, 283, 287, 292, 309 and 314 in the publication deregulation task forces proposals for reform(a)which the Government have already taken action on,(b)which are under further consideration and (c) which are not being considered further.

  Mr. Gummer
  The substantial deregulation action that my Department is taking in relation to all the task force recommendations, including those cited, to reduce unnecessary controls on business while safeguarding environmental and public safety is fully set out in each of the three categories at pages 36 to 44 of the DTI publication "Deregulation—Cutting Red Tape" that was issued on 19 January. A copy of this publication was placed in the Library of the House on that date.
  640

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993", including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Mr. Baldry
  In addition to the bodies identified in "Public Bodies 1993", and excluding departmental committees, of which no central record is maintained, the Secretary of State makes appointments to the following bodies:

  New bodies established since Public Bodies 1993 (1 April 1993)

  Appointment

  Annual salary £

  Birmingham Castle Vale Housing Action Trust Chairman

  25,315

  Deputy Chairman

  8,590

  10 Members

  5,030

  English Partnerships Chairman

  unpaid

  Deputy Chairman

  24,605

  4 Members

  6,310

  Local Government Staff Commission Chairman

  25,200

  2 Members

  13,890

  Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust Chairman

  25,315

  Deputy Chairman

  8,590

  8 Members

  5,030

  Executive Agencies

  Ordnance Survey Director General

  1—

  3 management board non-executives

  5,262

  Planning Inspectorate Chief Planning Inspector

  1—

  4 Members of Advisory Board

  unpaid

  Building Research Establishment Chief Executive

  1—

  QE II Conference Centre Chief Executive

  2—

  The Buying Agency Chief Executive

  2—

  Security Facilities Executive Chief Executive

  2—

  Other Bodies

  Office of Water Resources (OFWAT) Director General

  3—

  7 National Park Authorities (England) One-third of Members

  unpaid

  Broads Authority 9 of the 35 Members

  unpaid

  Sutton Housing Trust 4 of the 7 Trustees

  2,120

  Commission for Local Administration Chairman

  4—

  2 Commissioners

  3—

  1 Civil Service Grade 3.

  2 Civil Service Grade 5.

  3 Civil Service Grade 2.

  4 Civil Service Grade 1.

  Appointments to the Commission for Local Administration are made by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Secretary of State. One commissioner receives an addition of £1,000 per annum as deputy chairman.

  The Secretary of State also appoints the local government independent adjudicator—£5,750—and

  641
  nominates 14 members for the European Community's Committee of the Regions. The appointments are formally made by the EC Council of Ministers.

  Highways
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 5, if he will list the powers available to highway authorities to regulate or restrict vehicular use on byways open to all traffic and the circumstances in which these powers can be used.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local authorities' powers to regulate and restrict traffic are contained principally in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended. They apply to all roads over which the public has access—which includes byways open to all traffic. The powers are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Peat
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to include, as members of the working group into peat and related matters, independent producers of peat alternatives who are not involved in the peat industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have no plans to include independent producers of peat alternatives as members of the working group into peat. However, the scope of the greater use of alternative materials is an important feature of the group's work. I propose to consult the producers before finalising any future policies for peatlands.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the minutes of the meetings of the working group into peat and related matters.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no plans to place the minutes of the meetings of the working group on peat in the Library. However, I will be publishing later this year, for wide consultation, a report summarising the information that has been made available to the group, together with a draft policy paper and a draft guidance note. Copies of these will be placed in the Library.

  Mencap, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when outstanding transitional special needs management allowance will be paid to Liverpool Mencap; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Housing Corporation is responsible for the payment of revenue support in respect of special needs projects operated by housing associations. To protect the position of these Mencap schemes, the corporation offered to make funding available to the housing association involved, Liverpool Housing Trust. Having assessed the information provided by the trust, the corporation will be paying transitional special needs management allowance in April.
  642

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimate of the annual cost of providing public housing or other publicly funded residential care for people who are homeless in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally.

  Contracts
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those contracts let by his Department in the last five years in which there was a requirement for specialised knowledge of local government accountancy showing for each contract the contractor, the price, the subject, the estimated number of person-days and whether the final report has been published or otherwise made available to the House.

  Mr. Gummer
  Many of the consultancy and research contracts let by the Department require some knowledge of local government accountancy, even if local government finance is not the main subject. It is not practicable to identify all the contracts that might be involved or the detailed information requested by the hon. Member except at disproportionate cost.

  Children at Risk
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the allocation within Lewisham's standard spending assessment, on a per capita basis, for children at risk, during the next financial year; what is the allocation for each of the other London boroughs; on what basis this formula operates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The children's personal social services element for 1994–95 for Lewisham is £107 per head of resident population. Information for other London boroughs is in the table. The formula uses a "client group approach"; the client group is the estimated number of children at risk. Cost adjustments are made to reflect the increased costs associated with social conditions and differences in the costs of provision between areas. The formula for the children's PSS element, along with the formulae for other SSA elements, has been revised in the light of the SSA review.

  Table showing the children's personal social service (PSS) element for 1994–95 per head of resident population for Lewisham and the other London boroughs

  Borough

  PSS for Children (£/head)

  Lewisham

  107

  City of London

  26

  Camden

  114

  Greenwich

  83

  Hackney

  175

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  108

  Islington

  150

  Kensington and Chelsea

  81

  Lambeth

  164

  Southwark

  129

  Tower Hamlets

  138

  Wandsworth

  79

  643

  Borough

  PSS for Children (£/head)

  Westminster

  85

  Barking and Dagenham

  42

  Barnet

  42

  Bexley

  25

  Brent

  108

  Bromley

  26

  Croydon

  51

  Ealing

  68

  Enfield

  42

  Haringey

  125

  Harrow

  35

  Havering

  25

  Hillingdon

  35

  Hounslow

  59

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  28

  Merton

  39

  Newham

  118

  Redbridge

  41

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  25

  Sutton

  30

  Waltham Forest

  74

  Rent Assessment Panels
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) of 22 February,Official Report, column 109, what is the breakdown by occupation of the members of the 13 rent assessment panels in England.

  Sir George Young
  A total of 143 hold a legal qualification, 172 are surveyors or valuers, and 127 are appointed as lay members. The occupations of the lay members are varied: where details are known centrally, they are recorded in the list of members which was placed in the Library on 18 January.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the last meeting of the public information panel of his Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee was held; and what information he has as to the next planned RAWPIP meeting.

  Mr. Atkins
  The last meeting of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's public interest panel was held on 23 February 1990. Future meetings of the panel are a matter for the committee.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against banding for council tax are outstanding in Lambeth; how many have been determined(a) on the grounds of manifest error, (b) by agreement and (c) following a hearing; and how long it will be before all outstanding appeals are likely to be settled or determined.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 17 February, column 967.

  Details of the number of the settlements which were resolved by agreement, the number which were withdrawn by the proposer and the number determined by tribunal for each local authority area are not collected centrally.
  644
  As I announced on 11 January, we expect four out of five appeals to be dealt with before the end of the year and the remainder to be settled as rapidly as possible thereafter.

  Sea Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the numbers of sea birds washed up on British coasts over the last three months; what were the causes of death; in what areas these birds were washed up; and what types of birds they were.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's statutory conservation advisers do not keep records of the numbers of sea birds washed up dead on British coasts because this information has been found to be of limited value in interpreting wildlife mortality incidents.

  During the past three months there have been two major incidents involving the deaths of seabirds. One concerned pollution off the Lancashire coast at the beginning of the year and I refer the hon. Member to the answer he was given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London on 26 January, Official Report, column 245.

  More recently, between 25,000 and 60,000 guillemots and shags are estimated to have been washed up on the north and east coast of Britain. Starvation is believed to be the principal cause of death, possibly due to a combination of strong onshore winds which may have disturbed normal feeding activity and, perhaps, a mismatch between bird location and food activity.

  Three other incidents have occurred in the Irish sea involving oil pollution in which over 1,500 sea birds were affected, including common scoter, guillemot, great crested grebe and razorbill.

  Local Authority Rents
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the average local authority rent in each London borough for each year since 1980 with the percentage increase for each year in real terms.

  Sir George Young
  I have today placed in the Library a table showing the average local weekly unrebated rent for each London borough in financial years since 1988–89, including provisional figures for 1993–94. The percentage increases of rents expressed at 1988–89 prices for each year from 1989–90 are also given.

  The information for London boroughs could be provided for the years before 1988–89 only at disproportionate cost.

  Rent Officers
  Mr. Peter Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if rent officers, in their determination of fair rents for unfurnished private accommodation in inner London, are currently obliged to disregard scarcity; and if he will make a statement on recent changes in fair rents in inner London.

  Sir George Young
  When determining the fair rent for any property, the rent officer is required to follow section 70 of the Rent Act 1977. This requires the rent officer to assume that the number of people seeking accommodation is not substantially greater than the number of homes available for letting: colloquially this amounts to disregarding any element of market rents which is due to scarcity.
  645
  Fair rents generally have been rising in recent years. This is a matter for rent officers and rent assessment committees, but it seems likely that, among other factors, it reflects the increased availability of evidence about market rent levels and a view that the discount to be allowed for scarcity has diminished following the deregulation of new lettings in 1989.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he received representations from the environment directorate of the European Commission in relation to the compatibility of the proposed Cardiff bay barrage with the European Commission habitats directive and wild birds directive; if he will place a copy of such communication or letter in the library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend received a letter from the Environment Commissioner about the Cardiff bay barrage on 27 January. Such communications are confidential between the Government and the Commission.

  Local Goverment Commission
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions he has reached on the Local Government Commission's report on Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today written to Sir John Banham, chairman of the Local Government Commission for England, about the Commission's report, "Final Recommendations on the Future Local Government of Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset".

  I am still considering the recommendations for both Avon and Somerset. Having carefully considered the commission's recommendations for Gloucestershire, together with representations made to me, I am not at present convinced that effective and convenient local government will be best achieved by making no change to the current structure of local government in the county.

  I therefore intend to direct the commission to conduct a further review of Gloucestershire; but before issuing a formal direction I have invited the commission's views on timing.

  As with the further reviews of Derbyshire and County Durham, which I announced on 29 November 1993, I shall be directing the commission to have regard to the revised procedure and policy guidance issued in November 1993.I announced on 3 February that the final sentence of paragraph 3 of the policy guidance had been deleted by the High Court ruling on 28 January.

  The review of Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset was conducted in accordance with the original policy guidance which I issued to the commission in July 1992. The revised policy guidance which I issued on 2 November 1993 clarified the Government's views on a number of issues, including the importance of local consensus. Representations have been made to me by local authorities in Gloucestershire that they should be given the opportunity to make fresh proposals on the basis of the new guidance. I consider that the local authorities and people of the area ought to be given that chance.

  A copy of my letter to Sir John Banham has been placed in the Library.
  646

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what progress local authorities are making in reducing the numbers of vacant dwellings they own; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Government have been encouraging local authorities to keep the number of empty council dwellings to a minimum so that the most effective use is made of the council housing stock. I am pleased to say that the local authorities have responded well to this encouragement and have been making good progress in recent years in reducing the number of their vacant dwellings.

  As at 1 April 1993 "management vacants"—those ready for occupation immediately or after minor works—were 40,000 compared to 54,000 in 1987—a drop of 26 per cent. The total number of vacant council dwellings were 71,000 compared to 112,000 in 1987.

  Management vacants provide an indication of the empty dwellings available to meet housing need. The 20 authorities with the highest number of management vacant at 1 April 1993 are:

  Ranking of authorities by numbers of Management Vacants at 1 April 1993.

  Stock

  Management Vacants

  Percentage

  1) Hackney

  40,802

  1,911

  4·68

  2) Manchester

  83,710

  1,306

  1·50

  3) Sheffield

  73,935

  1,104

  1·49

  4) Liverpool

  56,906

  969

  1·70

  5) Leeds

  79,638

  907

  1·14

  6) Birmingham

  107,288

  896

  0·84

  7) Lambeth

  44,523

  825

  1·85

  8) Tower Hamlets

  40,099

  679

  1·69

  9) Southwark

  55,377

  617

  1·11

  10) Salford

  34,750

  608

  1·75

  11) Greenwich

  33,202

  557

  1·68

  12) Newcastle upon Tyne

  40,368

  550

  1·36

  13) Islington

  37,608

  547

  1·45

  14) Bristol

  35,986

  519

  1·44

  15) Wolverhampton

  33,839

  503

  1·49

  16) Nottingham

  37,895

  502

  1·32

  17) Coventry

  21,441

  483

  2·25

  18) Bradford

  30,917

  458

  1·48

  19) North Tyneside

  24,058

  435

  1·81

  20) Walsall

  32,459

  427

  1·32

  I am today placing in the Library a complete list of local authorities ranked on this basis.

  Ministerial Instructions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the occasions since 1979 when Ministers have issued written instructions to override his Department's accounting officer's objections.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: I am not aware that any such instruction has been issued to the accounting officer of my Department during the period in question.
  647

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beekeepers
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to safeguard the incomes of beekeepers, following the cut in customs duties for honey imported from outside the EC agreed in the recent general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations.

  Mr. Jack
  The problems faced by European beekeepers were discussed by the Agriculture Council on 24 January this year. At the request of the presidency the Commission will now make an analysis of the market situation and produce a reflections document for further consideration by the Council.

  Numbers of persons employed in agriculture in England as at June 1992

  Farm size group measured in ESU1

  Less than 8 very small

  8- < 40 small

  40 < 100 medium

  100 < 200 large

  200 and over very large

  Family workers

  full time

  1,208

  3,783

  6,605

  4,173

  1,767

  part time

  2,704

  3,637

  2,674

  999

  420

  Hired workers

  full time

  4,034

  7,427

  14,767

  16,781

  31,195

  part time

  3,411

  6,553

  7,386

  5,046

  8,906

  Salaried managers

  619

  879

  1,145

  1,336

  3,018

  Farmers, partners and directors (including spouses)

  61,460

  63,848

  54,559

  22,928

  10,542

  1 1 ESU is equivalent to 1,000 ecu of standard gross margin at average 1979 to 1981 values.

  North-east Drift Net Fishery
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations her Department has received about the opening date of the north-east coast drift net fishery; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  We have been asked by representatives of certain salmon angling and conservation organisations to postpone the opening date of the north-east coast salmon drift net fishery until 1 July. We are giving that request careful consideration and I hope to further address this matter in the near future.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what intention her Department has to phase out hill livestock compensatory allowance payments; what representations she has received regarding any intention to phase out hill livestock compensatory allowance payments; and if she will make a statement regarding the maintenance of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for the duration of this Parliament.
  648

  Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has relating agricultural employment to farm size, as measured by standard gross margin; what information she has on the employment generation record of different sizes and types of farm; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Information collected in the annual census of agricultural holdings includes the number of persons engaged in agriculture according to whether they are farmers, partners, spouses of farmers family or hired workers, full or part time, male or female. It also includes details of the level of cropping and stocking of holdings which enables the economic size and type of the farm to be determined. These data are available on a consistent basis for each year from 1988. Data for 1992 are contained in the table.

  Mr. Jack
  I have received a number of representations about the future of hill livestock compensatory allowances. I have no intention of phasing out these payments, which are vital to the continuation of extensive livestock farming in the hills and uplands, and I fully recognise the contribution which this sector of agriculture makes in economic social and environmental terms.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will publish a table showing, in 1992–93 prices, the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91 and the projected expenditure for each year to 1995–96 for each executive non-departmental public body sponsored by her Department, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 15 February 1994]: I attach a table showing total gross expenditure by executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department for the years 1990–91 to 1991–92, adjusted to 1992–93 prices. The figures for 1992–93 are shown in the publication "Public Bodies 1993", which is available in the Library of the House. Expenditure figures for 1993–94 are not yet available. Projected expenditure figures for future years will appear when the estimates are laid before the House.
  649

  Table of Executive Non-departmental Public Bodies

  £ million

  Total gross expenditure

  Total gross voted expenditure

  Body

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Agricultural Training Board

  1n/a

  11·428

  7·580

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  0·193

  0·369

  nil

  nil

  Food From Britain

  8·628

  8·374

  4·969

  4·673

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  6·800

  7·867

  1·211

  2 31·105

  Horticultural Development Council

  1·965

  3·219

  nil

  nil

  Horticulture Research International

  17·586

  21·887

  14·395

  20·448

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  48·488

  49·264

  10·838

  39·622

  Royal Botanic Gardens

  18·926

  20·456

  14·564

  16·826

  Sea Fisheries Industry Authority

  8·675

  9·208

  4·032

  2·652

  Wine Standards Board

  0·379

  0·355

  0·162

  0·155

  1 1 October 1989–30 September 1990=£9·975 million and 1 October 1990–31 March 1992=£14·053 million. Not indexed to 1992–93 price levels.

  2 All but £100,000 (-VAT) was paid in respect of agency work, which the HCGA carries out on behalf of IBEA.

  3 Includes expenditure funded by and MAFF the Intervention Board executive agency.

  Forests (Access)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the average cost to English local authorities for each access agreement for privatised Forestry Commission land;

  (2) what assessment has been made of the cost to English local authorities of access agreements for privatised Forestry Commission land.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: The Forestry Commission recently wrote to all 45 county councils in England asking, among other things, for an estimate of the costs they incurred in making access arrangements. Thirty-three county councils replied, but only two completed the answer on cost; one estimated the cost at £100, the other at £1,000.

WALES

  Earth Tremors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the last four years, and for the current year to date(a) the location and (b) the Richter scale measurement of earth tremors that have occurred; and what structural damage was reported.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has placed the information requested in the Library of the House. The British Geological Survey has located 1,478 earthquakes in the United Kingdom and its offshore area in the period January 1990 to mid-February 1994. Two of these, at Bishop's Castle on 2 April 1990 and at Caernarfon on 19 July 1992, caused slight damage in Wales.

  Capital receipts from the sales of council houses

  (£'000s)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,257

  3,723

  2,213

  1,078

  1,030

  Colwyn

  1,305

  1,025

  705

  378

  379

  Delyn

  1,070

  1,928

  1,332

  894

  806

  Glyndwr

  1,875

  1,933

  868

  471

  524

  Rhuddlan

  1,541

  1,413

  832

  535

  362

  Wrexham Maelor

  4,433

  10,385

  4,328

  3,191

  2,759

  Carmarthen

  1,549

  1,793

  1,651

  1,182

  1,040

  Ceredigion

  2,291

  3,133

  1,843

  1,288

  1,565

  Dinefwr

  1,198

  1,153

  1,163

  600

  450

  Llanelli

  3,258

  3,317

  2,336

  2,060

  1,489

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  3,137

  4,214

  2,333

  1,485

  1,774

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,745

  1,938

  1,124

  829

  516

  650

  Housing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes were available for rent in Wales in 1984; and how many are currently available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of dwellings available for rent in Wales is published annually in "Welsh Housing Statistics". At 1 December 1984 there were estimated to be 378,000 dwellings available for rent in Wales; at 1 April 1993 there were 343,000. In the same period, 53,000 council tenants purchased their own homes and between 1 January 1985 and 30 April 1993, a total of 82,000 new homes were built in Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total income received by each district council from the sales of council houses in each of the past five years; what percentage of these has been reclaimed by his Department; and what is the projected figure, from each council, for the building of new council housing in the next financial year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on capital receipts for each local authority from the sale of council houses in each of the last five years is given in the following table. The Welsh Office does not reclaim capital receipts. These are used by local authorities to meet credit liabilities or for new capital spending in accordance with sections 59 and 60 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  The Welsh Office does not have complete information on local authority housing capital expenditure plans for 1994–95 following my right hon. Friend's announcement of capital allocations on 14 December 1993.
  651

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,932

  4,759

  2,163

  1,604

  1,031

  Islwyn

  4,118

  4,187

  1,325

  1,520

  1,124

  Monmouth

  4,097

  4,333

  2,252

  1,983

  1,613

  Newport

  6,972

  8,600

  2,744

  2,112

  1,881

  Torfaen

  7,170

  9,218

  4,653

  3,101

  3,311

  Aberconwy

  2,566

  3,242

  1,231

  874

  515

  Arfon

  2,085

  2,688

  1,204

  890

  669

  Dwyfor

  352

  498

  591

  239

  271

  Meirionnydd

  1,054

  1,207

  427

  406

  241

  Ynys Mon

  2,918

  3,757

  1,871

  1,011

  629

  Cynon Valley

  1,302

  1,542

  1,073

  879

  651

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,663

  2,944

  1,373

  712

  976

  Ogwr

  5,144

  5,992

  3,500

  2,503

  1,614

  Rhondda

  557

  742

  621

  340

  373

  Rhymney Valley

  3,023

  4,602

  3,440

  2,238

  1,885

  Taff Ely

  4,707

  6,180

  3,539

  2,667

  2,162

  Brecknock

  1,977

  2,088

  1,132

  780

  586

  Montgomeryshire

  1,864

  2,228

  1,080

  1,000

  878

  Radnorshire

  774

  908

  575

  440

  525

  Cardiff

  14,349

  16,819

  7,028

  5,361

  3,765

  Vale of Glamorgan

  5,755

  5,065

  2,253

  1,967

  2,006

  Port Talbot

  4,211

  5,204

  2,661

  2,377

  1,733

  Lliw Valley

  1,731

  2,966

  2,393

  1,331

  1,024

  Neath

  2,482

  3,043

  1,913

  1,279

  991

  Swansea

  8,467

  9,258

  4,200

  2,988

  1,986

  Total Districts

  118,929

  148,025

  75,971

  54,593

  45,134

  Source: Local authority returns.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of people suffering from diabetes(a) in Wales and (b) Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Health Planning Forum's report "Physical and Sensory Disability", which was published by the Welsh Office in November 1991, estimated that there were between 50,000 and 60,000 non-insulin-dependent diabetics in Wales. No estimate is available centrally of the number of people with insulin-dependent diabetes. There are no estimates of numbers of diabetics available centrally for areas within Wales.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the facilities, and consultant staff specifically available for the treatment of diabetes(a) within Wales, (b) within the Mid Glamorgan health authority and (c) within Merthy Tydfil and Rhymney.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details of facilities available in Wales for the treatment of diabetes are not held centrally. Much treatment of diabetic patients is undertaken by general practitioners. The Welsh Medical Committee produced a report "Diabetes Care in Wales—Service Provisions and Recommendations" in 1991, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. It demonstrates that all district general hospitals in Wales have consultant physician staff with a special interest in diabetes.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many consultative circulars have been issued by his Department under the terms of the Education Act 1993, on the matter of pupils with educational problems; how many were in the Welsh language; whether he expects 652
  Welsh-medium schools or Welsh-speaking teachers, school governors or education administrators to respond to these circulars in English; and if he will make a statement on the policy of his Department in these matters.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department has issued for consultation with local education authorities, teacher associations and other organisations draft circulars on the development of special schools, on the organisation of special educational provision and on pupils with problems. In addition, the Department has issued a consultation paper on the special education needs tribunal and on the draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. The draft code of practice has been made available in both the English and Welsh languages. As is our general policy, those wishing to write to the Department may do so in either English or Welsh.

  The Department's policy has been to issue circulars of guidance on education matters simultaneously in both the English and Welsh languages, whenever possible. However, there have been occasions when it has not been possible to obtain a Welsh translation to allow those being consulted sufficient time to consider the proposals. In order to give them this, it has been necessary to issue a document in English only.

  As with all Welsh Office documents which go to schools, the final versions of these circulars will issue in both languages.

  The Department's policies and practices as regards services for users of the Welsh language are currently being reviewed in the light of the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Department will publish, in due course, following consultation, a scheme having regard to the statutory guidelines of the Welsh Language Board as approved by Parliament.
  653

  Bird Killing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has, by species, of the number of raptors killed in Wales, in each of the last three years, by(a) shooting, (b) poisoning or (c) other means.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Shot

  Poisoned

  Other

  Shot

  Poisoned

  Other

  Shot

  Poisoned

  Other

  Sparrowhawk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  4

  Merlin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Barn Owl

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Common Buzzard

  0

  1

  25

  2

  1

  14

  0

  4

  13

  Kestrel

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  3

  Goshawk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Peregrine Falcon

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Long-Eared Owl

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Tawny Owl

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Red Kite

  0

  1

  3

  0

  6

  1

  0

  3

  3

  Dentists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dental practitioners in the whole of Dwyfor and Arfon areas are taking on patients on the NHS; and if he will take urgent action to ensure an adequate supply of dentists in this area.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are six general dental practitioners in the Dwyfor and Arfon areas who are taking on new NHS patients, four of whom are accepting only children. The Secretary of State has given permission to the family health services authority to employ up to four whole-time-equivalent salaried dentists to ensure the availability of NHS dental services. At present there is one part-time peripatetic salaried dentist in post.

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will recommend that St. David's day be designated a bank holiday and a national holiday in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Rechar Programme
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the projects and their cost covered by the Rechar programme to date in(a) the Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency and (b) South Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  A548
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to upgrade the A548 between Bagillt and Mostyn, Clwyd.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This is a matter for Clwyd county council as the local highway authority.
  654
  Mr. Redwood
  The information available to the Department is shown in the following table:

  Transport Policy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives the Welsh Office has launched in the last 10 years to increase public awareness about the social, economic and environmental effects of transport policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Policy and activities have been set out in editions of "Roads in Wales", the annual departmental report, "This Common Inheritance" and annual progress reports, "Sustainable Development—The UK Strategy" and in various planning policy guidance notes.

  NHS Pay Review Bodies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning pay review bodies as they affect the national health service in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The role played by the national health service review bodies in setting national pay rates for the staff groups within their remits will be kept under review having regard to developments in the extension of local pay determination by national health service trusts.

  Smoking
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in the last five years in reducing the number of people who smoke.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Provisional analysis of the 1993 health in Wales survey carried out by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales suggests that the number of adults aged 18 to 64 who smoke daily has decreased from 27·9 per cent. to 24·5 per cent. for women and from 31·8 per cent. to 27 per cent. for men in the five years 1988 to 1993.

  Cancer Treatment Centre, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the cancer treatment centre at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd to be on stream; how many professional staff will be employed; and what is the likely cost.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The project team established to manage the development of the cancer treatment centre at
  655
  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd is undertaking the detailed planning process which will identify staffing and other costs and a timetable.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretry of State for Wales what discussions he has had with health authorities in north-west England concerning the likely impact upon cancer treatment centres in Wirral, Merseyside and Manchester consequent upon the eventual opening of the treatment centre at Ystyby Glan Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The decision to develop a cancer treatment centre in north Wales was taken following extensive examination and consultation with interested or affected organisations, including Merseyside and northwestern regional health authorities and Wirral district health authority.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he expects to publish the indicative budgets for the Welsh training and enterprise councils; and what proposals he has for improving accountability in the training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office is finalising contracts with TECs for 1994–95 budgets and the information is not yet available.

  The Government have decided that TEC level information should be released publicly only after the beginning of the contracting year. The information must remain commercial in confidence while TECs are negotiating with their providers. The information requested on allocations for 1994–95 will therefore be publicly available on 1 October 1994.

  TECs are companies limited by guarantee and subject to the audit provisions of the Companies Acts 1985 to 1989. They are also subject to internal audit, and to further audit scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the European Court of Auditors. The Welsh Office contracts with TECs each year through operating agreements which set out additional requirements of accountability, including the preparation of published reports and arrangements for public meetings.

  Cathays Park
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the occupation of the office space to be vacated in the Cathays park II section of the Crown buildings, Cathays park by the departure of NCM Credit Insurance Ltd. and the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  The NCM is due to vacate the building by 31 March 1995 but, before final decisions can be taken about potential reuse of the space it now occupies, during the next financial year it will be necessary for my Department to carry out detailed option and investment appraisals.

  The ECGD is continuing in occupation although it has recently vacated space following a reduction in staff numbers. Taking advantage of this, plans are now being finalised to relocate the training enterprise and educational department from Companies House.
  656

  Mostyn Docks
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now announce his decision relating to the planning consent at Mostyn docks.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 15 February,Official Report, column 762.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect on job prospects in Clwyd of a refusal of planning permission for the Mostyn dock planning application in Mostyn, Clwyd.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All material considerations, including the effect on employment in the area, will be taken into account in the consideration of the planning application.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had in relation to the appointment of Sir Richard Lloyd Jones as chairman of the Welsh Arts Council; and what account he took of the views of the Committee of Public Accounts in relation to the conduct of Welsh Office non-departmental public bodies prior to confirming the appointment.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received no representations on this matter.

  In making the appointment, I took account of relevant considerations. Sir Richard will make an excellent chairman.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to issue guidelines on the publication of the political affiliations of the appointees to non-departmental public bodies; what proposals he has to make such publication retrospective; what proposals he has to extend such publication of affiliations to the Masonic Order; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Youth Training Schemes
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide an up-to-date table showing for Wales and the counties of Wales for each year from 1989, the number of places on youth training schemes and the number of people who have been waiting for over eight weeks for a place.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of filled youth training places in Wales at March of each year since 1989 and the figure for December 1993 are shown in table A. Statistics are collected by TEC area, not by county.

  In every year since 1989 there has been sufficient funding available to provide youth training places for all of those who sought them. Demand for youth training places fell by 35 per cent. between March 1989 and December 1993 because numbers of young people attaining school leaving age dropped by 16 per cent., and the proportion of those staying on in full-time education increased from 35 per cent. to over 60 per cent. in that period.
  657
  The number of young people in each TEC area who had been waiting eight weeks or more for a place on youth training as at January 1993 and January 1994 are shown in table B. Figures for earlier years are not available, as the first count was in September 1992. Figures are not collected on a county basis.

  Table A

  Number filled youth training places in Wales 1989–93

  Numbers

  March 1989

  23,779

  March 1990

  22,665

  March 1991

  16,352

  March 1992

  16,180

  March 1993

  14,129

  December 1993

  15,409

  Table B

  Number waiting eight weeks or more for YT place

  14 January 1993

  13 January 1994

  Gwent

  43

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  111

  123

  North East Wales

  77

  9

  North West Wales

  65

  23

  Powys

  17

  14

  South Glamorgan

  59

  4

  West Wales

  17

  28

  Total

  389

  204

  St. Quintin's Castle
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in securing the future of St. Quintin's castle, Llanblethian, near Cowbridge.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we have secured the owner's agreement to place this monument in state care through a guardianship agreement with the Secretary of State.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what representation the Welsh Office has in the Invest in Britain Bureau.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Invest in Britain Bureau is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The bureau works in close partnership with Welsh Development International and other territorial and regional bodies to promote inward investment to the United Kingdom. WDI is also represented on the interdepartmental committee on overseas promotion which co-ordinates the United Kingdom's inward investment promotional activities.

TRANSPORT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the members currently appointed to the London Regional Transport board.

  Mr. Norris
  The names and positions of the members of the board of London Regional Transport are listed below:
  658
  EXECUTIVE MEMBERS

  Chairman

  Sir Wilfrid Newton CBE

  Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive

  Dr. Alan Watkins

  Mr. Anthony Sheppeck

  Mr. Denis Tunnicliffe

  NON-EXECUTIVE MEMBERS

  Vice-Chairman

  Mr. David Thompson

  Mr. Oscar Roith

  Mr. Keith Brown

  Mrs. Helen Robinson

  Mr. J. Keith Davies

  Sir Alan Bailey

  Mr. Robert Dorey

  Mrs. Rosemary Day

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993", including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Mr. Norris
  Additional public appointments made by my right hon. Friend are:

  Acting Conservator of the River Mersey;

  The Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Driving and Alcohol and Drug Misuse—chairman and four members;

  The Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Driving and Disorders of the Cardiovascular System—chairman and six members;

  The Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Driving and Diabetes—chairman and six members;

  The Honorary Medical Advisory Panel on Driving and Disorders of the Nervous System—chairman and 10 members; and

  Some chairmen and from one to 10 members of 17 port authorities and harbour boards.

  My right hon. Friend also appoints the rail regulator and the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, both of whom head non-ministerial Government Departments.

  My right hon. Friend appoints external members of executive agencies advisory boards. Currently there are seven such members:

  Driving Standards Agency (1)

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (3)

  Transport Research Laboratory (1)

  Vehicle Certification Agency (1)

  Vehicle Inspectorate executive agency (1)

  He expects to be making appointments of external members to the advisory boards of the Highways Agency, the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency which are due to be established on 1 April 1994.

  City of London Traffic Restrictions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive an application to make permanent the current traffic restrictions being operated by the City of London.

  Mr. Norris
  The matter is currently being considered by the Corporation of the City of London. Under schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985, if an objection from an adjacent London borough is made to the City's draft traffic regulation order the matter will be referred to the Secretary of State for him to determine.
  659

  A12
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that work will start to improve the safety of the verges along the central reservation of the A12 between Witham and Marks Tey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Witham bypass is our top priority for a verge improvement scheme and works should start here this summer. Similar improvements between Feering and Marks Tey will follow on from this initial scheme. Further announcements will be made at the time contracts are due to be let.

  Severn Tunnel Fire and Collision
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he now expects publication of the findings and report of the inquiry into the Severn tunnel fire and collision 1991; what proposals he has for making a statement or issuing the Government's response to it; and if he will place a copy of the report's findings and his response in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer to my replies given to the questions by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on 25 February,Official Report, columns 465–66.

  Blackwall Third Crossing
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement about the Blackwall third crossing.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply on Monday 21 February 1994 to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), Official Report, column 77.

  Ministerial Instructions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions since 1979 when Ministers have issued written instructions to override his Department's accounting officer's objections.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: From records currently available, no formal directions have been issued since 1979.

  London Underground Ltd.
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial constraint. Her Majesty's Government have placed on contracts between London Underground Ltd. and a supplier of passenger rolling stock, which would delay the date on which that stock would otherwise enter into service in London, whether under the ownership of London Underground or any other body or company; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: It is for London Transport and London Underground Ltd. to decide on the timing of the acquisition of rolling stock. Such decisions may be subject to scrutiny or approval by the Secretary of State to ensure that they are appropriate and represent value for money.
  660

SCOTLAND

  Waverley Rail Line
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what feasibility study has been commissioned into reopening the Waverley rail line running through the Borders; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No feasibility study into the reopening of the Waverley line has been commissioned by the Scottish Office. Decisions on the reinstatement of the line are a matter for the appropriate track authority.

  Forestry
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the forestry review group will consider ways that forestry policy can be adapted to deliver social as well as economic and environmental benefits and to meet the needs of rural communities; and if it will make recommendations on this subject;

  (2) whether the forestry review group will review the appropriateness of the current allocation of the Forestry Commission's research budget as between its economic, social and environmental objectives; and if it will make recommendations on this subject;

  (3) if he will ask the interdepartmental review group on forestry to consider the economic, environmental and social benefits to be derived from allowing independent certification of Forest Enterprise managed forests.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No. None of these matters falls within the terms of the reference of the forestry review group.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Scretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement giving the reasons why the Scottish Office has introduced the revised fee scale for planning permission applications.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government's policy is to achieve full recovery of planning authorities' costs for handling planning applications. Accordingly, fee scales are subject to regular review and, as part of that exercise, are assessed against the most recent information on costs and income available from planning authorities. The latest returns indicate that the recovery rate in Scotland is around 51 per cent. My right hon. Friend, therefore, decided to seek parliamentary approval for the increases introduced in January 1994, to be followed by further increases in January 1995.

  Sheriff Court Fees
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research was conducted prior to the Sheriff Court Fees (Amendment) Order 1993 into the future numbers of those raising or defending court actions and the costs of administration to the Scottish legal aid system; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: Estimates of the future workload of the civil business of the sheriff courts are used to generate the

  661
  memorandum trading account which indicates the income required from court fees. The implications of the revised fees for the Scottish legal aid fund were taken into account during the public expenditure round.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the hourly rate for work carried out under the civil legal aid scheme; and what provision is there for uplift to be applied in the hourly rates of remuneration.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: The rates are governed by the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Regulations 1989. Current rates are set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Amendment Regulations 1992, SI 1992/372, copies of which are in the Library. The regulations also make provision for the circumstances where an uplift may be granted and for the circumstances in which disputes as to the amount of fees allowable may be referred for taxation by the auditor.

  Sport and Recreation
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet issued a draft national policy guideline on sport and recreation containing further guidance on the implicatons of the Taylor report, as indicated in his answer of 27 October 1992,Official Report,column 582; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: A draft national planning policy guideline on sport and recreation has not yet been issued, but we plan to issue a consultation draft to all interested parties in the course of the coming year.

  We will also be issuing shortly a further guidance circular dealing with the safety of terracing at football grounds where clubs outwith the Premier Division have opted to retain standing accommodation.

  Salmon
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from representatives of the Scottish salmon farming industry on competition in the European Union salmon market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: Both I and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture and the environment in Scotland have received numerous written representations from the Scottish farmed salmon industry. We have also met representatives of the industry on several occasions in an effort to address the present market imbalance between supply and demand. Following my hon. Friend's meeting with the Norwegian Fisheries Minister on 18 February, my Department is arranging a meeting between representatives of the Scottish and Norwegian industries to discuss the position.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department received a copy of the report produced by Ernst and Young on competition in the European Union salmon market; and what has been his reponse.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: I received a copy of the Ernst and Young report on 9
  662
  February, whereupon my Department advised the Scottish Salmon Growers Association to forward a copy to the European Commission for its consideration and possible action.

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in each of the last four years fish farming applications to the Crown Estate have been referred to the independent advisory committee.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: In the last four years two applications to the Crown Estate have been referred to the Fish Farming Advisory Committee, one in 1990 and one in 1991.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the present members of the independent advisory committee established to assist the Crown Estate in dealing with fish farming applications which give rise to special difficulties.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: The present members of the Fish Farming Advisory Committee are:

  Chairman:

  Professor George Dunnet

  Deputy Chairman:

  Mr. Alan McMillan

  Other Members—Representatives of:

  Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Highland River Purification Board

  Clyde River Purification Board

  Argyll and Bute District Council

  Highland Regional Council

  Western Isles Islands Council

  Orkney Islands Council

  Scottish Natural Heritage
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what public relations company is employed by Scottish Natural Heritage; how much money was paid to them this financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Scottish Natural Heritage does not employ a public relations company.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) wind farms and (b) propellors (i) have been constructed, (ii) have been approved and (iii) are pending.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy as regards the construction of wind farms; and what circulars he has issued to local planning authorities.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: The Government's policy is to stimulate the development of renewable energy sources, including wind power, wherever they have the prospect of being economically

  663
  attractive and environmentally acceptable. Such developments should contribute to diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies. In June 1993, a national planning policy guideline "Renewable Energy" and a planning advice note "Wind Energy Developments" were issued in draft to planning authorities in Scotland. We plan to issue finalised guidelines later this year.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Police Advisory Board for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: The members are:
  Chairman

  The Rt. Hon. The Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, Minister for Health and Home Affairs

  Nominated by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Councillor G. Bird, Fife Regional Council

  Councillor E. B. Fallon, Lothian Regional Council

  Councillor A. C. Ferguson, Strathclyde Regional Council

  Councillor J. Jennings, Strathclyde Regional Council

  Councillor R. B. Martin, Lothian Regional Council

  Councillor J. P. Robison, Strathclyde Regional Council

  Councillor B. A. Topping, Grampian Regional Council

  Mr. J. Raymund McCluskey, Assistant Secretary, COSLA

  Nominated by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland

  Dr. I. T. Oliver QPM, President, Chief Constable, Grampian Police

  Mr. H. W. C. MacMillan QPM, Vice President, Chief Constable, Northern Constabulary

  Sir W. G. M. Sutherland QPM, Honorary Secretary and Treasurer, Chief Constable, Lothian and Borders Police

  Mr. W. Wilson QPM, Chief Constable, Central Scotland Police

  Nominated by the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents

  Chief Superintendent J. Johnstone, President

  Chief Superintendent J. Urquhart, Honorary Secretary

  Nominated by the Scottish Police Federation

  Constable J. Fraser, Chairman

  Constable D. Keil, General Secretary

  Sergeant D. McHugh, Lothian and Borders Police

  Sergeant S. Falconer, Tayside Police

  Inspector J. McDonald, Tayside Police

  Inspector W. Stevenson, Grampian Police

  Independent Members appointed by the Secretary of State

  Mr. Y. Ali OBE, Managing Director of AA Brothers, Glasgow

  Mrs. M. Esslemont, Facilities and Services Co-ordinator, Conoco (UK) Ltd.

  Ms J. Freeman, Director, Apex Scotland

  Mrs. P. V. Hayden, Managing Director, Hayden Entertainment and Leisure Ltd., Inverness

  Mrs. L. McKay, Depute Principal, Glenrothes College

  Secretary

  Mr. B. J. O'Connor, Scottish Office Home and Health Department

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace, Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: The current membership of the Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace is:

  The Right Hon. Lord Ross (Chairman)

  Councillor Mrs. H. Biggins

  Sir David Butter, KCVO, MC

  Councillor A. M. Craig

  Councillor Mrs. V. J. Crerar

  664

  Mr. J. C. Gordon

  Sir William Gray

  Mr. J. Henry

  Mr. J. Henshelwood

  Councillor Mrs. L. Hinds

  Councillor D. C. Leslie

  Mr. A. E. McIlwain, CBE

  Provost B. M. C. Milne

  Mr. W. W. Milne

  Mr. D. R. Smith

  Viscount Thurso

  Professor D. Walker CBE

  Mrs. P. Wallace

  Councillor F. W. Welsh

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what statistics are available on the level of infertility treatment available in Scotland; and what plans he has to collect further data;

  (2) if he will list the regional health boards which provide infertility treatment (a) under the national health service, (b) under the national health service to men and (c) privately; and if he will list the establishments which have contracted with the boards to provide such treatment.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: All health boards purchase infertility services. The table gives the number of in-patient and day case treatments and investigations for female infertility in NHS hospitals in 1992. Infertility services are also provided in primary care settings. Information on male infertility services and on private providers is not held centrally.

  The management executive is currently reviewing the collection of data on infertility services.

  Hospital

  Number of Discharges

  Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

  742

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  505

  Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh

  458

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  332

  Crosshouse Hospital, Kilmarnock

  253

  Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow

  206

  Monklands District General Hospital, Lanarkshire

  190

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  179

  Royal Alexandra Hospital (Aka Paisley DGH)

  169

  Glasgow Western Infirmary

  144

  Southern General Hospital, Glasgow

  132

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary, Dumfries

  118

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  108

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital, Greenock

  107

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  106

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  96

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  95

  Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride, Lanarkshire

  93

  Law Hospital, Carluke, Lanarkshire

  86

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital, Dumbartonshire

  85

  Eastern General Hospital, Edinburgh

  77

  St. John's at Howden, West Lothian

  74

  Borders General Hospital

  64

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  61

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  60

  Caithness General Hospital

  49

  Roodlands General Hospital, East Lothian

  22

  Other

  58

  TOTAL

  4,669

  Note: Hospitals with 20 or fewer discharges have been grouped with 'Other'.
  665

  Roads, Highland Region
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Highland regional council about grant-aided expenditure for road maintenance in the highland region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: The convener and officials of Highland regional council have made representations about this matter. The 1994–95 grant-aided expenditure assessment for road maintenance was allocated to regional and islands authorities in accordance with the methodology agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the change in income tax in 1994–95 against the 1978–79 indexed regime broken down into the top 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent. and bottom 50 per cent. of taxpayers showing the total and the average change.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This calculation produces the figures in table A. But the comparison is hypothetical since if an indexed version of the 1978–79 tax regime had prevailed over the last 14 years the income base would not have grown in the way it has.

  Table A

  Calculations using the 1994 income base

  Quantile group of taxpayers under the 1978–78 indexed regime

  Number of taxpayers

  Reduction in tax

  Average reduction

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  £ million

  £

  Top 1

  300

  10,200

  38,000

  Top 5

  1,300

  13,900

  10,400

  Top 10

  2,700

  16,300

  6,100

  Bottom 50

  13,400

  4,300

  320

  All taxpayers

  26,800

  31,400

  1,170

  In contrast to these hypothetical figures, table B shows how the share of income tax actually paid by high income groups has risen since 1979, while the share of the income tax burden borne by low income tax payers has fallen.

  Table B

  Calculations using the income base for each year

  Per cent.

  Share of income tax in:

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  1978–79

  1994–95

  Top 1

  11

  17

  Top 5

  24

  34

  Top 10

  35

  45

  Bottom 50

  18

  13

  All taxpayers

  100

  100

  666

  Overseas Ownership
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 787, what is his estimate of the amount by which output and employment would have increased if the goods and services acquired by overseas residents for £91 billion had remained under British ownership and control.

  Mr. Portillo
  Direct inward investment in the United Kingdom can involve either the purchase of existing assets or investment in new plant and machinery. Decisions to locate production in the United Kingdom are an endorsement of the skills and productivity of United Kingdom workers and recognition that the United Kingdom is a good place to do business.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 787, what is his estimate for the latest two years of the amount of tax paid on the £91 billion together with (a) the reduction in the wealth of the United Kingdom as a result of the profit and know-how element accruing to the foreign owners and (b) the reduction in output and employment in technology as a result of foreign control.

  Mr. Portillo
  Investment itself does not generally attract tax—apart from transaction taxes. Estimates of the United Kingdom taxes paid on profits due abroad can be found in table 5·1 of the Blue Book. For the latest two years the figures are £3,960 million in 1991 and £3,498 million in 1992.

  The presence of foreign-owned firms strengthens competition and encourages innovation in the United Kingdom. Inward investment increases or safeguards employment and output.

  Value Added Tax
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to repay VAT that has already been levied on sports clubs' membership subscriptions in breach of article 13A.1(m) of the EC sixth VAT directive.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and Excise will invite claims from non-profit-making clubs registered for VAT for a refund of any net overpayment of VAT since 1 January 1990 once the new VAT exemption has been implemented. Copies of an information paper giving further details and including a draft Treasury order have been placed in the Library.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 787, what is his estimate of amount of income earned on the £122 billion invested abroad in the latest two years for which an estimate is reasonably possible; how much of that income was remitted to the United Kingdom and how much United Kingdom tax was paid on (a) both gross earnings and (b) the net remittal; and what is his estimate of (i) the amount by which the income and wealth of the United Kingdom would have increased if the £122 billion had been invested in the United Kingdom and (ii) the amount of tax which would have been collected thereon.

  Mr. Portillo
  Estimates of the earnings by United Kingdom residents are published in table 5.2 of the Pink
  667
  Book. In the last two years the figures were £12,773 million in 1991 and £14,077 million in 1992. The amount of income remitted back to the United Kingdom is shown in the same table. Estimates of the United Kingdom taxes paid on income earned abroad, whether or not remitted to this country, are not available.

  It is unclear what the level of United Kingdom income and wealth would be if there were no direct investment overseas or inward investment to the United Kingdom. But the implied interference with decisions made by companies and individuals suggests that they would both be considerably lower.

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the objective of the Government's economic policies.

  Mr. Nelson
  The overall objective of the Government's economic policy is to promote sustained economic growth and higher living standards.

  Economic Recovery
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which sectors of the economy the recovery has taken place; and what criteria he has used in judging that these sectors have recovered.

  Mr. Portillo
  The recovery has proceeded across a broad front. Since the trough of the recession in the first quarter of 1992 the manufacturing, energy and service sectors, which together comprise over 90 per cent. of gross domestic product, have all shown sustained rises in output.

  Inspectors of Taxes
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he adopts for assessing the performance-related pay of inspectors of taxes; and when they were adopted.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under a performance management system introduced in 1992 each inspector of taxes, in common with other staff in the Inland Revenue, draws up with his/her line manager an annual performance agreement which excludes measurement in terms of individual amounts of tax assessed on or collected from taxpayers. His/her achievement against the agreement is assessed into one of three categories of performance. This determined performance pay awards for Inland Revenue staff in August 1993. A similar process will take place in April 1994 for 1994 performance pay.

  Staff Transfers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the schemes his Department operates to assist staff facing financial hardship following a transfer, showing(a) the particular criteria and rules applying to each one, including the circumstances under which any loans can be written off, (b) the total amount loaned or granted under the schemes in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94 and (c) the number of staff assisted in 1992–93 and so far in 1993–94.

  Mr. Nelson
  When staff have to relocate as a result of the needs of the Department, assistance is given to meet 668
  reasonable costs involved in relocation, including the cost of professional fees, stamp duty and removals. In addition, payments may be made to cover the cost of bridging finance taken to purchase a new property. Where an officer experiences difficulty in selling his existing property and this results in financial hardship the Department may:

  1. relax the conditions attached to advances of salary;

  2. base additional housing costs allowance (AHCA) on actual price differentials rather than average prices;

  3. relax the conditions attached to payment of housing cost supplements (HCS);

  4. as a last resort write off part of the bridging loan after sale.

  Each individual case is assessed the treated on its own merits.

  For 1992–93 and 1993–94 the number of cases where write-off action has been taken is:

  1992–93 1 case £4,850 written off

  1993–94 1 case £4,000 written off

  Energy Management Systems
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investment his Department has made in energy management systems; and what economies in public expenditure have resulted over the past two years.

  Sir John Cope
  The building management system in the Treasury building in Parliament street is currently being enhanced at a cost of £11,000. When completed, this will allow accurate monitoring of energy usage and should lead to economies.

  Tobacco Taxation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution to Treasury finance is made by taxation from tobacco consumed by children under 16 years of age in the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Cope
  It is estimated by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that around 842 million cigarettes are smoked each year by children between the ages of 11 and 15 in the United Kingdom. The excise duty on that number of cigarettes is about £65 million.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 356, what is his estimate of the numbers of additional income tax payers aged over 65 years in 1994–95, over the figures for 1992–93, as a result of freezing the rate of age-related personal allowances in two years; and how much extra income tax will be raised as a result.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 14 February 1994]: Compared with indexing the 1992–93 personal allowance for those aged 65 or over to 1994–95 levels by reference to the statutory formula, the revenue yield from leaving this allowance unchanged in the last two Budgets is £140 million and about 160,000 more people will pay tax. If account is also taken of the effect of changes in the level of the married couple's allowance for those aged 65 or over, then about 140,000 more people will pay tax than would do so under statutory indexation of all allowances. However, 200,000 elderly couples on low incomes gain as a result of increasing the age-related MCA. Since 1979, pensioners' average income has increased by 42 per cent.

  669
  By April 1994, pensioners in receipt of income support will have seen their incomes rise by at least 11 per cent. since April 1992.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what working definition of separate property is used by his Department for the purposes of assessing council tax; and whether granny annexes are liable for a separate charge to the house in which they are contained.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: The view taken by the Valuation Office agency is that for council tax purposes separate living accommodation does not necessarily mean accommodation which can be sold separately from the main building but rather a unit which has all the necessary facilities to allow it to be used as separate accommodation—for example, living and sleeping space, washing and cooking facilities and WC located within a single area.

  Any annexe satisfying this test, whether or not it is a granny annexe, is required to be banded and is liable to a separate charge from the house within which it is self-contained.

DEFENCE

  Royal Naval Auxiliary Service, Yeovilton
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will consider the viability of transferring any overload of RNAS Yeovilton's capacity to RAF Chivenor;

  (2) what assessment he has made into RNAS Yeovilton's capacity to take squadrons from RNAS Portland.

  Mr. Hanley
  As part of the defence cost study, "Front Line First", my Department is examining the scope for further rationalisation of the defence estate, including naval support infrastructure, to enable reductions to be made in support costs.

  It is too early to speculate on the outcome of these studies.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to locate the Royal Navy's EH101 helicopters at RNAS Yeovilton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no current plans to locale the EH101 at RNAS Yeovilton.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Fleet Air Arm squadrons based at RNAS Yeovilton.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Fleet Air Arm squadrons based at RNAS Yeovilton are Nos. 845, 846 and 707.

  Name

  From whom seconded

  Duration of secondment

  Sir Ronald Ellis

  Bus Manufacturers Holding Co.

  September 1976 to September 1981

  Sir James Blyth

  Lucas Aerospace

  October 1981 to 1985

  J. P. Weston

  British Aerospace

  April 1982 to 1985

  G. Dawson

  Scicon

  November 1982 to October 1984

  A. F. J. Barrow

  Lloyds Bank

  November 1983 to 1985

  R. D. Douglas

  Rolls Royce plc

  October 1984 to October 1986

  Sir Colin Chandler

  British Aerospace

  1985 to September 1989

  670

  Royal Naval Auxiliary Service, Portland
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Fleet Air Arm squadrons based at RNAS Portland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Fleet Air Arm squadrons based at RNAS Portland are Nos. 702, 772 and 815.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what currency defence purchases by the Malaysian Government under the 1988 memorandum of understanding are made; how the rate of exchange between the United Kingdom and Malaysian currency is determined; and whether payments can be or have been deferred.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for the customer and the supplier.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions under the 1988 memorandum of understanding the Malaysian Government have rejected the recommendation of contractors put forward by GEC or British Aerospace.

  Mr. Aitken
  The choice of supplier is a matter for the customer. My Department does not make such recommendations.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the individuals who have resigned for the Defence Export Services Organisation since 1979 in order to take up employment with a defence contractor; and if he will name the defence contractor in each case.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information is not available for the period before January 1990. Since then, two members of the Defence Export Services Organisation resigned, in 1992, to take up employment with Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. and Short Bros. Ltd. respectively.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present establishment of the Defence Export Services Organisation; if he will list those individuals who have been seconded from the private sector to the Defence Export Services Organisation since 1979; and what were the lengths and dates of such secondments and the company or organisation from which each individual was seconded.

  Mr. Aitken
  The total establishment of the Defence Export Services Organisation is 707. This includes marketing, military and project management staff together with staff engaged in disposals and export policy. Records before 1981 are incomplete, but show that the following individuals have been seconded from the private sector to the DESO since 1979:
  671

  Name

  From whom seconded

  Duration of secondment

  P. Curry

  Morgan Grenfell

  1986 to February 1988

  H. L. Meyers

  Rolls Royce plc

  November 1986 to July 1989

  G. W. Findlay

  Grindlays Bank plc

  February 1988 to February 1990

  D. J. Hastie

  British Aerospace

  April 1988 to October 1989

  S. Brett

  British Aerospace

  August 1988 to August 1989

  S. Barker

  Westland Helicopters

  July 1989 to July 1991

  A. J. Barron

  Midland Montague

  May 1990 to November 1991

  Sir Alan Thomas

  Raytheon

  July 1989 to date

  M. Faulkner

  Trafalgar House

  April 1992 to date

  D. Mitchell

  British Aerospace

  October 1993 to date

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify those employees who, since 1979, have left employment with a defence contractor in order to take up a post within the Defence Export Services Organisation; and if he will identify the contractor in each case.

  Mr. Aitken
  The only staff to join the Defence Export Services Organisation from defence contractors have been on short-term secondment.

  Army Bands
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answers of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 10 February,Official Report, column 485, and 22 February, Official Report, column 133, if he was aware that the uniformed band of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was performing at a Conservative party function when he delivered a speech at Ayton castle on 28 January; and what payment was received by the regiment from the Roxburgh and Berwickshire Conservative and Unionist Association for its performance.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence became aware when he arrived at the function that a uniformed band was playing. The band left before my right hon. and learned Friend gave his speech and was paid expenses of £182·42.

  Redundancy
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to improving the redundancy package available to members of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The terms of the redundancy package have been designed specifically to meet the requirements of the armed forces and compare very favourably with those offered by other employers. There is no need to improve them.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundancy applications he received from(a) officers and (b) soldiers during the third phase of the Army redundancy proposal.

  Mr. Hanley
  Some 792 officers and 6,942 soldiers who met the promulgated qualifying criteria applied to be considered for redundancy in the third phase of the Army's programme. Records of applications from other officers and soldiers who were ineligible for consideration are not available.
  672

  War Pensions
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of war pensions claims outstanding due to access being denied to records in offices closed due to the discovery of asbestos within them.

  Mr. Hanley
  Access to records required for the consideration of war pensions claims has been restored fully with effect from Monday 28 February 1994. There is a backlog of some 25,000 claims due to the closure of the archive and my Department will do its best to deal with them expeditiously.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for appropriate identity cards to be issued to war pensioners so as to enable them to make use of concessions offered both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  Mr. Hague
  I have been asked to reply.

  A card confirming the status of an individual as a war pensioner will be available on request from the war pensions unit by mid-1994.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Benevolent Fund
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the organisations located within the boundaries of Pendle borough council that have received grants from the Duchy's benevolent fund since 1974.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  To list the organisations within the boundaries of Pendle borough council that have received grants from the Duchy's benevolent fund since 1974 would entail disproportionate cost. However, figures available for 1993 are as follows:

  Invalids-at-Home:

  A grant of £150 to an invalid in Colne.

  A grant of £500 to a handicapped person in Barnoldswick.

  Lancashire Palatinate Fund:

  A grant of £64 to a handicapped person in Barnoldswick.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications for financial assistance from the benevolent fund recommended for acceptance by his principal advisers he has rejected in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have not rejected any applications for financial assistance from the Duchy benevolent fund recommended by my principal advisers; nor, according to records available, has any of my predecessors.
  673

  Duchy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when Sir Simon Towneley last attended a meeting of the Duchy Council.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 21 February 1994. I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on attendance at meetings of the Duchy Council on 23 February,Official Report, column 252. Sir Simon Towneley's name was omitted from that list in eror. His attendance record is 100 per cent.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 664, what specialist expertise is brought to the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster by the Lord-Lieutenant of Lancashire.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Sir Simon Towneley has a long record of public service to the county. He also has personal experience of estate management maters and has served for over 30 years as a member of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. His knowledge and experience range over a variety of relevant subjects and are of benefit to the Duchy Council.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider appointing to the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster one or more hon. Members who represent Lancashire constituencies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The Duchy is not a political institution and the Chancellor of the Duchy is not acting in a political capacity in the conduct of its affairs. Representation of a Lancashire constituency would not of itself constitute a criteria for membership of the Council.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he takes to ensure that members of the Duchy Council who are absent from meetings are kept abreast of matters coming before the Council and of its recommendations and advice to him.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Members of the Duchy Council receive a written report from the Duchy Office prior to meetings and minutes of the meetings after they have taken place.

  Lord-Lieutenant of Lancashire
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 976, how many individual meetings he has had with the Lord-Lieutenant of Lancashire; and when and where they took place.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have had no individual meetings with the Lord-Lieutenant of Lancashire.

  Agencies (Management)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the departmental management of agencies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The efficiency unit report "Making the Most of Next Steps", published in May 1991, made a number of proposals to carry forward the development of executive agencies in government. The Government 674
  welcomed the report and the clear principles of delegation to agencies combined with strategic management by Departments on behalf of Ministers which it set out. Since then much progress has been made by increasing and clarifying the accountability of agency chief executives and the flexibilities and discretion available to them, the use of open competition for chief executive posts, and improved target setting procedures. The next steps reviews in 1991, 1992 and 1993 have reported on progress in implementation.

  With a steadily increasing proportion of the civil service—now over 60 per cent.—working in executive agencies, the management of agencies and their working relationships with Ministers and Departments is increasingly important to the effective and efficient delivery of Government services. My Department, in consultation with the Treasury, therefore commissioned a study of these issues. The study was carried out by a French civil servant, Ms Sylvie Trosa, on secondment to the OPSS.

  Ms Trosa was asked to examine the organisational arrangements in Departments for advising Ministers on the strategic management of agencies, the effectiveness of these arrangements, in particular in relation to the setting of key targets and monitoring agency performance and to consider whether there was duplication or overlap between departments and agencies.

  The report concludes that, while next steps has made good progress, there is more to be done to ensure that maximum benefits are achieved from the delegated, clarified management arrangements that have been put in place. In addition to a full analysis of the current position, the report makes a number of detailed recommendations. I have asked the next steps project manager, in consultation with the Treasury, Departments and agencies, to consider Ms Trosa's findings and to prepare a detailed action plan for taking forward the report's recommendations.

  I warmly welcome the contribution agencies have made to improved standards of public services under the citizens charter. They have also contributed to the Government's policy of increased openness, through the publication of framework documents, key targets, reports and accounts. The Government have also published regular next steps reviews, reporting on progress within individual agencies and across government as a whole. I am today placing in the Library of the House a copy of this latest study, which is a useful and challenging examination of an important aspect of the next steps programme.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those non-governmental bodies in which absence from meetings over a specified period entails loss of membership.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In some cases, the legislation governing executive non-departmental public bodies gives Ministers the power to remove members from office if they have been absent from meetings without permission for longer than a specified period. However, we do not hold specific information on this issue centrally in relation to the position of each individual NDPB.
  675

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will produce a table showing the average gross weekly earnings in each standard region in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the average weekly earnings of employees in the standard regions of England, and in Scotland and Wales, is published in table X5 of part A of the 1993 new earnings survey.

  Corresponding information for Northern Ireland can be found in table 4(b) of the 1993 Northern Ireland new earnings survey.

  Copies of the reports are available in the Library.

  Working Single Mothers
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the typical take-home pay of a working single mother in a full-time job for the last year for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Average gross weekly earnings for full-time adult women are estimated to have been £252·60 in April 1993. If both the single person and lone parent tax allowances are applied to this figure it is estimated that the take home pay, after tax and national insurance, would have been £197·87.

  Source: New Earnings Survey (Employment Department).

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table showing the 20 highest paid occupations, the 20 lowest paid occupations and the earnings in each category.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information showing details of the earnings of employees by occupation is published in tables 8, 9 and X3 of part A of the 1993 new earnings survey. A copy of this is available in the Library.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the standardised rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom differs from that in(a) Germany and (b) the United States of America; and what factors account for the difference.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest standardised rates of unemployment published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for Germany, where unemployment is rising and for the United States of America and the United Kingdom, where unemployment is falling, are listed in the following table. Differences in unemployment rates are due to many factors and these factors vary in their effect from country to country. As mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member's other question on Japan, one of these factors is the particular point reached in a country's economic cycle.

  Standardised rate (seasonally adjusted)

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  29·9

  Germany1

  36·3

  United States of America

  26·6

  676
  1There are no standardised rates available for Unified Germany. Figures relate to what was the former Federal Republic of Germany and will be lower than for the Unified Germany.

  2January 1994.

  3December 1993.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what multiple the standardised rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom is of that of Japan; and what factors account for the extent of the difference.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest figures published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that the standardised rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom is about three and one third times greater than in Japan. Among other things, this comparison will be affected by the particular point in the economic cycle reached by each country. It should be noted that the United Kingdom's unemployment rate is falling while Japan's is rising.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how many the number of unemployed has risen since 1990; and when he expects the number to fall back to the 1990 level.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The extent of the available information is given in the following table. It has not been the policy of this or previous Governments to publish forecasts of unemployment, but since the beginning of last year seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment has fallen by 205,000. Since winter 1992–93 there has also been a fall in ILO unemployment. This fall has been reflected in the labour force survey from winter 1992–93 to summer.

  Seasonally adjusted unemployment levels

  (000s)

  1990

  Latest date

  Change in level

  United Kingdom claimant unemployment

  21,624

  42,788

  1,164

  Great Britain ILO unemployment1

  31,871

  52,865

  994

  1From the ED LFS—Standardised unemployment levels according to ILO definitions.

  2January.

  3Spring.

  4January 1994.

  5Summer 1993.

  Labour Statistics (Lewisham)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons in receipt of unemployment benefit within(a) the parliamentary constituency of Lewisham, East and (b) the borough of Lewisham have been unemployed for (i) more than six months, (ii) more than 12 months and (iii) more than two years; and what are the comparable figures for (1) men and (2) women for each month since February 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A count of the numbers of people claiming unemployment-related benefits, by duration, is available on the unadjusted basis only. Information for the months of January, April, July and October can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.
  677

  Astra Training
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements were made for the existing Government employees to be compensated for their accrued service when Astra Training was floated as a private concern.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At the time of the Skills Training Agency privatisation in 1990, Ministers were concerned to ensure that proper arrangements were made to preserve staffs' terms and conditions of employment when they moved to the private sector. The provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations were applied in full so as to ensure continuity of terms and conditions at the time of sale. As the regulations do not cover the transfer of pension rights—which, for civil servants, includes redundancy rights—separate arrangements were made for these. All purchasers of skillcentres, including Astra, were bound by the terms of sale to make pension provision broadly comparable to that applicable to the civil servants transferred to them. The terms of sale also provided that the staff would take with them a contractual right to redundancy compensation at civil service levels. Individual staff had a choice about how to deal with the pension entitlement they had earned as civil servants. They could leave their entitlement in the civil service scheme, to be drawn when they reached the normal retirement age; or they could opt to transfer the value of the pension earned in the civil service either to Astra's own pension scheme or to a personal pension scheme approved by the Inland Revenue. I understand that the vast majority of Astra staff chose the first option.

HEALTH

  NHS Administration
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of total NHS expenditure has been spent on the employment of managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff within the whole of the NHS in each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the cost of employing managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff in NHS hospitals in each of the last three years for which figures are available;

  (3) what was the total cost of employing managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff by (a) the regional health authorities, (b) the district health authorities and (c) the family health service authorities in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the tables. The figures need to be treated with caution. The number of managers has been deliberately increased since the mid-1980s—not just since the reforms—because the service was previously undermanaged. Much of the increase arises from the reclassification of existing staff, including many senior nurses, as managers. General and senior managers account for only 2 per cent. of the total national health service work force in England and 3 per cent. of the total NHS expenditure on salaries and wages. The number of administrative and clerical staff in clinically related posts has increased over the last few years in order to free clinical staff to concentrate their skills and experience on direct patient care.
  678

  Table 1: Proportion of total hospital and community health services expenditure on general and senior managers, G and SM, and administrative and clerical, A and C, staff

  Year

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Total Revenue Expenditure £000s

  14,709,704

  19,733,405

  20,756,848

  G and SM Salaries £000s

  251,474

  383,837

  494,111

  G and SM Salaries as Percentage Proportion of Total

  1·7

  1·9

  2·4

  A and C Salaries and Wages £000s

  1,187,029

  1,383,434

  1,499,557

  A and C Salaries and Wages as Percentage Proportion of Total

  8·1

  7·0

  7·2

  1 Provisional.

  Table 2: Expenditure on general and senior managers

  £000s

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Regional Health Authorities

  24,142

  46,922

  59,106

  District Health Authorities

  223,221

  277,179

  286,487

  SHAs

  4,111

  5,440

  7,933

  Total

  251,474

  329,541

  353,526

  1 Provisional.

  Table 3: Expenditure on administrative and clerical staff

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Regional Health Authorities

  122,372

  131,276

  109,104

  District Health Authorities

  1,042,144

  1,056,824

  903,911

  SHAs

  22,513

  26,757

  29,805

  Total

  1,187,029

  1,214,857

  1,042,820

  1 Provisional.

  Notes:

  1.Total revenue expenditure is of health authorities and trusts including hospital, community health, patient transport, blood transfusion and other services.

  2. Salaries and wages costs are the gross pay costs of directly employed staff including employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions.

  3. Accounts and financial returns of family health services authorities do not contain any breakdown of expenditure between staff groups.

  4. Salaries and wages costs for general and senior managers in trusts were £54·3 million in 1991–92 and £140·6 million in 1992–93.

  5. Salaries and wages costs for administrative and clerical staff in trusts were £168·6 million in 1991–92 and £456·7 million in 1992–93.

  Source: Annual accounts—1990–91—and annual financial returns—1991–92 and 1992–93—of regional and district health authorities, NHS trusts and special health authorities in England.

  Health Service Staff Cars
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year from 1990 the expenditure on staff cars for each(a) health authority and (b) NHS trust in England and Wales.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Figures for expenditure on staff cars by regional, district and special health authorities and trusts in England are available only for 1991–92 and 1992–93. These are shown in tables which will be placed in the Library. Lease cars may be allocated to employees who have to travel regularly on national health service business where it is deemed to be in the interest of the service. Under these arrangements, the employee contributes towards lease costs according to the amount of private mileage done. A large proportion of the staff cars are used by midwives, community nurses, health visitors, doctors
  679
  and other health professionals working in the community. This partly reflects the move away from hospital-based care as part of the care in the community programme.

  There are no separate data available centrally on "pool cars" which are available for business use but are parked overnight on the employer's premises.

  Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the reserve powers she has to intervene in national health service trusts; and when and how often she has used each power.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The powers of my right hon. Friend Secretary of State to make directions to national health service trusts are laid down in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, schedule 2, paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) and section 98(2) of the National Health Service Act 1977, as amended by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. These powers have been invoked as listed. Copies of the directions will be placed in the Library.

  Directions to NHS Trusts

  March 1991—Appointments of Consultant Medical and Dental Staff to NHS Trusts

  August 1991—Appointment of Speech Therapists

  November 1991—NHS Treatment of Overseas Visitors

  March 1992—Production of Accounts

  March 1993—Income Generation—Hospital and NHS Pharmacy Contracts

  May 1993—Appointments of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine to NHS Trusts

  May 1993—Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985—Procedures to be operated in respect of complaints by hospital patients.

  Psoriasis
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about new developments and research into causes and treatment of psoriasis; what is her estimate of the effect of these developments of the introduction of a limited list for treatment of this skin condition; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Current research is concerned with the immunology of psoriasis and the study of various immunological mediators and receptors. Research into treatment includes the possible use of genetically engineered antibodies to these mediators.

  The selected list scheme will not discourage the development of new medicines. The Advisory Committee on National Health Service drugs will not reject drugs which offer a therapeutic benefit and meet a real clinical need.

  Care Staff (Training)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to ensure that care staff responsible for assisting people with learning difficulties, who may also have behavioural problems, receive appropriate training.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department awarded grants totalling over £170,000 in 1992–93 to 1994–95 for projects to develop training courses and appropriate training materials 680
  for staff working with people with learning difficulties who also have behavioural problems. The Department's advisory group on behavioural disturbance and mental health services developments for people with learning disabilities will also be considering what, if anything, further needs to be done to ensure staff receive appropriate training.

  Hammersmith Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement concerning the future of Hammersmith hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on 10 February,Official Report, columns 458–72.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received concerning the future of Hammersmith hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  By 28 February 1994, the Department had received 91 inquiries about the future of the Hammersmith hospital.

  Limb Defects
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work the Medical Research Council is undertaking into the clusters of babies born with limb defects as described in the Department's press release of 11 February; which local health authorities are undertaking investigations of their own; and when she expects the results of these inquiries.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 28 January,Official Report, column 418.

  In response to some reports of unusual occurrences in babies born with limb defects, local investigations and detailed case determination are taking place in the Northern regional health authority area; the Isle of Wight; Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly; and in Hastings. The results of these investigations should be known in a matter of weeks.

  In addition, progress is being made on the initial analysis by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of limb reduction defects to scrutinise the geographical pattern. To provide further, more detailed, information on the national perspective, I have asked the expert steering group of the small area health statistics unit—SAHSU—to examine the feasibility of a SAHSU study to look in more detail at the geographical distribution of limb reduction defects and to report as soon as possible.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will reply to the hon. Member for Hartlepool's letter to her of 3 February, concerning clusters of babies born with limb defects.

  Mr. Sackville
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter today.

  Physiotherapy Merseyside
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to intervene in respect of the proposed cuts in in-patient and out-patient physiotherapy services in(a) Countess of Chester hospital and (b) elsewhere in the Mersey region.
  681
  Mr. Sackville
  None. It is for health authorities to ensure that a comprehensive range of health services is available for their residents, within available resources. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Donald Wilson, chairman of Mersey regional health authority, for information on the plans for physiotherapy services within the region.

  Pathology
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many fundholding practices in the most convenient area including Hemsworth constituency are analysing their own pathology specimens;

  (2) what was the cost of each pathology analyser in practices in Wakefield;

  (3) how many specimens have been tested by each pathology analyser in Wakefield in each month since its installation;

  (4) what is the normal throughput of specimens per pathology analyser in hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a local matter. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the local health authority and family health services authority, Mr. Brian Hayward and Mr. David Travis respectively, for details. Information on the normal throughput of specimens per pathology analyser in hospitals is not available centrally.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the Health Education Authority receives from the Exchequer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Health Education Authority's total allocation in the financial year 1993–94 was £36·184 million of which £3 million was in respect of value added tax refunds and income generated by the authority.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation her Department has made of the health effects of reprocessing, other than of radioactive material, at Sellafield.

  Mr. Sackville
  The health effects of reprocessing at the Sellafield site are a matter for the Health and Safety Executive, or where effects might extend beyond the site boundary, for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has advised on the mutagenicity of chemicals used at the. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Sellafield site in 1991 and its advice is published in its annual report for 1991, copies of which are in the Library.

  Sheffield (Sale of Trust Land)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken to comply with requirements of the NHS Acts with regard to the sale of trust land in the Sheffield health authority area.

  Mr. Sackville
  The sale of national health service land is a matter for the health authority or NHS trust concerned.
  682

  Ovarian Cancer
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide funds for research into ovarian cancer.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, MRC, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available, the MRC spent £318,000 on research directly into ovarian cancer. This figure would rise considerably if a proportion of the council's spend on metabolism, molecular structure, genes and chromosomes, the immune system and other areas of basic medical research, that may yield results relevant to cancer, were included.

  Maternity Wards (Nappies)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the extent of the practice whereby pregnant women about to enter NHS maternity wards are asked by hospital staff to bring a supply of nappies with them.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Renal Dialysis
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources remain to the end of the financial year for accommodating patients requiring renal dialysis in the Sheffield health authority area.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for Trent regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Sir Michael Carlisle, for details.

  Disabled People (HIV)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her assessment of the availability of HIV prevention initiatives for(a) people with physical disabilities and (b) people with mental disabilities; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since the beginning of the HIV public education campaign, initiatives have been taken to devise and sponsor educational material for groups not effectively reached by the national campaign, including those with physical impairment or learning difficulties. There is a considerable range of material available to meet different needs produced by the Health Education Authority arid specialist voluntary organisations. Health and local authorities are specifically encouraged to assess the needs of their local communities for sexual health education and develop targeted projects. The guidance for the 1994–95 AIDS support grant, LAC(94)3, and the healthy alliances scheme both emphasise the importance of work for people with disabilities of any sort. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Embryos
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the correspondence between herself arid the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington regarding embryos two or three years ago; and if she will make a statement regarding the situation at the Cromwell hospital, Tyne and Wear about the selling of eggs for cash.
  683
  Mr. Sackville
  Copies of the correspondence between departmental Ministers and the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington over the past two years will be placed in the Library.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action is taken by her Department when reports under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987 reports reveal a consistent lack of activity in any of the target audiences for HIV prevention;

  (2) what use is routinely made of information collected through reports under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  The AIDS (Control) Act reports serve a useful function in indicating trends in the spread of infection, the development of services and resources employed locally. The information collected assists in establishing whether policy priorities are being addressed. Reports are scrutinised by the Department and if gaps are revealed in any area of activity, this information together with any available research findings is used to inform the guidance issued annually to health authorities on future purchasing plans. Copies of the latest guidance, EL(94)19, are available in the Library.

  Health Services (Relocation)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued by her Department to health authorities regarding the appropriate relocation of services which it has been decided should be moved from the purchaser to the provider level; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Hospitals (Video Surveillance)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to issue guidelines formally on the use of covert video surveillance in hospital settings in suspected cases of(a) intentional suffocation by parent of baby or child, (b) Munchhausen's syndrome by proxy and (c) non-accidental injury; what consultations she has had with (i) the Association of Directors of Social Services, (ii) the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts and (iii) the Royal College of Paediatricians on this procedure and protocols relating to its use.

  Mr. Bowis
  There are currently no proposals for the Department to consult professional organisations formally or to issue guidelines on the use of covert video surveillance in hospitals for the investigation of suspicions of abuse of children. The Department has recently commended to the chairmen of all area child protection committees the high level of inter-agency collaboration demonstrated by Staffordshire child protection committee in the production of a joint working protocol on covert video surveillance in hospital.

  Complaints System
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the response she has received following consultation by the Wilson committee on the review of the national health service complaints system; when she expects the committee to report; and if she will make a statement.
  684
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Professor Wilson's review committee invited evidence from interested organisations and individuals last August. We understand that about 250 submissions of evidence were received by the review committee.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive the review committee's report shortly. We will carefully consider its conclusions.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to meet representatives of the tobacco industry to discuss the strengthening of the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Department of Health officials met representatives of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association to discuss the strengthening of the voluntary agreement on tobacco products' advertising and promotion and health warnings on 23 February.

  Smoking
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money is spent by Government on programmes to reduce smoking by children under 16 years of age.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In 1993–94, £2,650,000 was allocated to the Health Education Authority's teenage smoking programme.

  Additionally, adult anti-smoking programmes and life style programmes such as "Look After Your Heart" contain material designed to encourage parents to set a good example.

  Schools are required to provide education about the dangers of smoking. They allocate resources accordingly from the funding devolved to them. Expenditure on health education programmes in schools and on local authority enforcement of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 is not available centrally.

  Under the current general practitioner contract arrangements many health professionals are working towards "The Health of the Nation" target for teenage smoking. No separate details of costs are available.

  Year of Older People
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about those aims and objectives of the European year of older people which have been taken forward beyond the end of 1993.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are continuing to pursue policies designed to promote the health and well-being of older people and to encourage their full participation in society. This is in line with the aims and objectives of the year.

  An evaluation exercise has recently commenced, which will help to identify the key achievements of the year and its implications for future work.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those responsible for making appointments of(a) chairs and (b) members of the boards to each of the national health service bodies, as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".
  685
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 15 February 19941: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for the appointment of chairmen of regional, district and family health services authorities and chairmen of national health service trusts. She is also responsible for the appointment of chairmen and non-executive members of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals and the National Health Service Supplies Authority.

  My right hon. Friend is also responsible for the appointment of non-executive members of regional health authorities and up to three non-executive directors of NHS trusts.

  The appointments of all non-executive members of district health authorities and family health services authorities, and two of the non-executive directors of NHS trusts, are the responsibility of the appropriate regional health authority.

  Chairmen and members of the Prescription Pricing Authority, the Special Hospitals Services Authority and the Health Education Authority are also appointed by my right hon. Friend, although there is provision in regulations—SI 1987 No. 6—that one member of the Health Education Authority be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health appoints the chairman and non-executive members of the National Blood Authority, NBA. A committee of the NBA, comprising the chairman, chief executive and non-executive members of the NBA, appoints the executive members.

  The chairman and non-officer members of the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority, UKTSSA, are appointed by my right hon. Friend. The officer members are appointed by the UKTSSA.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appoints the chairman and all members covering England to the Mental Health Act Commission, MHAC. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales appoints those members of the MHAC covering the Principality.

  The chairman and members of the Dental Practice Board are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; the vice chairman is appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of pharmaceutical companies have cannabis in stock for medical needs.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the absence of any medical use for cannabis recognised by the Medicines Control Agency no pharmaceutical companies are licensed to hold stocks for that purpose.

EDUCATION

  Nursery Education
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement listing the five local education authorities that spent least on providing full and part-time places for children in nursery schools, units and classes in each of the last three years.
  686
  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not compiled centrally.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of three and four-year-olds have a full-time place in a nursery school or class.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Some 26 per cent. of three and four-year-olds were in maintained nursery schools and classes in England in January 1993. Children of this age may also attend infant classes; if these are taken into account the total proportion of three and four-year-olds in some form of maintained schooling is 51 per cent. The majority of four-year-olds attended full-time while the majority of three-year-olds attended part-time.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children aged three to five years are currently in nursery or other educational provision; at what annual cost; what percentage of the age group is represented in this figure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  As at January 1993 there were over 656,000 children in England aged under five in full-time and part-time education in maintained nursery schools and nursery and infant classes in maintained primary schools. This figure represents 51 per cent. of three and four-year-olds. If children in independent and special schools and playgroups are included, the proportion rises to over 90 per cent. In 1991–92, the latest year for which accurate outturn data are available, local education authorities in England spent some £1,085 million on under-fives provision.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about the provision of nursery education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations on nursery education in recent months.

  Vyners School, Ickenham
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress he has made in considering the difficulties faced by parents in Uxbridge and Hillingdon in sending their children to Vyners school Ickenham as a result of the upgrading of the A40 to motorway standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I understand that Vyners school is heavily over-subscribed and would like to expand. It is for the school to make a case for capital funds to provide additional school places within the next capital bidding round.

  From April I expect the Funding Agency for Schools will have responsibilities over the supply of school places in Hillingdon. I shall shortly be writing to my hon. Friend about the implications.

  Physical Education
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many hours of physical education he intends there to be in primary and secondary schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for head teachers and school governors to determine. My right hon. Friend is
  687
  prohibited in law from prescribing how much time should be spent on physical education or any other national curriculum subject.

  Music Teaching
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on the teaching of music as part of the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have received no recent representations. My right hon. Friend expects to receive advice from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority in April about new statutory requirements for music in the light of Sir Ron Dearing's recent review of the national curriculum.

  Literacy Skills
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many programmes to improve literacy skills of young children are receiving financial support from his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The improvement of the literacy skills is one of the Government's top priorities for education. The national curriculum order for English will put more emphasis on basic skills in reading and writing. Action programmes supported by the Government include:

  The reading recovery programmes, and other literacy programmes in inner-city areas;

  Support to the volunteer reading help organisation to help it expand its network;

  Support for the family literacy initiative, designed to help parents improve their own literacy skills and at the same time support the development of their children's literacy.

  Education (16-year-olds)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the United Kingdom participation rate in education for 16-year-olds; and what comparable data he has for other European Union countries.

  Mr. Boswell
  The latest available comparisons, which are for 1990, show that some 94 per cent. of 16-year-olds in the United Kingdom took part in some form of education and/or training. This compares well with the position in other EU countries for which data are available, where participation by 16-year-olds ranges from 99 per cent. in Germany to 71 per cent. in Spain.

  Teacher Training Agency
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from universities or scientific societies on his proposals for funding of educational research through a teacher training agency.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have received some 100 representations from universities, higher education colleges and scientific societies on this issue.

  Our proposals would maintain the present links between teaching and research, safeguard the independence of research and continue to ensure that research funding takes account of quality assessments. There will of course be an opportunity to debate the proposals during the passage through Parliament of the current Education Bill.
  688

  University Income
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of university income comes from(a) Government grant, (b) overseas students, (c) other tuition fees, (d) Government-funded research and (e) privately funded research and consultancies.

  Mr. Boswell
  The latest published figures, subject to rounding, show that in 1991–92 universities in Great Britain received 35 per cent. of their recurrent income from Exchequer grant, 5 per cent. from overseas students' fees, 20 per cent. from other tuition fees, 9 per cent. from research grants and contracts from the research councils and other public bodies, 10 per cent. from other research grants and 20 per cent. from other sources. Comparable data are not available for the former polytechnics and colleges.

  Speech Therapy
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consultations he is having with professional organisations of speech therapists and others in order to clarify who is responsible for speech therapy provision for school-age children.

  Mr. Forth
  Existing guidance issued by the Department already sets out the responsibilities for the provision of speech therapy for school-age children. However, we have received many comments on this issue during the consultation on the draft code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. In the light of these, my officials will be considering with the Department of Health and other interested organisations whether it is possible to clarify further, in the final version of the code, responsibility for the provision of speech therapy.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to encourage more schools to develop the use of sixth forms.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend published guidelines on 16 February setting out the criteria against which he will judge proposals for new school sixth forms.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the new sixth forms to which he has given approval in(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) local authority schools since April 1992.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 February 1994,Official Report, 505]: Since April 1992, my right hon. Friend has approved five proposals for new sixth forms in LEA-maintained schools, rather than two, as stated in my previous answer. The schools concerned are:

  Ullswater Community College, Cumbria;

  Martin Kemp-Welch School, Dorset;

  Wymondham School, Norfolk;

  St. Peter's RC Comprehensive School, Solihull;

  a new school for pupils aged 11 to 18 years in Halifax, Calderdale.

  689

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest estimate he has for the amount of money being tied up in maintaining surplus school places; and what steps he is taking to reduce the number of surplus places.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1991, when the Department carried out a detailed survey, there were 1·3 million surplus school places. The premises-related costs of maintaining this number of school places are estimated at around £300 million. The scope for realising savings in practice, however, depends on local circumstances.

  We are discussing with individual authorities the scope for rationalisation in their areas. From 1 April this year the Education Act 1993 gives the Secretary of State the power to require authorities to bring forward proposals to take spare places out of use.

  Rural Students (Grants)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review guidance and departmental funding for discretionary grants for higher and further education students from rural areas.

  Mr. Boswell
  It is for local education authorities to determine their own policies for discretionary awards in the light of local needs and priorities.

  School Governors
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with school governor organisations about their autonomy.

  Mr. Forth
  None. Subject to meeting any statutory requirements laid upon them, school governing bodies have discretion to make their own decisions.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what surveys have been made by his Department as to the number of hours per month spent by school governors on school matters for which they now have responsibility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  A survey commissioned by the Department in 1992 included data on time spent by governors of LEA-maintained schools. The median time individual governors spent on their school governing responsibilities was between 10 and 20 hours per term. The median time spent by chairmen was between 30 and 40 hours per term. The Government very much welcome the commitment shown by governing bodies in carrying out their important responsibilities.

  Schools (Capital Works)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current estimate of outstanding capital works in schools in England.

  Mr. Forth
  Information from the 1991 NAO report on school buildings suggests that some £2 billion, at 1990 prices, was required to deal with the outstanding capital needs of school buildings. In 1994–95, Government support for capital and repair work at maintained schools will total over £600 million, much of which will go towards improving the school stock.
  690
  This comes on top of total Government support between 1991–92 and 1993–94, including support for sixth form colleges up to 1993–94, amounting to almost £2 billion.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from the teacher unions and associations to the Dearing report on the national curriculum and testing.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the National Union of Teachers on 24 January and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers on 23 February. We stand ready to discuss the implications of the Dearing report with the four other teacher associations should they wish.

  Legal Practice Courses
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students took the legal practice course in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on the number of students taking a legal practice course is not available centrally. Numbers taking the Law Society final examination and the Bar vocational course are shown below:

  Law society final examination

  Numbers

  89

  3,545

  90

  4,120

  91

  5,002

  92

  5,559

  93

  5,677

  Source—The Law Society

  Bar vocational course

  Numbers

  89–90

  819

  90–91

  871

  91–92

  1,059

  92–93

  1,016

  Source—Council of Legal Education

  Approved Reading Lists
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he plans to include approved reading lists in the national curriculum for the teaching of English literature in schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority is currently reviewing all 10 subjects of the national curriculum, including English, following Sir Ron Dearing's report on the national curriculum published in January. The authority is due to submit advice on a revised national curriculum to my right hon. Friend by the end of March. Proposals will be published in early May for consultation and my right hon. Friend will make final decisions, including on whether there should be reading lists in English, towards the end of the year, in the light of the consultation and of further advice from the authority.
  691

  Student Unions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has had from the principal of King's college, London, Professor Arthur Lucas, about the role of student unions in universities.

  Mr. Boswell
  Professor Lucas wrote to the Department on behalf of King's college, London on 26 October 1993, in response to consultations on the proposed reform of student unions announced by my right hon. Friend to the House on 1 July,Official Report, columns 1120–21.

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 257, concerning the selection board appointed to recommend a person to fill the post of Chief Inspector of Schools, England, which persons on that board have had any occupational experience in (a) a school, (b) further or (c) higher education; and which of these have been for more than a year a member of the governing body of a maintained school or an education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None has had substantial occupational experience in schools, higher or further education and none has been a member of a governing body of a maintained school or an education authority. Mr. Kalms has been a governor of a city technology college for several years.

  Further Education Corporations
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what age limits are(a) recommended and (b) required for membership of further education corporations; and for what reasons these age limits have been adopted.

  Mr. Boswell
  The instrument of government, which is set out in regulations—SIs 1992, Nos. 1957 to 1963—prescribes that, with the exception of student members, the minimum age for membership of a further education corporation is 18. This lower age limit reflects the nature of the corporation's responsibilities. A student member under the age of 18 is precluded from voting on any question concerning proposals for the expenditure of money or for entering into any contract. The instrument of government prescribes a maximum age of 70 for appointment as a member of a corporation, with the exception of any member who was an initial member of the corporation or any member who is appointed by the Secretary of State or where the corporation itself determines by an absolute majority that a person over 70 should be appointed. The upper age limit was included at the request of colleges who were keen to draw on the experience of those with current or recent involvement in business, industry and the professions.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993", including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information required is as follows:
  692

  Body

  Number of appointments

  Education associations

  No appointments have yet been made. Section 218(3) of the Education Act 1993 provides for the appointment of not less than five members, one of whom shall be the chairman

  The nine regional advisory committees of the Further Education Funding Council

  Total number of appointments—102

  Further Education Staff college

  16 appointments

  Fulbright Commission

  Six appointments

  Funding Agency for Schools

  13 appointments

  The Royal Ballet school governing body

  Two appointments

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority

  15 appointments

  The Student Loans Company Ltd.

  Three appointments made jointly by the Secretaries of State for Education and Scotland

  University Commissioners

  Five appointments

  Yehudi Menuhin school governing body

  Two appointments

  Publicity
  Mr. Colving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent by his Department on publicity material to teachers in each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Expenditure by the Department on publicity material for teachers in 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 follows:

  £

  1990–91

  254,511

  1991–92

  230,597

  1992–93

  179,314

  11993–94

  202,706

  1Estimated.

  Figures for 1989–90 and earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Students (Mandatory Awards)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if his Department will consider changing policy regarding parental contribution in relation to the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations where a student is irreconcilably estranged from the parents.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations already allow for the parental contribution to be waived in certain circumstances, for example, where the student has been in the care of a local authority. Where a parent fails to provide information on which an assessment of a student's resources can be based, or refuses to make the assessed contribution, tuition fees will nonetheless be met as part of the student's mandatory award and his right to a student loan is unaffected. Students in financial
  693
  hardship may apply for help from their institutions' access funds. The accelerated shift in the balance of resources from grant to loan which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 30 November 1993, Official Report, column 929, means that students are becoming progressively less reliant on the parental contribution for the means to support themselves.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Emphysema
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications to date have been made for the new industrial benefit for sufferers of emphysema; and how many have been rejected.

  Mr. Scott
  As at 20 February, about 24,200 valid claims had been received for the prescribed disease D12, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Of the claims so far decided, about 16,700 have been disallowed.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children in each region are currently living in poverty.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 21 Janaury at column 900.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the conformity of the methods of seeking information from employers used by the Child Support Agency with the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Burt
  The Data Protection Act 1984 allows an employer to disclose information provided for under other legislation. Regulations 2(2)(c) and 3(1)(d), (e), (f), (h) and (j) of the Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure) Regulations 1992 require employers of either an absent parent or a parent with care to give information to the agency which will allow an absent parent to be identified and traced, and to provide information for a child support maintenance assessment to be made, collected or enforced. It is, therefore, proper for the agency to write to employers to obtain this information. I am satisfied that the agency's procedure meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act.

  Income Support, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will be affected by his decision to limit the availability of means-tested income support benefit for the unemployed to only six months from April 1996; and how many of these will be(a) in Nottingham city and (b) in Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Burt
  Job seeker's allowance will replace unemployment benefit and income support for unemployed people from April 1996. Claimants will receive means-tested JSA for as long as they satisfy the entitlement conditions.
  694

  Poverty
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current criteria for the definition of poverty used by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Burt
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys does not define poverty.

  Campaigns
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, columns 694–96, if he will place in the Library the results of market research relating to the campaigns listed; how many calls were monitored to the winter warmth line; how many requests were received for the year of the elderly leaflet and campaign pack; and what was the telephone response and take-up response of leaflets in each applicable campaign.

  Mr. Scott
  The winter warmth line run by the Benefits Agency received 5,564 calls.

  There were 1,379,000 requests for the year of the elderly campaign packs and leaflets.

  I am prepared to consider on their merits any individual requests to place digests of relevant findings from market surveys in the Library.

  The Contributions Agency is willing to place the results of its customer satisfaction survey in the Library.

  The telephone responses and take-up responses of leaflets in each applicable campaign are as follows:

  Campaign

  Telephone responses to date

  Leaflet take-up to date

  DSS

  Council Tax Benefit

  37,366

  3,972,379

  Child Support: changes regulations

  5,401

  68,337

  Pension Law Review Committee

  1,787

  13,248

  Personal Pensions

  5,893

  214,313

  Disability Awareness

  2—

  2—

  State Pension Age

  654

  3,524

  Working with Benefits

  82,632

  82,632

  Family Credit

  1101,970

  134,632

  Disability Working Allowance

  13,596

  37,900

  Child Support Agency

  Introduction of Child Support Agency

  40,300

  348,474

  1 Cumulative since October 1992.

  2 Not yet run.

  Benefits Agency

  1993–94 Campaigns and Promotions

  Form of Response

  Number of responses

  Prescribed Industrial Diseases

  Coupon (phase one)

  6,040

  12-Bronchitis and/or Emphysema in Coal Workers

  Leaflets issued

  473,000

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made in entitlement to and the method of calculating severe disablement allowance since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  Severe disablement allowance was introduced in November 1984 to replace non-contributory
  695
  invalidity pension. SDA is a non-means-tested benefit, paid at a basic rate, with dependency additions. In December 1990, three age-related additions were introduced to concentrate additional money on those who became disabled early in life. In April 1992, the residence and presence conditions were eased in line with the then newly introduced disability living allowance. In December 1993, changes were made to the transitional regulations to allow women who may have qualified for NCIP, but for the household duties test, to qualify for SDA, even though they did not make a claim for SDA. The upper age limits for claiming and supplying medical evidence are being equalised for men and women, following a challenge to the rules in the European Court of Justice—case C328/91.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what are his plans regarding the proposed medical test of incapacity in relation to severe disablement allowance;

  (2) under what circumstances (a) existing and (b) new claimants of severe disablement allowance will undertake the proposed medical test of incapacity.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 and 21 February at columns 498 and 45. New claimants will have to fulfil the requirements of the new objective medical incapacity test. In practice, we expect that there will be sufficient evidence in the majority of cases to show that the claimant fulfils the requirements of the new test without any further investigation.

  Campaigns
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, columns 694–96, what was the budgeted and actual cost of each campaign listed.

  Mr. Scott
  The budgeted and cost to date of each campaign listed are as follows:

  Campaign

  Budget (£)

  Cost (£)

  DSS HEADQUARTERS

  Change in legislation

  Council tax benefit

  460,000

  456,000

  Child support: changes in regulations

  325,000

  117,000

  Pension law review committee

  145,000

  55,000

  State pension age

  95,000

  93,000

  Personal pensions

  220,000

  63,000

  Disability

  Disability working allowance

  1,200,000

  1,054,000

  Family Credit

  Working with benefits

  3,700,000

  3,679,000

  Family credit

  385,000

  387,000

  BENEFITS AGENCY

  Prescribed industrial disease 12 bronchitis and/or emphysema in coal workers

  350,500

  336,000

  Severe cold weather payment

  80,000

  76,000

  Year of the elderly

  582,000

  490,000

  CONTRIBUTIONS AGENCY

  Phone book advertising

  150,000

  89,391

  Mailing to employers

  2,390,000

  1—

  Exhibitions

  74,000

  44,229

  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

  Introduction Child Support Agency

  850,000

  803,000

  1 Exercise not completed.

  696

  Cerebral Palsy
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many experts on cerebral palsy in the membership of the advisory panel on assessment of incapacity there are.

  Mr. Scott
  Five members of the assessment panel have particular expertise in, and knowledge of, the wide range of disabilities exhibited by people with cerebral palsy, and the limiting effects these disabilities may have on body and mind function. In addition, around one third of the panel's membership are experts in the spectrum of disabilities and needs associated with disordered neuromuscular function, developmental decay, mobility and locomotion problems, intellectual and sensory dysfunction which may feature in one or more combinations in people with cerebral palsy.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider extending the 56-day period for qualifying for disability working allowance to assist claimants in securing a job; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the computer error involving the loss of £44·5 million from his Department's social fund has yet been traced and rectified; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 28 February 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the computer fault which affected the Social Fund.
  I have assumed that your question refers to the recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Social Fund Account for 1992–93. You will be aware that this highlighted a difference between the amount of loans outstanding shown in the Social Fund Account, and the corresponding figure from the local microcomputer system. The main cause of this problem has been traced to a fault in the computer program which adds up individual loan balances on the microcomputer system. This resulted in certain categories of loans (amounting to an estimated £44·5 million) being excluded from the statistical report of total loans outstanding at the end of each month.
  The Comptroller and Auditor General confirms that there was no evidence that this fault has led to a cash loss; individual loan records have not been affected. He also acknowledges the considerable progress made by the Benefits Agency in resolving these accounting problems.
  The Agency is currently introducing a new Social Fund computer system which will be fully operational by May 1994. This new system has been designed to provide a fully integrated national network, resolving the weaknesses of the original microcomputer system by capturing all categories of loans outstanding.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long it takes the Child Support Agency to undertake a review of a maintenance assessment; and what is the target length of time.
  697
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Jon Owen Jones, dated 28 February 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the processing of reviews of child maintenance by the Child Support Agency.
  Where either parent experiences a change of circumstances (for example an increase in salary) or at the annual review stage, the assessment is reviewed. You have asked for a breakdown of the time taken to perform such a review. Information on clearance times is being collected but, because of the relatively low volumes it is too early for reliable information to be available. At this stage we are, therefore, unable to estimate how long it should take to complete a review.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money the Child Support Agency will recover in the financial year 1993–94; how much money has so far been recovered by Child Support Agency in this financial year; and how much money the Child Support Agency will recover in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Mike Hall, dated 28 February 1994:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the amount of money the Child Support Agency will recover.
  The Agency has been set a target to recover £530 million in benefit savings in the financial year 1993–94. For the period from April 1993 to December 1993, £214·5 million was recorded as recovered. This figure does not represent the total amount of savings that will be recovered during this period, as some will be calculated retrospectively.
  Implementing the policy changes will have an effect on the Agency's achievement this year. Whilst it is too early to be precise about the impact, it is clear that there will be a shortfall against the target.
  698
  Figures are not available for how much money the Agency will recover in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97, although it has been estimated that in the long run around £900 million a year will be recovered.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Social Security (1) how many absentee fathers who have not contributed maintenance have been traced by the Child Support Agency;

  (2) what is the number of fathers whose whereabouts have been reported by mothers, but from whom the Child Support Agency has not attempted to seek maintenance payments;

  (3) what proposals he has regarding fathers whose whereabouts are known to the Child Support Agency, but in respect of whom no action has been taken.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 28 February 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  You asked how many absent parents who have not contributed maintenance have been traced by the Agency. To the end of December 1993, the Agency had issued maintenance enquiry forms to 344,000 absent parents. Figures were not kept on the proportion of these cases in which maintenance was not already being paid. We estimate, however, that about 50 per cent. of cases taken-on by the Agency were not already receiving maintenance. To the end of December 1993, the Agency's specialist tracing sections had successfully traced over 15,000 absent parents.
  You also asked for the number of absent parents whose whereabouts have been reported by parents with care, but from whom the Agency has not attempted to seek maintenance payments. I am sorry that figures are not available in the form you request. By the end of December 1993, however, the Agency had issued 711,000 application forms to parents with care. In 20,500 cases the Child Support Officer had agreed that the parent with care had good cause not to give information about the absent parent. Apart from cases in this category, and any applications found to be ineligible under the legislation, the Agency is pursuing maintenance in all cases.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

European Union: Water Directives
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give a commitment to implement fully the European Union Directives on bathing water quality and on drinking water.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government are fully committed to implementing the Community directives on bathing water and drinking water.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. In view of its positive nature, perhaps he will allow me to stretch the Question to include another directive, of which I have given him notice. Why are the Government seeking to delay the implementation of the urban waste directive? Will he explain the difference between the original cost of £ 2 billion which was attached to that directive and the increased cost of £ 10 billion which is now being quoted?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, £ 2 billion was the figure which, based on work by consultants, was accepted by the department. However, since then further costing work by the water industry as part of the Ofwat periodic review of K has produced a figure of more than £ 10 billion. That figure has been independently certified. Further costing work is continuing. Later this summer the regulator, Mr. Ian Byatt, will announce proposals on K factors. This is a very complex directive.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the European Union insisting on the French cleaning up the absolutely filthy bathing water which is to be found all along the French Riviera?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper relates more to the bathing waters around our coastline.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most of us will admire the Government's use of the term "Community" in reply to the Question, which contains the words "European Union"? Is it not the case that there is too much unauthorised and improper use of the term "European Union" as distinct from "European Community"?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, whether it is European Union or European Community we all know what we mean.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the health and safety of the British people is a matter for them and them alone and should be no concern of people living hundreds of miles away? Is it
932
not a disgrace that a former British Government sanctioned interference into what is a purely domestic matter with no cross-border ramifications?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will be pleased to hear that the subsidiarity report from the European Commission to the December 1993 European Council is passing to us a number of matters in respect of which we shall make our own decisions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, how many sewage works are discharging into the seas around our coast?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend an answer to that question but I will write to him.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the whole House welcomes the Government's Answer that they are fully committed to implementing the directives on bathing water quality and on drinking water. Will the Minister confirm the rumour that attempts are being made to dilute or to water down the directives? Will the Government assure the House that they will resist all attempts to dilute the effects of the directives?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, directives are directives and we will implement them fully.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in view of the large number of tourists who come to this country, which is a matter of considerable importance, and the large numbers of people from this country who go not only to the French Riviera, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter reminded us, but also to other places in Europe, the matter is essentially one of European interest?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as regards the United Kingdom, the bathing water directives are now fully transposed into UK law.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is considerable anxiety about rising water prices and that, therefore, speculation is inevitable that the directives might in some way be abandoned? Does the Minister agree that, as the nature of the capital investment in the water industry is long term and large scale, any attempt to abandon the directives on quality might not produce any reduction in water prices that is sought?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as I said, this is an extremely complex matter. The noble Lord must be referring to the urban waste water treatment directive, which will entail a great deal of expense. As I said, we expect the regulator to report later this year, in the autumn, and we must await the outcome of his report.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the directives are implemented to the same standard throughout the whole of Europe?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we are required to implement the directives into United Kingdom law and must leave it to others to implement them into their legal systems.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I welcome the noble Viscount's assurance that the Government intend to implement in full the drinking and bathing water directives. However, can he explain why, on 13th December in another place [Official Report, Commons, col.696.], the Prime Minister said:
"The drinking water directive and the bathing water directive both need to be completely overhauled. They are over prescriptive and outdated scientifically."?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, we need to return to the subsidiarity report of the European Commission. We already know that the Council has indicated that the bathing water and drinking water directives will be replaced but there is no suggestion that the Commission has committed itself merely to repeal those directives without further action.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give an undertaking that the same advice is given by local authority environmental health departments, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, local river authorities and the National Rivers Authority? When farmers inquired about how to dispose of their sheep dip, it seemed that each department had different ideas about what should be done. The National Rivers Authority has made excellent recommendations. Will the Minister undertake to inform all the other departments of the National Rivers Authority's recommendations?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the question is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But I shall bring her remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Elton: My Lords, arising from my noble friend's answer to my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Swinfen, does not my noble friend accept that all the while we regard European directives as descending on this country uncontrollably from another place they will be regarded as hostile? The sooner we see that they are implemented equally throughout Europe, of which we are part, the better it will be.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend's question is a little wide of that on the Order Paper. I see no reason why we should not accept directives which are for the benefit of our bathing and drinking waters.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount reconsider his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen? The Minister suggested that the British Government have no influence on the implementation of directives by other countries. Is he aware that it is open to the British Government to take other countries to the European Court and that, under the Maastricht Treaty, if they do not obey directives they can be fined?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am sure that government departments concerned with those matters are fully aware of that.

European Transport Infrastructure
2.47 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the contribution to be made by the United Kingdom through private and public funding of the European Union's transport infrastructure programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the United Kingdom contributes on average about 15 per cent. to the European Community budget but makes no specific contribution to the transport infrastructure programme. The private sector does not contribute to this programme but can contribute in parallel to projects supported by the programme.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting response. On his return from the Brussels summit, the Prime Minister said that the European Council had reaffirmed the conclusion it reached in Edinburgh about the speedy completion of the trans-European network. Why has there been a delay in that regard? Does the Minister not agree that delay is to the detriment of British industry and, in particular, those manufacturing companies in Scotland, Wales and the North of England which are at the periphery of the European Community?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord has quickly changed the question from one about "TIPS" to one about "TENS", if I may use some Euro-jargon. The trans-European network programme will come into place in 1995. Work is currently taking place on what exactly that programme will encompass. The Commission hopes to agree draft guidelines on all the networks which will be put to the Council of Ministers in the summer.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister has stated that Britain is part of Europe, does he consider that the United Kingdom transport infrastructure is part of the European infrastructure?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am puzzled by that question. As Britain is part of Europe, both geographically and politically, one must assume that our transport network is also part of Europe.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, presumably the purport of that question is: do the Government include in their contribution towards the costs of the European transport infrastructure programme that which they expend in this country? If so, that would make absolute nonsense of a European infrastructure policy. Can the Minister say specifically what contributions the

935
Government have made towards the development of a strategy for the transport infrastructure programme of the European Union?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that the aid the noble Lord gives to enable me to interpret the question of the noble Baroness is entirely helpful. We do not include our own expenditure as part and parcel of European expenditure, although it would be one way of making the total sum look very large indeed. As regards the noble Lord's second question, we do play a part in decisions about the transport infrastructure programme. The programme is drawn up after advice has been given and discussion has taken place in the Transport Infrastructure Committee on which we and the other member states are represented. The TIPS programme is not a very big one. It is largely used to fund feasibility studies and so on, although on two specific instances in the United Kingdom— namely, Channel Tunnel links and links to Ireland— it can be used to fund construction projects.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not a fact that when the summit was reported on by the Prime Minister, he spoke of a total package of some 20 billion ecus in relation to the transport infrastructure programme which was being developed? Is it not also a fact that he was very imprecise about Britain's contribution in that respect? Therefore, will the Minister turn his attention to telling the House what he anticipates Britain's contribution in that regard is likely to be?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am a little puzzled as to whether I am discussing the transport infrastructure programme, which was the subject of the Question, or whether we have moved on— one can get very confused about such matters— to the European network, which will come about in 1995. I suspect that the noble Lord is asking about the latter. It was agreed at the Edinburgh European Council that there would be some 5 billion ecus annually for the network budget from the structural funds or from the European regional development fund and the cohesion fund. In addition, it was decided that there will be 7 million ecus annually coming from the European Investment Bank in the form of loans and guarantees.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what proportion of the contribution could be withheld if the House of Commons so desired?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that I said in a previous answer that we do not specifically contribute programme by programme. It is in fact part of the total contribution to the European budget.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister translate the ecus to which he referred into pounds sterling?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Of course, my Lords. I am always keen to help the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to become more communautaire.
936
The 5 billion ecus to which I referred work out at about £ 3.8 billion and 7 billion ecus amount to about £ 5.32 billion.

Mining: Subsidence Liability
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who will be responsible for compensation paid to home owners suffering from subsidence of their properties caused by mining after the privatisation of British Coal.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this matter is dealt with in legislation currently being considered in another place. That legislation provides for each mine operator to be solely responsible for claims involving any subsidence damage which arises within his area of responsibility, which will be defined in his operating licence. Everywhere else, the new Coal Authority will have the responsibility.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that in South Wales subsidence: is perhaps more serious than in many other parts of the country? Up until the present time, house owners have been recompensed by British Coal. However, what will happen to home owners who suffer subsidence in the future? No one can forecast its occurrence, and it cannot be the responsibility of the house owner. Who will take responsibility for any repairs that may be necessary in such an event?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the structure of the Bill on the matter is extremely simple. Operators will be responsible within the areas of responsibility specifically defined within their licences. Beyond those areas of responsibility, the responsibility for subsidence will lie with the Coal Authority.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that prospective purchasers of coal mines must accept the historic liability of damage before the takeover and any subsidence damage which takes place thereafter? Will there not be a problem in the coalfield communities if a large claim is made against the new mine owner— for example, for a fall of houses or damage on a major estate and he cannot find the finance for compensation? The question is: who is going to pay? At present, the British Coal Board pays subsidence damage. Therefore, should it not be the responsibility of the proposed new Coal Authority?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the historic cost to which the noble Lord refers will indeed he included. However, the Bill and the licences provide for regular monitoring of subsidence liabilities by the authority. The establishment of financial security arrangements such as trust funds can be constituted so as to be effectively ring fenced for subsidence claimants in the extreme event of insolvency.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that British Coal (and, previously, the National Coal

937
Board) developed a considerable expertise and capability for dealing with subsidence claims? Is he suggesting that the new Coal Authority will have the same degree of expertise and resources as British Coal has at present?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have every confidence that the new Coal Authority will be able to perform its statutory function.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the fact that there is a vast difference between the protection now offered by British Coal and the provisions in the Bill to which he referred, which state that home owners will be protected so far as is practicable? That will create a massive loophole which will certainly be exploited. Will the noble Viscount explain to the House why home owners should have less protection after privatisation than they had before?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we do not believe that home owners will have less protection. The provision in the Bill relating to a subsidence claim is one of security and simplicity. As is the case at present, every claimant will be able to pursue one body which must discharge that claim. That is backed up by a very strong regulatory framework to protect the rights of those affected by subsidence.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it is the case that legislation on the matter now going through the other place will eventually come to this House, would it not be proper to discuss such matters then rather than during Question Time?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I would not want to say anything to pre-empt the Committee stage when the Bill eventually reaches your Lordships' House.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, why does the Coal Industry Bill propose the repeal of Sections 34 and 35 of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, which provide important safeguards for anyone proposing to build in a mining area?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the 1991 Act is being amended because of the consequences of the privatisation process. As I have already stated, where the mining activity is the direct responsibility of the new privatised mine operator, subsidence within his area of responsibility will be his responsibility. Beyond that area, it would be the responsibility of the new Coal Authority.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Viscount clear up the vital question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra? The noble Lord was talking about people who are specialists and who know all about subsidence. They can give warning when subsidence may take place. However, will the private people who are to take over the industry employ such individuals so that the present state of security will continue?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have detailed the fact that the Coal Authority will be monitoring subsidence. The new authority will be a public body.

The Merchant Fleet
3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from the Chamber of Shipping, the seafaring trade unions and others concerning the adequacy or otherwise of the recently announced package for the United Kingdom merchant fleet.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have received 10 written representations in respect of the 15th December 1993 announcement.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not a fact that virtually every interest in the shipping industry has expressed deep concern to the Government— unions, employers, banking interests, Lloyd's Register, the Salvage Association and many more— about the tremendous decline in the British fleet, the fact that it is not only declining but also ageing rapidly and that it is 33rd in the world rankings at the present time, after even Romania, Malta and the Marshall Islands? What are the Government proposing to do about that? So far they have singularly failed to act in the dramatic way that is required. Is that not a fact?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, among the 10 responses I referred to, the Chamber of Shipping, while it would undoubtedly have liked the Government to go further, was supportive of what we were doing in the package and what we are doing with regard to the British shipping industry. I fully endorse what the noble Lord has said. We all, including the Government, are concerned about the decline in UK shipping but we believe that the steps we took in December will begin to reverse that decline.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the purpose of abolishing the requirement that the three chief officers on merchant ships should be either British or of Commonwealth nationality is to depress the wages and conditions of those officers? Does not the Minister agree that the prospect of a British registered ship captained by a Pakistani with a Filipino first officer, a Turkish chief engineer and a Chinese crew is not conducive to maintaining the standard of safety for which British merchant vessels are renowned?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the regulations on British officers which are currently in place encompass a number of other nationalities, including Pakistanis as they are members of the old Commonwealth. Therefore it would not be new for a properly qualified Pakistani chief officer to be on board a British ship as the British officer, as the regulations have permitted that for some time. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, I can assure him that we intend to ensure that the non-British officers on British flagged ships will be required to meet the

939
standards we require in terms of technical competence, their English language ability, their health and, where appropriate, on British maritime law.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that two of the reasons for the reduction in merchant shipping are the arrangements for capital allowances and the differential that exists between the position in this country and that in other countries where in the latter case subsidies and fiscal incentives are given? Would it not be a good idea for Her Majesty's Government to impress upon our competitors, particularly in Europe, that subsidies do not lead to a level playing field and that competition is being distorted because of differences in fiscal advantages?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, for a moment I thought my noble friend was going to advocate subsidies, which I thought would be a little strange. However, I am delighted to hear that my noble friend is sticking to his long held principles that subsidies distort the market. What we are doing, and what we ought to be doing in this field as well as in every other, is to ensure that there are no subsidies distorting the market and that the free play of market forces is allowed.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the decline of the shipbuilding industry and the employment prospects for British seafarers, apparently the only thing that will be British about the British merchant fleet is the Red Ensign. Can the Minister give a guarantee that at least the Red Ensign will be made in Britain?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always surprised to hear indications that noble Lords opposite do not adhere to the international flavour of socialism, as I thought that was what socialism was all about. The important thing about our Merchant Navy, and the merchant navies around the world, which we all ought to remember is that we require them to move the goods we export in a cheap and effective way. I believe we are ensuring that they can also do that safely.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the Minister any figures on the number of ships registered in Liberia, Switzerland, Romania and "Wonderland" which are owned by British companies?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure I can give the noble Lord exactly the figure he is looking for, although I suspect that the Swiss figure is not high. However, I believe that I have now found the figure. There are some 530 trading ships over 500 gross registered tonnes which are owned in the UK and some 273 of those trading ships are flagged in the UK.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what steps will be taken to examine the qualifications of foreign nationals who might be employed as officers on British ships? Will pieces of paper be taken at face value or will they have to sit some form of exam?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that will obviously depend entirely on the certification that they
940
have. Clearly if they hold a certificate from a well known flagging country whose standards we are familiar with, an English test will be fairly straightforward and simple. If it is a case of a rather less well known certification, the surveyors will have to go a little further in exploring technical competence.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, was not the original Answer not only startlingly complacent but also a little short on the actuality? Is it not a fact that all these bodies which have made representations to the Government may have said that the December package was of some value, but it will not begin to resolve the desperate plight of the British fleet? Did they not warn that if present trends are allowed to continue we shall have no deep sea merchant fleet? Do not the Government recognise that these are serious warnings and that they have to go far beyond the December package if any rescue operation is to be created?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not deny that the situation is serious. Indeed this morning I received a briefing from one shipping organisation on the whole question of flagging out and the officers employed. I must admit that this matter is much more complicated than I thought the day that I walked into this job. There are many more factors to be taken into account than it would appear. However, I can assure the House that we are taking steps, as we did in December, to determine how we can help the industry without going down the road— I come back to the comments of my noble friend Lord Clark of Kei-npston— of competing in the subsidy game with some of our competitors.

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) in respect of Clauses 2 to 4 and Schedule 2 to the Bill.
I thought that it might be helpful to the House if I were to take the opportunity of this Motion— which is itself open for debate— to explain to your Lordships what has happened since we last considered these clauses, which refer to matters such as the composition of the police authorities, independent members and policing plans. These issues caused your Lordships some concern early on in the Committee stage of this Bill.
The principles underlying this police Bill— principles which I know some of your Lordships found difficult to accept, but are a fact— are: that policing should be local; that police authorities should be stronger and more effective; that, in order to achieve this, they should be smaller; that they should be enhanced, improved and enriched by having people on them other than just councillors or magistrates; and that there are other people who could have a contribution to make in the fight against crime in the locality who, for

941
one reason or another, have not found the time or the desire to enter wholeheartedly into the realm of local politics.
One of the great virtues of this Bill, I thought, was its overriding objective to move power or responsibility — call it what you will— away from Whitehall and down to the locality, to police authorities and to chief constables. But one of the advantages of your Lordships' House is that however sensible or obvious one's views may be, your Lordships periodically make it clear that not everyone always agrees with them. And when your Lordships do not, noble Lords have an uncanny knack of making their views known with a ferocity and clarity of exposition which is not given to all of us. It is quite a formidable experience and, I dare say, not a bad one either.
It was the way in which we proposed to implement that idea of giving greater local accountability rather than the principle itself which caused your Lordships such anxiety. That anxiety, which was evidenced from all sides of the House and which I do not think was based on any party political considerations, was that the method proposed in the Bill was likely to give too much influence to whoever happened to hold the office of Home Secretary over the appointment of these so-called independents and, through them, too much influence over the police authorities and therefore also over the chief constable.
When this matter was considered in Committee I tried to make it plain that it was not my right honourable friend's intention to politicise these appointments in any way whatever and that he wanted to have genuinely independent people. Your Lordships may have taken a different view.
In view of the anxiety which was expressed by your Lordships I agreed not to move my amendments if other noble Lords would not move theirs. I undertook to see whether it was possible to meet the undoubted anxiety which was clearly expressed by your Lordships and to try and resolve the difficulty. I said, however, that I could give no guarantee that that would happen and that I thought that the gap was "pretty wide".
It has inevitably taken us a little time to consider the matters which were raised, some of which seemed to pull in different directions. It is for that reason that, apart from the amendments relating to the chairmanship of the new police authorities, there are no government amendments on the Marshalled List today.
I should like to indicate to your Lordships the content of the amendments which the Government intend to bring forward at Report stage so that the House may be aware of our intentions over this whole area of the Bill before we move on to consider the amendments which are on the Marshalled List today.
When the Committee stage of this Bill began on 15th February the Government had already announced and tabled amendments which would leave it to the new police authorities to choose their own chairmen. Those amendments were not moved on 15th February, but they are on the Marshalled List today. I suspect that they can be dealt with quite quickly.
942
The Government had also announced and tabled amendments which would enable the Secretary of State, by order, to specify in particular cases that police authorities should have more than 16 members, while retaining broadly the proportions of councillors, magistrates and independent members which had already been proposed. We had also announced the sort of arrangements which we had in mind for the appointment of the independent members to police authorities.
The House recognised that the changes we had announced underlined the Government's determination to maintain the principles of our tripartite policing arrangements. But your Lordships were concerned that some further safeguards were needed in order to ensure that the powers in the Bill could not be used— perhaps at some distant future date by some extreme, obtuse Home Secretary either from the Right or the Left— to subvert the tripartite arrangements or to exert wholly improper pressures on the operational independence of chief officers of police.
The operational independence of chief officers of police is paramount. That was an anxiety which was expressed by your Lordships and I want to make it quite clear that that is a cardinal principle which underlies all the Government's proposals.
It was in relation to that operational independence of chief officers that questions about the composition of the police authority became linked with other features of the Bill, such as the setting of objectives, the monitoring of performance, the terms of appointment of chief officers, and so on. I do not complain that the House felt strongly about these matters. They are vitally important, and it is right that any changes which may have an impact on these matters should be scrutinised through and through.
I must confess, however, that I had mixed feelings about the task which we faced. It seemed that there was no doubt about the strength of feeling of some of your Lordships. There was rather more doubt, however, about the solutions.
The general kerfuffle, if I might so put it, which has surrounded this matter seems to have encapsulated your Lordships' view over the Bill in a way which is not dissimilar to the view which was expressed by a bishop when he was asked to give his views on sin. He replied, "I don't know much about it, but on the whole I don't like it very much".
There were some common strands to the views which were expressed at Committee. There was general support for keeping police authorities reasonably small. There was general support for including some independent members— some new blood— alongside councillors and magistrates. There was, however, a clear concern that Parliament should remove any risk whatsoever that independent members might become the placemen of some future Home Secretary. It was also felt that the special responsibilities of the councillors, who, after all, are representatives of the electorate in the police area, required them to be in a majority on the police authority.

943
Reconciling those pressures has not exactly been easy, but we have made progress. I like to think that we have made substantial progress.
I hope that your Lordships will realise that in the time available it has simply not been possible to find out where any common denominators lie and then to draft appropriate amendments, which may prove to be numerous and quite complex. However, the amendments which we propose to table for the Report stage, and which will relate to the composition of the police authority, would have the following effects.
The standard size of a police authority would increase from 16 to 17. The Home Secretary would have the power, as proposed earlier, to increase its size where local circumstances made the Home Secretary consider that it was desirable to do so. There would be no upper limit on the size of the police authority, although the aim would be to keep authorities as small as possible.
The 17 members of a police authority would consist of nine councillors, three magistrates, and five independent members. That would always leave local councillors in a majority over everyone else.
Where the Secretary of State increased the size of the authority, the local authority members would always be in a majority of one, and the numbers of magistrates and independent members would be increased in proportion to the overall size of the authority.
It would greatly simplify my explanation of the other features of the arrangements, and it might conceivably also ease your Lordships' comprehension of them, if I were to explain the arrangements entirely in terms of the standard sized police authority of 17 members.
The five independent members would be co-opted by the other members of the police authority; that is, by the nine councillors and the three magistrates. It would be they, and only they, who would choose the five independent members. They would do that from a list of 10 names, which would be forwarded to them by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary would choose the 10 names, which he will forward to the police authority, from a short list of 20 which would be provided to him by a local selection panel. In considering which 10 names to forward to the police authority the Home Secretary would have an opportunity to identify those candidates who seemed to him to be the strongest. I should emphasise one point. The Home Secretary would have no power to Forward to the police authority any name which had not been on the short list which he had received from the selection panel.
The selection panels would be drawn up at local level. There would not be, as we had proposed previously, six regional panels. We now propose that there should be one selection panel for each police area.
A selection panel would consist of three people. One panel member would be chosen by the councillors and magistrates on the police authority. They could choose someone from among themselves, or they could choose some other local person of independent judgment from outside the police authority. The second panel member would be appointed by the Home Secretary. He would also be a local person of independent judgment, almost certainly from outside the police authority. The third panel member, who would also be required to be a local
944
person, would be appointed by the other two panel members. In other words, the third panel member would be chosen by the police authority's choice and the Home Secretary's choice.
These details, which I have described so far, would be on the face of the Bill. So also would some of the basic elements of the selection criteria which the selection panel must follow. These would be likely to cover the exclusion of people who were already qualified for membership as magistrates or as councillors. We intend to consider whether we can identify other enduring criteria, which might be highlighted in the Bill, in order to ensure the fairness of the procedures.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. I am trying to follow what seem to be rather complex arrangements. Will the names of 20 members be sent forward to the Home Secretary and then the names of 10 members sent back to the local authorities? What is the reason for that? Will the Home Secretary exercise a negative veto saying that 10 members are unsuitable? On what basis will he judge the issue? Will the names be published? Will there not be a slur on the names of those who are not selected for the short list of 10?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no, I do not think so. The police authority will co-opt five people from a short list of 10. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will have had a list of 20 names submitted to him. He will select from those 20 the 10 who are the most suitable to be appointed. From that list the authority chooses. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, shakes his head. But there is a tripartite arrangement. The Home Secretary has responsibilities; the authorities have responsibilities. The choice is that of the authorities. The people selected will be chosen by the selection panel. There is no question of there being interference of a political nature.
But some other features of the criteria to guide the selection panel might need to change from tame to time. Those features, together with details of the administrative procedures which should be followed by the selection panels, could be dealt with in subordinate legislation, so that they were subject to parliamentary oversight and so that they could be changed, if circumstances changed, without primary legislation.
I hope that this explanation provides a sufficiently clear description of the arrangements we propose. I told your Lordships that the arrangements would be more complicated than they might otherwise have been in order to try to accommodate the diverse views which your Lordships expressed. If we try to find a route through a difficult problem, it is, if I may say so, quite understandable but not very helpful if your Lordships think that it is particularly amusing and treat my right honourable friend's proposals with a sense of ribaldry. It has not been easy, but we have tried to accommodate the views. If your Lordships will listen— dare I suggest, with humility?— you will hear that we have taken on board those matters about which noble Lords were

945
concerned. I had hoped that this explanation would have provided your Lordships with a description of the arrangements we propose to make.
We have aimed to achieve both balance and independence in the co-option procedures, and that has perhaps made them rather more complicated than perhaps some of us might have wished. However, they aim to ensure that the police authority has a reasonable range of choice of suitable people when it co-opts the independent members.
I shall not pretend that it has been an easy exercise, but I hope that the arrangements will meet the spirit of the concerns which your Lordships expressed about the composition of the new police authorities. I recognise that not all the points raised in our earlier debates were concerned directly with the composition of the authorities. But in trying to meet the concerns about the composition of police authorities I think that we go a long way towards meeting many of the concerns which were expressed about the relationships between the three parties to the tripartite structure— including that of the chief constable's operational independence.
I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships that our proposals go a long way towards meeting those other problems, but, encouraged, just a little, by what I hope will be on consideration a favourable reaction from your Lordships, I can perhaps go a little further.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: Just wait! I am so glad that your Lordships find this so enormously amusing; it is a great relief to me.
Amendments were put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, relating to disqualification for membership of a police authority, and the circumstances in which a person might be removed on the grounds that he was unfit. We shall consider those points in relation to the rather different structure which I have now proposed, and we can explore them at Report stage. If there are any points which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord might care to put to me before then, in the light of our revised proposals, I shall of course be happy to consider them.
There were other amendments which related to concerns over the key objectives to be set by the Government, the local objectives to be set by the police authority, the policing plan, and the performance targets to be set by the police authority. Some noble Lords were pressing me to accept a requirement that there should be agreement on those matters between the police authority and the chief constable. I must say, frankly, that I would find it difficult to go all the way down that road. To do so would, in effect, give the chief constable a veto over all these matters. In relation to the policing plan, which derives directly from the budget and which is necessarily the province of the police authority, that just cannot be right.
Nor can it be right, I would venture to suggest, for us to deny to the Home Secretary the right to have some say, alongside that of local people, in policing priorities. After all, he is responsible for law and order in the
946
country, and he is directly responsible to Parliament for the £ 6,000 million which is spent by the police, of which 90 per cent. comes from central government. I do therefore see some fairly hefty obstacles in legislating for agreement.
However, we all realise that agreement is not only highly desirable, but is, in practice, very likely to be achieved in the overwhelming majority of cases where police authorities and chief constables work effectively and amicably together. I think that we may be able to do more to achieve agreement in all possible cases— even if we cannot legislate for it— by strengthening our assurances that consultation should be carried out between the relevant parties. That is a matter at which we are still looking— and, among others it is a matter about which we would like to talk to representatives of chief constables. I hope that the House will allow me to say more about that at Report stage.
There are several other matters, which are less directly connected with the composition of the police authorities, which were raised by some of your Lordships, but which do not arise today. I do not intend to refer to all of them, but there are just two which, I think, deserve a mention.
There were worries about some features of the arrangements for future amalgamations or alterations of police areas. I believe that some aspects of our proposals have been misunderstood, especially as regards the nature and the extent of local consultation in the absence of a public inquiry. We shall see whether we can make that clearer, and I shall be happy to talk to those noble Lords who had amendments down on this point— or, indeed, to any other noble Lords who might like to do so— if that would be helpful.
There is one point which is even more distantly related to anything to do with the police authority. Considerable concern was expressed— in a particularly powerful speech, even for the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich— about one aspect of police discipline arrangements. We initially proposed that a right of appeal to a police appeal tribunal should be available only where the penalty imposed was that of dismissal or of a requirement to resign. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, drew attention to the severity of the financial and other consequences which could arise in certain circumstances where an officer was reduced in rank. We therefore propose to make available a right of appeal to the tribunal in those cases too.
I apologise for what is, even for me, an unusually lengthy speech and especially in the unusual circumstances of the Motion. But I thought that that would be the easiest and, I hoped, the most acceptable way of explaining to your Lordships how the Government propose to address the matters about which you have expressed disquiet— an expression which I might say was full of clarity.
It has been helpful to have the many and varied views of your Lordships, even if at times they conflicted with each other and even if they provided a bit of a bumpy ride. I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have genuinely tried to find a way of meeting your views and opinions, all of which have not necessarily been the same. After all, what have we done? My right

947
honourable friend has produced a Bill to Parliament; he has listened to the views expressed; he has taken account of those views and he proposes to amend the Bill in the light of the views which have been expressed. That seems to me to be exactly what democracy is all about and, if I may say so, exactly what your Lordships' House is for. I only hope that your Lordships will agree.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) in respect of Clauses 2 to 4 and Schedule 2 to the Bill. — (Earl Ferrers.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will hot have been put off by the ironic laughter which punctuated his speech from time to time. It was friendly laughter, in contrast to the friendly fire in the military sense which he received from his own Benches at earlier stages of the Bill. Perhaps I may make it clear immediately that we find this a very welcome statement. As a result, I shall not move the whole of the first two groups of substantial amendments relating to the composition of police authorities which are in my name and those of other noble Lords on the Marshalled List.
I do not wish to detain the House because the impact of what the Minister said, however complex, has already sunk in very effectively. However, there have been four issues about the composition of police authorities in which the views of the House have been made known and have had effect on the Government. The first was the appointment of the chairman by the Home Secretary. There the most powerful speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, made it possible on 2nd February for the Government to withdraw the suggestion.
Secondly, there was the fixed-size membership of police authorities at 16. There again, a most powerful speech from my noble friend Lord Callaghan and the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, persuaded the Government on 2nd February that it was right for them to withdraw from that position, which, as my noble friend said, would have been a procrustean bed.
The third issue was whether the local authority representatives should be in a majority on police authorities. The arguments which we put on 15th February in amendments were powerfully supported by a number of noble Lords opposite, notably the noble Lords, Lord Rippon, Lord Mottistone and Lord Elton. We are delighted that the result has been a recognition that it is right for local authority members to be in a majority on police committees of whatever size. We would perhaps have wished it to be a larger majority than the simple majority of one which is being agreed to, but nevertheless it is a local authority majority and a recognition of the importance of the tripartite agreement that has been the basis of policing for the past 30 years and indeed before that.
The fourth was the question of what I would still call, if they were still proposed, the Home Secretary's "placemen", the so-called independent members on the police authority. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, again in a powerful speech, referred to his preference for what he called "supervised co-option". I think that that is what we have: a co-option system where there is involvement
948
by the Home Secretary but that involvement is at arm's length— at the length of a very long arm— rather than being direct. We need to see the actual text of the amendments, but I think that we can go ahead on the basis that those co-options to police authorities made by the local authority and magistrate members will not look to the Home Secretary for direction or approval. They will not be turning to him on the basis that he is responsible for them being there. We will therefore have a stronger police authority.
I wish to emphasise that a stronger police authority is what we in the Opposition have argued for all the time. Perhaps I may remind the House of our Amendment No. 11 which is on the Marshalled List again today. We did not argue for a slavish adherence to the existing formula for police authorities; we argued for a police authority made stronger by co-option, by the recognition of the need for businesses, education, the youth service, if necessary, the prison service and many other local interests to be recognised in its membership.
However, that cannot be laid down from Westminster or Whitehall. It has to take into consideration the skills and experience of the local authority and magistrate members, adjusted to make the most powerful police authority overall. In other words, where there are gaps in local authority and magistrates' experience, those gaps, which may be different from area to area, should be covered by the way the co-options are devised. I believe that in the formula which the Minister has put forward to the House and which will be put forward again at Report stage— complex though it may be— we have gone a long way to achieving that.
There will be questions about criteria. The Minister used a curious phrase: "enduring criteria, which might be highlighted in the Bill". I do not know how one highlights something in Bills; Bills are in black and white so far as I am concerned. There may be questions about some of the numbers. We have heard for the first time that the selection panel will have to put forward 20 names and I had not encountered that argument before.
However, those are details, minor matters. Basically what we have is a system— if I may adopt the formula of the noble Lord, Lord Elton— of "supervised co-option" which we find acceptable as a solution to the problems that faced us.
The Minister has been courteous and explicit today. I wish to place on record that he has been exceptionally courteous in the past two weeks in the course of the meetings which have taken place between us and him. I can understand that he may have been exasperated from time to time, but he almost never let that exasperation show. He has always listened carefully to what has been said, disagreed for reasons which he has made clear and agreed whenever it has been possible for him to do so. For that and for all the consideration he has given, we have been grateful.
It might be thought that we have not performed a service to democracy by taking some of the discussions off the Floor of the House. But I hope that your Lordships will not feel that. Our attitude has been that of Teddy Roosevelt; we hope that what we have done is to speak softly but carry a big stick. Treading softly, for

949
us, has been engaging in courteous and civilised discussion with the Minister and officials. The big stick has been your Lordships. We are grateful.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I think that I am the only former Home Secretary in your Lordships' House who has not so far pronounced upon the Bill. As I happen also to be the only recidivist Home Secretary — in other words, one who went back to the office — for 50 years or more, it gives me a total service of four-and-a-half years. As Home Secretaries do not on the whole live long or secure ministerial lives, I believe that I have the longest tenure since Rab Butler. We could probably all agree that in view of recent events it is rather unlikely that Mr. Michael Howard will break through into that league of longevity. Nevertheless, I believe that in all fairness one should say that the primary generic responsibility for the Bill does not rest with him. We should bear that in mind when considering these matters.
The reason I have not spoken before is that, as I think noble Lords will broadly agree, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has an exceptional authority and knowledge on police matters. Also, there were certain difficulties about dates.
I suppose that the really interesting thing after this period of silence would be if I were to say that I disagree with all my four colleagues in this House and regard this as an admirable Bill. But even if I were disposed to do so, I would find it rather difficult to know how I should congratulate the Government upon the Bill. Should I congratulate them upon the original version of Clause 2 or upon the version which is now before this House? They bear practically no relationship to each other.
The centrally appointed chairmen, the Home Secretary's "prefects of police", have gone. The centrally appointed five members have partly gone; and their balancing role to provide a possible majority has totally gone. As for the Lords Lieutenant, who made a fleeting appearance on the stage— a reluctant one on their part— in January, they have been released into limbo. One can say that that shows great and admirable flexibility on the part of the Government. One could possibly with more accuracy say that it shows a belated ability to recognise reality when it is met head on.
We all have a great regard for the noble Earl, Lord. Ferrers, and for his command of gifts of temper (and of very good jokes quite often). We appreciate the way in which he has discharged his task this afternoon. But I do not think it can be pretended that the past few weeks have been exactly the noble Earl's most glorious period. Although we on these Benches shall certainly not oppose what is now proposed— to do so would be like firing shots into the back of a routed army— there are three points which remain to be made.
First, the Government had plenty of warning not to get into the unenviable position which they have occupied at least since the Second Reading. On 26th May last year my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich initiated a debate before the White Paper was published in which 16 Peers other than the Minister spoke. Of those 16 Peers,13 spoke strongly against the proposals
950
that were enshrined in the Bill. One spoke in favour of them; and on looking at two of the speeches the import was not entirely clear. As a result, the Government took absolutely no notice in the White Paper which followed. The House then proceeded to the Second Reading in January, when I believe 30 Peers spoke against the Bill; and perhaps two, other than Ministers, were in favour. It has been a long time since then; it has been seven weeks. The Government have been slow, although they have reacted.
The second point which must be made is that of the concessions which, under duress, have been made in Clause 2—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him?
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: I do not think so. Well, if the noble Lord wants to, yes.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the sourness of his approach compared with that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in view of all that has happened and the Government's taking heed of the expression of the House?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that his interventions have a special quality which is appreciated more by some than by others?
It is important to appreciate that what has happened has not turned Clause 2 into a desirable or useful clause. The Government have merely turned it from being a highly harmful one into a pointless and almost farcical one. The elaboration of the procedure is totally disproportionate to the value of any result which will be achieved from the existing practice so far as police authorities are concerned. The process by which it was described, in which a longer list would be sent to the Home Secretary, a shorter list would be sent back, and then the choice would be made, dissolved the House into very considerable mirth at that stage. It was the most complicated and elaborate procedure that one could possibly imagine. It is not an aid to police efficiency but an expensive piece of sticking plaster for such bits of the Government face as are still in place.
It is impossible to avoid the view that the whole sad history of this Bill has been a classic example of how not to legislate. You mix dogma and hubris with a reluctance to consult— there was no prior consultation before this Bill was brought in— and a determination to legislate at almost all cost, whether it is necessary or desirable to legislate at all; without consideration of whether the Bill is necessary or not; without consideration of whether the legislation is well thought out or not; without regard to any prior independent inquiry; without regard to whether there is any support for the Bill from those who know about the matter and have expertise in it. You therefore end up with the humiliation by instalment which we have seen.
We greatly appreciate the good faith with which the noble Earl has acted throughout. Nobody wants to encourage lack of responsibility in respect of strong

951
views expressed in this House. But this really ought to be an object lesson in how not to legislate. It ought to be an object lesson in the undesirability of every Minister in a short period of office feeling that he must produce a major Bill whether it improves matters or not and whether or not the re is a problem to be dealt with.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord— especially as he has contributed so much to this Bill, and perhaps to the changes that have taken place. I promise him that I shall not keep him from the House for more than two or three minutes.
I must say that it has been a day of surprises. When I arrived I asked to see the amendments on the Marshalled List. I saw that changes were proposed in the matter of the election of the chairmen, and nothing else. I thought, "My goodness, this is going to be a great day: no change at all, after all we have heard and all the negotiations that have taken place involving the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale". I asked myself: "What will the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, do today? He went out on such a limb on these matters and now only an amendment appears on the Marshalled List about the chairmen?". I thought I was in for a great parliamentary day.
Noble Lords: you are. You really are.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: It depends on from which side of the House you are speaking. On this side, yes, but as regards the other side, I would have thought that this is perhaps not the greatest parliamentary day in their history.
I find in fact that there is a surprise. Although the Marshalled List states meekly and mildly that we are having recommittal proceedings, we have had nothing of the sort. All that we have had is a new Second Reading. The 21-minute speech that we enjoyed (I speak for myself) on this side of the Chamber was of such a character that, had it been made before by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, we would have regarded it as almost a complete Second Reading speech.
I want to thank the noble Earl most warmly for the revised speech that we have had, which has altered the whole complexion of the four issues on which a number of us were in dispute with the Government. It would be churlish of me to do anything but congratulate the noble Earl. Some doubts were expressed as to whether he had the capacity to influence the Home Secretary. We now know that it is he, and not the Home Secretary, who is in charge of the Bill. He has had his way over this matter. He undertook very clearly to represent all that we had to say. Undoubtedly, he represented it to the Government and he has won. I salute him and congratulate him on his great victory on behalf of us all.
The noble Earl referred to the fact that our opposition was fierce. On the contrary, I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, roared as gently as any sucking dove. But there was no doubt about the meaning that lay behind what he had to say. The Government have behaved with very great discretion, especially in
952
putting up the noble Earl to give us this revised Second Reading of the Bill. I can think of no one else who could discharge that duty and convince us that a retreat is indeed an advance. The Government's retreat on this particular matter will certainly be recorded in the annals of the Conservative manifesto at the next election as one of the greatest advances ever made in the history of the Tory party in conferring powers upon the people of this country. So we salute and congratulate them.
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in rubbing salt in the wound. But it is an extraordinary day when the four major issues we discussed on Second Reading have been reversed by the Government. I congratulate them and salute them for doing so. They have done the right thing. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, indirectly remarked, it shows that Ministers who are anxious to make a reputation for themselves are certainly wise to leave the department for higher things before what they say comes home to roost or at least to legislation in this House.
I shall not raise any detailed points today. The cumbersome procedures by which the independent members will now be selected seem rather extravagant and rather absurd. No doubt that will be discussed again in Committee. No one will die in the last ditch for this issue. My guess, especially as my noble friend Lord McIntosh says that the Opposition agree (and who am I to disagree?) is that the Government will now get their Committee stage with relevant ease.
At the end of the day all that any of us can say is that, in respect of the procedures, the Government have given up the substance and kept the form. It is an empty procedure that they are now following. They might as well have gone back and allowed the police authorities to elect their own chairmen and to select who they themselves— that is to say, the local councillors plus the magistrates— thought it would be worthwhile adding, if the Government believed that it was necessary to have some additional members. They might as well have done that instead of going through such an elaborate farce, sending 20 names to the Home Office, receiving 10 names back and then selecting five. I suppose that it is a small price to pay for saving the Government's face. I am happy now to help them continue to save their face but I ask them, please, not to produce any more legislation like this.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I do not wish to follow the far more distinguished Home Secretaries than I, the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and Lord Jenkins. I would not wish to live in their world and I do not seek to do so in what I shall say. I simply have two comments which I believe are important to your Lordships' House.
Ever since I had the privilege of being the Leader of your Lordships' House and even from the earliest days when I first came here, I have always believed that there were times when this House had a function to fulfil in constitutional actions. It had a special role to play.
Obviously, as a former Home Secretary, I was interested in this particular programme. But the problem we faced in the Bill was a very great one. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, because I feel he will understand, that when one's own party and one's own

953
government are in office, there are certain roles that one can play and certain roles that one should not play. I had to try to make up my mind as to the right thing to do. I am very pleased to learn today that your Lordships' House has taken an action— some of us may have made a right decision, some of us a wrong one — and made a change in our legislation that I believe is of enormous importance to our country.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers has conducted the Bill with very great skill. I believed from the start that he would do so. Everything that he has done from the beginning shows what can be done by someone who is fulfilling his role in your Lordships' House. I hope that he will feel that he has done a very considerable job for everyone.
I believe that this House sometimes has to say, "Think again" and sometimes, "No, we do not believe that that will work". Equally, if the constitution is to work properly, there has to be from the other place an understanding by Ministers that we have a full role to play. We do have some wisdom that they do not have or we do not feel that they have or which is different. It is important and only fair that I should say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has had the courage to take these decisions. When he saw that your Lordships' House believed that his Bill was wrong, he was prepared to take those decisions. We should not underrate that position. I hope that no one will do so. Some people may do so and say that he is running away from it all. I am not prepared to take that view. I believe that he has been reasonable and sensible in taking his decisions and in paying attention to what has been said in your Lordships' House. It would have been perfectly easy to have gone through with the Bill and not to have done that at all. However, he took that decision. I thank him for it. I believe that it shows the importance of your Lordships' House.
I believe that a Bill, about which I myself was gravely unhappy, based on my experience as Home Secretary, has been dramatically changed. I am very relieved about that. Your Lordships' House has carried through a major task. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for what he has done. I am also grateful to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for what he has been prepared to undertake in response to what was put forward in your Lordships' House. If the Bill has been made better on that score, it is greatly to the credit of your Lordships' House and no one else.
4 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence after listening to three previous chiefs, but I feel that perhaps a very short contribution from the Cross Benches may be appropriate. I had hoped that this important announcement would be made for the first time in Parliament. Alas, that was not to be, and as usual we read about it in the newspapers this morning. The Times did its best on the back page. In a list of contents, it said that the Home Secretary had given way on local authority representation, and referred to page 11. But there is nothing on page 11.
954
The proposals now envisaged by the Government fall short of what I personally regard as ideal, as I tried to explain at the earlier Committee stage. They do not provide for a two-thirds majority for the elected representatives; the size of the authority is still determined by the Secretary of State; the independent members will form a significant proportion of the membership of the police authority and will carry considerable weight if it ever comes to voting, and the Secretary of State is still involved in their appointment as compared with each authority being left to have an unfettered choice in co-opting additional members on the lines of Amendment No.7, which is now not to be moved.
On the other hand, the local authority members will be in the majority, however slight. It will fall to the authorities to assess how the gaps in their combined knowledge and experience are best to be filled— they are the only people who can really do that— and the selection procedure, cumbersome thought it sounds, will ensure beyond doubt that the independent members are not simply government nominees.
For his part, the Home Secretary has certainly given up some of his original proposals as well. But he retains his central point of independent members acceptable to him being added to the police authority and sharing in the new responsibilities for spending considerable sums of money, most of which comes from the Exchequer. In other words, it is not a victory for one side and not a defeat for the other; it is a compromise, hammered out over some prolonged and, on the whole, good tempered negotiations in which I was privileged to take some part.
There are one or two details about which I am not quite clear. Is it the Government's intention that the Bill be amended to provide that the approval of more than half of the local authority members will be required for a precept? On the selection procedure, what happens if the three individuals cannot agree? Are names to be sent forward on a majority of two to one? What is to be the procedure for filling vacancies? Has this elaborate procedure to be gone through each time there is a casual vacancy? How will it be decided whether or not the appointment of those independent members will be renewed after their initial period runs out?
But those are points of comparative detail. Perhaps more important is that one may be permitted a tinge of doubt whether there will be enough suitably qualified people throughout the country who will feel able to be considered for the appointments which, after all, carry with them the prospect of a good deal of work and responsibility and no great financial reward. When one takes into account that some of the authorities will have more than 17 members— incidentally, membership of any police authority will now always be an odd figure — we are talking of almost 1,000 people being considered. However, we shall see. I must not pursue my doubts any further and affect the harmony of these proceedings.
The noble Earl was good enough to tender an invitation for further discussions before Report stage on such matters as the local police plan and the amalgamation procedure. I think that some of us will be disposed to take up that offer. For the present, I content

955
myself with welcoming the statement of the noble Earl and go along with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in saying that the two groups of amendments to which I put my name will not be moved.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, briefly, I note that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he will not be moving his amendments in the first two groups, and nor shall I. I hope to make my comments on them at Report stage without worrying your Lordships about them now.
Along with other noble Lords, I should like to say how extremely generous I believe the Home Secretary and my noble friend Lord Ferrers have been in making the moves which we sought to make, not just once but twice. I totally endorse what my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said; that is, that it can only be to their credit. It is quite remarkable to my mind, in political life, that people who listen, move and take note of what other people say do not receive the credit that they deserve. It is much harder to do that than it is to stand on a platform which is really unsustainable. They both therefore need to be congratulated.
I look forward to the Report stage. I cannot resist saying that I believe my solution to the problem of how to select the five extra people is much better than that of my noble friend and I hope that when he comes to table his own Report stage amendments he will take particular note of what I suggest rather than what he told us he intends to do.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my contribution will be short. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has been praised, and rightly so. The Home Secretary received some modicum of vicarious praise. He needs it and I do not begrudge it. Others have been praised. But I wish to record in this House the responsible and courageous stand made by Her Majesty's Opposition in this Chamber, without whose work these amendments, this change to the Bill and this new "Second Reading" would not have been as your Lordships received it today. From the Back Bench I pay a tribute which has not been paid so far to my noble friend Lord McIntosh and to all those who assisted him on the Opposition Front Bench throughout the various stages of the Bill.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, having been a critic of the Bill as originally introduced I warmly welcome the statement given today. It meets virtually all the criticisms that we made. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to "friendly fire" and I was reminded of the young Disraeli, sitting behind Sir Robert Peel. He said that if you sit behind Ministers and praise them, you are sneered at for seeking an office. If you sit behind Ministers and criticise them, you are sneered at for having been denied an office. Happily, many of us are old enough not to be bothered by those considerations and are content, from time to time, to be described as rebels.
In this instance, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, there is a case for general congratulations. Ministers have difficulties as well as Back-Benchers, perhaps even greater ones. But it is a mistake for many people outside this Chamber to think that a Minister can stand and say, "I accept the criticism; I will propose the
956
amendment". Of course the Minister must say, "I will bear in mind what has been said, but I must consult with my colleagues and I cannot give any guarantees". Therefore I join with those who expressed great appreciation for the way in which my noble friend Lord Ferrers dealt with the matter.
It is right also to express an appreciation of what the Home Secretary did. In that, I am fully in accord with my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. As I said on the last occasion, it is not easy for a Minister to change a measure that he inherited. And, of course, no sooner had we concluded our proceedings than the media took an interest in what we had done.
Inevitably the question was put to the Home Secretary, "Do you not agree that you have suffered a humiliating setback?" The word "humiliation" has been referred to today. The Home Secretary replied quite properly, "Not at all. This is part of the parliamentary process". We should be proud of it and we should thank him for the way in which he has responded to it. He said, "I will consider all that has been said but I will maintain the objectives of the Bill". I think we all supported the objectives of the Bill from the outset— stronger and more effective police authorities. The changes that the Government propose to bring forward at Report stage will strengthen those objectives. So I join in thanking the Home Secretary and believe, as my noble friend the Minister said, that this is democracy at work. We should not snipe at each other for what has happened; rather I think we could congratulate ourselves.
I took part in the debate on the White Paper proposals last May and I said then that the four matters that have caused such concern were avoidable without destroying the basis of the Bill. The then Home Secretary had said, "I am perfectly prepared to consider any representations as this legislation goes through Parliament". I concluded my speech on that occasion by saying that I hoped that our deliberations would help the Home Secretary to find a satisfactory conclusion to his deliberations of a kind that would command general support. I believe that the Bill as it is now proceeding should command general support.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rippon has pointed out the difficulties of Back Benchers and their attitude to the Front Bench. However, the Front Bench has difficulties of its own, to which he also alluded. It is a commonplace of government that if you stick to your guns you are obstinate and blinkered and if you change your mind you are committing a U-turn and are weak. If we apply the standards of behaviour of individuals to those of government we will see that those who listen to reason and change their minds in response to it are actually regarded as greater in stature than those who do not.
I hope that we do not make too much of these changes. They have made the Bill greatly more acceptable but I would not wish my noble friend the Minister to feel that he had to face a Secretary of State whom he had forced into a retreat. It seems to me that he serves a Secretary of State whom he has helped to accept the reasoned arguments of your Lordships"

957
House on all sides and improve a Bill to create stronger and more locally responsive police authorities than we now have.
I am most grateful to my noble friend for his untiring and courteous work in the corridors and behind the scenes and for the way in which he has handled the Bill. However, greater voices than mine have been raised in his praise. I merely say thank you, my Lords, for advancing the constitution.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on a preliminary matter, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for indicating that the Government have met our point in terms of rights of appeal and legal representation to officers who are reduced in rank. It was a matter of great importance to the police organisations, particularly to the Police Federation and the superintendents' association, and I am glad that the Government have met us on this point.
I turn now to the substance of the matter. Like everyone else who has spoken, I welcome the decision to drop the proposal to give the Home Secretary power to appoint at least five members to every police authority in England and Wales. That, together with the earlier proposal to appoint the chairmen as well, which was subsequently dropped, had created a major threat to our traditions of local, politically impartial policing.
The anxieties of the police were expressed in forceful terms by Sir John Smith, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, when he spoke only four weeks ago. He described those and other proposals in the Bill as "ill-conceived and unacceptable". They would, he said, be unlikely to improve the quality of policing in this country and would damage the constitutional basis upon which it had been built. That is precisely the position of my noble friends and many others in the House who have opposed the Home Secretary's proposals.
We opposed them and it should be remembered, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead reminded us, that they were produced by Mr. Clarke after only a few months at the Home Office. They had not been recommendations from a Royal Commission, or from a departmental inquiry, or from a Select Committee of the House of Commons. They were based exclusively upon. the whims of a single politician. I therefore welcome unreservedly the statement made by the noble Earl in withdrawing those proposals. The appointment of more than 200 political appointees to police authorities represented, in our view, the first major step towards national control of the police by central government. We are certainly prepared to accept the alternative proposal outlined by the noble Earl today which, as I think everyone recognises, has been subject to fairly protracted discussions between a number of us and the Government.
I should like to make only two points in conclusion. First, we recognise, as does the House, that the Government have changed their position because it was quite clear when these amendments were considered on the first day of the Committee stage that the
958
Government would have been defeated if they had not announced that they were prepared to consult. However, having said that, it would be right to pay a tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has been consistently helpful and immensely patient through our rather lengthy discussions, and to thank not only those who sit on the Opposition Benches and Cross-Benches but also a substantial number of Conservative Peers. Without their co-operation I do not believe these major changes would have been effected. I think that our country and the police service generally have every reason to be grateful to them.
Secondly, I am glad that the noble Earl has agreed to meet us before the Report stage to discuss some of the outstanding issues. There are some significant issues which are still in dispute. He has certainly agreed to meet us without making any commitment; and very properly so as well. But I think it would be even more helpful— I am not sure whether I detected a hint of this in the noble Earl's statement— if before the Report stage the Home Secretary were himself to meet representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers. There are a number of issues of fundamental importance to the association on which it is highly desirable that there should be discussions before we come back to this question in the House.
It is overwhelmingly desirable for us to try to resolve these outstanding issues on a sensible basis. It is vital that we should do nothing to undermine the operational independence of chief officers. I noted what the noble Earl said and I was encouraged by it. He said:
"The operational independence of chief officers of police is paramount".
We will hold him to that view in the discussions which we are about to have. The fact that chief officers are operationally independent is one of the principal reasons why our system of policing in this country is so widely admired outside our shores. A former commissioner of the Metropolitan police referred to the police service in this country as "the people's police". That is a wholly appropriate description. They are servants not of the government of the day but of the whole community. Let us do nothing in the Bill to put that reputation in jeopardy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, having voiced once or twice the suspicion that governments are sometimes let down by their powers of hearing, I think it would be churlish if I did not take the opportunity to say today how very welcome my noble friend's statement has been. For me, this basic change colours my whole attitude to this part of the Bill. I echo what has been said on both sides of the House about the amazing patience and skill of my noble friend. I appreciate very much what he has said and done both within the Chamber and outside. His contribution to consensus, essential to the success of the Bill, has earned him our very great gratitude.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to add one or two thoughts. I hope to be constructive in doing so. Like other noble Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the Home Secretary on accepting the

959
collective wisdom of your Lordships instead of defying it. That would have led to defeat, as was made clear on 15th February.
I congratulate my noble friend too on using the Motion for Recommitment as an opportunity for taking us into his confidence and for laying the foundations of what will necessarily be a more detailed discussion at Report stage. It is on that matter that I wish to put forward one or two points of detail.
I welcome the local authority majority on the slightly enlarged police authority. But I am still worried about the disparity there will be between the number of magistrates and the co-opted members. Instead of having five co-opted members and three magistrates, as expressed in our earlier debates, especially on this side, I would prefer to see five magistrates and three co-opted members. If we had only three members to co-opt we could have a much more simple procedure than the one described by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as a bit cumbersome. I hope that between now and Report stage my noble friend on the Front Bench, the Home Secretary, and perhaps some of your Lordships, will think again about that proportion because it is very important.
There was a time when the county police authorities consisted of 50 per cent. magistrates and 50 per cent. local councillors. Since 1964 we have had one-third magistrates on all police authorities, whether county authorities or city and borough authorities. That has had the very great advantage of bringing to the work of those authorities the experience that magistrates have gained in the courts where they see the problems faced by the police, can evaluate their performance and can think of ways of helping them. Having warmly congratulated my noble friend on those matters I have mentioned, I still hope that we shall have open minds on that point.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I join in the general welcome given to my noble friend's statement and congratulate him on having listened most carefully to the points made by noble Lords at an earlier stage. There can he no doubt that he and his colleagues in the Government have shown great flexibility on the question of police authorities. There can be no doubt either that the police themselves will welcome the proposed changes.
One question was tucked in as an addition to the Minister's remarks on the main question of police authorities. It was mentioned a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I refer to police disciplinary procedures. My noble friend indicated that he would be moving an amendment that would allow the right of appeal to police officers reduced in rank by a disciplinary tribunal. That is extremely welcome. I hope that it is a sign of greater flexibility to come.
I shall be very grateful if my noble friend can say a few words on the general question of police discipline. We had some discussion on the matter on 17th February and on the following Monday. I shall be glad for any indication he is able to give as to whether the Government will seek to reverse Amendment No.128 on the Marshalled List, which was passed by the Committee on the Monday before last, and any
960
observations he is able to give on the other amendments which were put forward and then withdrawn as regards police discipline. I feel sure that such comments would be a very great help.
I welcome most warmly the intervention made by my noble friend and hope that we shall be able to make other representations to improve the Bill which is rapidly becoming one which the House as a whole should be able to accept.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful, I think, for most of what your Lordships have been kind enough to say. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that he wished that the statement had been announced in Parliament but instead had read about it in the press. I agree. I wish that it had been announced in Parliament. I read about some of it in the press, too. The implication behind the noble Lord's remarks was not quite correct. The suggestion was that it had arrived in the press, possibly due to the department from which I operate. If it was not, that is fine—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: That was not intended.
Earl Ferrers: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord. Somehow, I did not believe that that was the implication. I picked up a mild flavour, but we are as distressed as the noble Lord. I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who have been appreciative of the efforts that we made. It was not an easy task. I said that it would not be. But we tried to make an effort. In the lovely way he has, my noble friend Lord Mottistone said that he was glad about it but really thought that his amendments were better than those which the Government produced and perhaps we could think again. Then my noble friend Lord Renton said that perhaps his amendments were better than both. I ask them respectively and generously to contain themselves: we have been through all this. We have tried to find a route through. If we are going to open up the matter all over again by saying, "This amendment is better than that; we would rather have five magistrates and someone else would prefer three independents" and so on, we would really get ourselves into a most appalling tangle.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that others have contributed greatly. The noble Lords, Lord. McIntosh, and Lord Harris of Greenwich, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, have gone out of their way to recognise that we have tried to find a path through this particular minefield. I am greatly appreciative of what they have done, their attitude, and the help they have given. In the end one can only do these things through goodwill on all sides.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was concerned that the Bill was amended to change the arrangements in order to ensure that the local authority members cannot be out-voted on the budget. Amendments of detail may be needed to reflect the changed proportions but in principle the arrangements set out in the Bill will continue. Again, he was anxious about what would happen if the panel did not agree. It is not a black and white issue. Those who are best suited

961
will be put forward and if it cannot be agreed that one person is better than another, then the panel will have to recommend that both are suitable for appointment.
I could not help but be fascinated— as one always is — by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan which followed that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I was a little disappointed with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. He was a very distinguished Home Secretary. Unfortunately, we have not had the advantage of his consideration on the earlier parts of the Bill and I believe that we are the losers for that. We tried to find a way through. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, then said that he did not want to fire any shots into the back of a routed army, that the procedure we had proposed was pointless and farcical and that it was humiliation by instalments. I found those pretty tough words to accept. However, the noble Lord is a tough operator and I suppose that he is entitled to put forward those views. But we were trying to get over a problem that we had all encountered. This is not a question of humiliation; it is a matter of Parliament saying what it thinks about the Bill and the Government saying that they will try to take note of it. I have to say that it is remarks like those of the noble Lord that make Ministers a little more obdurate than they may naturally want to be, for fear that if they try to give a bit to meet the point they will be castigated by someone with the power of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I hope he will feel that, on reflection, that was not perhaps one of the most helpful of the many observations that he has made since he has been in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, is always such fun to listen to. He said he felt that this would be a great parliamentary day. He gave me mild stick for making a speech that lasted for 21 minutes. I apologise for it. I agree that I did make it. But the noble Lord made quite a powerful speech in Committee in which he suggested:
"In a difficult position the Minister is trying to make an offer that should be seriously considered … We must not rush into a decision until we know exactly how the Government intend to continue the discussion".
He went on to say:
"They should not be the subject of party divisions. Indeed, today they have not been the subject of party divisions but there has been all-party agreement on many issues. Will the Minister say how he believes that matters can be carried forward?"— [Official Report,15/2/94; cols.137–138.]
We did carry forward those matters. I told your Lordships how we proposed to proceed. Admittedly, I took 20 minutes to do that, but I am sure that every one of those minutes was a valuable one. Having explained to the noble Lord what would happen, he said that the Government regarded a retreat as an advance and made good fun of it. We tried to get over a difficulty which the noble Lord invited us to do. I believe that we have got over that difficulty. His speech was engaging. However, I hope he will not mind my saying that, though I have always had the most enormous respect for and admired the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, I believe that he took leave of his senses when he said that it is I and not the Home Secretary who is in charge of the Bill. In common rugger club parlance I think that the noble Lord has gone off his trolley. If he
962
really believes that to be so he knows nothing about my right honourable friend and very little about me, too. My right honourable friend is wholly in charge of this Bill and the Home Office. I am merely a little minnow in the pool swimming around trying to help where I can. It is not fair for the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, to say that I am in charge of the Bill. That really is the kiss of death, if he is trying to place a wedge between my right honourable friend and myself. Of course, it is done with a degree of humour and I know that the noble Lord does not really mean it.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I say to the noble Earl that the last thing I want to do is to give him the kiss of death because then we will be left with the Home Secretary.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can imagine nothing better than that!
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, was also concerned about the "20-10-5" point. One must make clear that it is not a matter of the Home Secretary excluding 10 names. That was a matter about which the noble Lord was concerned. Rather, it is a matter of the Home Secretary putting forward the 10 most suitable names that he can.
My noble friend Lord Bethell asked about police discipline. I can tell him that we do not intend to reverse the recent decision of your Lordships. That is now a matter for another place. No doubt the other matters relating to discipline will be raised at Report stage. That is the part of the Bill to which this matter refers specifically.
I am grateful for the understanding that most noble Lords have been kind enough to give to our proposals. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords who have played a part: the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Police forces and police authorities]:
[Amendments Nos.1 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Schedule to be inserted in Police Act 1964: police authorities]:
[Amendments Nos.9 to 16 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.17:
Page 51, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert:
("7. — (1) A police authority shall at each annual meeting appoint a chairman from among its members.

(2) The appointment under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall be the first business transacted at the meeting.

(3) On a casual vacancy occurring in the office of chairman, an appointment to fill the vacancy shall be made—

(a) at the next meeting of the authority (other than an extraordinary meeting), or

(b) if that meeting is held within fourteen days after the date on which the vacancy occurs and is not an annual meeting, not later than the next following meeting.").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No.17 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos.18 to 21. These amendments address the concerns expressed at

963
Second Reading that the appointment of police authority chairmen by the Secretary of State has the potential to increase the central control of the police and reduce local accountability. That was never the intention of the proposal. However, we are happy to meet the concerns expressed whenever possible. The amendments have the effect that the chairman of a police authority will be appointed by the members of that authority. We propose that, as now, they should be required to elect the chairman annually. New paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 is modelled on existing local authority provisions which require authorities to elect their chairmen as the first business of their annual meetings. The Home Secretary will have no role in the selection of the chairman. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I wish to support these amendments. They reflect exactly what I hoped would happen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, got his name on to the amendments. If I had known that spaces were available I would also have put down my name.
These amendments are very welcome. They give effect to the undertaking that was given on 2nd February that the Home Secretary should not have a role in the appointment of the chairman of a police authority. It is common sense and in my view deserves the unanimous support of the Committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I referred to this matter on the Motion on Re-Commitment. This amendment is a critical one. I am glad that the Government have accepted the overwhelming will of the House in this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos.18 to 21:
Page 52, line 16, leave out ("or as chairman").
Page 52, line 22, leave out ("the chairman of a police authority, or").
Page 52, line 23, after ("resigns") insert ("his office as a member").
Page 52, leave out lines 44 to 46.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No.22:
Page 53, line 6, leave out paragraph 18.
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to change the proposal outlined in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to disqualify from a police authority any person whose term of office expires after he or she has attained the age of 70. Given the fact that there is a four-year term of appointment, the effect of that provision is that if one's birthday is on the wrong date one can be disqualified from membership of a police authority at the age of 66. That seems to me to be a most extraordinary provision and I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Government. All I do at the moment is indicate our concern to the noble Earl and hope that in the discussions that are to be held he will look at that specific point. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with the thrust of the amendment, although I am not sure that it is the
964
best way of achieving the aim. The normal procedure for appointments to external bodies of local authorities is that the appointments should be made from year to year. I would rather see the more complex amendments which will be necessary to ensure that they are made annually with the possibility of renewal, rather than the imposition of an age limit. Certainly, the fundamental point behind the amendment is right. It would be absurd to exclude people at the age of 66. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, will reach that age fairly soon and I shall reach it soon after and we are not finished yet!
Earl Ferrers: I was going to say, "More' the pity", but that would be ungenerous and untrue. Paragraph 18 might appear to discriminate against those who are of more mature age. There is good reason for that. It. is a requirement that a person who is a magistrate must step down from that office when he or she reaches the age of 70 and it does not seem unreasonable that that should apply to members of the police authority. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was concerned that they might have to step down at 66, which would be most terrible. I assure the noble Lord that that is unlikely to occur because a 66 year-old can be appointed for a term which is shorter than four years, which will take him or her to the age of 70.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I intend to withdraw the amendment but on the point of substance I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is more appropriate to have annual appointments. If that is not the case all kinds of other problems are likely to arise. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Functions of police authorities]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No.23:
Page 3, leave out lines 7 and 8.
The noble Lord said: I do not wish to say or to do anything which will disturb the harmony of the afternoon. Nor do I wish to convey even the slightest impression of anything but total admiration for my noble friend. However, perhaps I may take this opportunity to comment on the quaintness of the drafting. The position may seem strange to someone who is not skilled at interpreting such papers. My amendment deletes lines 7 and 8, which provide that:
"any objectives determined by the Secretary of State under section 28A of this Act".
It is odd that "section 28A of this Act" is to be found at Clause 11 on page 9 of the Bill. Anyone looking at the papers afresh would be puzzled unless they were used to the fact that almost nothing in legislation means what on the surface it appears to mean.
The point is not all that serious but I should like my noble friend to comment on the amendment, which I do not intend to press today. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may try, the Committee may think for once, to be helpful. The dilemma is that we must either repeal and re-enact the Police Act 1964 or amend those parts of it which will dovetail into this Bill. If we take the latter course, which the Government have decided upon because it will save a great deal of

965
parliamentary time, we shall be faced with a tiresome situation which I can understand my noble friend not liking. The alternative is completely to repeal the 1964 Act and take much more time in re-enacting those parts of it with which no-one quarrels and can be allowed to remain.
Lord Elton: My noble friends difficulty will disappear as soon as the supplementary insert for Halsbury's Statutes, which deals with this new legislation, is published. He will then be able to read the principal Act as amended by this Act, which will be easy to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are in danger of moving from a recommittal to Committee straight to speeches on the Bill do now pass. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has a point in saying that the whole of the Bill, which consists of lengthy and complex amendments to previous legislation, requires us to know the Police Act 1964 and the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. The situation may be remedied when Halsbury's Statutes are republished as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. However, it is extraordinarily difficult for those of us who must try to tackle amendments.
I shall not concern myself further with the drafting point but I shall be interested in hearing the Minister comment on national objectives. In the Motion on recommittal the Minister used curious words; he talked about "highlighting enduring criteria". I take it that this is the part of the Bill to which he was referring. I do not understand how one highlights something in a Bill and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister meant in the proposed use of the legislation to specify national objectives.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may add to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Elton. Not only Halsbury's Statutes but The Statutes Revised will enable amendments to be put into a form with which the users of the statutes can easily grapple. Meanwhile, in considering the method that we use we must consider the parliamentary timetable.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for not wishing to disturb the harmony. I am always nervous when he rises in case that might happen, but he has not done so today. He was concerned with the quaintness of the drafting. I agree that it is not all that easy because one is constantly referring to the 1964 Act. The Bill amends that Act and my noble friend Lord Renton is right in saying that we must make amendments this way or redraft a new Act. It was decided to do it this way. The Bill sets out a series of amendments to the 1964 Act and I sympathise with my noble friend in his difficulty in seeing it all the way through.
Clause 3 requires a police authority to have regard to objectives. My noble friend's amendment removes that obligation. The purpose of the objectives is to give a focus to police activity across the country. The amendment will reduce the objectives merely to
966
exhortations. That would be too vague. Amendment No.27 removes any obligation on police authorities to comply with a direction by the Secretary of State either to set a performance target or to take remedial measures following an adverse inspection report. It is reasonable that local people should know how good a service their local force provides from year to year and in comparison with other forces. Removing a requirement for a police authority to set a performance target will allow a poor authority to continue to disguise its own weakness.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about what I described in my original speech as highlighting the "enduring criteria". We intend to produce amendments to the Bill which will be able to put on the face of it certain criteria which will be what one might describe as everlasting. Other changes will need to be made by subordinate legislation. From time to time it may be necessary to change the criteria, and that can be done without changing primary legislation. It is only those criteria of an enduring nature which will appear on the face of the Bill. I hope that that solves the noble Lord's problem.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am grateful to my noble friend. I should not consider for a moment pressing the amendment. I was rather hurt to hear my noble friend say that I am capable of introducing a note of something other than harmony into our proceedings. I should not have expected that from him. I thought that I was a source of harmony, and I am glad to be one this afternoon.
I should like to take the opportunity to thank my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Elton for their advice. I had limped along to the conclusion which they kindly pointed out to me. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, understood my point about the drafting; that is, that those who attempt to follow the proceedings on these Bills must find it extremely difficult when they do not have all the necessary books before them to cope with this kind of drafting. It is rather confusing to look in Clause 11 of this Bill for Section 28A of the Police Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No.24:
Page 3, line 9, after ("authority") insert ("after agreement with the Chief Constable").
The noble Baroness said: In rising to speak to this amendment I shall not disturb the harmony of the Committee and I hope to contribute to the discussions which the noble Earl says he will have with us and with others in the next fortnight. I hope that the suggestion that the Home Secretary will meet the chief constables in the interim will also be taken up, as was suggested in the noble Earl's earlier statement.
In speaking to Amendments Nos.24,25,28,29 and 35, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.26 and 31 to 34 because the same argument applies to them also. They relate to the setting of objectives and the drawing up of local policing plans by the police authority. In our view, it is essential that those plans carry with them the

967
commitment of the local police force and the chief constable of that force if they are to be carried out and adopted enthusiastically.
The amendments refer to "agreement with the Chief Constable". I understand the point that that gives a veto to the chief constable, which may be an unnecessarily antagonistic view of what takes place in police authority discussions. Therefore, it may be that the amendment should not refer specifically to "agreement with the Chief Constable" but should reflect joint plans or plans that have been developed together. A form of words should be found to make it clear that the status of the chief constable is equal to that of the police authority.
In his statement the Minister referred on more than one occasion to the importance of the tripartite arrangement. That arrangement between the police authority, the chief constable and the Home Office implies equal status among those partners. It is not an arrangement whereby orders are given by the Home Office to the police authority or by the police authority to the chief constable. The implication that a police authority might draw up plans or set objectives which would then be imposed upon the chief constable and the police force would clearly be counter-productive to the smooth running, efficiency and enthusiastic adoption by a police force and a chief constable of those objectives and plans.
I urge the Minister in his discussions in the next fortnight to try to find common ground so that it is accepted that the chief constable is an equal partner with regard to the drawing up of objectives and plans. Otherwise, the police authority can give orders to a chief constable. My experience of situations in which people are given orders which they find unacceptable or with which they do not agree is that there is no whole-hearted commitment and one finds what is called front-line deviancy. I have been guilty of that in my time. If orders come down from above and one does not agree with them and is not committed to them, there are many ways in which they can be subverted and not carried out. That is not a desirable situation for the police forces of this country. It is essential that the police authority plans and objectives are drawn up with the understanding and co-operation of the chief constable and his police force and in partnership with them. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, remembered and accepted the proposition that if we write into a statute that there shall be the agreement of somebody, that gives that person a right of veto. Each of the nine amendments would have the effect of establishing a veto to be exercised by the chief constable. That would be a veto not only over the Home Secretary but also over the police authority. I believe that that would be going too far.
I do not see the need for the amendments or anything like them. However, I suspect that the noble Baroness really has in mind that there should be consultation. I doubt whether that needs to be written into the statute because I do not see how those agreements could be reached between the police authority and the chief
968
constable and the Home Office and the police authority without there being a good deal of consultation about extremely important matters.
Section 4(2) (a) refers to:
"any objectives determined by the authority under section 4A",
and that refers to local policing objectives. Amendment No.25 is concerned with,
"any performance targets established by the authority, whether under section 28B or otherwise".
There again, it would be extremely rash to say that the chief constable should have a veto. Moreover, I do not believe that it is necessary to include a provision for consultation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: What the noble Lord, Lord Renton, advocates is wholly inconsistent with the traditions of policing in this country. I am not sure whether he is aware of that, but I tell him as a fact that what he advocates is not consistent with anything that has happened in the British police service in this century. What he advocates would undermine the operational independence of the chief officer That is the effect of the attitude that he has adopted.
I shall not argue the case for agreement and the question of veto or anything of that kind today. The noble Earl made his position clear about this matter and we are to have discussions. I remind the House that the noble Earl said that the operational independence of chief officers is paramount. It is highly undesirable to have a situation in which a police authority can impose on a chief officer a local policing plan which is wholly inconsistent with his assessment of the operational requirements of his force.
I should adopt the language of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon. We need some form of partnership. I am not clear how we shall work out a form of words which addresses that issue and it is not sensible to try to work out forms of words on one's feet; but I am alarmed by the prospect of a situation in which a chief officer may be seen as a mere subordinate official of a police authority to be given orders by a group of laymen, however that authority may be constituted, on sensitive operational policing issues which are, in my view, the responsibility of the chief officer. I am glad to say that I am reinforced in that by what the noble Earl said in his statement earlier today about the essential requirement of maintaining the operational independence of chief officers. I repeat, I shall be happy to look at any form of words which satisfactorily addresses that particular problem. However, I am very uneasy about a situation in which a police authority could impose its wishes on a chief officer, despite the fact that he may have the gravest reservations concerning the deployment of his force.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as he seemed to express such strong disagreement with what I said. I also believe in the operational independence of the police. Indeed, as I have mentioned before, for four-and-a-half years in. the Home Office I was answerable in another place, with the Home Secretary, for police matters. I was not unaware

969
of the desirability of ensuring that the chief constable — and for that matter other police officers, because he has to delegate— should have operational independence.
I do not want to split hairs. However, it seems to me that operational independence refers to the day-to-day and week-to-week conduct of the responsibilities of the police. But when we are talking about objectives that is rather different. It is not interfering with operational matters; it is stating what the broad aims of the police authority and of the police in any police area should be. As I said, I do not wish to split hairs with the noble Lord, and I hope that we are not really in disagreement with one another.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I, too, do not wish to split hairs. That is why I indicated that I would be most happy to look at alternative forms of wording. However, perhaps I may return to the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If I may say so, the problem involved in the noble Lord's approach to the matter is that one cannot look at local police objectives without realising that they have major resource implications so far as concerns the chief officer of police. If they are clearly defined local police objectives and they are to be taken seriously— as I hope they will be— that necessitates an examination of resource implications; for example, how many officers will be deployed for a certain purpose.
If one does not get the right form of words, the danger is that there could be a most unattractive collision between the police authority and the chief officer on a matter of great operational sensitivity. If I may say so, the view that I am expressing is that of many chief officers of police who are worried about the present formulation. I am anxious to try to work out some form of words which will deal with our anxieties and those of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Just for the record, it is perhaps worth saying that the amendments do not provide for a veto by the police authority; they provide a means of solving the dispute if there is disagreement. The White Paper said that the police authority and the chief constable would need to work closely together to ensure that the chief constable and the police force are providing a service which meets local and national needs. As at present, the direction and control of the force will be the responsibility of the chief constable. The police authority will have no powers to control operational matters.
There is much in the Bill about the powers of the police authority, but there is not that much about the powers and responsibilities of the chief constable, although we heard reassuring statements from the noble Earl earlier today. The painful fact is that the direction and control of the force can involve the disposal of available resources. As the Bill is presently drafted, there is quite a risk of a plan being imposed on a chief constable with which he does not agree and which it is beyond his capacity to deliver.
I am not, any more than other Members of the Committee, attached to the precise words in the amendments. However, there is a real point here. I am
970
encouraged to know that the Government are proposing to have discussions with the representatives of chief constables. I hope that something can be worked out before the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It is not quite so easy for the Government to work out anything. I shall be very brief in what I have to say. At the end of the road, the concept of partnership implies a form of veto. The concept of agreement, as the noble Baroness has conceded, also implies a form of veto. That would perhaps not be acceptable. But surely, if one were to make Amendments Nos.24 and 25 say,
"after consultation with the Chief Constable",
that would be a safeguard. If it takes place anyway, what is the harm? However, if it does not take place, at least it gives some safeguard.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: Perhaps I may reply to the point about consultation. We all know what consultation can sometimes mean. It can mean the most trivial involvement of people in the plans that one is setting out to achieve. Indeed, it is far too weak a word for what is required here.
As regards the point about resources, one does not just set objectives in the abstract. It is very easy to set objectives— and this relates also to the problem about national objectives— but they may not relate to the actual problems that arise during the year. For example, if there is an outbreak of murders, or a drugs problem arises which has not been included in the objectives and resources are diverted to it, will the chief constable be criticised for not carrying out the local authority's plans? If he is part of the actual formation of the objectives and plans, they are much more likely to be related to his ability to carry them out and deal with the sort of problems that are likely to arise in the force area.
I should also like to reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, about there being no way of resolution. If one looks at Amendment No.29 it will be seen that it says that, if there is no agreement, then Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary could in fact impose objectives on the force area. Therefore, there is a way to escape the veto problem, although one would not like to go down that particular route. In my view, it should be an equal partnership and an agreement set out in whatever form of words we seek to achieve on the matter.
One should realise that objectives cannot be set in the abstract. One cannot assume that people will carry them out as they would simple orders— for example, left, right and march! The achievement of police objectives is extremely complex and is dependent on the local community; indeed, all sorts of things may throw them off course. They are also dependent on the resources available, and they can during the year be totally distorted by a major incident.
All the neat plans and orders from the top just do not arrive at the bottom in that shape. Anyone who has run any sort of organisation of human beings will know that that is not the way that it operates. Organisations of human beings only operate where one has the commitment and involvement of the people concerned.

971
Consultation is really not sufficient, and certainly not at the local level where people need to be involved on a day-to-day basis in what is happening.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that there is a great deal between us on the matter. The noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, all drew attention to the difficulties which they believe could arise over such objectives. However, the amendments would have the effect of undermining the police authority's responsibility for deciding on what are the local objectives and performance targets. That is strictly the responsibility of a police authority.
The Bill places a clear responsibility on the police authority to determine those local objectives and to set performance targets. However, it cannot discharge those responsibilities if it is dependent on the chief constable's agreement on what the objectives or targets should be before they are officially set. If we were to accept the amendments, as my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway said, they would in fact give a veto. I know that that is a word that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, does not like very much; but it is a fact. They would give a veto over any proposal about objectives or targets which the police authority may make. At the extreme, the chief constable could block the setting of any local objectives by the police authority. He could simply say that he did not agree with them.
He could insist that performance targets were set as low as possible, thereby ensuring that the force could easily achieve its targets without significantly improving its performance. This may seem unlikely but it would be perfectly feasible. In fact we expect both chief constables and police authorities to behave sensibly and that there will be a good relationship between the two.
It is difficult to see how realistically it could be otherwise, but it must be clear on the face of the Bill who is legally responsible and who is legally accountable for determining the objectives and key performance targets. At present it is quite clear. It is the police authority. I think the amendments would confuse the issue.
Of course, in practice we expect police authorities to discuss local objectives and performance targets with the chief constable before they are set and to reach agreement on them. The police authority will want to consult the chief constable so as to ensure that the local objectives are sensible and that they correspond to what the police themselves think are local priorities. They are unlikely, therefore, to take the form of a tablet of stone flung out of the sky. The police are not likely to be told that the objectives are cast in stone and they must get on with them. Of course there will have to be discussion. Similarly, the authority will want to set performance targets which are challenging without being disproportionately either high or low. They can only do this, quite clearly, in consultation with the chief constable.
In order to show that we recognise— and indeed that we wish— that this consultation will take place, I am perfectly happy to look again at Clause 3 to see whether we can introduce a requirement for the police authority
972
to consult the chief constable before setting local objectives and performance targets. I hope that this will go some way towards allaying the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that there was not much in the Bill about the operational independence of the chief constable to police the area as he sees fit. However, the Bill makes it quite plain in Clause 4 that the police force remains under the direction and the control of the chief constable.
I paraphrase the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and I may have them 'wrong, but I believe she said that the objectives cannot be treated as orders and that one cannot give orders to the chief constable. However, it is not proposed that the chief constable should be given orders. All he has to do is to have regard to the local policing plan, and through it to local objectives and performance targets. He is not, however, bound rigidly by them at all.
The noble Baroness asked what would happen if a drugs problem suddenly arose in an area. It is, of course, up to the chief constable to deal with the operational problems as he sees fit. All he has to do is to have regard to the objectives. He may not meet the performance targets and he may not achieve the local objectives if there are good operational reasons which prevent him doing so. This is a matter for the chief constable's operational judgment. However, giving the chief constable a veto over all the objectives and performance targets is a different matter.
Amendment No.29 tries to get over the problem by requiring one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary to determine local police objectives if the chief constable and his police authority cannot agree them. I hope that the Committee will agree that this would be inappropriate for two reasons. First, this is not a proper role for HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. The main task of the inspectorate is to inspect police forces in order to satisfy the Home Secretary that they are efficient and effective. It is not part of its role to substitute its judgment for that of the police authority. Secondly, the amendment calls again into question the responsibility of the police authorities. It would be quite wrong to transfer responsibility from the police authority to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
I am entirely happy to consider this matter and to discuss it with Members of the Committee or with anyone else. I do not believe that there is a difference in approach here. There is no question that chief constables will be given orders. What we intend to do is to ensure that, whatever the objectives or targets, they should be made in consultation with chief constables. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, who asked whether my right honourable friend had agreed to see the Association of Chief Police Officers. I do not believe that anything has yet been arranged but I am sure that he will be entirely happy to do so. I think that this is a problem which is not unduly difficult of resolution.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: All I would say on the latter point— it was I who raised this question of a meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers — is that I very much hope this can be arranged. I believe some of these issues have high professional significance, as the noble Earl will recognise. One does not want to pass this legislation without realising some of the possible secondary consequences. If such discussions could take place between now and Report stage with ACPO, I think that would be highly advantageous.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I had understood from the Minister's speech that arrangements were in hand to meet the chief officers of police and to discuss specifically these points. I am rather disappointed to hear that that is not a commitment of the Home Secretary.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I hope I may clarify that point. I said originally that my right honourable friend would wish to consult chief police officers. I meant that in a general way. However, I did not say that he has made specific arrangements to do so, but we will take that into account.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: Overall I am rather disappointed by the Minister's response. I believe that when the chief constables submit a draft plan for approval which is then altered, approved, sent back to them or whatever, they feel that they are being put in a subordinate position to the police authority and are not being treated as equals. I realise that the wording of the amendments we put forward may not be as sophisticated as it might be. Therefore, I shall withdraw the amendments and return with them on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.25 to 35 not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No.36:
Page 4, line 17, leave out from ("out") to end of line 20.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates to the report produced by the police authority. I apologise to the Committee as there should have been another amendment which substituted a separate report from the chief constable. This is again an area in which the chief constable is subordinated to the police authority. It is the police authority which apparently will produce a report on the operational policing of the force area. It is our view that the operational independence of the chief constable and his status as an equal with the police authority should be secured by the presentation by him of a separate report on the operational policing of the area. We will return on Report with an amendment to that effect. In the meantime I shall move this rather truncated amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness has made clear that even though her amendment is truncated it has a purpose, which is to ensure that the chief constable's report is not subordinate to that of the police authority. That is certainly not our intention. I cannot believe that
974
what we have in the Bill will have that effect. The Bill underlines the extent to which the police authority and the chief constable need to co-operate in discharging their respective responsibilities.
We regard the policing plan, to which both will contribute, as a key element in the accountability of both parties to their public. We therefore think it is right that the reports should be linked in the way proposed. I cannot see that this is to the chief constable's disadvantage. It is likely that the police authority's report will want to draw attention to the achievements of the police force in a way possibly that the chief constable might not feel able to do and one which would give more credence and authority to the work of the force. The police authority might even want to congratulate the chief constable.
There is no sense in which the chief constable's report will become a subordinate part of the police authority's report. It will be included within the police authority's report but it is not open to the police authority to amend the chief constable's report in any way. The chief constable will no doubt produce his report as a self-contained document, which will be of interest both within the force and to people in the police area.
Just as the roles of the chief constable and the police authority are complementary, so we also believe that the two reports should be seen together in order to give the best overall impression of the policing of the area. That is why we have set up the statutory obligations in the way proposed. I emphasise that there is nothing to prevent the chief constable sending his report direct to the Home Secretary if he wishes.
At present the chief constable submits his report to the police authority. He is also required to send a copy of the report to the Home Secretary. However, the report is to the police authority. In future the position will be the same. The chief constable will be required to send the report to the police authority. The only difference is that he will not be required to send a copy to the Home Secretary, although in many cases, out of courtesy, he will wish to do so. My right honourable friend would be delighted to receive it.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will realise that the proposals do not subordinate the chief constable's report. It is essential that the report should be separate. It is his report. It is essential that the police authority should also make its report.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful for that clarification. It appears from the text of the Bill that the chief constable's report forms a subordinate part of the police authority's report. I shall consider what the Minister said before Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Chief constables]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos.37 and 38:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("which shall not contain reference to fixed term appointments for chief constables unless

975
by agreement between the Secretary of State, persons representative of police authorities and persons representative of chief constables.").
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("which shall not contain reference to performance-related pay for chief constables unless by agreement between the Secretary of State, persons representative of police authorities and persons representative of chief constables.").
The noble Lord said: There are a number of problems associated with this issue. Given the fact that talks are to be held in the next couple of weeks, I believe that it
976
would be more appropriate for some of the issues to be ventilated at that time. Therefore, I do not propose to move the amendments.
[Amendments Nos.37 and 38 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments in respect of Clauses 2 to 4 and Schedule 2.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past five o'clock.

  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL: HEAVY LORRIES, LONDON
  DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL: HEAVY LORRIES, LONDON
  BANANA QUOTA: TRANSFERABILITY BETWEEN ACP COUNTRIES
  BANANA QUOTA: TRANSFERABILITY BETWEEN ACP COUNTRIES
  BANANA REGIME: RECOGNITION OFFER TO LATIN AMERICAN STATES
  BANANA REGIME: RECOGNITION OFFER TO LATIN AMERICAN STATES
  EC DRAFT INSTRUMENT 11322/93: FLAVOURING SUBSTANCES
  EC DRAFT INSTRUMENT 11322/93: FLAVOURING SUBSTANCES
  GENERAL ILTER: VISIT TO MoD
  GENERAL ILTER: VISIT TO MoD
  CHILD SUPPORT ACT: REVIEWS AND APPEALS
  CHILD SUPPORT ACT: REVIEWS AND APPEALS
  PATHOLOGY SERVICES REVIEW
  PATHOLOGY SERVICES REVIEW
  WOMEN'S PRISONS: RECEPTIONS
  WOMEN'S PRISONS: RECEPTIONS